- Email: [email protected]
A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118 – 132
A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects José Esteves a , Rhoda C. Joseph b,⁎ b
a Instituto de Empresa Business School, Maria Molina, 13, 28006 Madrid School of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg, 777 West Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA 17057, USA
Available online 16 August 2007
Abstract The area of electronic government (eGovernment) has received increased prominence and attention over the last few years. In spite of the current developments, many avenues in the area of eGovernment remain unexplored. One such area is the comprehensive assessment of eGovernment projects. We propose that understanding the value of projects drives the assessment process. Assessment of information technology (IT) initiatives is conducted either as an ex-ante (before implementation) or expost (after implementation) procedure. In this study, we present an ex-post framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects. Assessment identifies the value of the eGovernment project post-implementation. This paper examines a three-dimensional framework for the assessment of eGovernment initiatives. The three dimensions are eGovernment maturity level, stakeholders, and assessment levels. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: eGovernment; Assessment; Framework
1. Introduction Electronic government (eGovernment) is the delivery of services to citizens via the Internet. The goal of eGovernment is to capture benefits of the electronic economy (e⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 717 948 6456.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Esteves), [email protected] (R.C. Joseph). 0740-624X/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.009
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
119
economy). Although there is sparse information about the quality and efficiency of eGovernment initiatives, an increasing number of governmental units are incorporating or expanding the use of information technologies (IT) into many of their activities. Little is known about the quality and efficiency of eGovernment initiatives, partially because of a lack of effective measures to evaluate eGovernment quality (Carbo & Williams, 2004). Failure rates of eGovernment projects are estimated to be as high as 85% (Heeks, 2001). Over the last few years both the diversity of topics on and the volume of articles dealing with eGovernment have increased (Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2006). Many eGovernment studies focus on the development and evaluation of a Web site that interfaces between a government and its citizens (de Jong & Lentz, 2006; Detlor & Finn, 2002; Scavo, 2003). Studies beyond the citizens’ perspective are less common in the existing eGovernment literature. The 2003 Como report (Leitner, 2003) identified four dimensions of an eGovernment vision: mission impossible without a vision; not just about service delivery but a way of life; a key to good governance in the information society; not just about technology but a change of culture. The impact of eGovernment includes cultural and social adaptation issues, transborder data flow issues, and the potential for the development of a policy to reduce the global digital divide (Evans & Yen, 2006). eGovernment is “the transformation of public sector internal and external relationships through net-enabled operations, information technology and communications, to optimize government service delivery, constituency participation and governance (Baum, Di Maio, & Caldwell, 2000).” eGovernment is about the changing nature of relationships from hierarchical command-and-control to an interactive collaboration among governments, citizens, businesses, public sector employees, and other governments. eGovernment provides a platform for multi-channel interaction and multi-service delivery options. Furthermore, eGovernment is about having centralized yet distributed operations to maximize efficiencies, productivity, and service delivery. However, eGovernment programs can absorb a significant amount of public funds as they are implemented. It is essential that such a major undertaking should undergo post-implementation assessment. Evaluating eGovernment projects is an important issue (Lenk & Traunmüller, 2002). The lack of formal methods for monitoring and assessing eGovernment initiatives has led to a significant slowdown of country-level eGovernment development (Kunstelj & Vintar, 2004). Furthermore, the current approaches to monitoring, evaluating, and benchmarking eGovernment development do not support comprehensive eGovernment assessment and need to be further improved in order to give policymakers better evaluation criteria for their decisions (Kunstelj & Vintar, 2004). This paper emphasizes understanding and analysis of eGovernment initiatives via an assessment framework. This paper first looks at the definition and description of value in the context of eGovernment projects. Next, a comprehensive framework for eGovernment assessment is presented. The framework is grounded in the socio-technical model (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977) and the STOPE model (Bakry, 2004). Implications and future direction of the study follow. The paper concludes by highlighting the need for assessments of eGovernment projects.
120
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
2. Value creation and assessment Value represents the worth, utility, or importance of an entity. One classic model for value determination is Porter’s Value Chain (Porter, 1985). The value chain identifies both primary and secondary activities in the firm and uses an economic view to explain value creation. A firm can create value and a strategic advantage if it can differentiate itself from its competitors. Value results from either an increase in revenue or a decrease in costs. Governments can create value by reducing cost. Governments usually attempt to limit deficit and operate within a particular budget to provide goods and services for citizens. Value can also be generated with the use of information technology. Arguably, technological innovation is the driving force for value creation (Schumpeter, 1942). An innovation is an idea, practice, or object which is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption (Rogers, 1995). Innovations occur in many different formats including new products, a redesigned product, or a new patent. Different innovations can generate different levels of value. eGovernment, by definition, is an innovation because it redefines and improves transaction processing via an IT platform. For eBusiness, value is generated in four ways: efficiency (speed, cost, economies of scale); novelty (new structures, new participants, new transactions); lock-in (networks, customization, trust); and complementary (products, services, technologies, activities) (Amit & Zott, 2001). These components represent both tangible and intangible methods to create value. Collectively, the different areas of value generation are aggregated to determine the value of the business. Value generated under any one of the four categories serves as a catalyst for value development in the other categories. Ex-ante assessment (pre-implementation) of value is usually conducted via risk assessment or risk analysis. Initial implementation costs are compared to anticipated future benefits. Expost assessment (post-implementation) of IT projects occurs primarily from an economic perspective. Four constructs used for economic assessment are revenue generated, cost reduction, asset return, and inventory turnover (Zhu, 2004). Arguably, value consists of more than the examination of economic variables. The next section considers other non-economic value constructs in eGovernment. 2.1. Measuring value of eGovernment initiatives Evaluation of eGovernment projects identifies strengths, weaknesses, and best practices for both local and international integration (Kunstelj & Vintar, 2004). Both Hong Kong and Australia implemented techniques to measure the success of eGovernment projects. In Hong Kong the eGovernment coordinating office commissioned an opinion survey to obtain user feedback on the design of government Web sites and the provision of eServices. In Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics used surveys to measure adoption of ICT in society as a whole. Some of the questions in the surveys were directed at measuring use of government online services, to better understand the demand-side for government.
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
121
The European Union offers the eEurope Awards which includes three evaluation criteria: innovativeness and effective management; practical results; and relevance and transferability. The implications of such awards highlight the importance of setting standards and defining measurable targets for efficient assessment. Effective assessment can determine success or failure of eGovernment projects. The United Nations Global eGovernment survey states that eGovernment measurements should track national progress, identify disparities in access to ICT, move toward an inclusive information society, and support international comparisons (UNPAN, 2005). The U.N. global survey also examined governments’ willingness to use eGovernment to improve services to citizens. The survey contributed to the development efforts of the member states by focusing on whether eGovernment impacts the socioeconomic uplift of the people. The survey provides a benchmark of a country’s state of e-readiness (a country’s preparedness to integrate technology into society). The objectives of the survey were to provide an appraisal of the use of eGovernment to deliver social services and to provide a comparative assessment of the willingness and ability of governments to involve citizens in eParticipation. The U.N. Global eGovernment Survey (2003) presented a comparative ranking of the countries of the world according to two indicators: (a) the state of eReadiness and (b) the extent of eParticipation worldwide. The 2003 survey showed that governments have made rapid progress worldwide in embracing ICT technologies for eGovernment in the past years. In 2001, the survey listed that approximately 75% of U.N. member states were using the Internet in some capacity. By 2003, 91% of U.N. member states had a government Web site presence. The survey concluded that there were wide disparities between the “e-haves” and “e-havenots.” However, more importantly, it showed that there was no standardized measure for evaluating the effectiveness of eGovernment initiatives. In spite of these challenges, the survey showed that there can be significant benefits at both national and global levels if eGovernment tools are effectively applied. eGovernment policies are intertwined with the economic, social, and technical infrastructures of a country. The U.N. survey also suggests that evaluation of eGovernment performance should be broadened from ex-ante to include ex-post measurements. Additional suggestions from the survey are to differentiate between developing and developed countries, to identify different methodologies, and to develop criteria to make more equitable comparisons across countries. Clear guidelines encourage countries to implement their eGovernment projects more effectively. Furthermore, regional eGovernment performance measurement methods suitable for developing countries can be developed by modifying existing measurements. Several initiatives for measuring eGovernment exist; however, “We have been measuring the progress of eGovernment in the most rudimentary fashion, where most cited studies are variations of the same methodology-benchmark governments against each other based on the online availability of a pre-determined ‘basket’ of services and information. The nation states with the largest ‘baskets’ are declared eGovernment leaders (Proudfoot, 2003).” Different approaches exist to measure eGovernment success; however, a comprehensive framework for eGovernment assessment is needed.
122
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
3. A framework for eGovernment initiatives assessment The proposed eGovernment assessment framework (EAM) consists of three components: eGovernment maturity level, eGovernment stakeholders, and assessment dimensions. One of the major criticisms of theoretical models is their over-simplification of real-world constructs (Kaplan, 1964). To overcome this problem our framework is comprehensive in nature and includes all the major entities involved in the eGovernment landscape. The theoretical basis for the three components of EAM is the socio-technical model (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977). The socio-technical model (STM) incorporates four interdependent social and technical elements: actors, structure, technology, and task. The components of EAM include constructs from both a social and technical perspective. The socio-technical model examines key design elements for information systems (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977; Lyytinen, Mathiassen, & Ropponen, 1998). The STM states that information system failures can be reduced by considering the two complementary system components: the social side (focusing on user attitudes, skills, and values) and the technical side (focusing on processes, tasks, and technology) (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977). Social systems consist of people and structures while technical systems consist of technology and tasks. All four of these constructs are inter-related. The socio-technical perspective envisions humans and technology in supporting rather than antagonistic roles. The STM is applicable in eGovernment because of the interplay between people and technology. The assessment dimensions of EAM are based on the STOPE model. The STOPE model (Bakry, 2004) identifies strategy, technology, organizations, people, and environment as the core components for the development of eGovernment in the digital age. We use the constructs of the STOPE model to provide the basis for assessment of eGovernment projects. The dimensions for assessment from the STOPE framework are: strategy, technology, organization, and environment. We included two additional assessment dimensions outside of the STOPE framework: operational and services. In the EAM all people, including employees and citizens, are represented as stakeholders. The assessment dimension of EAM contains six components: strategic, technological, organizational, economic, operational, and services. The framework for assessment is illustrated in Fig. 1. 3.1. eGovernment stages The development of eGovernment is an evolutionary process. An eGovernment project can grow over time to include a variety of features, functions, and services. For a comprehensive view of the evolutionary process, an understanding of constituent elements and overall objectives is necessary. An eGovernment maturity model (eGMM) provides guidance on how to gain control of processes for developing and maintaining eGovernment services, as well as how to evolve toward a culture of excellence in providing and managing eGovernment. Organizations can improve eGovernment functions by focusing on specific goals and working aggressively to achieve them. Several different eGMMs exist. One such model was
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
123
Fig. 1. eGovernment assessment framework.
developed by the Catalunya government in Spain. The Catalunya model is composed of five stages: publication of information, interaction, transaction, integration/collaboration, and transformation (Olivares, 2005). A second eGMM shows eGovernment moving through three different stages: eGovernment, eGovernance, and eDemocracy. In this model, governments move from net presence (eGovernment) through to service provision and representative democracy (eGovernance) to a final stage of comprehensive participation (eDemocracy) (Riley, 2001). End user involvement in current eGovernment projects can improve core activities and enhance future development of projects (Andersen & Henriksen, 2006). The above eGMM suggests a linear progression to final maturity. However, an alternative model suggests that eGovernment maturity occurs in parallel virtual spaces: virtual information space, virtual communication space, virtual transaction space, and virtual distribution (Stamoulis, Gouscos, Georgiadis, & Martakos, 2001). In some instances, a mix of staged and space models can also be used. It is necessary to differentiate between national and local eGovernment models because they have differing goals, objectives, and constraints (Shackleton, Fisher, & Dawson, 2004). However, the presence of a comprehensive assessment framework will support applications irrespective of the domain (local, regional, or international). A comprehensive assessment model can be applicable in different contexts and settings. Lastly, a holistic four-level categorization for a country’s eGovernment maturity views the growth and development of eGovernment as more than just a Web presence. The categories
124
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
consider the internal involvement of interested parties in the success of the project. The four categories of the Accenture model (Hunter & Jupp, 2001) are: • Innovative Leaders—provide innovative Web-based solutions for citizens and businesses (Canada, Singapore, USA); • Visionary Followers—strive to improve sophistication and administrative simplicity (Norway, Australia, Finland); • Steady Achievers—steady improvements with less ambitious projects (New Zealand, Hong Kong, France); and • Platform Builders—new eGovernment initiatives (Japan, Brazil, Malaysia). The stage models presented above show growth and development of eGovernment as largely a linear process. A synthesis of the above models reveals that they all contain the following three phases: information presence—the government has an available Web site; interaction—two-way interaction between government and stakeholders; and political participation—voting and activism. For this paper we use the Accenture eMMM (Hunter & Jupp, 2001) because of its comprehensive nature, and it provides a formative basis for analysis by clearly identifying countries in each of the four categories. Secondly, the four stages identified in the Accenture analysis are comprehensive and applicable to local, state, and national-level projects. 3.2. Stakeholders eGovernment projects involve a wide range of services, products, people, and procedures. The key to understanding the value of eGovernment is to clearly identify the scope of the project. Without a gauge on scope, it is possible for projects to go over budget, increase in complexity, and become unmanageable. Scope is also necessary to define a unit for assessment. The scope of eGovernment is identified as follows (Heeks, 2001): • eAdministration—improving government processes by reducing costs, managing performance, making strategic connections within government, and empowering citizens. • eCitizens and eServices—connecting citizens to government by communicating with citizens, supporting accountability by listening to citizens, supporting democracy, and improving public services. • eSociety—building interactions beyond the boundaries of government by working better with business, developing communities, building government partnerships, and opening up new avenues to strengthen social development. The scope of eGovernment involves potentially overlapping components. For example, eSociety can involve participation from eAdministrators, and eAdministrators can interact with eServices. Lately, some researchers have argued for a new vision of eGovernment, taking into account not only the supplier’s perspectives but also other key stakeholders such as citizens (Akman, Yazicib, Mishraa, & Arifogluc, 2005; Hung, Chang, & Yu, 2006; Parent,
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
125
Vandebeek, & Gemino, 2005). A stakeholder represents any entity (individual, group, or firm) that can affect or is affected by the organization’s execution of its objectives (Porter, 1985). For example, the following constituents exist: user/problem owners as the main beneficiaries (e.g., citizens, businesses); intermediaries (e.g., consumer associations, chambers of commerce); public service suppliers (responsible authorities); and providers. In summary, the primary eGovernment stakeholders are: • Citizens: Citizens in contact with public administration, using public services exercising their civil rights, and participating in democratic processes. • Employees: All categories of public employees, including politicians and various other public administrators. • Businesses: Both for-profit and non-profit companies interact with government. Businesses are in contact with public administration in their compliance with taxes, social, and legal obligations. Many non-profits also seek and submit proposals for government grants. • Governments: In multi-tier systems, there is interaction among local, state, and federal levels of government. • IS/IT Personnel: eGovernment solution suppliers from both the private and public sector. They are suppliers of solutions, know-how, advice, skilled resources, hardware and software expertise, and more. • Special Interest Groups (SIGs): Aggregated/organized citizens interacting in local communities to build their voice through examples such as non-government organizations (NGOs) and civil service organizations (CSOs). Also included here are international organizations such as the European Commission, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the United Nations. The main stakeholders define four broad types of relationships in eGovernment: G2C (Government to Citizens), G2E (Government to Employees), G2B (Government to Businesses), and G2G (Governments to Governments). Identifying the key stakeholders provides a basis for identifying scope of assessment. Each stakeholder group represents a unit of analysis for the assessment framework. A single project will usually be targeted toward a subset of stakeholders. Inclusion of a set of primary eGovernment stakeholders provides a platform for comprehensive assessments. 3.3. Assessment dimensions eCommerce is an important precursor enhancing eGovernment development. A multidimensional framework for the assessment of eCommerce diffusion in Sub-Saharan Africa identified three dimensions: sophistication of Internet use, telecommunications/Internet environment, and traditional commercial infrastructure (Okoli & Mbarika, 2003). We employ a similar multidimensional approach for assessment of eGovernment. Infrastructure is captured in our discussion of technological assessment. Our multidimensional framework for assessment of eGovernment projects, which is motivated by the work of Bakry (2004), identifies six dimensions: strategic, technological,
126
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
organizational, economic, operational, and services. These dimensions are not considered in isolation. For effective assessment, both the stakeholder group(s) and the level of maturity of eGovernment must be considered. Below we describe the six assessment dimensions in detail. We identify the significance of these dimensions and highlight cases and pertinent examples. At the stakeholder level, some or all of the dimensions presented can be relevant depending on the nature of the eGovernment project. 3.3.1. Strategic dimension Strategy focuses on the future plans of the government in a particular industry or service (Bakry, 2004). Assessment of the strategic dimension compares the initial objectives of the eGovernment project with the actual outcomes of the project. One way that the Web changes customer behavior is by increasing the level of self-access (Sharma & Sheth, 2004). An example of a strategic goal of eGovernment can be to increase the number of access points to government information. An increase in access points means moving beyond telephone and postal mail and incorporating additional technologies such as e-mail, instant messaging, message boards, and blogs. The number of Web-based accesses is one way to measure the achievement of this goal. Risk assessment identifies the main threats to an organization’s assets. The three main threats associated with information systems and information technology projects are loss of control, costs, and security (Khalfan, 2004). A risk assessment usually occurs in the design phase of the project. However, after the eGovernment project has been implemented, we argue that (at a minimum) a second phase of assessment is necessary. The second assessment evaluates whether or not risks were successfully mitigated and what on-going action is needed. In summary, the two components for the assessment of the strategic dimension are objectives and risk management. 3.3.2. Technology dimension The technological dimension focuses on related eGovernment technical aspects such as hardware, software, and IT infrastructure needs. The hardware component includes servers, personal computers, laptops, desktops, personal digital assistants (PDAs), cellular phones, and any other technology that facilitates eGovernment access. The software components can range from database products to Web design and developmental tools. IT infrastructure consists of sharable and reusable resources which provide a foundation for present and future business applications (Shang & Seddon, 2002). Assessment of the technology dimension examines whether the technology used for the eGovernment project sufficiently satisfies the needs of the relevant constituents. A positive complementary relationship exists between front-end eCommerce applications and back-end IT infrastructure (Zhu, 2004). In the eGovernment domain, the underlying IT infrastructure must be integrated with the front-end applications that are implemented for users. Effective integration is one of the main factors for assessment of the technology dimension. Technology cannot exist in a vacuum. IT must be integrated with other functional areas of the business. The second component of technology assessment is accessibility. The digital divide refers to the separation between individuals, communities, and businesses having access to technology
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
127
and those that do not. Socio-economic factors, such as economic poverty, are closely correlated with limited information technology resources (Servon, 2002). eGovernment projects can be rendered useless if large segments of the target population are unable to access the system. Persons with disabilities can also be limited in their ability to access eGovernment resources. For eGovernment to truly represent democracy, citizens with disabilities must be given equal access (Jaeger, 2004). The success of a project cannot be measured until an assessment of the technological capability is examined. From an eGovernment perspective, the project should encompass a comprehensive integration of both back-end and front-end functions. Secondly, since government’s primary role is to satisfy the needs of its citizens, full access to eGovernment projects must be available. The main IT eGovernment assessment issues are integration and accessibility. 3.3.3. Organizational dimension The organizational dimension involves organizational structure and culture. The structure and culture of an organization can either facilitate or inhibit cohesion and learning within the company. Special attention must be paid to the impact of national and organizational cultures when eGovernment projects are implemented (Kovaèiæ, 2005). Further, government units must also consider what change management approaches are applicable as the adoption of eGovernment projects occurs. 3.3.4. Economic dimension This dimension focuses on the economic aspects related to eGovernment initiatives. Economic and financial metrics include cost/benefit analysis and return on investment (ROI). Reduced search costs represent an important benefit of electronic markets (Bakos, 1991). Similarly, reduced transaction costs are a measurable cost benefit of eGovernment projects. Economic variables can be used as eGovernment performance measures for improved decision-making and communication of project priorities. An important aspect of eGovernment initiatives is their sustainability. There is a danger that eGovernment projects may become short-term. Benefits from such initiatives do not extend beyond the life of the project itself. Genuine change, therefore, is not achieved. Some projects may not generate income and are dependent on external funding for continued existence. Projects may be financially sustainable if they are supported by an institution’s core budget as opposed to short-term funding. The presence of eGovernment as a core business component can lead to changes in structures, attitudes, and practices which have a net positive benefit for the government in the future. 3.3.5. Operational dimension Operational activities are routine events which are repeated periodically (daily, weekly, and/ or monthly). Information technology has a long history of being used for cutting costs and raising output by automating repetitive operations (Khalfan, 2004). Information technology is one of the supporting operations in a company’s value chain (Porter, 1985). In eGovernment the operational dimension can involve processing of various products arriving from external
128
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
suppliers or other government agencies. Reduced agency costs (costs associated with management of business) can increase efficiency and functionality of the government unit. Explicit measures such as transactions per day, turnaround time for processing, and reorder points can be used in assessment of the operational dimension. 3.3.6. Services dimension Outcomes and benefits from eGovernment programs are not always measured in financial terms. Indeed, a large number of eGovernment programs focus on social outcomes. eGovernment programs are often intended to improve access to service delivery and the quality of information, enhance the experience of interacting with government, reduce wait times, and assist consumers and business. eGovernment services (eServices) are part of a cohesive, citizen-oriented structure and fits into the daily activities of the community. The transition from agency-oriented to citizen-centric eGovernment can be a challenge requiring high-level leadership and coordination. Some of the different types of services that provided through eGovernment are: • Information services—public service information is placed online through the Web sites of agencies and departments. Government generates large volumes of information, and not all of it is immediately accessible. The Internet and IT can bring this information together and allow for its publication. • Interactive services—the delivery of public services online, enabling complete transactions to be conducted through the electronic channel. The key aspect of this phase is the interaction between the stakeholder and government. This may start with basic functions such as e-mail, contact information, or feedback. • Integrated services—the alignment of services and information around stakeholder needs in an integrated manner through a single point of contact with government. Table 1 summarizes the different eGovernment assessment dimensions and their relevant components.
4. Implications and future directions Two types of scientific models exist: those making predictions and those increasing the understanding of the interaction of units in the closed system (Dubin, 1978). This study falls squarely into the second category. The EAM framework aims to expand the current knowledge in the field associated with the assessment of eGovernment projects. The model can serve as a template for practitioners and researchers to follow as they evaluate a particular eGovernment project. The model is holistic, in that it considers all relevant aspects when evaluating an eGovernment project. However, all aspects of the model will not be applicable to every eGovernment project. Consider the case where a new eGovernment project comes on line and periodic
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
129
Table 1 eGovernment assessment dimensions Dimension
Component
1. Strategic
Objectives Risk management Integration Accessibility Structure Culture Return on investment Cost/benefits Sustainability Functionality Efficiency Information services Interactive services Integrated services
2. Technological 3. Organizational 4. Economic
5. Operational 6. Services
assessments are required. The team conducting the assessment may decide to focus only on two stakeholders (example employees and IS/IT personnel) in the context of the strategic and technological dimensions. Furthermore, the assessment team can then determine the current maturity stage of the project. Since the framework is not predictive we do not present a set of hypotheses for testing. Given that the primary goal is to increase understanding of the eGovernment assessment phenomena, the framework is broad and comprehensive and can be used to achieve that goal. To better understand eGovernment assessment this framework has implications in three main areas: eGovernment use, eGovernment organizational structure, and global implementation of eGovernment. Implications of the use of eGovernment refer to whether projects are achieving their desired goals. The framework presented in this paper can help an eGovernment developmental team to clearly articulate goals. Given a set of assessment dimensions a team has a template on key areas of design that they will need to re-evaluate at a later point in time. This framework can also be used to redefine tasks in the organizational structure. Specific units in the eGovernment environment can be responsible for different levels of assessment presented in EAM. Lastly, eGovernment is a global phenomenon. The EAM can be applied in a variety of global settings because of its inclusive nature. A nation with a developing eGovernment infrastructure can assess its citizen stakeholder benefits initially. As projects mature, different levels of EAM can be analyzed. One limitation of the study is that the framework requires further validation by testing on various eGovernment projects. Any eGovernment project can potentially benefit by using the proposed framework as a guideline as projects develop. Some components of the framework may increase or decrease in significance under specific conditions. For example, if the initial project is in the domain of government-to-citizen, assessment of the government-to-business component is not required.
130
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
5. Conclusion In this study we define a framework for the assessment of eGovernment initiatives. The framework is based on the existent knowledge of eGovernment initiatives and constructs from the socio-technical model (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977) and the STOPE model (Bakry, 2004). The framework defines and identifies three components for the assessment of eGovernment projects: assessment dimension, eGovernment maturity level, and stakeholders. The assessment dimensions examined are strategic, technological, organizational, economic, operational, and services. The framework is holistic in nature and is applicable for local, regional, or national-level analysis. This study brings attention to issues related to eGovernment success which go beyond the initial implementation of a project. The framework supports multiple iterations within the same project along different dimensions. As the eGovernment project matures, successive assessments may be necessary to determine if the goals are being met. The eGovernment assessment framework contributes both to the improved accountability and the definition of eGovernment strategies prior to, during, and post-implementation. Further empirical testing of the constructs of this framework will involve historical and longitudinal studies of eGovernment initiatives. eGovernment assessment is a continuous process. However, when an assessment occurs, it will only be valuable if there are clear guidelines for execution and delivery of outcomes. The model presented in this study is an integral component for achievement of identifying the subcomponents making up a comprehensive assessment framework. Assessment of eGovernment projects is integral to continued funding and development of both future and existing undertakings. This model can be used as a template for such evaluation by policy makers both before, during, and after the completion of these projects. References Akman, I., Yazicib, A., Mishraa, A., & Arifogluc, A. (2005). EGovernment: A global view and an empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 22(5), 239−257. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 493−520. Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). EGovernment maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236−248. Bakos, J. Y. (1991). A strategic analysis of electronic marketplaces. MIS Quarterly, 15(3), 295−310. Bakry, S. H. (2004). Development of eGovernment: A STOPE view. International Journal of Network Management, 14(5), 339−350. Baum, C., Di Maio, A., & Caldwell, F. (2000). What is eGovernment? Gartner’s definitions. Research Note (TU-11-6474). Bostrom, R., & Heinen, J. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17−32. Carbo, T., & Williams, J. G. (2004). Models and metrics for evaluating local electronic government systems and services. Electronic Journal of EGovernment, 2(2), 95−104. de Jong, M., & Lentz, L. (2006). Scenario evaluation of municipal Web sites: Development and use of an expertfocused evaluation tool. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 191−206. Detlor, B., & Finn, K. (2002). Towards a framework for government portal design: The government, citizen and
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
131
portal perspectives. In A. Gronlund (Ed.), Electronic government: Design, applications and management (pp. 99−119). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York, NY: The Free Press. Evans, D., & Yen, D. C. (2006). EGovernment: Evolving relationship of citizens and government, domestic, and international development. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 207−235. Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2006). Multi-method approaches to digital government research: Value lessons and implementation challenges. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06) Track 4, Hawaii. Heeks, R. (2001). Building eGovernance for Development: A Framework for national donor action: EGovernment Working Paper Series, EGovernment Working Paper Series (p. 33): University of Manchester, U.K. Hung, S., Chang, C., & Yu, T. (2006). Determinants of user acceptance of the eGovernment services: The case of online tax filing and payment system. Government Information Quarterly, 23(1), 97−122. Hunter, D. R., & Jupp, V. (2001). EGovernment leadership: Rhetoric vs reality—closing the gap: Accenture. http:// www.accenture.com Jaeger, P. T. (2004). The social impact of an accessible E-democracy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15(1), 19−26. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco, California: Chandler Publishing Company. Khalfan, A. M. (2004). Information security considerations in IS/IT outsourcing projects: A descriptive case study of two sectors. International Journal of Information Management, 24(1), 29−42. Kovačić, Z. (2005). The impact of national culture on worldwide egovernment readiness. Informing Science Journal, 8, 143−158. Kunstelj, M., & Vintar, M. (2004). Evaluating the progress of eGovernment development: A critical analysis. Information Polity, 9(3–4), 131−148. Leitner, C. (2003). eGovernment in Europe: The state of affairs—eGovernment Conference. Como, Italy: European Institute of Public Administration. Lenk, K., & Traunmüller, R. (2002). Electronic government: Where are we heading? Paper presented at the Electronic Government: First International Conference, EGOV 2002, Proceedings, Aix-en-Provence, France. Lyytinen, K., Mathiassen, L., & Ropponen, J. (1998). Attention shaping and software risk—A categorical analysis of four classical risk management approaches. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 233−255. Okoli, C., & Mbarika, V. A. W. (2003). A framework for assessing E-commerce in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 6(3), 44−66. Olivares, J. (2005). L’Administració Oberta de Catalunya (AOC): Institucions de govern en xarxa. Barcelona, Spain: Catalonia e-Governance Forum. Parent, M., Vandebeek, C., & Gemino, A. (2005). Building citizen trust through EGovernment. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 720−736. Porter, M. (1985). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analysing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press. Proudfoot, S. (2003). Weighing eGovernment. http://www.publicnet.co.uk/publicnet/fe030211.htm. Retrieved June 06, 2005. Riley, T. (2001). Electronic governance and electronic democracy: Living and working in the connected world. Brisbane, Australia: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, Fourth Edition New York, NY: The Free Press. Scavo, C. (2003). World wide web design and use in public management. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Public information technology: Policy and management (pp. 120−129). Hershey, PA. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Row. Servon, L. (2002). Bridging the digital divide: Technology, community and public policy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Shackleton, P., Fisher, J., & Dawson, L. (2004). Evolution of local government E-services: The applicability of ebusiness maturity models. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’04)-Track 5, Hawaii.
132
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
Shang, S., & Seddon, P. (2002). Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise systems: The business manager’s perspective. Information Systems Journal, 12(4), 271−299. Sharma, A., & Sheth, J. N. (2004). Web-based marketing: The coming revolution in marketing thought and strategy. Journal of Business Research, 57(7), 696−702. Stamoulis, D., Gouscos, D., Georgiadis, P., & Martakos, D. (2001). Revisiting public information management for effective EGovernment services. Information Management and Computer Security, 9(4), 146−153. UNPAN (2005). UN Global EGovernment Readiness Report 2005 from EGovernment to E-inclusion. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division of Public Administration and Development Management. Zhu, K. (2004). The complementarity of information technology infrastructure and E-Commerce capability: A resource-based assessment of their business value. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(1), 167−204. José Esteves is Professor and Chair of the Information Systems area at Instituto de Empresa Business School, Madrid, Spain. He received his Ph.D. in Information systems Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, master and engineer degrees in Information systems from Universidade do Minho (UM), Portugal, and a Diploma in Business Administration from Instituto Superior de Tecnología Empresarial, Porto, Portugal. Rhoda C. Joseph is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems and Technology at Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg. She has earned her Ph.D, in Business from the City University of New York as well as an M.B.A. from Baruch College.
Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118 – 132
A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects José Esteves a , Rhoda C. Joseph b,⁎ b
a Instituto de Empresa Business School, Maria Molina, 13, 28006 Madrid School of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg, 777 West Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA 17057, USA
Available online 16 August 2007
Abstract The area of electronic government (eGovernment) has received increased prominence and attention over the last few years. In spite of the current developments, many avenues in the area of eGovernment remain unexplored. One such area is the comprehensive assessment of eGovernment projects. We propose that understanding the value of projects drives the assessment process. Assessment of information technology (IT) initiatives is conducted either as an ex-ante (before implementation) or expost (after implementation) procedure. In this study, we present an ex-post framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects. Assessment identifies the value of the eGovernment project post-implementation. This paper examines a three-dimensional framework for the assessment of eGovernment initiatives. The three dimensions are eGovernment maturity level, stakeholders, and assessment levels. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: eGovernment; Assessment; Framework
1. Introduction Electronic government (eGovernment) is the delivery of services to citizens via the Internet. The goal of eGovernment is to capture benefits of the electronic economy (e⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 717 948 6456.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Esteves), [email protected] (R.C. Joseph). 0740-624X/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.009
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
119
economy). Although there is sparse information about the quality and efficiency of eGovernment initiatives, an increasing number of governmental units are incorporating or expanding the use of information technologies (IT) into many of their activities. Little is known about the quality and efficiency of eGovernment initiatives, partially because of a lack of effective measures to evaluate eGovernment quality (Carbo & Williams, 2004). Failure rates of eGovernment projects are estimated to be as high as 85% (Heeks, 2001). Over the last few years both the diversity of topics on and the volume of articles dealing with eGovernment have increased (Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2006). Many eGovernment studies focus on the development and evaluation of a Web site that interfaces between a government and its citizens (de Jong & Lentz, 2006; Detlor & Finn, 2002; Scavo, 2003). Studies beyond the citizens’ perspective are less common in the existing eGovernment literature. The 2003 Como report (Leitner, 2003) identified four dimensions of an eGovernment vision: mission impossible without a vision; not just about service delivery but a way of life; a key to good governance in the information society; not just about technology but a change of culture. The impact of eGovernment includes cultural and social adaptation issues, transborder data flow issues, and the potential for the development of a policy to reduce the global digital divide (Evans & Yen, 2006). eGovernment is “the transformation of public sector internal and external relationships through net-enabled operations, information technology and communications, to optimize government service delivery, constituency participation and governance (Baum, Di Maio, & Caldwell, 2000).” eGovernment is about the changing nature of relationships from hierarchical command-and-control to an interactive collaboration among governments, citizens, businesses, public sector employees, and other governments. eGovernment provides a platform for multi-channel interaction and multi-service delivery options. Furthermore, eGovernment is about having centralized yet distributed operations to maximize efficiencies, productivity, and service delivery. However, eGovernment programs can absorb a significant amount of public funds as they are implemented. It is essential that such a major undertaking should undergo post-implementation assessment. Evaluating eGovernment projects is an important issue (Lenk & Traunmüller, 2002). The lack of formal methods for monitoring and assessing eGovernment initiatives has led to a significant slowdown of country-level eGovernment development (Kunstelj & Vintar, 2004). Furthermore, the current approaches to monitoring, evaluating, and benchmarking eGovernment development do not support comprehensive eGovernment assessment and need to be further improved in order to give policymakers better evaluation criteria for their decisions (Kunstelj & Vintar, 2004). This paper emphasizes understanding and analysis of eGovernment initiatives via an assessment framework. This paper first looks at the definition and description of value in the context of eGovernment projects. Next, a comprehensive framework for eGovernment assessment is presented. The framework is grounded in the socio-technical model (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977) and the STOPE model (Bakry, 2004). Implications and future direction of the study follow. The paper concludes by highlighting the need for assessments of eGovernment projects.
120
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
2. Value creation and assessment Value represents the worth, utility, or importance of an entity. One classic model for value determination is Porter’s Value Chain (Porter, 1985). The value chain identifies both primary and secondary activities in the firm and uses an economic view to explain value creation. A firm can create value and a strategic advantage if it can differentiate itself from its competitors. Value results from either an increase in revenue or a decrease in costs. Governments can create value by reducing cost. Governments usually attempt to limit deficit and operate within a particular budget to provide goods and services for citizens. Value can also be generated with the use of information technology. Arguably, technological innovation is the driving force for value creation (Schumpeter, 1942). An innovation is an idea, practice, or object which is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption (Rogers, 1995). Innovations occur in many different formats including new products, a redesigned product, or a new patent. Different innovations can generate different levels of value. eGovernment, by definition, is an innovation because it redefines and improves transaction processing via an IT platform. For eBusiness, value is generated in four ways: efficiency (speed, cost, economies of scale); novelty (new structures, new participants, new transactions); lock-in (networks, customization, trust); and complementary (products, services, technologies, activities) (Amit & Zott, 2001). These components represent both tangible and intangible methods to create value. Collectively, the different areas of value generation are aggregated to determine the value of the business. Value generated under any one of the four categories serves as a catalyst for value development in the other categories. Ex-ante assessment (pre-implementation) of value is usually conducted via risk assessment or risk analysis. Initial implementation costs are compared to anticipated future benefits. Expost assessment (post-implementation) of IT projects occurs primarily from an economic perspective. Four constructs used for economic assessment are revenue generated, cost reduction, asset return, and inventory turnover (Zhu, 2004). Arguably, value consists of more than the examination of economic variables. The next section considers other non-economic value constructs in eGovernment. 2.1. Measuring value of eGovernment initiatives Evaluation of eGovernment projects identifies strengths, weaknesses, and best practices for both local and international integration (Kunstelj & Vintar, 2004). Both Hong Kong and Australia implemented techniques to measure the success of eGovernment projects. In Hong Kong the eGovernment coordinating office commissioned an opinion survey to obtain user feedback on the design of government Web sites and the provision of eServices. In Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics used surveys to measure adoption of ICT in society as a whole. Some of the questions in the surveys were directed at measuring use of government online services, to better understand the demand-side for government.
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
121
The European Union offers the eEurope Awards which includes three evaluation criteria: innovativeness and effective management; practical results; and relevance and transferability. The implications of such awards highlight the importance of setting standards and defining measurable targets for efficient assessment. Effective assessment can determine success or failure of eGovernment projects. The United Nations Global eGovernment survey states that eGovernment measurements should track national progress, identify disparities in access to ICT, move toward an inclusive information society, and support international comparisons (UNPAN, 2005). The U.N. global survey also examined governments’ willingness to use eGovernment to improve services to citizens. The survey contributed to the development efforts of the member states by focusing on whether eGovernment impacts the socioeconomic uplift of the people. The survey provides a benchmark of a country’s state of e-readiness (a country’s preparedness to integrate technology into society). The objectives of the survey were to provide an appraisal of the use of eGovernment to deliver social services and to provide a comparative assessment of the willingness and ability of governments to involve citizens in eParticipation. The U.N. Global eGovernment Survey (2003) presented a comparative ranking of the countries of the world according to two indicators: (a) the state of eReadiness and (b) the extent of eParticipation worldwide. The 2003 survey showed that governments have made rapid progress worldwide in embracing ICT technologies for eGovernment in the past years. In 2001, the survey listed that approximately 75% of U.N. member states were using the Internet in some capacity. By 2003, 91% of U.N. member states had a government Web site presence. The survey concluded that there were wide disparities between the “e-haves” and “e-havenots.” However, more importantly, it showed that there was no standardized measure for evaluating the effectiveness of eGovernment initiatives. In spite of these challenges, the survey showed that there can be significant benefits at both national and global levels if eGovernment tools are effectively applied. eGovernment policies are intertwined with the economic, social, and technical infrastructures of a country. The U.N. survey also suggests that evaluation of eGovernment performance should be broadened from ex-ante to include ex-post measurements. Additional suggestions from the survey are to differentiate between developing and developed countries, to identify different methodologies, and to develop criteria to make more equitable comparisons across countries. Clear guidelines encourage countries to implement their eGovernment projects more effectively. Furthermore, regional eGovernment performance measurement methods suitable for developing countries can be developed by modifying existing measurements. Several initiatives for measuring eGovernment exist; however, “We have been measuring the progress of eGovernment in the most rudimentary fashion, where most cited studies are variations of the same methodology-benchmark governments against each other based on the online availability of a pre-determined ‘basket’ of services and information. The nation states with the largest ‘baskets’ are declared eGovernment leaders (Proudfoot, 2003).” Different approaches exist to measure eGovernment success; however, a comprehensive framework for eGovernment assessment is needed.
122
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
3. A framework for eGovernment initiatives assessment The proposed eGovernment assessment framework (EAM) consists of three components: eGovernment maturity level, eGovernment stakeholders, and assessment dimensions. One of the major criticisms of theoretical models is their over-simplification of real-world constructs (Kaplan, 1964). To overcome this problem our framework is comprehensive in nature and includes all the major entities involved in the eGovernment landscape. The theoretical basis for the three components of EAM is the socio-technical model (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977). The socio-technical model (STM) incorporates four interdependent social and technical elements: actors, structure, technology, and task. The components of EAM include constructs from both a social and technical perspective. The socio-technical model examines key design elements for information systems (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977; Lyytinen, Mathiassen, & Ropponen, 1998). The STM states that information system failures can be reduced by considering the two complementary system components: the social side (focusing on user attitudes, skills, and values) and the technical side (focusing on processes, tasks, and technology) (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977). Social systems consist of people and structures while technical systems consist of technology and tasks. All four of these constructs are inter-related. The socio-technical perspective envisions humans and technology in supporting rather than antagonistic roles. The STM is applicable in eGovernment because of the interplay between people and technology. The assessment dimensions of EAM are based on the STOPE model. The STOPE model (Bakry, 2004) identifies strategy, technology, organizations, people, and environment as the core components for the development of eGovernment in the digital age. We use the constructs of the STOPE model to provide the basis for assessment of eGovernment projects. The dimensions for assessment from the STOPE framework are: strategy, technology, organization, and environment. We included two additional assessment dimensions outside of the STOPE framework: operational and services. In the EAM all people, including employees and citizens, are represented as stakeholders. The assessment dimension of EAM contains six components: strategic, technological, organizational, economic, operational, and services. The framework for assessment is illustrated in Fig. 1. 3.1. eGovernment stages The development of eGovernment is an evolutionary process. An eGovernment project can grow over time to include a variety of features, functions, and services. For a comprehensive view of the evolutionary process, an understanding of constituent elements and overall objectives is necessary. An eGovernment maturity model (eGMM) provides guidance on how to gain control of processes for developing and maintaining eGovernment services, as well as how to evolve toward a culture of excellence in providing and managing eGovernment. Organizations can improve eGovernment functions by focusing on specific goals and working aggressively to achieve them. Several different eGMMs exist. One such model was
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
123
Fig. 1. eGovernment assessment framework.
developed by the Catalunya government in Spain. The Catalunya model is composed of five stages: publication of information, interaction, transaction, integration/collaboration, and transformation (Olivares, 2005). A second eGMM shows eGovernment moving through three different stages: eGovernment, eGovernance, and eDemocracy. In this model, governments move from net presence (eGovernment) through to service provision and representative democracy (eGovernance) to a final stage of comprehensive participation (eDemocracy) (Riley, 2001). End user involvement in current eGovernment projects can improve core activities and enhance future development of projects (Andersen & Henriksen, 2006). The above eGMM suggests a linear progression to final maturity. However, an alternative model suggests that eGovernment maturity occurs in parallel virtual spaces: virtual information space, virtual communication space, virtual transaction space, and virtual distribution (Stamoulis, Gouscos, Georgiadis, & Martakos, 2001). In some instances, a mix of staged and space models can also be used. It is necessary to differentiate between national and local eGovernment models because they have differing goals, objectives, and constraints (Shackleton, Fisher, & Dawson, 2004). However, the presence of a comprehensive assessment framework will support applications irrespective of the domain (local, regional, or international). A comprehensive assessment model can be applicable in different contexts and settings. Lastly, a holistic four-level categorization for a country’s eGovernment maturity views the growth and development of eGovernment as more than just a Web presence. The categories
124
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
consider the internal involvement of interested parties in the success of the project. The four categories of the Accenture model (Hunter & Jupp, 2001) are: • Innovative Leaders—provide innovative Web-based solutions for citizens and businesses (Canada, Singapore, USA); • Visionary Followers—strive to improve sophistication and administrative simplicity (Norway, Australia, Finland); • Steady Achievers—steady improvements with less ambitious projects (New Zealand, Hong Kong, France); and • Platform Builders—new eGovernment initiatives (Japan, Brazil, Malaysia). The stage models presented above show growth and development of eGovernment as largely a linear process. A synthesis of the above models reveals that they all contain the following three phases: information presence—the government has an available Web site; interaction—two-way interaction between government and stakeholders; and political participation—voting and activism. For this paper we use the Accenture eMMM (Hunter & Jupp, 2001) because of its comprehensive nature, and it provides a formative basis for analysis by clearly identifying countries in each of the four categories. Secondly, the four stages identified in the Accenture analysis are comprehensive and applicable to local, state, and national-level projects. 3.2. Stakeholders eGovernment projects involve a wide range of services, products, people, and procedures. The key to understanding the value of eGovernment is to clearly identify the scope of the project. Without a gauge on scope, it is possible for projects to go over budget, increase in complexity, and become unmanageable. Scope is also necessary to define a unit for assessment. The scope of eGovernment is identified as follows (Heeks, 2001): • eAdministration—improving government processes by reducing costs, managing performance, making strategic connections within government, and empowering citizens. • eCitizens and eServices—connecting citizens to government by communicating with citizens, supporting accountability by listening to citizens, supporting democracy, and improving public services. • eSociety—building interactions beyond the boundaries of government by working better with business, developing communities, building government partnerships, and opening up new avenues to strengthen social development. The scope of eGovernment involves potentially overlapping components. For example, eSociety can involve participation from eAdministrators, and eAdministrators can interact with eServices. Lately, some researchers have argued for a new vision of eGovernment, taking into account not only the supplier’s perspectives but also other key stakeholders such as citizens (Akman, Yazicib, Mishraa, & Arifogluc, 2005; Hung, Chang, & Yu, 2006; Parent,
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
125
Vandebeek, & Gemino, 2005). A stakeholder represents any entity (individual, group, or firm) that can affect or is affected by the organization’s execution of its objectives (Porter, 1985). For example, the following constituents exist: user/problem owners as the main beneficiaries (e.g., citizens, businesses); intermediaries (e.g., consumer associations, chambers of commerce); public service suppliers (responsible authorities); and providers. In summary, the primary eGovernment stakeholders are: • Citizens: Citizens in contact with public administration, using public services exercising their civil rights, and participating in democratic processes. • Employees: All categories of public employees, including politicians and various other public administrators. • Businesses: Both for-profit and non-profit companies interact with government. Businesses are in contact with public administration in their compliance with taxes, social, and legal obligations. Many non-profits also seek and submit proposals for government grants. • Governments: In multi-tier systems, there is interaction among local, state, and federal levels of government. • IS/IT Personnel: eGovernment solution suppliers from both the private and public sector. They are suppliers of solutions, know-how, advice, skilled resources, hardware and software expertise, and more. • Special Interest Groups (SIGs): Aggregated/organized citizens interacting in local communities to build their voice through examples such as non-government organizations (NGOs) and civil service organizations (CSOs). Also included here are international organizations such as the European Commission, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the United Nations. The main stakeholders define four broad types of relationships in eGovernment: G2C (Government to Citizens), G2E (Government to Employees), G2B (Government to Businesses), and G2G (Governments to Governments). Identifying the key stakeholders provides a basis for identifying scope of assessment. Each stakeholder group represents a unit of analysis for the assessment framework. A single project will usually be targeted toward a subset of stakeholders. Inclusion of a set of primary eGovernment stakeholders provides a platform for comprehensive assessments. 3.3. Assessment dimensions eCommerce is an important precursor enhancing eGovernment development. A multidimensional framework for the assessment of eCommerce diffusion in Sub-Saharan Africa identified three dimensions: sophistication of Internet use, telecommunications/Internet environment, and traditional commercial infrastructure (Okoli & Mbarika, 2003). We employ a similar multidimensional approach for assessment of eGovernment. Infrastructure is captured in our discussion of technological assessment. Our multidimensional framework for assessment of eGovernment projects, which is motivated by the work of Bakry (2004), identifies six dimensions: strategic, technological,
126
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
organizational, economic, operational, and services. These dimensions are not considered in isolation. For effective assessment, both the stakeholder group(s) and the level of maturity of eGovernment must be considered. Below we describe the six assessment dimensions in detail. We identify the significance of these dimensions and highlight cases and pertinent examples. At the stakeholder level, some or all of the dimensions presented can be relevant depending on the nature of the eGovernment project. 3.3.1. Strategic dimension Strategy focuses on the future plans of the government in a particular industry or service (Bakry, 2004). Assessment of the strategic dimension compares the initial objectives of the eGovernment project with the actual outcomes of the project. One way that the Web changes customer behavior is by increasing the level of self-access (Sharma & Sheth, 2004). An example of a strategic goal of eGovernment can be to increase the number of access points to government information. An increase in access points means moving beyond telephone and postal mail and incorporating additional technologies such as e-mail, instant messaging, message boards, and blogs. The number of Web-based accesses is one way to measure the achievement of this goal. Risk assessment identifies the main threats to an organization’s assets. The three main threats associated with information systems and information technology projects are loss of control, costs, and security (Khalfan, 2004). A risk assessment usually occurs in the design phase of the project. However, after the eGovernment project has been implemented, we argue that (at a minimum) a second phase of assessment is necessary. The second assessment evaluates whether or not risks were successfully mitigated and what on-going action is needed. In summary, the two components for the assessment of the strategic dimension are objectives and risk management. 3.3.2. Technology dimension The technological dimension focuses on related eGovernment technical aspects such as hardware, software, and IT infrastructure needs. The hardware component includes servers, personal computers, laptops, desktops, personal digital assistants (PDAs), cellular phones, and any other technology that facilitates eGovernment access. The software components can range from database products to Web design and developmental tools. IT infrastructure consists of sharable and reusable resources which provide a foundation for present and future business applications (Shang & Seddon, 2002). Assessment of the technology dimension examines whether the technology used for the eGovernment project sufficiently satisfies the needs of the relevant constituents. A positive complementary relationship exists between front-end eCommerce applications and back-end IT infrastructure (Zhu, 2004). In the eGovernment domain, the underlying IT infrastructure must be integrated with the front-end applications that are implemented for users. Effective integration is one of the main factors for assessment of the technology dimension. Technology cannot exist in a vacuum. IT must be integrated with other functional areas of the business. The second component of technology assessment is accessibility. The digital divide refers to the separation between individuals, communities, and businesses having access to technology
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
127
and those that do not. Socio-economic factors, such as economic poverty, are closely correlated with limited information technology resources (Servon, 2002). eGovernment projects can be rendered useless if large segments of the target population are unable to access the system. Persons with disabilities can also be limited in their ability to access eGovernment resources. For eGovernment to truly represent democracy, citizens with disabilities must be given equal access (Jaeger, 2004). The success of a project cannot be measured until an assessment of the technological capability is examined. From an eGovernment perspective, the project should encompass a comprehensive integration of both back-end and front-end functions. Secondly, since government’s primary role is to satisfy the needs of its citizens, full access to eGovernment projects must be available. The main IT eGovernment assessment issues are integration and accessibility. 3.3.3. Organizational dimension The organizational dimension involves organizational structure and culture. The structure and culture of an organization can either facilitate or inhibit cohesion and learning within the company. Special attention must be paid to the impact of national and organizational cultures when eGovernment projects are implemented (Kovaèiæ, 2005). Further, government units must also consider what change management approaches are applicable as the adoption of eGovernment projects occurs. 3.3.4. Economic dimension This dimension focuses on the economic aspects related to eGovernment initiatives. Economic and financial metrics include cost/benefit analysis and return on investment (ROI). Reduced search costs represent an important benefit of electronic markets (Bakos, 1991). Similarly, reduced transaction costs are a measurable cost benefit of eGovernment projects. Economic variables can be used as eGovernment performance measures for improved decision-making and communication of project priorities. An important aspect of eGovernment initiatives is their sustainability. There is a danger that eGovernment projects may become short-term. Benefits from such initiatives do not extend beyond the life of the project itself. Genuine change, therefore, is not achieved. Some projects may not generate income and are dependent on external funding for continued existence. Projects may be financially sustainable if they are supported by an institution’s core budget as opposed to short-term funding. The presence of eGovernment as a core business component can lead to changes in structures, attitudes, and practices which have a net positive benefit for the government in the future. 3.3.5. Operational dimension Operational activities are routine events which are repeated periodically (daily, weekly, and/ or monthly). Information technology has a long history of being used for cutting costs and raising output by automating repetitive operations (Khalfan, 2004). Information technology is one of the supporting operations in a company’s value chain (Porter, 1985). In eGovernment the operational dimension can involve processing of various products arriving from external
128
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
suppliers or other government agencies. Reduced agency costs (costs associated with management of business) can increase efficiency and functionality of the government unit. Explicit measures such as transactions per day, turnaround time for processing, and reorder points can be used in assessment of the operational dimension. 3.3.6. Services dimension Outcomes and benefits from eGovernment programs are not always measured in financial terms. Indeed, a large number of eGovernment programs focus on social outcomes. eGovernment programs are often intended to improve access to service delivery and the quality of information, enhance the experience of interacting with government, reduce wait times, and assist consumers and business. eGovernment services (eServices) are part of a cohesive, citizen-oriented structure and fits into the daily activities of the community. The transition from agency-oriented to citizen-centric eGovernment can be a challenge requiring high-level leadership and coordination. Some of the different types of services that provided through eGovernment are: • Information services—public service information is placed online through the Web sites of agencies and departments. Government generates large volumes of information, and not all of it is immediately accessible. The Internet and IT can bring this information together and allow for its publication. • Interactive services—the delivery of public services online, enabling complete transactions to be conducted through the electronic channel. The key aspect of this phase is the interaction between the stakeholder and government. This may start with basic functions such as e-mail, contact information, or feedback. • Integrated services—the alignment of services and information around stakeholder needs in an integrated manner through a single point of contact with government. Table 1 summarizes the different eGovernment assessment dimensions and their relevant components.
4. Implications and future directions Two types of scientific models exist: those making predictions and those increasing the understanding of the interaction of units in the closed system (Dubin, 1978). This study falls squarely into the second category. The EAM framework aims to expand the current knowledge in the field associated with the assessment of eGovernment projects. The model can serve as a template for practitioners and researchers to follow as they evaluate a particular eGovernment project. The model is holistic, in that it considers all relevant aspects when evaluating an eGovernment project. However, all aspects of the model will not be applicable to every eGovernment project. Consider the case where a new eGovernment project comes on line and periodic
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
129
Table 1 eGovernment assessment dimensions Dimension
Component
1. Strategic
Objectives Risk management Integration Accessibility Structure Culture Return on investment Cost/benefits Sustainability Functionality Efficiency Information services Interactive services Integrated services
2. Technological 3. Organizational 4. Economic
5. Operational 6. Services
assessments are required. The team conducting the assessment may decide to focus only on two stakeholders (example employees and IS/IT personnel) in the context of the strategic and technological dimensions. Furthermore, the assessment team can then determine the current maturity stage of the project. Since the framework is not predictive we do not present a set of hypotheses for testing. Given that the primary goal is to increase understanding of the eGovernment assessment phenomena, the framework is broad and comprehensive and can be used to achieve that goal. To better understand eGovernment assessment this framework has implications in three main areas: eGovernment use, eGovernment organizational structure, and global implementation of eGovernment. Implications of the use of eGovernment refer to whether projects are achieving their desired goals. The framework presented in this paper can help an eGovernment developmental team to clearly articulate goals. Given a set of assessment dimensions a team has a template on key areas of design that they will need to re-evaluate at a later point in time. This framework can also be used to redefine tasks in the organizational structure. Specific units in the eGovernment environment can be responsible for different levels of assessment presented in EAM. Lastly, eGovernment is a global phenomenon. The EAM can be applied in a variety of global settings because of its inclusive nature. A nation with a developing eGovernment infrastructure can assess its citizen stakeholder benefits initially. As projects mature, different levels of EAM can be analyzed. One limitation of the study is that the framework requires further validation by testing on various eGovernment projects. Any eGovernment project can potentially benefit by using the proposed framework as a guideline as projects develop. Some components of the framework may increase or decrease in significance under specific conditions. For example, if the initial project is in the domain of government-to-citizen, assessment of the government-to-business component is not required.
130
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
5. Conclusion In this study we define a framework for the assessment of eGovernment initiatives. The framework is based on the existent knowledge of eGovernment initiatives and constructs from the socio-technical model (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977) and the STOPE model (Bakry, 2004). The framework defines and identifies three components for the assessment of eGovernment projects: assessment dimension, eGovernment maturity level, and stakeholders. The assessment dimensions examined are strategic, technological, organizational, economic, operational, and services. The framework is holistic in nature and is applicable for local, regional, or national-level analysis. This study brings attention to issues related to eGovernment success which go beyond the initial implementation of a project. The framework supports multiple iterations within the same project along different dimensions. As the eGovernment project matures, successive assessments may be necessary to determine if the goals are being met. The eGovernment assessment framework contributes both to the improved accountability and the definition of eGovernment strategies prior to, during, and post-implementation. Further empirical testing of the constructs of this framework will involve historical and longitudinal studies of eGovernment initiatives. eGovernment assessment is a continuous process. However, when an assessment occurs, it will only be valuable if there are clear guidelines for execution and delivery of outcomes. The model presented in this study is an integral component for achievement of identifying the subcomponents making up a comprehensive assessment framework. Assessment of eGovernment projects is integral to continued funding and development of both future and existing undertakings. This model can be used as a template for such evaluation by policy makers both before, during, and after the completion of these projects. References Akman, I., Yazicib, A., Mishraa, A., & Arifogluc, A. (2005). EGovernment: A global view and an empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 22(5), 239−257. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 493−520. Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). EGovernment maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236−248. Bakos, J. Y. (1991). A strategic analysis of electronic marketplaces. MIS Quarterly, 15(3), 295−310. Bakry, S. H. (2004). Development of eGovernment: A STOPE view. International Journal of Network Management, 14(5), 339−350. Baum, C., Di Maio, A., & Caldwell, F. (2000). What is eGovernment? Gartner’s definitions. Research Note (TU-11-6474). Bostrom, R., & Heinen, J. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17−32. Carbo, T., & Williams, J. G. (2004). Models and metrics for evaluating local electronic government systems and services. Electronic Journal of EGovernment, 2(2), 95−104. de Jong, M., & Lentz, L. (2006). Scenario evaluation of municipal Web sites: Development and use of an expertfocused evaluation tool. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 191−206. Detlor, B., & Finn, K. (2002). Towards a framework for government portal design: The government, citizen and
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
131
portal perspectives. In A. Gronlund (Ed.), Electronic government: Design, applications and management (pp. 99−119). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York, NY: The Free Press. Evans, D., & Yen, D. C. (2006). EGovernment: Evolving relationship of citizens and government, domestic, and international development. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 207−235. Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2006). Multi-method approaches to digital government research: Value lessons and implementation challenges. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06) Track 4, Hawaii. Heeks, R. (2001). Building eGovernance for Development: A Framework for national donor action: EGovernment Working Paper Series, EGovernment Working Paper Series (p. 33): University of Manchester, U.K. Hung, S., Chang, C., & Yu, T. (2006). Determinants of user acceptance of the eGovernment services: The case of online tax filing and payment system. Government Information Quarterly, 23(1), 97−122. Hunter, D. R., & Jupp, V. (2001). EGovernment leadership: Rhetoric vs reality—closing the gap: Accenture. http:// www.accenture.com Jaeger, P. T. (2004). The social impact of an accessible E-democracy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15(1), 19−26. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco, California: Chandler Publishing Company. Khalfan, A. M. (2004). Information security considerations in IS/IT outsourcing projects: A descriptive case study of two sectors. International Journal of Information Management, 24(1), 29−42. Kovačić, Z. (2005). The impact of national culture on worldwide egovernment readiness. Informing Science Journal, 8, 143−158. Kunstelj, M., & Vintar, M. (2004). Evaluating the progress of eGovernment development: A critical analysis. Information Polity, 9(3–4), 131−148. Leitner, C. (2003). eGovernment in Europe: The state of affairs—eGovernment Conference. Como, Italy: European Institute of Public Administration. Lenk, K., & Traunmüller, R. (2002). Electronic government: Where are we heading? Paper presented at the Electronic Government: First International Conference, EGOV 2002, Proceedings, Aix-en-Provence, France. Lyytinen, K., Mathiassen, L., & Ropponen, J. (1998). Attention shaping and software risk—A categorical analysis of four classical risk management approaches. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 233−255. Okoli, C., & Mbarika, V. A. W. (2003). A framework for assessing E-commerce in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 6(3), 44−66. Olivares, J. (2005). L’Administració Oberta de Catalunya (AOC): Institucions de govern en xarxa. Barcelona, Spain: Catalonia e-Governance Forum. Parent, M., Vandebeek, C., & Gemino, A. (2005). Building citizen trust through EGovernment. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 720−736. Porter, M. (1985). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analysing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press. Proudfoot, S. (2003). Weighing eGovernment. http://www.publicnet.co.uk/publicnet/fe030211.htm. Retrieved June 06, 2005. Riley, T. (2001). Electronic governance and electronic democracy: Living and working in the connected world. Brisbane, Australia: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, Fourth Edition New York, NY: The Free Press. Scavo, C. (2003). World wide web design and use in public management. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Public information technology: Policy and management (pp. 120−129). Hershey, PA. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Row. Servon, L. (2002). Bridging the digital divide: Technology, community and public policy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Shackleton, P., Fisher, J., & Dawson, L. (2004). Evolution of local government E-services: The applicability of ebusiness maturity models. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’04)-Track 5, Hawaii.
132
J. Esteves, R.C. Joseph / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 118–132
Shang, S., & Seddon, P. (2002). Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise systems: The business manager’s perspective. Information Systems Journal, 12(4), 271−299. Sharma, A., & Sheth, J. N. (2004). Web-based marketing: The coming revolution in marketing thought and strategy. Journal of Business Research, 57(7), 696−702. Stamoulis, D., Gouscos, D., Georgiadis, P., & Martakos, D. (2001). Revisiting public information management for effective EGovernment services. Information Management and Computer Security, 9(4), 146−153. UNPAN (2005). UN Global EGovernment Readiness Report 2005 from EGovernment to E-inclusion. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division of Public Administration and Development Management. Zhu, K. (2004). The complementarity of information technology infrastructure and E-Commerce capability: A resource-based assessment of their business value. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(1), 167−204. José Esteves is Professor and Chair of the Information Systems area at Instituto de Empresa Business School, Madrid, Spain. He received his Ph.D. in Information systems Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, master and engineer degrees in Information systems from Universidade do Minho (UM), Portugal, and a Diploma in Business Administration from Instituto Superior de Tecnología Empresarial, Porto, Portugal. Rhoda C. Joseph is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems and Technology at Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg. She has earned her Ph.D, in Business from the City University of New York as well as an M.B.A. from Baruch College.