Acts of Organizing and Knowledge Sharing: Key Factors Towards a Non-positivist Development of E-Service Studies

  • Paolo DepaoliEmail author
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 2)


The purpose of this conceptual chapter is to show, within a service science approach, that the improvement of e-services (and not just of services) is based not only on further development of ICTs (e.g., band width and computing power) but on the effective exchange of knowledge (including tacit knowledge) between providers and consumers enabled by the interplay of technology and people through specific acts of organizing. To this end, e-government has been chosen as an area of investigation and exploration because of the number of heterogeneous actors involved (individuals and public and private organizations), of the extensive use of technology, and of the issues that are being debated. Furthermore, the field has been an object of study for several years so that the available literature to draw upon is rich. Results show that the basic tenets of service science developed so far are an appropriate lens to understand current concerns in e-government and, conversely, the results of research on this subject can help address some key questions in e-service studies.


Service science e-government Acts of organizing Knowledge sharing 


  1. 1.
    Chesbrough, H. W. (2005). Toward a new science of services. Harvard Business Review, 83(February), 43–44.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chesbrough, H., & Spohrer, J. I. M. (2006). A reserach manifesto for services science. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spohrer, J., Maglio, P., Bailey, J., & Gruhl, D. (2007). Steps toward a science of service systems. Computer, 40(1), 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dreyfus, H. L. (1992). What computers still can’t do (p. 354). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    OECD. (2003). The e-government imperative. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Persson, A., & Goldkuhl, G. (2010). Government value paradigms—bureaucracy, new public management, and e-government government. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27, 45–62.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Petricek, V., Escher, T., Cox, I.J. & Margetts, H. (2006). The web structure of e-government—developing a methodology for quantitative evaluation. Public Policy, pp. 669–678.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alshawi, S., & Alalwany, H. (2009). e-government evaluation: Citizen’s perspective in developing countries. Information Technology for Development, 15, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Serafeimidis, V., & Smithson, S. (2000). Information systems evaluation in practice: A case study of organizational change. Journal of Information Technology, 15, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sense making. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomas R. (2005). The identity project an assessment of the UK identity cards bill and its implications, London.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    OECD. (2001). Citizens as partners: information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Paris, p. 253.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    West, D. M. (2001). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller, E. A., & West, D. M. (2009). Where’s the revolution? Digital technology and health care in the internet age. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 34(2), 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    United Kingdom Government Cabinet Office. (2005). Transformational government—enabled by technology.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dubberly, H., Mehta, R., Evenson, S., & Pangaro, P. (2010). Reframing health to embrace design of our own well-being. Interactions, 17(3), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chan, C. M. L., & Pan, S. L. (2008). User engagement in e-government systems implementation: a comparative case study of two Singaporean e-government initiatives. Journal of Strategic Information System, 17, 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Damodaran, L., & Olphert, C. W. (2006). Informing digital futures: Strategies for citizen engagement. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mumford, E. (1983). Designing human systems for new technology: the ETHICS method. Manchester: Manchester Business School.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McLoughlin, I., Maniatopoulos, G., Wilson, R., & Martin, M. (2009). Hope to die before you get old? Techno-centric versus user-centred approaches in developing virtual services for older people. Public Management Review, 11(6), 857–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Olphert, W. (2007). Citizen participation and engagement in the design of e-government services: The missing link in effective ICT design and delivery. Journal of Association of Information Systems., 8(9), 491–507.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hosking, D. M. (1988). Organizing, leadership and skilful process. Journal of Management Studies, 25(2), 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università degli Studi di Urbino “Carlo Bo”UrbinoItaly

Personalised recommendations