Walter T De Vries
email: w.t.devries@utwente.nl

Gianluca Miscione
email: gianluca.miscione@ucd.ie

The tool that has to build itself: The case of Dutch geodata

Standardisation is one of tools of Electronic Government (EGov). It refers to the development where individuals and organizations develop and/or adhere to standard IT solutions and associated work processes. Studies on standardization in information technology (IT) emphasize either only the technical side of standard construction (the 'what' and 'how'), or the socioorganizational side of the contextual processes in which standards emerge (the 'who' and 'when'). Our article has an alternative, socio-technical, approach, which emphasizes 'where' standards crystallize. Our empirical field to find where crystallization occurs concerns the geoIT sector. Through a qualitative approach, the data show that standard crystallization occurs at the hubs of interorganizational relations, rather than at the top or the bottom of formal organizations. This claim is important because it contradicts the common strategy of standardization, which is largely centralized. Even though government has centralized the creation and distribution of geoIT standards, their actual creation and crystallization occurs at a more decentralized level: across municipalities. The conclusion is that bringing the standardization discussion to a point of where standardization actually happens, provides a better understanding of the socio-technical dynamic of governance of inter-organizational IT.

Introduction

When designed and implemented within an e-government framework, information technologies (IT) are intended to be both technologies for the bureaucracy -because it is in this kind of organizations that they are implemented -and technologies of the bureaucracy, as they aim at extending public administration functioning in relation to citizens. Either way, the IT is conceived as a tool in the hands of decision makers. Such a view on technology, usually contrasted to a techno-deterministic view, falls short in accounting for the quite frequently observed 'drift' [START_REF] Ciborra | From control to drift: the dynamics of global information infrastructures[END_REF] of large information systems. Although we would not make a groundbreaking claim that evolution of technology often eludes designers' intentions, here we adopt a stance which resonates more with [START_REF] Ciborra | From tool to Gestell. Agendas for managing the information infrastructure[END_REF], who conceptualize technology as 'gestell' (i.e. enframing) rather than a malleable tool at disposal of will. Our case corroborates their phenomenological stance, and expands it by identifying where crucial developments of geoIT actually happen. More precisely, we focus on the two-way relation between geoIT and interorganizational processes.

Harmonizing technical with socio-organizational analytical perspectives with the aim to construct a comprehensive perspective on IT development and standardization has never been immediate. Specifically, engineering is oriented to define what works [START_REF] Orlikowski | Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations[END_REF], so functionality is the legitimizing source for this kind of research. Contrastingly, socio-organizational science approaches are closer to the traditional science epistemology, aimed at explaining and predicting rather than doing. In the latter case, explanatory power -aimed at pushing the boundaries of what is known-legitimizes research. The mismatch between how the two communities "make a point" make it difficult to combine their views, therefore to develop a consistent conceptualization of e-government.

Given this mismatch this article proposes a different viewpoint, empirically first. Instead of emphasizing the construction of governance tools, the technical standards, and instead of emphasizing the contextual conditions for governance, the socioorganizational environment, we emphasize 'where' agency performs action, 'where' it takes place. In particular, we focus on 'where' standards are consolidated. We assume that analyzing the areas of influence in dynamic inter-organizational relations addresses this 'where' question. Our empirical domain is the Dutch geoIT sector. This sector, made up of professionals and scientists using and developing ICT related to (geo-)spatial processes and phenomena, is a sector where dynamic interorganizational relations have developed historically. Such relations can be framed by the concept of Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs). SDIs are the socio-technical networks of 'geospatial technologies and institutional arrangements and practices that allow for the disclosure and sharing of geospatial data among various levels of government' [START_REF] Homburg | A Tale of Two Trajectories: How Spatial Data Infrastructures Travel in Time and Space[END_REF]. Over time, SDIs have created standards of inter-organizational activities. Yet, whose standards are adopted, and where such standards emerge is largely unknown. Therefore, in this paper we look for where SDI standardization happens. We frame this question as a question of SDI crystallization (echoing the snowflakes from Staring and Titlestad [START_REF] Staring | Development as a Free Software: Extending Commons Based Peer Production to the South[END_REF], which gives primacy to so called 'de facto' standards. This article continues in section 2 with an explanation of what the concept of information infrastructure (of which SDIs are an instance) crystallization would entail, and why it would be useful as an alternative stand to study standardization as a governance mechanism of inter-organizational IT. This section also presents how the dimensions of information infrastructure crystallization would apply to SDI developments, and how this would translate into empirical questions. Section 3 describes which cases are representative for SDI development, and for addressing the main research questions. Section 4 presents the results of the data collection. The concluding section derives how the findings provide added value to the knowledge of Egov tools.

Two views on where and how geoIT standards develop

Information infrastructures depend, in a way or another, on standards. Studies on standards either emphasize the technical side of standard construction i.e. the 'what' and 'how' [START_REF] Lehr | Standardization: Understanding the process[END_REF][START_REF] Albrecht | Geospatial information standards. A comparative study of approaches in the standardisation of geospatial information[END_REF][START_REF] Schuurman | Social perspectives on semantic interoperability: Constraints on geographical knowledge from a data perspective[END_REF], or the socio-organizational side of the contextual processes in which standards emerge, i.e. the 'who' and 'when' [START_REF] Foray | Users, standards and the economics of coalitions and committees[END_REF][START_REF] Hanseth | Reflexive standardization: Side effects and complexity in standard making[END_REF][START_REF] Markus | Industry-wide information systems standardization as collective action: The case of the US residential mortgage industry[END_REF]. Where technical studies tend to emphasize the construction of standards as a solution to technical interoperability, the socio-organizational studies emphasize both the regulatory nature of standards within organizations, and the patterns of power preceding or resulting from standard-making.

Standards relate however also to scale, i.e. the 'where', either as a cause or an effect. In current discussions on how standards are formed and what role standards play in this formation of SDIs, two opposite agency standpoints are visiblethrough centralized and through decentralized agency (agency in its broad meaning of what performs action). When agency is argued as centralized, it can be localized more easily. When agency tends to be distributed, it can be situated in an "area" (corresponding to interest groups, lobbyists, organizations, etc.). Therefore, understanding the distribution of action across actors helps us in identifying the locus of SDI crystallization.

The centralized agency view posits that geoIT standards originate from national statutory tasks and centrally led initiatives. Public sector actors are linked through a pyramid of different levels of public administration [START_REF] Williamson | Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: From Concept to Reality[END_REF]. The statutory mapping tasks of national actors require them to decide on national mapping standards. The only way for national agencies to have interoperable maps within all government agencies is through requiring other agencies at other administrative levels to use the same mapping standards. In this view the highest level SDI is the aggregate of all lower level SDI. The highest level standards are the aggregate of all lower level standards. This pyramid view assumes undisputed lines of power, which are visible through the formalization of relations between the actors through bilateral or multilateral procedures, laws and/or regulation; the working processes follow agreed rules, laws, written and distributed regulations. The decisions on who is in the SDI and who is out are designed to be formal, and the standards are pre-defined and distributed along the formal lines.

In contrast the decentralized agency view posits that geoIT standards are shaped decentrally. At the extreme, there is a relevant role of voluntary production of geoinformation through crowdsourcing initiatives, and by citizens. These people drive the change in technology and in doing so implicitly set the standards of data, data sharing and exchange, and work processes of data collection and distribution. In more recent years, "voluntary geo-information" (VGI), is challenging the exclusivity of geoIT handling by public organizations [START_REF] Goodchild | Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography[END_REF][START_REF] Goodchild | Citizens as voluntary sensors: spatial data infrastructure in the world of Web 2.0[END_REF][START_REF] Coleman | Volunteered geographic information: The nature and motivation of produsers[END_REF]. The decentralized process of standards development is one whereby actors are assumed to operate within a large open network of relations. There is no clear-cut boundary between who is in and who is out. Recent VGI efforts and standard development operates similarly to an "internet-like" process, the standardization process co-develops along with globally dispersed activities. One of the questions is thus: who or what decides on the rules "here", in this setting. The relations are mostly built upon informal links between actors and stakeholders, and what drives these relations is a common, yet temporary, interest.

Comparing both views shows a difference in locus of standards crystallization. The first view emphasizes the coercive nature of national and central governance mechanisms. Standards emerge in this view as a direct effect of legislation and regulation. Contrastingly, the second view emphasizes emergence of standards at local levels. Standards in this view are caused though the autonomy of local actors, whose aggregated actions constitute certain decisions and practices. Although both views acknowledge that the discontinuation of one standard and the start of a new standard is more gradual than punctuated, in both perspectives standards change over time, and the origin of this change relates to the context in which actors operate. It is therefore remarkable that neither of the two views recognizes that professional actors often operate through professional networks which are loosely connected to the national or local level [START_REF] De Vries | Relationality in geo -information value : price as product of socio -technical networks[END_REF][START_REF] De Paoli | Relationality in geoIT software development: How data structures and organization perform together[END_REF].

Information infrastructure studies focus on the relations between information systems, and the underlying processes between actors working with the systems once information systems are connected. An information infrastructure perspective could address this void. From this perspective, inter-organizational relationships depend on which agency can exercise what type of influence on organizations and individuals. Standards, in this view, have the effect of regulatory agency beyond a single organization, or a single level [START_REF] Brunsson | A world of standards[END_REF]. Hence, standards (or lack of them) do not emerge within single organizations, but emerge and crystallize in inter-organizational processes regardless of the level at which they take place. By emphasizing the network relations between actors at any level, this study does not emphasize the self-contained organizational structure so much, but instead the organizing processes [START_REF] Czarniawska | A theory of organizing[END_REF]. Understanding the organizing processes of standardization thus implies having to look into the diverse relations across organizations. The characteristics of the relations thus reveal the location of where standards form and where and how standards crystallize.

Methodology and cases

Our overarching empirical research question is: Where do inter-organizational relations working with geoIT produce SDI standards? This has three main components which were each evaluated: 1) the cases of inter-organizational relations in connection to the use of geoIT; 2) the artifacts that justify that SDI standards are being crystallized; 3) the determination of the location of the production / emergence of standards.

Addressing the first component relied on case study methodology. This is relevant, because the boundaries of the phenomenon under consideration, the locus of standardization, and the context, the geoIT world of practitioners, and the public administrative structures, were unclear from the onset. As [START_REF] Powell | The new institutionalism in organizational analysis[END_REF] argue "the structure of an organizational field cannot be determined a priori, but must be defined on the basis of empirical investigation" (p.65). The review and comparison of cases in the Netherlands drew upon extensive experience and subsequent empirical data collections in the area by de Vries [START_REF] De Vries | Coördinaten en coördinatie : een analyse van overheidssamenwerken met geoinformatie Geo -Info[END_REF][START_REF] De Vries | A review of the political nature of ICT in G2G integration -based on 3 cases from the geoICT domain[END_REF][START_REF] De Vries | Unity and diversity : an analysis of inter -governmental cooperation in the field of geoICT[END_REF]. The selection of cases for this study relied on one element which was different between cases: the control structure. This allowed verifying if the location of regulatory control was relevant in coordinating of the inter-organizational relation. Using this selection criterion derived three cases: Cadastral case, Dataland and Dimpact.

The Cadastral case refers to a national organization 'Kadaster' (the National agency for Land administration and land registration) with sub-national working relations with municipalities. The Kadaster historically has strongly coordinated the interorganizational work processes to maintain parcel-based spatial information, captured with geoIT. The Dataland case refers to a national association Dataland made up by municipalities. A central office Dataland centrally aggregates real estate information through coordinating work processes in municipalities. Real estate information is collected and distributed through geoIT. The Dimpact case refers to an association of various municipalities. The Dimpact office coordinates ICT work processes for municipalities. This office relies on staff from member municipalities in the development of information and ICT solutions for other municipalities. GeoIT is one of the components.

Our conceptual entry point for the second component is the hypothesis that either type of agency (central or peripheral) creates SDI crystallization. We assume hereby that such crystallization is visible along three dimensions, following Miscione, Staring and Georgiadou [START_REF] Miscione | A federative view for information infrastructures in developing contexts[END_REF]. These include accreditation, coalition, alongside with the activities related to the adoption of standards. Accreditation refers to the influence of actors to guarantee access. Coalition refers to the possibilities of establishing couplings between data and related activities and organizations. Adoption of standards refers to both the data and to organizational processes compliance to common guidelines. These aspects do not distinguish technical and socio-organizational dimensions a priori. They are also mutually dependent, and help in describing inter-organizational processes. For example, a public body may decide what standards have to be used for geo-information. Nevertheless, existing systems in use in accredited organizations may require different strategies of data integration. The method of collecting data about the values within these three dimensions was a combination of semi-structured interviews, complemented by a workshop with representatives from municipalities, and a survey among geoIT practitioners. We conducted 15 in-depth interviews with representatives within all cases. We transcribed all interviews and the discussions during the workshop. The survey data were collected through an online questionnaire. We coded both the transcriptions and all other relevant documents with the help of a qualitative analysis support software. All data were coded applying an open coding strategy of Lee [START_REF] Lee | Using qualitative methods in organizational research[END_REF] and Lewins [START_REF] Lewins | Using Software in Qualitative Research : A Step-by-Step Guide[END_REF]. In total there were 99 respondents.

For the third component we relied on an interpretative approach. Upon completion of the coding we specifically queried both 'change' and 'location' aspects emerging from the coding results. We assumed hereby that agency can be seen through respondents' references or associations to both change and to the origin of change. In both cases the interpretation of the coding and associated quotations relied on both explicit and implicit references to 'change' and 'origin of change'.

FINDINGS

We present our findings following the three specific research questions.

Cooperation using geoIT

In each case the actors shared responsibilities in relation to the geoIT data. With regards to the data this concerned the harmonization of georeferencing definitions (such as coordinates and zip codes), the type of spatial objects to use (collection of lines, areas, or points), the type of attributes to include per spatial object and the scale and associated required accuracy of data. The type of data varied per case. In the Cadastral case the Kadaster maintained collections of parcels, each having parcel identifiers, whereas each of the municipalities maintained collections of buildings, each having address identifiers. Moreover, The Kadaster and Dataland organizations maintained their own database on their own server, whereas the Dimpact organization relied on the generation of services extracting from the data collections within each municipality.

The crucial agreements on procedures concerned decisions on data collection and maintenance. Municipalities are by law responsible for the definition and the collection of buildings and address data, and are implicitly responsible for the quality (accuracy, reliability) of these data. The Cadastre on the other hand maintains these data for all municipalities. Dataland coordinates the maintenance of cross-boundary municipal data on behalf of the municipalities. Not entirely surprisingly, the influence that the central office in each case (The Headquarter Cadastre, and the Bureaus of Dataland and Dimpact) can exercise on local municipalities diminishes as the central office is further away (both physically and institutionally) from these municipalities. A respondent from a smaller municipality stated ironically on the data collection and distribution responsibilities: It is all very nice what the central office comes up with, but we don't need them. You only hear once, and afterwards you really have to push to get any information from them. It is all written for bigger municipalities. It is absolutely unusable stuff for smaller and medium sized municipalities like us.

Sharing data to third parties was another joint concern, working with the huge amounts of data on a daily basis is very different among the cases. A Kadaster representative stated We just have to process as many transactions as possible. 500,000 transfers of deeds, 500,000 transfers of mortgages, 20 million digital transactions. It's just production work. A Dataland representative highlighted: In our regular database we have 7 million objects, yet if no one wants to use any of those data it would be dead capital. Still, we receive all our data from the municipalities, and from all the revenue that we generate, 15% goes back to the municipalities to pay for all their delivery costs. From the remaining 85% we can pay our own costs of data management. In other words, both organizations work as data factories, with factory-like business models and business attitudes, and the procedures therefore emphasize immediate efficiency interests. In both Dataland and Dimpact the municipalities agree jointly, via the coordination bureaus, on the conditions of how and to whom to distribute their individual or combined datasets. Since the Cadastre, Dataland and individual municipalities own fees through the distribution of data, customers are crucial for the existence of the organizations. A Dataland representative even stated during an interview: Our customer focus is so big… It is our lifeblood. So, we can note a geographical and topical convergence between these organizations. Both cooperation and standards are created and sustained by actors which are mostly geographically clustered and have ongoing relations already. Dimpact members are often geographically clustered groups of municipalities, and Dataland nonmembers are also geographically clustered. This does not mean that data quality is homogeneous within clusters, because as for example within Dataland it is noted that: Almere and Lelystad [both Dataland members] are adjacent cities. They have the same history, both were created in Flevoland province. Than one would expect a similar quality, but they score very different in quality indicators. While membership may be geographically fostered, data quality standard within the organization is also related to local information management practices. Our explanation is that a clustering of actors follows a narrow set of thematic data applications, such as real estate (Cadastral and Dataland cases).

Shaping of inter-organizational relations in terms of accreditation, coalition and adoption of standards

The accreditation in the cadastral case mainly depended on the degree to which the Kadaster was able to convince the ministry of spatial planning of their price policies. The Kadaster could autonomously decide on all data management processes, yet only needed a ministerial approval for the pricing policy when distributing data. The Kadaster thus implicitly accredited the data quality, yet the price for the data required an accreditation from the ministry. In the Dataland case, the Dataland head office set out a series of data quality parameters, which they did not enforce, yet which they monitored within municipalities. The purpose of the monitoring was to develop gradually a list of best practices, and a list of best municipalities adhering to these practices. The Dataland head office accredited data quality through organizing a price for the best municipality. The accreditation thus relied on the promotion of this price by peers, and the positive image for municipalities attached to this price. In the Dimpact case, the setting of the data and services quality relied heavily the technical representatives of individual municipalities. They jointly decided on certain quality parameters, such as specific GIS solutions, and were though these decisions implicitly accrediting themselves.

The organization of coalitions differs per case. The Kadaster was maintaining individual contracts with each municipality, yet this would change soon given the implementation of national key registers. New legislation on key registers would distribute data responsibilities for collection and distribution to the Kadaster and municipalities in more detail. This new legislation is likely to change the contractual agreements between the organizations. In the Dataland case the coalition relied on inter-related structures of memberships. The Dataland central Bureau administers memberships, and coordinates cohesion among members. Dataland itself is a cooperative of municipalities with Dataland foundation and Dataland corporation, and an executive Bureau Dataland. In the Dimpact case, the coalition was organized voluntary membership rules. Municipalities were voluntary members to an association of municipalities, while an executive bureau Dimpact coordinated the coalition alignment at technical and policy level.

With regards to the adoption of standards in the Cadastral case, all data and operational processes were largely set by the Kadaster, operating under the authority of a Cadastral law. In the implementation of this law the central theme was how to generate 'efficient core registration (of government data)'. In the Dataland case, The Dataland Bureau was setting validation rules for checking the data quality, and applied these rules to check data of individual municipalities. In this process the core theme was 'improving accessibility (to government data)'. In the Dimpact case, the technical solutions for data problems were created by private companies in outsourcing contracts. Central in the management of the data standard and data production standard creation was the repeated catch phrase 'improving (e-) service to citizens'. These 'catch phrases' mentioned during individual interviews are exemplary of the how actors tried to steer standards in a particular direction: We do not want to be politically interesting, but we lost 40 or 50 million revenue due to the real estate crisis. As a result we decreased out cost with 15 million. The mechanism that we agreed was to operate like a normal business. (Senior Kadaster representative); Our whole story is about access to government information. 'That is the core and mission of Dataland. That is the point. Dataland wants to make public municipal data more accessible'. (Senior Dataland representative); Dimpact is indeed a cooperation between municipalities, which, just like any other association, become a member to a central image, that of e-service. Like you join a tennis club to play tennis, you join our club to realize e-services as member. (Senior Dimpact representative)

The Kadaster representative has a clear preference for standards based on (cost) efficiency norms. The Dataland representative emphasizes accessibility as the most crucial norm. The Dimpact representative emphasizes collectivity as a key norm. The efficiency of the Cadastral case is quite different than the improving accessibility, or improving e-services to citizens. Which standards emerge as a result is however greatly affected by these 'buzz words'. Despite the fact that coordination of standards relied on centralized coordination activities , the results under 'responsibility' show that the space of influence from the central office decreases, as the distance to where standards are actually used (at the level of municipalities) decreases. A possible explanation is that the acceptance of centralized standards relates to the degree by which municipal staff feels themselves represented in the decisions on standards. In the Cadastre case, a number of representatives of larger municipalities explicitly rejected to accept the central standards, and preferred to use standard resulting from a process in which they were involved themselves. The argument was that internal alignment of geoIT standards with other internal departments received higher priority than alignment with external agencies. Smaller and medium sized municipalities preferred to be included in clusters of municipalities, so that they could follow and influence geoIT developments more directly. Both Dataland and Dimpact provided this facility, as their central office was directly constituted by the municipalities themselves (Dataland), or was directly implemented by municipal staff (Dimpact).

Where do changes occur?

Two types of changes were apparent. The first type reflected a gradual change. The size of Dataland and Dimpact cooperation consortia gradually increased even during the data collection process related to these cases. The number of actors involved increased both in number of organizations and in number of professionals involved. The staff members working in these cases indicated that this increase of actors made the coordination of standards, even if it were on a voluntary basis, more complex. Despite this increase of members there was no change in the coordination and governance structures between the organizations. This is remarkable, because one would expect the work processes and the way that people agree on these work processes might get more complicated, and hence might need adaption.

A second type of change was more punctuated. The introduction of the new law on base registrations affected all actors in all cases. Although the new law had been in preparation for a considerable amount of time, and although many of the technical staff members had been involved in proposing the details of this law through working groups, still the approval of the law had immediate legislative consequences. As a result, staff members perceived a change in their management activities, in particular within the municipalities. As stated above, in the Cadastral case the distribution of responsibilities between the Cadastre organization and the municipalities changed, and had given municipalities more responsibility in the maintenance of address and real estate data. Many municipal staff members perceived however that they only had limited capacity to deal with this task, while maintaining other tasks at the same time. This additional work load required them to rethink their operational procedures, and allocation of tasks to staff.

A third type of change in the use of geoIT standards was expected, yet did not occur. The standards of the citizens (customers of the products and services of all the cases), such as open geospatial data standards, were hardly taken up within the internal processes of the cases. Some municipalities indicated adhering to open data standards principles, but neither in the statutory duties or in their voluntary agreements did they insist on relying on these open data standards. Standard geo-data handling and provision thus still strongly relies on existing working relations within the larger agencies.

In sum, one may conclude that the stability of the internal coordination structures (aiming for standards in geoIT) is not really rooted in the specific number of members in a consortia, or in either hierarchical relations (coerced by law) or in bottom-up relations (emerging from daily interaction with citizens/customers) but in the similarity of relations that the new actors had in comparison to the existing members. Coordinating standards on geoIT seems thus strongly dependent on existing coordination structures on other issues. Hence, the locus of standards crystallization is not central or peripheral, but at the point where long-term mutual relations already exist.

DISCUSSION

Overall, the data show the importance of a middle level ground between central administration and a famous Internet motto: "rough consensus and running code" as the way an information infrastructure establishes itself. This can also be read as a liminary position between expert and lay knowledge. Our underneath interest to focus on the 'where' question was to avoid usual accounts, deeply entrenched in the public administration -and usually elicited by interviews: "How does standardization happen?" is likely to get answers like "a formal process has been put in place, followed, different viewpoints have been considered, together with technical viability". In the cases understanding 'where' standardization of geoIT takes place cannot be reduced to understanding how SDI has evolved within the traditional public sector only. A number of relevant and emerging phenomena on the fringes of mapping agencies' core business have emerged as well. So, our research focused on the crystallization of relations across inter-organizational relations across the Dutch geoIT organizational field. We saw that geoIT standardization takes place in an environment which consists of both hard and formal relations (contracts between public authorities, with public mandates in the field of geoIT) and soft an informal ones (voluntary associations having voluntary working relations and rather loose decision and control mechanisms). Hence municipalities proved to be central middle ground between central bureaucracy and citizens, are places where standardized practices crystallize, thus where standardization occurs. It is relevant, because municipalities are non-specialized bodies for geoIT standardization. This counteracts a common assumption, as specialized bodies at national level are the primary knowledge holders of the domain. Yet, in their need to combine all sorts of top-down requirements to implement the execution of legislation on the one side, and deal with external geoIT users on the other side, actors at the municipal level act as mediators between those requirements, and de facto act as standardizors. We explain the role of municipalities by being entangled with both bureaucracy the citizens, not only through work relations, but also through representation and legitimacy. So, we identified a significant window of opportunity at the municipal level, which is strategically between central administrations and citizens. In information infrastructure terms, the municipalities are the hubs of an emerging network, and the hubs of the network actually drive the process of crystallizing socio-technical relations into standards, rather than adopting what has been designed elsewhere. Where the traditional view would predict that there is a central definition of standard, which is then applied throughout the hubs, the findings show that hubs are at the encounter of different geo-information flows and combine them in use, this crystallizing the stand-ards. So, as detailed below, rather than being entitled to set standards, what affect and explain standardization are the loci of accreditation and coalition. This is particularly relevant within the public sector, where standardization is expected to be led by professionalized, dedicated bodies. Our analysis identified an interesting tension between the trend towards more autonomous cooperation among smaller public organizations and organizations which are lower in the administrative hierarchy and less specialized. So, what is the role of the people at these levels, and the standards they are shaping? Are these people being ruled or are they ruling? Our point from the empirical cases and information infrastructure research is that this dichotomy is not very suitable to frame the problem and answer the question. Rather, we put at the center the locus where standards actually happen to crystallize. Indeed, municipalities are a crucial point of encounter along the tensions they are intertwined with, and this position sheds new light on geoIT standardization. From this perspective, 'street level' public sector officers are gatekeepers, being at the intersection of geo-information production and use. This is our proposal for a conceptualization of SDI as a tool which has a sensible degree of autonomy from what decision makers have in mind and express through designers. Such autonomy explains how and why this 'tool' also builds itself more than conventional accounts acknowledge.


Arild Jansen
email: arildj@jus.uio.no

THE UNDERSTANDING OF ICTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR AND ITS IMPACT ON GOVERNANCE

Keywords: eGovernment, ICT Governance, ICT management, organisational functions

The visions and goals for the use of ICTs in public sector are huge, both related to efficiency, effectiveness and for strengthening democratic functions. The realisation of such diverse set of goals requires a broad range of means and measures. However, do the managers really understand the many functions and roles ICTs have and how they should be governed? This paper discusses what functions that ICTs have in the public sector, and analyses existing ICT governance approaches in the Norwegian government. Our findings do indicate that there exist a mismatch between the functions implicit in the objectives that are stated for eGovernment and the way ICTs are governed. This mismatch, can, at least partly, be attributed to an inadequate understanding of ICTs and its many functions.

INTRODUCTION

In the past, computers was conceived as a tool or instrument that could support or replace human work in rather controlled and easy-to-understand ways. To day, we know that the collection of hardware, software and systems that we have labelled ICTs have many dimensions and perspectives and are not at all easy to manage. We have experienced that the way ICTs is governed is not adequate, not least in public sector, see e.g. [START_REF] Heeks | Implementing and Managing eGovernment[END_REF], [START_REF] Grönlund | It's the Economy Stupid" -Why the Swedish e-Government Action Plan will not Deliver Better Government, and How it Could[END_REF], [START_REF] Wimmer | Integrated service modelling for online one-stop government[END_REF].There are many reasons for that; we believe that one reason is a limited knowledge of the very nature of ICTs and how they should be managed in various organisational contexts. More precisely, we argue that there is a mismatch between the goals that are stated for eGovernment and the way it is governed, which can be attributed to an inadequate understanding of the various functions and roles of ICT in government.

While much research has addressed on the relationship between IS development and organisation consequences of ICT, this paper will discuss the relation between the various conceptualisation of ICTs and how they are governed. Following Orlikowski and Robey (1991), we held that ICTs have both material and social properties, being physical and socially constructed by subjective human actions. In a functionalist paradigm, ICTs can be seen as a tool which is used to further some organizational goals. By adopting an interpretative paradigm, we can view ICT in its social setting, seeing the world as a social construct [START_REF] Hirschheim | Office automation -a social and organizational perspective[END_REF]. Computer-based systems are in this view a form of social organization, which is not at all neutral [START_REF] Kling | Ch. 13 Defining the boundaries of computing across complex organizations. Critical issues in information systems research[END_REF]. Similarly, [START_REF] Orlikowski | Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research-A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact[END_REF] argue that ICTs are not just tools, and they suggest a number of different conceptualisations.

Without subscribing to these specific conceptualizations, such analysis illustrate the many functions and roles hat ICTs may have in organisations, not to say in the government. We would expect that such variety should influence the actual ICT management approaches and practices, also in government ministries. However, when e.g. analysing egovernment policy documents, we find that there are stated many different ICT related goals and objectives which build on distinct assumptions about the character of the technologies to be applied [START_REF] Jansen | Styring av den elektroniske forvaltning i Norge -en tilstandsrapport[END_REF]. However, the same documents contain few adequate means and measures to help achieving such goals, which we believe can be attributed to a lack of deeper analysis of how the use of ICTs may create the desired effects. Some of the stated goals may even be conflicting if not the underlying assumptions are well understood. The aim of our study is to contribute to a better understanding of how ICTs are conceptualized in government organizations, and how these correspond to current management practises. Our research questions are:

1. What are most typical ICT goals, means and measures in the different ministerial sectors 2. What are the dominating understanding of ICT in terms of stated ICT-functions and roles 3. Are there any relations between ICT management practises and the dominating understanding of ICT in the different ministerial sectors?

1.1 Structure of the paper First, we will briefly discuss different perspectives on technologies as well as on organisations, and the possible links between technology and organizational structure, leading to a framework for analysing the functions and roles of ICT in organisations. Next, we present and analyse our empirical data that are collected in a study of governance practises the Norwegian government, concluding by a discussion of what our findings may imply for IT-governance in public sector.

1.2

Research approach This study is based on an inductive and explorative research approach, aiming at identifying important factors that may help understanding challenges related to IT governance. A short literature review has been conducted to explore how ICTs are conceptualized in eGovernment documents. The empirical base has been the Norwegian government ministries and their subordinate agencies. We have analyzed their use of ICTs and more specific their ICT governance practices. Our data have been collected from (1) the ministries budget documents and the ministries assignment letters to selected subordinate agencies, (2) relevant white papers and government reports and (3) interviews with key officers representing the various ministries. The data result from interpreting the budget document and assignment letters, in analysing what goals that are defined and the type of measures that are stated. We have in particular identified texts that describe ICT-related goals, means and measures and what type of management approaches that are applied. When interviewing managers in the ministries, we have discussed our interpretation of the data. Our informants have also been invited to comment upon our analysis.

Theoretical perspectives

Below we will discuss different theoretical perspectives for understanding the link between ICT use and organisational functions, leading to a framework for analysing the relationship be-tween stated goals in eGovernments and how governance is being conducted.

An objectivistic perspective on ICT

In information systems research, the objectivist approach to technology is rather common, but not necessarily accurate. By presuming that technology is an object capable of having an impact on social systems, such research treats both technology and organization structures as objects. [START_REF] Kling | Ch. 13 Defining the boundaries of computing across complex organizations. Critical issues in information systems research[END_REF] describes the "tool" view of information technology as: "A computing resource that is best conceptualized as a particular piece of equipment, application or technique which provides specifiable information processing capabilities". He argues that such a view conceives information technology independently of the social or organizational arrangements within which it is developed and used. The objectivist approach overstates the importance of technology's material characteristics and ignores the social interpretations and actions that may modify the impact of particular software systems or hardware configurations. By contrast, the subjectivist approach to information technology is typified by those assuming a "social action" perspective on information technology and that the same technical solution may have various effects in different organisations (Orlikowski and Robey 1991). In a traditional, objectivistic way [START_REF] Ritchie | ICT Adoption by SMEs: Implications for Relationships and Management[END_REF] define ICT as "the array of primarily digital technologies designed to collect, organise, store, process and communicate information within and external to an organisation". They points to that ICT can fulfil a number of business needs, such as strategic, operational or marketing needs, or a combination of all of them. Kling and Scacchi (1982) in opposing the traditional "tool-perspective", developed the concept of "web models" of computing in contrast to what they saw as the dominant "discreteentity" model of computing. In addition to functional capabilities, computers are also social objects which may be highly charged with meaning. They thus held that computer-based systems are a form of social organization, which is not at all neutral. From their perspective, information technology is more than just the tools deployed on the desktop or the factory floor. [START_REF] Zuboff | the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power[END_REF] make an important distinction is the difference between automation and informating. The term informating was coined in her book "In the Age of the Smart Machine", where she points to that it is the process that translates descriptions and measurements of activities, events and objects into information. By doing so, these activities become visible to the organization. Informating has both an empowering and oppressing influence. On the one hand, as information processes become more powerful, the access to information is pushed to ever lower levels of the organization. Conversely, information processes can be used to monitor what Zuboff calls human agency. She thus illustrates how same technical solution may be understood in different ways, depending on e.g. where you are in an organization.

Interpretative approaches to understanding ICT

In the last 15-20 years, we have seen lasting importance of networks and in particular Internet as a mean for communication and collaboration between humans, as is symbolized by concepts like groupware and Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), which emerged as separate fields in the early 90'thies. Interestingly, [START_REF] Orlikowski | Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations[END_REF] shows through her study of the use of a specific computer application in a large organisation, how the same technical solution (a groupware system) was interpreted very differently by different groups of employees in the same organisation. By identifying four different technologies-in practises, she show how we better can understand how and why people are likely to use their technologies and with what (intended and unintended) consequences in different organizational and technological conditions.

Another approach to understand the multidimensional character of ICT is presented by [START_REF] Orlikowski | Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research-A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact[END_REF]. Based on their coding of a number of research articles, they identified 14 specific conceptualizations of information technology. It may be disputed whether their specific conceptualizations, being extracted from how researchers have conceptualised ICT in research, really reflect how ICTs actually are used and understood in organisations. Their analysis does, however, nicely illustrate that ICTs and their application can be interpreted in different ways, and we acknowledge their insightful contribution to a better understanding of the IT artefact. This type of analysis is even more important when we are studying the increasingly use of social media, which often have different functions and fulfil distinct roles in various organisational settings. This clearly shows how the same or very similar technologies are being understood very differently across organisations and in society at large; underscoring that also interpretative approaches are necessary.

Theories on the link between organisational functions and use of technology

These few examples on different interpretation of ICT use outlined above illustrate that a restricted functional perspective only represent one dimension of ICT, while e.g. a informating or a technology-in-practise perspective show that one technology has potentials for many organisational functions and roles, some of them not necessarily clearly understood and predicted beforehand. Thus, different perspectives of ICT usage are closely related to the understanding of the functioning and structure of an organisation. [START_REF] Crowston | Information technology and work organization[END_REF] are suggesting four different perspectives on organisations: rationalist, information processing, motivational and political, which can be used to interpret organisation structure. While the rationalist perspective assumes that organizations are composed of rational agents, operating towards some defined goals, e.g. efficiency. The information processing view shares many of these characteristics, but focuses instead on the organizational processes and communications patterns of the firm. The motivational perspective recognizes that workers may have different interests than the management of an organization, but typically assumes that these goals can be matched by properly designing the jobs of individual workers. The political view assumes that different groups within, the organization may have conflicting goals that can not be reconciled. Power determines which group achieves its goals, and IT may be used as a means to increase power.

Similar perspectives are presented by [START_REF] Dahlbom | Computers in Context. The philosophy and Practice of Systems design[END_REF], claiming that there are (at least) three approached to understand develop and use systems in organisations; hard, soft and dialectic system thinking. "Hard" system is conceived as a hierarchically organised set of element, usually developed through a functional analysis, emphasizing ordering, stability, consistency and completeness etc. At the contrary, "soft" system thinking emphasizes that systems and organisations are shaped by our experiences from using them. We see different things, have different perspectives and structure the world differently. Interpretation then becomes important to understand how systems and organisations should be conceived and designed. Their third, "dialectic" thinking departs from the soft thinking in emphasizing that multiple view and perspectives do exist at the same time. However, it differs in that it emphasize that different perspectives are expressions of irreconcilable conflicts and power struggles. The claim of this approach is that we need to think in terms of contradictions in order to understand, explain and control change, implying that we have to identify interests, roles, structures, and processes in organisations. These perspectives are not mutual exclusive, but rather coexist in an organisation and imply varying and partly confliction conceptions of ICT functions and their governance.

Different functions and roles of ICTs in public sector

The discussions above, which shows that there are many different understandings of what functions and roles how in organisations, have not addressed the role of ICT in public sector in particular. Even if public organisations do resemble a number of similarities to other organisations, there are some specific characteristics of the public sector that may influence they way they use ICT, which we will discuss below. Government agencies have a large variety of functions. One overall responsibility is to ensure the fundamental right as democracy, openness and transparency, privacy and to improve citizen's quality of life. By reviewing a selection of documents on eGovernment, we have identified a number of ICT functions and roles that are typical in the literature. For the purpose of this paper we have grouped them into the following metagroups: i) tool, ii) control and management, iii)service, iv)information and knowledge management, v) interaction and collaboration, and iv) information infrastructures. Below we describe these metagroups in more detail

The tool function, as e.g. the traditional office automation and case handling functions. ICTs are here usually regarded as value-neutral artefacts, expected to do what its designers intended them to do, corresponding to [START_REF] Orlikowski | Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research-A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact[END_REF]. A tool, therefore, has no value beyond its capability to support the necessary production or administrative processes. In this perspective, the technology is primarily understood as a technical matter that is separate from, but controlled by human actors [START_REF] Kling | Ch. 13 Defining the boundaries of computing across complex organizations. Critical issues in information systems research[END_REF]). Tools are usually neither complex nor very flexible, and require limited, or mostly moderate organizational integration. Somewhat related to this category is the control and management function, where ICTs are used for reporting, supervision, monitoring and controlling purposes, i.e. in collection of data on performance of the individual public agencies. Such uses of ICTs are normally characterized by moderate complexity, implying limited need for flexibility and organizational integration. It has in that way similarity with the tool function, but support specific management approaches.

Both functions represent primarily a rational and functional perspective on technology, and hard system thinking. They can often, but not always be linked to an organisational imperative, in that they need not lead to substantial organisational changes. Such functions will be used in all parts of an organisation, but mostly for administrative and management tasks and will in particularly linked to efficiency objectives.

Our next category is the service function, where ICTs are integrated in the core production, which in the public sector mainly implies activities related to the provision of information services. An essential characteristic is that service provision involves ICT-based communication with actors outside the organisation, and includes both technical and organizational elements.

ICT-based services will imply a significant level of complexity and flexibility, and organizational reorganisation is crucial [START_REF] Ritchie | ICT Adoption by SMEs: Implications for Relationships and Management[END_REF].

Further, we find that ICT is being used extensively in information and knowledge management, which comprises a range of strategies and practices used in an organization to identify, collect, manage, distribute data and enable adoption of insights and experiences by facilitating the sharing of knowledge. Examples in public sector are data collection and analysis in resource management, GIS systems, data on climate change, pollution, petroleum reservoirs, etc. This perspective differs from the tool function in even if it include data handling processes that can be automated, it involves intellectual activities based on insights and experiences either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizations as processes or practices. We see that both can be associated with an information processing perspective, and a motivational perspective, too.

Out next category include systems that support interaction and collaboration. ICTs are increasingly being used for communication, interaction and cooperation, both internally and externally. Typical examples are groupware systems and computer supported cooperative work, which implies changes in division of tasks and organisation of work. This use of ICTs is less structured and it requires significant organizational flexibility [START_REF] Bratteteig | A Scandinavian Perspective on Systems Development[END_REF]. It is also seen as a way that citizens and organisations can interact with and influence on public sector. The development and use of social media/web2.0 represent a further development of these functions, and offers quite new ways of using ICTs for collaboration and co-creation. Even though these types of use have similarities with CSCW applications, they differ in that such systems are open to many and its use open is not controlled by any organisation.

As [information] infrastructure, ICTs comprise the basic technical and organization capabilities necessary for supporting application systems and solutions across organisations and society at large. In addition to the technical systems and networks, it includes basic data resources that many public agencies rely on in its daily work. An information infrastructure must be open, standardized and flexible in order to support the large variety of systems and services that run on top of it [START_REF] Hanseth | Design theory for dynamic complexity in Information Infrastructures: the case of building Internet[END_REF]. In particular, infrastructures are "sunk into" the organisation [START_REF] Star | Steps toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for LargeInformation Spaces[END_REF] and shall be used by a large variety users and fulfil many different, partly conflicting functions and roles, Thus, ICTs as infrastructure implies a high degree of complexity and a need for organizational adaptation.

Includes also information processing, and soft systems thinking

Interaction & collaboration

Groupware, CSCW-systems, Social media, Information Infrastructure Networks, support services, management of shared facilities etc.

Includes various perspectives and many way of thinking

These different metacategories and their respectively perspectives are, however not mutually exclusive in an organisation (rather the opposite), but we argue that they require different management approaches in planning and development as well as in implementation and operations. How do these ICT functions relate to goals and objectives that are stated for eGovernments? When reviewing different national policy documents, we find rather ambitious visions and goals. E.g. Norway has defied these values and goals: i) democratic values, ii) efficiency, iii) rule of law and proper case administration and iv) quality and integrity, v)innovation in private sector. Thus, by using the overall eGEP Measurement Framework Analytical Model (EU 2006), but including innovation as a fourth goal, we may illustrate these relationships between goals, indicators and ICT functions and roles as in table 2: We may then assume that governance structures will be influenced by the type of organisations and in particular the managers understanding of ICTs functions and roles. This type of influence will not be uniform, but rather having great variation, also being influenced by other factors.

MANAGEMENT OF ICTs IN NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT

The Norway is a highly computerized country, and so is the public sector. However, the management structure of the public sector is not particularly influenced by ICT, as our public administrative policy is still characterized by rather strict sectorization and line responsibility [START_REF] Jansen | Fra Emma til MinSide. IKT som styrbart redskap eller drivkraft for endring[END_REF]. This means that each ministry is responsible for their specific choice of governance approach. Thus, the organizational and management structures resemble a silo; vertical integration within and horizontal separation across ministerial areas of responsibility. The Minister for Administration and reform coordinates public sector reform and is responsible for the government's administrative policy, including ICT policy. One directorate has the mandate to act as an initiating agency, promoting coordination and cooperation. This implies that there are only few overarching principles and methods for the governance of ICTs and each ministry has a large degree of freedom when it comes to the choice of IT governance approach. We may assume that there is significant variation of management approaches across the different sectors and areas of responsibility, implying that they are utilizing ICTs in different ways.

Current ICT management practises in Norwegian ministries

During 2010 and 2011, we have collected data on how ICTs is being managed in the various ministerial sectors in Norway, focusing on how each ministry carry out their individual ICT management. We have identified ICT-related goals and accompanying means and measures that are defined in steering documents (assignment letters etc.), complemented by interviews in each ministry and some subordinate agencies. Below we present some of our finings.

Table 3 shows the ICT goals in the different ministerial sectors (column 2), and their ICT focus in management (column 3) and the primary ICT functions and roles (column 4). The identification of ICT related management approached has been done by i) surveying ICT usage within the different areas of responsibilities, ii) assessing the specification of ICT means and measures that are found in the budget documents and assignment letter to subordinate agencies, iii) how the ministry representatives in interviews describe how they control their subordinate agencies. The categorization of ICT functions and roles are according to how ICT goals are specified, supplemented by analysing the various core activities and the role ICTs have in such activities. Column 2 and 3 in table 3 describe the main ICT goals and -means in each sector. We found that these goals and measures are to a large extent integrated in their general policies. Few ministries explicitly mention ICT in their budget document, and ICT-related goals or means are vague and usually not operationalized to any significant extent in their assignment letters. Less than half of the ministries specify measurement indicators for the use of ICTs, and such indicators are for the most part qualitative and vague. We see furthermore that less than half of the ministries have defined a general ICT-plan or strategy that affect the whole sector. Those ministries that have a coordinating ICT-body do also stimulate sector-wide cooperation and coordination. This illustrates important differences between the ministries regarding their IT governance styles. However, other ministries argue that a sector-wide strategy is not considered relevant because the individual subordinate agencies have defined their own strategies which the ministries would follow up and monitor. Some ministries have adopted a softer management approach through more informal forums or coordinating mechanisms, where the subordinate agencies can congregate and discuss issues of mutual interest, i.e. the interoperability of different ICT-systems.

Our second research question is: How are the stated goals and objectives understood in terms of ICT functions and roles?

Column 4 in table III shows our assessment of the 3 most important ICT functions and roles within the individual ministerial sectors, based on how they have described ICT goals, means and measures. We find that there is a large variation across the ministries. Office automation along with control and management functions seem to be important/most important for 11 ministries. This is not surprising, as we would expect that ICTs primarily are used for supporting administrative and management processes. It is more interesting that the cooperation and interaction functions as well as infrastructure are explicitly mentioned as important by 9 ministries, while the service function are mentioned by 7 ministries. Knowledge management is listed as important in only 5 ministries. Interestingly, the use of social media is not mentioned by any ministry, contrasting the overall goals where ICT is seen as an important mean to strengthen democracy and citizen participation.

Our third research question is: Are there any relations between ICT management practises and the dominating understanding of ICT in the different ministerial sectors?

Our data show that the different ministry's ICT governance approaches, in terms of defining goals, implementing strategies and means have significant variance. Our interpretations indicate that their understanding of ICT functions and roles may explain at least parts of this diversity. As there are a lot of similarities between tool and management and control functions, we will below cluster these functions into a larger tool+ meta-category. Furthermore, as we may assume that knowledge management imply the same perspective as that of information infrastructure in collecting and sharing data, we will merge these two into another meta-category.

Table 4 shows that in those sectors where the tool perspective are dominating, many of the ministries appear as having a low ICT focus in their management approach. Contrary, in those sectors where ICT-services and information infrastructures perspectives seem important for their ICT-use, the respective ministries do have a strong ICT-focus. When analysing the use of overall management instruments in detail (Jansen and Berg-Jacobsen 2011) we find that those ministries who emphasize a tool perspective, also practise a rationalistic management approach. On the contrary; in the sectors where the service and interaction functions dominate, these ministries' management approaches are mostly in accordance with an information processing perspective. Similarly, the knowledge management and information infrastructure functions correspond with political perspectives, where one accept that there are many, partly conflicting interests and goals that have to be handled in constructive ways.

Thus, returning to our initial claim that there is a mismatch between the goals that are stated for eGovernment and the way it is governed, which can be attributed to an inadequate understanding of the various functions and roles of ICT in government. Table 5 below shows the relation between overall goals and the specific ICT functions mentioned by the different ministries. We see that in those ministries where efficiency is the primary ICT goal, the tool perspective is dominating, while in ministries where effectiveness and citizens' needs are the primary focus, service and infrastructure functions are dominating. However, few ministries focus on democracy or innovation as specific goals for their use of ICTs. Thus, we find some correlation between the ICT goals that are stated in the individual ministries and their understanding of ICT functions. However, when considering the government in its entirety, we find a weak connection. The overall policy documents states that ICTs should help improving the quality and accessibility of services through sharing of resources and stimulate more efficient cooperation and division of tasks. We would expect that ICT governance should focus on service provision, information management and infrastructure functions and not primarily on efficient use of ICTs for case handling, control and management purposes. But our data strongly indicate that less than half of the ministries do have such focus in their ICT governance approaches. Our conclusion is thus that the Norwegian government lacks an overall ICT policy including efficient means and measures that can strengthen more strategic uses of ICTs.

This may be illustrated by The Norwegian Population register, which in the past was designed and has been used by one agency. It is now being regarded as an infrastructure component, being used by a growing number of both public agencies and private organisations. Its data quality and availability are not at all adequate. But so far, no adequate governance model based on a more holistic and interactionist perspective has been implemented. There is, however a growing understanding of the existing management challenges, and changes both in its organisation and management structure are being considered. We believe that political and dialectical approaches is becoming more important, as the degree of interaction and information exchange is increasing, along with that traditionally individual information systems are increasingly becoming part of a common information infrastructure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reveal a diversity regarding how ICTs are understood and governed in the Norwegian government, but at the same time they show that few ministries focus on other goals than internal efficiency and quality in their management approaches. This picture can be attributed to several reasons. Firstly, many ministries do have a limited understanding of how to realise other values from ICT investments that efficiency. Secondly, such other goals require that adequate means and measures are implemented across ministries, which is difficult to achieve.

There are, however other factors than the ministries' lack of ICT maturity that can explain their IT governance approach, not least that the specific characteristics of the individual sectors and their use of ICTs may imply different governance approaches. Furthermore, their history of traditions and norms related to management principles do vary significant; some ministries have been rather unchanged for more than 100 years, while other are less than 10 years old. Lastly, this picture is rather dynamic, and our data represent only the present state, which most likely will change over years, such that the different ministries may gradually adopt new governance approaches accommodating the increasing importance of ICT in society.

Finally, we have to admit that the assessments of the dominating ICT functions and roles are not ambiguous, as one ministry may define different goals and apply varying measures and instruments due to that their subordinate agencies may require different management styles. Thus, there is a need for more research which can improve our analytical framework. We will, however fully agree with the conclusions of [START_REF] Orlikowski | Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research-A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact[END_REF] in claiming that ICT artefacts are by no mean natural, neutral, universal or given, as they are always embedded in some time, place, discourse, and community. Furthermore, ICT artefacts are neither fixed nor independent, but they emerge from ongoing social and economic practices in dynamic ways. Our overall conclusion is however that the top level management (and the politicians) in Norway lack an understanding of the many functions and roles ICTs have in the government, and what means and measures that are required to make the most of these potentials.

Table 1 : Different categories of ICT functions and roles and associated perspectives on ICT Metagroup Typical Fuctions and roles Perspectives on ICT

 1

	Tool	Office Automation , Case handling, etc.	Rationalistic and mostly hard sys-
	Control and management	Supervision , Auditing, Inspection	tems thinking
	Service provision	ICT s integrated in products and services
	Information & Knowledge	E.g. data collection and analysis related to
	Management	resource management, GIS systems, etc.

Table 2 : Relation between objectives, indicators, effects and ICT perspectives in eGovernment

 2

	Overall	Indicators (examples)	Public value	Dominating ICT func-
	goals			tions and roles*)
	Efficiency	Financial gains	Financial & Organisa-	Tool
		Better organisational structures	tional value;	Control and management
	Effective-	More inclusive public services	Constituency Value	Service provision
	ness:	increased user value & satisfaction		Knowledge management
	Democracy	Openness, Transparency	Political Value.	Interaction and collaboration
		Participation, citizens empowerment		Service provision
	Innovation	Better access to information	Value creation in soci-	Knowledge management
			ety	Service provision
	*) Information infrastructures are important for all type of goals

Table 3 : ICT goals, means and dominating ICT functions in Norwegian government (selected)

 3

	Ministry		Primary ICT goals in the sector	ICT-management focus	Dominating ICT functions
					and roles
	Labour and Wel-	Increase quality and efficiency in	Limited ICT focus, no spe-	Office aut. & case handling
	fare		case handling and control func-	cific goals or means	Control and management
			tions.		Service provision
	Government		Strengthen infrastructure func-	Well-defined ICT-goals, in-	Information infrastructure
	Administration,	tions and ICT-based collaboration.	frastructure focus, ICT	Interaction and Cooperation
	Reform		Quality in service provision.	agency and strategy	Service provision
	Finance		Increase quality and efficiency in	Well-defined ICT-goals, in-	Service provision
			service provision, case handling,	frastructure focus, ICT	Control and management
			Strengthen infrastructure function	agency	Information Infrastructures
	Health and Care	Strengthen CT-based interaction&	ICT goal and strategy for	Interaction and Cooperation
	Services		collaboration. Improve infrastruc-	interaction, with private	Information infrastructure
			ture Increase control.	actor	Control and management
	Justice		Increase quality and efficiency in	Significant ICT and interac-	Interaction and cooperation
			case handling. Strengthen collabo-	tion focus, ICT goals/strat-	Office Aut. & case handling
			ration,	egy	Control and Management
	Education	and	Increase quality in service provi-	High ICT service and infra-	Service provision
	Research		sion. Strengthen infrastructure	structure focus, ICT agency	Information infrastructure
			functions. Better control		Control and management
	Culture		Increase quality in service provi-	ICT goals and strategy. Ser-	Service provision
			sion Stimulate cooperation. Im-	vice and infrastructure	Information infrastructure
			prove infrastructure functions	focus, ICT agency	Interaction and Cooperation
	Environment		Increase quality in infrastructure	Significant ICT and infra-	Infrastructure
			functions and service provision	structure focus, ICT strat-	Service provision
			Stimulate information sharing	egy and ICT agency	Knowledge management
	Trade and In-	Strengthen infrastructure and ser-	ICT goals, infrastructure	Information Infrastructure
	dustry		vices. Better control	and service, ICT agency	Service provision
					Control and management
	Transport	and	Strengthen infrastructure support	Some ICT focus, ICT strat-	Control and management
	Communication	and cooperation. Better supervi-	egy in the transport sector	Interaction and Cooperation
			sion and control		Information infrastructure

Table 4 : The correspondence between ICT management focus and most important ICT functions

 4

	Dominating ICT functions	TOOL:	Office	Interaction and	ICT-based Ser-	Information infra-
	ICT-focus in management	Aut. and control	cooperation	vice provision	structure & K M
	No or low ICT focus	6		6	1	1
	Strong ICT focus	2		3	5	6

Table 5 : The relation between states objectives and the conceptualization of ICT functions

 5

	ICT functions	Tool	Interaction and co-	ICT-based Service	Information infra-
	Overall goals		operation	provision	structure & K M
	Efficiency	8	3	1	2
	Effectiveness	3	5	4	4
	Democracy	0	0	0	0
	Innovation	0	1	1	1