برون سپاری، بوروکراسی و ارزش عمومی : ارزیابی مجدد مفهوم "قرارداد دولتی"
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|596||2010||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Government Information Quarterly, Volume 27, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 82–88
Large-scale outsourcing of information technology in the U.K. public sector – the NHS, the Inland Revenue, and the Department of Social Security over the years – raises a number of critical issues not just for how outsourcing can be conducted in public sector contexts but also about the efficacy of such arrangements in terms of enforcement of democratic values. We argue that marketization's target may well be bureaucracy, but the organizational form is a repository for democratic, civic, and public service values that can be eroded through how outsourcing has been conducted. The call for a reevaluation and the case for a distinctive public services management ethos are made if such values as equality, impartiality, communal good and public service are to be pursued and delivered. Selective outsourcing is revealed as effective – together with much needed rebuilding of internal capabilities – in keeping control of IT destiny, delivering on public service requirements, and managing external supply. The U.K. experience, we suggest, provides salutary learning for public services in other developed economies.
In the private sector, the major trend towards Information and Communication Technology (ICT) outsourcing from the early 1990s to the present has been driven by a range of financial, business, technical, and micro-political factors (Clark et al., 1997, Kern and Willcocks, 2001, Lacity and Hirschheim, 1993, Lacity and Hirschheim, 1995, McLellan et al., 1995 and Willcocks and Lacity, 2006). The research from the 1990s and more recently suggests that three main drivers seem to be operating (Lacity and Willcocks, 2008 and Willcocks et al., 1995). First, IT outsourcing is often a response to the hype and publicity surrounding the subject — a bandwagon effect leads to senior managers asking: ‘why don't we outsource IT?’ Second, outsourcing may be a response to tough economic and competitive climates and the need to cut, or at least control, costs. Third, it may be conceived as part of a larger and longer term change in how organizations are structured and managed — part of what we would call a move towards the ‘contractual organization.’ These drivers translate into the market testing, compulsory competitive tendering, Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and privatization initiatives encouraged in the U.K. public services by the British government from the early 1990s, through successive Conservative and Labour governments to the present day. Market testing proposals made in November 1992, for example, saw ICT activities in thirteen government departments cited as an essential part of the increased ‘businessization’ and competition desired by government (Willcocks, 1994). Contracting out could range from selective outsourcing as occurred in many parts of the NHS and local government in the 1990s through to large ‘total’ outsourcing deals (80% plus of the IT budget outsourced) as subsequently progressed through to 2008 in the then named HM Inland Revenue and Department of Social Security.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Given the central role of government in protecting its electorate and citizens, a major question in public sector contexts is how can financial and other risks to taxpayers and citizens be kept to a minimum? The introduction of private sector ethos and practices in the form of IT outsourcing can compromise this objective, but we show ways in which the risks can be mitigated. However, U.K. governments have perhaps moved too enthusiastically, and sometimes on too grand a scale down the road of contracting out ICT services. In doing so, it has led to question marks being placed against its belief in the superior cost efficiency and effectiveness of increased competitiveness and of private sector companies as opposed to in-house teams. This, of course, need not be a necessary outcome. But the volatility of the political and legislative climate created by the governments of the 1990s and new century, and the lack of understanding of, and interest in, the ICT implications of their political mandates amongst government ministers and many senior civil servants hardly created a climate conducive to successful large-scale ICT outsourcing. In retrospect, much of the ICT development necessitated by the speed of legislative and structural change would perhaps have been better handled on an in-sourcing basis. But this assumes a confidence in in-house public sector IT departments, a confidence that is not apparent amongst the governments of the day of whatever political hue. One major aim of market testing and privatization of ICT services has been to achieve dramatic cost savings and reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. In the public sector the circumstances may be being created whereby, through widespread outsourcing to private sector IT suppliers, IT services will cost more, but still deliver benefits that are no more tangible than before.