Digital ambidexterity in the public sector: empirical evidence of a bias in balancing practices

Abstract

<jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>The purpose of this study is to explore and theorize on balancing practices (BP) for digital ambidexterity in the public sector.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title> <jats:p>The research is designed as an interpretative case study of a large Swedish authority, involving data collection in the form of interviews and internal documents. The method of analysis involves both theorizing on the findings from a previous framework for digital innovation and deriving design implications for ambidextrous governance.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title> <jats:p>The findings show that all identified BP except one (shadow innovation) is directed toward an increased emphasis on efficiency (exploitation) rather than innovation (exploration). With the increased demand for innovation capabilities in the public sector, this is identified as a problem.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Research limitations/implications</jats:title> <jats:p>The limitations identified are related to the choice in the method of an interpretative case study, with issues of transferability and empirical generalizability as the main concerns. The implications for research are related to a need for additional studies into the enactment of digital ambidexterity, where the findings offer insight and inspiration for continued research.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Practical implications</jats:title> <jats:p>The study shows that managers and executives involved in the design and imposition of governance within the public sector need to take the design recommendations for digital ambidexterity into consideration.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Social implications</jats:title> <jats:p>The study offers two main implications for practice. First, policymakers need to take the conceptual distinction of efficiency and innovation into account when designing policies for the digital government. Second, existing funding practices need to be re-designed to better facilitate innovation.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title> <jats:p>This is the first study directed toward enhancing the insight into BP for digital ambidexterity in the public sector. The study has so far resulted in both a localized shift in policy and new directions for research. With the public sector facing needs for increased innovation capabilities, the study offers a first step toward understanding how this is currently counteracted through governance design.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Public procurement as an attractive customer: a supplier perspective

“…Public organizations and ambidexterity is an emerging field (Cannaerts et al. , 2020; Magnusson et al. , 2021), and it is being studied in the context of collaboration (Page et al.…”

“…SET proposes that suppliers' attraction judgments are subjective and depend on organization-specific standards, which are influenced by suppliers' strategic intentions in supply chains, such as exploitation (leveraging current knowledge to improve existing processes) or exploration (involving new methods and experimentation to change processes and technologies) (Tanskanen and Aminoff, 2015). Public organizations and ambidexterity is an emerging field (Cannaerts et al, 2020;Magnusson et al, 2021), and it is being studied in the context of collaboration (Page et al, 2021;Alcalde Heras et al, 2020), meaning it still lacks suppliers' perspectives. Existing research has vaguely explained the varying strategies suppliers use to approach public procurement (Page et al, 2021;McKevitt and Davis, 2013).…”

Mechanisms of constraint: a clinical inquiry of digital infrastructuring in municipalities

“…Second, studies such as those of Luger et al (2018) and Magnusson et al (2020b) call for a dynamic perspective on ambidexterity. Thus, ambidexterity should be seen not as a state, but as a process.…”

“…First, researchers such as Zimmermann et al (2018) have identified the need to shift from a design perspective to an enactment perspective in the study of ambidexterity. As argued in their study of innovation initiatives, Raisch and Birkinshaw (2008) Second, studies such as those of Luger et al (2018) and Magnusson et al (2020b) call for a dynamic perspective on ambidexterity. Thus, ambidexterity should be seen not as a state, but as a process.…”

“…In addition, we contribute to the stream of research on technological renewal in the public sector (Wimelius et al, 2021) with a focus on how infrastructuring constrains ambidexterity. Finally, we contribute to the emerging stream of TG research on the role of ambidexterity in digital government (Magnusson et al, 2020b;Cannaerts et al, 2019). We also contribute to practice through a validated model of how managers can avoid the constraining effects of digital infrastructure.…”