Date post: | 06-May-2015 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | dr-dc-misra |
View: | 2,879 times |
Download: | 1 times |
E-government Evaluation
E-government Monitoring and Evaluation:
Implementing E-business Plan
byDr D.C.MISRA
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 2
Thursday, February 12, 200911-15 a.m. to 1-15. p.m
3rd Post Graduate Diploma in Public Policy and Management Programmme
(2007-09)
School of Public Policy and Governance
Management Development Institute
P.B.60, Mehrauli Road, Sukhrali,
Gurgaon 122 001
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 3
E-government Monitoring and Evaluation:
A Presentationby
Dr D.C.Misra, I.A.S. (Retd.)E-government Researcher and Consultant
New Delhi, India
Email: [email protected] Web: http://in.geocities.com/drdcmisra Think Tank: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cyber_quiz Tel: 91-11- 2245 2431 Fax: 91-11- 4244 5183
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 4
I CONTENTSI CONTENTSE-government Monitoring and E-government Monitoring and
EvaluationEvaluation
Part A: Monitoring
I. Historical Background of MonitoringII. Ministry of Statistics and Programme
ImplementationIII. Reasons for Delay in Project ImplementationIV. E-government Project Failures - An Indian
ExampleV. Causes of E-government Project FailuresVI. What can monitoring do?VII. What is not monitoring?VIII. What is then e-government monitoring?
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 5
Part A: Monitoring
IX. What is E-government Project? X. E-government Project Life Cycle-Five
Models XI. Logical Framework Approach (LFA)XII. Who will do e-government monitoring?XIII. The e-government monitoring unitXIV. E-government monitoring methodologyXV. Guiding Principles of E-government
Monitoring
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 6
ContentsPart B: Evaluation
I. Historical Background of EvaluationII. Programme Evaluation Organisation
(PEO)III. Functions of PEOIV. Four Generations of EvaluationV. What is not Evaluation?VI. What is then Evaluation?VII. Four Senses of Term EvaluationVIII. What is E-government Evaluation?
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 7
Part B: EvaluationIX. Types of EvaluationX. Evaluation Timing and Diffusion-
Adoption of CurvesXI. What is to be evaluated?XII. How E-government Domains are
evaluated?XIII. Approaches to EvaluationXIV. Who will evaluate? XV. Which Type of Evaluation is Suited
Most to E-government?
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 8
Part C: E-government M&E
FrameworkI. E-government Monitoring and
Evaluation (M&E)II. E-government Monitoring and
Evaluation (M&E) UnitIII. Relative Weights to Monitoring and
EvaluationIIV. E-government M&E Framework:
Components
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 9
E-government M&E Framework
(a) E-government Management
(b) E-government M&E Unit
(c) Information Needs Matrix
(d) E-government M&E Cycle
(e) Citizens
V. A Framework for E-government Monitoring and Evaluation
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 1
0
Part D and Part E
Part D:
My Questions
End of Presentation
Thank you
Part E:
Your Questions Now
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 1
1
Part A: MonitoringI. Historical Background of Monitoring
Monitoring in loose form has always been part of Indian administration Centralised monitoring is a recent phenomenon It came into existence at the Centre in 1985 when Ministry of Programme Implementation (MOPI) was formed MOPI is now part of Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 1
2
II. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation
MOSPI tracks implementation of Central Sector Projects > Rs 20 Crore Report for January-March, 2007 covers 882 projects: -- Mega (Greater than Rs 1000 Crore) 69 -- Major (Between Rs 100 & 1000 Crore) 432 -- Medium (Between Rs 20 Crore & Rs 100 Crore) 381 Cost Over-run (33%) 287 Time Over-run (1 to 196 months)(35%) 301
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 1
3
III. Reasons for Delayin Project
Implementation1. Fund Constraints2. Land Acquisition3. Environment Clearance4. Slow Progress5. Delay in Supply of Equipments6. Law and Order7. Others (Technology selection and agreement,
Award of contract, Delay in civil works and government clearance, Geomining, Court case, Inadequate Infrastructure and bad weather)
(Source: MOSPI)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 1
4
IV E-government Project Failure:
An Indian Example
Reinventing EPF (Employees’ Provident Fund) India
The largest reform project in terms of complexity Touches 40 million citizens Rs 250 million already spent Time over-run: 2001-06: 66 months: Target: 22 months Scrapped: January 2008: To be started all over again Contractor: Siemens Information Systems Limited
(SISL)Source: Dhoot (2008)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 1
5
V Causes of E-government Project Failure
1. Complexity
2. Commitment Failure
3. Planning Failure
4. Vision Failure
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 1
6
Causes of E-government Project Failure
5. Inappropriate Methods6. Short Time Horizon7. Turbulent Environments8. Failure to Support End
UsersSource: Chiles (2001)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 1
7
VI What can Monitoring do?
1. It can prevent E-government Project Failures
2. It can prevent cost and time over-runs of E-government Projects
3. It can keep a track of progress of E-government Project implementation
4. It can ensure that resources are expended as planned
5. Above all, it can ensure that the benefits of e-government project reach the target group, that is, citizens and non-citizens
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 1
8
VII What is not Monitoring?
Reporting ≠ Monitoring Inspection ≠ Monitoring Supervision ≠ Monitoring Audit* ≠ Monitoring Surveillance ≠ Monitoring Review ≠ Monitoring* Audit: 1. Financial, 2. Performance, 3. Development, 4.
Social, 5. Citizen (Through RTI Act)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 1
9
What is not Monitoring?
SN Tool Focus
1 Report Routine reporting
2 Inspection Fault-finding in detail
3 Supervision Overseeing implementation
4 Audit Examination of accounts
5 Surveillance Scanning of environment
6 Review Comprehensive feedback
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 2
0
What is not Monitoring?SN Tool Focus
1 Financial Audit
Conformance to financial rules
2 Performance Audit
Project experience
3 Development Audit
Quality and durability of assets (IRDP)
4 Social Audit Scrutiny from social point
5 Citizen / Media Audit
RTI Act ?
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 2
1
VIII What is then E-government Monitoring?
E-government Monitoring is a specialised, systematic, dynamic, and semi-autonomous management tool to ensure that the E-government Project serves the target group- Citizens and Non-Citizens- in accordance with e-business plan taking into account the interests of various stakeholders and the emerging challenges being faced by E-government
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 2
2
Elements of Definition1 Specialisation 6 E-government
Project
2 Systematic 7 Service to Citizens
3 Dynamic 8 E-business plan
4 Semi-autonomous 9 Stakeholders
5 Management Tool 10 Emerging Challenges
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 2
3
IX What is E-government Project?
An E-government Project is a development project which aims to transform an inward-looking government to a citizen centric government making best use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) through a carefully designed e-business plan
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 2
4
X. E-government Project Lifecycles
Five Models
1. Generic Model (Tasmania, Australia)
2. Technocratic Model (NIC, India)
3. Audit Model (Lea’s Model)
4. Systems Model (Heeks’ Model)
5. E-government Project Model
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 2
5
1. Generic Model(Government of Tasmania, Ausralia)
Source: Government of Tasmania 2002
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 2
6
2. E-government Technocratic Model
(National Informatics Centre, New Delhi)
A. Project Initiation and Planning
B. Software Development
C. ICT Infrastructure Creation
D. Service Provision
E. System Integration and Testing
F. Project Commissioning
G. Project Completion and Sign Off
H. Maintenance
I. Retirement
Source: Mishra 2005
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 2
7
3. Lea’s E-government Project Lifecycle
(Audit Model)
Initiation
Planning andImplementation
Monitoring
Operations
Source: Lea 2003
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 2
8
4. Heeks’ System Lifecycle
Project assessment
SystemConstruction
Design of the proposed
new system
Implementation and beyond
Analysis of current reality
1
5
4 3
2
Source: Heeks 2006
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 2
9
5. E-government Project Cycle
4 Evaluate
E-business Plan
5Review
E-business Plan
3Monitor
E-business Plan
2Implement
E-business Plan
1 Prepare
E-business Plan
Modify Modify
Modify
M&EUnit
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 3
0
XI. Logical Framework Approach (LFA)
Developed by Leon J. Rosenberg for USAID in 1969
It logically connects project activities to resultsThe logic is: If x is done (input), y will follow (output) under asumptions z
(outcome)It presents a concise picture of the project
in a page or two
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 3
1
Logical Framework Approach (LFA)
It is an analytical tool
LFA (approach) should not be
confused with logframe (document)
It is 4x4 Matrix (that is, it is a matrix
of four rows and four columns)
giving rise to 16 cells
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 3
2
Logical Framework Approach (LFA)
S.N. Structure(Type of Information)
Indicators(of Progress)
Measurement(Means of Verification)
Assumptions and Risks(Principal Methods)
Goal(Wider objectives)
C11 C12 C13 C14
(Hypothesis)
Objectives(Short-term
Objectives)
C21 C22 C23 C24
(Project Assumptions)
Outputs(Activities)
C31 C32 C33 C34
(Implementation Assumptions)
Inputs(Resources)
C41 C42 C43 C44
(Critical Conditions)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 3
3
XII. Who will do E-government Monitoring?
The E-government Monitoring Unit
Set up a monitoring unit
It will be part of organisation but function independently
It will report directly to Top Management
It will be a specialised unit
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 3
4
XIII. The E-government Monitoring Unit
It will consist of:
1. Head of Monitoring Unit
2. Database Administrator/System Analyst
3. Statistician
4. Economist
5. Sociologist/Political Scientist
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 3
5
XIV. E-government Monitoring Methodology
I. Automated
1. Online Survey
(SurveyMonkey)
2. Virtual Focus Groups (E-groups)
3. E-mail Surveys
4. Blog (Comments)
5. Wiki (Comments)
6. Online Feedback, etc.
II. Manual
1. Desk Research
2. Sample Survey
3. Focus Groups
4. Case Studies
5. Individual/Group Interviews/Discussions
6. Participatory Appraisals, etc.
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 3
6
XV. Guiding Principles of E-government Monitoring
E-government monitoring must be
1. Citizen-centric
2. Simple
3. Timely
4. Relevant
5. Accurate
6. Flexible
7. Action-oriented
8. Web-based
9. Top management-oriented
10. Specialised
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 3
7
Part B: EvaluationI. Historical Background of Evaluation
Systematic Evaluation is older than Centralised Monitoring Evaluation came into being in 1952 when Programme Evaluation Organisation (PEO), an independent organisation was set up in Planning Commission to evaluate India’s Community Development (CD) Programme PEO survives till date (2008)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 3
8
EvaluationII Programme Evaluation Organisation (PEO) Headed by Adviser (Evaluation), it has 3-tier Structure 1. Headquarters- Planning Commission 2. Regional Evaluation Offices (7) (Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Hyderabad,Jaipur, Lucknow and Mumbai) 3. Project Evaluation Offices (8) (State Capitals- Guwahati, Bhubaneswar, Shimla, Bangalore,Bhopal, Patna, Thiruvananthapuram and Ahmedabad)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 3
9
III. Functions of PEO
Undertakes evaluation of selected programmes/schemes under implementation Evaluation studies, assess the performance, process of implementation, effectiveness of the delivery systems and impact of programmes.
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 4
0
IV Four Generations of Evaluation
SN Generation Name Focus Role of Evaluator
1 First Generation
Measurement Measuring Instruments
Technical
2 Second Generation
Description Strengths and Weaknesses
Describer
3 Third Generation
Judgment Reaching Judgements
Judge
4 Fourth Generation
An Alternative Approach
Response (Interaction) & Construction (Methodology )
Mediator (among conflicting stakeholders)
Source: Guba and Lincoln 1989
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 4
1
V What is not Evaluation?
Analysis ≠ Evaluation Measurement ≠ Evaluation Assessment ≠ Evaluation Appraisal ≠ Evaluation Audit ≠ Evaluation Monitoring ≠ Evaluation
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 4
2
What is not Evaluation?
S.N. Tool Focus
1 Analysis Breaking into parts
2 Measurement Metrics
3 Assessment Cost and Benefits
4 Appraisal Investment
5 Audit Rules and regulations
6 Monitoring Implementation
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 4
3
VI. Four Senses of Term Evaluation
S.N. Sense Definition
1 Sense 1 Merit, Value or Worth of Something
2 Sense 2 An autonomous discipline: Study and application of procedures for doing objective and systematic evaluation
3 Sense 3 Work done by professional evaluators
4 Sense 4 Calculation of the value of an expression (in Mathematics)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 4
4
VII. What is then Evaluation?
“…a robust arena of activity directed at collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information on the need for, implementation of, and effectiveness and efficiency of intervention efforts to better the lot of humankind.”
---Rossi and Freeman (1989, p-13)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 4
5
VIII. What is E-government Evaluation
E-government evaluation is a systematic, objective, planned and participatory exercise undertaken during the design, implementation and after completion of a project for determining the worth of e-government to citizens against pre-set objectives and criteria for improving e-government services to citizens.
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 4
6
IX. Types of Evaluation
1. Formal and informal evaluation
2. Insider and outsider evaluation
3. Compliance, effectiveness, significance and efficiency evaluation
4. On-going, process or concurrent evaluation
5. Ex ante and ex post evaluation
6. Ad hoc evaluation
7. Evaluation in vivo
8. Pilot project evaluation
9. Terminal evaluation
10. Formative and summative evaluation
11. Meta evaluation (evaluation of evaluations) (Stufflebeam 1981/ Scriven 1991)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 4
7
Types of Evaluation12. Scientific evaluation
13. Auto or self evaluation (ACCORD 1993)
14. Thematic evaluation
15. Individual, group and institutional evaluation
16. Casual everyday evaluation (Frutchey 1959)
17. Self-checking evaluation (ibid.)
18. Do-it-yourself evaluation (ibid.)
19. Systematic evaluation (Rossi and Freeman )
20. Fourth generation evaluation (Guba and Lincoln 1989)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 4
8
Types of Evaluation21. Adversary
evaluation
22. Empowerment
evaluation (Fetterman et al.(eds.)(1996)
23. Utilisation-focused evaluation (Patton 1997)
24. Transparency
evaluation
25. Citizen evaluation
26. Right to information evaluation (being undertaken by Adam Smith International/ Administrative Staff College of India) (2007)
27. Evaluation research
28. Online and offline
evaluation
29. E-government evaluation
30. E-government special studies,etc.
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 4
9
X. Evaluation Timing and Diffusion-Adoption
CurvesHypothetical Curves
Time (months/years) 1 2 3 4 5 60
50
100
(c)
(b)
(a)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 5
0
XI. What is to be evaluated?
I External Environment
III Service DeliveryII Organisation
Domains of E-government Evaluation
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 5
1
XII. How e-government domains are evaluated?
Indicators
1. Input indicators
2. Output indicators
3. Usage/Intensity indicators
4. Impact/Effect indicators
5. Environmental/Readiness indicators(Source: Jenssen 2005)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 5
2
Indicators1. Input Indicators
– Amount of financial resources devoted to eGovernment. Absolute figures, per capita figures.
– IT/e-Government spending as % of GDP.– Amount of resources devoted to Research
and Development.– Amount of public resources devoted to
internet infrastructure.
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 5
3
Indicators
2. Output Indicators
– Number of online services for citizens;
– Number of online services for businesses;
– Percentage of government departments that have a website;
– Percentage of government websites that offer electronic services.
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 5
4
Indicators3. Usage Indicators
– Number of individuals that have made use of electronic services offered;
– Number of businesses that have made use of electronic services offered;
– Percentage of citizens that has visited government websites to search for information;
– Number of businesses that have made payments online;
– Percentage of internet traffic that pertains to electronic service delivery.
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 5
5
Indicators4. Impact Indicators
– reduction of waiting time at government counter x by y %;
– decrease in case processing time at government organisation x by y %;
– citizen/business satisfaction levels concerning eGovernment;
– survey-type questions, e.g.: ‘do you feel more positive to your government, now that you can contact it by email?’ ‘has your government become more efficient, now that you can perform services online?’
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 5
6
Indicators5. Environment Indicators
– ICT penetration rates (pc, internet, mobile phone) private households, work, schools;
– Indicator that measures ‘fear of invasion of privacy’;
– Online shopping rates as an indicator of trust in online environments;
– Indicator that measures ‘quality of legislation concerning the information society’;
– Telephone tariffs, GSM tariffs, Internet access tariffs.
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 5
7
XIII. Approaches to Evaluation Studies
1. Cross-Sectional Studies (Comparison of a group with treatment with another group without treatment)
2. Longitudinal Studies (Comparison of a group before and after treatment)
3. Benchmarking Studies (Comparison with best practices)
4. “Value Addition” Studies (Accenture)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 5
8
Approaches to Evaluation Studies
5. Citizen Satisfaction Studies (American Consumer Satisfaction Index-ACSI)/ Citizen’s Report Card -Public Affairs Centre (PAC), Bangalore6. Department of Information Technology (DIT)’s Evaluation Assessment Framework (EAF) 7. U.S. Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 5
9
1. DIT’s Evaluation Assessment Framework (EAF)
EAF Version 2.0 (2004)
1. Service Orientation
2. Technology
3. Sustainability
4. Cost Effectiveness
5. Replicability
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 6
0
Weights for Attributes
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 6
1
Rating of E-government Projects in India 2005-06
SN Rating Number of
Projects
Percentage
1 Extremely Good (EG)
16 43
2 Good (G) 17 46
3 Satisfactory (S) 1 3
4 Poor (P) 3 8
Total 37 100Source: DIT
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 6
2
3. U.S. Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART)1. Clarity of Purpose and Well-Designed
2. Strategic Planning (valid annual and long-term goals)
3. Management (program, financial oversight and program improvement efforts)
4. Results (accuracy, consistency)
(Source: ExpectMore.gov)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 6
3
Assessmet of U.S.Federal Programs by “PART”
(2008)
Number of Programs Assessed
Effective
Moderately Effective
Adequate
Ineffective
Results Not Demonstrated
1004
18%
31%
29%
3%
19%
DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM RATINGS
Source: ExpectMore.gov
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 6
4
XIV. Who will evaluate?
First decide whether evaluation will be done in-house or by an outside agency
In-house evaluation is preferable as it builds evaluation capability in-house
No separate in-house evaluation unit is required Entrust the evaluation function to the in-house
monitoring unit, suggested earlier And call it monitoring and evaluation (M&E) unit Let outside agencies also undertake evaluation
and special studies after a gap of 3/5 years
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 6
5
XV Which Type of Evaluation is Suited Most to E-government?
The type of evaluation will depend upon the specific requirements of an e-government project.
There are two key stakeholders in e-government: 1.E-government Management, and 2. Citizens
There are four standards for evaluation: 1.Utility 2.Feasibility 3.Propriety 4.Accuracy
E-government evaluation must meet the following two criteria: (a) Utility (to stakeholders-Management and Citizens) and (b) Actual Use, both geared to serve citizens
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 6
6
Which Type of Evaluation is Suited Most to E-government? Utilisation-focused Evaluation (Patton 1997) meets our
criteria of selection of type of evaluation Mere provision of government services online is not e-
government The online services must be utilised by the target group- the
citizens The issue of impact of e-government will arise only when the
following is satisfied:
PROVISION UTILISATION IMPACT (of e-gov (by citizens) (on general well- services) being of citizens)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 6
7
Part C: E-government M&E
I. E-government Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
M&E is an under-developed aspect of E-government
It has so far not found any systematic application in e-government project implementation
M&E findings, where available, are not widely diffused
Its neglect hampers e-government development M&E is a tool for development of E-government
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 6
8
II.E-government Monitoring and Evaluation
(M&E) Unit E-government M&E unit will have the same
staff as the monitoring unit A part of the organisation, it will report
directly to top management It will undertake regular monthly
monitoring of e-government project and evaluation six-monthly or annually
It will give 80% weightage to monitoring and 20% to evaluation
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 6
9
III. Relative Weights to Monitoring and
EvaluationRelative Importance of M&E
M e
Em
Initial Stage
After 4/5 years
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 7
0
IV. E-government M&E Framework: Components
The E-government M&E Framework consists of five components:
(a) E-government Management
(b) E-government M&E Unit
(c) Information Needs Matrix
(d) E-government M&E Cycle
(e) Citizens
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 7
1
IV(a). E-government Management
Supporting Staff
Top Management
Middle Management
Information Technology (IT) Department
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 7
2
IV(b). E-government M&E Unit
Head of M&E Unit
Database Administrator/
System Analyst
Statistician Economist
Political Scientist/
Sociologist
Top Management
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 7
3
IV(c). Information Needs Matrix
Information Needs of Management
Information needs differ in three levels of management hierarchy: 1.Top Management 2.Middle Management 3. Supporting Staff
Undertake information needs analysis of various levels of management hierarchy
Prepare Information Needs Matrix
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 7
4
Information Needs Matrix
Information Needs
IT
Department
Citize
n Ne
eds In
form
atio
n
Org
an
isatinal N
eed
s Info
rma
tion
ICT
Infrastru
cture In
form
ation
Citize
n Acce
ss Info
rma
tion
Utilisa
tion In
form
atio
n
Re
view
Inform
atio
n
Top Management
Middle Management
Supporting Staff
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 7
5
IV(d). E-government M&E Cycle
4. Evaluate it
2.Implement it
3.Monitor it
5. Review it
1. Prepare
E-business Plan
M&ECycle
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 7
6
IV(e) Citizens Citizens interact with
government in following four ways: As
(a) Information
Seekers
(of government
activities)
(b) Service Users (of
public services)
We want serviceWe want service
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 7
7
Citizens(c) Beneficiaries
(of public programmes like NREGP)
(d) Compliers
(with laws, rules and regulations
like payment of taxes)
(e) Stakeholders
(in public policies and programmes)
Their needs in these capacities have to be identified and met by E-government M&E
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 7
8
V. A Framework for E-government
Monitoring and Evaluation We are now in position to link these
components and presentA Framework for E-government
Monitoring and EvaluationThe Framework conceptualises the
complex reality of e-government and provides a Roadmap for E-government M&E Unit
Here then is the Framework.
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 7
9
A Framework for E-government
Monitoring and Evaluation
Information Needs
IT
Department
Citizen
Need
s Info
rmatio
n
Org
anisatin
al Need
s In
form
ation
ICT
Infrastru
cture In
form
ation
Citizen
Access In
form
ation
Utilisatio
n In
form
ation
Review
Info
rmatio
n
Top Mgt
Middle Mgt
Supporting Staff
Evaluate
Review
PrepareE-business Plan
Implement
Monitor
Formal Sources of Information
Info
rmal
So
urc
es o
f In
form
atio
n
ICT Indicators Forecasting Monitoring & EvaluationCensus & Surveys Audit
Discussion Group
Blog
Wiki
Social Sites
Legislature RTI Act
M&EUnit
IT Deptt
E-business Plan Implementation Sustainability Citizens
M&E Unit Information Matrix M&E Cycle(d)(a) (c)(b)
SupportingStaff
Top Management
Mid
dle
Man
agem
ent
M&ECycle
Citizens
We want service
We want service
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 8
0
Contribution of M&E to Good Governance
Monitoring information and evaluation findings can contribute to sound governance in a number of ways:
1. Evidence-based policy making (including budget decision making),
2. Policy development, management, and accountability.
3. Many governments around the world have realized much of this potential, including most OECD countries and a small but growing number of developing countries. (Source: Mackay 2007)
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 8
1
Contribution of M&E to Good Governance
Examples of well-functioning government M&E system: (Source: Mackay 2007)
1. Australia (by 1994, almost 80 percent of new spending proposals relied on evaluation findings)
2. Colombia (which has about 500 performance indicators)
3. United Kingdom (Public Sector Agreements between the Treasury and each of the 18 main departments)
4. U.S.A. (PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool), created in 2002, rates all 1,000 government programmes), and
5. Chile (whose Finance Ministry collects 1,550 performance indicators).
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 8
2
Part D: My Questions
With this I end my presentation but ask the following questions
1. What is monitoring? How does it differ from other sources of management information?
2. What is evaluation? Describe different types of evaluation. Which type of evaluation is most suited to e-government? Give reasons for your answer.
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 8
3
My Questions3. What role can an e-government
monitoring and evaluation (m&e) unit play in successful implementation of an e-government project?
4. Do you agree that development of a framework for e-government monitoring and evaluation (m&e) can provide a useful roadmap for m&e unit? Give reasons for your answer.
E-government M&E© Dr D.C.Misra 2009 8
4
Your questions now!
Thank you for your attention.
Have a nice day.--Dr D.C.Misra