ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE IN AN INTER-ORGANISATIONAL CONTEXT: THE PERSPECTIVE OF TERRITORIALITY A study on the Office of Integrated Administration System (Satuan Administrasi Manunggal Satu Atap – SAMSAT) Surabaya

This study investigates organisational change in an inter-organisational context, focusing on the dynamics of the changes, including different roles and functions of each contributing organisation and the relationship amongst these organisations. The issue of interorganisational change is considered important conceptually and contextually. Conceptually, whilst organisational change has been studied extensively, studies on the context of interorganisational changes are limited. Importantly, this study takes territoriality as a lens to frame the dynamics of the changes. Territoriality has been extensively studied in the field of anthropology, geography, political and also sociology; but there are limited studies on organisational territoriality. Most existing studies investigate territoriality as an expressed behaviour, to mark and defend territories. In light of this gap, this study offers a different perspective, by framing territoriality not only as an expressed behaviour, but also proposing it as a process in investigating changes in an interorganisational context. Contextually, this study takes the case of an office of an integrated administration system, which is responsible for managing vehicle registration, taxing and insurance. The role of this organisation has been under spotlight, considering its contributing organisations’ position in the post-reform Indonesia. Most reform lessons are further sourced from Western context or from developed countries; hence this study provides evidence on change from a rather different context, by presenting the case of a public organisation in a developing country and from Eastern, or Asian context. To help with the investigation, this study employed a qualitative method, by using an approach informed by grounded theory. In breaking down collected information and mapping the results, the method thus helped to ask questions on who, what actions, what context, what aims, how they did it and also how the conduct was. Data was collected through the use of semi-structured interviews with 16 informants, who were contacted through a snowballing mechanism. Supporting documents were also collected from the organisations involved, as well as publicly available documents, to help with the analysis. In summary, this study argues that territoriality can be seen as a process rather than only an expressed behaviour. In addition, organisational change involves a deterritorialisation process, which without it, a change cannot take place. This strengthens the notion that territoriality is a process. This study also deconstructed the notion of ‘sectorial-ego’, an Indonesian-specific term for silo mentality. This ego represents territoriality as an expressed behaviour and in order to change, public organisations need to be able to manage their territories, by deterritorialising vertical interests and at the same time, compromising their territories horizontally, in the context of interorganisational collaboration.