The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm

Technological
E-government and technological innovation in
innovation in Turkey Turkey
Case studies on governmental organizations
37
Ibrahim Arpaci
Department of Information Systems, Informatics Institute, Received 21 August 2009
Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey Revised 8 November 2009,
7 December 2009
Accepted 8 December 2009
Abstract
Purpose The main purpose of this paper is to identify the technological innovation process,
stakeholders of the process, sources of innovation, driving forces of innovation, and obstacles of
innovation for the Turkish public sector.
Design/methodology/approach In this paper, interviews are used as data-collection methods.
For the purpose of this paper, the researcher has conducted a series of semi-structured or open
interviews. The interviews are recorded and transcribed. In addition, information related to the
technological-innovation projects performed in the public organizations is collected from documents,
books, and governmental reports. A total of 20 organizations have been conducted to participate in the
study; however, only 14 of them are retained after consideration of the selection criteria. In addition,
28 e-government projects that lead innovation are analyzed.
Findings Results of the study show that external relations with stakeholders enhance the innovation
process. Innovation emerges as a result of interaction between the stakeholders. Innovation process
has four main stages and six steps. Stages of the innovation process are idea generation, project
development, production, and innovation. Six steps of the innovation process are idea, project study,
project approval, project implementation, new services, and innovation. Innovation starts with idea
generation in the first stage. New ideas can be generated by the personnel of the organization, legislation,
citizens, and other firms. After idea generation, the new ideas should be conceptualized projects in order
to reach innovation. Innovation cannot be achieved due to some obstacles. The main obstacles in the
public sector can be listed as legislation, lack of qualified staff, approval authority, and bureaucracy.
Production as the third stage can only start after overcoming the mentioned obstacles. Project
implementation is performed in the fourth step and a new service is acquired in the fifth step. Innovation
is the last stage of the technological innovation process where diffusion of the new service is performed
in order to innovate in the organization.
Originality/value The significant findings of this paper may help managers for long-term
planning of innovation activities and they may pave the way of managers for their innovation projects
by means of determining unclear innovation process and identifying the inputs and outputs of the
process. Moreover, this paper is a guide for the managers in public organizations; finding out possible
obstacles, identifying driving forces to accelerate the innovation process, emphasizing the importance
of interaction between the stakeholders.
Keywords Government, Innovation, Public sector organizations, Turkey, Internet,
Communication technologies
Paper type Research paper

Introduction Transforming Government: People,

The use of information technology (IT) has assisted the business practices of the Process and Policy
Vol. 4 No. 1, 2010
organizations and has caused them to transform the way they operate their businesses pp. 37-53
and deliver services to customers (Vathanophas et al., 2008). The most recent example q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6166
of IT use in the organization is the internet (Ho, 2002). Internet diffusion among citizens in DOI 10.1108/17506161011028795
TG the world is steadily increasing. The highest increase rate in internet users among the
4,1 world regions was observed in North America with 74.2 percent of the population
(approximately 253 million Americans). While developed countries have exploited the
power of the internet to successfully enable public services, developing countries have
been comparatively slow in developing successful e-government strategies (Stoltzfus,
2004; Weerakkody et al., 2007). As a developing country, in Turkey, the rate of internet
38 users was 34.5 percent of the population in 2009 and e-readiness ranking of Turkey was
43 with the 5.64 e-readiness score among 70 countries in 2008 (Arpac and Arifoglu, 2009).
The increase in internet usage has transformed society and provided various benefits
for citizens and organizations (Lekprayoon, 2004). In addition to an increase in use,
satisfaction with internet initiatives is also increasing. According to Carter (2008), those
who interact with government agencies online are more satisfied with their electronic
services every year. Significant increase in diffusion of internet and high level of citizen
satisfaction with e-government services directed the e-government initiatives to use IT,
particularly the internet for public administration, government process transformation,
organizational transparency, and public communication (Vathanophas et al., 2008).
Given the fact that the public sector is often classified as bureaucratic, inefficient, and
less-technology savvy (Irani et al., 2007; Kamal and Alsudairi, 2009), e-government can
be considered as a revolution that was waiting to happen, particularly in a developing
country context. Given this context, e-government has the potential to radically change
public sector agencies and offer many benefits that were previously not envisaged
(Irani et al., 2008).
Curtin et al. (2004) define e-government as the use of any and all forms of information
and communications technology (ICT) by governments and their agents to enhance
operations, the delivery of public information and services, citizen engagement and
public participation, and the very process of governance. E-government can be seen as a
lever for modernization. It is particularly seen as a lever for process change amongst
government administrations with significant potential for performance improvement in
the public sector. The definition also includes consideration of interaction with external
agents particularly through the use of ICT to enable and enhance democratic
participation (Davies, 2007).
According to Lee et al. (2008), e-government is the process of delivering information
and services to citizens, business, and public administration electronically by the
government. This process can play a significant role, not only in improving services to
customers, developing businesses, the economy, and society but also in renewing the
role of government itself. Abie et al. (2004) claim that e-government could be considered a
powerful tool that can effectively manage and integrate the huge amount of existing
information, as well as seamlessly integrating citizen interaction with its services.
Lee et al. (2008) claim that there are two primary aspects to the benefits of
e-government. The first is the transformation of government operations to met needs of
citizens and businesses and help government through reducing operational costs via
increasing the efficiency of internal operations. The second aspect is the transformation
of governance positively affecting the relationship between citizens and governments
through improving the interactivity between government and citizens and making it
smoother, faster, and more responsive.
Successful implementation of e-government will ensure improvement in processes
within government agencies, which will result in increased efficiency and better
management and delivery of public services (Irani et al., 2008). The government expects Technological
that e-government implementation will lead to a more flexible and effective government. innovation in
Near the challenges of e-government such as security concerns and privacy, there are vital
functions of e-government including easy access to government information and services, Turkey
service integration, citizen participation (Pardo, 2002), increased efficiency, strengthening
of democracy, enhanced openness and transparency in government operations and better
and more versatile services to citizens and businesses (Flak et al., 2009; Irani et al., 2007). 39
The main objective of the Virtual Institute for Electronic Government (e-government)
Research (VIEGO) project was to identify key areas for future e-government research
(Irani and Elliman, 2007). The project VIEGO suggests that local government needs the
knowledge to manage constant change and create flexible systems that can adapt with
demand. Based on key findings of this project, Orange et al. (2007) have developed
a conceptual action-oriented innovation model by integrating Tidd et al.s (2005)
iterative innovation process, Rogerss (1995) innovation diffusion model, and the typical
action research cycle. The aim of this conceptual model of innovation was that providing
local government a guide for implementing an innovation process that brings about
transformation and also provides a framework for the collection of innovation data in the
public sector.
Orange et al. (2007) acknowledge that neither of these models has yet been put to the test
in a practical scenario. There is a need to investigate the actions involved in successful
local government innovation projects. They recommend analyzing innovation projects
pointing out the importance of empirical findings. This study aims to address this
gap analyzing technological-innovation projects performed by public organizations. In
Turkey, ministries and large central government agencies such as State Planning
Organization (SPO) and Small and Medium Industry Development Organization (SMIDO)
have been subject to considerable computerization, many IT-driven innovation projects
have been performed.
The study aims to address the question: what are the processes of the e-government
projects and what are the stakeholders, sources, barriers, and drivers? According to
Hanna (2007), value comes from changes in behavior, process, and organization enabled
by technology. In order to manage innovation and change, it is important to understand
the governmental process (Tony Yu, 2008). The value of this paper lies in its contribution
to management of e-government projects identifying the innovation process and its
components.
In order to achieve the aforementioned aim, the paper is structured as follows. The
next section presents the detailed rationale for the research methodology and describes
the research process utilized in the research. The third section covers the inquiry
findings from interviewing the public organizations and data analysis results. The
fourth section discusses findings of the study. The fifth section presents the conclusion
reached based upon this study, recommendations for further research and limitations
of the study.

Methodology
Case study is one of the major research strategies:
Case study is an empirical inquiry which investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its
real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not
clearly evident, and in which multiple sources of evidence are used (Yin, 1984).
TG The case study method is best applied when research addresses descriptive or
4,1 explanatory questions and aims to produce a first-hand understanding of people and
events. The distinctive topics for applying the case study method arise from at least two
situations. First and the most important, the case study method is appropriate when your
research addresses either a descriptive question or an explanatory question. Second, you
may want to illuminate a particular situation, to get a close understanding of it. The case
40 study method helps you to make direct observations and collect data in natural settings
(Bromley, 1986).
The purpose of this study was to identify innovation process, stakeholders of the
process, sources of innovation, driving forces of innovation, and obstacles in front of the
innovation in the public organizations. Considering that, the case study emerges as one of
the best research approaches to cover the purpose of this study. First, this study is queried
using how and why questions to find out the processes of the technological innovation.
Second, researcher can exercise little control on the events through the research, and
finally, this research focuses on contemporary events.
According to Yin (1984), case studies can be classified into three categories: the
exploratory, the descriptive and the explanatory. The research questions framed as
who, what, where, how, and why determine the relevant strategy to be used. In
the current study, the nature of the questions leads to an explanatory-exploratory case
study. The unit of analysis in a case study could be an individual, a community, an
organization, a nation-state, an empire, or a civilization. The current study used the case
study organization as the unit of analysis.

Research process
Figure 1 shows the research process and stages that are adopted for this study. It
illustrates the progress of the study from identification of the research problem to
identifying technological innovation process, stakeholders of the process, sources of
innovation, barriers of innovation, and driving forces of innovation for the public
organizations in Turkey.
Literature review provided a comprehensive review of relevant academic literature
related to innovation and e-government. Literature review helped to build a conceptual
framework and obtained information is used to identify the gap in the field before setting
the research questions. A pilot study is conducted in the Ministry of National Education
to test accuracy of the research questions. The results of the pilot study indicate that the
research questions are suitable and correct to meet aim of the study. Following research
questions that constitute the basis of this research were prepared to guide data
collection; findings and results were derived from the collected data:
RQ1. What are the technological-innovation projects that are performed by the
organization?
RQ2. What are the stages and processes of the technological-innovation projects?
RQ3. Who are the stakeholders of technological innovation process?
RQ4. What are the sources of new ideas and innovation?
RQ5. What are the obstacles in front of the innovation?
RQ6. What are the drivers of innovation?
 Start Technological
innovation in
Identify research problem
Turkey

Literature review to identify the

41
gap and motivation

Setting the research questions

Testing accuracy of the research

Case and interviewee selection questions performing a pilot study in
the Ministry of National Education

Interview the CIO of the selected

public organizations in Turkey

Identify technological innovation

process, stakeholders of the
process, sources of innovation,
Analyze collected data
barriers of innovation and
driving forces of innovation for the
public organizations in Turkey Figure 1.
The research process
End

A total of 20 organizations have been conducted to participate in the study, however

only 14 of them were retained after consideration of the following criteria. In addition,
28 technological-innovation projects were examined. A total of 15 ministries, two
governmental organizations (SMIDO and SPO), one non-governmental organization
(NGO) (Technology Development Foundation of Turkey), and two private firms
(METU-Technopolis and Technopolis Group) that are project partners of the public
organizations were analyzed. The selection criteria for the organizations and projects
are:
.
The cases are public organizations located in Turkey.
. Case study projects must contain a technological change at least for the organization.
.
Case study projects must contain an economic or social value.
Research questions that meet objectives of the study were answered by top level IT
managers during the research. A total of 21 managers were interviewed during the
study. The selection criteria for the interviewees are:
TG .
They hold executive positions in the public organization.
4,1 .
They have experience in strategic management at business or technology level.
. They are willing to allocate minimum of 45 minutes to discuss the matter.

The interview process methodology was as follows:

.
The interview procedure was initiated by a telephone call or e-mail. The
42 interview reason and purpose of the research were discussed, the time and place
for the interview is set.
.
Interviews were performed face to face in the interviewees office when the time
comes. The interview was initiated with a short explanation of the topic. The
interview was semi-structured; questions were pre-planned. All of the questions
were asked to the interviewee.
.
The researcher throughout the conversation recorded the interview. The
interviewee was aware of this.
.
The interview time range was from 45 minutes to two hours. Only in one case, a
follow up meeting was arranged to complete the interview.
A total of 28 e-government projects that lead innovation in the public services are
examined in the study. Table I illustrates examined technological-innovation projects
that are performed by the public organizations.

Results
Using the data obtained through the data collection, data sets are produced and
presented in the tables. The findings enabled to accomplish objectives of the study.

Organization Projects

METU-Technopolis, Ankara Chamber of Innovation Relay Center Anatolia, Business Support

Industry, and SMIDO Network Anatolia
Ministry of National Education ILSIS and E-School
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement Remote Sensing and Geographical Information Systems
Project, Land Registry and Cadastre Information System,
and Disaster Information System
Ministry of Finance Finance SGB.Net Project and Strategic Management
Project
SPO E-Transformation Turkey Project
Ministry of Transport Land Automation Project and National Transport Portal
Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources ENEBIS and Ministry of Energy Portal
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Farmer Registry System
The Ministry of Industry and Commerce Electronic Commerce Project and SME Information
Collection Project
SMIDO KOBI-NET Project and KOSGEB MIS
Ministry of Health Health-NET Project and TELETIP
Ministry of Culture and Tourism Turkey Tourism Portal and Turkey Culture Portal
Ministry of Justice Better Access to Justice and National Judiciary
Informatics System
Table I. Ministry of Labour and Social Security Worker Entry and Exit Declaration Project, Work
E-government projects Inspection Project, and Zone Automation Project
At the end of the study, innovation process in the public sector, stakeholders of the Technological
process, sources of innovation, obstacles to innovation, and driving forces of innovation innovation in
were identified. Table II illustrates results that are obtained after the analysis of
retrieved data. In the table, percentage shows frequency of the related item. Turkey
According to the results of the study external relations with stakeholders enhance
the innovation process. Innovation emerges as a result of interaction between the
stakeholders. Innovation process in the public organizations consists of four stages and 43
six steps. Stages of the innovation process are idea generation, project development,
production, and innovation. Six steps of the innovation process are idea, project study,
project approval, project implementation, new services, and innovation.
Innovation starts with idea generation in the first stage. New ideas can be generated
by the personnel of the organization, legislation, citizens and other firms. After idea
generation, the new ideas should be transformed into projects in order to reach innovation.

Innovation process (%)

1. Idea generation 100
2. Project study 100
3. Project approval 100
4. Project implementation 100
5. New services 100
6. Innovation 100
Driving forces of innovation
Policies favorable to innovation
Public demand, difficulties and delays on the services
Cost savings
Turkish information society strategy studies realized by SPO
Establishment of the strategy development units
Performance-based budget studies
Improvement in standardization in the public services
Increasing collaboration between private sector, universities, public sector, and NGOs
Policies favorable to innovation
Obstacles to innovation (%)
Bureaucracy 100
Approval authority 92.8
Legislation 92.8
Lack of qualified staff 71.4
Work environment 35.7
Financial constraints 35.7
Management hierarchy 21.4
Low wages policy 14.2
Government program 7.14
Sources of innovation (%)
Personnel 78.5
Legislation 64.2
Other firms 14.2
Citizens 14.2
Stakeholders (%)
Public sector 92.8
Private sector 92.8
University 57.1 Table II.
NGOs 28.5 Results of the analysis
TG Most of the time, because of some obstacles innovation cannot be achieved. The main
4,1 obstacles in front of the innovation in the public sector found as: bureaucracy, approval
authority, legislation, and lack of qualified staff. Production as a third stage can only start
after overcoming the mentioned obstacles. Project implementation is performed in fourth
step and a new service is acquired in the fifth step. Innovation is the last stage of the
technological innovation process. In this stage, diffusion of the new service is performed in
44 order to innovate in the organization. Innovation includes not only the development but
also the diffusion of the new services. From the perspective of innovation systems, it is not
just the development of new service that is important, as the accessibility of new service is
also of interest (Doloreux, 2006).
The research study evidences that public and private organizations were participated
almost all of the innovation projects. On the other hand, NGOs and universities were
participated less-innovation projects. Stakeholders of the innovation process in public
organizations are: public organizations, private organizations, NGOs, and universities.
The results of this study show that sources of innovation are; personnel, legislation,
citizens and other firms. Most of the new ideas for innovation arise from personnel
and legislation. Nevertheless, some of them are arise from citizens and other firms.
Legislation, lack of qualified staff, approval authority, and bureaucracy are the most
suffered obstacles in front of the innovation in the public organizations.

Discussion
In the era of information that we are in, improvements in the internet-based applications,
acceptance of electronic signature law, and widespread usage of electronic commerce
transported all of the business processes on a technology-based environment. In this
speedily changing environment, innovation takes an important place and it becomes
obligatory to make innovation to adapt the fast-changing environment. Innovation is
all-important for public sector as much as private sector. Technology and innovation are
key drivers of increased growth performance and competitive advantage. Besides,
innovation is the driving force of the economic development.
This study perceives innovation as a process. Many scientists defined innovation
as a process (Hargadon and Sutton, 2000; Buggie, 2001). Nelson and Winter (1978) suggest
that, innovation as driven by competition can be viewed as a process. Rothwell (1994)
claims that it is a process that may successfully attain innovation and hence future
organizational growth consisting stages such as: strategy development, ideation, evaluation,
and implementation. Fraser et al. (2005) defined innovation as an increasingly distributed
process, involving development webs of multiple, players and modular production networks
with a variety of possible, and dynamic value chain configurations. Thus, viewing
innovation as a process provides a systematic model and process of how innovation can be
realized.
Storey (2000) sees the idea of innovation as a planned, rational process. This meant that
managing it entailed a series of stages with each culminating in a phase or stage review.
Typical phases were: idea conception, specification of product, planning the project,
prototyping and so on, through to final review. This type of understanding of the process
of innovation and its management is closely allied to the idea of product life cycles.
A total of 20 organizations were conducted to the study and innovation processes that
show how innovation is realized in the organization were investigated. The analysis
results demonstrate that, in order to reach innovation all of the public organizations
follow six identical steps: new idea generation, project study (project plan, feasibility Technological
study, and documentation), project approval, project implementation, new services, and innovation in
innovation.
Findings indicate that, innovation initiates with new idea generation. Wolfe (1994) Turkey
claims that innovation process research focuses on the analysis of ordered steps
involving the formation, redesign, and implementation of new ideas. And Nonaka (1994)
confirms that knowledge creation and innovation take place inside new product 45
development projects. According to Zaltman et al. (1984), innovation process starts with
the generation of initial idea leading to the development of a new product or service. In
addition, Storey (2000) argues that innovation comes first and foremost from the ideas of
individuals and from the way in which the ideas are captured.
Project study is the second steps of the innovation process. After idea generation,
new ideas are selected to transform new projects. Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1986) see
the idea development and idea-selection stages as the fuzzy front end of new product
development. And deficiencies in idea development and idea selection are dominant factors
explaining innovation failure (Khurana and Rosenthal, 1998). The idea development and
idea-selection phase is a fundamental stage of the overall innovation process because
it represents the initial impulse for further innovation activities (Birkinshaw, 2000).
After project implementation, new services enliven in the organization. After this step,
the last step comes named as Innovation. Diffusion and adoption of the new services are
realized in the last step. Innovation process includes not only the development but also the
diffusion of new services. Since successful innovation requires changes in organizational
processes and conversion of an idea into a new service that is designed, manufactured, and
adopted by users (Verloop, 2004).
Findings indicate that, stakeholders of the technological innovation process are:
universities, private organizations, NGOs, and public organizations. And an innovation
may emerge from one or more stakeholders or linkages between them. According
to Doloreux (2004), innovation system is viewed as a set of interacting private firms,
public authorities, research organizations, and other bodies that function according to
organizational and institutional arrangements and relationships that are conducive to
the generation, use, and dissemination of knowledge. In this context, there are multitudes
of actors involved in the innovation process. The main partners for innovation activities
are; other firms, universities, technical colleges, technology transfer organizations,
government agencies, and financial organizations.
Inganas et al. (2007) investigated new energy technologies in their research study and
identified a number of stakeholders; research institutes, technology providers, energy
companies, investors, and policy makers. According to them, an intensive interaction
between technology providers, power companies, and research institutes is highly
important for the successful transfer of new energy technologies from research institutes
to the industry.
According to results of the study stakeholders are significant part of innovation process.
External relations with stakeholders enhance the innovation process. Innovation emerges as a
result of interaction between the stakeholders. Doloreux (2006) confirms these ideas declaring,
innovation is a process by paying attention not only to different stages of evolutionary
development, but also to certain types of institutional arrangements, organizational forms, and
configurations of relationships among organizations that are all related to the provision of
knowledge, finance, and other inputs to innovating firms. Many studies in innovation stress
TG the importance of external linkages and processes at all points along the technology transfer
4,1 pathway (Tidd et al., 1997). Innovation is seen increasingly as a multi-firm networking process
involving close collaboration between companies and a consequent linking of technology-push
and market-pull factors (Rothwell, 1992). There is also a presumption that collaboration
between universities and SMEs is desirable (Hadjimanolis, 2006).
Several research studies have found that collaborations are an important instrument to
46 acquire know-how and to learn new skills that reside within other organizations (George
et al., 2002; Soh, 2003; Santoro and Gopalakrishnan, 2000). Hagedoorn and Schakenraad
(1994) found a direct positive relationship between technological alliances and innovation
rates.
According to findings, 92.8 percent of the public organizations collaborate with other
public organizations and firms for their innovation projects. Lundvall (1999) claims that,
public sector R&D can be an important complement to R&D carried out in the private
sector. The position taken in many nations and regions is that the role of public sector
R&D is an important component of a regional or national innovation system (Fujisue,
1998).
According to findings, 57.1 percent of the public organizations collaborate with
universities and 28.5 percent of them collaborate with NGOs for their innovation projects.
This results show that, universities have important role in the innovation process. Storper
(1995) sees universities as a source of new technology, entrepreneurial talent and untraded
interdependencies. Now, universities are viewed as drivers of economic growth, both in
a regional, as well as, in a national context (Agrawal, 2001). Most studies focus on the
motivation of the university to collaborate with private firms and public organizations, the
mechanisms and the outcomes of such collaboration (Santoro and Saparito, 2003; Valentin
and Sanchez, 2002). In such a mutual collaboration, universities profit from interaction
by gaining access to funding and industrial technical expertise, organizations view
universities as a source of new technologies (Santoro and Gopalakrishnan, 2000).
According to results of the study, there are four major sources of innovation in the public
sector; personnel, legislation, other firms, and citizens. New ideas that lead innovations can be
generated by personnel, legislation, other firms, and citizens. Many scientists consider that
knowledge and knowledge creation are key resources for innovation (Grant, 1996; Kogut and
Zander, 1992; Spender, 1996; Teece, 1998). According to Tushman and Nadler (1986), the vast
majority of successful innovations are based on the cumulative effect of incremental change in
ideas. Minshall et al. (2007) claim that the source of external ideas may include customers,
suppliers, joint venture partners, universities, publicly funded research institutes, and start-up
firms.
Results show that 78.5 percent of the new ideas was generated by personnel who think
about how to serve better and how to ease business processes. Savory (2006) claims that
innovations are often rooted in formal research projects but can also result from ideas,
inventions, and process changes produced by employees in the course of their work.
Griffin et al. (2009) claim that, innovative persons use an innovation process that
emphasizes the up-front aspects of finding interesting problems, planning first before
executing, and understanding customer needs in great detail. This allows them to
generate insights into how to solve those problems profitably for the firm. Once they
have obtained and validated their insights for solving the problem, they participate in
the actual implementation of the concept to a new product.
 According to results 64.2 percent of the new ideas was arise from legislation to force Technological
organizations to make innovation. And 14.2 percent of the new ideas were generated by innovation in
other firms and citizens. Ulwick (2002) pointed out that companies should not expect
solutions to be offered by potential customers; rather, they should ask them about the Turkey
desired products characteristics. Christensen (1997) stated that customers may emphasize
the products functionality to too great a degree.
According to results of the study there are nine potential obstacles in the public sector 47
in front of the innovation: legislation, lack of qualified staff, approval authority, low wages
policy, bureaucracy, management hierarchy, work environment, government program,
and financial constraints. Results show that, the most suffered obstacles in front of
innovation are: bureaucracy (100 percent), approval authority (92.8 percent), legislation
(92.8 percent), and lack of qualified staff (71.4 percent).
Hadjimanolis (2006) has reported similar results in his case study research; structural
barriers and bureaucracy were identified as most suffered barriers of innovation
in an organization. In another study, Storey (2000) orders the key identified problems
of the management of innovation as: the stifling effects of bureaucracy in established
organizations, a learned incapacity in previously successful organizations, the effects of
organizational politics, failings in institutional leadership, and doubts about leader
priorities and commitment.
In his research, van de Ven (1986) identifies four fundamental problems of innovation
faced by established firms; the human problem of focusing organizational members
attention on the desired innovation, the process problem of realizing value from the new
idea, the structural problem of part-whole relationships, and the strategic problem of
institutional leadership. Hollins (2000) identified in his research in which more than
eighty organizations were participated; lack of qualified staff within organizations and
financial restrictions are the most common obstacles in front of innovation.
In the study, driving forces of innovation in the public sector was detected as:
policies favorable to innovation, public demand, difficulties and delays on the services,
cost savings, Turkish information society strategy studies realized by SPO, establishment
of the strategy development units, performance-based budget studies, improvement
in standardization in the public services, and increasing collaboration between private
sector, universities, public sector and NGOs. According to de Bruijn and Lagendijk (2005),
collaboration and alliances are the main significant drivers of innovation. According
to Kusiak (2007), R&D and marketing inputs (customer need, market trends, and
competitors movements) are the most important driving forces of innovation within any
organization.

Conclusion
In this paper, innovation process in public organizations and components of this process
are identified. This paper is built on an analysis of the selected public organizations and
e-government projects. Key findings of the study are:
.
Innovation process in the public organizations consists of four stages and six
steps.
.
Stages of the innovation process are idea generation, project development,
production, and innovation.
. Six steps of the innovation process are: idea, project study, project approval,
project implementation, new services, and innovation.
TG .
Stakeholders of the innovation process are: universities, private organizations,
4,1 NGOs, and public organizations.
.
There are four major sources of innovation in the public sector: personnel,
legislation, other firms, and citizens.
.
There are nine potential obstacles in the public sector in front of the innovation:
legislation, lack of qualified staff, approval authority, low wages policy, bureaucracy,
48 management hierarchy, work environment, government program, and financial
constraints.
.
The most suffered obstacles in front of innovation are: bureaucracy (100 percent),
approval authority (92.8 percent), legislation (92.8 percent), and lack of qualified
staff (71.4 percent).
.
Drivers of innovation in the public sector are: policies favorable to innovation, public
demand, difficulties and delays on the services, cost savings, Turkish information
society strategy studies realized by SPO, establishment of the strategy development
units, performance-based budget studies, improvement in standardization in the
public services, and increasing collaboration between private sector, universities,
public sector, and NGOs.

Limitations
The following limitations are relevant to the study:
.
The number of organizations participated in this study is limited.
.
Validity of the study is limited to the reliability of the instruments used in this
study.
.
Validity is limited to the honesty of the subjects responses to the instruments
used in this study.
.
This study is limited to strategically important public organizations in Turkey.
.
The sample size in this study is limited to the public organizations that perform
technological-innovation projects.

Future research
This paper represents a preliminary study for innovation management in public
organizations. Considerable results are acquired through the study. Important future
works are emerged based on these results. In my estimation, this area is a very fruitful
area for future research. Further research would be useful to develop a policy including
applicable solutions for barriers of innovation identified in this research study. In
addition, future research would be useful to develop metrics to evaluate the productivity
of innovation projects in the public organizations. It is strongly recommended to develop
and run an innovation network for public organizations and to develop an innovation
maturity model to evaluate innovation maturity level of organizations.

References
Abie, H., Foyn, B., Bing, J., Blobel, B., Pharow, P., Delgado, J., Krnouskos, S., Pitkanen, O. and
Tzovaras, D. (2004), The need for a digital rights management framework for the next
generation of eGovernment services, Electronic Government, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 8-28.
Agrawal, A. (2001), University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and Technological
unanswered questions, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 285-302. innovation in
Arpac, I. and Arifoglu, A. (2009), E-transformation and technological innovation in Turkey, Turkey
Proceedings of the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, July
13-14, Izmir, Turkey.
Birkinshaw, J. (2000), Entrepreneurship in the Global Firm, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. 49
Bromley, D.B. (1986), Case-Study Method in Psychology and Related Disciplines, Wiley,
Chichester.
Buggie, F. (2001), The four phases of innovation, The Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 36-43.
Carter, L. (2008), E-government diffusion: a comparison of adoption constructs, Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 147-61.
Christensen, C. (1997), Innovators Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1986), Benchmarking the firms critical success factors in
new product development, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 3, pp. 71-85.
Curtin, G.C., Sommer, M.H. and Vis-Sommer, V. (2004), The World of E-Government, Haworth
Press, Binghamton, NY.
Davies, P. (2007), Models for e-government, Transforming Government People Process and
Policy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-28.
de Bruijn, P. and Lagendijk, A. (2005), The regional innovation systems in the Lisbon strategy,
European Planning Studies, Vol. 13 No. 8, pp. 1153-72.
Doloreux, D. (2004), Regional innovation systems in Canada: a comparative study, Regional
Studies, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 479-92.
Doloreux, D. (2006), Understanding regional innovation in the maritime industry: an empirical
analysis, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 189-207.
Flak, L.S., Dertz, W., Jansen, A., Krogstie, J., Spjelkavik, I. and lnes, S. (2009), What is the value
of eGovernment and how can we actually realize it?, Transforming Government: People,
Process and Policy, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 220-6.
Fraser, P., Minshall, T.H.W. and Probert, D. (2005), The distributed innovation paradigm:
evolution and dynamics, paper presented at 6th International CINet Conference
Continuous Innovation (Ways of) Making Things Happen, Brighton, September 4-7.
Fujisue, K. (1998), Promotion of academia-industry cooperation in Japan: establishing the law of
promoting technology transfer from university to industry in Japan, Technovation,
Vol. 18 Nos 6/7, pp. 371-81.
George, G., Zahra, S.A. and Wood, R.D. (2002), The effects of business-university alliances on
innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology
companies, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 577-609.
Grant, R.M. (1996), Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 109-22.
Griffin, A., Price, R.L., Maloney, M.M., Vojak, B.A. and Sim, E.W. (2009), Voices from the field:
how exceptional electronic industrial innovators innovate, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 26, pp. 222-40.
TG Hadjimanolis, A. (2006), A case study of SME-university research collaboration in the context of
a small peripheral country (Cyprus), International Journal of Innovation Management,
4,1 Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 65-88.
Hagedoorn, J. and Schakenraad, J. (1994), The effect of strategic technology alliances on
company performance, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 291-309.
Hanna, N.K. (2007), E-Leadership Institutions for the Knowledge Economy, The World Bank,
50 Washington, DC.
Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. (2000), Building and innovation factory, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 157-70.
Ho, A.T. (2002), Reinventing local governments and the egovernment initiative, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 434-44.
Hollins, B. (2000), Why the resistance to long-term innovation management?, International
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 135-48.
Inganas, M., Harder, M. and Marxt, C. (2007), Measuring the science-to-market gap the case of
new energy technologies, International Journal of Innovation and Technology
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 457-78.
Irani, Z. and Elliman, T. (2007), Electronic transformation of government in the UK: a research
agenda, Project VIEGO Report, Brunel University, London.
Irani, Z., Elliman, T. and Jackson, P. (2007), Electronic government in the UK, European Journal
of Information Systems, Vol. 16, pp. 327-35.
Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D. and Jones, S. (2008), Learning lessons from evaluating eGovernment:
reflective case experiences that support transformational government, The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 155-64.
Kamal, M.M. and Alsudairi, M. (2009), Investigating the importance of factors influencing
integration technologies adoption in local government authorities, Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 302-31.
Khurana, A. and Rosenthal, S.R. (1998), Towards holistic front ends in new product
development, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15, pp. 57-74.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-97.
Kusiak, A. (2007), Innovation: the living laboratory perspective, Journal of Computer-Aided
Design & Applications, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 863-76.
Lee, H., Irani, Z., Osman, I.H., Balc, A., Ozkan, S., Lee, H. and Medeni, T. (2008), Research note:
toward a reference process model for citizen-oriented evaluation of eGovernment services,
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 297-310.
Lekprayoon, K. (2004), E-government: the approach to IT society, Executive Journal, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 22-5.
Lundvall, B.A. (1999), Technology Policy in the Learning Economy. Innovation Policy in a Global
Economy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Minshall, T., Seldon, S. and Probert, D. (2007), Commercializing a disruptive technology based
upon university IP through open innovation: a case study of Cambridge display
technology, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 225-39.
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1978), Forces generating and limiting concentration under
Schumpeterian competition, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 524-34.
Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Technological
Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
innovation in
Orange, G., Elliman, T., Lian Kor, A. and Tassabehji, R. (2007), Local government and social or
innovation value, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 1 No. 3, Turkey
pp. 242-54.
Pardo, T. (2002), Realizing the promise of digital government: its more than building a web site,
Information Impacts Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 2, p. 2002. 51
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rothwell, R. (1992), Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s, R&D
Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 221-39.
Rothwell, R. (1994), Issues in user-producer relations in the innovation process: the role of
government, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 629-50.
Santoro, M.D. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000), The institutionalization of knowledge transfer
activities within industry-university collaborative ventures, Journal of Engineering &
Technology Management, Vol. 17 Nos 3/4, pp. 299-319.
Santoro, M.D. and Saparito, P. (2003), The firms trust in its university partner as a key mediator
in advancing knowledge and new technologies, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 362-73.
Savory, C. (2006), Does the UTTO model of technology transfer fit public sector healthcare
services?, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 171-87.
Soh, P.H. (2003), The role of networking alliances in information acquisition and its implications
for new product performance, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 727-44.
Spender, J.C. (1996), Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 45-62.
Stoltzfus, K. (2004), Motivations for implementing e-government: an investigation of the global
phenomenon, research paper, University of California, Santa Monica, CA.
Storey, J. (2000), The management of innovation problem, International Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 347-69.
Storper, M. (1995), The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: the region as a nexus
of untraded interdependencies, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 191-221.
Teece, D.J. (1998), Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for
know-how, and intangible assets, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 55-79.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (1997), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological,
Market and Organizational Change, Wiley, Chichester.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological,
Market and Organizational Change, Wiley, Chichester.
Tony Yu, F.L. (2008), Uncertainty, human agency and e-government, Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 283-96.
Tushman, M. and Nadler, D. (1986), Organising for innovation, California Management Review,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 74-88.
Ulwick, A.W. (2002), Turn customer input into innovation, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80
No. 1, pp. 91-7.
Valentin, E. and Sanchez, J. (2002), University-industry partnerships, 1990-2000, Industry &
Higher Education, February, pp. 55-61.
TG van de Ven, A. (1986), Central problems in the management of innovation, Management
Science, Vol. 32, pp. 591-607.
4,1 Vathanophas, V., Krittayaphongphun, N. and Klomsiri, C. (2008), Technology acceptance
toward e-government initiative in Royal Thai Navy, Transforming Government: People,
Process and Policy, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 256-82.
Verloop, J. (2004), Insight in Innovation: Managing Innovation by Understanding the Laws of
52 Innovation, Elsevier, New York, NY.
Weerakkody, V., Jones, S. and Olsen, E. (2007), EGovernment: a comparison of strategies in local
authorities in the UK and Norway, International Journal of Electronic Business, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 141-59.
Wolfe, R.A. (1994), Organisational innovation: review, critique and suggested research
directions, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 31, pp. 405-31.
Yin, R.K. (1984), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. and Holbeck, J. (1984), Innovations & Organizations, Robert E. Krieger,
Malabar, FL.

Further reading
Al-Busaidy, M. and Weerakkody, V. (2009), E-government diffusion in Oman: a public sector
employees perspective, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 3
No. 4, pp. 375-93.
Berlo, D. (1960), The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice,
Rinehart Press, San Francisco, CA.
Brown, M.M. (2007), Understanding E-Government Benefits, American Review of Public
Administration, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 178-97.
Brudney, J.L. and Selden, S.C. (1995), The adoption of innovation by smaller local governments:
the case of computer technology, The American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 71-86.
Campbell, D. (1975), Degrees of freedom and the case study, Comparative Political Studies,
Vol. 8, pp. 178-85.
Collins, J. and Porras, J. (1996), Building your companys vision, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 8, pp. 75-7.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996), Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention,
Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Damanpour, F. (1991), Organizational innovation: a meta analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-90.
Heeks, R. (2006), Implementing and Managing eGovernment: An International Text, Sage,
London.
Henry, C., Brown, J. and Defillippi, R. (2000), Understanding relationships between universities
and SMES in emerging high technology industries: the case of OPTO-electronics,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 51-75.
Hipp, C., Tether, B.S. and Miles, I. (2000), The incidence and effects of innovation in services:
evidence from Germany, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 417-53.
Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D., Elliman, T., Jones, S. and Themistocleous, M. (2005), Evaluating
eGovernment: learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities, Information
Systems Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 61-82.
Jaeger, P.T. and Thompson, K.M. (2003), E-government around the world: lessons, challenges Technological
and future directions, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 389-94.
Moon, M.J. (2002), The evolution of egovernment among municipalities: rhetoric or reality?,
innovation in
Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 424-34. Turkey
Moon, M.J. and Norris, D.F. (2005), Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of
reinventing government and e-government at the municipal level, Information Systems
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 43-60. 53
Perry, J.L. and Danziger, J. (1980), The adoptability of innovations: an empirical assessment of
computer applications in local government, Administration and Society, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 460-92.
Perry, J.L. and Kraemer, K.L. (1979), Technological Innovation in American Local Governments:
The Case of Computing, Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
Reddick, C.G. (2009), The adoption of centralized customer service systems: a survey of local
governments, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 219-26.
Rogers, E.M. and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971), Communication of Innovations: A Cross Cultural
Approach, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Schildt, H.A., Maula, M.V.J. and Keil, T. (2005), Explorative and exploitative learning from
external corporate ventures, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 493-515.
Thomas, J.C. and Strieb, G. (2003), The new face of government: citizen-initiated contacts in the
era of egovernment, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 83-101.
Tolbert, C.J. and Mossberger, K. (2006), The effects of egovernment on trust and confidence in
government, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 354-69.
Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.L. (1982), Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption
implementation: a meta-analysis of findings, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 28-45.
Trott, P. (2002), Innovation Management and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall, London.

About the author

Ibrahim Arpaci is graduated from the Department of Computer Education and Instructional
Technology at Anadolu University with the first rank. He carried out many e-learning projects in
the Open Education Faculty at Anadolu University between 2002 and 2005. He received his MSc
degree in Information Systems Department from the Middle East Technical University in June
2009. Currently, he works as a Research Assistant and continues his doctorate in the Informatics
Institute at Middle East Technical University. He performs academic studies in the fields of
information systems, e-learning, e-government, human-computer interaction, and innovation.
Ibrahim Arpaci can be contacted at: iarpaci@ii.metu.edu.tr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.