Introduction
This study examined evidence-based decision-making in the implementation of devolved functions in Kenya. Since independence, transition from a centralized administration to devolved governments is a critical milestone in Kenya’s history (Cheeseman, Lynch, and Willis 2016). This process inevitably brought out the question of rationalization of different sectors (Finch, Christopher; Omolo 2015). In principle, the constitution has listed a total of 14 government functions that have been devolved to improve service delivery, eliminate wastage of public resources, enhance efficiency and bolster productivity in regard to the roles and performance functions of the government(Finch, Christopher; Omolo 2015; Steeves 2015; Ghai 2008; Cheeseman, Lynch, and Willis 2016; GoK 2013).
Furthermore, decentralization and devolution of governmental functions have become popular in many countries to bring governance closer to the people, making it more responsive and more responsive to local needs. Some sectors like health, agriculture, childhood education, public works, and natural resources are frequently devolved because they have direct implications on daily lives and the immediate environment of citizens. Hence, they are often pronounced in devolved governments and are popular subjects of many studies and subsequently the basis of their selection in the current study. For instance, a) Health has an Immediate Impact on Local health services and directly affect the well-being of the community; Health needs can also vary by region due to environmental, social, or economic factors. Besides, localised solutions like vaccination campaigns, public health initiatives, or disease management can be better organized at a local level; b) Agriculture can lead to regional specialization whereby, different regions might have different agricultural profiles and needs based on climate, soil, and local practices hence, local expertise can present from farmers and agriculturalists can often have region-specific knowledge. Thereby, bridging an important economic gap as the backbone of local economies; c) Childhood Education and village polytechnic can bring cultural and linguistic relevance by streamlining localised information tailored to reflect local languages, histories, and cultures. In essence, this will lead to specialized needs because different regions might have varying educational needs based on socio-economic backgrounds, and devolution allows for addressing these specifics; d) Public Works and services through building local infrastructure, can vary greatly from one region to another e.g., infrastructure needed in a mountainous region might differ from what's required in a coastal area. Hence, local governments can respond to more quickly to infrastructural needs and emergencies specific to the regions; e) Natural Resources and environment stewardship of those living in proximity to natural resources often have a greater stake in their preservation and management and the management of a forested area is different from a mineral-rich region. Therefore, devolving powers allows for specialized management strategies and coverage of a vast majority of the populace thereby leading to economic distribution by having revenue from natural resources be channelled directly to the local communities affected by their extraction or use; f) Administration and governance function overall cut across all sectors and is a critical function based on the magnitude and influences throughout he devolved unit and management of resources.
Therefore the selection of these functions in the study, although randomly, revolved around the following factors: a) these functions are widespread and present high potential during impact assessment which many researchers are interested in when assessing the impact of devolved powers on local outcomes; b) Policy Analysis: Devolution allows for diverse policy experimentation. Researchers can study what works in one region and why it might not in another; c) Societal Implications: Devolution can have socio-political implications, from power dynamics to community mobilization, which makes these areas interesting to sociologists and political scientists; and d) allows ease of comparative studies: Comparing outcomes across regions with different levels of autonomy can shed light on the efficacy of devolution.
These sectors are not only critical to local communities' well-being and economic vitality, but they also offer rich areas of study due to the diversity of approaches and outcomes associated with their devolution.
Therefore, decades of analysing and evaluating performance data have helped devolved governments and businesses alike understand the tools necessary to improve performance and maintain solvency(West and Blackman 2015; Jarrar and Schiuma 2007). However, modern-day decision-making in devolved units still poses specific challenges to new forms of governments (World Bank 2012; Finch, Christopher; Omolo 2015; Steeves 2015). In this regard, decision making is defined as the process of making ultimate choices via identification of a decision, gathering information and assessing available solutions available to address them(de Witte 2016; Babcock, D. L., & Morse 2010). The process describe and analyse rational decisions or bounded rationality models of decision making which subsequently help in making more deliberate, throughout decisions by organizing and defining available alternatives (de Witte 2016; Ekenberg 2015).
Integration of research findings, technologies and innovations in decision-making and subsequent implementation of government functions has strong bearing on operating constraints and the overall performance of devolved functions (Teicher, Hughes, and Dow 2002; Lenk 2018; Ekenberg 2015). Besides decision making is specific in nature and sensitive to overall performance and outcomes of devolved functions(Ekenberg 2015; Nutley, McNabb, and Salentine 2013; Johnston 2010). Furthermore, the cost implication of adopting research findings, technologies and innovations in decision making is critical in ascertaining the performance of devolved functions (Williams and Bryan 2007)
The study analysed the pathways for utilizing research findings, innovations and technologies in decision-making and implementation of devolved functions in Kenya since inception in 2013. Technology acceptance model (TAM) developed by Fred Davis in 1986 (F. Davis 1986), to analyse the process of adopting information and communication technologies was applied in conducting collaborative research involving different behavioural aspects of the devolved functions (Lee, Kozar, and Larsen 2018). The model was applied to analyse the behavioural aspect of stakeholders including policymakers, directors, head of departments and programs, managers, and executives to understand their overall reactions towards research findings, technologies and innovations in decision-making. The model has been consistent in analysing the Perceived-Ease-Of-Use, Perceived-Usefulness, attitudes, behavioural-intentions and overall use of technologies and innovation (Lee, Kozar, and Larsen 2018; F. D. Davis 1993; Marangunić and Granić 2015). Thereby, the application in this study is in tandem with existing literature and applications, albeit with varied levels of precision (King and He 2006; Marangunić and Granić 2015; Brock and Khan 2017). In principle, the study analysed not only the behavioural reactions toward research findings, modern technologies, and innovations for use in decision making, but also the cost implication and actual use of these decision-making alternatives in decision making process. The influence of these aspects in the overall implementation of devolved functions, service delivery and the end goal were evaluated. This information is critical in streamlining decision making process, policy making and implementation as well as service delivery in devolved functions.
The significance of Kenya's current constitutional dispensation is the establishment of devolved government. Although Kenya has implemented a devolved system of government since its establishment in 2013, various challenges and achievements have characterized the desire to make devolution dream a reality. Key decision alternatives among them, Research Findings, Successful Cases from Other Counties, Technologies, and Innovations, is the need to re-examine these choices, describe the decisions that need to be taken and analyse the alternatives to these decisions. However, modern decision-making processes are a function of research findings, modern technologies, and innovations and hence the need to examine the behavioural reactions of decision makers, including the county secretaries, department managers and directors, towards RITs in decision making. Furthermore, a clear understanding of the ultimate use and cost implication of research findings, innovations, and technologies in decision-making process is inevitable.
Consequently, in contemporary governance structures, devolution of power and authority to regional or local authorities has become a preferred mechanism for efficient governance in several countries. While devolution is considered a process of promoting local governance, tailor-make solutions, and enhance civic participation, it also presents unique challenges, particularly in the adoption of research findings, innovations, and technologies. Nevertheless, there is a plethora of research findings, innovations and technologies that can significantly improve service delivery across different sectors of the devolved unit if adopted and implemented. However, the adoption process has been slow or vague over the last decade of devolution system in Kenya. This could be attributed to key issues and challenges faced by devolved governments including, a) Diverse Priorities and Capacities: Devolved units often have different developmental priorities, financial capacities, and socio-economic dynamics. This means that research findings, innovation or technology that is pertinent and successful in one unit might not be in another. Addressing these variations requires customization that can be resource-intensive; b) Lack of Standardization: Without a centralized approach, there can be a lack of standardization in adopting technologies and innovations, leading to inefficiencies and complicating inter-regional coordination; c) Insufficient Infrastructure: Some devolved regions might lack the necessary infrastructure, both in terms of physical resources and human capital, to implement and sustain new technologies or practices; d) Financial Constraints: The cost of introducing new technologies or implementing research findings can be prohibitive, especially for regions with limited financial resources; e) Knowledge and Skill Gaps: Local governments might not always have the required expertise or awareness to understand the potential benefits or implications of a particular innovation; f) Resistance to Change: Cultural, political, or institutional resistance can hinder the adoption of new ideas or technologies, especially if they are perceived as being imposed from the outside or are not well-understood at the local level; g) Policy and Regulatory Hurdles: Decentralized units often have their policy frameworks and regulatory mechanisms. Innovations or technologies that don't align with these can face delays or outright rejection; h) Coordination Challenges: The adoption of research findings or technologies often requires collaboration across different departments or units of a devolved government, which can be hampered by bureaucracy, lack of a unified vision, or political infighting; i) Evaluation Difficulties: Monitoring and evaluating the impact of adopted technologies or practices can be challenging in devolved settings, given the diverse contexts and implementation strategies; j) Dependency on Central Government: In some instances, despite the devolution of powers, significant decisions related to funding or adopting new technologies might still be influenced or controlled by central authorities, leading to potential misalignments with local needs.
Consequently, despite these issues and challenges, acceptance modelling research is inevitable to understand the adoption of process and factors affecting the adoption of research findings, innovations, and technologies across different sectors of devolved units. In addition to robust frameworks, efficient collaboration mechanisms, capacity-building initiatives, and context-specific strategies. But, adopting research findings, innovations, and technologies in devolved governments is not just about the technical aspects which are the focus of this study, but also involves navigating complex socio-political terrains which are a difficult to model.
Research questions were derived from integrated conceptual framework bringing together the Technology Acceptance Model and the Decision-Making Process Model.
Figure 3 show the conceptual framework bringing together two theoretical models. From this figure the study addresses six consolidated research questions: a) Which external factors influence the Perceived Ease and Perceived-Usefulness of Research Findings, Innovation and Technologies in the devolved governments? b) Can Perceived-Ease-Of-Use and Perceived-Usefulness influence attitudes on research Findings, Innovations and Technologies during decision making process? c) Do Perceived-Ease-Of-Use, Perceived-Usefulness and Attitude influence behavioural-intention toward use Research Findings, Innovations and Technologies? d) Do Behavioural intention to use Research Findings, Technologies and Innovations influence the actual use of these elements in decision making? e) Do actual use of Research Findings, Technologies, and Innovations impact on the decision-making process of devolved functions? f) What are the costs and benefits accruing from adoption of Research Findings, Technologies and Innovation in decision making at the devolved units?
There is a plethora of evidence to the effect that new research findings, technologies and innovations influence decision making and subsequence performance of businesses and the public sector(West and Blackman 2015; Zheng and Zheng 2014; Lenk 2018; Ekenberg 2015; Szkuta, Pizzicannella, and Osimo 2014; Johnston 2010). Decision making is a complex process that need well thought-out choices and alternatives to provide critical solutions to different issues. Enactment of the constitution of Kenya 2010 provided for devolved system of government bringing with it complex decision-making system. However, new technologies and innovations generated from different players and documented success stories from other counties, regions, and the world are critical to the decision-making process of the devolved system. Thereby, given the direct proportionality of research findings, technologies, and innovations to decision-making process, analysing, and building literature on the adoption process of these elements in decision making is crucial. Additionally, although there is evidence on the uptake of technology and innovations by different entities to improve performance and service delivery, there, is little or no evidence to support the uptake of research findings, technologies, and innovations to improve decision making at the newly created system of government in Kenya. Hence, complete evaluation of the acceptance of research findings, technologies and innovations in decision making process of the devolved units is inevitable. This will subsequently have a bearing on policy frameworks for different functions at the county level.
Nonetheless, Consistent with studies anchored on TAM there are limitations attached to the sample size and overall internal validity of the constructs. Although these limitations were addressed at the study formulation stage there are other probable limitations generic to the TAM model and therefore inevitable, albeit remedially during data collection and analysis. These include: the study did not measure the actual usage in decision making, affect validity for some constructs due to single item scales, TAM models in some instances present low variance scores. Other limitation could be linked to the side of sample used, duration of exposure to the constructs, cultural factors, self-selection related bias and the leadership style. Nevertheless, effort was put at the research planning and proposal development stage to avoid or minimize the effect of these limitations on the overall findings which were largely effective.