Caroline Pade-Khene

John Lannon
email: john.lannon@ul.ie

Learning to be Sustainable in ICT for Development: A Citizen Engagement Initiative in South Africa

Keywords: sustainability, organizational learning, project management, egovernment, citizen engagement

The uncertainty and complexity of ICT4D projects call into question the suitability of conventional approaches to project management that are imposed exogenously, particularly in relation to the challenge of supporting sustainability and resilience. Attempts to transfer knowledge or ownership to local stakeholders or other responsible bodies fail, and consequently many worthwhile initiatives become unsustainable. The problem is particularly acute in the case of citizen engagement projects, where diverse stakeholders are involved and perspectives need to merge when identifying and realising the benefits of the initiative. Borrowing from literature on project management, knowledge management and organisational learning, this paper draws on experiences from a citizen engagement initiative for basic service delivery in a local municipality in South Africa, by reflecting on the learning processes that can contribute to ongoing sustainability in such projects in the global South. The findings highlight the value of emergent learning and negotiation rather than rigid processes linked to pre-determined success factors that are typically adopted in projectbased ICT4D initiatives.

Introduction

While the value of ICT4D initiatives (usually donor-funded) has been confirmed over the past decade, projects are still plagued by failure and sustainability challenges. ICT4D projects are often more complex than expected [START_REF] Loh | Approaches to ICT for Development (ICT4D): Vulnerabilities vs[END_REF][START_REF] Turpin | Desperately Seeking Systems Thinking in ICT4D. Electronic[END_REF] and are not always conducted with adequate sensitivity and awareness of the environments and contexts they are targeting [START_REF] Avgerou | The Significance of Context in Information Systems and Organizational Change[END_REF]. An ICT4D initiative, whether managed locally or not, is often driven by foreign funding agendas. The implementer, who may be an NGO or research institution, is often viewed as a proxy of the funder and has to meet specific objectives, typically within a defined time, scope, cost and quality. These aspects are fundamental to project management, and are often used as an assessment of the effectiveness of an implemented ICT4D initiative. This view is problematic as ICT4D projects are often associated with immense uncertainty and complexity in terms of the factors and actors that make them 'work'. The uncertainty has been a big contributor to the failure of projects, and to what Toyama [START_REF] Toyama | Geek Heresy, Public Affairs[END_REF] refers to as 'pilotitis'. Dodson, Sterling and Bennett [START_REF] Dodson | Considering Failure: Eight Years of ITID Research[END_REF] point out that while there is plenty of ICT4D literature on failures, researchers and practitioners still do not take full cognisance of the failures to learn from them, to apply the lessons learned in practice, or to develop mechanisms and theories to address the failuresabove the constraints of time, scope, cost and quality. This paper aims to address this by proposing strategies for learning to be sustainable in ICT4D projects. In doing so it asks the following questions: 1) How does the complex nature of ICT4D projects affect sustainability, 2) How can project management, knowledge management, and organizational learning contribute to learning to be sustainable in complex ICT4D environments.

The paper begins with a review of literature on sustainability and project management in ICT4D. Subsequently, the case for 'learning' in ICT4D is discussed. A case study of a digital citizen engagement project called Mobile Social Accountability Monitoring (MobiSAM) is then reflected on using theory on organisational learning, knowledge management, and project management. Finally, the findings are summarised, and the conclusion is reached that learning strategies enable the untangling of uncertainties and complexities in environments that are typically associated with ICT4D projects and international development. Most importantly, learning allows donors and project implementers to realise the true contribution of 'taken-for-granted' perspectives of local beneficiaries.

2

Sustainability, Project Management, and Learning

Finding the Definition of Sustainability

The definition of sustainability has evolved over time in ICT4D research and practice, and literature has played around with the term in an effort to understand what the concept really means in practice. Sustainability has been thought of as the ability of a project to continuously function in the context it has been operating in, without hindering the future opportunities of individuals from benefiting from the original initiative [START_REF] Pade-Khene | Sustainable Rural ICT Project Management Practice for Developing Countries: Investigating the Dwesa and RUMEP Projects[END_REF]. Sustainability has also been related to scalability, in an effort to replicate and maintain the initiative in other contexts [START_REF] Toyama | Geek Heresy, Public Affairs[END_REF]. Ali and Bailur [START_REF] Ali | The Challenge of "Sustainability[END_REF] call for less emphasis on the term sustainability in ICT4D, as it will never be attainedbut rather bricolage should be a focus. Pade-Khene et al. [START_REF] Pade-Khene | Sustainable Rural ICT Project Management Practice for Developing Countries: Investigating the Dwesa and RUMEP Projects[END_REF] proposed a set of critical success factors essential to supporting sustainability by drawing on existing ICT4D initiatives. However, the application of these factors are not clearly defined in relation to the strategies to allow a project to learn to be sustainable. Marais and Meyer [START_REF] Marais | Design for Sustainability: Countering the Drivers of Unsustainability in Development Projects[END_REF] talk about their experiences working in a donor-funded project in South Africa. They discuss the key systematic drivers for sustainability which include the question of 'who' defines changes among stakeholders (donors, project implementers, beneficiaries); whether the capacities and readiness of the beneficiary system are understood sufficiently from multiple perspectives; and the extent to which the project aligns change agents in the intervention with the 'natural' agents of change in the beneficiary system. All these speak to the need to shift the focus from the "do-nor system of innovating on behalf of the beneficiary, to innovation that is driven by the beneficiary system in response to its natural dynamics" [8: 3]. Project managers need to probe and understand the beneficiary system, and to then react appropriately in order to direct and design the project toward effective sustainable practices. Development should not be seen as a problem that should be fixed, but rather a complex system that needs to be understood and explored holistically over time [START_REF] Walton | Can a Process Approach Improve ICT4D Project Success[END_REF].

Project Management Complexity in ICT4D

Project management in international development and ICT4D is often an 'offshoot' of conventional project management [START_REF] Ika | Learning from International Development Projects: Blending Critical Project Studies and Critical Development Studies[END_REF]. However, some authors [START_REF] Walton | Can a Process Approach Improve ICT4D Project Success[END_REF][START_REF] Ika | Learning from International Development Projects: Blending Critical Project Studies and Critical Development Studies[END_REF][START_REF] Shenkar | Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation[END_REF] argue that structured rigid approaches associated with conventional project management result in failure, especially in complex environments. In fact, Mansell [12: 3] Together, these add to the difficulties associated with the use of standard, exogeneous approaches to projects and project management in the ICT4D sphere.

Many ICT4D failures are more institutional than technical, and project management in such contexts needs to take cognisance of this. Walton and Heeks [START_REF] Walton | Can a Process Approach Improve ICT4D Project Success[END_REF] propose that ICT4D projects should adopt a process approach, highlighting the factors that should be considered. These are beneficiary participation; flexible and phased implementation; learning from experience; local institutional support and capacity development; and sound project leadership. All these speak to the need for a process and learning perspective, where success emerges from "a wider understanding of the systems that make a particular context, which can always be improved upon further" [9:19]. Here, success and failure are not associated with finality, but with an opportunity to incrementally learn and generate feedback for growth in an atmosphere of social experimentation and interaction [START_REF] Walton | Can a Process Approach Improve ICT4D Project Success[END_REF][START_REF] Ika | Learning from International Development Projects: Blending Critical Project Studies and Critical Development Studies[END_REF][START_REF] Mansell | Power and Interests in Information and Communication and Development: Exogenous and Endogenous Discourses in Contention[END_REF].

Project managers that work in ICT4D initiatives have to deal with a range of issues relating to power and influence amongst the diverse group of stakeholders [START_REF] Jałocha | Key Competencies of Public Sector Project Managers[END_REF]. The projects have more to do with people engagement than technology, and as a result the project manager needs to shift from being the "economic man, objective arbiter of interest, or technocratic" to being more 'proactive' and 'engaged' with the actors that have the power and influence. In particular (s)he needs to engage key stakeholders that are local and benefit directly from the project in a process of realising/learning the operation and sustainability of the ICT4D initiative [START_REF] Jałocha | Key Competencies of Public Sector Project Managers[END_REF].

2.3

The Case for 'Locally' Learning to be Sustainable

Mansell [START_REF] Mansell | Power and Interests in Information and Communication and Development: Exogenous and Endogenous Discourses in Contention[END_REF] argues that ICT4D initiatives need to move beyond exogenous models of development that justify their implementation as a stimulator of economic growth in the developing world. Toyama [START_REF] Toyama | Geek Heresy, Public Affairs[END_REF] agrees on the basis of having previously implemented ICT4D projects with that view. He argues that technology is not transformative in and of itself, but is primarily an amplifier of existing institutional forces like differential access to technology, capacity to use the technology and motivation to see the value in using the technology for its true purpose [START_REF] Toyama | Technology as an Amplifier in International Development[END_REF]. Mansell [START_REF] Mansell | Power and Interests in Information and Communication and Development: Exogenous and Endogenous Discourses in Contention[END_REF] proposes that endogenous models should thus be applied, where insight is provided on the factors that influence development. No single endogenous model exists that can explain a context, and therefore 'local' learning with key stakeholders is fundamental. Endogenous models also embrace the idea of engaging through participatory approaches with multiple perspectives. These allow "meanings of technology to emerge through an open, emergent process of dialogue which respects multiple sources of knowledge" [12: 13]. Knowledge transfer and development occur in the evolving incremental learning processes of project implementation, typically between and with implementers, donors, and most importantly local beneficiaries of the initiative. The knowledge ranges from expertise knowledge on technology implementation and integration, to knowledge on practice and operations in the local context. Consequently, participatory approaches move beyond being just a consultative process to considering redistributions of power and influence over constructive decision-making among local beneficiaries of the project [START_REF] Toyama | Geek Heresy, Public Affairs[END_REF][START_REF] Ika | Learning from International Development Projects: Blending Critical Project Studies and Critical Development Studies[END_REF].

Resilience goes hand-in-hand with sustainability in ICT4D, as the project moves iteratively between failure, learning and success over time while strengthening its ability to recover through knowledge transfer. Knowledge management is a key component in ICT4D as it allows an initiative to realise its full potential and resilience through strategic and tactical decision-making. Conger [15: 114] defines it as the "systematic process of acquisition, organisation, and communication of organisational member knowledge for reuse by others in the community", and indicates that there is limited work looking at this in ICT4D literature. Yet it is a fundamental component as initiatives need ongoing development and maintenance without the aid of the original implementation team. In order to acquire knowledge, a process of interaction between explicit and tacit knowledge needs to occur through processes of sharing [START_REF] Ajmal | Knowledge Transfer in Project-based Organisations: An Organisational Culture Perspective[END_REF]. This relates to organisational learning which is the "internal adaptation processes triggered by some kind of disjunction or unease in the relationship between the organisation and what lies external and challenging to it in its environment" [17: 160]. It is in the context of these processes that this paper explores strategies used for learning to be sustainable' in ICT4D using a case study on digital citizen engagement i.e. citizen engagement supported by digital technology [START_REF] Peixoto | When does ICT-Enabled Citizen Voice Lead to Government Responsiveness? World Bank[END_REF].

Research Methodology

This study adopts a pragmatic research philosophy in which the experience of the researchers is based on reflective interaction between action and belief [START_REF] Morgan | Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research[END_REF][START_REF] Hall | Pragmatism, Evidence, and Mixed Methods Evaluation[END_REF]. By iteratively reflecting on existing theory and practice [START_REF] Morgan | Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research[END_REF], it not only examines 'what works' but also 'why it works'. A qualitative approach is applied to reflect on the MobiSAM case study as it seeks to ask 'how' a learning strategy is used and 'why' it worked in a particular way. Data was collected through participant observation, as one of the researchers is part of the project team and has played a significant role in applying project management practice and learning in the project. Further qualitative data was collected over time from project team meetings and engagements, from closed and public meetings with stakeholders (including citizens, municipal staff, civil society, and media), and from public forums held by the local municipality. Documents from a previous phase of the project were also analysed to identify lessons learned.

Data collection took place from February to December 2016 during the implementation of phase 2.0 of the MobiSAM project. The data was analysed using open thematic analysis to allow aspects to emerge from practice while reflecting on theory in project management, knowledge management, and organizational learning.

The Case of MobiSAM -A Digital Citizen Engagement Initiative

MobiSAM is a project that uses mobile technology to supports two-way communication between citizens and government about basic service delivery issues. It was founded in 2012 by local researchers who were frustrated by the growing issue of water service delivery in their municipality [START_REF] Thinyane | Stumbling at the Start Line: An Analysis of Factors affecting Participation with Local Government in South Africa[END_REF]. MobiSAM aims to support citizen engagement, through providing platforms (not only technology related) that citizens can use to engage in social accountability practices. It is widely promoted as a 'game changer' for development [START_REF] Gaventa | Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement[END_REF], as the voiceless become empowered to evoke change in society. For it to be effective, demonstrating results from engagement, designing multiple channels of participation, providing multi-tiered levels of engagement, reinforcing a sense of civic duty and collectiveness, and getting pre-commitment from citizens are all essential for increased participation [START_REF] Spada | Effects of the Internet on Participation: Study of a Public Forum Referendum in Brazil[END_REF].

When an individual citizen has a service delivery issue in South Africa they typically report it to the municipality at a front-desk (face-to-face), by telephone, or through a Ward Councillor or Community Development Worker. These reports often remain as individual undisclosed reports which the public may not be aware of. Civic (collective) action may also be used to draw attention to service delivery issues. However this is often isolated and may not reflect the true nature of the problem for the wider population. MobiSAM plays a strategic role as it brings together individual and collective action with real time access to mechanisms to report issues to all stakeholders. Figure 1 illustrates where MobiSAM sits in local municipal contexts.

The MobiSAM technology incorporates both a reporting interface for citizens (via a mobile application, website, and SMS), and a ticketing function (mainly used by the municipality to address internal communication challenges). Initially, before system launch, Facebook and WhatsApp social media platforms were used to 'experience' the idea of reporting using technology. MobiSAM has a Facebook page for citizens to report and the municipality to make service delivery announcements.

The Stakeholders in MobiSAM

The MobiSAM stakeholders include the donor, the project implementation team, and the beneficiaries, and as with all citizen engagement projects the beneficiaries consist of citizens, government, civil society, and the media. The project manager needs to continuously engage with all these stakeholders as they interact in a web of complexity and uncertainty in an environment that is politically influenced and marginalised.

Conflicting perspectives on what MobiSAM is expected to achieve exist between stakeholders and even within stakeholder groups. The project manager needs to devise strategies to engage all the stakeholders, either separately or together, in order to address the conflicting perspectives and to learn how the digital citizen engagement initiative can best function within its context.

Learning Strategies in the MobiSAM Project

This section reflects on strategies applied in the MobiSAM project to support learning. It draws on organisational learning theory, with knowledge management and project management literature providing additional insight. According to Easterby-Smith and Araujo [START_REF] Easterby-Smith | Organizational learning: current debates and opportunities[END_REF], organizational learning can be viewed as a technical process [START_REF] Argyris | Organisational learning II: Theory, method and practice[END_REF] or a social process [START_REF] Lave | Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation[END_REF] that emphasizes situated learning and learning within communities of practice. The perspective of Argyris and Schön [START_REF] Argyris | Organisational learning II: Theory, method and practice[END_REF] on organisational learning presents two often conflicting modes of operation, namely espoused theory, which is the formalized part of the organization, and theory-in-use, which reflects the implicit mental models and theories people actually use to get things done. By questioning the theories in use of an organization this can help to adapt and to learn from an unexpected situation. This reflection provides insight into double-loop learning in the MobiSAM project, taking cognisance of the unique nature of ICT4D and digital citizen engagement projects in the global South. This is added to by drawing on social perspectives on the transfer of knowledge within the project. The section concludes with a look at the role of the project manager in creating a climate of learning in the MobiSAM project.

Double-Loop Learning

Phase 1.0 of the MobiSAM project experienced some challenges which mainly emanated from the contextual political influence of government stakeholders. It adopted a somewhat adversarial approach to implementing citizen engagement which was met with resistance from government. This led to despondency among citizens who felt that reporting service delivery via the platform would not result in a response from government. The lessons learned in Phase 1.0 [START_REF] Thinyane | Stumbling at the Start Line: An Analysis of Factors affecting Participation with Local Government in South Africa[END_REF] were reflected on, resulting in the development of a new approach for Phase 2.0. This double-loop learning focused on studying and learning from the contextual influences in order to build government responsiveness, civil society partnerships, and citizen capacity to become engaged citizens. In going from Phase 1.0 to Phase 2.0 the MobiSAM project had to reflect on 'why we do what we do'. The goals and values of Phase 1.0 had to be re-evaluated and reframed, not through a once-off process, but an incremental process to define the operational model of Phase 2.0. The MobiSAM operational model involves activities that are more than just about the technology; they include mechanisms to manage the uncertainty and complexity of the context of digital citizen engagement initiatives. Five key aspects make-up the operational model: 1) citizen education and training, 2) building government responsiveness and citizen engagement capacity, 3) stakeholder engagement, 4) iterative technology development, and 5) comprehensive evaluation throughout the project and embedded in learning.

The MobiSAM operational model is not static, but evolves with changes in the environment that relate to both internal and external influences. There is no clear start and end to the project, but rather a model to allow for its evolution over time, as it becomes embedded in citizen engagement practice as well as government practice. Applying this approach has been instrumental in garnering beneficiary support and engagement in the project from both citizens and government.

Promoting Transfer of Internal Capabilities

Knowledge transfer is a fundamental component of organisational learning [START_REF] Szulanski | Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm[END_REF]. However, in ICT4D contexts knowledge transfer processes are usually formalised through communities of practice that include project team members and experts from other projects but usually exclude local beneficiaries. At times, the knowledge or expertise associated with implementing an ICT4D initiative resides with the 'temporary' implementer who leaves with this expertise when the project ends or funding runs out [START_REF] Toyama | Geek Heresy, Public Affairs[END_REF]. To promote sustainability these capabilities should be transferred to local beneficiaries (as well as other local project implementers), in order to support the continuity and progressive development of the initiative. Furthermore, knowledge on the local system in which the ICT4D initiative is implemented needs to be transferred to the project team and funding agencies. For knowledge transfer to be meaningful in the ICT4D context, where there is an interactive exchange of project and context knowledge, identifying the right source and recipient matters [START_REF] Szulanski | Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm[END_REF]. Both the project team and beneficiaries can play the interchangeable role of 'source' and 'recipient' depending on the knowledge shared. The MobiSAM project applies various strategies to support learning, which can be explored using Szulanski's four stage process [START_REF] Szulanski | Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm[END_REF]:

1. Initiation: This first step leads to a decision to transfer knowledge. It is an exploratory process resulting in the identification of a need for and feasibility of a transfer. In MobiSAM Phase 2.0 the project team had to devise ways in which knowledge could be shared within the team and with other key stakeholders as implementation still remained uncertain. Furthermore, new relationships and partnerships needed to be developed with local citizens, government, civil society and media, allowing a space to share perspectives that contribute to the direction of the project. The project managers needed to provide an environment to encourage and motivate people to communicate and share their knowledge with others [START_REF] Yeh | Knowledge Management Enablers: A Case Study[END_REF]. The kind of knowledge that needed to be transferred related to government practice, protocols for working with various local stakeholders and citizens, communication designs and ecologies that work best in particular contexts, discipline specific expertise from the diverse project team, and how to collaborate with specific municipal wards, etc. In this context, knowledge from all stakeholders was essential, and needed to be shared and appreciated as essential. 2. Implementation: This stage is associated with establishing transfer-specific social ties between the source and recipient. Here, the transfer practice is adapted to suit the needs of the recipientin this case, not only project team members, but also target beneficiaries of the project. The project manager of an ICT4D initiative is the one that lobbies for this transfer in the first place, as beneficiaries may not yet realise the true potential or benefit of the project. Therefore certain strategies have to be applied to ensure that a suitable environment is developed for transfer. For example, from the perspective of beneficiary transfer practices, the MobiSAM project had to run strategy formulation workshops. The first two workshops were held separately, with the first group being the government staff, and the second group being citizens, civil society and media. The aim was to provide an environment that allowed for transfer, avoiding conflict between stakeholders. Once commonalities were established, a joint workshop was held with all stakeholders, to provide a shared understanding on how best to implement the MobiSAM project. 3. Ramp-up: This stage occurs when the recipient begins to use the knowledge. In MobiSAM all stakeholders, including the project team, are recipients. New knowledge contributes to learning about how the project can function and operate among citizens and government. The MobiSAM project team proceeded with caution, now understanding the political dynamics and operations in the municipality. Municipal staff had also now begun to integrate MobiSAM in their communication policy and strategy documents in collaboration with the project team, and had suggested that MobiSAM be part of a new citizen engagement initiative from government known as Masiphathisane meaning "let us help each other" (based on an integrated service delivery model). Civil society advised and committed to integrating MobiSAM in its existing activities, and local media has incorporated MobiS-AM into its local broadcasts and publications. 4. Integration: This stage is reached when transferred knowledge becomes institutionalised. For beneficiaries this may still be early in the adoption process but within the project team shared knowledge has become embedded in routine practices. For example, the team has a shared understanding of how to reflect on citizen engagement and government practice based on discipline specific knowledge. Behaviours and events have become understandable, as types of actions are associated with types of actors. The project team learns to understand the project more holistically, not only from an information systems or computer science perspective, but also from a sociological and journalistic perspective. Integration remains ongoing in MobiSAM, as engagement with additional stakeholders takes place.

In digital citizen engagement projects, engaging with diverse stakeholders' perspectives coupled with issues of power and political influence can result in the need for ad hoc solutions to knowledge transfer problems. It becomes difficult to apply a traditional approach to knowledge transfer in such a dynamic environment. Nonetheless Orlikowski [START_REF] Orlikowski | Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organising[END_REF] argues that sharing knowledge enables better understanding of practices relating to "know-how", and hence better understanding of the origins of knowledge stickiness [START_REF] Szulanski | Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm[END_REF] and how to work around it. Such ad hoc processes of learning have enabled the MobiSAM project to operate in the conditions that have emerged.

The Development of Trust among Stakeholders

In creating a climate of learning the project manager needs to establish a climate of trust between stakeholders where "it is safe to make mistakes, sharing knowledge is the norm, and helping others is promoted" [30: 13]. Stakeholders need to feel they can trust the engagement process especially where unlearning or learning from mistakes can occur as failed aspects of a project are likely to yield more valuable knowledge than focusing on the successful aspects [START_REF] Ajmal | Knowledge Transfer in Project-based Organisations: An Organisational Culture Perspective[END_REF]. Knowledge sharing in digital citizen engagement can evoke feelings of conflict of interest among individuals or groups involved [START_REF] Matzler | Personality Traits, Affective Commitment, Documentation of Knowledge, and Knowledge Learning[END_REF]. In the MobiSAM project, the project manager's role is to manage the knowledge bases of the project team and stakeholders so that they combine in the best possible way to learn from each other. As highlighted previously, conflict already exists between stakeholders, and an environment of trust is fundamental to project activities that enable learning. For example, MobiSAM had to hold workshops to engage stakeholders in a process of learning and work had to be done to ensure stake-holders felt comfortable to engage. Affective commitment by the project manager also influences knowledge sharing, as this plays a significant role in determining perseverance in the conflicting interactions and reactions among stakeholders. The project manager, and even the project team in MobiSAM, had to play a neutral role, open to understanding the conflicting perspectives of the main beneficiaries -that is, government and citizensin order to establish a common ground for learning and engagement. A project manager in this case has to be affectively committed, and highly motivated by a concern for the community and a desire to serve the interests and values of the public and government for the greater good [START_REF] Jałocha | Key Competencies of Public Sector Project Managers[END_REF]. This is one of the key lessons that the project managers had to learn in the MobiSAM project.

Limitations and Future Research

This research reflects on only one case study. Nonetheless, it highlights key aspects that can resonate with other ICT4D projects, based on the challenges experienced and the need for iterative incremental learning to occur [START_REF] Walton | Can a Process Approach Improve ICT4D Project Success[END_REF]. This research also serves as a foundation for further exploration of the theories and concepts of project management, knowledge management and organizational learning in ICT4D practice. At this stage the research only provides a high-level view of what could be explored.

Concluding Remarks

ICT4D is a growing field that seeks to understand how sustainability can be realised in projects that have been proven to hold value in socio-economic development. These projects are characterized by complexity and uncertainty; as a result, rigid conventional approaches to project management, which are quite typical of project-based donor funded initiates, result in project failure. Previous research advises that ICT4D projects should be flexible, iterative and incremental over time, providing an opportunity to incrementally learn and generate feedback for growth in an atmosphere of social experimentation and interaction. Reflecting on organisational learning, knowledge management, and project management, the MobiSAM project provides an example of a case in ICT4D of 'learning to be sustainable'. Three key strategies are fundamental in the learning approach applied; these are double-loop learning, promoting the transfer of internal capabilities, and development of trust among stakeholders. The MobiSAM project continues to function and grow based on this approach, with stakeholder buy-in. The strategies can be applied in general ICT4D practice in an effort to untangle the uncertainties and complexities of environments that are typically associated with such projects. Most importantly, learning allows donors and project implementers to respect and realise the true contribution of 'taken-for-granted' perspectives of local beneficiaries.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Citizen Engagement in MobiSAM (adapted from [18])

Acknowledgement: This research was funded by the National Research Foundation of South Africa and the 'Making All Voices Count' initiative. The researchers also thank the MobiSAM team for their continued support and participation in the project, and generation of practical experience to reflect on.


Caitlin Bentley
email: cmbentley@ntu.edu.sg

An Analysis of Accountability Concepts for Open Development

Keywords: Open development, accountability, ICT4D

Open development is the public, networked sharing of communication and information resources towards a process of positive social transformation. Open development likewise imposes a challenge, because new actors, practices and problems of inequality are introduced. Accountability at its core is meant to redress issues of power and inequality [1], thus offering potential to improve open development processes and initiatives. However, the distinct and innovative characteristics of open processes render some concepts of accountability inadequate. This article compares three purposes and perspectives on accountability for their relevance to open development. The purpose of which is to suggest future areas of research and theoretical development in this field.

Introduction

This paper adopts two key ideas to frame open development which are drawn from Smith and Seward [START_REF] Smith | Openness as social praxis[END_REF] and Reilly and Smith [START_REF] Reilly | The emergence of open development in a network society[END_REF]. Open development can be defined in terms of what it is for, and how it works. In terms of how it works, Smith and Seward [START_REF] Smith | Openness as social praxis[END_REF] outline three processes that set open development apart from other forms of ICT supported interaction: open consumption (e.g. using, remixing, and repurposing content), open distribution (e.g. sharing and republishing content) and open production (e.g. peer production). These processes explain how and why particular arrangements of people, technology and content offer distinct opportunities for development. Second, open development can be defined in terms of what it is for. Reilly and Smith [START_REF] Reilly | The emergence of open development in a network society[END_REF], in accordance with Sen [START_REF] Sen | Development as Freedom[END_REF], argue that open development, like human development, is the expansion of freedom. However, scholars also emphasise that institutional structures of society play a significant role in shaping the freedom of groups and individuals [START_REF] Zheng | Technology, capabilities and critical perspectives: what can critical theory contribute to Sen's capability approach?[END_REF][START_REF] Buskens | Open development is a freedom song: revealing intent and freeing power[END_REF].

A debate has occurred amongst scholars in this field regarding whether or not what open processes are lead to what open development is for. Some have argued that open processes enable radical transformations away from bureaucratic modes of doing development, towards freer, less exclusive arrangements [START_REF] Reilly | The emergence of open development in a network society[END_REF][START_REF] Smith | Open ICT ecosystems transforming the developing world[END_REF]. In contrast, other scholars argue that open processes replicate wider structures of power and inequality within society, which open processes do not influence in and of themselves [START_REF] Singh | Establishing public-ness in the network: new moorings for development-a critique of the concepts of openness and open development[END_REF][START_REF] Gurstein | Open data: empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone?[END_REF]. The middle ground is that due to the complexity and flexibility of open processes, a wide spectrum of outcomes occurs. Outcomes are therefore contingent on a variety of contextual factors. Thus, there is a need to differentiate how and why certain development actors, particularly the poorest and most marginalised, may be positively or negatively affected.

Accountability is a concept that can potentially be used to understand and influence whether open processes are having positive development effects. Accountability can be broadly seen as the tools and processes that protect and empower individuals' opportunity to experience freedom [START_REF] Schedler | Conceptualising accountability[END_REF][START_REF] Grant | Accountability and abuses of power in world politics[END_REF][START_REF] Tetlock | Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice[END_REF]. However, what accountability means, and how it operates has not been explored within open development in detail. Much of the discourse on accountability in open development has focused on making use of new technology to hold development actors, such as governments, to account. ICT tools created to collect feedback directly from citizens can change accountability relationships, such that new channels between development aid recipients and the institutions serving them have been created [12]. Governments making public data available for free, hope to deliver greater transparency and accountability towards citizens [START_REF] Murillo | Evaluating the role of online data availability: The case of economic and institutional transparency in sixteen Latin American nations[END_REF][START_REF] Aryan | Fostering government transparency and public participation through linked open government data: Case study: Indonesian public information service[END_REF]. However, the links between accountability and open development are far more pervasive.

Yet, accountability is a contested concept, and there is no set of accountability concepts that apply universally. This paper addresses a gap in the literature by outlining three purposes and three groups of concepts of accountability, through a review of the literature, which seem pertinent to explore further in the area of open development. I provide suggestions regarding the types of concepts and purposes as a means to begin discussions, and to develop a future research agenda in this area.

Comparing Accountability Concepts for Open Development

Accountability, like open development, has also been theorised as both processes and outcomes [START_REF] Ebrahim | Accountability in practice: mechanisms for NGOs[END_REF][START_REF] Frink | Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management[END_REF][START_REF] Brees | Judgments of Responsibility Versus Accountability[END_REF]. I begin by outlining three purposes of accountability, which aid in differentiating potential applications of accountability to open development. These draw out the justification for focusing the conceptual review of accountability according to three themes: relationship-based concepts, practice and actor-based concepts, and normative or tool-based concepts. The subsections go into more detail regarding these themes of accountability concepts, and analyse them for their suitability for open development.

A fundamental debate in accountability literature centres on the role of individuals in governing their own lives [START_REF] Chambers | Whose Reality Counts?: Putting the First Last[END_REF][START_REF] Gaventa | Towards a participatory governance: assessing the transformative possibilities[END_REF]. When people are directly involved in governing aspects of their lives, they are more likely to make choices that suit their own needs [START_REF] Chambers | Whose Reality Counts?: Putting the First Last[END_REF]. However, Cooke and Kothari's [START_REF] Cooke | Participation: the New Tyranny? Zed Books[END_REF] argue that instrumentalising participation has a detrimental effect. This is especially true when people have limited opportunity to make decisions about how and why they contribute and/or benefit. Ebrahim [START_REF] Ebrahim | Accountability in practice: mechanisms for NGOs[END_REF] therefore posited that higher levels of participation, where individuals have full decision-making power and control over their actions constitutes greater accountability. Likewise, when individuals have fewer options to choose how to participate, accountability is weakened. There is a parallel between this proposition and the technical design of open processes, because there are usually no imposed restrictions on who or how people contribute. Thus, the assumption is that individuals have the opportunity to govern how they use and benefit from their participation in open processes. However, in practice, empirical research has demonstrated that poor and marginalised people face many structural barriers that inhibit their participation in open processes [21]. Hence, it is worthwhile to explore additional purposes of accountability for open development.

Alternatively, responsiveness is a form of accountability that considers the perspectives of individuals and groups in need first and foremost [START_REF] Leat | Voluntary Organisations and Accountability[END_REF]. Politicians are presumably re-elected when they listen and respond to the needs of their constituents [23](perhaps a false truth these days!). The same principle holds true for actors and roles across different kinds of institutions. Empirical research has focused on analysing how responsiveness is enacted in private, public and third sector institutions [24][START_REF] Ebrahim | Global Accountabilities[END_REF][START_REF] Peruzzotti | Civil society, representation and accountability: restating current debates on the representativeness and accountability of civic associations[END_REF]. However, open processes can be enacted across institutions, having variable levels of consistency and structure. This characteristic poses a problem to use responsiveness as the primary basis of accountability within open development. For example, a high level of responsiveness might seem realistic for a teacher using or producing open educational resources for one classroom, but once those resources are released for public consumption the teacher might not have close relationships with external users of the content. Likewise, a teacher facilitating a Massive Open Online Course serving thousands of individuals is not likely going to be able to respond to all learners. In this case, it may be necessary to explore both tools and processes for responsiveness. For instance, a survey tool to collect and consolidate feedback could help her to respond to groups of needs. In general, the major concern with responsiveness development is that it fails to differentiate between active and passive actors. Active actors may not be ideally positioned to respond to passive actors. For example, open source software developers might not be in a position to understand the needs of passive users of their software. This implies a need to consider the role of actors and institutions who have obligations towards passive actors.

The last framing of accountability discussed is therefore obligation. Obligation refers to the normative and contractual terms of accountability and potential sanctions [START_REF] Schedler | Conceptualising accountability[END_REF]. This includes legal and regulatory frameworks that outline clear institutional rules and expectations for open development. Obligation also refers to actors' duty, which is contingent on roles, formal and felt responsibilities, identities and relationships [START_REF] Bovens | The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations (Theories of Institutional Design)[END_REF]. For instance, Handlykken [START_REF] Handlykken | Exploring the politics of Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS) in the context of contemporary South Africa; how are open policies implemented in practice? The Journal of Community Informatics 29[END_REF] examined the impact of a government policy to adopt open source software, which has shown little effect in practice. There has also been a wealth of research on opening up government data, and instituting strategies to garner meaningful use of this data [29-31]. In particular, Gigler et al. [12] reported that new citizen feedback channels changed obligations of traditional development actors. Another example, Uber, a ride-sharing platform, came under fire in Pakistan for the corrupt practices of rental car agencies who use the platform to exploit cheap illiterate workers [START_REF]Corruption drives into Uber in Pakistan[END_REF]. However, understanding, shaping and/or regulating the obligations of actors in certain circumstances within open processes is a nascent area. Moreover, in many instances, obligations may not need regulating or shaping, as most open processes may never grow to the scale of Uber or government. Yet, as Forte and Lampe [START_REF] Forte | Defining, Understanding, and Supporting Open Collaboration: Lessons From the Literature[END_REF] argued, open systems tend to have emergent social structures which shape obligations. This can also be problematic for open development when certain groups of people may tend to dominate and render the system highly unequal. This is why there is also a need to contemplate obligations in terms of individual responsibilities, and how people may come to develop obligations towards others and to their role within open processes.

In summary, the table below outlines key concerns according to three accountability purposes in open development. The questions in Table 1 are only meant to help to differentiate how accountability purposes and concerns might change across purposes and types of open processes. Whilst I do not attempt to answer each question specifically in the remainder of this paper due to length requirements and scope of this discussion, these questions framed my engagement with the three themes of accountability concepts in the remainder of the paper. I turn now to explore three groups of accountability concepts for their relevance to understand and influence the relationship between what open development is and what it is for. 3), 4) and 12) Does the production process deliver the required resources at an acceptable quality standard and timeframe?

2.1

Relationship-based Concepts

Relationship-based theories of accountability tend to focus on what actors are owed by those responsible for fulfilling agreed upon commitments. Agency theory focuses on the principal-agent model such that a principal brokers a deal with an agent to deliver an artefact. Actors may have tangential interests than what the principal has asked for, and thus agents have an incentive to avoid accomplishing what was mutually agreed, and or to selectively share or hide information [START_REF] Jensen | Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs, and ownership structure[END_REF][START_REF] Shapiro | Agency Theory[END_REF]. Principals have an incentive to control known problems as a means to protect their brokered deal from known negative influences [START_REF] Jensen | Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs, and ownership structure[END_REF]. This accountability concept is highly transactional in nature because it emphasises conditions imposed on relationships to ensure that each actor is held to account, and that sanctions can be applied when actors do not fulfill their obligations. This concept could be useful to understand how open development works because it assumes that actors are motivated by individual interest. Within open distribution and consumption processes, the underlying premise is that people are free to use resources in ways they see fit, which ignores the underlying interests of open distributors. Agency theory implies that open consumers (agents) have privileged information over their actions with these resources, whilst open distributors (principals) have authority over the provision of them. Principals may seek methods to control how resources are used to suit their own interests. Based on this notion, this theory might aid in researching all three accountability purposes as the interests of authoritative actors may skew participation, responsiveness, and their perceived obligations. A weakness of this theory is that relationships between actors, may be ambiguous, especially when there are many distributors involved. It is best used when there are well-established actors and relationships, as with Murillo's [START_REF] Murillo | Evaluating the role of online data availability: The case of economic and institutional transparency in sixteen Latin American nations[END_REF] application of this theory to open government initiatives in Latin American countries. Similarly, within open production processes, this theory may not be informative for highly decentralised open production processes and communities, especially when membership is in flux. A task-based scale may be the most appropriate application, as this theory might inform on why or why not actors may be motivated to contribute to a specific task.

In contrast, development scholars contextualised the principal-agent model to address the more realistic situation when actors have multiple accountabilities, not only between one principal and an agent [START_REF] Koppell | Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of "multiple accountabilities disorder[END_REF][START_REF] Ebrahim | Towards a reflective accountability in NGOs[END_REF]. The idea is to identify multiple accountabilities across relationships in order to assess how actors prioritise certain accountability relationships over others. These relational concepts of accountability are more focused on determining power asymmetries between the actors, and how power influences the actors' choices to uphold their commitments. Whilst relational concepts of accountability are more realistic in development contexts and processes, as they can identify key pitfalls to watch out for, it is still problematic within cases where the actors are not well-known, or directly related, making it ambiguous to apply. Nevertheless, relational concepts draw attention to the need to recognise multiple relationships and how and why accountabilities are prioritised. These concepts seem to offer significant value for targeted analysis of specific relationships within open processes. However, identifying which relationships to study may be problematic. The next group offers insight into how relevant actors might be targeted.

Practice-or Actor-Based Concepts

The second group of concepts emphasises the contextual and situated nature of accountability. Theories within this group operate on the assumption that accountability is intertwined with its context, and are inseparable from other aspects of purposeful action [START_REF] Frink | Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management[END_REF][START_REF] Roberts | The possibilities of accountability[END_REF]. This means that theorists have focused on practices of accountability in certain settings, like organisations, public or educational institutions.

Examining the practice perspective enables understanding how actors and organisations enact accountability, and the tools and procedures they make use of.

Practice-based perspectives also shed light on the resultant structures and dynamics of accountability, thus dealing with complexity of relationships and multiple accountabilities. However, these concepts do not provide a means for comparing alternatives or understanding whether one way of doing is better than another [START_REF] Weisband | Conclusion: prolegomena to a post-modern public ethics: images of accountability in global frames[END_REF]. Therefore, these concepts are advantageous for understanding how accountability functions in new, under-explored open processes and settings. This perspective is particularly relevant for understanding accountability in new and innovative open processes. For instance, accountability in open production communities, many of which are self-organised and highly decentralised, is likely to be distinct from the institutional contexts mentioned above. Practice-based notions of accountability may also help organisations inform their understanding of how new open methods of working interact with existing practice. For example, many aid institutions have established funding programmes, institutional policies and procedures around the ethos of sharing their knowledge resources in open formats. This brought about new institutional contexts emphasising freedom and inclusion, but may also have knock-on effects in complementary aspects of its development work.

In a similar vein, researchers have also focused on the roles and identities of actors to frame accountability, and how these are constructed in context. Bovens [START_REF] Bovens | The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations (Theories of Institutional Design)[END_REF] argued that actors experience five types of responsibilities which influence their contributions to accountability: 1) hierarchical responsibility (loyalty to superiors); 2) personal responsibility (relating to conscience and personal ethics); 3) social responsibility (relating to social norms and peers); 4) professional responsibility (profession and professional ethics); 5) civic (citizen and civic values). These dimensions seem particularly pertinent to organise an exploratory study of accountability in open processes because of the way that open processes involve multiple actors and contexts. For instance, the tendency to assume that open distribution models, like open government data initiatives, can be replicated and transported across contexts fails to acknowledge how people and institutions are shaped by different values, ethics and obligations. Actor-based concepts highlight the importance of understanding multiple perspectives within open processes. These concepts may also aid in exploring roles and responsibilities of new actors that have entered traditional development practice spheres. However, these concepts likewise have difficulty to establish normative aspects of what actors roles and responsibilities should be.

2.3

Normative or Tool-based Concepts

Normative or tool-based concepts refer to objective standards and processes to oversee and entrench aspects of accountability. It is unlikely that an overarching accountability framework for open development is possible or desirable. Nevertheless, normative or tool-based concepts of accountability could be helpful under many sets of circumstances. To give an explanation of what types of norms or tools are possible, Bendell [START_REF] Bendell | Debating NGO Accountability[END_REF] outlines a list of tools such as legal and policy frameworks, elections, boards of officials, codes of conduct, certifications, ratings, summative reports, monitoring and evaluation, and dialogue and participation. At face value, some of these are more applicable to open development than others. First, elections, boards of officials, codes of conduct and certification imply a highly defined regulatory area because these accountability tools would likely emerge only after a substantial institutional base has been established. Therefore, governments, institutions, networks, communities and services that persist for long periods of time might be the most pertinent to consider for these types of accountability tools. However, as Handlykken's [START_REF] Handlykken | Exploring the politics of Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS) in the context of contemporary South Africa; how are open policies implemented in practice? The Journal of Community Informatics 29[END_REF] discussion of open source policy implementation in South Africa mentioned above notes, policies do not always have the intended effects. Conceptualising accountability as a particular tool or normative framework, nevertheless, does enable greater cross-comparison. This indicates that research incorporating both practice-based and tool-based concepts might be valuable.

The remaining tools from the list, such as monitoring and evaluation, ratings, and dialogue are perhaps of wider significance at the present stage because these tools can be useful to a more heterogeneous group of actors and contexts. The benefit of accountability tools, such as monitoring and evaluation, is that the connections between what open development is and what it is for can be made explicit. For instance, Smith and Seward [START_REF] Smith | Openness as social praxis[END_REF] state that open processes are socially-embedded, but they do not theorise the links between how open processes function and what they achieve. In contrast, Zheng and Stahl's [START_REF] Zheng | Strengthening Information Society Research Capacity Alliance (SIRCA)[END_REF] critical capability approach to open development enables the investigation of open processes in terms of explicit outcomes related to capabilities, human diversity, marginalisation and inclusion. The main issue with monitoring and evaluation is that this tool requires that an actor has the will or obligation to apply it. In contrast, many open production communities are instead quite decentralised and self-organising, implying that formative evaluations may never come to light. An interesting application to note is Sharp's [START_REF] Sharp | [END_REF]open source community heartbeat tool, which tracks and visualises statistics, showing how newcomers are integrated and contributing code. However, these sorts of tools have not been explored in depth, warranting further research on the matter.

Conclusion

Overall, accountability concepts are highly relevant for reducing ambiguities between what open development is, and what it is for. The problem is that there are still ambiguities relating to what accountability is and how and why it can be applied to open development. This conceptual review of three purposes of accountability and three groups of accountability concepts has attempted to clarify matters. In general, there is value in pursuing all three purposes and perspectives of accountability mentioned above for open development in four key ways. First, at this juncture, empirical study is warranted to understand accountability practices across open processes and contexts. Second, exploratory studies may also be used to test specific assumptions regarding the purposes of accountability. Third, deeper understandings of accountability practices may also enable researchers to engage more thoroughly with excluded and neglected populations of open development. Fourth, there is a lack of ideas and evidence relating to accountability tools and norms specific to open development.

Table 1 .

 1 Key Accountability Concerns Across Purposes of Accountability and Open Processes

		Participation	Responsiveness	Obligation
	Open consumption	1) Do people	3) Do resources	5) What are the
	• Using • Revising • Remixing	apply, not only access resources? 2) Can people	respond to needs? 4) Are the needs of actors both directly and	conditions for access to, and facilitation, maintenance and
		choose how to	indirectly	replenishment of
		participate?	involved	resources?
			considered?
	Open distribution	1), 2) and	3), 4) and	6) What roles,
	• Sharing			identities and
	• Republishing	9) Are distribution platforms accessible and	10) Does the distribution platform respond	responsibilities do actors have and experience?
		appropriate?	to user needs and
			usability	7) What social and
			requirements?	political structures
	Open production • Peer production • Crowdsourcing	1), 2) and 11) Do people have		influence behaviours and actions?
		the skills and opportunity to contribute in the ways they see fit?		8) What liabilities and sanctions will actors be subjected to if they do not uphold their
				duties?

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted as part of the Singapore Internet Research Centre's SIRCA III programme and is funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada.


Haemiwan Z Fathony
email: haemiwan.z@ui.ac.id

Bobby A A Nazief
email: nazief@cs.ui.ac.id

A Reflection on IT Implementation Challenges in State Institution: a Case Study on Development Projects at Indonesian Judiciary

Keywords: IT alignment, strategic alignment, resistance, corruption, rational choice, judiciary reform

There are two major challenges in implementing technological solutions as part of institutional reform in development project: the alignment issues with biggernationwideagenda and addressing the resistance inusuallycorrupt environment. This paper aim to provide some reflections on the implementation of information technology to reform the Indonesian judiciaries. Lessons learned from past experiences are provided, as well as a proposal to modify the classic IT-business alignment model and the use of agent based approach to determine the information technology implementation roadmap.

Introduction

The Indonesian judiciary has been implementing various development projects with some information technology related components in the last 10 years. Some notable foreign aid projects that has IT elements are the USAID funded Indonesia Anti-Corruption and Commercial Court Enhancement Project, The Indonesia Threshold Program from the Millennium Challenge Corporation, The Indonesia Australia Legal Development Facility and the Australia Indonesia Partnerships for Justice from the Australian AID, The Change for Justice from USAID, EU-funded Support for Reform of the Justice Sector in Indonesia-managed by the UNDP, and the new USAID funded CEGAH Project.

Despite all of those initiatives and millions of dollars that has been invested in technology modernisation, the improvement on the quality and integrity of public services are still low or marginally improving. However there are some notable improvements in terms of accessibility to court information and better transparency in the court processes and the resulting court decisions as well [2][23].

This paper aim to provide a reflective view on various issues and challenges during the implementation of several information technology solutions to support the institutional reform at the Indonesian Judiciaries. The methodology is interpretive in nature, adopting the reflective writing approach as described by Jasper [START_REF] Jasper | Using reflective writing within research[END_REF], by modifying it in the context of reflective writing for information systems domain. The discussion will be started with quick elaboration taken from reflections of the previous experience, followed by a higher level view in term of strategy to implement the technology. It will be followed by some initial ideas to improve the level of success on the information technology implementation at state institutions, especially to the initiatives that are supported by development projects. The ideas will be refined with some relevant literature reviews, followed by more detailed analysis and elaborations to conclude some possible approaches.

Reflections and Findings

Some of the identified challenges in regards to information technology implementation at Indonesian judiciaries are the IT literacy problems, resistance for change, funding availability as well as lack of the internal technical skill sets [START_REF] Alkostar | Start Simple: Using Technology to Improve Governance, Transparency and Accountability -an Indonesian Court Experience[END_REF][3] [START_REF] Fathony | Developing Relevant Judicial Capabilities: Eefforts to Regain the Confidence --The Indonesia Experience[END_REF]. Looking at the lessons learned from failed implementations in the past, the tactical approach to address the challenges is to start simple and then gradually move into more complex implementation approach [START_REF] Alkostar | Start Simple: Using Technology to Improve Governance, Transparency and Accountability -an Indonesian Court Experience[END_REF].

To address the resistance and the complexity to use the system, the Court deliberately request the user to input the main data only, like case registration number, common case identities (e.g. name of the parties), important processing dates (registration dates, decision dates, etc.), and the judgement itself. Those are kind of data have been used to manage the case administration. Hence it met their need as well as eliminating the issues of having no data to enter. It is also considered as common data that should be available, yet considered as the most traded information [8][9].

The goal is to establish the habit to use the electronic data among the users. The dependencies to use the electronic data will create a point of no return to use the manual process. This approach is aligned with the key principles in the rational choice theory [START_REF] Becker | The Economic Approach to Human Behavior[END_REF]. Providing the tool with minimum data provision efforts is the sweetener that become the most rational options for the users. Gradually the Court increased the threshold to input more data. Currently all important data are required to be entered in the case management system. All court decisions are also need to be uploaded in the central repository, resulting a vast knowledge based for further operational and judicial knowledge development [START_REF] Fathony | Assessing corruption risks in the judiciary: what role for the community?[END_REF] [START_REF] Fathony | Knowledge Management for Legal Education: Expanding the Use of Supreme Court Judgement Directory[END_REF].

The information technology literacy issues is creating resistance (due to the difficulty to use the technology) and alienated feeling among the users. It was threatening for staffs that currently do the manual works. Technology also push and enforce the transparency and accountability of court processes that in the end will make it difficult to conduct the corruptive and manipulative behaviour on the case handling at the courts [START_REF] Reiling | Technology for Justice[END_REF]. This also became another threat for those who tend to get the benefits from it. Those interests are uniting in the resistance of change on the technology at work in the court. This also supported by the fact during information technology implementations, organisations sometime also fail to recognise that employee as the shareholder like to see the return of their personal investment [START_REF] Luftman | Managing The Information Technology Resource: Leadership in the Information Age[END_REF]. Recognising the key actor's interest and providing them with the most rational choice to move forward is the key in the successful IT implementation at the Indonesian judiciary.

The resistance also got coincidence support with the fact that there was lack of the technical personnel. Some implementation failures and the inability of the courts to manage their own information technology facilities became the common reasons to resist. This also commemorates with the fact that the personnel recruitment is mostly focusing on the judicial staffs and general administration positions. Hence this also create the issue of the sustainability of various foreign assistance related with the technological solutions at the state institutions. The situation is not helped with the fact that the foreign assistance projects often not in-sync with the annual state budgeting process as well as some misalignment between the institutions' strategic plan, the governmentwide mid-term development plan, and is not reflected in the annual budget plan.

Those two teething issues: addressing the misalignment and handling resistance are -in author's viewthe two most strategic issues to be addressed in implementing technological solutions at state institutions.

Addressing the Misalignment Issue

To address the misalignment issue, the author proposed a revisit to the classic information technology and business alignment approach as elaborated by Henderson and Venkatraman [START_REF] Henderson | Strategic Alignment-A model for Organizational Transformation Through Information Technology[END_REF]. However the approach needs to be taken into broader context by taking into account the structure of the mid-term planning that provide the underlying strategy for the annual state budget. The adaption could follow the idea on IT-business alignment in multi-business environment [START_REF] Reynolds | Aligning business and IT strategies in multi-business organizations[END_REF]. The proposed approach is using an "anchored alignment" of "stacked" alignment as multi-business alignment model [START_REF] Reynolds | Aligning business and IT strategies in multi-business organizations[END_REF].

In the context of Indonesia, the strategic alignment has been guided and described in the Nation-wide Mid Term Development Plan. The Mid Term Plan act as the anchor point to align the strategic fit and functional integrations between relevant state institutions. The adaptation of the approach is depicted in the Figure 1. The initial model consists of four main elements: business strategy, business infrastructure and processes, information technology strategy and information technology infrastructure and processes. The proposed alignment model is to add the nation-wide strategy into the alignment model. The rationale is that it will not only provide the necessary context for the institutional scope and mandate, but also providing clarity related to the resources and budget allocations as well as distribution of responsibilities among state institutions. The use of alignment measurement approach such as proposed by Luftman [17] could also be used to monitor and evaluate the implementation.

Addressing the Resistance Issue

The second proposal is related with addressing the resistance issue, especially in corrupt environment. There is a strong believe that information technology will improve the organisational performance and address the corruptive behaviour, hence the resistance is expected [3][14][15] [START_REF] Prasad | Understanding the role of technology in reducing corruption: a transaction cost approach[END_REF][21] [START_REF] Wickberg | Technological innovations to identify and reduce corruption[END_REF]. However, the question will be how to conduct the information technology implementation in the corrupt environment?

To address that issue, the author propose the use of agent-based approach to select the most viable implementation path for the given information technology projects. The proposal based on the previously mentioned experience to use the rational choice theory [START_REF] Becker | The Economic Approach to Human Behavior[END_REF]. The agent based model could be used to address the issue of information asymmetry in the market of lemon [START_REF] Akerlof | The Market for 'Lemons': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism[END_REF]. The goal is to drive the implementation toward sets of equilibrium condition as defined the Nash's equilibrium theory [START_REF] Nash | Non-Cooperative Games[END_REF]. It is also related with the use of game theory to determine the rational economics behaviour [START_REF] Neumann | Theory of Games and Economic Behavior[END_REF].

The corrupt actors are basically working due to the information asymmetry. The use of agent-based model will help to address the dynamics and changes of the information and interests. The use of agent-based approach to address the corruption issues itself has been elaborated in various papers [START_REF] Bockova | Game Theory as Tool of Project Management[END_REF] [6] [7] [START_REF] Hammond | Endogenous Transition Dynamics in Corruption: An Agent-Based Computer Model[END_REF] [22] [START_REF] Voinea | Briberyscape: an Artificial Society-Based Simulation Model of Corruption's Emergence and Growth[END_REF].

The illustrative implementation of the agent based approach could be depicted in simple four-by-four Nash Equilibrium matrix. There are four options: win-win, winlose, lose-win, and lose-lose. The rational choice theory and previous agent-based simulations suggest that any (corrupt) agent will seek a condition where at least there is a win. The determination of the win situation is largely determined by the information received by those agent. By playing with the asymmetry of information and multiple matrices, we could develop a viable implementation roadmap for corrupt environment.

Concluding Remarks and Way Forward

The adoption of strategic alignment model [START_REF] Henderson | Strategic Alignment-A model for Organizational Transformation Through Information Technology[END_REF] may provide the framework to address the alignment issues in public sector IT implementation, especially those funded by donor projects that has limited constraints and time frame to support. It is also possible to use the game theory approach to determine the most viable path for information technology implementation roadmap. It may help to address the resistance issues, since technology has its potential to address the corrupt behaviour.

One further potential research is about IT-business alignment not only within the organisation of the Indonesian judiciary but also within the framework of national strategy in reforming the law enforcement agencies. The high-level alignment is already established at the strategic level as elaborated in the Medium Term Development Plan. However it needs further elaboration related with the implementation of the technology itself. The theoretical framework could modify the IT-business alignment issues in multi-business organisations [START_REF] Reynolds | Aligning business and IT strategies in multi-business organizations[END_REF], since the organisation of the government and state institutions itself is a "multi-business" in nature.

The second potential research is developing or simulating the agent based behaviour based on sets of possible game and equilibrium situations. The agents are the actors involved and have interests in the technology implementation. It is not only the users or the organisations, but also the funding institutions or donor projects as mentioned in the beginning of the articles. International development projects have limited time frame and relatively tight constraints to implement the reform. Fostering the change by engineering the possible rational choice in corrupt and resistance environment has deliver the successful results in the past [START_REF] Alkostar | Start Simple: Using Technology to Improve Governance, Transparency and Accountability -an Indonesian Court Experience[END_REF]. The establishment of certain agent-based interaction models will help further projects to learn and establish the environment to achieve successful IT implementations.

Further researches on those two topics and reflection reports on various challenges in implementing technological solutions in corrupt state institutions will enrich the discussion and may trigger the development of practical framework on information technology implementation in misaligned and corrupt environment.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Proposed IT -Business Alignment for State Institutions; adapted from the model as proposed by Henderson and Venkatraman[START_REF] Henderson | Strategic Alignment-A model for Organizational Transformation Through Information Technology[END_REF]

Corresponding author. The author was former Deputy Coordinator at the Judicial Reform Team Office, Supreme Court Republic of Indonesia, that is responsible to oversee various reform initiatives including technology modernisation and process reengineering at the Indonesian judiciaries. This paper is a reflection of the experience during his tenure (2010 -2014).