Boosting Public Sector Productivity by Going Mobile - Case Study Example

Boosting public sector productivity by going mobile Name Course Tutor Date Introduction Public sector constitutes one of the most significant aspects in the growth and development of the economy as they are sources of growth & development and equally offers the necessary support for the private sector to thrive (Curristine, Lonti & Joumard, 2007, p.4). However, Eggers & Jaffe (2013) note that productivity in public sector normally performs below par as compared to private sector leading to productivity gap even in instances where they have adopted same technology. This implies that it is requisite to find alternatives on how to enhance public sector productivity through modern strategic management tools (McInerney & Barrows, 2000, p.1). According to Eggers & Jaffe (2013), one area for improvement is to leverage on the opportunities presented in utilisation of technology such as mobile technology. Anchored on this realisation, the premise of this case study is to argue how government can improve productivity by leveraging on mobile technology. Brynjolfsson & Hitt (1998, p.49) note that it is easier to define productivity while it is difficult to measure the same. The paper structures it argument anchored on the proposition offered by Eggers & Jaffe (2013). In this regard, through the case study, the paper aims at showing how mobile technology can help the workforce do more with less size of workforce and limited budget. The second relates to enhanced citizen service which is the core mandate of public service. The third is the improved citizenry participation leading to co-production, thus shifting the focus to citizenry centred service. Key Issues in Public Sector Productivity Under the supremacy of the people as enshrined in the belief that all powers are derived from people the government as an agent has the ultimate mandate of delivering quality service to the citizenry (Grubišić, Nušinović & Roje, 2009, p.329). However, this has not been the case in most instances as compared to the efficiency & effectiveness displayed in the private sector. For instance, McInerney & Barrows (2000, p.1) observes that government has been slow in responding to various internal and external dynamics such as increased societal expectations & advances in technology owing to budgetary constraints and bureaucratic nature of the organisational design & public management. Various literatures indentify numerous negative issues that have contributed to reduced public sector productivity. This section outlines principal concerns that impacts on the productivity capacity of the public sector. Before indulging deeper on key issues in public sector productivity, it is prudent to establish what productivity entails. Rogers (1998, p.2) defines conceptualises productivity as ‘the ratio of output to input for a specific production situation’. According to him, productivity is influenced by technology and efficiency levels. For a productivity to be said to have increased, an organisation has to utilise fewer inputs or the same inputs to produce more. Owyong (2000, p.19) expands the conceptualisation by stating that the measured ratio of output to input has to be done in the context of critical input with others held constant. However, one cannot talk of improved productivity without engaging in the discourse of efficiency, which implies operating at the production frontier through best practices (p.5). However, Brynjolfsson & Hitt (1998, p.53) add a new twist on the same by noting that improved productivity has to be discussed with reduced cost and customer service and quality in mind. One of the issues that impacts of public sector productivity relates to bureaucracy and organisational design factors. Şimandan (2009, p.87) posits that public service is full of red tapes that ideally are meant to check various holders of the office. However, this kind of red tapes act as impediment on productivity of employees as compared to private sector where chain of command is quite simple therefore offering employees and decision makers ease of operation. In a government where profit seeking is not the order of the day, workers within the system are obliged to follow rules as set by higher office yet it has been established that the performance of an organization is anchored on decision made by medium and lower cadre managers. As such, De Araújo (2001, p.916) notes that bureaucratic organisations/ systems tend to be resistance to change and new public management approaches thus, affecting productivity and service delivery to citizenry. The second concern that greatly impacts on public sector productivity is the organisational culture that does not encourage New Public Management (NPM) approaches. Most public institutions, especially those in developing countries have a negative opinion towards developing a citizenry centred service delivery as it is deemed as a favour that is being extended to the public. This kind of lethargy among public sector employee greatly affects productivity as they have no internal drive to serve the public. Such an exhibition in the public sector can be best conceptualised under the context of public service ethos which in numerous occasions is not up to the expectation (Redman-Simmons, 2009, p.2, 8 & 9). This is likely to impact on the quality of public service and the urge to be innovative so as to offer solutions for improved productivity. Frederickson (1996 cited in Araújo, 2000, p.1) notes that ‘New Public Management calls for extensive use of techniques, such as listening to the employees who are in the front line, surveys, hearings, systematic analysis of complaints, customer (citizens) councils, and experimentation (test marketing), as well as range of feedback mechanisms such as suggestion boxes and programme evaluations’. However, such culture in the public sector is what is missing. Closely related to organisational culture is the human resource and capacity development issues. For instance issues of performance management and management by objective have not been widely adopted in public sector as compared to private sector (Hvidman & Andersen, 2014, p.35). Strategies for Solving Public Sector Productivity Issues De Araújo (2001, p.917) offers a comprehensive term that includes numerous strategies and approaches in solving public sector productivity. This is known as new public management style that is client-based. This approach aims at integrating positive aspects of private sector relating to service delivery. According to him this represents ‘a kind of agencification as well as attempt to avoid constraints of the civil service system of red tape and bureaucratic resistance to change’ (p. 916). As opposed to the bureaucratic old tradition of public sector NPM style calls for decentralisation, flatter hierarchies, funding projects, contracting out, and systems of co-production or public private partnership (Richards, 1989 cited in Araújo, 2000, p.2). The above implies that the core reforming public sector is anchored on the theoretical bases of agency theory. Ayee (2005, p.3) observes that in the public policy domain, principal-agent theory is significant as it aids in solving two critical issues. The first is that it empowers the principals (public) to pick the best agent (employees or contractors). Secondly, it restricts the behaviour of the agents in a certain desired manner. Closely related to the above is the need for change in mindset by public employees. This then calls for empowerment of the organisation, employees and the public so as to create a customer centred public sector (Araújo, 2000, p.2). According to Redman-Simmons (2009, p.2 & 3) such positive organisational culture offers the required orientation that has been a missing ingredient in public service Specific Proposal: A Case Example of Mobile Technology As seen earlier, NPM style agitates for adoption of new strategies outside the bureaucratic old tradition through approaches such as decentralisation, flatter hierarchies, funding projects, contracting out, and systems of co-production. One solution to such aspirations lies on adoption of mobile technology as it can aid in enhancing employees output by easing operational processes, improve quality of production and service rendered to public and enhance public participation leading to co-production, therefore leading to higher productivity as measured either as use of a few resources or same resources to produce more efficiently, with reduced cost, customer service and quality in mind. The first theme in the application of mobile technology falls within performance management theme as it aids in enhancing individuals’ and group output. The entry point of mobile technology in regard to enhancing productivity in anchored on the fact that it aids in standardising and improving processes (Gatautis, 2008, p.19). For instance, CISCO (nd, p.1) indicates that mobile technology is critical in empowering public sector organisation employees’ to connect with field workers and interact with co-workers and the citizens at large. In essence, the technology is critical in supporting teleworking which is a trend to watch. In this regard, mobile technology is supportive of issues such as information sharing, team meetings, training and disbursement of ideas. Good Technology (2013, p.3) notes that access to mobile data can assist a police officer save minutes every day. Moreover, adoption of the same technology by caseworkers has a possibility of returning 57 million extra hours of service to the community. Australian Government – Department of Finance & Deregulation (2013, p.7) notes that aprt from telework, mobile technology is critical in driving what is known as activity-based work model that brings a paradigm shift from assigned desks to work spaces thereby empowering employees to contextualise & integrate their personal workplace to the task that they pursuing. Such shift is critical in employee motivation, morale boosting and offers opportunity to attract and retain talented individuals. With the growing adoption of smartphone, workers can be allowed to carry their own gadgets at work so as to enhance their productivity. Public sector productivity is not only seen in terms of output, but also on in terms of quality, cost, efficiency and customer service (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 1998, p.53). This brings to fore front increased access to service and broader engagement as measure of productivity. According to Australian Government – Department of Finance & Deregulation (2013, p.6), mobile technology anchored on internet and voice calls can allow public to access government services at the go anywhere at any time therefore leading to the performance of public sector. For instance, it reduces the need for paperwork and physical presence at most of the time. These include such as enquiries, booking of appointments and self-service option. Closely related to the above, is the broader engagement through platforms in mobile technology such as social networks leading to creation of a collaborative engagement which is citizenry-centric (p.7). Conclusion The aim of the case study was to show how mobile technology can be used to boost public sector productivity. The paper appreciates that public sector productivity is critical in the development and growth of an economy. Nevertheless, most public sectors are riddled with bureaucracy making them less productivity. In order to reverse these negative trends, public sectors have adopted new public management systems that are citizen-centric. In ensuring application of new public management styles, one of the approaches employed within this domain is the utilisation of mobile technology in public sector. The paper established that mobile technology contributes to productivity and flexibility by empowering workers to be teleworkers. Secondly, it encourages interaction between the public sector and citizenry. Lastly, it is critical in building a collaborative framework between the two entities leading to co-production. References Araújo, J. F. (2000). Improving public service delivery: the crossroads between agencification and traditional bureaucracy. London. Australian Government – Department of Finance & Deregulation (2013). Australian public service mobile roadmap: adopting mobile technology across government. Available at: http://www.finance.gov.au/files/2013/06/APS-Mobile-Roadmap.pdf. Ayee, J. R. (2005). Public Sector Management in Africa. African Development Bank. Economic Research Working Paper No 82. Available at: http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/00457499-EN- ERWP-82.PDF. Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (1998). Beyond the productivity paradox. Communications of the ACM, 41(8), 49-55. CISCO (nd). Mobile collaboration in the public sector: be productive from anywhere. Available at: http://www.cisco.com/web/offer/70008/1/MobileCollaborationWhitepaper_GOV.pdf. Curristine, T., Lonti, Z., & Joumard, I. (2007). Improving Public Sector Efficiency: Challenges and Opportunities. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(1). De Araújo, J. F. F. E. (2001). Improving public service delivery: the crossroads between NPM and traditional bureaucracy. Public Administration, 79(4), 915-932. Good Technology. Transforming public sector through secure mobile workflow. Available at: http://alliance.cisecurity.org/opportunity/documents/GoodforGovernmentWhitepaper.pdf. Grubišić, M., Nušinović, M., & Roje, G. (2009). Towards efficient public sector asset management. Financial theory and practice, 33(3), 329-362. Hvidman, U., & Andersen, S. C. (2014). Impact of Performance Management in Public and Private Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 35- 58. McInerney, R., & Barrows, D. (2000). Management Tools For Creating Government Responsiveness. Retrieved on 8 March, 2014 from: http://www.innovation.cc/case- studies/barrows-ed.pdf. Owyong, D. T. (2000). Productivity growth: Theory and measurement. APO Productivity journal, 19-29. Redman-Simmons, L. (2009). Bureaucracy vs. the Public Service Ethos: Contemporary Concepts of Public Service. NYSPSA 63rd Annual Conference. Rogers, M. (1998). The definition and measurement of innovation. Parkville, VIC: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. Şimandan, R. (2009). Thinking about Bureaucracy: Mises versus Niskanen. The Romanian Economic Journal, 4(34), 85-96. Read More