International Journal of Public Sector ManagementCollaborative development of enterprise policy: A process model for developing evidence-based policyrecommendations using community focused strategic conversations and SERVQUALMegan Woods Morgan Parker Miles

Article information:To cite this document:Megan Woods Morgan Parker Miles , (2014),"Collaborative development of enterprise policy", International Journal ofPublic Sector Management, Vol. 27 Iss 3 pp. 174 - 189Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-09-2012-0121

Downloaded on: 17 December 2014, At: 10:46 (PT)References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 180 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Pauline Anne Loewenberger, Mark Newton, Kylie Wick, (2014),"Developing creative leadership in a public sectororganisation", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 27 Iss 3 pp. 190-200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-11-2012-0152Malcolm Prowle, Don Harradine, (2014),"Austerity and financial governance: a UK case study of the National HealthService", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 27 Iss 3 pp. 212-224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-02-2013-0028Lisa Björk, Stefan Szücs, Annika Härenstam, (2014),"Measuring capacity to perform across local governmentservices – managers' perceptions", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 27 Iss 1 pp. 26-38 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-09-2012-0115

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 277061 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Collaborative development ofenterprise policy

A process model for developingevidence-based policy recommendations usingcommunity focused strategic conversations

and SERVQUAL

Megan Woods and Morgan Parker MilesSchool of Management, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to integrate an augmented version of the Thompson et al.model of enterprise policy, delivery, practice and research with services marketing modelsincluding SERVQUAL and strategic conversations; and demonstrate a practical application of theanalysed through the application of N-Vivo qualitative data classification software to create moresatisfying enterprise policy recommendations that better reflect the voices of SMEs and otherstakeholders.

Design/methodology/approach – A five-stage iterative process model to integrate stakeholderinput into enterprise policy recommendations is developed through integrating services marketingtheory and the Thompson et al. model into a field study of community conversations hosted by theTasmanian Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts, Regional DevelopmentAustralia’s Tasmanian committee, and local governments.

Findings – The five-stage iterative model leverages strategic conversations, analysis (throughN-Vivo), comments and revisions, recommendation co-creation, and policy assessment usingSERQUAL to craft more satisfying policy recommendations.

Research limitations/implications – The first limitation was the time and costs associated withconducting the community consultation workshops and analysing the data. The second limitation wasthe inability to craft policy quickly in response to a changing environment due to the time taken tocollect and transcribe the data, undertake the analysis, and develop and report policyrecommendations. The third limitation was the complexity of coordinating three levels ofgovernment, which took time and effort because each level had different interests and time frames andwere at times distracted by other priorities.

Originality/value – This paper contributes to better enterprise policy by providing a process modeldeveloped using both theory and a field study to illustrate how policy makers can co-develop policythat is more satisfying to policy stakeholders.

Keywords Entrepreneurs, Small firms, Service quality, Government, Stakeholder analysis

Paper type Research paper

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and helpful comments of Bronte Price,Tasmanian Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts; Craig Perkins and JenNewman, Regional Development Australia–Tasmania; and Gil Sawford, Wise, Lord & Ferguson.

IJPSM27,3

174

Received 5 October 2012Revised 8 May 2013Accepted 14 May 2013

International Journal of Public SectorManagementVol. 27 No. 3, 2014pp. 174-189q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0951-3558DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-09-2012-0121

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

IntroductionThe job creation capabilities of entrepreneurship and SMEs are becoming increasinglyimportant to Australian policy makers. The Australian manufacturing industry haslost more than 100,000 jobs over five years and even industry-leading manufacturers inAustralia are experiencing a decline in sales and profitability during the resource boom(Critchlow and Curran, 2012). The growth of a resource- and commodities-basedeconomy is vulnerable to changes in the global economic environment (The Economist,2012) and the emergent “two-speed” economy has regional policy implications (see, forexample, Tomaney, 2012) with policy makers potentially looking at small-andmedium-sized businesses (SMEs) to create more jobs and be an engine of economicprosperity. Fewer than one per cent of Australian businesses employ more than 200staff (ABS, 2011) and so the employment opportunities offered by SMEs are critical tothe development of Australian communities and the economy.

Davidsson et al. (2012, p. i) recently found that “Australia’s entrepreneurship rate issecond only to the USA among developed countries” with almost 1.5 millionearly-stage entrepreneurs, and more than 500,000 of these firms creating five or morenew jobs over the next five years. This emergence of entrepreneurship in the face ofmanufacturing declines suggests that SME policies should be crafted to encourage thegrowth of a vibrant and increasingly important small business sector. This isparticularly important to the growth of regional areas of Australia where the economicand social impact of SMEs is even more pronounced. In states such as Tasmania, forexample, small businesses make up more than 95 per cent of the business populationand employ around 46 per cent of the Tasmanian workforce (Department of EconomicDevelopment, Tourism and the Arts, 2011) and so leveraging entrepreneurship tocreate and expand SMEs (Dennis, 2011a, b; Sarasvathy and Venkataraman, 2011)provides valuable opportunities for economic and social growth. The effectiveness andefficiency of SME policy impacts SMEs and their stakeholders including banks,suppliers, employees, customers, and local communities (see Gibb and Adhikary,2000). But as Dennis (2011a, p. 92) notes, “(p)olicymakers need jobs; small firmsproduce jobs; so small business remains a central focus for many policymakers”.

In Australia, as in many places, SME policy is created as a response to problemsfaced by SMEs and largely based upon the policymakers’ perceptions of what would bein the best interests for SMEs and their stakeholders. But, the top-down approachtraditionally adopted by policy makers can limit their understanding of the needs andcontext of SMEs and their stakeholders, the support they require, and the ways thatsupport can be efficiently and effectively delivered (Fuller-love et al., 2006; Gibb andAdhikary, 2000). This lack of understanding has prompted calls for policy makers toadopt more inclusive, consultative, and collaborative approaches to policydevelopment (see Guerrero et al., 2008; Kefasi et al., 2011; Riege and Lindsay, 2006).

Thompson et al. (2012) recently proposed a meso level strategy for developingenterprise policy that incorporates and guides contributions from policy makers,delivery agencies, academic researchers, and actual businesses. They suggest that acollaborative approach would enhance each group’s understanding of, andcontribution to, the development of enterprise policy by leveraging their specialisedinsights and strengths. Hence, they argue, better policy would result from collaborationthat combines businesses’ input about support needs and preferences, policy makers’input about overarching strategies for enterprise development, delivery agencies’ input

Collaborativedevelopment of

enterprise policy

175

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

into and feedback about actual support services, and academic research which informsand evaluates policy initiatives. This paper extends the work of Thompson et al. (2012)by presenting an innovative policy making initiative that integrates contributions frompolicy makers, policy stakeholders, and academic researchers. It integrates insightsfrom recent work on strategic conversations and a service quality tool, SERVQUAL, toexplain and evaluate a model for consultative policy development developed inAustralia by the Tasmanian Department of Economic Development, Tourism and theArts (DEDTA), in co-operation with Regional Development Australia’s TasmanianCommittee (RDA-Tas), and local governments which leveraged a series of iterativecommunity focused strategic conversations to shape regional economic developmentplans. In doing so, it contributes to knowledge about evidence-based policy making(EBPM).

EBPM refers to the explicit incorporation of knowledge about ‘what works, whenand for whom’ into policy development processes (Nutley and Webb, 2000), anapproach which now informs policy development in countries including the US, theUK, Australia, and Denmark (see Kay, 2011; Hansen and Rieper, 2010). Extantliterature on EBPM has highlighted the contribution of research and evidence toidentifying problems that policy must address, informing policy choices and programdevelopment (Sessa and Ricci, 2010), identifying needed improvements in policy(Evans et al., 2013), understanding how policies are framed, developed, andimplemented (Nutley and Webb, 2000) and evaluating the effectiveness and outcomesof policy initiatives (Sanderson, 2002); however, insufficient attention has been paid tothe potential role of research and researchers for improving policy making processes(Burton, 2006). For instance, Sanderson (2002) has argued that by engaging in forms ofaction research to determine how novel policy approaches work and can be improvedresearcher can make a valuable contribution to reflexive social learning by policymakers.

To explore this potential, this study describes and evaluates a novel approach forengaging in strategic conversations with SMEs and their stakeholders which informpolicy recommendations and the development of policy goals. In doing so, itcontributes specifically to knowledge about research for the policy process andresearch of the policy process in EBPM (Nutley and Webb, 2000). It contributes toresearch for the policy process by demonstrating a method for researching stakeholderinterests and perspectives which are relevant to policy directions. It contributes toresearch of the policy process by describing and evaluating a process which can informthe definition of policy problems and the development of policy directions and agendas.

Strategic conversations and stakeholder satisfaction with policyAs Bryson (2003) has noted, stakeholder input into and satisfaction with policydevelopment processes is critical to ensuring that policies incorporate stakeholderinterests and information, are supported by stakeholders, and satisfy stakeholders bycreating value which is meaningful to them. In other words, strategic conversationswith stakeholders can enhance the process and outcomes of policy development.

Strategic conversations in a SME policy context are channels for open andunfiltered information exchange between policymakers, SMEs and stakeholders (foradditional information on strategic conversations see Chesley and Wenger, 1999;Liedtka and Rosenblum, 1996; Miles et al., 2006). Strategic conversations allow

IJPSM27,3

176

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

stakeholders with different perspectives to come together to share and analyseinformation, ideas and paradigms that can shape policy (Miles et al., 2006). They aremulti-directional, multi-dimensional communications that inform the policymakersabout the opportunities, concerns, and constraints that SMEs and their regions face,while informing stakeholders on the realities of government policy. Theseconversations help policymakers better understand the realities of creating andbuilding business and help stakeholders have direct input into and ownership of policyinitiatives. Policy recommendations that emerge from strategic conversations betweenthe policymakers and the community stakeholders have a better chance to be useful asthey reflect the diverse inputs from SMEs and stakeholders and because this process,along with other communication mechanisms, encourages stakeholder support of thepolicies they help shape.

Arguably the most important value of strategic conversations for policy makers isin enhancing stakeholder satisfaction with policy initiatives. The outcome of enterprisepolicy is ultimately a government service (ranging from management assistance forSMEs to changes in the regulatory environment) and so stakeholder perceptions of thequality of government policies and services influence their perceptions of and supportfor policy makers. Recent work by Pansiri and Mmereki (2010) demonstrated thatParasuraman et al.’s (1985) SERVQUAL service quality model offers a usefulframework for understanding how stakeholder perceive policy outcomes and howpolicies could be adapted to better address stakeholder expectations. Adapted to apolicy context, Parasuraman et al.’s (1985) five gaps in service marketing qualitysuggest five gaps in understanding between the policymakers and SME policystakeholders that can undermine satisfaction with policy initiatives:

(1) The reality gap – the gap between what SME policy stakeholders expect fromgovernment policy and what policymakers think SME policy stakeholdersexpect from the policy.

(2) The translation gap – the gap between policymakers’ perceptions of SMEpolicy stakeholder needs and the translation of these perceptions into policyimperatives.

(3) The bureaucratic gap – the gap between policymakers’ translation of theirperceptions of SME policy stakeholder needs and the SME policy enacted.

(4) The communication gap – the gap between the policy enacted and the externalcommunications by policymakers to SME policy stakeholders.

(5) The satisfaction gap – the gap between the policy SME stakeholders expectedand the policy that they perceived was delivered.

Strategic conversations feed directly into identification of and learning about each ofthe gaps identified in the SERVQUAL model. Hence, strategic conversations can helppolicy makers consider how they can minimise or close gaps and enhance stakeholdersatisfaction with policy initiatives. Identifying the reality gap between what SMEpolicy stakeholders expect from government policy and what policymakers think SMEpolicy stakeholders expect from the policy requires strategic conversations in whichstakeholders identify the outcomes they want to see policies achieve and the ways inwhich they want policies to achieve those outcomes. From such conversations,policymakers can determine the stakeholder priorities on which they will focus.

Collaborativedevelopment of

enterprise policy

177

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Addressing the translation gap between policymaker perceptions of stakeholderneeds and the translation of these perceptions into policy imperatives requires thatpolicymakers can determine how to provide the types of support that stakeholdersneed and what they can actually offer. By holding strategic conversations withstakeholders about the forms of support they want, the value they want policies tocreate, and the mechanisms in which they want support to be provided, policymakerscan then determine how to frame the development of policy goals and deliverymethods. Moreover, by discussing with stakeholders the ways in which they do notwant support to be delivered, policymakers can avoid framing polices which fit poorlywith their capabilities.

The insights provided by strategic conversations into the priorities and perspectivesheld by stakeholders can also enhance the development and implementation of policiesby helping policymakers address the bureaucratic gap and the communication gap.Strategic conversations provide policymakers with points of reference about the needsand preferences that stakeholders articulate. Using such insights to inform thedevelopment of policies targeted to address specific stakeholder needs enablespolicymakers to minimise the bureaucratic gap between policymakers’ translation ofstakeholder needs and the policies that are subsequently enacted. Using strategicconversations to inform the ways in which the policy is communicated to stakeholderscan also help policymakers minimise the communication gap between the policy enactedand the external communications by policymakers to SME policy stakeholders. One wayin which this can occur is through the exploration of stakeholder perspectives to identifythe interests which stakeholders have in specific policy areas, which can then helppolicymakers determine how to develop persuasive arguments that support new policieswhich further stakeholder interests (Bryson, 2003). In this way, policymakers can usestrategic conversations to determine the audience, focus, and messages for theircommunication strategies about policy initiatives.

By helping policymakers understand stakeholder perceptions and expectations andco-create policy with stakeholders, strategic conversations also assist policymakers tominimise the satisfaction gap between the policy that stakeholders expected and thepolicy that they perceived was enacted. Strategic conversations provide a preview ofthe frames of reference that stakeholders will adopt when they evaluate policyinitiatives. By enabling policymakers to identify in advance the criteria andexpectations against which polices will be evaluated, strategic conversations enablepolicymakers to frame policy development in ways that address stakeholderexpectations and enhance stakeholder satisfaction.

Achieving the potential benefits for policy development of engaging in strategicconversations with stakeholders and collaborative approaches to policy developmentdepends on developing operational models for such processes. The following sectiondescribes the use of strategic conversations by the DEDTA, RDA-Tas, and localgovernment to provide a mechanism to enhance stakeholder input into and satisfactionwith regional development policy recommendations. First, the strategic conversationprocess is detailed. Then, the application of software (N-Vivo) to classify the issues ofimportance for policy development is discussed with examples. The authors thendescribe how community stakeholders, policy makers, academics, and policy deliveryagencies each contributed to the shaping of policy. Finally, the authors evaluate theprocess and conclude with implications for policy development and future research.

IJPSM27,3

178

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

The strategic conversation policy recommendation processThe five-stage process model (Figure 1 summarises this process) for creating policyrecommendations from strategic conversations includes:

(1) a series of public forums for strategic conversations between the SMEstakeholders and policy makers;

(2) analysis by academics using the N-Vivo software program to categorise thecomments;

(3) the outputs of stage 2’s analysis being presented in a subsequent series ofpublic forums with input solicited from policy delivery agencies;

(4) policy recommendations are developed through the strategic conversations thatreflect the needs and desires of the stakeholders; and

(5) academics formally evaluate and lead policy makers’ reflective learning aboutprocess and outcomes.

Stage 1: policy makers – obtaining stakeholder input. Stage 1 was the stakeholderconsultation process. Public workshops were held in nineteen locations around

Figure 1.The strategic conversation

policy recommendationprocess

Collaborativedevelopment of

enterprise policy

179

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Tasmania to determine how stakeholders envisioned the future economic developmentand success of their regions. Each workshop was conducted as two sessions: one heldin the evening, and the other held on the morning of the following day.

At the evening session, stakeholders were first invited to share stories about pasteconomic successes in their local region and talk about what people did to create thatsuccess. The purpose of these discussions was to encourage stakeholders to tap intotheir personal and regional knowledge about economic success and instigate reflectionabout how future success could be created. Throughout the workshops, reflections onthe stories of past economic successes were used to foster thinking about context forpast success and the ways in which contexts could be created for future success. Thisoccurred through four activities. First, stakeholders were encouraged to consider thethings that had been done to create past economic successes and identify the criticalsuccess factors for creating economic success in the future. Second, stakeholders wereasked to consider how past economic successes had resulted from the opportunitiespresent at the time and reflect on the opportunities they saw in their presentenvironment that could produce future success. Third, stakeholders were invited toconsider the benefits that would result if prosperity were successfully fostered. Fourth,stakeholders were invited to consider, in the context of what they knew about economicsuccess and the opportunities and success factors which under pin it, their vision aboutthe context they wanted to create in their region for future success.

During the morning session on the subsequent day, stakeholders were asked toreflect on the previous evening’s discussion and determine their priorities fordeveloping future economic success in their region. At the sessions, members workedin table groups and each table group included individuals who had attended theprevious evening’s session so that they could contextualise the morning’s discussionsby explaining to the rest of their group what had occurred at the previous session. Oncestakeholders had been briefed about the earlier session and considered the wall sheetsthat had been developed, the discussion groups then considered the priorities forpolicy.

Stakeholder ideas about fostering future economic success in their region wererecorded via wall sheets and questionnaires. During each stage of the workshopdiscussions, table groups recorded their ideas on wall sheets which were then postedon the walls of the workshop venue. Stakeholders were also provided with stickersthey then affixed to the wall sheets to prioritise the concepts reflected in the discussionpoint. The ideas and number of votes were then transcribed to provide a record of theideas that were raised and the amount of “votes” recorded for each idea.

Stakeholders were also invited to complete written questionnaires which posed thefollowing four questions:

(1) What are the factors that will ensure economic success in our region?

(2) What are the key opportunities for economic development in our region?

(3) What is the economic future we want to create?

(4) What are the key things we need to do to ensure economic success in our region?

The questionnaires were used to ensure that individuals who could only attend one ofthe workshop’s sessions could contribute suggestions to the discussions in which theycould not personally participate. Hence, individuals who attended the evening session

IJPSM27,3

180

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

could submit via questionnaire their ideas about regional priorities, and the individualswho attended the morning session could contribute suggestions about opportunities,critical success factors, and regional visions for the future economic success of theirregion. Questionnaire responses were also transcribed to record the suggestions madein questionnaires collected from each workshop.

Stage 2: academics–determining stakeholder interests. Stage 2 of the analysis wasundertaken to achieve three objectives. The first objective was to produce acomprehensive list of all the issues mentioned in the workshop discussions andquestionnaire responses about the key topics for achieving economic success in theregion, critical success factors for achieving economic success, benefits that couldresult from successfully fostering economic success, elements of a regional vision foreconomic success, and regional priorities for facilitating future economic success. Thesecond objective was to quantify the degree of support for particular responses. Thedegree of support was determined by the number of times an issue was mentioned inresponse to a specific question or voted for in the workshop discussions. It should benoted that individuals were able to “vote” as many times as they liked for a conceptthey supported (e.g. an individual may have cast all his or her “votes” for a singleconcept). Consequently, the quantitative level of support reported for each concept wastaken as indicative of the relative degree of support. The third objective was to identifyany issues raised in workshop discussions and questionnaire responses pertaining toexisting policy objectives and to determine whether perspectives differed betweengeographic regions or between urban and non-urban areas.

Stage 1 of the process determined the issues that stakeholders raised whenconsulted about the future economic success of their region. Stage 2 analysed the datacollected through workshop discussions and questionnaires to determine the issuesraised by community members on five key topics:

(1) opportunities for achieving economic success in the region;

(2) critical success factors for achieving economic success;

(3) benefits that could result from successfully fostering economic success;

(4) elements of a regional vision for economic success; and

(5) regional priorities for facilitating future economic success.

Stage 2 of the analysis was undertaken by using QSR International’s N-Vivo softwareprogram to develop hierarchical systems of data categories that reflect the topicsworkshop participants discussed. First, the Word document summaries of workshopdiscussions were imported into N-Vivo. Then, the transcripts were coded inductively tocreate data categories for each topic discussed. Major categories were established foreach of the five categories noted above, and then sub-categories were created to reflecteach different issue identified in the workshop data.

Coding data in N-Vivo is a two-step process. The first coding step entailshighlighting the relevant text in the interview transcript. The second step assigns thedata to the data category (known as a “node” in N-Vivo) reflecting its content. Thesehyperlinked the text in the interview transcript to the node so that when the node isopened it presents the selected text, annotated with the reference details for thetranscript from which it was coded.

Collaborativedevelopment of

enterprise policy

181

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Stage 2 produced a comprehensive list of all the issues raised through the workshopdiscussions about the five key topics of critical success factors, opportunities in theregion, benefits, elements of a regional vision, and regional priorities. The list alsoindicates the number of times an issue was raised or voted for by community members,to provide an indication of the degree of stakeholder support for this issue. Table Iprovides an illustrative example.

Stage 2 also produced a summary of perspectives expressed in the workshopdiscussions and questionnaire responses about existing policy areas. The followingsection provides an illustrative example of the analytical approach by explaining theprocess used to determine stakeholder perspectives on the National BroadbandNetwork. The National Broadband Network (NBN) is the national Australian openaccess communications network being constructed between 2012 and 2015 to “bringhigh speed broadband and telephone services within the reach of all Australianpremises” (NBN CO, 2012). In 2012, RDA-Tas developed a policy priority to “maximisethe potential and benefits of the National Broadband Network” in the Tasmanianregion. To determine whether and how the National Broadband Network wasdiscussed in the community consultation process, N-Vivo’s search-and-retrievalfunctionality was used to collate data about the NBN and display the data by the areaof origin. First, a search command was created to retrieve any data which included theterms “NBN” and generate a matrix which displayed the data according to the area oforigin. The search command was then executed three times to generate three matriceswhich displayed the data from the each of the geographic regions The matrices reportthe number of comments about the NBN raised in the workshop and questionnaireresponses for each location (see Table II).

Comments about the NBN were then reviewed by clicking on each cell of the matrix,which displayed the comments about the NBN from that particular workshop location(see Table III). Reading the comments in each table enables comparison of responseswithin regions (in one table) and two of the four communities in Region A identifiedopportunities to use the NBN to access global markets whereas, in Town 4, suggestionsfocused more specifically on accessing “worldwide opportunities” and using the NBNto develop new ICT-based industries. Comparing tables demonstrated whether theNBN was discussed differently in different regions, and highlighting the columns forurban locations then enabled comparison of comments from urban (Town 4) andnon-urban communities (Towns 1, 2, and 3).

Stage 3: SMEs and policy delivery agencies – results presented for stakeholder input.Stage 3 was the stakeholder feedback process. During stage 3, workshops wereconducted in each of the communities that contributed to stage 1 in order todemonstrate to each community how its input had been integrated into policydevelopment processes and to seek additional stakeholder input, critique, andsuggestions. Workshop facilitators first recapped the processes of the stage 1workshops and demonstrated the input provided by community members bydisplaying the original wall sheets on which community members recorded their ideasand perspectives in the stage 1 workshop discussions. Representatives from theRDA-Tas and Tasmania’s DEDTA then explained how their organisations had eachused the community conversation data to inform their policy development processesand the policies that had resulted. Finally, workshop participants were provided withdraft sections of the Regional Economic Development plan developed for their region

IJPSM27,3

182

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Opportunities in the region for future economic successNumber of votes/

mentions

Agriculture incl. value adding 19Education incl. higher, further 13Tourism – unique value (most valuable prospects) 10Clean energy 8Forestry value-add 8Professional services 7Southern ocean et al., and aquaculture 7Mining and value-add 5Retirement – aged care 5Art and culture 4Social enterprise 3Value-add – resources, primary industry 3Aquaculture 2Technology 2Changing economic circumstances (change brings opportunity) 1Develop new industry, e.g. become world leaders in renewables (better thanChina!) 1Exemplar projects – i.e. MONA 1Land use – clean green food, liveable communities, eco-tourism, sustainablefarming 1Renewable energy – creative partnerships 1Scientific research 1University 1

Table I.Summary of discussion

topics: Town 1

Town 1 Town 2 Town 3 Town 4

Number of comments about the NBN 0 5 1 2

Table II.Matrix for commentsabout the NBN from

Region A

Region A Town 1 Town 2 Town 3 Town 4

Commentsabout the NBN

Opportunities:Use the NBN toaccess globalmarkets(4 mentions inquestionnaire plus 9votes in workshop)

Opportunities:Use the NBN toexploit access toglobal markets(1 mention)

Opportunities:Use NBN to developnew –“yet toconceptualise”ICT-based industriesincluding the arts(1 mention)Regional priority:Utilise world wideopportunities via NBN!(1 mention)

Table III.Comments about thedeveloping National

Broadband Network –Region A

Collaborativedevelopment of

enterprise policy

183

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

by the DEDTA. The draft sections detailed the opportunities for economicdevelopment identified by DEDTA and policy initiatives which currently were orcould in the future support those opportunities. Groups were then invited to providefeedback about the proposed initiatives and to suggest any additional initiatives thatshould be incorporated into policy development.

Stage 4: policy makers, academics, SMEs, and delivery agencies – policy is co-createdbased upon findings from stage 3. Stage 4 consisted of committee members of RDA-Tasreviewing the findings and stakeholder comments and crafting policyrecommendations that reflect the needs, concerns, and desires of SME policystakeholders, culminating in the development of RDA-Tas’s Regional Plan forTasmania. During this process, RDA-Tas invited stakeholder input and feedback toassist in the identification of priorities for the region and to provide feedback on keycomponents of the plan. Stakeholders were invited to review the draft version of theplan posted on the RDA website and complete an online survey about the accuracy andrelevance of the Regional Profile detailing the Tasmanian regional context, thediscussion of the Tasmanian Region’s Comparative Advantages and Disadvantages,the priorities for the region and for Government policies, and the key actions for theRDA-Tas Committee over the short to medium term.

Stage 5: academic evaluation of process and policy recommendations. During stage 5,academic researchers formally evaluated the community conversation process and itsoutcomes. First, the authors invited the workshop facilitator and representatives fromDEDTA and RDA-Tas to reflect on and provide feedback about their experiences ofthe process and the outcomes it produced. The feedback was then consolidated andreviewed by the authors to evaluate the strengths and limitations of the process, whichare detailed next.

The two major strengths of the consultation workshops were found to be their valuefor generating insights into stakeholder perspectives, and for developing newunderstandings of policy making processes. Policy makers felt the workshopsprovided valuable input and feedback from stakeholders and ‘a good, if subjectiveindication of the level of community interest in and engagement with government’(RDA-TAS). Policymakers noted that observing the workshops helped them identifystakeholders who led or exerted influence over community discussions and might offeruseful insights into future community consultations. This included identifyingcommunities in which the views of special interest groups (those representing businessinterests) conflicted with those held in local government. The main limitations or areasfor future improvement regarding the workshops related to workshop attendance.Policy makers and the workshop facilitator all noted that some workshops were poorlyattended and the attendees self-selected for involvement, which made it difficult todetermine the extent to which views expressed in workshop discussions representedthe views of the wider community. They also noted particular challenges in garneringinput from SMEs because business people are time-poor and workshop participationrequired a significant commitment of time. This lack of time prompted suggestionsthat future workshops should be scheduled with more lead time and promoted widelyto increase participant diversity.

The formal analysis of community consultation data was found to be primarilyvaluable in summarising and aggregating the content of workshop discussions.Policymakers noted particular advantages in being able to examine in detail the issues

IJPSM27,3

184

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

and perspectives raised within each local community, and determine the extent towhich particular issues were specific to given communities or reflected broaderregional or state wide concerns. Policy makers acknowledged they began the processwith a limited understanding of the opportunities available for analysing and learningfrom the community consultation data. The insights they obtained from the processabout how to maximise the value of the data led them to suggest that in future, policymakers collaborate with researchers from the outset to enhance the collection andanalysis of community consultation data.

The overall process was also felt by policy makers and the workshop facilitator tohave had particular value in fostering organisational learning about stakeholderconsultation and policy development. The workshops were found to be valuable forhelping policymakers learn how community conversations can be conducted and theoutcomes they produce and, hence, fostered new tacit and explicit knowledge aboutpolicy making processes, including learning about the importance of timingcommunity consultations in the policy cycle. Policy makers acknowledged thatcommunity consultation data were used in the first instance to validate existing policypriorities but would also be used to inform the next cycle of policy development. Policymaker and the workshop facilitator also noted that subsequent cycles of consultationwould be important for embedding and leveraging the knowledge gained through theconsultation process. They suggested that subsequent consultations could build on thetrust and communication established between government and communities throughthe original workshops forums.

Three other limitations were identified by the researchers. The first limitation wasthe time and costs associated with conducting the community consultation workshopsand analysing the data; the costs associated with analysis were exacerbated in thisinstance by the exploratory nature of the analysis. The second limitation was theinability to craft policy quickly in response to a changing environment due to the timetaken to collect and transcribe the data, undertake the analysis, and develop and reportpolicy recommendations. Environmental changes can render obsolete some of thesuggestions and stakeholder priorities captured in the workshops and, hence, theirvalue for informing policy initiatives. The third limitation was the complexity ofcoordinating three levels of government, which took time and effort because each levelhad different interests and time frames and were at times distracted by other priorities.This limitation became particularly relevant during stage 2 when the data were beinganalysed and policy recommendations developed, as it hampered efforts to determinethe focus of the analysis.

The authors suggest these three limitations can be minimised or overcome byestablishing an analytical framework (e.g. a list of topics of interest) in the designphase of the consultation process. This would help to making the consultations andanalysis more focused, which would improve efficiency, save time and reduce costs,and hence lessening the chances of the process being overtaken by environmentalchange. Establishing analytical focus in advance would also help clarify the particularpriorities of each level of government, hence make it easier to determine where theanalysis serves all needs and when it may have to be adapted to meet the needs ofspecific levels of government.

The authors then formally evaluated the process model and feedback from policymakers to determine its efficacy in addressing the five gaps in understanding between

Collaborativedevelopment of

enterprise policy

185

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

the policymakers and SME policy stakeholders that can undermine satisfaction withpolicy initiatives. This evaluation concluded that the process described in this paperhelped policy makers address three gaps relevant to SME enterprise policy: the realitygap between what SME policy stakeholders expect from government policy and whatpolicymakers think SME policy stakeholders expect from the policy, the translation gapbetween policymakers’ perceptions of SME policy stakeholder needs and the translationof these perceptions into policy imperatives, and the communication gap between thepolicy enacted and the external communications by policymakers to SME policystakeholders. The community consultation workshops held in stage 1 helped to addressthe reality gap by enabling policy makers to validate their existing ideas about thestakeholder interests and priorities. Moreover, it enabled policy makers to check theirexpectations about whether particular issues were specific to some stakeholder groups orwidely shared across multiple groups. Developing policy priorities and feeding theseback to the communities during stage 3 helped to address the translation gap by “realitychecking” policy initiatives with SME stakeholders and getting feedback as to how wellstakeholders felt policy initiatives addressed their needs. It also helped policy makersidentify communication gaps by testing how clearly they communicated policy prioritiesand how clearly these were understood by policy stakeholders. As feedback on policyimplementation was unavailable at the time of writing, it was not possible to evaluate theconsequences of the process for addressing the bureaucratic and satisfaction gaps.

DiscussionThis study has advanced knowledge about evidence based policy making bygenerating new insights into the role that research and researchers can play in thedevelopment of enterprise policy. During the process described in this paper,researchers enhanced the process of policy development by contributing a novelmethodology for analysing the community consultation data and understandingstakeholder perspectives. Researchers enhanced the information base for policyrecommendations by generating new insights into stakeholder perspectives throughtheir analysis of the community consultation data. Researchers helped policy makersand policy recommendation agencies learn more about what can be achieved throughstrategic conversations with stakeholders and from this kind of consultation process.Finally, researchers learned more about policy-makers needs and perspectives,enhancing their own understanding of the ways in which research can contribute topolicy processes. Hence, the study empirically supports Thompson et al.’s (2012)proposition that better understanding of the role that research and researchers can playin the development of enterprise policy would enable policy makers, agencies,researchers and policy stakeholders to enhance their own contribution to policy and toenhance their understanding of each other’s contribution.

Implications for policy makersThis study provides an operationalised model for engaging in what Nutley and Webb(2000) describe as ideal evidence-based policy making: that which “uses best availableevidence from a wide range of sources and involves key stakeholders at an earlystage,” is inclusive and takes account of policy stakeholders, and which learns lessonsfrom experience about “what works and what doesn’t.” It provides a mechanism forcapturing and utilising the tacit knowledge of stakeholders when developing policy

IJPSM27,3

186

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

recommendations and policy initiatives, which is particularly valuable when emergentand contentious policy areas such as regional development because the highlycontextualised and localised nature of policy problems and implementation meanspolicy makers must rely more heavily on stakeholder input for insights into the policydirections, goals and initiatives which might work in a given context.

The process model described offers four particular benefits for enhancing thedevelopment of enterprise policy. First, the processes described for engaging instrategic conversations with stakeholders strengthens the gathering of informationrelevant to policy decisions. Second, the integration of contributions from policymakers, policy stakeholders and researchers leverages their respective insights andexpertise to generate new perspectives on policy development. Third, the methodsdescribed for analysing the data using NVivo enable more rigorous exploration ofstakeholder concerns and of the extent to which they are specific to particularcommunities or reflect a general concern. Fourth, the SERVQUAL framework foranalysing policy gaps enables policy goals and initiatives to be checked againststakeholder expectations, potentially enhancing stakeholder satisfaction withsubsequent policies. The authors hope that this model of enterprise policy making isfurther explored and adopted.

Implications for future researchThe five-stage process presented in this paper allows a policy making or policyrecommending organisation (such as Regional Development Australia) to generatehighly informed policy recommendations that have been assessed for stakeholdersatisfaction. Nevertheless, additional research is needed to more fully understand itsmerits and applications. For instance, the model shares the strengths of a policy Delphifor exploring multiple perspectives on a policy context to understand the concerns andcontrasting views stakeholders may hold but does so without the resource intensity,use of iterative polling or emphasis on statistical techniques associated with suchmethods (Baker and Moon, 2010). It enables the canvassing of stakeholder perspectivesas per stakeholder surveys, but uses rigorous and structured analytical techniques toavoid impressionistic findings. As such, it offers a number of potential benefits oversuch approaches, but rigorous empirical research is needed to explore this potential.Additional research is also needed to refine and enhance the process described in thispaper. For example, future research could examine strategies for enhancing analyticalrigour and avoiding bias in the interpretation of data. The experiences gained duringthis project indicate that rigour can be maximised by checking the face validity ofcoding to ensure that coded data are valid matches with the coding rules and topics ofinterest, and by defining major topics of interest (e.g. policy areas) in advance so thatcoding rules and coding accuracy can be pilot tested before proceeding with thecomplete analysis. Finally, future studies could explore whether academic expertise isessential to the analytical method described. The authors anticipate that the methodcould be undertaken by non-academic analysts skilled in the NVivo program oradapted for other qualitative data analysis programs but expect that because theanalysis combines both inductive and deductive processes analyses would need to beundertaken by people with subject matter expertise. Future research which exploresthese possibilities would provide valuable insights into the parameters andapplicability of the model.

Collaborativedevelopment of

enterprise policy

187

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011), 8165.0 – Counts of Australian Businesses,Including Entries and Exits, June 2007 to June 2011, Australian Bureau of Statistics,Canberra.

Baker, P.M.A. and Moon, N.W. (2010), “Policy development and access to wireless technologiesfor people with disabilities: results of policy Delphi research”, Universal Access in theInformation Society, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 227-237.

Bryson, J.M. (2003), “What to do when stakeholders matter”, Public Management Review, Vol. 6No. 1, pp. 21-53.

Burton, P. (2006), “Modernising the policy process”, Policy Studies, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 173-195.

Chesley, J.A. and Wenger, M.S. (1999), “Transforming an organization: using models to foster astrategic conversation”, California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 54-73.

Critchlow, A. and Curran, E. (2012), “Australia’s mining boom covers troubles elsewhere”, TheWall Street Journal, July, p. 9.

Davidsson, P., Steffens, P. and Stuetzer, M. (2012), Global entrepreneurship monitor: NationalEntrepreneurial Assessment for Australia, QUT Business School, Australian Centre forEntrepreneurship Research, Brisbane.

Dennis, W.J. (2011a), “Entrepreneurship, small business and public policy levers”, Journal ofSmall Business Management, Vol. 49, pp. 92-106.

Dennis, W.J. (2011b), “Entrepreneurship, small business and public policy levers”, Journal ofSmall Business Management, Vol. 49, pp. 149-162.

Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts (2011), Small Business StrategySeptember 2011, Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts – Hobart,Tasmania.

(The) Economist (2012), “Hitched to the China wagon: Australia’s two-track economy”,25 August, p. 404.

Evans, B.A., Snooks, H., Howson, H. and Davies, M. (2013), “How hard can it be to includeresearch evidence and evaluation in local health policy implementation? Results from amixed methods study”, Implementation Science, Vol. 8 No. 7.

Fuller-Love, N., Midmore, P., Thomas, D. and Henley, A. (2006), “Entrepreneurship and ruraleconomic development: a scenario analysis approach”, International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 289-298.

Gibb, A. and Adhikary, D. (2000), “Strategies for local and regional NGO development:combining sustainable outcomes with sustainable organizations”, Entrepreneurship& Regional Development, Vol. 12, pp. 137-161.

Guerrero, B., Amosson, S. and Almas, L. (2008), “Integrating stakeholder input into water policydevelopment and analysis”, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Vol. 40 No. 2,pp. 465-471.

Hansen, H.F. and Rieper, O. (2010), “The politics of evidence-based policy-making: the case ofDenmark”, German Policy Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 87-112.

Kay, A. (2011), “Evidence-based policy-making: the elusive search for rational publicadministration”, The Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 70 No. 3,pp. 236-245.

Kefasi, N., Oluwole, F., Adewale, A. and Gbadebo, O. (2011), “Promoting effectivemulti-stakeholder partnership for policy development for smallholder farming systems:a case of the Sub Saharan Africa challenge programme”, African Journal of AgriculturalResearch, Vol. 6 No. 15, pp. 3451-3455.

IJPSM27,3

188

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Liedtka, J.M. and Rosenblum, J.W. (1996), “Shaping conversations: making strategy, managingchange”, California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 141-157.

Miles, M.P., Munilla, L. and Darroch, J. (2006), “The role of strategic conversations withstakeholders in the formation of corporate social responsibility strategy”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 69, pp. 195-205.

NBN CO (2012), About the NBN, available at: www.nbnco.com.au/rollout/about-the-nbn.html?icid¼pub:hme:about-nbn:hro:img (accessed 14 September 2012).

Nutley, S. and Webb, J. (2000), “Evidence and the policy process” in what works?”, in Nutley,S.M., Davies, H.T.O. and Smith, P.C. (Eds), Evidence-based Policy and Practice in PublicServices, The Policy Press, Bristol, pp. 13-41.

Pansiri, J. and Mmereki, R.N. (2010), “Using the SERVQUAL model to evaluate the impact ofpublic service reforms in the provision of primary health care in Botswana”, Journal ofAfrican Business, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 219-234.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service qualityand its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 41-50.

Riege, A. and Lindsay, N. (2006), “Knowledge management in the public sector: stakeholderpartnerships in the public policy development”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10No. 3, pp. 24-39.

Sanderson, I. (2002), “Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making”, PublicAdministration, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Sarasvathy, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2011), “Entrepreneurship as method: open questions for anentrepreneurial future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, January, pp. 113-135.

Sessa, C. and Ricci, A. (2010), “Working with and for the citizens”, Innovation – The EuropeanJournal of Social Science Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 49-60.

Thompson, J., Scott, J.M. and Downing, R. (2012), “Enterprise policy, delivery, practice andresearch: largely rhetoric or under-valued achievement?”, International Journal of PublicSector Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 332-334.

Tomaney, J. (2012), “Is there a case for regional policy in Australia?”, Australasian Journal ofRegional Studies, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 150-156.

Corresponding authorMorgan Parker Miles can be contacted at: morgan.miles@utas.edu.au

Collaborativedevelopment of

enterprise policy

189

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Ari

zona

At 1

0:46

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)