E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to ...igup.urfu.ru/docs/Bank...

Government Information Quarterly 22 (2005) 187–216

E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to

theoretical foundations

J. Ramon Gil-Garcıa, Theresa A. PardoT

Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, Albany, NY 12205-1138, USA

Abstract

Strategies are systematic and long-term approaches to problems. Federal, state, and local

governments are investing in the development of strategies to further their e-government goals. These

strategies are based on their knowledge of the field and the relevant resources available to them.

Governments are communicating these strategies to practitioners through the use of practical guides.

The guides provide direction to practitioners as they consider, make a case for, and implement IT

initiatives. This article presents an analysis of a selected set of resources government practitioners use to

guide their e-government efforts. A selected review of current literature on the challenges to information

technology initiatives is used to create a framework for the analysis. A gap analysis examines the extent

to which IT-related research is reflected in the practical guides. The resulting analysis is used to identify

a set of commonalities across the practical guides and a set of recommendations for future development

of practitioner guides and future research into e-government initiatives.

D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Information technology; Government; IT implementation; Success factors; Relevance

1. Introduction

E-government has been conceptualized as the intensive or generalized use of information

technologies in government for the provision of public services, the improvement of

0740-624X/$

doi:10.1016/j.g

T Correspond

E-mail add

- see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

iq.2005.02.001

ing author.

ress: [email protected] (T.A. Pardo).

J.R. Gil-Garcıa, T.A. Pardo / Government Information Quarterly 22 (2005) 187–216188

managerial effectiveness, and the promotion of democratic values and mechanisms.1

Information technology (IT) has the potential to transform government structures and to

improve the quality of government services. Technology provides two main opportunities for

government: (1) increased operational efficiency by reducing costs and increasing

productivity, and (2) better quality of services provided by government agencies. Realizing

the benefits of these technologies requires organizations to understand and overcome the

challenges to their efforts. Technological complexity and incompatibility are not the only, nor

the most difficult, challenges to overcome. Managerial, political, and legal factors have been

identified as important elements to take into consideration in the design and development of

IT initiatives as well.2 Politics, privacy concerns, turf, and other institutional arrangements

can also affect the results of an IT project.3

Information managers in government must be aware of the many problems they face in IT-

intensive projects. IT initiatives in general, and e-government projects in particular, face

multiple and complex challenges.4 Identifying and overcoming these challenges is not always

easy. Many national, state, and local governments are developing tools to help managers

make decisions about IT investments and implementation. The purpose of this article is to

examine the extent to which IS research informs the development of practitioner tools for

government IT decision makers. Four tools were selected as the focus of this examination

based on their visibility and central role in informing practitioners at the national level in the

United States and Canada and at the state level within the United States. The examination

produced a number of observations about the practical tools in terms of their treatment of the

challenges to e-government and strategies for successful IT initiatives as identified by current

research. It also produced a set of recommendations for future efforts in both research and

practice.

This article is divided in seven sections including these introductory comments. Section 2

frames the debate about e-government research and relevance issues. Section 3 describes the

method used in this comparative effort. Section 4 presents some challenges and IT success

factors identified in different disciplines. Section 5 introduces the four practical tools selected

for this study. Section 6 identifies how the challenges and factors drawn from the various

disciplinary literature have been incorporated into the selected set of tools. Finally, the article

offers some conclusions and recommendations.

2. E-government research and relevance issues

As the interest in and pressure for new and expanded e-government increases, public

managers find themselves making decisions about information and information technology

for which they are often unprepared or ill-equipped. Recognition of the complexity and risk

of IT decisions and of the broad range of public managers involved in making these types of

decisions has spurred the development of many structured and rigorous tools to support IT

business case analysis and risk assessment strategies. These strategies, recommended in some

government agencies, and required in others, provide guidance for IT decision making within

particular organizational contexts.

J.R. Gil-Garcıa, T.A. Pardo / Government Information Quarterly 22 (2005) 187–216 189

It is important for both practitioners and researchers that these tools be grounded in the

latest information systems research and practice. At this point however, there is no empirical

evidence that this goal has been achieved. The extent to which practitioners have found the

results of years of IS research relevant to their efforts to produce tools that limit the risk of IT

initiatives is unclear. A continuing high level of systems failures, however, encourages an

examination of the relationship between research and practice.

The latest debate about the relevance of information systems research was presented in the

March 2001 issue of the Communications of the Association for Information Systems

(CAIS). This issue presented the thoughts, concerns, and recommendations of a wide range of

researchers in the field. The 26 articles included discussions about (1) expanding the notion of

relevance;5 (2) the question of relevance to whom;6 and (3) the need for better matches

between academic research goals and goals of constituents.7 Paul Gray, the editor of CAIS, in

his introduction to the special issue describes the relevance issue as one that bconcerns theimportance of academic IS research to the practitioner community.Q8 According to Gray, the

authors of the 26 papers in the special issue seem to have consensus that published work is

not being read by practitioners. The explanations presented for this gap include abstractedness

of writing, lack of practical experience of faculty, latency of publication of academic research,

and a failure to focus on applications for non-business constituencies such as the public sector

and the community use of computing.9

Therefore, the summary concern stated from articles and surveys is that practitioners are

not reading research—the inference being, therefore, it is not informing their practices. The

premise of this article is that an examination of the tools being used by practitioners for

evidence of empirically supported practices and strategies will inform this discussion. We

may find that although practitioners are not systematically reading research, they realize the

benefit of research that is incorporated into the practical guides they are reading and in some

cases required to use.

3. Method

A gap analysis between a selected set of practitioner tools and a set of key success factors of

IT initiatives has the potential to inform questions about the relationship between research and

practice. A gap analysis strategy represents an opportunity to do a component-by-component

analysis to determine the extent to which the design of each reflects awareness of relevant

research on information systems success.10 This strategy could also inform future refinement

of practical tools as well as suggest strategies for the future development of research-based

practical tools. The gap analysis is comprised of the four-step process outlined below.

First, a review of current literature in information systems research is used to identify

factors found to influence the success of IT initiatives. This review includes the scanning of

the last 5 years (1999–2003) of five top journals in public administration.11 Articles with a

focus on e-government success factors were selected. The literature review also includes

selected journal articles and book chapters that specifically address IT success factors in both

public and private organizations.


Second, the research identified and described a set of tools used for government IT

initiatives. These tools were selected based on their visibility and central role in informing

practitioners at the national level in the United States and Canada and at the state level within

the United States. The review and description of the tools was selective and based on sections

that explicitly deal with IT risks and success factors. Third, a comparison of the factors

against the selective descriptions was conducted. This comparison focused on four categories

of challenges and strategies found in the IS success literature. Fourth, an identification of the

gaps between the research and the practical tools is presented and discussed.

4. E-government challenges and success strategies: a review of the literature

A number of disciplines have invested in efforts to build understanding of the challenges in

information technology initiatives. Research focused on technology, management, policy,

information, and organizational issues have all contributed to knowledge about these

challenges.12

Simultaneously, government practitioners have worked to improve their chances for

success by developing and adopting multiple, and sometimes interrelated, strategies for

responding to challenges to their IT initiatives. The research community too, has continued to

invest in research into the success of IT initiatives. Practitioner and research efforts are

moving beyond a view of technology as the primary determinant of success and are seeking

more broadly based and sophisticated understanding of the interaction among technology,

organizations, and environments.

4.1. Challenges to e-government initiatives

Although there is no single list of challenges to e-government initiatives, notable

consistencies exist across the disciplines. These consistent challenges are organized here as

primary challenges to e-government as information systems in context (see Table 1). The

primary challenges are grouped into five categories according to their core aspect: (1)

information and data, (2) information technology, (3) organizational and managerial, (4) legal

and regulatory, and (5) institutional and environmental.

4.1.1. Information and data challenges

E-government initiatives are about the capture, management, use, dissemination, and

sharing of information. A number of the challenges relate to the information that is at the core

of e-government initiatives. Redman,13 Kaplan et al.,14 and Ballou and Tayi15 are among the

many scientists who focus their research on data quality and data accuracy issues. According to

Redman,16 data quality problems include inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and incompleteness of

data. Kaplan et al.17 emphasize that data quality is very important not only for intraorganiza-

tional usage, but also for reports to different stakeholders. In addition, Tayi and Ballou18

identify the lack of appropriate data as a further challenge to IT initiatives. In this regard, it is

important to understand the challenges of using bhardQ legacy data for decision support

Table 1

Challenges for e-government initiatives

Challenge category(s) Challenge Authors

Information and

data

Information and data quality Dawes, 1996; Redman, 1998; Tayi and Ballou, 1998;

Ballou and Tayi, 1999; Brown, 2000; Ambite et al.,

2002; Burbridge, 2002

Dynamic information needs Brown and Brudney, 2003

Information

technology

Usability Davis, 1989; DeLone and Mclean, 1992; Caffrey,

1998; Brown, 2000; DeLone and Mclean, 2003;

Garson, 2003; Mahler and Regan, 2003

Security issues Irvine, 2000; Milner, 2000; Joshi et al., 2002; Moon,

2002; Holden et al., 2003; Luna-Reyes and

Gil-Garcia, 2003; Roy, 2003

Technological incompatibility Dawes, 1996; Chengalur-Smith and Duchessi, 1999;

Brown, 2001; Landsberg and Wolken, 2001; Dawes

and Pardo, 2002; Burbridge, 2002; Holden et al., 2003

Technology complexity Barki et al., 1993; Dawes and Nelson, 1995; Caffrey,

1998; Chengalur-Smith and Duchessi, 1999; West and

Berman, 2001; Garson, 2003

Technical skills and experience Caffrey, 1998; Brown, 2001; Dawes and Pardo, 2002;

Ho, 2002; Moon, 2002; Holden et al., 2003

Technology newness Barki et al., 1993; Dawes and Nelson, 1995;

Caffrey, 1998; Ho, 2002; Roy, 2003

Organizational

and managerial

Project size McFarlan, 1981; Barki et al., 1993

Manager’s attitudes and

behavior

Heintze and Bretschneider, 2000; Gagnon, 2001

Users or organizational

diversity

McFarlan, 1981; Davis, 1982; Smith et al., 2001;

Dawes and Pardo, 2002; Brown and Brudney, 2003;

Roy, 2003

Lack of alignment of

organizational goals and project

Dawes and Nelson, 1995

Multiple or conflicting goals Dawes and Pardo, 2002; Brown, 2003; Kim and Kim,

2003

Resistance to change Dawes and Nelson, 1995; Best, 1997; Caffrey, 1998;

Burbridge, 2002; Ho, 2002; Edmiston, 2003

Turf and conflicts Barki et al., 1993; Dawes, 1996; Caffrey, 1998;

Bellamy, 2000; Jiang and Kleing, 2000; Barret and

Green, 2001; Burbridge, 2002; Edmiston, 2003;

Rocheleau, 2003; Roy, 2003

Legal and

regulatory

Restrictive laws and

regulations

Dawes and Nelson, 1995; NGA, 1997; Landsbergen

and Wolken, 1998; Chengalur-Smith and

Duchessi, 1999; Harris, 2000; Dawes and Pardo, 2002;

Mahler and Regan, 2002

One year budgets Dawes and Nelson; Fountain, 2001; Dawes and Pardo,

2002

Intergovernmental

relationships

Bellamy, 2000; Harris, 2000; Landsberg and Wolken,

2001; Burbridge, 2002; Dawes and Pardo, 2002;

Rocheleau, 2003

(continued on next page)


Challenge category(s) Challenge Authors

Institutional and

environmental

Privacy concerns Andersen and Dawes, 1991; Caffrey, 1998; Milner,

2000; Joshi et al., 2002; Moon, 2002; Duncan and

Roehrig, 2003; Edmiston, 2003; Holden et al., 2003

Autonomy of agencies Dawes, 1996; Caffrey, 1998; Fountain, 2001;

Landsberg and Wolken, 2001; Dawes and Pardo, 2002

Policy and political pressures Bajjaly, 1999; Heintze and Bretschneider, 2000;

Mahler and Regan, 2002; Brown and Brudney,

2003; Edmiston, 2003; Rocheleau, 2003; Roy, 2003

Environmental context

(social, economic, demographic)

Heintze and Bretschneider, 2000; Ho, 2002; La Porte

et al., 2002; Brown and Brudney, 2003; Edmiston,

2003; Holden et al., 2003

Source: Adapted and expanded from Jiang, J. and Klein, G. (2000). Software development risks to project

effectiveness. The Journal of Systems and Software, 52: 3–10.

Table 1 (continued)


systems when the decision process calls for bsoftQ data. Dawes19 and Ambite et al.20 address

how poor results in projects emerge from problems with data structures and data definitions.

Overall, Brown21 cautions us against taking information quality problems for granted.

4.1.2. Information technology challenges

System usability and ease of use are important factors to consider.22 Technology

incompatibility has also been identified as one difficult challenge to IT-intensive projects.23

Systems that are very different and sometimes very old increase the complexity of IT projects,

especially information integration initiatives.24 Complexity and newness of technology are

also constraints that can potentially affect the results of IT projects.25 The lack of relevant

technical skills within the project team has been found to be an important factor26 as well as the

shortages of qualified technical personnel.27 Legacy systems present additional challenges.28

For example, Duchessi and Chengalur-Smith29 reported conversion of mainframe applications

as one of the problems associated with implementing client/server technology.

4.1.3. Organizational and managerial challenges

Undoubtedly, the size of the project and the diversity of the users and organizations

involved are two of the main challenges to IT initiatives.30 There are at least two other

problems related to the goals and objectives of initiatives. The first is the lack of alignment

between organizational goals and the IT project.31 In addition, Dawes and Pardo32 identified

the existence of multiple, and sometimes conflicting, goals in the public sector as an

additional interorganizational challenge. Finally, individual interests and associated behaviors

lead to resistance to change, internal conflicts, and turf issues.33

4.1.4. Legal and regulatory challenges

Most of the time government organizations are created and operate by virtue of a specific

formal rule or group of rules. In making any kind of decision, including those in IT projects,

public managers must take into account a large number of restrictive laws and regulations.34

For example, government agencies must often contend with one-year budget cycles. One-year


budgets are common in many national and state governments, and this type of budgeting

affects the potential results of long-term IT initiatives.35 Federal systems, as in the United

States, present additional challenges derived from the particularities of the relationships

between different levels of governments and the formal checks and balances among the

executive, legislative, and judicial branches.36

4.1.5. Institutional and environmental challenges

There are additional challenges related to a more general institutional framework and the

policy environment in which government organizations operate.37 In this context, institutions

are not only laws and regulations, but also norms, actions, or behaviors that people accept as

good or take for granted.38 Privacy and related security issues are challenges that must be

adequately addressed in government IT initiatives.39 The United States legal framework does

not mention bagency autonomy.Q However, government agencies and programs often act as

independent and autonomous units without taking into account what other public

organizations are doing (stove pipes). This situation can constrain efforts to use technology

to integrate or share information across multiple agencies.40 Finally, external pressures such

as policy agendas and politics may affect the results of IT initiatives.41

The above discussion highlights the range of highly complex and diverse challenges public

managers must face as they work in the e-government arena. Success is not only about

selecting the right technology, but also about managing organizational capabilities, regulatory

constraints, and environmental pressures. For e-government managers to be successful in

their initiatives they must be aware of these challenges and use appropriate strategies to

overcome them.

4.2. Success strategies for e-government initiatives

A set of strategies for achieving success in e-government initiatives, drawn from the

literature, can be mapped onto the five challenge categories. Mapping the strategies to the

challenge categories illustrates the degree of correspondence in the research itself between

challenges and possible strategies for meeting those challenges (Table 2).

4.2.1. Information and data strategies

Dealing with information and data challenges requires an overall plan for managing data

and information products.42 A quality and compliance assurance program is an effective

strategy for dealing with information and data challenges.43 Developing appropriate data

structures and definitions is critical to the success of IT initiatives, in particular in

interorganizational initiatives. The challenge in this area stems not only from gaining

agreement that these are necessary, but also from engaging the necessary partners in the

development and adoption of common structures and standards.44 Managers have attempted

to minimize data-related problems by sharing standards, definitions and meta-data, with their

potential partners. Getting continual feedback from users is also an important strategy to

maintain data quality.45 Overall, having good quality and homogenous information seems to

be an important success factor.46

Table 2

Key success strategies for government IT initiatives

Challenge category Key success strategy Source

Information and data Overall plan Wang, 1998

Continual feedback from

partners users

Orr, 1998; CTG, 2000

Quality and compliance assurance Keil, 1995; Brown, 2000

Training Burbridge, 2002

Information technology Ease of use Davis, 1989; DeLone and Mclean, 1992;

Caffrey, 1998; Brown, 2000; DeLone and

McLean, 2003; Garson, 2003

Usefulness Davis, 1989; DeLone and Mclean, 1992; Brown,

2003; DeLone and Mclean, 2003; Garson, 2003

Demonstrations and prototypes Caffrey, 1998; Dawes and Pardo, 2002

Organizational and

managerial

Project team skills and expertise Barki et al., 1993; Jiang et al., 1996; Brown,

2000; Jiang and Klein, 2000; Regan and

O’Connor, 2001; Dawes and Pardo, 2002;

Garson, 2003; Mahler and Regan, 2003;

Melitski, 2003

Well-skilled and respected IT

leader (technical and social skills)

Gagnon, 2001; West and Berman, 2001;

Dawes and Pardo, 2002; Kim and Kim, 2003;

Mahler and Regan, 2003; Rocheleau, 2003

Clear and realistic goals Best, 1997; Brown, 2000; Dawes and Pardo,

2002; Garson, 2003

Identification of relevant

stakeholders

Barret and Green, 2001; West and Berman,

2001; Dawes and Pardo, 2002; Brown, 2003

End-user involvement Caffrey, 1998; Regan and O’Connor;

West and Berman, 2001; Garson, 2003;

Mahler and Regan, 2003

Planning Bajjaly, 1999; Brown, 2000; Barret and Green,

2001; Landsberg and Wolken, 2001; Smith et al.,

2001; Garson, 2003; Kim and Kim, 2003;

Melitski, 2003

Clear milestones and measurable

deliverables

Flowers, 1996; Caffrey, 1998; Bajjaly, 1999

Rocheleau, 2000; Landsberg and Wolken, 2001;

Garson, 2003; Kim and Kim, 2003; Melitski,

2003

Good communication Caffrey, 1998; Jiang and Klein, 2000; Brown,

2001; Dawes and Pardo, 2002

Previous business process

improvement

Dawes and Nelson, 1995; Best, 1997; NGA,

1997; Harris, 2000; Dawes and Pardo, 2002

Adequate training Caffrey, 1998; Brown, 2000; Barret and Green,

2001; Garson, 2003

Adequate and innovative funding NGA, 1997; Caffrey, 1998; Harris, 2000;

Barret and Green, 2001; Landsberg and Wolken,

2001; West and Berman, 2001; Dawes and

Pardo, 2002; Ho, 2002; Moon, 2002; Edmiston,

2003; Holden et al., 2003

Current or best practices review Rocheleau, 2000; Mahler and Regan, 2003


Challenge category Key success strategy Source

Legal and regulatory Information technology

policies and standards

Andersen and Dawes, 1991; Dawes and

Nelson, 1995; Caffrey, 1998; Milner, 2000;

Barret and Green, 2001; Landsberg and Wolken,

2001; Garson, 2003; Kim and Kim, 2003

Environmental or

institutional

Executive leadership or

sponsorship

Barki et al., 1993; Jiang et al., 1996; Brown,

2000; Brown, 2001; Landsberg and Wolken,

2001; Edmiston, 2003; Garson, 2003; Mahler

and Regan, 2003; Roy, 2003

Legislative support Caffrey, 1998

Strategic outsourcing and

publicprivate partnerships

Brown and Brudney, 1998; Barret and Green,

2001; Chen and Perry, 2003; Edmiston, 2003;

Garson, 2003; Melitski, 2003; Roy, 2003

Table 2 (continued)


4.2.2. Information technology strategies

Two technology-related factors that can promote the success of information systems are

system usefulness and ease of use.47 Due to the relative complexity and newness of some

technologies a strategy for responding to information technology-related challenges is to

organize presentations about the technologies to build awareness and to focus early efforts on

developing system and process prototypes.48 Strong technical skills and expertise in the

hands of the project leader and some team members is critical.49 It is also important to take

into consideration potential shortages of qualified technical staff and an incremental approach

can help in dealing with this problem.50

4.2.3. Organizational and managerial strategies

Establishing clear and realistic goals is an important factor in the success of IT initiatives.51

Identifying relevant stakeholders and getting them involved in the project development

process, specially end-users, has also been found to be an effective strategy in overcoming

organizational and managerial challenges.52 Strategic planning techniques can be seen as an

umbrella for more specific strategies such as clear milestones and measurable deliverables;53

good communication channels;54 and previous business process improvement.55 It is also

extremely important to take care of developers and end-users current skills and training

needs.56 Successful projects need a balanced combination of technical, managerial, and

political skills and expertise among their members.57 Finally, financial resources are not

always the most important factor, but are necessary. Often, managers need to develop

innovative financial schemes and partnerships to get e-government initiatives off the ground.58

4.2.4. Legal and regulatory strategies

Restrictive laws and regulations developed prior to or in ignorance of technologies relevant

to e-government can affect the success of projects. One strategy for responding to these

challenges is to invest in changes to the regulatory environment that allow for or enable

adoption of emerging technologies.59 Digital signature technologies, for example, required

statutory changes in most jurisdictions before they could be adopted for use. Developing


appropriate government-wide IT policies and standards can also provide and adequate

framework for e-government initiatives to be successful.60 In this regard, state governments

are developing IT policies and standards and making them available through their official

Web sites.61

4.2.5. Institutional and environmental strategies

Individual leaders or managers cannot change institutionalized rules or practices. However,

if a coalition is large and varied enough to capture the attention of legislators or other policy

makers, some formal institutions can be changed.62 There are at least two strategies to deal

with institutional and environmental factors: getting executive and legislative support;63 and

using outsourcing strategically.64

5. Providing guidance to practitioners: four practical tools

The four categories of challenges and strategies provide a framework for tracking the

impact of research on the practices of public managers through the use of practical guides. A

summary of each of the four selected guides is presented below followed by a brief

comparative analysis (Table 3). Each practitioner guide is then examined relative to the four

challenge and strategy categories. This analysis concludes with a set of observations and

recommendations about future investments in practical guides to support government IT

decision makers.

5.1. Value measuring methodology65

This set of guides was produced by the Federal Chief Information Officer Council’s Best

Practices Committee to improve government IT decision making. The Best Practices

committee is bchartered to provide in-depth examples and practical guidance to successfully

Table 3

Selected practitioner tools

Source Year Primary audience Tool

Federal CIO Council 2002 Members of the federal

information technology

community

Value Measuring Methodology (VMM)

Treasury Board

of Canada

1998 Canadian public managers Creating and Using a Business

Case for Information Technology

Projects (CUBC)

National Association

of State Chief

Information Offices

2003 State Agencies in all 50 states Business Case Basics and Beyond:

A Primer on State Government IT

Business Cases (BCBB)

Center for Technology

in Government

2003 National, State, and Local

governments

Making Smart IT Choices (MSIT)


formulate, manage and maintain the portfolio of initiatives to ensure that investments made in

IT yield the anticipated benefitQ to members of the federal information technology community.

The Value Measuring Methodology (VMM) How-To-Guide builds on the prior work of

two efforts in particular. In 2001 the Social Security Administration (SSA), in cooperation

with the General Services Administration (GSA), began to develop a methodology to asses

the value of electronic services. Their goal was to produce a tool that that would be

bcompliant with current Federal regulations and OMB guidance, applicable across the Federal

Government, and pragmatically focused on implementation.Q66 In addition, a team from Booz

Allen Hamilton and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard was asked to conduct a

related study. That report, based on interviews with a variety of professionals in the field as

well as the private sector and the academic community, presented the first version of the

VMM, its supporting theories, and philosophy. Since the initial release VMM has been

applied and refined into its current form.

VMM, like the methodologies and frameworks presented in the other guides, calls for the

inclusion of a broad set of stakeholders affected by the initiative, including direct users and

government partners. The warrant for this guide was the gap between current tools and the

bneed for a more thorough and rigorous analytical approach to investment evaluation,

planning, and management.Q67 VMM is positioned as responding to this need by providing a

bcomprehensive and quantitative way to capture the impact that possible investment

alternatives would have on each of these parties.Q68 The methodology is designed in particular

to focus analysis on the value, cost, and risk baseline for any initiative, changes to those

baseline measures over time, and the implications of those changes.

The VMM How-To-Guide is organized into eight sections. The Essential Factors

Framework of value, cost, and risk, the foundation of VMM, is introduced in Section 3

together with a discussion of the value gained from using the VMM methodology to analyze

e-government and other initiatives. Section 4 presents an overview of the four steps of the

VMM. Section 5 provides a comprehensive, step-by-step presentation of the techniques and

tools of VMM as well as a discussion of the resources necessary to complete a VMM

analysis, key concepts and real-life lessons from past implementations, and some best

practices observations.

5.2. Creating and using a business case for information technology projects69

This guide was issued by the Project Management Office, Chief Information Officer

Branch of the Treasury Board of Canada. The production of the guide was organized through

the Project Management Office and was staffed with volunteer members of a working group

as well as many additional volunteers who wrote, reviewed, and contributed to the guide. A

member of the working group was acknowledged for directing the effort and coordinating the

participation of others.

According to its statement of purpose this guide, developed by public service managers for

their colleagues, boffers a blueprint that managers can use to build the business cases needed

to make informed investment decisions.Q70 The Canadian guide is organized around two

consistent themes. The first is that a bbusiness case is the key element of front-end planning


and sets the stage for the management of the project and for the achievement of the planned

benefit.Q71 It is considered an bindispensable first activity in the life cycle of an IT

investmentQ72 and when bcorrectly used can serve as a management framework for the

initiative.Q73 The second theme is that no one size fits all. Public managers are urged to use

the business case development process to put their decisions into a bstrategic context.QThis guide exists within a larger set of guidance from the Treasury Board. The guide

consistently points the reader back to the larger context of governing IT policies as well as the

official Treasury Board framework for managing IT projects. Specifically, wherever

appropriate, the reader is directed to relevant text in the Treasury Board’s Management of

Information Technology Policy and their An Enhanced Framework for the Management of

Information Technology Projects.

This tool is structured for use as both a source book and a road map through the IT

investment process for public managers. The introduction also positions it as a tool to

bintroduce other stakeholders to the framework that shapes the decision-making model.Q74

The five central chapters of the guide introduce the framework for examining the

environment and seeking insight about the specific barriers, risks, and benefits of each

solution alternative being examined. The next two chapters focus on customizing the case for

specific audiences—again stressing the idea that no one size or focus of presentation fits all

audiences. Chapter 10 focuses on tips and techniques for designing and managing ongoing

project reviews. Finally, the appendix introduces Logical Framework Analysis, a dynamic

technique for planning, communicating, and controlling project elements.

5.3. Business case basics and beyond: a primer on state government IT business cases75

This guide was produced by the National Association of Chief Information Officers

(NASCIO). A primary author from the practitioner community worked together with the

NASCIO Executive Committee to write the guide. Feedback was also provided by NASCIO’s

customer relationship management committee and a range of government practitioners and

private sector and academic partners. Thirty-eight people from state and federal governments

and fourteen individuals from associations, academic institutions, and the private sector were

acknowledged for their contributions.

The guide addresses the emerging trend of business case use being broadened beyond the

analysis of one project to identify the benefits of whole programs such as data center

consolidation and Y2K. This guide identifies a review of current practitioner literature on IT

business cases as the source of a framework for an enterprise business case. It also presents a

discussion of the current challenges state governments, in particular, are facing in their e-

government initiatives and meeting the policy and service goals of their Governors. The

NASCIO guide provides btools, concepts, and a framework for addressing a number of critical

challenges facing state Governors, chief information officers and enterprise information

technology organizations.Q76 It has three main purposes: (1) provide the basics on State IT

business cases, (2) push beyond the bBasics to Use the Business Case to Address the

Challenges of Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005,Q77 and (3) embrace a statewide enterprise IT

investment management infrastructure. It contains four different types of information for


public managers: (1) business case basics, (2) public sector approaches to business cases and

examples, (3) resources and contacts, and (4) suggested solutions to some of the challenges.

One of the unique contributions of this guide is its specific discussion and treatment of an

enterprise business case as separate and unique from a business case for a specific project. It

also speaks to the value of technology in the business of government.

5.4. Making smart IT choices78

This two-part guide, available in print and online, was produced by The Center for

Technology in Government, an applied research center at the University at Albany, SUNY. The

Center formulated the Smart IT methodology through its work with government agencies in

projects where information strategies are applied to the challenges of public service delivery.

According to its introduction, this guide was designed to help public managers and

government organizations bmake good decisions about when and how to invest in information

technology (IT).Q79 Put another way, it was designed to bhelp public managers avoid becoming

one of the statistics that dominate reports on information technology investments.Q80

Smart IT is organized around a short list of basic issues and principles. The problematic

and expensive nature of IT decisions and the high failure rates, which result from hasty,

unrealistic, or uninformed decisions provide the basic issues framework. The principles that

guide the analytical strategy of Smart IT are that public managers must identify and listen to

stakeholders; they must understand what constitutes success for their initiative and they must

pursue it; and form must follow function. The three phase process involves the use of

analytical tools and techniques to first understand the problem and its context; second,

identify and test solutions; and third, evaluate alternatives and make choices. Awide range of

tools is introduced as well as a way of understanding how each tool might best be employed

in the development of a business case within a particular economic, policy, organizational,

managerial, process, and technology context.

Part 1 has four chapters and begins by considering the special characteristics of the public

sector as an environment for making management decisions and IT choices. In the second

chapter, the analytical process that accounts for program goals, stakeholders, processes, costs,

and technology alternatives is presented. Mini case examples are provided throughout.

Chapters 3 and 4 focus on turning the analysis into a business case and presenting it to various

audiences. Part 2 presents 33 skills, techniques, and tools to use in the analytical process.

6. Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations

The four selected guides are very different in their genesis and design—yet they all present

analysis and planning frameworks that can apply both to specific IT initiatives and more

broadly to enterprise IT strategic planning. They all represent the best ideas of leading

practitioners and academics in this area. The NASCIO guide expressed the warrant that all

four guides seem to be responding to—that in IT business cases brisks, sensitivities, andcontingencies tend to be undeveloped and contribute to lowered credibility.Q81


6.1. A brief comparative analysis of the selected guides

All four guides were produced through collaborative efforts of the public, private, and

academic communities (Table 4). The NASCIO, VMM, and the CUBC guides were produced

with a governmental sponsor and a range of volunteer expert participants. In each situation

the need for the guide emerged from the ranks and was responded to by a coordinating group

or professional association. The Smart IT Guide was produced through a different strategy—

by practice-oriented researchers drawing on their experiences working directly with

government agencies in developing IT initiatives. Nonetheless, there is notable consistency

in the messages they deliver.

All of the guides stress contingency thinking, heavily investing in upfront or what CTG

calls bbefore the beginningQ analysis, collaborative management models, inclusion of IT and

business stakeholders, and the value of iterative analytical processes. The impact that a dwell-doneT business case can have in the ongoing design, development, implementation and

review of an e-government initiative is also acknowledged in all four guides.

The guides vary considerably in their recommendations of specific tools and techniques to

carry out a business case analysis. The Canadian guide and the VMM link the analytical

framework very closely to a specific tool. Smart IT presents an analytical framework and

links steps in the analysis to a group of tools from which public managers can choose. The

guides vary in their links between recommended actions and the specific issue or challenge

likely to be overcome by that particular action. Smart IT in particular tends to link analysis to

the challenge addressed so that practitioners can anticipate which tools or techniques will

Table 4

Selected tools: development strategy and focus

Tool Development strategy Focus

Value Measuring

Methodology

Best Practices Committee of the

Federal CIO Council built on

previous related efforts of the

committee. Refined in use at

several federal agencies

The guides provide a particular

methodology for evaluating and

selecting initiatives based on ongoing

value, cost, and risk determinations

Creating and

Using a Business

Case for Information

Technology Projects

Developed by public service

managers for their colleagues

The guide offers a blueprint that

managers can use to build the business

cases needed to make informed

investment decisions

NASCIO Business

Case Primer

Single author, broadly based

review committee

The primer provides tools, concepts,

and a framework for addressing a

number of critical challenges facing

state Governors, CIOs, and enterprise

information technology organizations

Making Smart

IT Choices

Developed by an applied research

center based on experiences in

working with government agencies

This guide provides concepts, techniques,

and tools to help organizations define an

information technology project and make

a solid case for needed financial and

organizational investments


impact which challenges. The NASCIO guide presents a warrant for business case analysis;

its unique contribution is a well-developed strategy for assessing the effectiveness of a

business case and the compilation of current practices across the states. Readers of the

NASCIO guide have the opportunity to review many frameworks and tools sets for a model

that will support their environments and issues as well as an extensive reference list.

The NASCIO guide offers examples of business cases and IT investment analysis

processes from as many states as possible. The VMM guide devotes most of its space to a

comprehensive risk and cost alternative analysis. The Smart IT guide focuses its presentation

on a set of tools and techniques—a toolkit of sort, and on the introduction of an analytical

framework to which public managers can apply appropriate tools from the toolkit. The

Canadian guide provides the reader with a comprehensive overview, targeted and actionable

summaries of activity within each step, and unique among the guides, provides

recommendations for the design of a project evaluation process.

6.2. Building the research practice bridge

The selected guides were designed to build awareness of challenges to e-government

initiatives and to present useful strategies, tools, and techniques to overcome the challenges.

The following section highlights the links between the research literature and the selected

guides through an analysis of each guide in terms of the four categories of challenges and

strategies derived from the literature review. Several observations about the guides and

recommendations for future development of practitioner resources and for further research

into the relevance of research to practice are then provided (Tables 5 and 6).

6.2.1. Information and data factors

Research published in the public management literature related to the capture,

organization, management, use, and archiving of information and data appears to be limited.

Coverage of the information and data challenges and the presentation of strategies related to

overcoming them is also limited. The Canadian guide identifies initial data collection and

conversion of archival data as a cost category that must be taken into account when

considering the overall cost of an initiative. Smart IT urges public managers to consider the

information and data that a particular solution strategy depends on to be successful so that

cost and risk analysis can include any threats to access. Other resources addressing these

factors are beginning to emerge from recent experiences with government information

integration initiatives. These initiatives are providing new insights into the challenges posed

by information and data issues;82 insights that need to be reflected in future practice guides.

6.2.2. Information technology factors

In the case of information technology, Canada’s guide addresses almost all the challenges.

The risks section of the guide is based on research about software development done by the

Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University.83 All three tools discuss the

need for technical skills and expertise. Two address the complexity of the technology used in

the project. Two others address usefulness and ease of use as important elements.

Table 5

E-government challenges address by selected tools

VMM CUBC BCBB MSIT

Information and data challenges

Information and data quality U

Information technology challenges

Security issues U U U

Technological incompatibility U U

Technology complexity U U

Technical skills and/or expertise U U U

Technology newness U U

Organizational and managerial challenges

Project size and related complexity U U

Users or organizational diversity U

Lack of alignment between organizational

goals and IT project

U U

Multiple or conflicting goals U U

Resistance to change U

Turf and conflicts

Legal and regulatory challenges

Restrictive laws and regulations U U

One-year budget restrictions U

Potential intergovernmental relationships U U

Institutional and environmental challenges

Privacy concerns U

Institutional arrangements (e.g., autonomy of agencies) U

Competition or political pressures (e.g., timing) U U U

Identification of partners and their contributions U U U

Lessons from previous IT experiences U U U


6.2.3. Organizational and managerial factors

All of the guides speak to the challenges that stem from organizational and managerial

realities. Each introduces the discussion of these challenges at a different level, based on

their target audience and style. The NASCIO guide speaks to organizational challenges

primarily at an enterprise level seeking to encourage CIO’s and other leaders to consider the

Table 6

Recommended by selected guides

VMM CUBC BCBB MSIT

Information and data strategy

Quality and/or compliance assurance U U

Ease of use U

Usefulness as one of the main goals U U

Information technology strategy

Demonstrations and prototypes U

Well-established information technology

policies and standards

Organizational and managerial strategy

Project team skills and expertise (development

and application)

U U

Well-skilled and respected project leader (technical

and social skills)

U U

Establishment of clear and realistic goals U U U

Identification of relevant stakeholders U U U

End-users involvement (design, development

and evaluation)

U U

Planning as a powerful management tool U U U U

Clear milestones and/or measurable deliverables U U

Good communication (bottomtop and topbottom) U

Previous business process improvement U

Adequate training

Adequate and/or innovative funding U U

Strategic outsourcing or other sourcing options U

Best practices review U U U

Evaluation tools and processes U U

Legal and regulatory strategy

Legislative support

Environmental and institutional strategy

Executive leadership and/or sponsorship U U



strategic role of the enterprise. The CUBC focuses more directly on initiative level

managerial challenges such as skills of the project leader, planning as a management tool,

and adequate funding. VMM provides techniques for assessing the impact of organizational

and managerial risks such as a lack of alignment. Further it provides techniques for testing

underlying assumptions about initiatives and for assessing the impact of incorrect

assumptions on an initiative plan. Smart IT raises awareness about organizational and

managerial risks such as lack of attention to users, a lack of alignment between initiative and

organizational goals, and multiple and conflicting goals. It provides techniques such as

structured service objectives, visioning, and a strategic framework for minimizing these

challenges. All of these guides urge stakeholder involvement as a critical strategy for

overcoming organizational and managerial challenges.

6.2.4. Legal and regulatory factors

Legal and regulatory challenges are well addressed in the guides. The NASCIO guide

covers the topic of legal frameworks and provides guidance on reviewing governing policies

and regulations. It advises public managers to be aware of regulatory frameworks in the

development of the IT initiatives. Smart IT speaks to these challenges as well by providing

tools such as partisan analysis, stakeholder analysis, and news analysis. Each guide presents a

discussion of the possible enabling and constraining influences of the regulatory environment

on e-government initiatives. Managers are urged, for example, to carefully consider security

policies that restrict or facilitate infrastructure expansion efforts.

6.2.5. Institutional and environmental factors

Challenges stemming from environmental realities and institutional practices are identified

in each the four selected guides. Timing, in particular, is presented as a strategy for

overcoming some of the environmental and institutional challenges. The NASCIO Guide for

example, encourages public managers to understand the impact of election cycles on their

initiatives. Smart IT also speaks to these environmental challenges and adds in the one-year

budgetary cycles of government and its challenges to multi-year, multi-institutional IT

initiatives. The NASCIO guide, the Canadian Treasury Board guide, and the Smart IT guide

speak to the need to scan the economic and political environments and to carefully choose the

btimingQ of the IT initiative. Smart IT provides a number of tools and techniques for

increasing awareness environmental and institutional factors and their influence.

7. Final comments and recommendations

Understanding and reducing risk in e-government initiatives is a high priority for both

researchers and practitioners. One consequence of attention to risk is that organizations, both

public and private, are increasing their investments in standard tools for planning andmanaging

IT initiatives. This study has sought to examine whether the tools available to practitioners

benefit from research in IS. We believe the answer is bYes.Q Increasingly, practical guides areurging practitioners to think beyond technology; to think about bsystems in context.Q84


Our comparison of selected research findings and practical guides has provided insight into

the extent to which research is reflected in guides to inform practice. The analysis highlighted

the particular characteristics of the guides and provided a general review of the extent to

which these guides reflect current research. Five observations about the key commonalties

among the guides (see Table 7) and four recommendations for future efforts in both research

and practice also emerged from the analysis.

The four recommendations derived from the analysis of gaps between current research and

the guides are provided to inform both future IS research and practical guide development

efforts. This work also informs future efforts to conduct further empirical studies of the

impact of research on the focus and content of e-government investment decision making

tools in international, national, state, and local governments.

7.1. Characterize risk in context

The guides introduce the concept of risk and speak to the need to identify and invest in

strategies to manage risk. Risk as a concept receives very thorough treatment, however,

challenges tend to be characterized in general terms. A more thorough characterization of the

specific risks to specific kinds of initiatives would complement the presentation of risk

identification and analysis strategies. Practitioners would be more aware of the potential risks

they face and could consider the analytic methodologies in terms of a set of likely risks given

the context of a particular initiative.

7.2. Build understanding of information and data challenges

The impact of information and data challenges such as inconsistent data structures, semantic

issues, and incomplete data, on the success of e-government initiatives need to be explored

further in research and presented more thoroughly in practitioner guides. The success of e-

government initiatives involving multi-agency information sharing and integration such as

homeland security and public health depend on greater understanding of these challenges.

Table 7

Key commonalities of selected E-government practitioner guides

1. Risks, sensitivities, and contingencies tend to be undeveloped and that threatens the credibility of IS

initiatives (NASCIO 2003)

2. The iterative process of information gathering, analysis, and decision making is central to the effort to

build understanding of problems, solutions, alternatives, costs, and risks

3. Investment analysis and business case documents are living documents and if maintained and updated over

time can provide guidance to teams throughout an initiative and beyond

4. Contextualizing technology solutions is critical to success. bNo one size fits allQ is the underlying theme

throughout each of the guides. Finding out what size does fit in which situation is the goal each guide sets

out to achieve

5. Contingency thinking is necessary for planning and preparation for unexpected consequences and changes

in the bvalue, cost, and riskQ determinations


7.3. Build a business case for business case analysis

Empirical support for the investment in business case and investment analysis is lacking. The

guides present common-sense rationales for using business case strategies. Some outline the

necessary elements. TheNASCIOguide outlines a set of key value indicators for a sound business

case. The Smart ITGuide is illustrated throughout with excerpts from a business case. However, a

robust empirical base for particular business case strategies within particular environments and

contexts would provide public managers with a more informed roadmap for their efforts.

7.4. Explore the impact of contingency thinking in project planning and management

The guides generally focus on the how-to of investment analysis and business case

development. Future guides need to continue to enhance the capability of public managers to

identify, influence and act on the dynamic set of contingencies that influence information

technology initiatives. Project management training for IT managers, for example, can

contribute as well to the ability of government managers to understand and prepare for the

dynamic environment of e-government initiatives.

Governments at all levels have invested in the development of guides and handbooks to

raise awareness of the challenges facing IT initiatives. These practical guides are providing a

bridge between knowledge gained through research in information systems, public

administration, political science, organization theory, and management and the knowledge

gained by practitioners participating in and leading these technology initiatives. These

resources provide an opportunity, when developed with full knowledge of current research and

practice, to build awareness about these challenges and to provide tools and techniques that can

lead to success. This study supports the conclusion that although practitioners may not read IS

research directly, this research is finding its way, at least recently, onto their desktops and into

their briefcases, and presumably into their IT initiatives through the pages of research-aware

practical guides, reference tools, and handbooks. Further empirical work focusing on the extent

to which practitioners are using these and similar guides and the nature of that use is called for.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank Sharon Dawes, Terry Maxwell, Anthony Cresswell, and Luis

Luna-Reyes for their valuable comments in early versions of this paper. Any mistakes or

omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Appendix A. Bibliography included in Tables 1 and 2

Ambite, J. L. et al. (2002). Data integration and access. In W. J. McIver & A. K.

Elmagarmid (Eds.). Advances in Digital Government, Technology, Human Factors, and

Policy. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.


Andersen, D. F., & Dawes, S. S. (1991). Government Information Management. A Primer

and Casebook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bajjaly, S. T. (1999). Managing emerging information systems in the public sector. Pubic

Performance and Management Review, 23(1), 40–47.

Ballou, D. P., & Tayi, G. K. (1999). Enhancing data quality in data warehouse

environments. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 73–79.

Barki, H., Rivard, S., & Talbot, J. (1993). Toward an assessment of software development

risk. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 203–223.

Barret, K., & Green, R. (2001). Powering Up. How Public Managers Can Take Control of

Information Technology. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Bellamy, C. (2000). The politics of public information systems. In G. D. Garson (Ed.).

Handbook of Public Information Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Best, J. D. (1997). The Ditigal Organization. New York: Wiley.

Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (1998). A bsmarter, cheaper, and fasterQ government?

Contracting for geographic information systems. Public Administration Review, 58, 335–345.

Brown, M. M. (2000). Mitigating the risk of information technology initiatives: Best

practices and points of failure for the public sector. In G. D. Garson (Ed.). Handbook of

Public Information Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Brown, M. M. (2001). The benefits and costs of information technology innovations: An

empirical assessment of a local government agency. Pubic Performance and Management

Review, 24(4), 351–66.

Brown, M. M. (2003). Technology diffusion and the bKnowledge BarrierQ: The dilemma of

stakeholder participation. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 345–359.

Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2003). Learning organizations in the public sector? A

study of police agencies employing information and technology to advance knowledge.

Public Administration Review, 63(1), 30–43.

Burbridge, L. (2002). Accountability and MIS. Public Performance and Management

Review, 25(4), 421–423.

Caffrey, L. (1998). Information Sharing between and within Governments: A Study Group

Report. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Chen, Y. -C., & Perry, J. (2003). Outsourcing for e-government: Managing for success.

Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 404–421.

Chengalur-Smith, I., & Duchessi, P. (1999). The initiation and adoption of client–server

technology in organizations. Information and Management, 35, 77–88.

Davis, G. B. (1982). Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM System

Journal, 21, 4–30.

Davis, F. D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of

information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–330.

Dawes, S. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable

risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377–394.

Dawes, S. S., & Nelson, M. R. (1995). Pool the risks, share the benefits: Partnerships in IT

innovation. In J. Keyes (Ed.). Technology Trendlines. Technology Success Stories from

Today’s Visionaries. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.


Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. (2002). Building collaborative digital government systems.

In W. J. McIver & A. K. Elmagarmid (Eds.). Advances in Digital Government.

Technology, Human Factors, and Policy. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

DeLone, W., & Mclean, E. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the

dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.

DeLone, W., & Mclean, E. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of information

systems success: A ten year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4),

9–30.

Duncan, G. T., & Roehrig, S. T. (2003). Mediating the tension between information

privacy and information access: The role of digital government. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Public

Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues. Hershey, PA: Idea Group

Publishing.

Edmiston, K. D. (2003). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges.

American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 20–45.

Flowers, S. (1996). Software failure: Management failure: Amazing Stories and

Cautionary Tales. New York: Wiley.

Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the Virtual State. Information Technology and Institutional

Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Gagnon, Y. -C. (2001). The behavior of public managers in adopting new technologies.

Pubic Performance and Management Review, 24(4), 337–350.

Garson, G. D. (2003). Toward an information technology research agenda for public

administration. In G. D. Garson (Ed.). Public Information Technology: Policy and

Management Issues. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Gray, P. (2001). Introduction to the special volume on relevance. Communications of the

Association of Information Systems, 6.

Harris, N. D. (2000). Intergovernmental cooperation in the development and use of

information systems. In G. D. Garson (Ed.). Handbook of Public Information Systems. New

York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Heintze, T., & Bretschneider, S. (2000). Information technology and restructuring in public

organizations: Does adoption of information technology affect organizational structures,

communications, and decision making? Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 10(4), 801–830.

Ho, A. T. -K. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative.


Holden, S. H., Norris, D. F., & Fletcher, P. D. (2003). Electronic government at the local

level: Progress to date and future issues. Public Performance and Management Review,

26(4), 325–344.

Irvine, C. E. (2000). Security issues for automated information systems. In G. D. Garson

(Ed.). Handbook of Public Information Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Jiang, J., & Klein, G. (2000). Software development risks to project effectiveness. The

Journal of Systems and Software, 52, 3–10.

Jiang, J., Klein G., & Balloun, J. (1996). Ranking of system implementation success

factors. Project Management Journal, 27, 50–55.


Joshi, J. B. D., Ghafor, A., Aref, W. G., & Spafford, E. H. (2002). Security and privacy

challenges of a digital government. In W. J. McIver & A. K. Elmagarmid (Eds.). Advances in

Digital Government. Technology, Human Factors, and Policy. Norwell, MA: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Keil, M. (1995). Pulling the plug: Software project management and the problem of

escalation. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 421–447.

Kim, S., & Kim, D. (2003). South Korean public officials’ perceptions of values, failure,

and consequences of failure in e-government leadership. Public Performance and Manage-

ment Review, 26(4), 360–375.

La Porte, T. M., Demchak, C. C., & de Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and bureaucracy in

the age of the Web: Empirical findings and theoretical speculations. Administration and

Society, 34(4), 411–446.

Landsbergen, D. J., & Wolken Jr., G. (1998, October). Eliminating legal and policy

barriers to interoperable government systems. Paper presented at the Annual Research

Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. New York.

Landsbergen, D. J., & Wolken Jr., G. (2001). Realizing the promise: Government

information systems and the fourth generation of information technology. Public Admin-

istration Review, 61(2), 206–220.

Luna-Reyes, L., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2003, May 18–21). eGovernment & Internet Security:

Some Technical and Policy Considerations. Paper presented at the National Conference on

Digital Government Research, organized by the National Science Foundation, Boston, MA,

USA.

Mahler, J., & Regan, P. M. (2002). Learning to govern online: Federal agency Internet use.


Mahler, J., & Regan, P. M. (2003). Developing intranets for agency management. Public

Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 422–432.

McFarlan, F. W. (1981). Portfolio approach to information systems. Harvard Business

Review, 59, 142–150.

Melitski, J. (2003). Capacity and e-government performance: An analysis based on early

adopters of Internet technologies in New Jersey. Public Performance and Management

Review, 26(4), 376–390.

Milner, E. M. (2000). Managing Information and Knowledge in the Public Sector. New

York: Routledge.

Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or

reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.

NGA. (1997). Barriers to Intergovernmental Enterprise. Washington, DC: National

Governors Association.

Orr, K. (1998). Data quality and systems theory. Communications of the ACM, 41(2),

66–70.

Redman, T. C. (1998). The impact of poor data quality on the typical enterprise.

Communications of the ACM, 41(2), 79–82.

Regan, E. A., & O’Connor, B. N. (2001). End-user Information Systems: Implementing

Individual and Group Work Technology. Second Edition. New York: Prentice Hall.


Rocheleau, B. (2000). Prescriptions for public-sector information management: A review,

analysis, and critique. American Review of Public Administration, 30(4), 414–435.

Rocheleau, B. (2003). Politics, accountability, and government information systems.

In G. D. Garson (Ed.). Public Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues.

Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Roy, J. (2003). The relational dynamics of e-governance: A case study of the City of

Ottawa. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 391–403.

Smith, L. D., Campbell, J. F., Subramanian, A., Bird, D. A., & Nelson, A. C. (2001).

Strategic planning for municipal information systems: Some lessons from a large U.S. City.


Tayi, G. K., & Ballou, D. P. (1998). Examining data quality. Communications of the ACM,

41(2), 54–56.

Wang, R. Y. (1998). A product perspective on total data quality management.


West, J. P., & Berman, E. M. (2001). The impact of revitalized management practices

on the adoption of information technology: A national survey of local governments.

Pubic Performance and Management Review, 24(3), 233–253.

Notes and References

1. Gil-Garcıa, J. Ramon, & Luna-Reyes, Luis F. (2003). Towards a definition of electronic

government: A comparative review. In Mendez-Vilas A., et al. (Eds.), Techno-legal

aspects of information society and new economy: An overview. Extremadura, Spain7

Formatex Information Society Series.

2. Best, J. D. (1997). The Digital Organization. New York7 Wiley;

Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. (2002). Building collaborative digital government systems. In

W. J. McIver, & A. K. Elmagarmid (Eds.), Advances in digital government. Technology,

human factors, and policy. Norwell, MA7 Kluwer Academic Publishers;

Landsbergen, D. J., & Wolken Jr., G., (1998, October). Eliminating Legal and

Policy Barriers to Interoperable Government Systems. Paper presented at the

annual research conference of the association for public policy analysis and

management, New York.

3. Bellamy, C. (2000). The politics of public information systems. In G. D. Garson (Ed.),

Handbook of Public Information Systems. New York7 Marcel Dekker, Inc.;Duncan, G. T., & Roehrig, S. T. (2003). Mediating the tension between information

privacy and information access: The role of digital government. In G. D. Garson (Ed.),

Public Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues. Hershey, PA7 Idea Group

Publishing;Milner, E. M. (2000). Managing Information and Knowledge in the Public Sector. New

York7 Routledge;Rocheleau, B. (2003). Politics, accountability, and government information systems.

In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Public Information Technology: Policy and Management

Issues. Hershey, PA7 Idea Group Publishing.


4. Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1986). Public management information systems:

Theory and prescriptions [Special issue]. Public administration review, Vol. 46

(pp. 475–487);Caffrey, L. (1998). Information Sharing between and within Governments: A Study Group

Report. London7 Commonwealth Secretariat;Garson, G. D. (2003). Toward an information technology research agenda for public

administration. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Public information technology: Policy and

management issues. Hershey, PA7 Idea Group Publishing;Southon, G., Sauer, C., & Dampney, K. (1999). Lessons from a failed information

systems initiative: Issues for complex organizations. International Journal of Medical

Informatics, 55(1), 33–46.

5. Khazanchi, D., & Munkvold, B. E. (2001). Expanding the notion of relevance in IS

research: A proposal and some recommendations. Communications of the Association for

Information Systems, 6.

6. Cresswell, A. M. (2001). Thoughts on relevance of IS research. Communications of the

Association for Information Systems, 6.

7. Mathieson, K., & Ryan, T. (2001). A broader view of relevance. Communications of the


8. Gray, P. (2001). Introduction to the special volume on relevance. Communications of the


9. Ibid., p. 8.

10. Ho, J., & Pardo, T. A. (2004, January 5–8). Toward the Success of eGovernment

Initiatives: Mapping Known Success Factors to the Design of Practical Tools. Paper

presented at the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS),

organized by the College of Business, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, USA.

11. The Public Administration journals reviewed were Public Administration Review,

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, American Review of Public

Administration, Administration and Society, and Public Performance and Management.

12. Chengalur-Smith, I., & Duchessi, P. (2000). Client-server implementation: Some

management pointers. Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(1), 127–145;

Ibid., p. 2, Dawes;DeLone, W., & Mclean, E. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information

systems success: A ten year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4),

9–30;DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology

use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147;

Ibid., p. 2, Landsbergen and Wolken;Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens

for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.

13. Redman, T. C. (1998). The impact of poor data quality on the typical enterprise.


14. Kaplan, D., Krishnan, R., Padman, R., & Peters, J. (1998). Assessing data quality in

accounting information systems. Communications of the ACM, 41(2), 72–77.


15. Ballou, D. P., & Tayi, G. K. (1999). Enhancing data quality in data warehouse

environments. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 73–79.

16. Ibid., p. 13.

17. Ibid., p. 14.

18. Ibid., p. 15.

19. Dawes, S. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable

risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377–394.

20. Ambite, J. L., et al. (2002). Data integration and access. In W. J. McIver, & A. K.

Elmagarmid (Eds.), Advances in Digital Government. Technology, Human Factors, and

Policy. Norwell, MA7 Kluwer Academic Publishers.

21. Brown, M. M. (2000). Mitigating the risk of information technology initiatives: Best

practices and points of failure for the public sector. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of

Public Information Systems. New York7 Marcel Dekker.

22. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of

information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–330;DeLone, W., & Mclean, E. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the

dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95;

Ibid., p. 4, Caffrey.

23. Ibid., p. 19;

Ibid., p. 12, Chengalur-Smith and Duchessi;

Brown, M. M. (2001). The benefits and costs of information technology innovations: An

empirical assessment of a local government agency. Public Performance and Manage-

ment Review, 24(4), 351–366;

Ibid., p. 2, Dawes and Pardo.

24. Burbridge, L. (2002). Accountability and MIS. Public Performance and Management

Review, 25(4), 421–423.

25. Barki, H., Rivard, S., & Talbot, J. (1993). Toward an assessment of software development

risk. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 203–223;Dawes, S. S., & Nelson, M. R. (1995). Pool the risks, share the benefits: Partnerships in

IT innovation. In J. Keyes (Ed.), Technology Trendlines. Technology Success Stories from

Today’s Visionaries. New York7 Van Nostrand Reinhold;

Ibid., p. 4, Caffrey;

Ibid., p. 12, Chengalur-Smith and Duchessi;

Ibid., p. 4, Garson.

26. Ibid., p. 4, Caffrey;


27. Ibid., p. 23, Brown.

28. Randall, D., Hughes, J., O’Brien, J., Rodden, T., Rouncefield, M., Sommerville, I., et al.

(1999). Banking on the old technology: Understanding the organizational context of

dlegacyT issues. Communications of the Association of Information Systems, 2;Kelly, S., Gibson, N., Holland, C. P., & Light, B. (1999). A business perspective of

legacy information systems. Communications of the Association of Information

Systems, 2.


29. Duchessi, P., & Chengalur-Smith, I. (1998). Client/server benefits, problems, best

practices. Communications of the ACM, 41(5), 87–94.

30. McFarlan, F. W. (1981). Portfolio approach to information systems. Harvard Business

Review, 59, 142–150;Davis, G. B. (1982). Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM System

Journal, 21, 4–30;

Ibid., p. 25, Barki et al.;


31. Ibid., p. 25, Dawes and Nelson.

32. Ibid., p. 2, Dawes and Pardo.

33. Ibid., p. 25, Barki et al.;

Ibid., p. 25, Dawes and Nelson;

Ibid., p. 19;

Ibid., p. 2, Best;


Ibid., p. 3, Bellamy;

Jiang, J., & Klein, G. (2000). Software development risks to project effectiveness.

Journal of Systems and Software, 52, 3–10;Barret, K., & Green, R. (2001). Powering up. How public managers can take control of

information technology. Washington, DC7 CQ Press;

Ibid., p. 24;

Edmiston, K. D. (2003). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges.

American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 20–45;

Ibid., p. 3, Rocheleau.

34. Ibid., p. 25, Dawes and Nelson;

NGA. (1997). Barriers to intergovernmental enterprise. Washington, DC7 National

Governors Association;

Ibid., p. 2, Landsbergen and Wolken;

Harris, N. D. (2000). Intergovernmental cooperation in the development and use of

information systems. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems.

New York7 Marcel Dekker.


Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state. Information technology and institutional

change. Washington, DC7 Brookings Institution Press;


36. Ibid., p. 3, Bellamy;

Ibid., p. 34, Harris;


37. Bajjaly, S. T. (1999). Managing emerging information systems in the public sector. Public

Performance and Management Review, 23(1), 40–47;Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2003). Learning organizations in the public sector? A

study of police agencies employing information and technology to advance knowledge.



38. Scott, W. Richard (2000). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage

Publications.

39. Andersen, D. F., & Dawes, S. S. (1991). Government information management. A primer

and casebook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Prentice Hall;


Ibid., p. 3, Milner;

Joshi, J. B. D., Ghafor, A., Aref, W. G., & Spafford, E. H. (2002). Security and privacy

challenges of a digital government. In W. J. McIver, & A. K. Elmagarmid (Eds.),

Advances in digital government. Technology, human factors, and policy. Norwell, MA7

Kluwer Academic Publishers;Duncan, G. T., & Roehrig, S. T. (2003). Mediating the tension between information

privacy and information access: The role of digital government. In G. D. Garson (Ed.),

Public information technology: Policy and management issues. Hershey, PA7 Idea Group

Publishing;

Ibid., p. 33, Edmiston.

40. Ibid., p. 19;


Ibid., p. 35, Fountain;


41. Ibid., p. 3, Bellamy;


42. Wang, R. Y. (1998). A product perspective on total data quality management.


43. Keil, M. (1995). Pulling the plug: Software project management and the problem of

escalation. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 421–447;

Ibid., p. 42;

Ibid., p. 21.

44. CTG. (2000). The insider’s guide to using information in government. Albany, NY7

Center for Technology in Government http://demo.ctg.albany.edu/static/usinginfo

45. Orr, K. (1998). Data quality and systems theory. Communications of the ACM, 41(2),

66–70.

46. Ibid., p. 44.

47. Ibid., p. 22, Davis;

Ibid., p. 22, DeLone and Mclean;

Ibid., p. 21;





Jiang, J., Klein, G., & Balloun, J. (1996). Ranking of system implementation success

factors. Project Management Journal, 27, 50–55;

Ibid., p. 21;

Ibid., p. 33, Jiang, J. and Klein.

http:\\demo.ctg.albany.edu\static\usinginfo


50. Ibid., p. 23, Brown.

51. Ibid., p. 2, Best;

Ibid., p. 21;

Ibid., p. 2, Dawes and Pardo;


52. Ibid., p. 33, Barret and Green;

Regan, E. A., & O’Connor, B. N. (2001). End-user information systems: Implementing

individual and group work technology. Second Edition. New York7 Prentice Hall;


53. Flowers, S. (1996). Software failure: Management failure: Amazing stories and

cautionary tales. New York7 Wiley;

Ibid., p. 37, Bajjaly;



Ibid., p., 33, Jiang, J. and Klein;



Ibid., p. 2, Best;

Ibid., p. 34, NGA.

56. Ibid., p. 21;

Ibid., p. 33, Barret and Green;


57. Ibid., p. 2, Dawes and Pardo;

Gagnon, Y. -C. (2001). The behavior of public managers in adopting new technologies.

Pubic Performance and Management Review, 24(4), 337–350;

Ibid., p. 52, Regan and O’Connor;


58. Ibid., p. 34, NGA;

Ibid., p. 34, Harris;

Ibid., p. 33, Barret and Green.

59. Ibid., p. 33, Barret and Green;

Ibid., p. 25, Dawes and Nelson;

Ibid., p. 4, Garson;

Ibid., p. 3, Milner.

60. Ibid., p. 39, Andersen and Dawes.

61. Gil-Garcıa, J. Ramon (2004). Information technology policies and standards: A

comparative review of the states. Journal of Government Information, 30(5), 548–560.

62. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New

York7 Cambridge University Press;

Ibid., p. 35, Fountain.


Ibid., p. 49, Jiang et al.;

Ibid., p. 21;


Ibid., p. 23, Brown;


64. Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (1998). A bsmarter, cheaper, and fasterQ government?.

Contracting for geographic information systems. Public Administration Review, 58,

335–345;

Ibid., p. 33, Barret and Green;

Chen, Y. -C., & Perry, J. (2003). Outsourcing for e-government: Managing for success.

Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 404–421.

65. CIO Council. (2002). The value measuring methodology: Highlights. Washington, DC7

CIO Council, Best Practices Committee;CIO Council. (2002). The value measuring methodology: How-to-guide. Washington,

DC7 CIO Council, Best Practices Committee.

66. Ibid., p. 65.

67. Ibid., p. 65.

68. Ibid., p. 65.

69. Treasury Board of Canada. (1998). Creating and using a business case for information

technology projects. Ottawa, ON7 Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat.

70. Ibid., p. 69.

71. Ibid., p. 69.

72. Ibid., p. 69.

73. Ibid., p. 69.

74. Ibid., p. 69.

75. NASCIO. (2003). Business case basics and beyond: A primer on state government IT

business cases. Lexington, KY7 National Association of State Chief Information Officers.

76. Ibid., p. 75.

77. Ibid., p. 75.

78. Dawes, S. S., Pardo, T. A., Simon, S., Cresswell, A. M., LaVigne, M., Andersen, D., &

Bloniartz, P. A. (2004). Making smart IT choices: Understanding value and risk in

government IT investments. Albany, NY7 Center for Technology in Government.

79. Ibid., p. 78.

80. Ibid., p. 78.

81. Ibid., p. 75.

82. Ibid., p. 44.

83. Ibid., p. 69.

84. The Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering at the National

Science Foundation has created a bSystems in ContextQ cluster. This cluster bsupportsresearch and education on the interaction between information, computation and

communication systems and users, organizations, government agencies, the scientific

community and the external environment.Q More information is available at http://

www.cise.nsf.gov/div/cluster.cfm?div=iis&cluster_id=3947

http:\\www.cise.nsf.gov\div\cluster.cfm?div=iis&cluster_id=3947

Date post:	17-Mar-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dokiet
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to ...igup.urfu.ru/docs/Bank...

Documents