Revista
de
Administração
http://rausp.usp.br/ RevistadeAdministração52(2017)103–113
Public
management
The
adoption
of
innovations
in
Brazilian
labour
courts
from
the
perspective
of
judges
and
court
managers
Ado¸cão
de
inova¸cões
em
tribunais
trabalhistas
brasileiros
na
perspectiva
de
juízes
e
administradores
judiciais
La
adopción
de
innovaciones
en
los
tribunales
laborales
en
Brasil
desde
la
perspectiva
de
jueces
y
administradores
judiciales
Marcos
de
Moraes
Sousa
a,∗,
Tomas
de
Aquino
Guimaraes
baUniversidadeFederaldeGoiás(PPGADM),Goiânia,GO,Brazil bUniversidadedeBrasília,Brasília,DF,Brazil
Received10March2016;accepted10August2016 Availableonline10October2016
Abstract
Thereisalackofstudiesupontheinnovationprocessinthejudiciary.Tocontributetofillingthisgap,thisstudyaimstodescribetheperceptionsof theBrazilianlabourcourts’judgesandmanagersrelatedtoresourcesandcapabilitiesassociatedwiththedevelopmentandadoptionofinnovation, representedbytheelectroniclawsuit,andtheimpactonCourt’sperformanceandfactorsthatfacilitateorhindertheadoptionofinnovations.A documentanalysisand35interviewswereconducted–ninewithjudgesand26withcourtmanagers–andthedatawereanalyzedusingacontent analysiswithaprioricategorization.Theresultsshowthefollowing:(i)theprocessofdevelopmentandadoptionofinnovationoccursinthree ways–centralizedinhigherbodies,throughpartnershipswithothercourtsorthroughinternaldevelopment;(ii)thereareimportantresources andcapabilitiesinternaltocourtsandinter-organizationalroutinesassociatedwiththeinnovationprocess;and(iii)innovationcontributestothe developmentandintegrationofotherinnovationsandchanges inworkingroutines.Additionally, barriersto andfacilitatorsoftheinnovation adoptionprocessarediscussedandaresearchagendaisstated.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords:Innovation;Innovationadoption;Judicialmanagement;Publicmanagement
Resumo
Háumalacunadeestudosrelacionadosaoprocessodeinovac¸ãonoJudiciário.Paracontribuirparapreencherestalacuna,esteestudotemcomo objetivodescreverpercepc¸õesdejuízesegestoresdetribunaistrabalhistasbrasileirosrelacionadosarecursosecapacidadesassociadascomo desenvolvimentoeaadoc¸ãodeinovac¸ão,representadapeloprocessojudicialeletrônico,oimpactonodesempenhodotribunalefatoresque facili-tamoudificultamaadoc¸ãodeinovac¸ões.Análisedocumentale35entrevistasforamrealizadas-novecomjuízese26comgestores-eosdados foramanalisadospormeiodeanálisedeconteúdocomcategorizac¸ãoapriori.Osresultadosevidenciamque:(i)oprocessodedesenvolvimentoe adoc¸ãodeinovac¸ãoocorredetrêsformas-centralizadaemórgãosdecúpula,pormeiodeparceriascomoutrostribunaisoupormeiode desen-volvimentointerno;(ii)existemimportantesrecursosecapacidadesinternasaostribunaiserotinasinter-organizacionaisassociadasaoprocessode
∗Correspondingauthorat:RuaSamambaia,s/n,74001-970,CampusSamambaia,Goiânia,GO,Brazil.
E-mail:[email protected](M.M.Sousa).
PeerReviewundertheresponsibilityofDepartamentodeAdministrac¸ão,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸ãoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeSãoPaulo –FEA/USP.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.09.008
inovac¸ão;e(iii)ainovac¸ãocontribuiparaodesenvolvimentoeintegrac¸ãodeoutrasinovac¸õesemudanc¸asnasrotinasdetrabalho.Adicionalmente, barreirasefacilitadoresdoprocessodeadoc¸ãodainovac¸ãosãodiscutidoseumaagendadepesquisaéapresentada.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Este ´eumartigoOpenAccesssobumalicenc¸aCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palavras-chave: Inovac¸ão;Adoc¸ãodeinovac¸ão;Administrac¸ãojudicial;Administrac¸ãopública
Resumen
Hayunafaltadeestudiosacercadelprocesodeinnovaciónenelpoderjudicial.Paracontribuirarellenaresalaguna,enelpresenteestudiose buscadescribirlaspercepcionesdejuecesyadministradoresdetribunaleslaboralesbrasile˜nosreferentesarecursosycapacidadesrelativasal desarrolloylaadopcióndeinnovación–representadaporelprocesojudicialelectrónico–;elimpactoeneldesempe˜nodeltribunalyfactores quefacilitanodificultanlaadopcióndeinnovaciones.Sellevaronacabounanálisisdedocumentosy35entrevistas–nueveconjuecesy26con gestores–yseanalizaronlosdatosmedianteunestudiodecontenidodecategorizaciónapriori.Losresultadosmuestranque:(i)elprocesode desarrolloylaadopcióndelainnovaciónocurredetresformas–centralizadaenorganismossuperiores,pormediodeasociacionesconotros tribunales,omedianteeldesarrollointerno;(ii)existenimportantesrecursosycapacidadesinternasalostribunalesyrutinasinterorganizacionales relacionadasconelprocesodeinnovación;(iii)lainnovacióncontribuyealdesarrolloylaintegracióndeotrasinnovacionesycambiosenlas rutinasdetrabajo.Asimismo,sediscutenlasbarrerasyfacilitadoresdeesteprocesoyseproponeunaagendadeestudios.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palabrasclave: Innovación;Adopcióndeinnovación;Administraciónjudicial;Administraciónpública
Introduction
Organizationalresourcesandcapabilitiesareanalytical cat-egories used in studies on organizational performance and competitiveness(Barney,2001a,2001b),andtheirapplication has been demonstrated to be important in the public sector (Johanson,2009;Lee&Whitford,2013;Llewellyn&Tappin, 2003), although they require greater systematization (Klein, Mahoney,McGahan,&Pitelis,2011).Innovation,understood byRogers(2003,p.475)as“anidea,practice,orobjectthatis perceived asnewbyanindividual orotherunitof adoption,” hasbecomeacoreaspectofpublicsectorreformprogrammes (Boyne,Gould-Williams,Law,&Walker,2005).Inparticular, judicialreformsfollowthemostusualinnovationadoption stan-dardsused inpublicadministration reformsoverall(Scheb& Matheny,1988).
Theadoptionofinnovationsthroughtheuseofinformation andcommunicationtechnologies(ICTs)inpublicorganizations in general (Kanungo & Jain, 2011; Lee & Whitford, 2013; Zheng,Chen,Huang,&Zhang,2013)andincourtsin particu-lar(Bhatt,2005)hassparkedacademicinterestand“represent akeyarea,asbothanobjectandtooloflawmaking”(Falkner, Lange,&Lawless,2012,p.18).However,welackstudiesthat associateresourcesandcapabilitiestothejudiciary’sadoption ofinnovations.Therefore,thisstudyaimsto:(1)describethe innovationadoptionprocessinBrazilianlabourcourts,focusing ontheelectroniclawsuit;(2)identifyresourcesandcapabilities associatedwiththedevelopmentandadoptionofinnovation rep-resented bythe electronic lawsuit andthe impact on Court’s performance, and; (3) discuss factors that either facilitate or hindertheadoptionofinnovationsinthosecourts.
ThedevelopmentoftheelectroniclawsuitinBrazilianlabour courtscan be classifiedinto three periods:(a) prior to2006, hereinreferredtoastheembryonicperiod,withtheconsolidated useof computers andspecificinitiatives for the development of systems tosupport such lawsuits andother administrative
systems;(b)the2006–2011incentiveperiod,whichbeganwith Actn◦11.419of2006,formalizingBrazil’suseoftheelectronic
lawsuit;and(c)thestandardizationeffortperiodrepresentedby Resolution n◦ 94 of the Brazilian Higher Council of Labour
Justice(ConselhoSuperiordaJusti¸cadoTrabalho–CSJT)of 2012,whichmakestheadoptionofaunifiedsystemofelectronic lawsuits mandatory anddefines implementation targetsto be followedbyalllabourcourtsofthatcountry.
This study is relevant because it has the potential bothto createknowledgeinanareathatlacksstudiesandtogenerate subsidiesfortheimprovementofjudicialmanagement.Labour courtswerechosenbecauseoftheloweraveragelengthof judi-cialproceedingscomparedtootherjurisdictions(Dias Júnior, 2004) andbecause of theemphasis, intermsof the introduc-tionofinnovations,oninformationtechnology(IT),electronic lawsuitsandotherservices(Costa,2008).
Innovationinthejudiciaryandtheroleofresourcesand capabilities
Rogers(2003)suggestsfivefactorsthatinfluencethe adop-tionofinnovations:(i)relativeadvantage,definedasthedegree towhichinnovationhasclearadvantagesoveranexisting prod-uct or process; (ii) compatibility with existing systems and values–themoreconsistentinnovationiswiththeexisting sit-uation,thehighertheprobabilityofadoption;(iii)complexity –themoredifficultthechangesinvolvedintheinnovationare perceivedtobe,thelowerthe probabilityof itsadoption;(iv) testingor thepossibilityoftesting– thepossibilityof experi-encinginnovationbeforemakingafinaldecisionincreasesthe likelihoodofitsadoption;and(v)levelofvisibility–themore visibletheadvantagesandbenefitsoftheinnovation,thehigher theprobabilityofitsadoption.
Thetechnologyacceptancemodel(TAM)isspecially devel-opedtoassesstheadoptionofinformationsystemsandcomputer technologies(Davis,Bagozzi,&Warshaw,1989).Inthismodel, theattitudeofusingor notusinganewtechnologyisa func-tionoftheperceptionofitsusefulnessandeaseofuse;external factors,such assystemfeatures,canalsoinfluencethese per-ceptions(Davis,1993;Davisetal.,1989).Easeofuseisrelated tothe perceptionthat theuseof acertaintechnology reduces physicalandmentaleffortandusefulnesstotheperceptionthat useincreasesworkperformance(Davisetal.,1989).
TheadoptionofICTshasplayedafundamentalroleinpublic administration(Zhengetal.,2013),especiallyintheJudiciary, andthistechnologyisconsideredamultidimensionalresource (Bhatt,2005).Theinnovationpresentinstudiesrelatedtothe Judiciaryisprimarilyconsideredinitsorganizationaland tech-nologicaldimensions(Sousa&Guimaraes,2014).Inthissense, theadoptionanduseofICTsandtheirimpactonjudicial per-formance stand out (Rosa, Teixeira, & Pinto, 2013; Saman &Haider,2013).Studies ofinnovation adoption bythe judi-ciaryhaveaddressedissuesrelatedtoe-government(Joia,2008, 2009; McKechnie, 2003),new computer tools and databases (Hara, 2007; Rosa et al., 2013), improving access to justice throughalternativemethods(Anderson,2003)and,specifically, the electronic lawsuit (Velicogna, Errera, & Derlange, 2011, 2013).Organizationalresourcesandcapabilitieshavebeen use-fulinassessingtheadoptionoftechnologicalinnovations(Zheng etal.,2013).
The resources that the organization has and controls are integratedandnecessarycomponentsforunderstandingits per-formance.Penrose(2009,p.21)hasemphasizedorganizations’ internalresourcesas determinants oftheir economicfunction anddefinesthefirmasa“collectionofproductiveresourcesthe disposalofwhichbetweendifferentusesandovertimeis deter-minedbyadministrativedecision.”Thus,Penrose contributed withtheoreticalconceptsandassumptions,suchasthe impor-tanceoftheorganization’strajectoryandhistory;theemphasis oninternalresources;thefirmas apoolofresources;andthe interaction amongheterogeneous resources, whichsupported thedevelopmentoftheapproachcalledResource-BasedView (RBV).
The RBVapproach has two core theoretical assumptions, according toBarney (1991): (i) organizational resources rel-evant to performance are distributed heterogeneously; and (ii) such resources are not perfectly mobile among
organizational units. The resources that contribute to the organization’s competitive advantage should be valuable to improve efficiency and effectiveness, rare and difficult to imitate or replace, durable, and both controlled and owned bytheorganization(Barney,1991;Grant,1991).Difficultyin imitating can occur not only because of the phenomenon of causalambiguity–i.e.,whentherelationshipbetweenresources andperformanceisnoteasilyunderstood–butalsobecauseof social complexity,such as socialrelationships, traditions and culture(Barney,1991).Peteraf(1993)addsthatorganizational resourcesandcapabilitiesinvolveatacitdimension.
Organizationalresourcesandcapabilitiesarecloselyrelated because theyrepresent the system inputs, which refer to the performance of a task or activity (Grant, 1991). Resources includetangibleassets,suchasmachines,equipment,and build-ings,andintangibleassets,suchascapabilities,processesand information,thatare bothrelevantandvaluabletothe organi-zation(Barney,2001a;Wernerfelt,1984).Therefore,afluidity andevenatautologyintheseconceptsisobservedanddespite thiscomprehensivedefinition,Barney(2001a)understandsthat the simplest, most inclusive definition of resources improves the RBV’sprescriptivecharacteristic. Resourcevalue andthe analysisof capabilitiesarerelatedtothecontextinwhichthe organizationisinserted(Barney,2001a;Piening,2013).
Theorganizations’strategydirectionandmainperformance sourceare definedbytheir internalresources andcapabilities (Grant,1991;Peteraf,1993).Thus,thefirststageofthereview processoforganizationalresourcesistheidentificationand clas-sification of resources. Thismay involvethe developmentof resources in the event of a “gap”, for instance,reallocation, reduction and enhancement of resources – andsubsequently, relatedcapabilities(Grant,1991).Organizationshavedifferent pools ofresources;therefore,timeandmoneyarerequiredto changethosepools(Wernerfelt,1995).Therearedifferentkinds ofresources,forexample,financial,physical,human, technolog-ical,reputationalandorganizational(Grant,1991)orphysical, humanandorganizational(Barney,1991).
Makadok (2001, p. 389) makes two points to distinguish resources andcapabilities: (a) capability is incorporated into organization’sprocesses–itisspecifictotheorganizationand difficulttotransferandthus,itisdevelopedinsteadofpurchased; (b) the objective of capability is to improve the productivity oftheorganization’sotherresources.Accordingtothisauthor, capabilityis a“special typeofresource,” anembedded, non-transferable,specificresourcethat aimstoimprovethe useof otherresourcesownedbytheorganization.
selectionanddevelopmentofroutines;(ii)selection–the pro-cess of selecting routines that are more efficient; and (iii) retention–thisoccurswiththesurvivaloftheroutinethat con-tributestoperformancegeneration.Thesurvivalofaroutineis relatedtoitsabilitytogenerateperformance(Barney,2001b).
Effectiveroutinesareinterpretedasbestpractices(Mathews, 2002).Despiteidiosyncraticelements,therearecommonaspects amongorganizationsthatEisenhardtandMartin(2000)callbest practices.Thus,foracertaincapabilityamongorganizations– forexample,thedevelopmentofanewservice–therearenot onlyidiosyncratic aspects but also common features that are morehomogeneous.Becauseoftheseproperties,bestpractices canbedefinedaseffectiveroutinesthatsharecertainelements amongorganizations.Thisdefinitioncanbeespeciallyusefulin thepublicsector,wherethereisahigherlevelofstandardization of services, especiallyin the judiciary, whereproceduresare stronglyregulated.
Similartotheprivatesector,theuseoftheRBVinthepublic sectorhelpsrelatecapabilitiesandresourcestoachieve organi-zation’sgoals(Pablo,Reay,Dewald,&Casebeer,2007).Inthis context,theperformanceofpublicorganizationsisassociatedto theidentificationofvaluableresourcesandcapabilitiesto cre-atemaximumpublicvalue(Bryson,Ackermann,&Eden,2007; Matthews&Shulman,2005).
Spriggs(1996) evaluatesthe influenceandconditions that highercourtsintheUnitedStatesimposeonfederal administra-tiveagenciesandaddressesthreecategoriesofresourcesrelated to:courtattributes, characteristics of administrativeagencies, andexternalactors.Guimaraes,Odelius,Medeiros,andSantana (2011)addressjudicialinnovation throughtheresources lens. Those authors identify three organizational routines derived fromtheinnovationprocessattheBrazilianSuperiorCourtof Justice(SuperiorTribunal deJusti¸ca– STJ): electronic man-agement,projectmanagementandprocessmanagement.
Method
Thisstudyisexploratoryanddescriptiveanditsobjectisthe electroniclawsuitinBrazilianlabourcourts,hereinafter under-stoodasorganizationalinnovation.Itisaninnovationbecause the changefromprinted toelectroniclawsuit resultedinnew combinationsoftheBrazilianlabourcourts’resources,routines andcapabilities,whichwerereflectedintheirworkflow–i.e., thosecourts’productionprocess–andintheprovisionofjudicial services.
Labour justice in Brazil consists of 24 Regional Labour Courts(RLC).ThesmallestRLChas14lowercourts,whereas thelargesthas178lowercourts.ThereisalsoaHigherLabour Court(TribunalSuperiordoTrabalho).Trialsinthelowercourts (first instance) are decided in a monocratic manner, and the RLCs (second instance) are responsible for reviews of those judgments.The HigherLabour Courtisresponsiblefor judg-mentsattheappellatelevel,whichrepresentsthethirdandlast instance. In addition to thesecourts, Brazilianlabour justice isalsocomposedoftheHigherCouncilofLabourJustice,the highestgoverning andcontrolbodyof thelabour courts.The
24 regional courts were, at the period of data collection, in differentadoptionstagesoftheelectroniclawsuit.Table1shows theRLCsaccordingtotheirsizeandrateofinnovationadoption, representedbythepercentageofelectroniclawsuitsinrelation tothetotalnumberofcases.
To obtain a representative sample of the population, five RegionalLabourCourtswerechosenfromthosewiththelowest adoptionratesoftheelectroniclawsuit:SãoPaulo(capitalcity), Minas Gerais,Pará/Amapá,Amazonas/RoraimaandAlagoas; five otherswere chosenfrom thosewiththehighest adoption rates:Paraná,SantaCatarina,Paraíba,GoiásandSergipe;and theFederalDistrict.ThesamplealsoincludedtheHigherLabour CourtandtheHigherCouncilofLabourJustice.Therefore,the finalsample wasrepresentedbycourtsdistributedacross dif-ferentBrazilianregions,theappellatecourtandbytheorganof governance ofLabourJustice. Inthissenseitissupposedthe samplerepresentsthepopulation.
Data were gathered from January to November 2014 in two steps.The first stepconsisted ofdocument analysis,i.e., reading regulations and laws concerning the electronic law-suit tounderstandthe normativeevolution of the innovation. In the second step, 35 in-depth interviews were conducted with the helpof semi-structured script,including the follow-ingtopics:specifyinginnovationinthejudiciary;planningand adopting innovation; resources and capabilities; impacts and consequences of innovation; andaspectsthat contributedand hinderedtheadoptionofinnovation.
Weinterviewedninejudges(sevenfromfirst-instancecourts andtwofromsecond-instancecourts),15lowercourtmanagers who were responsible for the administrative management of thesecourts,and11informationtechnologymanagerswhowere responsibleformanaginginformationandtechnologyresources of regional courts; the interviewees were distributed among courts across all regions of Brazil. Three interviewees were female(∼9%),andthirty-twoweremale(∼91%);theaverage agewas44yearsold,withastandarddeviationof6.5years;they workedonaveragefor16yearsinlabourcourt,withastandard deviation of eightyears. Theinterviewees representthemain peopleresponsiblefortheadoptionoftheelectroniclawsuitin the labourcourts.The interviewslastedanaverageof 29min. Thirty-four interviewswere recorded; onlyone could not be recorded.
Table1
RegionalLabourCourtsinBrazilaccordingtothesizeandrateofelectronic-lawsuitadoptionin2012.
State/region Courtsize Numberof judges–1st and2nd instances
Numberof permanent servants–1stand 2ndinstances
Numberofnew cases–1stand 2ndinstances
Numberof pendingcases– 1stand2nd instances
N◦of
Courts
Electroniclawsuit rate–1stand2nd instancescourts (%)
RiodeJaneiro Large 284 3917 335,762 280,788 140 Na
SãoPaulo(CapitalCity) Large 422 5533 746,161 623,365 178 0.64
MinasGerais Large 284 3167 391,135 192,854 144 0.00
RioGrandedoSul Large 280 3422 266,399 216,034 132 1.22
Bahia Medium 205 2252 189,741 230,954 88 1.09
Pernambuco Medium 144 1711 199,711 111,760 67 1.37
Ceará Medium 68 848 72,054 71,685 35 21.16
Pará/Amapá Medium 105 1067 110,929 40,734 53 0.75
Paraná Medium 190 2267 243,934 225,254 96 100.00
DistritoFederal/Tocantins Medium 89 1060 92,799 92,514 35 3.09
Amazonas/Roraima Medium 73 1044 84,636 45,085 32 0.00
SantaCatarina Medium 121 1463 118,557 107,692 59 24.45
Paraíba Medium 68 930 50,328 31,935 27 96.33
Rondônia/Acre Small 51 758 46,732 22,881 32 Na
SãoPaulo(CampinasCity) Large 370 3223 451,863 521,839 153 0.79
Maranhão Small 56 466 46,238 50,809 23 4.92
EspíritoSanto Small 60 596 56,772 45,706 24 0.90
Goiás Medium 86 1105 111,370 54,480 48 85.17
Alagoas Small 50 494 43,327 68,453 22 0.48
Sergipe Small 30 401 21,894 28,097 15 40.52
RioGrandedoNorte Small 46 598 40,910 94,196 23 2.73
Piauí Small 35 324 37,925 26,657 14 2.60
MatoGrosso Small 73 802 57,174 39,054 38 11.28
MatoGrossodoSul Small 60 544 43,270 30,272 26 1.32
Source:http://www.tst.jus.br/instaladas-e-nao-instaladasretrievedonApril26,2014andhttp://www.cnj.jus.br/images/pesquisas-judiciarias/Publicacoes/relatorio jn2013.pdfretrievedonJune20,2014.Na,datanotavailable.
Theadoptionoftheelectroniclawsuitintheperspective ofjudgesandmanagers
Overall,threestrategiesofdevelopingandadopting innova-tionssuch as theelectronic lawsuitinthe labourcourtswere identifiedintheinterviews.Thefirstreferstoacentralized, top-downstrategy,inwhichtheHigher CouncilofLabourJustice disseminatesaparticularideaorpracticetobefollowedbythe courts. In the second strategy,the development andadoption ofinnovationsoccurthroughinter-organizationalrelationships via discussions and agreements among courts interested in jointlydevelopingoradoptinginnovationsalreadyconsolidated inanothercourt.The thirdstrategyrepresentsspecificcourts’ autonomousinitiativestodevelopandadoptinnovations.
The incentive period, a result of Act n◦ 11.419 of 2006
led to the diffusion of different electronic lawsuit’s systems bythecourts,throughstrategiesthatfavouredthe interrelation-shipsbetweencourtsorthroughautonomousdevelopment.This periodwasfruitfulforlearning,however,increasedthe complex-ityfor usersofdifferentcourtsandenabled theheterogeneity routines.The standardization period,beginningwith Resolu-tion n◦ 94 of Higher Council of LabourJustice of 2012was
characterizedbyatop-downstrategywithcentralizedcontrolof changesintoasingleelectroniclawsuitforthewholecountry.
Intervieweesreportedthatingeneral,thelabourcourts’ adop-tionofinnovationwasprecededbytestsconductedatalower court. The possibility of testing an innovation and verifying
the changes it cancreateis regardedas decisive inthe inno-vationadoptionprocess(Rogers,2003).However,interviewees criticized the speedwith whichthe tests wereperformed for adoptionoftheelectroniclawsuitsatlabourcourts.Accordingto aninterviewee,“anothernegativepointthatIfindveryrelevant istheimplementationofthesystemtooquicklyinalocationthat doesnothaveenoughinfrastructuretoimplementthesystem.” Therapidadoptionofinnovationsmayfacilitatethereduction ofbarriers;however,innovationadoptionmustbefollowedby organizationalpoliciesandactionstopreventincreasesinother barriers.
Innovationinthejudiciaryisprimarilyrelatedtochangesand improvementsinworkingprocesses,changesthat“havebrought greater effectivenessinservicedelivery,” accordingtooneof theinterviewees.Anotherpointemphasizedbytheinterviewees isthattherearelegallimitationstothejudiciary’sadoptionor developmentofinnovations.Accordingtooneinterviewee,the courtsare“boundbythelaws,thejudiciarydoeswhatthelaw defines,theJudiciarydoesnotmakelaws.”Inthissense,laws andregulationsplayadecisiveroleinthejudiciary’sstrategies relatedtoinnovationadoption.
Capability/Routine Practices involved Spectrum
Strategic planning
Alignment of strategic actions among different hierarchical levels of the courts
Definition of objectives, indicators and performance targets
Building administrative mechanisms, such as steering committees
Identification of needs for improvement management practices
Corporate
Training and qualification
Planning and implement ation learning and trainingmechanismsby the organization itself, through partnership or agreement among courts, andother organizations
Management of individual skills
Diagnosis and identification of skil l-development needs
Definition of indicators and individual performance targets at work
Performance assessment at work
ITgovernance
Adoption of best practices related to strategic working planning , project
management, management of
information technology services and infrastructure, development of computational tools and information security management
Specific management
Relationship with the Brazilian Bar Association (BBA)
Communication about system interruptions and changes
Engagement of BBA members in innovation-related committees
Inter-organizational
relationships Relationship with other labour
justice organizations
Shared development of systems
Information exchange
Monitoring the innovation adoption process already used by another court
Creating c ommit tees and joint commissions
Partnerships with other organizations
Cooperation with other courts ( electoral, federal courts, etc.) and universities
Partnerships with other public agencies (central bank, government b oards of trade, etc.) and commercial banks
Fig.1.OrganizationalcapabilitiesandroutinesrelatedtotheelectroniclawsuitinBrazilianlabourcourts.
resistanceandincreasethe acceptanceof innovation. Further-more, it isessential to identify thecapabilities andresources that areinvolved inthe developmentandadoptionprocessof innovation.
Thecapabilitiesandroutinesrelatedtotheelectroniclawsuit thatwereidentifiedbytheinterviewscomprisespecific organi-zationalpracticesandhavedifferentscopes.Thesepracticescan beclassifiedintocapabilitiesinvolvingcourtadministrationas awhole(hereinafterreferredtoascorporatecapabilities), spe-cificmanagementcapabilitiesrelatedtoIT,andcapabilitiesthat promoteinter-organizationalrelations.Fig.1summarizesthese capabilitiesandroutines.
WiththereformoftheBrazilianjudiciarythatbeganin2004, thedisseminationofstrategicworkingplanningamongcourts wasverified.Strategicplanningisconsideredanorganizational
innovationbothinpublicorganizations(BerryandWeschsler, 1995)andinthejudiciary(Guimaraesetal.,2011).The inter-vieweesconsiderednotonlythatthisroutinewasimportanttothe developmentanddisseminationoftheelectroniclawsuitbutalso that itcontributedtobuildotherroutines.In addition, accord-ingtotheinterviewees,strategicworkingplanningprovidesfor large-scaleadministrativeactionstobestandardizedandaligned with an organization’s needs at different hierarchical levels, including betweenthe labour courtsandthe Brazilian Coun-cilofJustice.TwoITmanagershighlightthedynamicbetween the planning levels, “the institutional strategic planning [...]
supportworkingplansalsohasbeenidentifiedbyGreenwood andBockweg(2012) inastudy ofthe e-filing processinthe UnitedStatesfederalcourts.
The training activities were considered bythe judges and managersinterviewedasessential forthe adoptionof innova-tionbecause theycouldlearnabout processesfocused onthe operationandacceptanceofthenewtechnology,asstatedbyone interviewee:“weneedtoinvestnotonlyintechnologybutalsoin training”.Suchactivitiesconstituteacapabilitythatinvolvesnot onlythecourtworkers,judgesandlawyersbutalsoITresources, includingpartnershipswithotherorganizations.Theseactions arealsofoundinotherstudiesthatevaluatethee-filingprocesses ofothercountries’courts(Greenwood&Bockweg,2012;Rosa etal.,2013;Velicognaetal.,2011,2013).
Themanagementofskills,whichwasmoreemphasizedby theITmanagersinterviewed,isaroutinewithpotentialto con-tributetothediagnosisofmoreaccuratetrainingandlearning needsandabetteruseofhumanresourceswiththestructuring ofpositionsandoffices.
Courts’adoptionofbestpracticesrelatedtoICTgovernance wasstronglyemphasizedbyallICTmanagers interviewedas aconsequenceoftheelectroniclawsuit.Theadoptionofthose practicesaimstoimprovecontrolandmonitoring,transparency andincreased dependence on IT(Tarouco &Graeml, 2011). ThefollowingITmanagementpracticeswerestated:PMBOK (ProjectManagementBodyofKnowledge)inproject manage-ment;ITIL(InformationTechnologyInfrastructureLibrary)in IT service and infrastructure management; COBIT (Control ObjectivesforInformationandRelatedTechnology),througha setofproceduresandguidelinestodefineandcontrolobjectives tomeasurethematurityoftheITareaanditscompliancewiththe organization;CMMI(Capability MaturityModel Integration) inthedevelopmentofcomputationaltools;andISO27001,in informationsecuritymanagement.Theperceptionof interview-eesissimilartothatfoundbyTaroucoandGraeml(2011)inthe privatesector,inwhichtheadoptionofthesepracticesisrelated toperformanceimprovementwithincreasedprocesscontroland improvedservicesdelivery.Studyingasampleof115Brazilian companies,Lunardi,Dolci, Mac¸ada,and Becker(2014) have foundthat ITIL andCOBIT areamong the mostwidespread ITgovernancepracticesandhavegeneratedsubstantialbenefits suchasimprovementsinworkingprocesses,improvementsin securityinformation,andprojectmanagement,amongothers.
Accordingtotheinterviewees,inter-organizationalrelations capabilities are important for the acceptance and institution-alization of the electronic lawsuit at the courts under study. Thesecapabilitiescanbringsystemdevelopersanduserscloser (Greenwood& Bockweg, 2012); in addition, pressuresfrom other organizations may affect the adoption of technology (Zheng et al., 2013). In astudy by Massukado and Teixeira (2008), relations with other organizations were the primary resourcesofpartnershipstoundertakespecificprojects.
Thecourts’relationshipwiththeBrazilianBarAssociation (BBA)wasfound byinterviewedtobean important capabil-itybecauseofitspotentialtocontributetodecreasinglawyers’ resistanceonusingtheelectroniclawsuit.Withtheadoptionof thisinnovation,thelawyer’sresponsibilityincreasedintheearly
stagesoftheproceeding,asstatedbyoneoftheinterviewees: “thelawyerswerenotconcernedwiththeproceduralclass,they werenotreallyconcernedaboutthequalification,allthatwas performed by thecourt (...),withthe electronic lawsuit [the
lawyer]hastoperformtheentirequalification,enterallofthe data.”Anotherintervieweeobservesasfollows:“Thinkabout animportantpartoftheprocessworkingagainst[theadoption oftheelectroniclawsuit],soweinvolvedtheBBAinour Com-mitteeanddidnothaveanydisagreementwiththeBBA.Iwould saythatingeneral,lawyersweresupportive(...)anBBA
rep-resentative ispartofourCommittee, participates,and issues opinions.”
Capabilities relatedto interactionwithother organizations also helpedinthe adoptionof the electroniclawsuit, suchas sharingresourcesinjointlydevelopingtools,trainingand learn-ing opportunities, adopting complementary innovations and exchanginginformation.Thisisaprocessoflearningfrom expe-riencethat maysupport theadoption of technology, as noted byReiling(2009).Theimportancegiventointer-organizational relationsbytheintervieweesisclosetowhatKay(1995)defines as organizational architecture, i.e.,the distinctive capacityof relationalcontractswithintheorganizationorbetween organi-zations.
Adoptionbarriersandnegativeimpactsoftheelectronic lawsuit
Theidentificationofbarriersisacrucialissuefortheadoption ofaninnovation.Themainbarrierstotheelectroniclawsuitat thecourtsstudiedwereofabehavioural,organizational, struc-tural andeconomicnature.Behaviouralbarriersare relatedto easeofuse,perceivedusefulnessandculturalresistance.With respecttoeaseofuse,theintervieweesstatedthatinprevious controlsystemsforthelawsuitprocess,someroutineswerenot yetavailableinthenewsystem,suchasanautomaticmechanism for controllingjudicialcasesdeadlinesandtasks.Thisbarrier wasalsoidentifiedintheadoptionofe-governmentpracticesin Jordan(Alomari,2014).
Perceivedusefulnesswasassociatedbytheintervieweeswith decreasedproductivityduetostabilityproblemsofthenew tech-nology,lackofmaturity(whichresultsinmanynewversionsof thesoftware),theuseofhybridsystemsandtheresponsetimefor troubleshooting,asdescribedbytwointerviewees:“Wearenot againstthedigitalsystem,weareinfavourofit,providedthatat leastitisequaltoour[previous]system,otherwiseour produc-tivity is compromisedalong with our[computer] resources,” “[the electronic lawsuit] was temporarily suspended because the current chiefjustice[of the Court]believesthat the elec-troniclawsuit(...)needsmore[technical]stabilitytoprovide
oftheelectroniclawsuitinnewcourtswasaneasierandfaster process.
Theintervieweesassociatedculturalresistancetothe genera-tiongap,i.e.,oldercourtmanagementstaffandjudgeswouldbe morelikelytoresisttheadoptionofaninnovation.Theeffectsof ageintheadoptionofinnovationhavebeenstudiedandsuggest thatyoungworkershaveamorefavourableattitudetotheuse ofanewtechnology(MorrisandVenkatesh,2000)andthatage wouldbeamoderatingvariableintheadoptionofaninnovation (Venkatesh,Thong,&Xu,2012).
Innovationsininformation systems,such as the electronic lawsuit,areassociatednotonlywithtechnicalfeaturesbutalso withorganizationalandadministrativematters(Mustonen-Ollila andLyytinen,2003).Organizationalbarriersrefertostrategies ofadoption andchangesinworkingprocesses.The topdown processofbuildingtheelectroniclawsuitstudiedslows improve-mentsonitandmaydiscouragethetrial-and-errorprocessthat isveryimportantfor thegenerationofnewsolutions.In con-trast,however,topdownactionscontributetostandardizingthe system.Ifontheonehand,standardscanblocktheprocessof innovation,theyarenecessaryalongwiththecreationof addi-tional innovations, toavoidhindering adoption anddiffusion (Carboni&Velicogna,2012;Tidd,2010).
Mandatoryadoptioncanconstitute abarriertoinnovation. Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, andDavis (2003)claim that there maybedifferencesbetweenvoluntaryandmandatoryadoption. Theinterviewees indicatethat mandatoryadoptionisafactor that can bring resistanceand slow downthe adoption of the electroniclawsuit.However,ifeachcourthadtheautonomyto buildandadoptitsownsystem,theresultingmultiplicityof e-filingmodelswouldhindersynergiesandcontrol.Anotherpoint frequentlystatedbytheintervieweesistheuseof hybrid sys-tems,i.e.,courtswithsimultaneousprintedandelectronicfiling systemsandinsomecases,twoversionsofthee-filingsoftware, whichcancontributetoreworkandnegativelyimpactjudicial performance.Accordingtothecomplexityfactorsuggestedby Rogers(2003),theeaseoftransitionbetweensystemsisakey factor ininnovation adoption. Complexity is also one of the factorsfoundbyAlomari(2014).
Regarding to structural barriers, infrastructure availability problemshavealsobeenreported.Thesebarriersweremainly presentincourtsinBrazil’sNorthandNortheastregionsandin theNorthernregionofMinasGeraisstate,whichhas electric-ityandInternetconnectionproblems.Oneintervieweereports that “the main difficulty that the North regionexperiences is the issue oftechnological infrastructure.We donot have the electronic lawsuit in all ofour courts because we are wait-ingforthetechnologicalinfrastructureanddataconnectionto implementit.”Publicinfrastructure-availabilitypoliciesfor sys-temssuchaselectricityandtheInternet(Jaeger&Thompson, 2003; Kuk, 2003; Rosa et al., 2013) can help lower this barrier.
According to the IT managers interviewed, the economic barrierislinkedtothebudgetforinvestingintechnological hard-wareupgrades,workstations,andsecurity,amongotherthings, andfundingbothdevelopmentandotheractivities(for exam-ple, the training and learning of employees about managing
theelectroniclawsuit,hardwareandsystemmaintenance).This investmentiscriticaltoachievinginnovation.
Onecriticismoftheinnovationadoptionstudiesisthatthey generallyassumethatadoptionwillresultonlyinpositive con-sequences (Rogers, 2003).The negative consequences of the innovationstudied,accordingtotheinterviewees,arepresented below.
Theadoptionoftheelectroniclawsuitwasconsidereda rad-icalchange inlowercourtsthat hadbeen workingwithfully printed filings,andinsomecourts, therewerechangesinthe systemor workflowprocesses relatedtohybridsystems. The interviewedICTmanagersunderstoodthattheadoptionofthat innovationinitiallyproducedanincreaseintheamountofpaper andprintingresourcesbecausecourtworkersandjudgesstillfelt theyneedtoprintdocuments.Theseaspects,addedtochanges inworkingprocessesandhybridsystems,contributedinitially toslowercourtproceedingsandincreasework.
The adoption of ITs is associated with the emergence of newthreatstoworkers’health(Mendes&Dias,1991;Pacheco, Pereira,Pereira,&PereiraFilho,2005).Somefactors,suchas pressuretoachievegoals,systeminstability,andthe speedof procedural actions,may havehadanimpacton the healthof bothcourtworkersandjudges.Therearereportsof increased problemsandoccupationaldiseases,forinstancerepetitivestrain injury(RSI),work-relatedmusculoskeletaldisorders(MSDs), problems withthe cervical spine, vision problems, sedentary lifestyles, absenteeism, increased stress, dissatisfaction, sad-ness, overwork and difficulty in disconnecting from work. Accordingtooneofthemanagersinterviewed:“Ihavesix work-erstodaywithproblemsrelatedtorepetitivestraininjuries,some withsightproblems(...)someworkersand judgesareinthe
processofgoingonmedicalleave.”
Brazilian labourcourtshave takenactiontomanage these problems, ashighlightedbyoneinterviewee: “whenthelocal Regional LabourCourtfound[occupational healthproblems], itdistributedeyedrops,institutedoccupationalfitness,however (...)onadailybasis,wearenotabletoremembertouseeye
drops(...),sooursightsuffersalot,asdoesourtyping.”With
respecttoincreasedworkinghoursresultingfromtelework,one interviewedmanagerstates:“Isometimesworkuntildawn(...)
isthatanadvantage?Comparedtothepast,inacertainway, yes,becausenowIcanperformsometasksathome,Idonot needtobephysicallyintheofficetoperformthesetasks(...)
butitalsohasthisnegativeside,itcancauseillnessesbecause ofthat.”
Adoptionfacilitatorsandpositiveimpactsoftheelectronic lawsuit
electroniclawsuitwiththesystemsadoptedearlier;for exam-ple,thelowercourtsthatusedaprintedsystemadoptinnovation faster.
Regarding toorganizational dimension, the managers and judgesinterviewedhighlightedasfacilitatorscapacitybuilding andtrainingactions,whichwerealsostatedasimportant capa-bilitiesintheadoptionofinnovation.Oneofthereportedaspects referstobuilding(throughtrainingactivities)multidisciplinary teamsin whichtechnical IT and judicialmanagement issues arediscussed.TheICTandcourtmanagersinterviewedlisted thefollowingfacilitators:(1)theimplementationtargetsofthe electroniclawsuitaccelerateadoption;(2)thecreationof com-mitteesandworkinggroupshelpstomonitor,controlandsuggest improvements;(3)thecreationofanimplementationteamcan increasetheacceptanceoftheinnovationbecauseitsupportsthe structuringof newprocessesandactivitiesinthelowercourt; (4)communicationactionsareimportant,especiallyincaseof problems,downtimeorchangesinthesystem;(5)usersupport isconsideredacriticalfacilitatoratthetimewhenthesystemis stillunderconsolidation;and(6)thesupportandadherenceof internalusersandtheinvolvementofexternaluserssuchasthe presenceofBrazilianBarAssociationincommitteesrelatedto theelectroniclawsuit.
Inthestructuraldimension,intervieweespointedtoInternet access as a facilitator. In the economic dimension, invest-mentswerementionedininformationsecurityandavailability, includingthecreationofsaferooms,serverredundancy,power generators, and system clones, among other strategies; data processingcentres; the numberof computers andother hard-ware,alongwithperiodic updatesandworkstations withtwo monitors.
Thepositiveimpactsoftheadoptionoftheinnovationunder studyconcernbothperceivedusefulnessandeaseof use.The firstrelatesimpacttothesystemicviewoftheprocess,i.e., view-ingtheproceduralflowandtheprocessasawholeinrealtime; systemreliability,i.e.,thedifficultyofforgingandlosing docu-ments;andeaseofaccesstoinformationfromanyplace,dayand time.Withrespecttothesecondcategory,theinterviewees men-tionedboththattheinnovationadoptsaneasierandfastersearch engineforlegalproceedingsandthatelectronicsignaturescan beeasierused.
Theorganizational impactscausedbythe innovation stud-iedareasfollows:greatertransparencyandpublicityof court actionsbecausethepartieshavereal-timeaccesstodecisions; speedbecauseofeliminatedstepsintheflowandfaster proce-duraltimes;standardizedroutines,whichprovidegreater ease andspeed,reducedwaiting,measurementandcomparisontimes between units, and monitoring of the lawsuit history by the courts. It was alsomentioned by judges interviewed that the electroniclawsuitbothallowsforeasyinformationretrievaland contributestotheunificationofdecisions,inadditionto speed-ingupcaseprocessing.Thisgreaterspeed,inturn,increasesthe workloadofthejudge,whomustjudgemorecases.Inaddition totheseimpacts,theinnovationcontributestotheemergenceof otherorganizationalandtechnologicalinnovations,suchas elec-tronicadministrative proceedings, administrative andjudicial informationsystems,andteleworking,amongothers.
Thestudy alsofoundthatthe intervieweeshadmajor con-cerns about health and quality of life at work due to the electroniclawsuit.The possibility ofteleworking or telecom-muting,alreadyregulatedbysomecourts(includingtheHigher Labour Court),hasbeen receivedpositively,according tothe interviewees. This is an organizational innovation that came fromtheelectroniclawsuit,andtheintervieweesunderstandthat itcanresultinhigherlabourproductivity.Thedecreaseof dis-easessuchasallergieswasalsoreportedbecauseofthereduced handlingofprintedproceedings.
The economic impacts of adopting innovation were also statedbytheinterviewees,includingthedecreaseduseof phys-ical space at the courts; the reduction of material resources, suchasink,printersandpaper;andthereducedmovementof judgesandworkerswithinthecourtbecausethereisnophysical transportationofproceedings.
Theadoption ofthe electroniclawsuitishighlydependent oncomputersystemandinformationsecurityavailability,both of which have direct impacts on the court activities. Thus, theresponsibility andtheimportance ofITinthe courtshave increased,whichgeneratesexpectationsrelatedto“availability, continuity assurance, security, efficiency, delivery and sup-portquality,controls,complianceandconsistency”(Tarouco& Graeml, 2011,p. 8). Another important technologicalaspect that impacts judiciary performance is the interoperability of the electronic lawsuit with other systems, such as the elec-tronic communication systemamongst financial and banking institutions. Thissystem allows the Brazilian Labour Courts toblock,unblockandtransferamountselectronicallybetween bankaccounts; the informationexchange systembetweenthe judiciaryandtaxadministrationbodies;theexchangeof infor-mation,inelectronicformat,betweenthejudiciaryandtraffic agencies andboards of trade,among other connections with controllingbodies.Theseinnovationsshowtheimportanceof theinterconnectionofthesenewtoolswiththeelectronic law-suitandtheimpactonjudicialperformance,asemphasizedby oneoftheinterviewees:“itisworthlesstoimposeasentenceif thedebtordoesnotpay(...)itisworthlesshavingasentence
imposedifthissentenceisnotenforced,thisnewobjectiveofthe justicesystemhasbeenrealizedthroughthesetools.”
Conclusions
Thedevelopmentandadoptionof theelectroniclawsuitin Brazil’slabourcourtsindicatethatinnovationhasundergonean evolutionthatisreflectedbothinthelawsgoverningtheissue andintheadoptionprocessesofthelabourcourtsandtribunals. Threestrategiesofdevelopmentandadoptionofinnovationwere identified:centralizedinhigherbodies;spontaneouslyamong courts;orinternaltotheorganization.
interviewees,theseroutinesareessentialtothesuccessful adop-tion andalignment of actions not only betweenthe different hierarchicallevelsofplanningandimplementationofworking processesbutalsoamongthelabourcourts.
The barriers and facilitators that can both contribute to reducedresistanceandacceleratetheacceptanceofinnovation werealsodiscussed.The barriersandfacilitatorswere classi-fied intobehavioural, organizational,structural andeconomic dimensions.TheelectricityandInternetinfrastructureand bud-getarebothfacilitatorsandbarriers,dependingonavailability. Theperceptionofusefulnessandeaseofuseofthenew tech-nologywere perceived bothas barriers andas facilitators,in additiontobeing relatedtothe innovation’spositiveimpacts. Theuseofhybridsystemsinthe caseofprintedfilings –and insomecasesinthecontextofthecurrentsystemofelectronic filingconcomitantlywithprevioussystems–mayincrease com-plexityandwas perceivedbothas abarrierandas anegative factor.Thestudyhighlightstheimportanceoftherelationship of public infrastructurepolicies andthe provision ofservices basedonICTs.
Among the impacts relatedto the electronic lawsuit, it is notedthattheinnovationhascontributedtothedevelopmentof othertechnologicalandorganizationalinnovationsandchanges incourtsroutines.Itisalsoobservedthat therewasincreased responsibility for lawyers andICTmanagers andan increase intheflowof proceedingsreachingthe decisionpoint,which alsoleadstohigherworkpressuresforjudges.Courtmanagers andjudges’concernsabouthealthissuesandqualityoflifeat workwerealsodetected.Becausethedevelopmentandadoption ofinnovationareinprogress,theseresultsrepresentimportant feedbackforthoseresponsiblefortheadoptionoftheinnovation. Fromboththeoreticalandempiricalperspectivestheresults of this study can help to build some kind of standardized questionnairetoassesscourtsconditionsupontheadoptionof innovationsuchastheelectroniclawsuit.Thisscalecould sup-port studies with great samples of courts and to collect the perceptions of several actors such as judges,staff managers, lawyers,prosecutors,policymakersandcitizensabout innova-tionadoptionincourts.Inthissenseitwouldbepossibletohave generalizeddatatobuildtheory.
Onelimitationofthisstudyisthattheinterviewsweretaken ataparticularmomentintime.Itissuggestedthatfuturestudies onthistheme(a)usealongitudinalapproachtounderstand vari-ationsinresponsestoinnovationatdifferentpointsintime;(b) assessinter-organizationalrelationshipsthroughother theoreti-callensesbecausethoserelationswereseenasrelevantroutines– however,thisstudyfocusedoninternalresources;(c)use quanti-tativemethods,forexample,todevelopproductivityindicesthat addressinnovation,validatespecificquestionnairesforthe judi-ciarycontextandconductexperimentsforabetterunderstanding of behavioural relations; and (d) analyze the development and adoption of innovation in other judicial fields and courts.
Conflictsofinterest
Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the support and research grants from Goiano Federal Institute (IFGOIANO), Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and NationalCouncilforScientificandTechnologicalDevelopment (CNPq).
References
Alomari,M.K.(2014).Discoveringcitizensreactionstowarde-government: Factosine-governmentadoption.JournalofInformationSystemsand Tech-nologyManagement,11,5–20.
Anderson,L.(2003).Thelawandthedesert:Alternativemethodsofdelivering justice.JournalofLawandSociety,30,120–136.
Bardin,L.(2011).Análisedeconteúdo.pp.70.SãoPaulo:Edic¸ões.
Barney,J.B.(1991).Firmresourcesandsustainedcompetitiveadvantage. Jour-nalofManagement,17,99–120.
Barney,J.B.(2001a).Istheresource-based“view”ausefulperspectivefor strategicmanagementresearch?Yes.TheAcademyofManagementReview, 26,41–56.
Barney,J.B.(2001b).Resource-basedtheoriesofcompetitiveadvantage:Aten yearretrospectiveontheresource-basedview.JournalofManagement,27, 643–650.
Becker,M.C.,Lazaric,N.,Nelson,R.R.,&Winter,S.G.(2005).Applying organizationalroutinesinunderstandingorganizationalchange.Industrial andCorporateChange,14,775–791.
Berry,F.S.,&Weschsler,B.(1995).Stateagencies’experiencewithstrategic planning:Findingsfromanationalsurvey.PublicAdministrationReview, 55,159–168.
Bhatt,J.K.(2005).RoleofinformationtechnologyintheMalaysianJudicial System:Issuesandcurrenttrends.InternationalReviewofLawComputers &Technology,19,199–208.
Boyne,G.A.,Gould-Williams,J.S.,Law,J.,&Walker,R.M.(2005).Explaining theadoptionofinnovation:Anempiricalanalysisofpublicmanagement reform.EnvironmentandPlanningC:GovernmentandPolicy,23,419–435. Bryson,J.R.,Ackermann,F.,&Eden,C.(2007).Puttingtheresource-basedview ofstrategyanddistinctivecompetenciestoworkinpublicorganizations. PublicAdministrationReview,67,702–717.
Carboni,N.,&Velicogna,M.(2012).Electronicdataexchangewithin Euro-peanJustice:e-CODEXchallenges,threatsandoportunities.International JournalforCourtAdministration,4,104–120.
Costa,P.R.S.(2008).Justi¸cadotrabalho:Descentraliza¸cãoeinformatiza¸cão. pp.1.RevistaEletrônicaParlatorium.
Davis,F.D.(1993).Useracceptanceofinformationtechnology:System char-acteristics,userperceptionsandbehavioralimpacts.InternationalJournal ofMan-MachineStudies,38,475–487.
Davis,F.D.,Bagozzi,R.P.,&Warshaw,P. R.(1989).Useracceptanceof computertechnology:Acomparisonoftwotheoreticalmodels.Management Science,35,982–1003.
DiasJúnior,N.S.(2004).Agarantiadarazoáveldurac¸ãodoprocesso.InT. A.A.Wambier,L.R.Wambier,L.M.GomesJúnior,O.C.Fischer,& W.S.Ferreira(Eds.),Reformadojudiciario:Primeirasreflexõessobrea emendaconstitucionaln.45/2004(pp.59–62).SãoPaulo:EditoraRevista dosTribunais.
Eisenhardt,K.M.,&Martin,J.A.(2000).Dynamiccapabilities:Whatarethey? StrategicManagementJournal,21,1105–1121.
Falkner,A.,Lange,B.,&Lawless,C.(2012).Introduction:Materialworlds: Intersectionsoflaw,science,technology,andsociety.JournalofLawand Society,39,1–19.
Grant, R.M.(1991). Theresource-basedtheoryofcompetitive advantage: Implicationsforstrategyformulation.CaliforniaManagementReview,33, 114–135.
Guimaraes,T.A.,Odelius,C.C.,Medeiros,J.J.,&Santana,J.A.V.(2011). ManagementinnovationattheBrazilianSuperiorTribunalofJustice.The AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,41,297–302.
Hara,N.(2007).Informationtechnologysupportforcommunitiesofpractice: Howpublicdefenderslearnaboutwinningandlosingincourt.Journalof TheAmericanSocietyforInformationScienceandTechnology,58,76–87. Jaeger,P.T., &Thompson,K.M.(2003).E-governmentaroundtheworld: Lessons,challenges,andfuturedirections.GovernmentInformation Quar-terly,20,389–394.
Johanson,J.-E.(2009).Strategyformationinpublicagencies.Public Adminis-tration,87,872–891.
Joia,L.A.(2008).Theimpactofgovernment-to-governmentendeavorsonthe intellectualcapitalofpublicorganizations.GovernmentInformation Quar-terly,25,256–277.
Joia,L.A.(2009).Governoeletrônicoecapitalintelectualnasorganizac¸ões públicas.RevistadeAdministra¸cãoPública,43,1379–1405.
Kanungo,S.,&Jain,V.(2011).AnalyzingIT-enabledeffectivenessin gov-ernmentsector:ARBVanddynamiccapabilityperspective.ACMSIGMIS Database,42,38–62.
Katz,E.,Levin,M.L.,&Hamilton,H.(1963).Traditionsofresearchonthe diffusionofinnovation.AmericanSociologicalReview,28,237–252. Kay,J.A.(1995).Whyfirmssucceed.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. Klein,P.G.,Mahoney,J.T.,McGahan,A.M.,&Pitelis,C.N.(2011).Resources,
capabilities,androutinesinpublicorganizations(No.11-0101).Working Paper.Chicago,USA:UniversityofIllinois,CollegeofBusiness. Kuk,G.(2003).Thedigitaldivideandthequalityofelectronicservice
deliv-eryinlocalgovernmentintheUnitedKingdon.GovernmentInformation Quarterly,20,353–363.
Lee,S.-Y.,&Whitford,A.B.(2013).Assessingtheeffectsoforganizational resourcesonpublicagencyperformance:Evidencefrom theUSfederal government.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,23, 687–712.
Llewellyn,S.,&Tappin,E.(2003).Strategyinthepublicsector:Management inthewilderness.JournalofManagementStudies,40,955–982.
Lunardi,G.L.,Dolci,P.C.,Mac¸ada,A.C.G.,&Becker,J.L.(2014).Análise dosmecanismosdegovernanc¸adeTImaisdifundidosentreasempresas brasileiras.RevistaAlcance,21,46–76.
Makadok,R.(2001).Towardasynthesisoftheresource-basedand dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 387–401.
Massukado,M.S.,&Teixeira,R.M.(2008).Avisãobaseadaemrecursosna gestãopúblicadoturismo:OcasodeCuritiba-PR.TurismoemAnálise,19, 255–271.
Mathews,J.A.(2002).Aresource-basedviewofSchumpeterianeconomic dynamics.JournalofEvolutionaryEconomics,12,29–54.
Matthews,J.,&Shulman,A.(2005).Competitiveadvantageinpublicsector organizations:Explainingthepublicgood/sustainablecompetitive advan-tageparadox.JournalofBusinessResearch,58,232–240.
McKechnie,D.(2003).Theuseoftheinternetbycourtsandthejudiciary: Findingsfromastudytripandsupplementaryresearch.InternationalJournal ofLawandInformationTechnology,11,109–148.
Mendes,R.,&Dias,E.C.(1991).Damedicinadotrabalhoásaúdedo trabal-hador.RevistadeSaúdePública,25,341–349.
Morris,M.G.,&Venkatesh,V.(2000).Agedifferencesintechnologyadoption decisions:Implicationsforachangingworkforce.PersonnelPsychology, 53,375–403.
Mustonen-Ollila,E.,&Lyytinen,K.(2003).Whyorganizationsadopt infor-mationsystemprocessinnovations:Alongitudinalstudyusingdiffusionof innovationtheory.InformationSystemsJournal,257–297.
Nelson,R.R.,&Winter,S.G.(1982).Anevolutionarytheoryofeconomic change.HarvardUniversityPress:Cambridge.
Pablo,A.L.,Reay,T.,Dewald,J.R.,&Casebeer,A.L.(2007).Identifying, enablingandmanagingdynamiccapabilitiesinthepublicsector.Journalof ManagementStudies,44,687–708.
Pacheco,W.,Pereira,C.,Jr.,Pereira,V.L.S.do.V.,&PereiraFilho,H.do. V.(2005).Aeradatecnologiadainformac¸ãoecomunicac¸ãoeasaúdedo trabalhador.RevistaBrasileiradeMedicinanoTrabalho,3,114–122. Penrose,E.(2009).Thetheoryofthegrowthofthefirm(4thed.).NewYork:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Peteraf,M.A.(1993).Thecornestonesofcompetitiveadvantage:A resource-basedview.StrategicManagementJournal,14,179–191.
Piening,E.P.(2013).Dynamiccapabilitiesinpublicorganizations:Aliterature reviewandresearchagenda.PublicManagementReview,15,209–245. Reiling,D.(2009).Technologyforjustice:Howinformationtechnologycan
supportjudicialreform.Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress. Rogers,E.M.(2003).Diffusionofinnovations(5thed.).NewYork:TheFree
Press.
Rosa,J.,Teixeira,C.,&Pinto,J.S.(2013).Riskfactorsine-justiceinformation systems.GovernmentInformationQuarterly,30,241–256.
Saman,W.S.W.M.,&Haider,A.(2013).E-ShariahinMalaysia:Technology adoptionwithinjusticesystem.TransformingGovernment:People,Process andPolicy,7,256–276.
Scheb,J.M.,&Matheny,A.R.(1988).Judicialreformandrationalization: ThediffusionofcourtreformpoliciesamongtheAmericanStates.Lawand Policy,10,25–42.
Sousa,M.de. M.,&Guimaraes,T.A.(2014).Inovac¸ãoe desempenhona administrac¸ãojudicial:Desvendandolacunasconceituaisemetodológicas. RevistadeAdministra¸cãoeInova¸cão,11,321–344.
Spriggs,J.F.(1996).Thesupremecourtandfederaladministrativeagencies:A resource-basedtheoryandanalysisofjudicialimpact.AmericanJournalof PoliticalScience,40,1122–1151.
Tarouco, H. H., & Graeml, A. R. (2011). Governanc¸a de tecnologia da informac¸ão:Umpanoramadaadoc¸ãodemodelosdemelhorespraticaspor empresasbrasileirasusuárias.RevistadeAdministra¸cão,46,7–18. Tidd,J.(2010).Frommodelstothemanagementofdiffusion.InJ.Tidd(Ed.),
Gainingmomentum:Managingthediffusionofinnovations(pp.3–45). Lon-don:ImperialCollegePress.
Velicogna,M.,Errera,A.,&Derlange,S.(2011).e-JusticeinFrance:The e-Barreauexperience.UtrechtLawReview,7,163–187.
Velicogna,M.,Errera,A.,&Derlange,S.(2013).Buildinge-justicein Conti-nentalEurope:TheTéléRecoursexperienceinFrance.UtrechtLawReview, 9,38–59.
Venkatesh,V.,Morris,M.G.,Davis,G.B.,&Davis,F.D.(2003).User accep-tanceofinformationtechnology:Towardaunifiedview.MISQuarterly,27, 425–478.
Venkatesh,V.,Thong,J.Y.L.,&Xu,X.(2012).Consumeracceptanceanduse ofinformationtechnology:Extendingtheunifiedtheoryofacceptanceand useoftechnology.MISQuarterly,36,157–178.
Wernerfelt,B.(1984).Aresource-basedviewofthefirm.StrategicManagement Journal,5,171–180.
Wernerfelt,B.(1995).Theresource-basedviewofthefirm:Tenyearsafter. StrategicManagementJournal,16,171–174.
Winter,S.G.(2003).Understandingdynamiccapabilities.Strategic Manage-mentJournal,24,991–995.
