Chapter 6: eProcurement Scotland (ePS) as a Shared Service

This chapter discusses how ePS conforms to the concept of a shared service. This will be looked at from both a process and technology perspective.

With ePS, standardization and improvements of both process and technology are meant to allow organizations to work more effectively and in a more coordinated manner both internally and externally when procuring goods and services. This creates efficiencies, reduces costs, provides a stronger user focus to procurement systems, and helps to support collaborative purchasing. These ideas make up the benefits of what is sometimes known as 'shared services'.

Sharing Processes

The national governments of both the UK and Scotland have taken up the call to roll out shared services throughout the public sector. The UK Cabinet Office published a document in 2005 entitled Transformational Government Enabled by Technology. The Scottish Executive published a similar document in 2006 entitled A Shared Approach to Building a Better Scotland. Both list shared services as a major way forward to improve the workings of government, and echo the reduction of costs and greater efficiency as major benefits. Another benefit that both emphasize is an increase in focus on the needs of users, leading to better ways of serving citizens and businesses. By sharing services across traditional government boundaries, the idea is that services can be organized around identified customer groups and their needs regardless of the specific government department that traditionally performs that function.

Michael Hammer (2001) states that, in order for cross organizational processes to be successful, internal processes must first be efficient. ePS does not specifically create cross organizational processes. It standardizes processes in order to reduce fragmentation and create an environment where cross organizational process can develop. For instance, maverick buying, purchasing either of non standard goods or by unauthorized individuals, has been described as a widespread practice of significant concern (McClelland 2006). ePS aims to reduce occurrences of maverick buying through controls on who is allowed to purchase and what goods they are able to buy. This allows management a greater ability to control which goods are purchased and by whom, thereby providing opportunities to coordinate purchasing with other organizations.

In the interviews, a pattern of using eProcurement initiatives to reduce internal fragmentation, thereby creating a more consistent procurement environment, was observed. In Astley Ainslie Hospital, many of the different divisions have traditionally been responsible for their own procurement, leading to separate procurement practices and software (Interview B). Although Edinburgh University does not currently use ePS, they are involved in similar efforts (Interview D). Both organizations are working on consolidating and standardizing processes and technologies within their respective organizations. In addition, both are involved with larger groups of organizations, PROC-SNI for Edinburgh University and the NHS for the hospital, that are dedicated to spreading best practices and collaborative purchasing across its members.

Shared Services and technology

ePS has made the strategic choice to share systems rather than just standards. As Ian Burdon said:

There are so many different organizations within Scottish government, without a common system, many of the organizations would go out and procure an eProcurement system on their own. Even if they chose the same solution, there was almost a guarantee that they would configure it differently, and still end up with chaos from suppliers. So we came up with the view that it made sense to do it, but it made sense to do it for the whole of Scotland, not just the executive (Interview A)

ePS is based on the Web Services model. All application software are developed and hosted external to the organizations that use them. User organizations connect via the internet, and use a standard web browser as their interface with systems. Common systems are meant to make data consistent for all user organizations, thereby ensuring that data received by suppliers was presented in a consistent manner and allowing organizations to share processes where appropriate (ePS website).

Most of the benefits of a common system could also be achieved by setting common standards, with the choice of specific software left to the prevue of each organization. This approach would allow for more flexibility for each organization, increasing the ability for organizations to fit solutions to their circumstances. Consistency in data between organizations and suppliers could be ensured by an agreed upon set of data standards. According to the interview with Astley Ainslie Hospital, some people feel that this would have been a more appropriate approach, with the central software being considered optional as long as the local system followed the agreed standards (Interview B).

However, a standards based approach would have its own challenges. In addition to the difficulties due to catering to the 'lowest common denominator' (Graham et al, 1996), a successful standards based approach requires the compliance to the standards by all parties. As departments of Scottish government do not always comply with the standards that already exist (McClelland, 2006), greater enforcement and compliance to standards would be necessary to the success of a common standards approach.

Interviews for this dissertation have uncovered that web services like ePS have other difficulties. They create scenarios where responsibility is dispersed. In this situation, technical problems may have many possible causes, potentially leading to difficulty discovering the root. For example, there have been reports by a number of organizations, including Astley Ainslie Hospital and the Scottish Ambulance Service, regarding the response times of the system (Interview B, Interview C). There are many places within the system where this problem could originate, including the software, central servers, general internet latency, internal networks, and individual PCs. As each of these is the responsibility of different organizations, a lot of inter-organizational coordination is necessary to examine and fix problems like this. Additionally dispersed responsibilities can cause difficulties with updating things, as the Hospital interview revealed that that it can be challenging to keep the centrally updated prices in the catalog up to date, especially in fast changing areas.

Pitfalls of Social Media for Government Agencies

One of the hot topics in web site management today is social media. The term "social media" is often used as a blanket statement for particular web sites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. It can also refer to certain web technologies and strategies like blogging and RSS. What all of these things have in common is that they share a philosophy of emphasizing user generated content and conversations between many people and organizations simultaneously. This is in contrast to a more traditional web strategy of an organization or agency, where the interactions are more directly controlled by the web site owner via pre-defined content and services.

All social media is designed around the ability for users to control their own experience. Content provided via social media avenues can be parsed, accessed, commented on, and shared as the user sees fit. RSS feeds might seem to simply be a different way to display static content. But individuals can use an RSS reader to access, in a single location, information obtained from multiple, unrelated sources. The delivery conditions and user interface can then be defined by the users themselves. Also, because of the standardized, neutral XML data format, RSS feeds can be easily placed into 3rd party websites such as Twitter, to be displayed and read.

Other social media outlets allow users to control their experience within the framework of a host website. For example, YouTube is often sited as a good place to watch videos online. It is also popular because it is easy for anyone, including individuals and both professional and governmental organizations, to post videos. It contains a wide variety of content that is easily searchable, easy to share with others, and even imbedded directly into other websites. Users can post comments about a video which others can read and then weigh in with their own opinions.

The ultimate truth that must be understood when considering social media that it is primarily a question of communication, not technology. The technology enables the exchange. But all of the value, and potential problems, come from the social side of the equation. So when a government agency is considering whether to make the leap into social media, there are questions they must first answer:

"Who is my audience? What value will this bring to them? What sort of things might they say? Am I willing to engage that audience in a relatively equal and open forum?"

One of the most important things to understand is that, by using social media, an agency is giving up much of the control of the delivery and reception of their content. Traditional communication techniques allow an agency a lot of latitude in setting the conditions and boundaries of any interactions. With social media, these become functions of the rules of the social media outlet and how users chose to use, interpret, and respond to the content. Consideration must be made regarding what sort of feedback might be generated and value gained by the venture.

In the right circumstances, social media can be a great tool for government to reach its constituents. Generally, people on social media websites are more likely to engage positively or constructively about things that either interest them on a personal level or provide useful, actionable information. For example, DNR's State Parks and Reservoirs division has a Facebook page with a lot of positive interaction between the agency and public. This is an example of a good use of social media, since it provides an avenue for people who enjoy that service to discuss it both with the agency and amongst themselves. Other positive uses might be creating twitter feeds for information the state has, road and weather conditions for example, that many people would find interesting or useful.

However, not all agencies will find equal value in such services. Regulatory agencies or those with missions that do not provide an obvious positive experience for the public might find they have created a forum for people to complain. People on the internet are not shy about making negative comments if they feel the need. Agencies with missions that the public might consider more obscure could find any social media efforts to be met by indifference. Typically, social media outlets provide methods of policing the negative things people might say. However, such efforts are often not seen in a positive light. Censorship and moderation are generally greatly frowned upon unless comments are blatantly offensive.

Social media is still evolving, but it is here to stay. The rules, venues, technologies, and expectations will change over time. What is true today may need to be re-evaluated tomorrow. Whatever form it may take, any use of a social media outlet should be approached as a question of communication policy, not technology. Like any form of communication that is not strictly controlled, if all of the participants find value, then the net result will be positive. If one or more of the parties does not, then problems may arise. With these things in mind, any agency should have a framework for discussing what social media means to their mission and whether it makes sense to engage with their constituents in this fashion.