eGovernment Workshop 2005 (eGOV05) 9781846634734, 9781846634727

Citation preview

tg cover (i).qxd

22/05/2007

10:06

Page 1

ISSN 1750-6166

Volume 1 Number 2 2007

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy E-government workshop 2005 (eGOV05) Guest Editor: Tony Elliman

www.emeraldinsight.com

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy

ISSN 1750-6166 Volume 1 Number 2 2007

E-government workshop 2005 (eGOV05) Guest Editor Tony Elliman

Access this journal online _________________________

107

Editorial advisory board __________________________

108

Guest editorial ___________________________________

109

Debunking the optimists: an evaluation of conventional wisdom about the digital divide and e-government in the British Isles George Ryder__________________________________________________

112

Assessing the impact of e-government on providers and users of the IS function: a structuration perspective Zorlu Senyucel _________________________________________________

131

Towards e-government transformation: conceptualising “citizen engagement”: a research note Steve Jones, Ray Hackney and Zahir Irani __________________________

145

Realising integrated e-government services: a UK local government perspective Omiros D. Sarikas and Vishanth Weerakkody _______________________

Access this journal electronically The current and past volumes of this journal are available at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm You can also search more than 150 additional Emerald journals in Emerald Management Xtra (www.emeraldinsight.com) See page following contents for full details of what your access includes.

153

CONTENTS

CONTENTS continued

Evaluative design of e-government projects: a community development perspective Mike Grimsley, Anthony Meehan and Anna Tan_____________________

174

Integration of legal constraints into business process models Sebastian Olbrich and Carlo Simon ________________________________

194

www.emeraldinsight.com/tg.htm As a subscriber to this journal, you can benefit from instant, electronic access to this title via Emerald Management Xtra. Your access includes a variety of features that increase the value of your journal subscription.

How to access this journal electronically To benefit from electronic access to this journal, please contact [email protected] A set of login details will then be provided to you. Should you wish to access via IP, please provide these details in your e-mail. Once registration is completed, your institution will have instant access to all articles through the journal’s Table of Contents page at www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm More information about the journal is also available at www.emeraldinsight.com/ tg.htm Our liberal institution-wide licence allows everyone within your institution to access your journal electronically, making your subscription more cost-effective. Our web site has been designed to provide you with a comprehensive, simple system that needs only minimum administration. Access is available via IP authentication or username and password. Emerald online training services Visit www.emeraldinsight.com/training and take an Emerald online tour to help you get the most from your subscription.

Key features of Emerald electronic journals Automatic permission to make up to 25 copies of individual articles This facility can be used for training purposes, course notes, seminars etc. This only applies to articles of which Emerald owns copyright. For further details visit www.emeraldinsight.com/ copyright Online publishing and archiving As well as current volumes of the journal, you can also gain access to past volumes on the internet via Emerald Management Xtra. You can browse or search these databases for relevant articles. Key readings This feature provides abstracts of related articles chosen by the journal editor, selected to provide readers with current awareness of interesting articles from other publications in the field. Reference linking Direct links from the journal article references to abstracts of the most influential articles cited. Where possible, this link is to the full text of the article. E-mail an article Allows users to e-mail links to relevant and interesting articles to another computer for later use, reference or printing purposes. Structured abstracts Emerald structured abstracts provide consistent, clear and informative summaries of the content of the articles, allowing faster evaluation of papers.

Additional complimentary services available Your access includes a variety of features that add to the functionality and value of your journal subscription: Xtra resources and collections When you register your journal subscription online, you will gain access to Xtra resources for Librarians, Faculty, Authors, Researchers, Deans and Managers. In addition you can access Emerald Collections, which include case studies, book reviews, guru interviews and literature reviews. E-mail alert services These services allow you to be kept up to date with the latest additions to the journal via e-mail, as soon as new material enters the database. Further information about the services available can be found at www.emeraldinsight.com/alerts Emerald Research Connections An online meeting place for the research community where researchers present their own work and interests and seek other researchers for future projects. Register yourself or search our database of researchers at www.emeraldinsight.com/ connections

Choice of access Electronic access to this journal is available via a number of channels. Our web site www.emeraldinsight.com is the recommended means of electronic access, as it provides fully searchable and value added access to the complete content of the journal. However, you can also access and search the article content of this journal through the following journal delivery services: EBSCOHost Electronic Journals Service ejournals.ebsco.com Informatics J-Gate www.j-gate.informindia.co.in Ingenta www.ingenta.com Minerva Electronic Online Services www.minerva.at OCLC FirstSearch www.oclc.org/firstsearch SilverLinker www.ovid.com SwetsWise www.swetswise.com

Emerald Customer Support For customer support and technical help contact: E-mail [email protected] Web www.emeraldinsight.com/customercharter Tel +44 (0) 1274 785278 Fax +44 (0) 1274 785201

TG 1,2

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Professor Kim Viborg Andersen Institut for Informatik, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

108

Research Professor Yigal Arens Daniel J. Epstein Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, USC/Information Sciences Institute, USA Professor Paul Beynon-Davies Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, UK Dr Yogesh K. Dwivedi School of Business and Economics, Swansea University, UK Rocky J. Dwyer Principal, Chief Review Services, National Defence, Canada Dr Tony Elliman Department of Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University, UK Dr Leif Skiftenes Flak Department of Information Systems, Agder University College, Norway Dr Valerie Gregg Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, USA

Dr Sofiane Sahraoui School of Business Management, American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Mr Omiros D. Sarikas School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics, Brunel University, UK Mr Alexander Schellong Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, USA Dr Jochen Scholl The Information School, University of Washington, USA Dr Gabriella Spinelli School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics, Brunel University, UK Prof. Dr Roland Traunmu¨ller Institute of Informatics in Business and Government, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria

Associate Professor Stefanos Gritzalis University of the Aegean, Greece

Dr Vishanth Weerakkody School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics, Brunel University, UK

Dr Peter Kawalek Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK

Dr Rob Wilson Centre for Social and Business Informatics (SBI), University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

Dr Khalil Khoumbati Institute of Information Technology, University of Sindh, Pakistan

Prof. Dr Maria A. Wimmer University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany

Professor Frank Land Information Systems Department, London School of Economics, UK

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy Vol. 1 No. 2, 2007 p. 108 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1750-6166

Assistant Research Professor Theresa A. Pardo Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, USA

Guest editorial About the Guest Editor Dr Tony Elliman is Co-chair of the National E-government Workshop series and Co-chair of the E-government Integration and Systems Evaluation research network (eGISE). His research interests are in IS design, architecture and planning E-mail: [email protected]

E-government workshop 2005 (eGOV05) This issue brings you a series of articles developed from the papers presented at the first e-government Workshop that was held at Brunel University in September 2005. This one day workshop was the culmination of a growing concern for e-government issues within the Information Systems Evaluation and Integration Group (ISEing) at Brunel. It is not necessary to rehearse the history of e-government here but the debate within the group at Brunel and with other University colleagues repeatedly identified the development and operation of public sector information systems (IS) as distinct. Despite the trend to thinking of the public sector as a business venture it has several differences and IS projects can be particularly sensitive to them. Once e-government had become a priority within the European Union national agencies and local authorities were mandated to develop appropriate systems. Unlike the private sector, which has choices about where and when to use information and communication technology (ICT), public sector bodies had to meet tight political targets. As a customer I can choose who I will do business with but as a citizen I cannot choose which government agencies I deal with. A commercial venture can target a particular sector of the population but government services must be available to everybody. Although both sectors seek better value for money when they develop IS solutions, the notion of what constitutes good value in the public sector is more complex to define and assess. In accordance with the UK government’s directive all government services were required to be offered online by the end of the 2005 financial year. The aim was to achieve a user-centred public sector that was inclusive to all citizens, that was transparent, and open to both democratic involvement and scrutiny. In short, a more efficient and productive public sectors that that delivered maximum return of investment for taxpayer’s money. Coming at the end of this time scale the first National e-government Workshop at Brunel offered both practitioners and the academic community the opportunity to take stock of what had been achieved. Shauneen Furlong picked up this theme in setting the keynote for the workshop. As an independent consultant who lectures on e-government and project management with the University of Toronto she addressed the achievements in Canada and asked “What next after 2005?” Over the day some 28 papers were presented looking at various issues on the e-government agenda. Following the workshop several authors were invited to revise their papers in the light of the discussions. These have then be refined through the normal blind refereeing process to produce the series of articles in this issue.

Guest editorial

109

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy Vol. 1 No. 2, 2007 pp. 109-111 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1750-6166

TG 1,2

110

With the requirement to serve every citizen the problem of the “digital divide” is a critical issue for the public sector. In our first paper George Ryder uses a study of the Isle of Man (IOM) and compares it with the rest of the UK in an attempt to verify some of the factors leading to the divide. The technological optimists tend to see the use of on line services as so obviously useful that, once properly educated, people will adopt e-Government. However, the data from IOM contradicts this conventional wisdom and suggests that the problem may be more complex. The debate over the causes of a digital divide and its solution will no doubt continues for some years yet. The next paper by Zorlu Senyucel also looks the relationship between local authority e-government provision, or the Information Systems Function (ISF) providers, and users by employing structuration theory to expose the relationship. This recognises that the current situation is one of change where both providers and users are seeking new roles and forms of communication. At the national and political level there is still an expectation that the ISF underpin a transformation in the way government works (Cabinet Office, 2005). Zorlu’s paper offers an “active agents” framework as a tool for interpreting and understanding the continuing change in relationships between users and providers of the ISF. Steve Jones, Ray Hackney and Zahir Irani follow on this theme in the third paper – a research note – by looking at the provider-client relationship and the notion of citizen engagement. This goes beyond interactive provision of services by engaging in a continual dialogue about the way services are organised and delivered. Achieving such citizen engagement is perceived to be a critical success factor in e-government initiatives. Based on this Jones et al. generate an action plan for practioners and researchers to develop strong user engagement with the development of the local authority ISF. In our third empirical study Omiros Sarikas and Vishanth Weerakkody examine the keynote question – what next? – in relation to e-government development in UK local authorities (UKLAs). Irani et al. (2006) establish that the critical step in the growth of e-government comes with the move from interaction to transactional service provision. Most UKLAs have not made this transition and Sarikas and Weerakkody report on the challenges they now face. Their empirical study suggests that they face technical, political, and organisational barriers that must be overcome at this point. Current planning tends to focus on the technical issues of integration, but Sarikas and Weerakkody argue that political and organisational issues must be given equal importance if the next stage of development is to be successful. The political will behind the e-government initiative sought, and continues to seek, a transformation in government underpinned by technology (Cabinet Office, 2005). In the next paper Mike Grimsley, Anthony Meehan and Anna Tan examine the evaluation of such projects and develop a framework to encompass these broader strategic goals. In particular they look at projects involving voluntary and independent organisation in e-government processes – community development projects. Using the CASweb project (www.casweb.org) as an example they develop an evaluative framework based on four types of “capital”. Each type of capital – infrastructure, environment, human and social – needs to be developed or enhanced by a project if it is to be deemed successful. In the last paper Sebastian Olbrich and Carlo Simon consider how to handle the regulatory constraints that frame the way government bodies work.

Government agencies are established by statute, given precise powers and restricted by in their behaviour by regulations and agreements. Conventional business process and work-flow models do not always capture these constraints clearly enough. Olbrich and Simon present a more formal approach to capturing such constraints and exemplify it in a case based on the German Federal Network Agency. This selection of papers has ranged from current empirical studies to theoretical models for future systems development. A theme running across them has been the evaluation and planning of systems with the implication that much remains to be achieved in the area of e-government. My I end by recording my thanks to the referees – both practioners and academics – who have helped select, review and refine these papers. Tony Elliman School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK References Cabinet Office (2005), Transformational Government: Enabled by Technology, Cabinet Office, Command Paper 6683, November, eGovernment Unit (eGU), London, available at: www.cio.gov.uk/documents/pdf/transgov/transgov-strategy.pdf (accessed May 2006). Irani, Z., Al-Sebie, M. and Elliman, T. (2006), “Transaction stage of e-government systems: identification of its location & importance”, Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (CD-ROM), January 4-7, Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.

Guest editorial

111

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm

TG 1,2

Debunking the optimists

112

An evaluation of conventional wisdom about the digital divide and e-government in the British Isles George Ryder 1st Advisory Ltd, Arkley, UK Abstract Purpose – Conventional wisdom about the digital divide maintains that per capita income, education, age and access to technology are its main causes and also the main barriers to internet access. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the validity of that claim in the case of the Isle of Man (IOM). Design/methodology/approach – A nominalist ontology and positivist epistemology characterizes the underpinning research philosophy for this case study. Research data consisted of secondary census instruments and primary data derived from interviews with a sample of IOM civil servants. Findings – The findings were that despite having better results in terms of the causes of digital divide, the IOM trailed the UK level of internet access to a significant degree. This result raises questions about the wisdom of basing digital divide and e-government strategies on technology proliferation and economic indicators. Research limitations/implications – The IOM is a comparatively small entity compared to the UK. In addition, basing the primary data collected on IOM civil servants only may result in an element of bias. Practical implications – Many governments invest considerable sums of money on their digital divide and e-government programmes which may be misdirected if they are addressing the wrong causes of it. Originality/value – This paper evaluates an issue which normally requires the resources of government or institutions in order to research it. Keywords Internet, Information literacy, Government, Isle of Man, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy Vol. 1 No. 2, 2007 pp. 112-130 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1750-6166 DOI 10.1108/17506160710751959

Introduction The advent of universal access to the internet, especially over the last decade, has generated widespread prosperity and growth, as well as giving rise to a number of accompanying issues. One issue in particular, that of the “digital divide” has been the subject of controversy and debate from varying perspectives, geographies and contexts by some of the world’s leading academics. The debate about this “divide” which is generally described as the gap that exists between those with and without internet access, (the information “haves” and “have nots”), is dominated by two opposing groups, known collectively as the “optimists” and the “pessimists”. This definition and the naming of the protagonists in the debate is credited to Lentz (2000, pp. 359-66), when he quoted Katz and Aspen (1997), who said that “in addition to technology optimists, there are also technology pessimists, who believe that at best cyberspace can only create a useless pseudo-community”. A typical technology pessimist is Powell (2002), who maintained that the position of the “optimists” applied in the mid-1990s, when the

internet was only a few years old as a popular medium and personal computers cost thousands of dollars. He concludes that today, however, with: . . . dirt-cheap internet access and computers approaching the cost of television sets, assertions of a digital divide or racial ravine are as correct as identifying Joe Namath as football’s current MVP, or pinning last week’s Dow at 1,000. Misled by stereotypes, misinformed about survey techniques and misdirected by interest groups, the media have treated the digital divide as a crisis requiring Government intervention. As a result, billions of dollars might be spent to address needs that no longer exist.

A more conventional wisdom is professed by the “optimists” who maintain that the digital divide is a real and addressable societal problem, especially for government, because it results from barriers to internet connectivity such as low levels of education, income and access to technology. Other examples of the optimistic side of the debate include James (2000, p. 385) who said that: “the single most pervasive theme of the twenty-first century has already been decided. It is the digital divide and whether it can be bridged”. In a similar vein, Techeschlok (2001), quotes the Gartner Group CEO, Michael Fleischer’s statement that “the internet is so pervasive that not having access to the technology or not knowing how to use it will be the equivalent of not knowing how to read or write”. The divide is a high priority for many governments, given the importance of making the internet accessible to allow communities full participation in communication systems, education, employment and other economic opportunities, regardless of their physical capacity. (Cullen, 2001, p. 314). Judging by their statements and actions, policy makers, i.e. Governments and their leadership, possibly responding to these and similar optimistic opinions held by leading academics and experts in the field, mostly reflect the view that the digital divide is indeed a fundamental problem in society which can and must be addressed. The importance which resolving this issue has for national leadership is highlighted, again by Lentz (2000, p. 368), who described how in 1999 President Clinton issued an executive memorandum making closing the digital divide a primary goal of Federal Government. He also announced the “digital opportunity” programme with accompanying budget requests of $2 billion in tax incentives to encourage the private sector to make computer donations and $380 million for public private partnerships. European leadership has been no less committed to resolving the problem as evidenced by the EU initiative e-Europe, the implementation of which would represent an information society for all, including a social vision where there is place for users and government online (Cullen, 2001). This initiative formally set the scene for Europe in common with the USA for the enactment of enabling legislation and the allocation of funds by government in order to fulfil a common vision. One of the most evident results of these initiatives, which constitute a central theme for contemporary governmental activities in most post-industrial societies such as the UK, is the role of the existent and ongoing implementation of e-government programmes and policies. The role of e-government is defined by Detlor and Finn (2002, p. 101) as generally referring to the delivery and administration of government products and services over an IT infrastructure, such as the provision of information electronically using internet portals, online tax assessment and electronic voting. They also outline use of e-government as being part of the approach to governance which incorporates many benefits, especially:

Digital divide and e-government 113

TG 1,2

.

.

114

Citizen empowerment through the provision of convenient and direct communication channels which facilitate greater public participation and interaction with the government. The delivery of more effective and efficient government information and services such as increased speed of transaction, greater convenience and better organisation and access to information.

The considerable effort and resource invested generally by governments and in particular their e-government programmes, is either fully justified or a potential waste, depending on which side of the debate about the digital divide proves to be closer to the truth. Evaluating which side of the debate applies, with a particular focus on the pivotal role of e-government, is the subject of this paper. In order to avoid the significant time and cost implications of an evaluation based on a large population such as the UK, the approach taken was akin to that of a laboratory experiment. This typically involves looking at a problem in microcosm, under ideal conditions and drawing conclusions which may then be applied to the wider world. The choice of the Isle of Man (IOM), therefore, suited this type of evaluation particularly given the healthy characteristics of its society and economy and the fact that it facilitated the assessment of information at the level of a population while retaining the dimensions of a large representative sample. Its cultural and historical similarities render it almost a perfect microcosm of the UK as evidenced by the number of research and pilot projects undertaken there by UK organisations (Rattner, 2002). In his article in The Economist about Singapore, the “Internet island site” Symonds (2000), could have been describing the IOM when he said, “small and rich, with a well rewarded, entrepreneurial civil service and a political leadership with a liking for big strategies, it is an e-government natural”. A “pessimist” result from this research could have serious or potentially damning implications for some governments, including their approach to and expenditure on e-government. Because of this, in addition to choosing an ideal research location, care has been taken not only to survey a broad spectrum of representative data about the IOM e-government programme, but also to determine its quality and international pedigree, through comparing it with a recognised benchmark. Paper structure The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. A description of the IOM economy, demographics and e-government programme establishes a general context for the subject under investigation. The approach used for collecting data commences with a review of literature, which is split into two sections: e-government and digital divide related. It is followed by a chapter on “Methodology” defining the research paradigm and the IOM survey characteristics. A “Results” section describes the outcome from the survey of e-government on the IOM and its quality testing through comparing its characteristics, though clearly not its size and scope, with a similar one carried out in the US Federal Government. A comparison of national level macro data, including internet connectivity levels, for the IOM and UK reveals the paper’s key results.

An “Analysis and discussion” section is followed by a concluding chapter which discusses the overall result and its implications. Diagrammatically, the sequence and phasing of the principal activities upon which this paper is based are as shown in Figure 1. The Isle of Man: an overview The IOM, situated in the centre of the British Isles, is an internally self-governing dependent territory of the Crown, with a population of just over 76,000 residents, which is not part of the UK. Tynwald, the Island’s Parliament, which has claims to be the longest continuous parliamentary assembly in the World, makes its own laws and oversees all internal administration, fiscal and social policies. The Island has a special economic relationship with the European Union which facilitates free trade, but is neither a member nor an associate member.

Digital divide and e-government 115

The IOM economy The IOM is a politically democratic and socially stable environment, with a prosperous economy. GDP, which for 2001 totalled £973 million, breaks down as shown in Figure 2. As an externally focussed, services-based economy, the IOM depends on both the business environment in its immediate vicinity and the wider world. This dependency is reflected in the government’s shaping of policies and programmes including e-government. E-government on the IOM The importance to the IOM of facilitating the growth of additional businesses sectors to finance is reflected in a dynamic e-government strategy. The Island’s Legislature enacted the IOM (2000), which put electronic and paper-based transactions on the same footing, as well as removing any legal impediments to the use of electronic communications with public authorities. This Act provides the legal endorsement which is essential to help electronic commerce and governance to flourish. A modern telecommunications infrastructure has facilitated the implementation of Europe’s first mobile telephony 3G pilot (Rattner, 2002). SEQUENCE (#) (1)

(2)

(3a)

(4)

(5)

IOM Survey e-Government e-Gov quality Questionnaire IOM Background

Benchmark Literature Review

(3b)

IOM:UK Macro

Review Digital Divide

DD Comparisons

Barriers

Figure 1. Paper structure

PHASES Establishing Context

Defining Criteria

Collecting Data Analysing Results

TG 1,2

Professional and Scientific

Isle of Man GDP 2000 -2001 15%

116

Tourism 6%

41%

7% 6% 1% 19%

5%

Manufacturing Construction Agricultural and Fisheries Public Administration Other Services

Figure 2.

Source: IOM treasury (www.treasury.gov.im) and Ratner (2002)

E-government and the digital divide: literature review Literature on e-government covers a wide range of related topics such as funding, drivers and the role of Government portals. In contrast, a much greater body of literature on the subject of the digital divide has a more singular focus on the causes of it and suggested remedies for them. E-government – background From the mid-1990s onwards, literature records an increased emphasis on the need for a more strategic approach to e-government and also on the external, constituent serving, aspects and associated benefits of it. Providing ever increasing online services to the general public is considered to be a “holy grail” by many governments. In addition to highlighting the scarcity of research about e-government, Gronlund (2002, p. 1-2) describes it as being about changes in two related but distinct fields: First, it is about changes in the internal government operations that come about as IT is used for automation, co-operation, integration among government agencies and as tools assisting in decision processes. Second, while such IT use has been going on for a couple of decades, the current spark of interest in the field is most of all due to the fact that now also external operations are transformed, as information and services increasingly become available on the internet.

Gronlund (2002, p. 24) further identifies the pioneering role and recognition of the US programme as a model adopted by many governments: . . . as so often when it concerns political initiatives concerning IT use, electronic government has its origins in the US dating back to the early 1990s. The ideas were rapidly copied by the European Union and have since been forming political agendas in Europe in parallel with the US development.

The EU initiative e-Europe entitled “An information society for all” (Cullen, 2001) establishes a new action plan for Europe including also a social vision where there is some place for users (who must be educated) and government online The benefits

which e-government and e-governance can bring are mentioned by Norris (2001, pp. 112-13), who relates that the main potential for e-governance lies in strengthening policy effectiveness, political accountability and to a lesser extent, public participation. This growing external bias and the benefits which can be derived from e-government is causing governments to take a more strategic approach to it. E-government – drivers A recurrent theme in literature about e-government is the importance of technology as a key driver to facilitating its proliferation in society. Gronlund (2002, p. 19), puts technology within a wider context in stating that it takes place within a changing governance context where technology itself may be only one driver and government must redefine itself for a world of e-governance, as this world is being shaped by a variety of forces. Norris (2001, pp. 123–6), puts a stronger emphasis on the role of technology as a driver for e-governance, which has developed furthest in long established democratic states. She maintains that technology diffusion has proved the single most significant predictor of the distribution of functions of e-governance and that much of the impact of socio-economic development comes not from patterns of literacy and education per se but with its close association with technological development. A consensus regarding the main drivers for e-government highlights a number of important factors, for example, the role of technology, services to the citizen, cost and efficiency, political/legislative requirements and constituent demand. E-government – barriers While there is an evident degree of agreement among academics about what the most important drivers are for e-government, when it comes to the discussion about barriers the debate is somewhat more controversial. The views of Symonds (2000), writing about a survey on government and the internet, concerning the role of technology, would appear to contradict those of Norris. His comments also resonate the general debate between the “optimists” and “pessimists” about the causes of the digital divide. Symonds states that survey after survey have found that the main barriers to access are the fear that technology is too expensive, that computers are too complicated and that somehow the whole thing is not really relevant or useful. While the “optimists” argue that one by one, each of those perfectly legitimate anxieties is being overcome, he points out that on the contrary, PCs can be bought for as little as $300, access charges are lowering and non-PC devices can now provide access to the web. Cullen (2001, pp. 312-14), writes that in the twenty-first century access for the citizen should exist especially in the developed world. While this assumption is generally accepted, she points out that it is important to remember two key points: (1) Technology does not in itself solve social and economic discrepancies within societies, e.g. India. (2) New technologies do not necessarily replace the old. They may coexist. There is wide discussion about many of the barriers to e-government, but literature on the subject appears to have a broad consensus about the issues of cost, limited resources, funding, cultural issues and resistance to change. In addition, trust, security and privacy issues, which are related to trust, are emphasized.

Digital divide and e-government 117

TG 1,2

118

E-government – products and services Literature about the underpinning provided by technology and telecommunications-related infrastructure to e-government often refers to the importance of some technology products. Smart cards, personal identification numbers (PINs), and public key infrastructure (PKI) and their usage in conjunction with the internet in the provision of services to the public are seen as being very important. Infrastructure for e-government is closely related to the internet and the emerging usage of technologies such as smart cards and PINs. E-government – funding The funding of e-government is critical to its success and although it can sometimes occur as a function of savings, additional costs are often involved. Funding for e-government whether derived through savings and/or direct expenditure, is directed typically at specific programmes or through some form of cross-functionality as is the case in co-operation between the public and private sectors. E-government – the role of government portals The current most overt manifestation of G2C e-government is the government portal. Symonds (2000) lists the four stages involved in establishing an e-government portal: (1) This stage, which is where most governments have got to, involves departments posting one way information about themselves via a government portal. (2) This stage allows two-way communication where the citizen can provide information about themselves, such as change of address. (3) This stage usually supports functions such as licence renewal or fine payment. (4) This stage is a portal that integrates a complete range of government services based on need and function and not government department, for example, Singapore’s e-citizen centre. Some of the key issues stressed by literature concerning portals are content, which involves knowledge management, branding, availability and support services, including “help-desks”. E-government – projects and implementations There is a very wide range of projects involved in the process of e-government but the implementation of support infrastructure and effective government portals are seen as priorities for most post-industrial modern administrations. Harvey (2002) in discussing the UK e-Envoy’s pledges, references the concern of many in government leadership positions about the money being spent on e-government and that most of these services consist of simple information presented on web sites, commonly referred to as “brochure-ware”. He also references the NOA report “Better public services through government” which noted that only 3 per cent of the services available allow users to apply for grants or benefits online. The report also focussed on the poor uptake of online government and warned that public money would be wasted unless people were encouraged to use the online route. Ari-Veikko (2002, pp. 272-3), relates the background to the type of projects envisaged by the British Government for their e-government programme, based on a

ten-point list of what they consider to be vital in terms of products and services for electronic government. Appropriate infrastructure and an effective portal for their e-government programmes appear to be pre-eminent in the priorities of governments like the UK. E-government – summary An important difference between government and business is that e-government is not just e-business on a larger scale. Representing the public, they have reason to be concerned about the digital divide because unlike businesses who can, by and large, choose their customers, governments cannot. E-government is central to the debate about the digital divide and is the subject of continuing controversy about its role in narrowing the gap. Many offer particular solutions to the problem such as Cane (2002), who argues that broadband access is the essential prerequisite to enabling governments, through e-government, to bridge the divide and that Britain is lagging behind its European neighbours in this regard. In addition, the pivotal role played by the US Government in pioneering e-government and the adoption of the approach and models involved by other governments, especially in Europe, is emphasized. The factors outlined in Table I, which are organised into a series of clusters are emphasized by literature as underpinning e-government activity.

Cluster

Key factors

Drivers

Required by legislation Efficiency and cost Technology Service to constituents Constituent demand Limited resources/funding Trust Security and privacy Cultural resistance to change Telecommunications/internet Smart-cards PKI/PINS By specific programme By savings Cross functionality, e.g. public/private sector Content Branding Functionality/availability Knowledge management Infrastructure Portal Branding Impact from e-government Impact on traditional barriers Future expectations

Obstacles/barriers

Products and services Funding Portal

Projects and implementations E-government impact of digital divide

Digital divide and e-government 119

Table I.

TG 1,2

120

These factors provided the theoretical foundation for the questionnaire used to survey e-government on the IOM. The digital divide – background In contrast with e-government, there is an important body of literature and associated research about the digital divide, its global scope and the underlying causes of it. Norris (2001, p. 4), defines the scope of the digital divide in the following way: . The global divide. Internet access gap between industrialised and developing countries. . The social divide. The gap between information rich and poor in each nation. . The democratic divide. The difference between those who do and do not use digital resources to participate in public life. Norris adds that the debate is thrown wide open as: . . . genre scrambling technologies, converging broadband access, the internet, telephony and TV promise to alter conventional forms of content delivery. Even if the basic digital divide should gradually narrow over time it is naı¨ve to believe that this can overturn fundamental inequalities of social stratification that are endemic throughout post industrial societies, any more than it is likely to overcome world poverty. The issue of the underlying causes of the digital divide has given rise to debate and disagreement in terms of those causes which are important, or the order of their importance or indeed if some of them are causes at all.

The digital divide – causes Several authors attribute the digital divide to factors such as the degree of proliferation of technology, while others emphasize social causes such as ethnic background and education. Bonfadelli (2002), for example, writing about Switzerland, stresses education, or the lack of it, as a leading factor in the way the internet is accessed and used. In contrast, Compaine (2001), highlights communications for which perhaps over 25 years, new ways will become mainstream and prevalent. James(2000, pp. 387-8), points to the obsolescence of PCs as contributing factors in the digital divide debate. In particular, he says that the practice of software companies to issue constant new versions of proprietary software is causing an epidemic of functionally obsolete computers. Social causes of the divide such as race and income are in Kennard’s (2002, pp. 196 – 7) view key factors to be addressed. The ongoing debate about the divide is also revealed by Lentz (2000, pp. 376-7), commenting about literacy and access to technology. He considers that the framing of the digital divide problem is a product of a research agenda that is aligned with a national e-commerce initiative that promotes the future promise of a high-technology economy, which supposedly requires a high-skilled workforce with digital literacy. However, “there is growing dispute about the real promise of the so-called high-tech economy for every day working Americans”. Schement (2002, p. 304) and Powell (2002, p. 309), question the importance of cost and assumptions about ethnic minorities as factors to explain the divide and further suggest that the basis of government expenditure on it may be misplaced. Schement continues by stating that:

. . . many researchers and policy makers see these gaps more simply, most of the groups affected can be classified into a simple category – women and minorities – while the cause appears to be quite simply income. This picture, simple, familiar and comfortable is also wrong.

A fundamental and intractable dilemma for governments is that those who most need government services are also those who are most likely to be classified as likely to be the least connected to the internet, “the have nots” (McConnaughey, 1997, p. 4). In order to determine a consensus among the authors reviewed as to the causes of the digital divide and the barriers to internet connectivity they represent, 13 of them were selected for analysis from a panel of 31. The basis for selection was the definitive nature of each author’s arguments and their ordering of the relative importance of the barriers discussed. The outcome of this analysis is shown graphically in Figure 3. This graph shows that based on an analysis of the work of some of the leading academics in the field, a consensus emerges indicating education, followed by GDP per capita/income and age as being the three principal causal factors which underlie the digital divide.

Digital divide and e-government 121

Methodology The aim of this research is to evaluate if having a strong economic and stable social environment coupled with investing in a world-class e-government programme narrows the digital divide in the IOM and by inference other similar societies, to a measurable degree. The hypothesis is that in the IOM, the connectivity level to the internet which determines the extent of a society’s digital divide are not increased by reduced barriers to it through having, for example, relatively high levels of education and income in addition to a modern e-government programme. The ontological and epistemological stance is realist and positivist and uses a case study approach to the subject matter researched. The IOM background, demographics and economy were reviewed in order to establish a general context for the evaluation of the hypothesis. A review of literature on e-government and the digital divide provided a theoretical foundation for the data collection approach used. The data used for the evaluation came from two sources: (1) a survey of e-government carried out on the IOM; and (2) macro level government statistical and census data for the IOM to the UK.

15 10 5 G rp . Et hn ic

/In

fra

n Te ch .

tio ca Lo

A ge

G en de r

G D P/ In co m

0 Ed uc at io n

No. of Authors

Principal Barriers to Connectivity 20

Figure 3. Principal barriers to internet connectivity

TG 1,2

122

In order to measure the quality of the IOM e-government programme, the characteristics and features identified through its survey data are compared to a similar US secondary data which exists in the form of a quantitative survey. The Meta (2000) research is based on the US Federal Government which is widely regarded as having a “best of breed” programme. Although of relatively large scope, the US programme is generally deemed to represent a good model for successful e-government implementation and it has, therefore, often been emulated by both small and large governments alike, especially in Europe (Gronlund, 2002, p. 24). Given the scarcity of similar research instruments (Gronlund, 2002, p. 2) the Meta survey was further indicated as the best available benchmark to test the characteristics and quality of the IOM programme. The second source of information was macro national level statistical government and related survey data. The data used facilitated comparisons of the levels of internet connectivity which obtain between the IOM and the UK as well factors such as population, age and income levels. Sampling procedure and research instruments IOM e-government programme data. The source for data on the IOM e-government programme is made up of the equivalent of a population, as constituted by all the department heads who collectively have a direct interest and overall responsibility for e-government and its implementation on the Island. The questionnaire used in face to face interviews with them, over a period of a week, is derived from the review of literature on e-government. Over 75 per cent of the questions resulting from the literature review used for the IOM survey, corresponded with the bulk of those in the US benchmark. Because of this and to facilitate comparison with it, the design of the IOM questionnaire used in this research was modelled on the corresponding Meta one. The resulting IOM questionnaire had forty questions all of which, excepting one open-ended one, were based on closed nominal, ordinal and interval scales. Macro level statistical data used for IOM and UK comparison The benchmarking of the survey data on e-government tested the quality of the IOM e-government programme and indirectly validated its standing in terms of other programmes. It also indirectly provided underpinning and context for the comparison of their national level statistics with similar data in the UK. The national level IOM data reflects the total population and is also available electronically from government sources. The principal source used was the IOM, 2001 census, which includes demographic and internet connectivity information. Census data on the independent variables represented by the barriers of education, GDP per capita/income and age was compared with similar government data from the UK. The independent variable representing IOM internet connectivity levels was compared to triangulated research instruments containing similar UK data, such as the Kitchen (2000) survey and the NSO report (Cooper-Green, 2002) which incorporates the UK expenditure and food survey (EFS) and the National Statistics Omnibus survey. Results Because of the close correspondence and identical structure of its survey questions with the bulk of those of the Meta (2000) survey, the quality of the IOM programme was assessed through simple quantitative comparisons with the US benchmark.

Each question surveyed respondents about the characteristics of their e-government programme in quantitative terms, e.g. from “1” for not applicable to “6” signifying a very high rating. The outcome of this assessment is signified by an “X” in one of three columns in Table II, depending on whether the IOM result rated for quality as better (I . M), equal (I ¼ M) or less (I , M)) than the Meta (2000) benchmark. Table II shows that out of a total of 24 questions in the above table, i.e. excluding the “IOM e-Gov. impact-digital divide” cluster, 18 (see “Total comparisons”) or 75 per cent, representing the bulk of them, corresponded exactly with, and were thus measurable against, the Meta benchmark. This result represents, therefore, a broad conformance and equivalence between the characteristics of the IOM e-government programme and those surveyed in the US Federal Government. Weaknesses in the IOM programme were identified in the areas of technical infrastructure and general readiness for e-government while they scored well in terms of the use of branding techniques for their portal and having sufficiency of funds for planned projects.

Cluster

Questions

Drivers

Required by legislation Efficiency and cost Technology Service to constituents Constituent demand Limited resources/funding Trust Security and privacy Cultural resistance to change Telecommunications/internet Smart-cards PKI/PINS Technical infrastructure E-government readiness By specific programme By savings Cross functionality, e.g. public/private sector Content Branding Functionality/availability Knowledge management Infrastructure Portal Branding Impact from e-government Impact on traditional barriers Future expectations Total comparisons (18)

Obstacles/barriers

Products and services

Funding

Portal

Projects and implementations E-government impact of digital divide (no Meta comparison)

Digital divide and e-government 123

Comparison IOM (I) to Meta (M) I.M I¼M I,M X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X – – – 4

– – – 9

– – – 5

Table II. Comparison of the key factors affecting e-government

TG 1,2

124

The overall result from the benchmark was that the IOM has an e-government programme that is comparable with and in some respects, better positioned for e-government, e.g. the IOM (2000) than the US and, therefore, by inference, the UK. The final cluster of survey questions were specific to the IOM, i.e. no comparison to the Meta survey. They focussed on the impact on internet connectivity that the department heads expected their e-government activities to achieve. Their expectations are shown in Figure 4 where a rating of “5” signifies maximum impact. This result confirms a marked positive overall expectation, in terms of the effectiveness of the IOM e-government programmes in addressing internet connectivity. This result also reflects the prevalence of an optimistic mindset within the IOM Government as to the nature of their “digital divide”. An additional series of questions concerning the specific barriers which are expected to impact internet connectivity on the IOM gave results which are shown graphically in Figure 5. The “optimist” mindset continued to be evident in the result on barriers, with cost of equipment seen as the most important barrier, followed closely by low levels of education. Income levels in an environment with 0.6 per cent unemployment is predictably seen as less of a barrier. 2.4

Older People (Over 65) 2

Children (Under 16) Female

3.6

Male

3.6

Generally – 2.7

Specifically for your programs

Figure 4. IOM e-government impact on internet connectivity

3.7

Generally – Due to all programs 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

3.6

Cost of equipment/connection 3

Absence of children in the home 1.4

Rural Location – City/Town

Figure 5. Effect of barriers to internet connectivity on the IOM

4

2.1

Income (Less than 12,000 PA)

2.3 3.3

Low level of Education 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Summarized, the main results of the interviews and the comparison with the Meta (2000) survey, used to benchmark them are: . The IOM Government has a good standard of e-government strategy and implementation. . The necessary structural and legislative e-government enabling factors are in place. . Comparison with the Meta (2000) survey benchmark revealed some weaknesses in the IOM e-government programme in the areas of infrastructure, general readiness for e-government and the approach to the usage of knowledge management tools. . The IOM Government expects its e-government programme to achieve a material level of narrowing of the digital divide on the Island.

Digital divide and e-government 125

With a well-established e-government programme, a stable, educated society and strong economy, the IOM ought to compare well in terms of internet connectivity levels with most post industrial modern societies including the UK, with which is has so much in common. In order to test if this was the case, the macro-level data which impacts these levels was reviewed in conjunction with that of the UK. Macro level data for the IOM and UK IOM macro level factors identified in literature were compared to corresponding data for the UK, in order to determine the relative degree of similarity or advantage in terms of barriers to internet connectivity, which obtains between the two entities. The age factor Table III contrasts the age structures of the populations of the UK and the IOM for, 2001. Table III shows a close correspondence in age patterns between the IOM and the UK, including for those over 60 years of age, who represent 22 per cent of the population in the IOM, compared to 20 per cent in the case of the UK. The GDP/income factor GDP per capita in the IOM is reported at £13,022, or the equivalent of $20,184, based on an average dollar rate for 2001 of $1.55 to the £ (sterling). The corresponding level of GDP per capita in the UK is $21,316 (International Finance Center, 2002), which is 5 per cent higher than the IOM. The current level of IOM unemployment, which at 0.6 per cent (Rattner, 2002), is a fraction of the corresponding level in the UK, should however dilute this

Age IOM total percentage UK total percentage

0-14

15-29

30-44

45-59

60-74

.74

Total

18 19

17 19

23 23

20 19

14 13

8 7

100 100

Sources: IOM Census (2001), Table 7. UK; Ramona (2002)

Table III. IOM and UK population age distribution 2001 (percentages)

TG 1,2

126

small difference. This is because, it signifies that greater proportions of the IOM population are in employment and, therefore, have secure income, than in the UK. The education factor The level of education of the general population is relatively high, with 63 per cent having academic qualifications at the GCE/GCSE level or higher per the IOM, 2001 Census. The corresponding level in the UK at 55 per cent represents an advantage in this regard for the IOM (www.dfes.gov.ukstatistics/db/vol/v0302/index.html). Internet connectivity The proportion of the total population which is connected to the internet per the IOM Census (2001, Vol. 2, Table 50), is 50 per cent, while connectivity of households (IOM Census, p. 11) is 40.8 per cent. The corresponding level of connectivity in the UK for the general population is 64 per cent (Kitchen, 2000) and 62 per cent per the NSO report (Cooper-Green, 2002) which incorporates the UK EFS and the National Statistics Omnibus survey. For households in the UK, the level is 46 per cent (Cooper-Green, 2002) and 40.8 per cent in the IOM. Average household occupancy rates may partially account for the 5.2 per cent connectivity disparity which for the IOM is two occupants per household (IOM Census, Table 48) and 2.8 occupants per household in the case of the UK (e-Envoy, 2002, Table 3, p. 11). Table IV provides a summary of the comparison between the IOM and the UK. A relative advantage of one entity over the other is highlighted in italics. This summary shows an overall advantage for the IOM in terms of the barriers underlying the digital divide, coupled with a significant shortfall of 12-14 per cent for internet connectivity on the Island, compared to the UK. The implications of such a clear result that favours the viewpoint of the pessimistic body of literature on the digital divide may be a catalyst for analysis and discussion well beyond the scope of this paper. Analysis and discussion The question researched in this study was: does a strong economic and stable social environment coupled with investing in a world-class e-government programme, influence narrowing the digital divide in the IOM and by inference other similar societies, to a measurable degree? The IOM, as a small relatively affluent, modern society, has some particular advantages over societies like the UK, which favour the implementation of

Table IV.

Factor

Favours the IOM

Comparison outcome

Favours the UK

Age GDP/income Education Employment Social/political factors

No No Yes Yes Yes

Similar Similar IOM higher level IOM higher level IOM less challenges

No No No No No

e-government programmes and promoting the general proliferation of connectivity to the internet. These advantages help to explain why their e-government programme compared favourably with that of the Federal Government of the USA. Speed of execution due to the operational proximity of central and local government should also enable progress. A supportive environment, a “best of breed” e-government programme and high levels of education should, if the “optimists” are correct, lead to similar or higher levels of internet connectivity there than in the UK. A gap of 12-14 per cent less internet connectivity than in the UK, however, confirms the “pessimists” view about the digital divide as obtaining in the IOM. The significance of this connectivity disparity is not appreciably mitigated by factors such as sampling errors, which for surveys like Kitchen (2000) are typically between 1 and 2 per cent. This overall result does not auger well for the expectation of the IOM Government that their modern and proactive approach to e-government should have an identifiable and material positive mitigating impact on this divide. If this was the case, and the optimistic argument was correct resulting in similar levels of connectivity for both entities, e-government activity could have manifested itself as the expected identifiable, if marginal, increment in connectivity levels over the UK. Although the impact of barrier levels and e-government have not individually been assessed in this research, the significant overall connectivity gap between the IOM and the UK would indicate the hypothesis of this paper as being sustained. One of the key implications of the “pessimist” position in the digital divide debate, is that misjudgement of its causes can end up costing significant amounts of public funds. It may be significant also that this pessimistic implication is stressed by more contemporary contributors to the debate, such as Powell (2002), Harvey (2002) and Schement (2002), who have the benefit of being able to observe Government efforts in general and more specifically e-government programmes, at a more mature stage in their development. The “pessimists” maintain that one of the principal causes of the digital divide is that the inequalities and complexities that exist in society cannot be addressed by technology, as claimed by the “optimists”. Their position would appear to be vindicated by recent examples in both the G2C and G2B areas in the UK. Notable among these is the disappointing public usage of on-line income tax and value-added tax returns, despite relatively high levels of government investment and promotion (Harvey, 2002). The pessimistic argument has a possible shortcoming in that having dismissed the position of the “optimists” they do not appear to propose alternative solutions. In addition, there does not yet appear to be academic research or empirical data in sufficient locations and volume to definitively vindicate their position. This may explain why Governments generally and the IOM in particular continue to reflect the optimistic position in their approach to the digital divide, since it implies that their programmes can be based on clear problems and solutions to them. While this shortcoming does not invalidate this research, its “pessimist” result may, however, be viewed as indicative, because it is based on the particular case of the IOM and at a particular moment in time. The microscopic reasons which contribute to the relatively low levels of internet connectivity in a society like the IOM may be viable candidates for further investigation. This would be justified, not out of academic interest alone, but more importantly in order to determine if the significant sums of

Digital divide and e-government 127

TG 1,2

128

stakeholder money which the IOM Government in common with many others spend yearly on their e-government programmes, is well directed and invested. That such research has not as yet been undertaken may be due to current expenditure being viewed as socially justifiable in terms of digitally enfranchising the “have nots”. Less altruistic motives such as savings and efficiency are, however, not necessarily incompatible with such considerations for governments like the IOM who rely on scarce investment resources to achieve their goals. Pending such investigation, this result can add to the limited body of research examining the factors underlying the phenomenon of e-government and the digital divide and suggest a model for undertaking it. This model is akin to that of a laboratory where small island environments like the IOM facilitate discovery through allowing research at the level of a total population while having the dimensions and characteristics of a large sample. Summary and conclusions The principal objective of this study was to evaluate the IOM e-government strategy and implementation and test a “pessimist” hypothesis about the digital divide through comparison with the UK. A “pessimist” result from the research undertaken could have serious or indeed potentially damning implications for some governments. In this case comparison was based on the main barriers to internet connectivity of education, age and GDP/income, in line with the “optimists” position on the causes of the digital divide. The outcome was that while the IOM population had a similar age structure and GPD/income to the UK, the IOM level of secondary education and general social conditions are better. This, together with the quality of the IOM e-government programme, from the standpoint of the optimistic view of the digital divide, should have resulted in a similar or greater level of internet connectivity there, than in the UK. The test of internet access, however, posed something of a dilemma in that the IOM trailed the UK connectivity level by between 12 and 14 per cent; a diametrically opposite result to that expected based on the optimistic view point. This outcome points to some fundamental questions for the IOM Government and those with similar e-government and digital divide challenges. The similarities in terms of barriers with the UK points to e-government as one identifiable variable which could and is expected to account for connectivity improvements in the IOM. This outcome of this research, however, would render that expectation as being in need of reassessment. Current connectivity levels mean that legacy systems and processes may have to be perpetuated indefinitely. This will at best delay many of the benefits and savings associated with e-government, leading to potentially increased stakeholder costs and inconvenience. A societal saturation point may underlie this result, whereby once internet connectivity has reached a certain level in particular environments or social structural mixes, diminishing returns on incremental investment to increase it may apply. This situation may point to the existence of another internet averse segment of society who could perhaps, using the terminology of the debate, be aptly termed, the “will nots”. Future research, perhaps based on a realist ontological paradigm, using, in the case of the IOM, selective qualitative interviews, will probe this and similar questions about the digital divide.

Governments may use the result of this evaluation to beneficially inform or predicate the way they direct their future investments in e-government. Those who have taken a minimalist approach to providing for example “brochure-ware” via their portals; stage one and two as identified by Symonds (2000), may choose to ignore it. Those however, with more ambitious plans for e-government and narrowing the digital divide, involving potentially the investment of significant public funds, may be unwise to do so. While this research may provide insights about the debate between the ‘optimists and the “pessimists” it also raises new questions which could be the subject of future research. There is the question of the “will nots” those who “have” but prefer not, to avail themselves of the benefits of using the internet. In addition, spending on e-government has a significant internal component that normally would not be expected to directly affect constituent use of the internet. Identifying those other activities of government outside the purely technological, which can impact internet access, such as education, could also increase understanding of this area. Further investigation and experience will no doubt bring benefits and should definitively confirm if government investment in e-government and resolving the issue of the digital divide is indeed money well spent or the continuation of “optimistic” folly. References Ari-Veikko, A. (2002), Strategic Knowledge Management in Local Government, Idea Publishing Group, Hershey, PA. Bonfadelli, H. (2002), “The internet and knowledge gaps”, European Journal of Communication, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 65-84. Cane, A. (2002), “Viewpoint on broadband access”, The Financial Times, 23 January, p. II. Cooper-Green, E. (2002), “Internet access”, NSO, 11 December. Compaine, M. (2001), The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?, MIT Press Sourcebooks, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Cullen, R. (2001), “Addressing the digital divide”, Online Information Review, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 311-20. Detlor, B. and Finn, K. (2002), Towards a Framework for Government Portal Design, Idea Publishing Group, Hershey, PA. e-Envoy (2002), “Mapping e-commerce”, available at: www.e-envoy.gov.uk/estatmap/estatmap. htm Gronlund, A. (2002), Electronic Government: Design, Applications and Management, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA. Harvey, F. (2002), “e-Envoys pledge”, The Financial Times, 5 April, p. 4. IOM (2000), Electronic Transactions Act, Isle of Man. IOM Census (2001), Vol. 2, available at: www.gov.im/census International Finance Center (2002), “Country fact sheet – UK”, available at: www.statistics.gov. uk/international finance centre/archive.asp. James, J. (2000), Low Cost Computing and Related Ways of Overcoming the Global Digital Divide, Tilburg University, Tilburg. Katz, J. and Aspden, P. (1997), “Motivations for and barriers to internet usage: results of a national public opinion survey”, Internet Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 170-88.

Digital divide and e-government 129

TG 1,2

130

Kennard, W. (2002), Equality in the Information Age, MIT Press Sourcebooks, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kitchen, P. (2000), Can’t surf, won’t surf the digital divide, which online in association with MORI. Lentz, R. (2000), “The e-volution of the digital divide in the US: a mayhem of computing metrics”, Info, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 355-77. McConnaughey, J. (1997), The Digital Divide: A Survey of Information Haves and Have-nots in 1997. Falling Through the New II New Data on the Digital Divide, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Washington, DC. Meta Group (2000), E-government Multi-client Study Findings, Meta Group Inc., Stamford, CT. Norris, P. (2001), Digital Divide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Powell, A. (2002), Falling Through the Gap, Whatever Happened to the Digital Divide, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Ramona, I. (2002), “UK national statistics monthly”, Monthly Digest of Statistics, No. 676. Rattner, J. (2002), “3G pilot proves a revealing example”, The Financial Times, 28 March, p. 21. Schement, J. (2002), Of Gaps by Which Democracy We Measure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Symonds, M. (2000), “A survey of government and the internet island site”, The Economist, 24 June, p. 16. Techeschlok, C. (2001), “Rising to meet the digital challenge in rural communities, a growing divide”, Rural Research Report, Illinois Institute of Rural Affairs, Macomb, IL, Vol. 12, No. 4. Further reading Timmins, N. (1999), “E-government guide launched”, The Financial Times, 18 December. About the author George Ryder is a Managing Director of 1st Advisory Ltd which provides services centring around analysing and understanding business strategy. In particular, 1st Advisory Ltd advises on the use of outsourcing as a vehicle for achieving corporate goals. George Ryder can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm

Assessing the impact of e-government on providers and users of the IS function A structuration perspective

Assessing the impact of e-government 131

Zorlu Senyucel Department of Business Information Technology, Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester, UK Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this research is to consider empirical perspectives relative to e-government agenda, highlighting the critical need for understanding mutual relationships between the information systems (IS) function providers (supplier of IS services) and IS function users (service departments) in UK local authorities. Design/methodology/approach – The empirical research was guided by an extensive literature search and consisted of ten randomly-selected case studies from the sampling frame of UK local authorities. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with ten head of IS, ten IS project managers and with ten designated e-government managers. Interview findings were triangulated with data collected from document analysis carried out at each site. Documents included Society of Information Technology Management reports, government reports such as UK Online, ODPM, DETR, Cabinet Office reports and various other financial reports. The overall structure for each interview was provided by a standard case study protocol derived from the “active agents” framework. Findings – Provides information about local authorities, highlighting the changing relationship between users and providers of information services in delivering e-government. Introduces the “active agents” framework as a tool to operationalise structuration theory. Research limitations/implications – A useful research for policy makers and researchers that are interested in the changing patterns of public service delivery and provider-user relations in IS. Originality/value – The paper offers “active agents” framework, based on structuration theory, as a powerful tool for interpreting changing relations between users and providers of the IS function in local authorities. Keywords Government, Communication technologies, Information systems, Local authorities, Information services, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction It is argued that the highly bureaucratic, paternalistic and inflexible hierarchical government structures, established over a century ago, have failed to keep pace with changes in society, particularly with rising citizen expectations and a more competitive business environment (Bentley, 2001). UK local authorities (LAs) are criticised for being inaccessible, unresponsive and essentially out of touch with citizen demands (Nye, 1999). There is a need for LAs to undergo structural changes in order accommodate changing citizen needs and persistent business transformations (Burn and Robins, 2003). The UK Government announced its modernisation agenda in a White Paper: Modern Local Government, In Touch With People (DETR, 1998). This paper proposed a direction for radical reforms in local government, a key part of which is to implement

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy Vol. 1 No. 2, 2007 pp. 131-144 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1750-6166 DOI 10.1108/17506160710751968

TG 1,2

132

e-government in LAs. At its simplest, e-government is about providing citizens with public services and essential information, using a variety of information and communication technologies (Burn and Robins, 2003). This technology focus is located within broader aims of improving public service delivery by decreasing levels of bureaucracy and increasing flexibility, efficiency and opportunities for citizen interaction. Although the Society of Information Technology Management (SOCITM Insight, 2002) and UK Online (2003) reported that e-government implementations were well developed by the end of 2003, many LAs still appear to be struggling to make the necessary transformations to this electronic service delivery infrastructure (Fountain, 2003). The modernisation agenda promotes the use of electronic information systems (IS) in LAs as a means of adapting traditional service delivery to a more customer-focused, on-demand environment (Hoff et al., 2000). Conventional organisational wisdom would delegate responsibility for this IS-inspired transition and adaptation to the IS function (ISF) (Laudon and Laudon, 2000). The ISF have the potential not only to increase the speed of information processing, but also to support new communication channels between providers and their users through the development, integration and re-organisation of information resources. Relationships enacted through changed communication topography of joined-up systems could lead to new political and organisational structures (Peristeras et al., 2002). With due regard for the dangers of concentrating heavily on technology it is therefore important to appreciate the role and potential of the ISF in e-government facilitation. However, to date, relatively little is known about the role of the ISF for e-government facilitation in LAs. Existing literature fails to cover the relationship between the ISF providers and their users in the public sector organisations in the context of structural transformation. In almost all previous technology enabled organisational transformation studies, any in-depth enquiry into how public sector manages structural and technological transformation has remained relatively limited (Tan and Pan, 2003). Some studies have considered structural change in LAs from the legal-institutional perspective (Wilson and Game, 1998). However, they tend to focus on state transitions ignoring the complex, continual and subtle ways in which LAs evolve and the roles of people and technology during the change process (Fountain, 2003). More recently advances in the adoption of technology in the public sector have brought with them more critical perspectives focusing on citizens and their needs (Ho, 2002). This in effect shifts interest from the traditional bureaucratic structures, which prioritises internal efficiency, departmentalisation, functionality, top-down management, hierarchical communication and control, to a new e-government agenda that emphasises organisational flexibility, efficiency in service delivery and partnerships (Bozeman, 2000). There is, however, a lack of clarity on how this shift should be facilitated which makes it difficult for LAs to derive a clear vision of the structural and technical changes required for effective e-government facilitation (Wired-Gov, 2003). LAs are complex organisations that operate both as administrators and providers of basic services in their environment (Greenwood et al., 1980). Within a common legislative umbrella, set by central government, every LA has evolved its own structure and service delivery systems, but there is considerable commonality. LA structures have been based traditionally on a bureaucratic model that emphasizes

decentralisation and specialisation in a mechanical and pre-planned approach (Nye, 1999). Public service delivery and administration has tended to be organised in the same bureaucratic manner, which potentially generates inefficiencies and inflexibility in management systems where organisational actors, their roles and tasks are locked into vertical hierarchies (Bentley, 2001). Local government researchers have concentrated heavily on transparency, security, democracy and the digital divide since the late 1990 s mainly through a legal-institutional lens that emphasises the legal framework within which local government operates (Greenwood et al., 1980). In order to appreciate the extent of the transformational challenge facing LAs attention must also be given to organisational complexities, variation in structures and the impact of change on individuals. The shortage of research in structural and technological change in public sector can be interpreted as a theoretical and empirical gap that needs to be filled. The aim of this paper is to help filling this gap by focusing on the roles of the users and providers of the ISF and technological transformation of LAs in e-government context.

Assessing the impact of e-government 133

2. The role of the IS function in local authorities The purpose of the ISF in LAs is generally regarded as deploying resources to support information needs arising from organisational tasks and processes, and ensuring that IS and technology are aligned with organisational strategy and goals (Laudon and Laudon, 2000). However, its role is not necessarily passive. Within LAs it can act as a powerful agent for change, proposing and implementing new strategies and new services (Moon, 2002). The ISF typically supports internal and external information and communication needs, internal processes, policy development and application, monitoring and auditing; and enabling communication with government employees, citizens and businesses. Table I illustrates an overview of the ISF in LAs. The combined demands of fast and effective public service delivery have fuelled the modernisation process and implementation of e-government initiatives in LAs. Efforts to improve service delivery and organisational efficiency have focused on structures and activities. LAs have engaged in business process redesign, joining up services through horizontal information flows and eliminating steps that do not add value from a citizen’s perspective. Similarly, they are reengineering administration and support activities by creating information and communication networks between citizens and departments. The scope of these process redesign initiatives has resulted in new working relationships between the ISF and other departments (DETR, 2001a, b). The success of the ISF depends on how its role is practiced in LAs. Markus and Benjamin (1996) suggest three different roles for ISF providers: traditional, facilitator, and advocate. In traditional role, providers of the ISF consider themselves as the source Purpose of the ISF

System types

Key features of the ISF

To To To To To To

Operational Monitoring Planning Communication All All

Work rationalisation Measures, standards, feedback, KPI’s Data analysis, modelling Transactions, communication networks People, finance, knowledge Implementing and developing

structure work evaluate performance support information process enable communication deploy resources for tasks align technology with goals

Table I. Overview of the ISF in LAs

TG 1,2

134

of technology and technological change. In facilitator role, providers believe that people bring organisational change and that users need to be informed and guided to enable long lasting change. However, in the advocate role, providers influence users’ behaviour and guide them to directions that providers view as desirable. Guillemette and Pare (2005) advance on Markus and Benjamin’s (1996) ideas and characterise five archetypes of providers: partner, provider, builder, leader, and coordinator. Table II illustrates the types and the roles of providers. Above typologies from Markus and Benjamin (1996) and Guillemette and Pare (2005) provide useful sensitising concepts for the management of the ISF. However, although it seems ISF and its various roles are understood clearly, two interesting points emerge. Firstly, the ISF is seen as a label that only describes the IS department and IS providers. Thus, literature claims that although information can be produced by all, no IS are planned, designed, implemented and managed outside the IS department. Secondly, neither Markus and Benjamin (1996) nor Guillemette and Pare (2005) focus on how the user-provider relationship works when considering the roles of the ISF, which leaves a gap in the ISF literature. 3. Theoretical background It must be emphasised that providers do not solely create their roles. Their roles are joint creations of what they do, what is done to them and the structural conditions in which they operate. These conditions have the potential to explain how roles evolve and what they will be like in the future, if these conditions remain the same and if providers do not actively try to change their roles. It is argued that structuration (Giddens, 1984) may offer the opportunity to enable recognition of these critical conditions from a theoretical standpoint and therefore provide useful insights for an empirical analysis. The value of structuration is embedded in appreciating sources of facilitation and constraint within a shifting organisational context such as the situation within e-government. Earlier studies have been focusing on technological factors at one hand, and social factors at another thus came up with narrow views on the role of the ISF. These studies made it clear that providers and users of technology have high hopes for their ability to change traditional organisational design and process for better, but they failed to capture the essence of how technology is understood and used in organisations, particularly in the public service sector; with particular focus on the user-provider relationship. Types of providers Roles of providers Partner Provider Builder Leader

Table II. Types and the roles of providers

Coordinator

Providers and users share responsibility for IT projects Only providers are responsible for IT projects Providers are responsible for building technological standards to limit users technological choices reduce the number of platforms they perform Providers take responsibility for success and development of technology-based organisational capabilities Provider’s main aim is to ensure strategic

Source: Guillemette and Pare’s (2005)

Main examples of attempts to operationalise structuration are evident in the literature (Orlikowski, 1992, 2000; De Sanctis and Poole, 1994). However, De Sanctis and Poole (1994) claim technology presents social structure and embodies structures, an assumption that contradicts with structuration. They aim to understand agents’ intent and their motives for the purpose of technology, by using the concept of “spirit of technology”. Their framework almost puts technology on an equal level with agents by claiming that it has a spirit (a general intent) of its own. This perspective is closer to actor network theory than structuration. Similarly, Orlikowski’s (1992) also gives a higher status to technology than to agents, as it appears to be the only concept with reciprocal relationship in her framework. In addition, Orlikowski also assumes technology embodies structures. She later accepted this flaw and argued that technology rather has “emergent structures” however, the concept that technology has the potential for structures to emerge still contradicts with Giddens’ (1994) who argues that structures are virtual and can only exist in human mind. “Active agents” framework (Figure 1) stems from structuration and it can be used as a sensitising and explanatory device to map the roles of agents (users and providers of the ISF) and their interactions. It can help to illuminate the ideas and motives generated by agents. By adopting “active agents” framework, one assumes that agents are not passive entities in an organisation. It is the agents that define and give meaning to technology, hence the name “active agents”. The framework suggests that agents do not lead isolated lives, but instead are linked inextricably with others. The success of one agent may be a function of what other agents do as what the agent him/herself does. The framework is useful in identifying the way agents interact with each other (communication) and work (exercise their power and sanctioning behaviour to take action) in their everyday environment. In the framework, “the ISF” represents the management of the ISF in LAs. The framework will illuminate the significance of the ISF and its legitimate use along with structures that enable and constraint its management. “e-government agenda” represents the general aim of actions or interactions. It encompasses day-to-day running of projects, operations and service delivery.

Assessing the impact of e-government 135

The ISF Structural constraints Document analysis Identifying the significance and legitimate use of the ISF Identification of elements of action

User Agents Users of the ISF Communication, power, resources and sanctions Interviews Document analysis Identifying interaction and routines Identification of elements of action

e-Government Agenda

Provider Agents Providers of the ISF Communication, power, resources and sanctions Interviews Document analysis Identifying interaction and routines Identification of elements of action

Figure 1. Active agents framework

TG 1,2

136

Key pressures and influences in relation to e-government agenda merge from a need for a quicker and more reliable response by LAs to the needs of the public. In light of literature review, UK Central Government’s modernisation agenda attempts to address these issues. This agenda also focus considerable attention on the planning, use and development of the ISF in LAs. Specifically, “active agents” framework brings attention to the user-provider relationship that is facilitated through the governance of the ISF. Agents use the ISF as a medium to exchange information, engage in discussions and formulate and implement policies. There are many individuals and groups who act as agents, in policy making, approving, implementing and using the ISF in e-government facilitation. Different agents play different roles at different levels in the e-government process, and the ISF could be employed in all those levels to facilitated and support these processes. Structuration perspective is posited on a notion of structure as memory-traces that guide action; those structures become more “well-grooved” as actions are repeated across time and space. Technology is often intended to enable patterns of behaviour to be repeated over time and coordinated in different locations, thereby reinforcing particular ways of doing things, but its mere presence does not guarantee that it will fulfil its intended purpose. It is congruence between actions that evidence intended use (normally the domain of providers) and actual use (the domain of users) that is of particular interest. Whilst participative development approaches and modern “self-service” web-based IS blur the line between providers and users (Orlikowski and Hofman, 1997), “active agents” framework maintains a provider-user split for analytical convenience as it facilitates comparison with others who have drawn similar boundaries (Moon, 2002). The provider-user split enables the notion of e-government to be viewed from two perspectives (providers and users of the ISF). The central interest is in a shared understanding about ways of working envisaged by those developing the technology for e-government and those who will be using that technology. 4. Research method To enhance sensitivity to recurrent patterns, the empirical research was guided by an extensive literature search and consisted of ten randomly-selected case studies from the sampling frame of UK LAs. This sampling frame ensured that each case shared common structural attributes with the others: all were subject to the same legislation determined by central government and funded jointly by central government and local tax payers, making them typical UK LAs. However, initial checks confirmed that the sample LAs varied in size, structure, demographics and they were at varying stages of implementing and developing e-government services. Between December 2002 and March 2003 each of the case studies was visited and semi-structured individual interviews were carried out with ten head of IS, ten IS project managers and with ten designated e-government managers who had particular responsibility for new ways of working. Interview findings were triangulated with data collected from document analysis carried out at each site. Documents included SOCITM reports (2001, 2002, 2003), government reports such as UK Online reports (2001, 2002, 2003), ODPM (2001, 2002) and DETR (1998, 1999, 2000a, b, 2001a, b), Cabinet office reports (2000a, b) and various other financial reports, minutes of the meetings, etc. that were provided to us by the participants in each authority.

Informed consent was sought from all participants who were assured of confidentiality. The in-depth, semi-structured nature of interviews provided an open and flexible structure that enabled information about various angles of the topic to be gathered (Kvale, 1996). The overall structure for each interview was provided by a standard case study protocol derived from the “active agents” framework. The analysis of the qualitative data were completed by using NVivo package. Computer packages have now established themselves as key aids in handling and analysing of qualitative data (Kelle, 1995; Fielding and Lee, 1998). NVivo’s speed and flexibility had positive effects in analysis by reducing the amount of paper work and increasing the speed of searching. It was particularly useful in storing data from multiple sources, sorting out and organising data to produce an explicit, systematic and documented analysis, which increased the transparency of the research. The explicit, systematic and documented organisation and management of data helps to avoid over interpretation as it makes it easier to detect where the data have been subjected to premature analytic closure. However, there is no computer package that can substitute the interpretive skills of a researcher. Thus, at times the researcher supported the data analysis manually. This also increased the validity of interpretation. Analysis is conducted by searching for regularities and patterns of codes (e.g. repeatedly occurring codes). These regularities are treated as signals for causal links between the information in the text segments referred to by the linked codes. Whilst the interview protocol remained constant across the ten case studies sensitivity to recurrent themes and particularly pertinent questions (inevitably) heightened during the study. On completion of the case study visits the findings were organised into two groups: ISF providers (heads of IS and IS project managers) and ISF users (e-government managers). To reveal the extent of congruence between these two perspectives “active agents” framework was used as a lens for comparing the data. When combined with the emergent appreciation of recurrent themes that had built up during the course of the fieldwork, the framework provided a powerful way of recognising the insights gained. 5. Research findings 5.1 The ISF Providers suggest that the ISF has two roles: technical and strategic. It supports systems and networks in the authority and it is responsible for supporting and operating necessary IT systems. They claim that the ISF is also responsible for the IS strategy; taking the lead on making new initiatives a reality. The ISF also aligns IS strategy with LAs’ corporate goals. Providers believe that the ISF covers ICTs, hardware, software, and all the systems and networks. Both providers and users argue that in the organisational context, the ISF is regarded as a key and a vital resource. Users feel it eases business process by adding value to information. It makes staff less administrative and more flexible. In the e-government context, the ISF is seen as the main driver to implement and develop the modernisation initiatives. Users view the ISF as a combination of technology and information. According to the users, the IS department is in control of the ISF. The IS department provides the infrastructure, networks, technology and technical

Assessing the impact of e-government 137

TG 1,2

138

know-how through the ISF. It is mainly used for the tasks that users feel they are unable to do with their own staff. Mostly these tasks are technical. Providers think e-government agenda changed the role of the ISF. In recent years, the ISF gained importance as a driver, but it was not important in the senior level in the past. In addition, senior officers are more committed to IS projects now. However, some providers argue that the ISF does not have any part in structural changes. The ISF helps to monitor and evaluate the changes, but it has no active role in making structural changes. 5.2 E-government agenda E-government agenda is designed for LAs to cope with the conflicting demands of improving service delivery with fewer resources. The government’s targets shape the e-government agenda. These targets change the routines of user and provider agents. Targets such as 100 percent electronic service delivery forced users and providers to create additional channels for public service delivery such as the websites, call centres, emails, etc. These changes made users and providers more dependent on the ISF. Although it might seem like a positive move, not every user was comfortable with this situation as most of them never had to deal with technology before. This situation favoured the IS departments and made users less autonomous which in effect fuelled resistance against e-government agenda and IS departments. Providers, on the other hand, often portray these changes as important developments and some even call them “revolutionary”. 5.3 User and provider agents Findings illuminate the meanings attached to the ISF in e-government facilitation by user and provider agents. It focuses on how the use of the ISF enables agents, but also constrains them when facilitating e-government; how they govern the ISF; and how they use it when engaging with others. Findings indicate no significant difference in the perception of e-government and the ISF between users and providers of the ISF. Both groups define e-government as a set of initiatives designed to make LAs more citizen focused and more flexible in service delivery through the use of technology. The ISF was viewed as a key enabler for e-government facilitation and both groups regarded the ISF to be of great importance in strategic and technical roles. The difference in views has emerged in perception of the role of users and providers in e-government projects. User agents believe that providers want to use e-government projects to gain more power over the LAs’ processes, where as providers think it is their job to plan, develop, implement and use the ISF for enabling e-government projects. Absence of shared meaning is found to stem from lack of communication. Agents use the ISF to access information and to communicate with each other in everyday processes. There is a need to highlight two issues in using the ISF for communication purposes. Firstly, findings indicate that the information and communication needs of users and providers are not yet formally identified. Secondly, evidence suggests that the implications of the interactive capabilities of the ISF on e-government facilitation are not fully exploited. The results show that the way agents perceive information and communication is influenced by the traditional, bureaucratic model of local government where technology is used mainly for financial purposes

and improve internal efficiency. Evidence suggest that the ISF has the potential to improve interactivity between agents, which is important for effective service delivery and efficient joined-up approach, however, these capabilities are also not exploited and in some occasions officers were not even aware of them. .

6. Discussion According to the “engaged agents” framework, user and provider agents produce and reproduce legitimate practices, or challenge them and hence create possibilities for change. Findings indicate that governance of the ISF becomes legitimate and routinised, providing sense of security for the agents as they improve public service delivery through e-government. Findings highlight that there is a consensus on the perception of the ISF between the providers and the users. The ISF is regarded as an essential tool for gathering, managing and communicating information amongst staff, and for assisting service departments to enable e-government service delivery. The data shows that almost all users and providers share this perception, because the ISF is seen as a major driver for e-government service delivery and a vital enabler for any project. The ISF is legitimised on the grounds that it addresses e-government initiatives and responds to users’ needs for e-government facilitation. It is justified as the key enabler for multi channel public service delivery. On the other hand, e-government initiatives are hard to justify. For example, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint which initiative(s) are the drivers for reducing costs, improve response time or enable faster communication between officers. The results indicate that the legitimised use of the ISF is creating tension between users and providers. Users are demanding to have more say over the content of electronic data and e-government projects. In view of this, there seems to be a great need to review legitimised use of the ISF in LAs if they are to be more user-focused and encourage C2G and G2G interaction through new multi service delivery channels. There are no visible signs of encouragement for users to participate in e-government process in the existing norms of the ISF governance. If e-government is to play an important role in public service delivery, existing norms of the ISF governance needs to be revisited and necessary amendments need to be made to structures of legitimation in order to ease the engagement between users and providers. Research findings indicate that amongst agents there is an absence of shared meaning of their roles. Users frequently perceive providers as technicians, believing them to be looking for purely technical solutions to everyday problems. As a result, users respond in a restrictive way to providers’ enquiries. It is found that users do not reveal the whole picture or cooperate fully to preserve what they see to be their position. Thus, many e-government projects are seen as an attempt to reconcile the expectations of government officials or senior managers rather than the LA as a whole. Findings suggest that in most LAs, in large and urban LAs the ISF is used to provide strategic direction and guidance and it facilitates operational service delivery. Providers in these LAs perceive themselves as visionaries when they see what needs to be done and try to influence users’ decisions towards their own desirable direction. However, in smaller and rural LAs, the ISF is used only as a support service that helps to facilitate e-government projects. Providers of the ISF in these LAs do not have a clear-cut role. They see themselves as the source of technology and technological

Assessing the impact of e-government 139

TG 1,2

140

change and they believe technology causes change and it enables users to do things that they were unable to do previously. We found that in two LAs, the ISF is almost non-existent. In those LAs, IS are perceived as a powerful resource to enable changes in public service delivery; not as a separate function. Providers argue that in small-rural LAs there is not enough management support for technological innovation and technological change. They claim that they are struggling to persuade senior officials to get approval for certain projects. In the absence of a shared understanding, different agents are likely to attach different meanings to the ISF. This in effect, changes the way the ISF is used. Some agents use the ISF as a tool, others use it as a function to retrieve, store, process and send information to other agents. In addition, findings suggest that different expectations arise from the ISF due to the different meanings attached to it. Some agents expect improved communication channels while others expect to gain more control over what goes around the LAs. Provider agents have to play a number of roles in any e-government projects. The idea of e-government is to create flexible public sector organisations. ISF providers cannot afford to adopt a single role when enabling e-government facilitation. They too need to be flexible and need to have multiple roles in order to meet various needs of different users efficiently and enable exchange of information effectively in different phases of e-government projects. It is found that agents use the ISF to exercise power in different ways. Users depend on resources to access information and contribute to the e-government facilitation in forms of information input. Providers need resources to access information and build a system that links other government agencies and stakeholders together. They also feel the need to control the information flow between users for everyday administration purposes. These new responsibilities create new kinds of tensions and conflicts over the control of resources between users and providers. These tensions and conflicts need to be foreseen and addressed effectively. Findings reveal that providers lead the user-provider relations. In most cases, providers control the content of the ISF. However, they do not have complete authority and freedom; they are also constraint by the capabilities and technological limits of the ISF. Providers are becoming more central to the flows of information amongst users, citizens and businesses; they appear to be gaining more power over exchanged information; and they exercise more control regarding the content of the ISF (web site content, document content). On the other hand, evidence indicates that users do not have as much control over the content and the use of the ISF. These new emerging structures of domination reduces the role and responsibility of users and can marginalize them from some of the important policy activities. It is important to amend the structures of domination. Amendments should address the imbalance in power over information if tensions between the provider and user groups are to be reduced. For the success of any e-government delivery, the involvement of users is essential and need to be encouraged. Users need to be invited more to discussions, and they need to be encouraged to more to express their feelings about certain projects in various stages of its life cycle. E-champions, e-government managers and heads of IS should play active roles in enabling the opportunity. By doing so, it is believed that information and communication needs can be more easily identified as well as the ISF contents that they would require for putting those ideas into practice.

In addition, we found that empowerment is seen as an issue. ISF providers suggest that they are empowering their users by e-enabling services, however, not all ISF users want to be empowered and the ones who wish to be empowered do not want to be depended on providers for skills, knowledge and expertise. On the face of it, individual empowerment appears to be a positive move. However, it presumes that users of technology have the knowledge and understanding to actually make most of the critical choices. This ignores possible tensions between changes and people’s capabilities to adapt them. Choice is something government officials and providers seem to be so attached to. Evidence suggests that users of the ISF do not always want choice or to be put in a situation where they have to make a choice, but to be provided by the best. Users face serious problems in terms of understanding new concepts, changing legislations, changing technologies and their long-term effects. Currently, they are expected to have the time and capabilities to obtain all the latest knowledge through government sources, the internet and research organisations (e.g. SOCITM). They are also expected to discriminate between the quality of information they currently hold and the new information. This “take care of yourself’ idea fails to correspond with empowerment in the public sector. The government fails to provide satisfactory levels of guidance and advice. So much faith is put in individual empowerment without understating the sensitive issues between users and providers of the ISF in their everyday tasks. Moreover, findings suggest that agents do not have a formal norm for using the ISF for e-government facilitation. In other words, there are no official boundaries of what certain agents should and should not do when facilitating e-government. Absence of formal rules sometimes leads agents to use the ISF in ways that are not acceptable. Also, evidence suggest that due to lack of rules and guidance, agents often do not know what is needed, what can be done and how the ISF can aid them in overcoming problems. This leads to tensions between users and providers; and users are often accused of not knowing what they want or being unrealistic in their demands; and providers are often accused of being unresponsive or distant. Absence of rules bring along absence of sanctions. The framework indicate that the governance of the ISF is conditioned by the resources and sanctioning power of user and provider agents. Findings demonstrate that it is impossible to engage everyone in joining-up departments because some managers are not keen on adopting changes, or some individuals refuse to collaborate. Providers cannot use their sanctioning powers on these individuals and this affects the efficient use of the ISF. Providers often feel powerless and stuck. They mostly deal with users who are not willing to collaborate by simply ignoring the situation or the person/group/department. Users, however, interpret this behaviour as “lack of communication” and “isolation”. It is evident that all these problems occur because the norms of the ISF governance were created with traditional, bureaucratic model in mind, rather than the e-government model. The norms of using the ISF need to be revisited and amended in order to facilitate e-government in light of new realities. Evidence from the research show that LAs are attempting to create digital channels and experimenting on new ways of public service delivery in the forms of government portals, call centres, etc. Although most providers have the tendency to portray them as important developments and some even call them as revolutionary, when examined closely it can be seen that these practices only reproducing the already established public service delivery practices in electronic forms rather than anything radical.

Assessing the impact of e-government 141

TG 1,2

142

7. Conclusion Although it has been more than seven years since the UK Government launched its e-government initiative as an important part of public service reform, LAs are far from facilitating e-government comfortably. In almost every occasion, central government is emphasising the importance of the ISF governance in e-government facilitation, but LAs do not know much about core issues such as the effects of provider-user split in everyday e-government facilitation. It has been a constant struggle for LAs to create an efficient ISF governance and e-government vision. Our findings suggest that opportunities for the ISF to realise its potential facilitation role have been constrained by technology-oriented thinking and a lack of clear direction from central government. The use of technology to improve public service delivery is a powerful message but without much guidance and support from the central government LAs feel that e-government is oversold. Too much faith has been invested in e-government as a cure for all problems in the public sector. There is belief in government that at some level e-government will make LAs more citizen-focused, responsive and flexible, but there is no inherent reason why this should be the case. E-government has the potential to make LAs more efficient, but this does not mean that it can also make LAs more effective. There needs to be deeper understanding of the individual (users and providers) and structural dimensions of the phenomena. Active agents framework is used as a “sensitising device” to build a rich picture of factors underlying differences between users’ and providers’ views on e-government. Differences and systemic factors that reinforce them highlight the complexity of the situation at a local level but also point the way to enhanced management action based on deeper appreciation of processes at work. The findings encourage LAs to re-frame their e-government initiatives as a way of thinking rather than a project or a solution. E-government should be seen as a vision of how LAs should be structured to become more citizen-focused, not just through a specific technological process but by exploiting human resources and business processes by designing and enacting new structures that make appropriate use of integrated information and communication technologies. For future studies on the subject, two specific areas of research are identified that might effectively enhance the readers comprehension on the issue. First, role of the Central UK Government could be illuminated and greater attention could be paid to the details as to how central government perceives the role of user and provider agents in LAs. Finally, additional investigation is needed to ascertain if there is a difference between LAs and central government in their approach to provider-user relationship in e-government facilitation. References Bentley, T. (2001), It’s Democracy, Stupid: An Agenda for Self-Government, Demos, London. Bozeman, B. (2000), Bureaucracy and Red Tape, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Burn, J. and Robins, G. (2003), “Moving towards e-government: a case study”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 25-35. Cabinet Office (2000a), e-Government: A Strategic Framework for Public Services in the Information Age, Cabinet Office, London.

Cabinet Office (2000b), e-Gov: Electronic Government Services for the 21st Century, Cabinet Office, London. De Sanctis, G. and Poole, M.S. (1994), “Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structration theory”, Organisation Science, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 121-47. DETR (1998), Modern Local Government: In Touch with People, DETR, London, available at: www.local-regions.detr.gov.uk/lgwp/index.htm DETR (1999), Local Leadership, Local Choice, The Stationery Office, London. DETR (2000a), Preparing Community Strategies: Government Guidance to Local Authorities, DETR, London, available at: www.local-regions.detr.gov.uk/pcs/guidance/01.htm DETR (2000b), Implementing e-Government – Guidelines for Local Government, DETR, London. DETR (2001a), e-Government: Delivering Local Government Online, Milestones and Resources for the 2005 Target, DETR, London. DETR (2001b), e-Government, Delivering Local Government Online: Guidelines for Implementing Electronic Government Statements, DETR, London, available at: www.idea-infoage.gov. uk/resources/esd/misc/egov_dlgo.pdf Fielding, N.G. and Lee, R.M. (1998), Computer Analysis and Qualitative Research, SAGE, London. Fountain, J.F. (2003), Information, Institutions and Governance: Advancing a Basic Social Science Research Programme for Digital Government, National Centre for Digital Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Polity Press, Cambridge. Giddens, A. (1994), “Living in a post-traditional society”, in Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (Eds), Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 56-109. Greenwood, R., Walsh, K., Hinings, C.R. and Ranson, S. (1980), “Patterns of management in local government”, Government and Administration Series, Martin Robertson, Oxford. Guillemette, M. and Pare, G. (2005), “Understanding the IT function in organisations”, presented at International Conference on Informations Systems, Las Vegas, NV, 11-14 December. Ho, A.T. (2002), “Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 434-44. Hoff, J., Horrocks, I. and Tops, P. (2000), Democratic Governance and New Technology, Technologically Mediated Innovations in Political Practices in Western Europe, Routledge, London. Kelle, U. (1995), Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods and Practice, SAGE, London. Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews, SAGE, London. Laudon, K.C. and Laudon, J.P. (2000), Management Information Systems: Organisation and Technology in the Networked Enterprise, 6th ed., International edition, Prentice-Hall International, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Markus, M.L. and Benjamin, R.I. (1996), “Change agentry – the next IS frontier”, MISQ, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 385-407. Moon, M.J. (2002), “The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality?”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 424-33. Nye, J. Jr (1999), “Information technology and democratic governance”, in Kamrck, E.C. and Nye, J. Jr (Eds), Democracy. com? Governance in Networked World, Hollins Publishing Company, Portsmouth, NH, pp. 1-18.

Assessing the impact of e-government 143

TG 1,2

144

ODPM (2001), Strong Local Leadership vs. Quality Public Services, ODPM, London. ODPM (2002), Implementing Electronic Government Statements: Draft Guidance, ODPM, London, available at: www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_localgov?documents/pdf/ odpm_locgov_pdf_605194.pdf Orlikowski, W.J. (1992), “The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organisations”, Organisational Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 398-427. Orlikowski, W.J. (2000), “Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organisations”, Organisational Science, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 398-427. Orlikowski, W.J. and Hofman, J.D. (1997), “An improvisational model for change management: the case of groupware technologies”, Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 11-21. Peristeras, V., Tsekos, T. and Tarabanis, K. (2002), “Analysing e-government as a paradigm shift”, UNTC Occasional Papers Series,Vol. 1, United Nations Thessaloniki Centre, Thessaloniki, pp. 2-14. SOCITM Insight (2001), Better Connected 2001? A Snapshot of Local Authority Websites Updating, SOCITM Services Ltd, Northampton. SOCITM Insight (2002), Better Connected 2002? A Snapshot of Local Authority Websites Updating, SOCITM Services Ltd, Northampton. SOCITM Insight (2003), Better Connected 2003? A Snapshot of Local Authority Websites Updating, SOCITM Services Ltd, Northampton. Tan, C.W. and Pan, S.L. (2003), “Managing e-transformation in public sector”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 12, pp. 269-81. UK Online (2001), Annual Report. Office of the e-Envoy, Cabinet Office, London. UK Online (2002), Annual Report. Office of the e-Envoy, Cabinet Office, London. UK Online (2003), Annual Report. Office of the e-Envoy, Cabinet Office, London. Wilson, D. and Game, C. (1998), Local Government in the UK, 2nd ed., Macmillan, London. Wired-Gov (2003), Internet Connectivity. National Statistics, available at: www.wired-gov.net/ WGLaunch.asp?ARTCL ¼ 17210 (accessed March). Further reading Nandhakumar, J. and Jones, M. (1997), “Designing in the dark: the changing user-developer relationship in information systems development”, in Kumar, K. and DeGross, J.I. (Eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (18th), Omnipress, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 15-17 December, pp. 75-87. About the author Zorlu Senyucel is currently teaching and working on his PhD thesis in the BIT Subject Group in Manchester Metropolitan University. His research area is the impact of the information systems function on the transition of e-government services in government institutions. He previously gained a BA Hons in Business Studies form the University of Sheffield; an MSc in Human Resource Management in Sheffield Hallam University, with a particular focus on virtual organisations; a Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD) qualification; and an MRes from the Manchester Metropolitan University. He is also a member of Society of Information Technology Management (SOCITM). Zorlu Senyucel can be contacted at: [email protected] To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm

Towards e-government transformation: conceptualising “citizen engagement” A research note

Towards e-government transformation 145

Steve Jones Information Technology Department, Conwy County Borough Council, Bodlondeb, UK, and

Ray Hackney and Zahir Irani Business School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK Abstract Purpose – To make observations of the need for a radical change in the way that public services are delivered, based upon compelling UK evidence. Design/methodology/approach – The “research note” draws on the normative literature and current practice to identify contemporary ideas for e-government citizen engagement initiatives. Findings – E-government within the next few years will transform both the way in which public services are delivered and the fundamental relationship between government, the community and citizens. Research limitations/implications – The evidence from the outline research requires significant empirical data to determine the nature of local government perceptions of the approach. Practical implications – One key area is that of engaging citizens to enable them to articulate their views to influence the development of e-government systems and to gauge their perception of the usefulness of e-government implementations. Originality/value – The paper proposes the type of practitioner action and academic research activity needed to capture citizen perspectives to develop concepts that will improve the delivery and deployment of e-government through citizen engagement. Keywords Government, Communication technologies, Public sector organizations, Citizen participation, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper

Introduction E-government deployment is a burgeoning phenomenon globally, with huge investments being made to modernise and transform the public sector. The UK Central Government public spending review of 2002/2003 allocated £6bn over three years to government electronic service delivery (e-government). The Public Accounts Committee reported that this will be reviewed towards the end of 2005/2006 and it is The authors acknowledge the support from the Information Systems Evaluation and Integration Group (ISEing) that supported part of this work. ISEing was established at Brunel University Department of Information Systems and Computing in December 2000, under a research grant from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC: GR/R08025/01). Financial support to present this paper will come from the EPSRC funded “E-government integration and systems evaluation (e-GISE)”. EPSRC Ref: [GR/T27020/01].

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy Vol. 1 No. 2, 2007 pp. 145-152 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1750-6166 DOI 10.1108/17506160710751977

TG 1,2

146

likely that further funding will be allocated (PAC, 2002). In 2003, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology reported that the UK Government had over 100 major information and communication technology (ICT) projects underway, with a total value of £10 billion (POST, 2003). In the UK, Gershon’s well-publicised efficiency review in 2004 (Gershon, 2004) called for significantly increased efficiency and effectiveness in public sector service delivery. As a result of the Gershon review, the UK public sector is now expected to make procurement savings of £14bn over the next three years, with an initial £2bn to be saved by April 2006. This target was set by the Office of Government and Commerce and was very ambitious. Indications suggest that it will be difficult to achieve. However, this led to public bodies quickly rationalising and modernising systems, processes and procedures by deploying a portfolio of e-government systems. The electronic approach to service delivery quickly moved from being the preserve of a few public sector innovators into the mainstream of public sector service delivery. It has been reported that some major financial savings and improved operations have already been realised as growing numbers of public sector organisations replace their traditional and often bureaucratic processes with efficient, effective and transformational e-government systems. E-government The nature, culture and scope of e-government activities may be succinctly noted as follows (Heeks, 1999): . E-administration. Improving government processes by reducing costs, managing performance, making strategic connections and creating empowerment. . E-citizens. Connecting citizens to government by consulting and engaging with citizens, supporting accountability, listening to citizens, supporting democracy and improving public services. . E-services. Improving services to citizens by providing online services to citizens. . E-society. Building interactions beyond the boundaries of government by working better with business, developing communities, building government partnerships and building society. It can be seen that a key important driver to transform public sector service delivery and significantly improve efficiency and effectiveness are citizens, who are actors and recipients of public facing e-government services. These stakeholders may be regarded, in the context of e-government, as “customers” external to the organisation, who use or procure a public sector service (Desouza et al., 2005). Citizen engagement Citizen engagement is critical to e-government and has been defined by Heeks (1999) as: Strengthening the relationship between local government and the citizen. This is undertaken by consultation activities and by encouraging and supporting citizens to enter into dialogue.

Successful consultation has the potential to engage citizens about issues that matter to the individual and the community. This will help improve and strengthen the relationship between the citizen and the local authority by focussing on the concerns

and requirements of the citizen and by informing citizens of developments. It is important that citizens are engaged on subjects that matter to them, which are both local and relevant. At the same time individuals will receive feedback from the authority. An early reference to the enhancement of public sector services through e-government, which highlighted the importance of the citizen and citizen engagement, was articulated by Heeks (1999): . . . when government delivers electronic information, in many ways it is delivering the government service itself. This new interactive medium, with its built in measurements and feedback loops, allows government to “relate” to individual constituents with depth and frequency. It can add an entirely new dimension to government’s relationship to its stakeholders.

These stakeholders now have far greater access to information. They are also far more knowledgeable and assertive and are increasingly demanding personalised experiences when interacting with public sector services (SOCITM, 2002). There is a need to develop a knowledge domain and inaugurate a shared sense of identity between authorities and citizens. An important issue, therefore, is how do public sector organisations “engage” with these citizens to understand their requirements and meet expectations. The more successful public sector organisations have recognised that developing a customer orientated approach is critical to help improve service delivery (Cavanagh and Livingston, 1997). A major challenge is to undertake successful citizens’ engagement to develop e-government systems that provide efficient, effective and transformational service delivery (Ho, 2002). Another dimension is that of Communities of Practice, which have been defined by Lave and Wenger (1991) as: . . . an activity system in which participants share understandings concerning what they are doing and what that means in their lives and for their community.

Public services transformation via e-government can only be achieved through a detailed knowledge of the problems facing communities. The challenge for UK public services is to meet citizens’ needs for responsive services that recognise the diversity of communities and the needs of individuals (ODPM, 2005). Successful and transformational e-government is rooted in the services detailed knowledge of the communities they serve. If public services are to be transformed then organisations must adapt to demands from individual citizens and communities. There is a need to be more responsive to their requirements and changing expectations. Where once standardised public services met public need, now citizens increasingly expect services that are seamless and tailored to personal preference. There is no “one-size fits all” approach to service delivery. Citizens want to be able to access services in ways that are convenient to them and to know that their needs can be met quickly and effectively. Services have been departmentalised for too long, with traditional approaches to efficiency taking priority over the changing needs and demands of UK citizens (Heeks, 2001). Insufficient thought is given to considering the impact of new technology on members of the public. Prior to new e-government services being introduced citizens must be consulted. The impact of service development should be analysed and pre-emptive measures put in place to deal with any issues and demand. ICT enabled

Towards e-government transformation 147

TG 1,2

148

change is problematic in any organisation, but the political and managerial culture within the public sector add additional degrees of complexity (Bannister, 2001). The situation is further exacerbated by the traditional bureaucratic structures that are resistant to change and the diversity of the services provided. This prevailing scenario makes the engagement process complex (Burn and Barnett, 2000; Bannister, 2001). E-government, therefore, is affected by the diversity, nature and context of the highly political organisations involved. There is a need to understand how citizens articulate their needs and how they perceive their e-government experiences. Clearly, there is a need to review customer relations. The suggested starting point is the customer. Public sector organisations need to understand how citizens want to engage with the council, what are their needs and what are their perceptions about the council. The public sector must design holistic and tailored services that address individual and local community priorities by delivering e-government solutions in a localised way. The emphasis must be on the notions of the citizen, community and neighbourhood. An important issue is that of social inclusion. ICT implementation, such as e-government, often reinforces the existing patterns of social inequality and political scenarios. These need to be researched, identified, understood and addressed. Citizen experiences and evaluation need to be fed back to an organisation as part of any e-government engagement process. The contemporary literature defines evaluation as, “. . . working out the value of something” and identifies the exercise as a highly subjective process. Recent evidence suggests that the core of e-government evaluation necessitates a consideration of soft organisational issues that include internal managerial behaviours and external customer responses. However, organisations usually ignore the soft complexity of the citizen e-government experience (Irani et al., 2005). The essence of the evaluation, therefore, requires to a large extent on the intuitive requirements and actual experiences of the citizens using, or planning to use, any e-government system. A useful starting point is for citizens to be made aware of service delivery channels and options, to indicate their preferences and to evaluate the systems in place that purport to improve a specific service area. However, an often neglected feature of public sector service delivery is to acknowledge, respond, develop and endure customer relationships (Jones and Hughes, 2004). Clearly, this will need citizen engagement to be undertaken. It is, therefore, important to gain customer involvement both prior and subsequent to e-government implementation. If the consumer is unaware of available services then any approach for securing their involvement is significantly reduced. It is argued that promoting e-government and gaining citizen engagement is very important. However, traditionally the UK public sector has not been strong on promoting services. A strategic focus on the real complexity of the customer and organisational relationship is needed, together with some initial proactive action from the public sector to establish links and connections with its customers, namely proactive engagement. This would also improve passive public sector branding and promotion where indifferent customer behaviour is frequently evident and existing methods of service delivery are tolerated. Individual citizen activity is driven by identified motivations and recognised goals that are based on the perceived need, relevance and quality of the public sector services offered. Many aspects of advertising and promotion are argued to be insufficient to capture the real dimensions of consumer behaviour, especially in the public sector. The success of these approaches is limited,

given the lack of promotion resources in the public sector (Bannister, 2001). Therefore, efforts are not routinely and frequently made to determine customer’s perceptions (Norris, 2002). The public sector needs to engage with citizens and be more adaptive, proactive and responsive to the public opinion (ODPM, 2005). This will help develop and improve the level of customer interest and interaction. Moreover, it will help shape and deliver transformational e-government service delivery.

Towards e-government transformation 149

Research agenda The authors argue that e-government development and implementations should be researched to determine the critically important factors that should be considered as part of citizen engagement. The nature and extent of gaining customer engagement is central to this fundamental objective. Table I has been extrapolated and developed by drawing on the literature and current practice. It proposes an initial tentative template and agenda for citizen engagement research. The rationale for undertaking engagement with citizens is based on the need for public sector organisations to understand the requirements, reasoning and preferences of external customers to achieve transformational e-government. In addition, a proactive communications campaign will help to ensure that the public is fully aware of any proposed e-government developments. Discussion A primary objective for citizen engagement e-government research will be to explore how public sector organisations relate specifically to their external environments. The aim will be to conceptualise, consolidate and gain a deeper understanding and knowledge of approaches to customer engagement. It is important to expand the domain of e-government research to a wide and eclectic audience of academics, consultants, executives and practitioners. Dimension

Practitioner action

Research approach

Promotion

Develop e-government marketing and promotion Conduct citizen “deep dives” to explore hidden needs and develop ideas about improved e-government services Proactively approach and target citizens to identify knowledge areas Develop communication channels

Undertake customer relation activities

Citizen insights Knowledge insights Communication Competence development Customer constellation

Facilitate citizen understanding

Advocate service provision and responsiveness, and develop service collaboration Customer interests Identify social networks and potential inherent conflicts Community Assess community needs requirements

Conduct citizen focus groups Undertake qualitative citizen surveys Provide newsletters, suggestion initiatives and interactive media Conduct analysis of feedback forms Implement service level reviews Conduct interviews with consumers Conduct interviews with community leaders

Table I. Citizen engagement research agenda

TG 1,2

150

There is a need to generate original theoretical and empirical research relating to the application and adoption of e-government for transformational service improvements through citizen engagement. It is argued that it will be particularly useful to analyse the results of inter/multi disciplinary investigations and relate these to the intersection of theory, method and empirical findings. Important research will include contributions to the theoretical concepts, understanding and dissemination of citizen engagement to support and transform e-government deployment. Research studies that will subsequently enable practical service performance gains and transformation through the deployment of e-government from the social inclusion of citizens will also be of importance. There is significant research that highlights the difficultly of implementing ICT in the public sector. There have been also been well published case studies on public sector ICT failures, a sector that is characterised by a resistance to change. The issues, contexts and problems associated with change instigated by e-government initiatives are equally complex and require further investigation (Devadoss et al., 2002). It is argued that empirical studies are required with strong critical theoretical content, including: . case studies of failed initiatives highlighting the cultural and organisational obstacles to citizen engagement and e-government; . success stories highlighting good citizen engagement practice; . methodological studies describing transformational e-government deployment, with strong links to social inclusion and the experiences of stakeholders; . critical studies of the ideological motivations underlying the e-government citizen engagement agenda; and . benefit, cost and risk evaluation of e-government, extrapolating notion of citizen perception of the public sector. The primary interest is the practices, methods and obstacles associated with citizen engagement and any aspect of the engagement agenda. Conclusion The public sector is implementing e-government systems to transform service delivery. The key to the success of any e-government deployment is the citizen. This paper highlights the importance of citizen engagement to inform such initiatives and to gauge citizen perspectives on the development and deployment of e-government. Services increasingly revolve around the constituent customer. Public sector bureaucracies should, therefore, be broken down and overcome to enable citizens obtain the services required. The relationship between the public sector and citizens is critical to the success of e-government. There is a need to engage with citizens to obtain perspectives to influence e-government implementations. Only then can we claim true e-government transformation through citizen engagement. This brief paper has elicited ideas for an e-government citizen engagement research agenda by drawing on the literature and current practice. The aim has been to conceptualise type of activity required to undertake e-government citizen engagement, which is a critical component of e-government initiatives.

References Bannister, F. (2001), “Dismantling the silos: extracting new value from IT investments in public administration”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 65-84. Burn, J.M. and Barnett, M.L. (2000), “Emerging virtual models for global e-commerce – worldwide retailing in the e-grocery business”, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 18-32. Cavanagh, J.J. and Livingston, D.J. (1997), “Serving the American public: best practices in customer-driven strategic planning”, Benchmarking Study Report, National Performance Review, February. Devadoss, P.R., Pan, S.L. and Huang, J.C. (2002), “Structuralist analysis of e-government initiatives: a case study of SCO”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 34, pp. 253-69. Desouza, K.C., Awazu, Y. and Jasimuddin, S. (2005), “Utilising external sources of knowledge”, KM Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 16-19. Gershon, P. (2004), Releasing Resources to the Front Line: Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency, HMSO, Norwich. Heeks, R. (1999), Reinventing Government in the Information Age: International Practice in IT-enabled Public Sector Reform, Routledge Publishing, London. Heeks, R. (2001), “Building e-governance for development: a framework for national donor action”, E-government Working Paper No 12, University of Manchester, Manchester. Ho, A.T. (2002), “Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 4. Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D., Elliman, T., Jones, S. and Themistocleous, M. (2005), “Evaluating e-government investments: learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1. Jones, S. and Hughes, J. (2004), “Information systems evaluation: getting closer to the organisation”, Journal Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 245-8. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), “Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation”, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Norris, P. (2002), A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Post-Industrial Democracies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005), New Localism: Citizen Engagement, Neighbourhoods and Public Services: Evidence from Local Government, ODPM, London. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2003), Government IT Projects, POST, London. Public Accounts Committee (2002), Improving Public Services Through E-government, PAC, London. SOCITM (2002), Better Connected 2002?, Society of Information Technology Management, Northampton. About the authors Steve Jones is the Head of IT at Conwy County Borough Council, a Welsh Unitary Authority. His research interest is in the area of IT investment appraisal and evaluation and he is a Visiting Professor in Brunel University. His work has been predominately in the public sector and in over 25 years as an IS practitioner, he has worked in programming, systems analysis, project management, systems development management and consultancy before becoming IT Departmental Head. Jones has undertaken guest lectures at several UK Universities and he is a member of several editorial boards, research and working groups. He is a research grant

Towards e-government transformation 151

TG 1,2

152

reviewer and assessor for the EPSRC. Jones has edited international journals and has written book chapters, international journal papers and conference papers. He serves on international conference committees and chaired international conference sessions. Steve Jones is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Ray Hackney is Chair of Business Systems at Brunel University, UK. His research interests are the strategic management of information systems within a variety of organisational contexts and has he has contributed to several EPSRC and European funded projects. He has published extensively in both conferences and journals. He has taught and examined on a number of Doctoral and MBA programmes. He led the organising committee for the annual BIT and BIT World Conference series and is a member of the Strategic Management Society and Association of Information Systems. Hackney currently serving on the Board of the UK Academy for Information Systems and an Executive Member of the Information Institute. He has been Vice President Research for IRMA. He is Associate Editor of the JGIM, JEUC, JLIM, ACITM, EJIS and Case Editor for IJIM. E-mail: [email protected] Zahir Irani is a Head of Brunel University Business School. He consults for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (UK) and international organisations such as HSBC, Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum, DERA, BMW and Adidas. He is the Hooker Distinguished Professor at McMaster University and Visiting Professor at the Arab Academy of Science and Technology and at Ahlia University (Bahrain). Irani reviews research proposals submitted to UK funding councils, European Commission and the National Science Foundation. He is Editor-in-chief of JEIM, European Editor of the BPMJ, and on the editorial-board of several other journals. He has co-authored teaching text-books, written almost 200 papers and received ANBAR citations of research excellence. He has spoken at conferences and guest seminars world wide, and is internationally known in the area of IS evaluation. E-mail: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm

Realising integrated e-government services: a UK local government perspective Omiros D. Sarikas and Vishanth Weerakkody

Integrated e-government services 153

Information Systems Evaluation and Integration Group (ISEing), School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics, Brunel University, London, UK Abstract Purpose – This paper seeks to explore the challenges that local government face in the UK when implementing fully integrated electronic public services. Design/methodology/approach – A case study based research approach using interviews with employees and citizens in a large local authority was utilised to examine both the government and citizen’s perspective of electronic government (e-government) and related service improvement efforts. Findings – From a theoretical perspective, process and information systems integration are identified in the literature as key challenges for enabling fully functional e-government services. However, empirical research in this paper highlights that broader issues of technical, political, and organisational origin are of equal importance but tend to be overlooked in practice. Research limitations/implications – Although the empirical research discussed in this paper is limited to one local authority, its size, geographic location and ethnic diversity makes the local authority a good illustrative example of local e-government implementation efforts in the UK. Originality/value – The findings and issues raised in this paper are of practical importance to the UK public sector and elsewhere, and can aid to enable the identification of objectives, priorities and barriers to e-government, and options for successful implementation thereof. Conversely, the process and information systems integration issues discussed in the paper is timely and novel as national e-government efforts are now moving from initial e-enabling efforts to a process transformational phase in the UK. Keywords Government, Communication technologies, Local government, Citizens, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction The rapid pace of technological development has led to the integration of computers and telecommunication to unfold within public and private organisations. Albeit at vastly different speeds and levels of sophistication, successive governments around the world have demonstrated their determination to harness the power of technology for the benefit of service-state delivery, accountability, effectiveness, and openness in government. The empirical study used in this paper was conducted by Mr Riten Patel as part of his final year project/dissertation for the award of BSc (Honors) in computer science at the School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics at Brunel University. The study was supervised by the second author of this paper. The authors wish to thank Riten for his contribution.

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy Vol. 1 No. 2, 2007 pp. 153-173 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1750-6166 DOI 10.1108/17506160710751986

TG 1,2

154

Electronic government (e-government) is seen, as an agent for change having become a political imperative at local, national and international level. Prins (2001) sets e-government as the delivery of on-line government services, which provides the opportunity to increase citizen access to government, reduce government bureaucracy, increase citizen participation in democracy and enhance agency responsiveness to citizens needs. Others define e-government as the use of the information and communication technologies (ICT) to procedures and outcomes of central government (CG) and local government (LG) and their administrative structures (Chadwick and May, 2003; Wimmer, 2002). The former definition includes the notion of electronic democracy through e-government whereas the latter definitions are advocating new public management. To harmonise matters, we will use a well thought-out statement provided by the European Commission. The commission define e-government as: . . . the use of information and communication technology in public administrations combined with organisational change and new skills in order to improve public services and democratic processes and strengthen support to public policies (Europe’s Information Society, 2004).

For the past decade, e-government (projects) promised to change the process of governance through digital service delivery; yet in reality, it is confined to using e-mail and the world wide web to communicate with private bodies and citizens and static web sites where one can view or download and print, forms for manual submission to the agency. Nonetheless, the number of worldwide e-government (projects) has increased since 1996 from 3 to more than 500 national initiatives and growing (Al-Kibsi et al., 2001). While in the early stages e-government efforts in Europe were primarily focused on modernising the public sector European Union (EU)-wide (Cuddy, 2003), in the United Kingdom (UK) in particular more recent plans are focused towards exploiting the already implemented e-government processes and systems to realise fully integrated e-government services by 2008. As e-government develops, agencies need able to conduct transactions with the public along web-enabled systems that use portals to link common applications and protect privacy. Offering more services on-line eases the navigation between agency boundaries, permitting smoother paths of communication between citizens and their government. Not so long ago the focus was on putting e-government on the map, making it visible, raising awareness, political interest and gaining momentum to bring public services on-line. As soon as the first e-government services were piloted, academic, industrial and governmental conferences and publications around the globe stressed the importance of numerous social (e.g. digital divide), economic (e.g. ROI) issues and technical (e.g. integration) issues (Themistoclous and Sarikas, 2005). The latter have been the first that were observed. Over the years, the concept of e-government has evolved from the domain of e-business where it requires enterprises to collaborate with partners, suppliers and customers for the effective delivery of e-services. However, in the e-government context, collaboration and sharing of information needs to take place between public agencies. The integration of disparate legacy systems and cross-agency business process therefore is of essential importance (Fustes, 2003; Champy, 2002). The implementation of integration (like any ICT project) is striking because of the amount of care required by all the stakeholders involved, the effort needed for the alignment of organizational and technical components and the

technology needed to make the initial concept a reality (Ciborra et al., 2000; Latour, 1987). Given the above context therefore, it is evident that a very important issue that needs to be addressed in the government on-line agenda is the debate as to how best to proceed with integration of processes and systems in the public sector (Janssen and Cresswell, 2005; Weerakkody et al., 2006). Existing systems are typically build using architectures that do not readily support enterprise-wide integration, thus requiring the development of the new architecture to link on-line government (Allen et al., 2001). This requires the integration and communication between business processes and underlying ICT in disparate organizations, a task which is performed by enterprise application integration (EAI) technologies. Though, ideally implementing (or integrating) ICT looks like a streamlined sequence of processes, it actually functions more like an unfolding event (Ciborra et al., 2000). EAI has been an issue open to both positive and negative discussion for many commercial organizations since the advent of computers and has continued to cause even more problems in the e-business environment (Linthicum, 1999; Sutherland and Willem, 2002; Themistocleous et al., 2004; Themistocleous and Irani, 2002) where processes and ICT systems cross organisational boundaries (Champy, 2002; Themistocleous and Irani, 2003). These problems are multiplied in the government sector, where often inefficient and typically bureaucratic business processes and disparate legacy ICT systems need to be integrated in an e-government environment. The driving force for this paper therefore is to answer the research question: RQ1. What are the challenges faced by LG when implementing an integrated e-government service? Although in the national context of the UK, the direct.gov.uk web portal (and links to local.direct.gov.uk/mycouncil) provides a single point of contact for e-government, it is yet to function as a one stop shop portal – that offers a gateway to local and national government web sites and provides a single point of contact for fully interactive and integrated on-line service deliver (Weerakkody et al., 2006; Gant and Chen, 2001). Furthermore, many local boroughs are lagging behind the national expectations for e-government implementation due to various political, organisational and technical challenges (Irani et al., 2002; Weerakkody et al., 2004). Given this context, this research intends to offer a realistic perspective of the e-government initiative undertaken within the UK. To explore further the arguments set out above, this paper is divided as follows. In the next section, a literature review identifies the challenges facing e-government in the global context and examines the organisational and technical challenges that need to be addressed for realising a fully integrated e-government. To this end, the emerging web services concept and its significance to e-government service integration will be explored. This is followed in Section 3 by a summary of the methods used to carry out the research discussed in this paper. Section 4 then presents the results of an exploratory study of local e-government implementation and the associated process and ICT integration challenges faced by LG. A discussion follows in Section 5 and examines the process and systems requirements for integrating local e-government services. Finally, the paper concludes by summarising the main research findings and offering suggestions for realising integrated e-government services in the UK.

Integrated e-government services 155

TG 1,2

156

2. Moving from cataloguing to integrated e-government services With its increasing popularity e-government has rapidly become a political imperative at local, national and international level (Irani et al., 2002). It is expected that as e-government matures, there will be a plethora of benefits for governments, business and citizens alike (Chandler and Emanuels, 2002; Holden et al., 2002; Araujo and Grande, 2003). Yet, how these benefits will be reached is still a matter of controversy. Despite the feasibility and availability of technology, government agencies have confronted many challenges and problems in successfully developing and implementing e-government systems (West, 2002; Margetts and Dunleavy, 2002). Overcoming these challenges therefore is one of the biggest tests for the government of any country planning to implement e-government. Research on e-government has identified many open issues which are hindering the adoption of e-government in many countries. These include but are not limited to: . lack of awareness (Reffat, 2003); . access to e-services (Fang, 2002; Darrell, 2002); . usability of e-government web sites (Porter, 2002; Sampson, 2002); . lack of trust (Navarra and Cornford, 2003; Bhattacherjee, 2002); . security concerns (Harris and Schwartz, 2000; Jarvenpaa et al., 1999); . resistance to change (Margetts and Dunleavy, 2002); . lack of skills and funding (Federal Computer Weekly, 2001); . data protection laws (Bonham et al., 2003; Harris and Schwartz, 2000); and . lack of strategy and frameworks (Reffat, 2003). Similar to the private sector, support for governmental applications of ICT, such as e-government, is driven by pressures to reduce spending whereby, in theory, exploiting the continuing fall in costs and increase in capabilities of ICT. Despite the visionary thinking, successive governments have increasingly recognised the problems of successfully developing ICT systems. Over the past five years, high profile ICT difficulties have affected the UK’s child support agency, passport office, criminal records bureau, inland revue, national air traffic services, the department for work and pensions and not to forget the London ambulance service, among others (Parliamentary Office Of Science And Technology (POST), 2003, 1998; McGrath, 2002). In 2003, the UK’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reported that the government had 100 major ICT projects underway, with a total value of £10 billion (PAC, 2002; POST, 2003). The spending review of 2002 allocated approximately £6 billion over three years to government electronic service delivery (Office of the e-Envoy, 2002). In comparison, US public sector spending on e-government solutions was predicted to go from $1.5 billion in 2000 to $6.5 billion in 2005 (Chircu and Lee, 2003). Given the governments’ high investment budget, the complexity of large-scale ICT projects and the public demand for better public services, the government must take every measure to assess the performance of its local and national efforts and take into account the overall it payoff from e-government (benefits, costs and risks); be it human, social, technical or fiscal.

The POST reports that according to Computing Magazine, the cost of cancelled or over-budget government ICT projects over the last six years is greater than £1.5 billion (POST, 2003; Computing, 2003). With the governments’ target for modernising and digitising all its services by 2008, pressure is now increasing to address the causes of ICT development failure in the public sector. The current program of e-government in the UK focuses on e-enabling local authorities in different regions in the UK with plans to implement a fully integrated service by 2008. As said before, in the national context of the UK, the direct.gov.uk web portal provides a single point of contact for e-government, but is yet to function as a proper web portal. Given this overall context, Layne and Lee’s (2001) representation of the different stages and dimensions of e-government development is significant (Figure 1). Layne and Lee (2001) argue that there are four developmental stages of e-government based on their observations of “current” practices. The authors suggest that e-government is an evolutionary phenomenon and therefore e-government initiatives should be accordingly derived and implemented. In this regard, this paper posits four stages of a growth model for e-government: (1) cataloguing; (2) transaction; (3) vertical integration; and (4) horizontal integration. These four stages are explained in terms of complexity involved and different levels of integration below. In stage one (cataloguing), initial efforts of state (local) governments are focused on establishing an on-line presence. Examples of functionalities at this stage are mostly limited to on-line presentations of government information. At this end of the first stage of e-government evolution, governments begin to establish index pages or a localized portal site in which scattered electronic documents are organized so that citizens can search for and view detailed government related information and download necessary forms. This first stage is called “cataloguing” because efforts are focused on cataloguing government information and presenting it on the web but it can be also depicted by the “push” of the managerial government model. In the second stage (transactional), e-government allows citizens to transact with e-government electronically and at this stage, e-government efforts consists of putting live database links to on-line interfaces, so that citizens may proceed with governmentto-citizen transactions. Eventually as the quantity of transactions increases, government will integrate their back office systems as the critical benefits of implementing e-government are actually derived from the integration of underlying processes not only across different levels of government but also different functions of government “one-stop shopping” concept. Also, from the viewpoint of all levels of government, this could eliminate redundancies and inconsistencies in their information bases for citizens. Layne and Lee (2001) point that this integration may happen in two ways: vertical (third stage) and horizontal (fourth stage). Vertical integration refers to LG and CG connected for different functions or services of government. In contrast, the authors define horizontal integration as integration across different functions and services.

Integrated e-government services 157

158

This last stage of the e-government framework represents an utopian digital one-stop environment in which citizens have on-line access to ubiquitous government services with levels of government and the functional walls inside government transparent to them. The four stage model offers a way to map the evolution, maturity and sophistication of e-government services both in terms of the organization and technical aspects. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 1, it outlines the multi-perspective transformation needed within government structures and functions for the exploitation of a one stop e-government web portal. Gant and Chen (2001) state that, different countries around the world have strived at different speeds to move from the cataloguing to transaction stage. The UK is no exception where the country has managed to realise transaction level services in key public service processes such e-billing, e-payments, e-voting and e-forms (Weerakkody et al., 2004, 2006). Also, some UK local authorities and public sector institutions have already reengineered and integrated disparate business processes and IT systems to offer the public a more integrated service across different disciplines by collaborating with leading software and technology providers in the country (Infoconomy, 2004). Although the above mentioned cases are encouraging, it can be argued that the transfer of public administrative processes from a largely inefficient and bureaucratic manual state to an e-enabled real-time automated state would involve, in some countries fundamental changes to processes at both local and national government levels.

Level of Transformation

Complex

Horizontal Integration Systems integrated across different functions; real onestop shopping for citizens Vertical Systems Local systems linked to higherlevel systems within similar functionalities

Transactions Services and Forms On-line Working database Supporting online transactions

Cataloguing Online presence Catalogue Presentation Downloadable Forms

Sparse Source: Adapted from Layne and Lee (2001)

Low

Simple

Technological and organizational Complexity

Figure 1. Dimensions and stages of e-government development

High High

Low

Benefits

TG 1,2

Integration

Completion

In regards to this a range of typical public administrative processes such as accountability arrangements, budgeting, monitoring and reporting, decision making and performance management can be reengineered with the influence of ICT (Navarra and Cornford, 2003). However, the level of ICT enabled change to state services will depend to a large extent on the ICT resources available to the different governments (Gant and Gant, 2001) and their attitude to IT enabled change (Heeks, 2000).

Integrated e-government services 159

1.1 Addressing the information and communication problems in public sector There are also many instances where information is clearly not available locally (within the organisation) to execute processes and service specific customer demands. As said before, this adds a further complexity to the process, as information now may need to be obtained from an external source outside the organisational boundaries of LG/councils. Like in e-business, access to this information is needed at electronic speed in e-government, and thus demands instant communication and integration between processes and information systems in different agencies. This information communication and access process is further shown in Figure 2 (which is a modification of the work by Saxena and Wadhawa (2004, p. 130)). As shown in Figure 2, when a citizen requests information from CG or local authority (council) web portal, this information may always not be available within their respective internal systems. In this case, the internal systems of the respective government agency will need to request and interact with other organizations’ (i.e. LG agencies, CG, local businesses, etc.) information systems to extract the required information to service the citizen’s need. As said before this demands the interaction between processes and IS/IT systems at both internal and external levels and thus needs an environment where integration and interoperability between disparate ICT systems is seamless. It is fair to suggest that realising this type of environment using traditional modes of EAI is inconceivable given the nature of the diverse hardware and software systems that span government IT infrastructures (Figure 2). Given this context, the emerging concept of web services cannot be ignored. Web services breakdown applications into reusable components or services and enable the linking of these services within and across the enterprise using standards based on extensible mark up language (XML) (Fustes, 2003). It uses three XML based standards: simple object access protocol (SOAP) for transmitting XML-encoded data and remotely accessing services in a platform independent way; universal description and discovery language for registering and discovering services; and web services description language to provide an XML grammar for describing available web services (Monson-Haefel, 2004). In comparison to the most common traditional EAI method, electronic data interchange (EDI), XML is specifically designed to use the internet as the data transfer mechanism whereby business documents and services can be freely exchanged electronically, whereas the latter needs point-to-point connection between each participating system (Thompson, 2002). When using web service, the existing application in the enterprise remain, but instead of staying in relative isolation from each other, they are seamlessly joined to create new services that are more attuned to the needs of the business (Fustes, 2003). Currently, the two main application servers for distributed computing, Microsoft’s.Net and SUN’s J2EE both support web services (Monson-Haefel, 2004; Information Age, 2004b).

TG 1,2

160

USERS

INFORMATION ACCESS MEDIUM

INFORMATION TRANSMISSION MEDIUM

INFORMATION COMMUNICATION APPLICATIONS

INFORMATION PROCESSING APPLICATIONS

Citizens

PC, Digital TV, Mobile Phone, PDA, Kiosk

Internet, EDI and Other Digital Modes ……………………………

e-CRM / e-business type systems

Management Information Systems (MIS), Decision Support Systems (DSS), Knowledge Management Systems (KM), Basis Data Processing (DP) and Office Automation (OA) Systems etc.

X-ENTERPRICE PROCESS INTEGRATION

INFORMATION ACCESS MEDIUM

Figure 2. Information communication and processing infrastructure in e-government

INFORMATION SOURCE

X-ENTERPRISE APPLICATION INTEGRATION

INTERNET OR INTRANET WEB SERVICES EDI

LG2CG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

LG2LG LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

LG2B BUSINESS AND OTHER AGENCY INFORMATION

MIS, DSS, KM, DP and OA Systems

Web services helps EAI by providing the tools needed to manage end-to-end extended processes independently of the execution platform (Masood, 2002; Monson-Haefel, 2004). This is enabled through the use of SOA’s, where, when the business needs to automate a business function or process, it merely plugs into a service like logging onto a web site irrespective of whether this may be an internal application, or an external application that may be accessed over the internet (Lawrence, 2004). Already organisations in the USA such as DaimlerChrysler (Information Age, 2004c) and Jersey Post (Information Age, 2004c) and UK supermarket chains Sainsbury’s (Information Age, 2004a) and Tesco’s have used the web services-SOA model to integrate their supply chains. Given this context, it is fair to suggest that government can draw from these successful cases of supply chain integration in their efforts to implement e-government. In the context of e-government, as shown in Figure 2, an SOA/web services environment could potentially replace EDI, intranets, e-mails and other forms of communication used to exchange information between government agencies. Also, XML can provide the common bridge between the various backend MIS, DSS, KM, DP, OA as well as front end CRM, ERP and e-business type systems. In relation to Figure 1 (Layne and Lee’s, 2001 e-government development model), Figure 2 then shows some of the essential ICT concepts that need to work in synchrony to move from basic information delivery to vertical and horizontally integrated e-government services. 3. Research approach and design To explore the arguments set out above in a deep and meaningful manner, a case study approach was considered to be suitable (Walsham, 1993; Pettigrew, 1990) and begun at a large local authority/council in November 2004. Semi-structured interviews lasting between 1 and 2 h were initially conducted with ten council staff. These staffs were made up of the head of e-government, the IT manager, two systems analyst/programmers, two e-government project members, and four operational/ clerical level staff. These employees represented cross sections of the organisation as well as the e-government initiative in council X and were selected after initial discussions with the head of e-government. This process helped to eliminate any bias from forming in the data collected (Saunders et al., 2000; Denzin, 1978). Follow-up structured interviews were thereafter arranged with the same staff in order to confirm the results and clarify any unclear information. The follow up interviews were brief (between 20 and 40 min) and started with the interviewer summarising the key findings from the main interview which was followed by a questioning phase to address any unclear information or themes that may have been overlooked during the first interview. This offered the opportunity for both the interviewer and interviewee to verify the information disclosed during the interviews (Cresswell, 1994, Denzin, 1978; Tesch, 1990). The above process was complemented with further interviews with 20 local citizens between the ages of 16-84 who came into council X’s offices. The citizens consisted of both males and females and represented different ethnic (English, Asian, Afro Caribbean) as well professional (private and public sector workers; self employed; citizens who were unemployed, retired, on income support or job seekers allowance; and students) backgrounds. The interviews with citizens were focused and brief in contrast to staff interviews, and lasted between 5 and 10 min; this allowed the

Integrated e-government services 161

TG 1,2

162

researchers to understand the e-government challenges from a citizens’ perspective. During both sets of interviews (with council staff and citizens) notes were taken in a logbook (interviews were not tape-recorded as requested by the interviewees) and later transcribed into the computer. The interviews were combined with observation and a review of council documentation, which allowed the researches to verify and validate the empirical finding through triangulation (Denzin, 1978; Saunders et al., 2000; Ragin, 1987). Finally, the data analysis was done by comparing the different findings against each other and initially forming themes, which were later merged/divided and categorised into appropriate headings. The empirical research process began in November 2004 and was completed in March 2005. The research approach taken is shown below in Figure 3. 4. Exploring the process and ICT integration challenges in local government: a case study at council X Council X was formed in 1977 and is London’s largest borough with a population of 331,370 citizens from diverse ethnic groups. In support of the UK e-government initiative, the council has initiated a number of projects aimed at improving their ICT infrastructure and delivering public services electronically. However, council X has duly recognized that much more needs to be done before the council could realistically support the CGs plans to offer fully integrated e-government services by 2008 in the UK. Accordingly, a senior councillor has been appointed as head of e-government to lead the initiative forward in council X and a business unit has been formed involving a team of experienced council staff. This unit has outlined the implementation of the following services as imperative for the success of e-government at council X: . an ICT infrastructure that will meet the future needs of modern service delivery; . a single set of customer records; . a telephone contact centre; . free internet access to citizens in public places such as libraries; . one-stop-shops for local council services;

START

Figure 3. The research design

Conduct Literature Review in e-Government

Identify Research Need/Question/Scope

Conceptualisation of Problem Domain

Phase I

Conduct Ethnographic Observation SemiStructured Interviews

Develop Research Protocol & Research Methods

Identify Challenges Faced by local Government When Implementing a Government Services

Phase II

Identify Key Challenges that Need to Overcome in the UK for the implementation of fully Integrated E-Government Services

Disseminate

END

Phase III

. .

public access kiosks; and business transformation to improve local services.

In relation to the research question set out in Section 1 of the paper (RQ1), some of the above services (such as access to a single set of customer records, one stop shop, public access kiosk) requires the integration, harmonization and free exchange of information between different business processes and underlying ICT systems for them to succeed. Our interviews with the e-government project team and staff identified a number of challenges that council X needs to overcome if they were to successfully implement the above-mentioned projects. These challenges are presented below in the context of the progress made thus far by council X and what needs to be achieved still particularly in relation to Layne and Lee’s (2001) framework for e-government service delivery/integration shown in Figure 1. 4.1 Cataloguing information: Figure 1, stage 1 Like many other local councils in the UK, council X has implemented an e-government web site with information about local services. Also, under the e-government initiative, council X offers free internet access to citizens in local libraries; provides e-mail addresses to all council staff (so that citizens can communicate with staff electronically); offers access to relevant council papers and information about council tax referendums, etc. on-line; provides IT training to council staff and local citizens; and facilitates internet access to all local schools. 4.2 Enabling on-line transactions: Figure 1, stage 2 The current ICT infrastructure in place at council X does not provide an adequate platform for process and ICT integration and thus restricts the sharing of resources and information. As outlined by a number of IT staff, council X has internal databases with citizens’ records showing information such as council tax, social services benefits, parking permits and library cards. However, these databases and systems processing the information are all dispersed within different departments and citizens have to contact these departments to access different services. Furthermore, the ICT infrastructure in council X is made up of ailing legacy systems which are unable to support many of the citizens’ queries on-line; contact has to be made in person at the council’s offices which was seen by IT staff as “failing to fulfil the e-government promise”. Also, it was clear that IT staff were struggling to cope with their increasing workload and the demands made on the existing legacy systems as a result of e-government. On the positive side, however, the council has implemented a secure server with firewall protection, virus checker and password authentication. Although these improvements are beginning to encourage a digital medium, it is clear that much more is required to compliment these facilities. 4.3 Vertical process and systems integration: Figure 1, stage 3 Interviews with council staff identified a highly ineffective vertical communication and information exchange mechanism between LG and CG. For instance, currently, when a citizen has a specific query, the council employee dealing with the query has to telephone or fax CG for information. One interviewee highlighted that:

Integrated e-government services 163

TG 1,2

164

Calling central government is a pain, they put us on hold for a long time and even when they answer the phone the call gets transferred from one place to another. Writing letters is much easier to do, but even then it takes them at least two weeks to get back to us.

When information has to be communicated in the opposite direction (i.e. CG to LG), the situation is no better. The council currently receives all new information regarding policy changes, benefits and services, etc. in hard copy format by post. This information is then passed on to the relevant departments. In this respect, one interviewee highlighted the concernsofmanystaffbystating,“ofteninformationislostormisplacedandwedon’thave important information available to us.” Unfortunately, this scenario indicates that the exchangeofinformationatverticallevelisineffectiveandthuspossesachallengenotonlyto council X, but CG as well.

4.4 Horizontal process and systems integration: Figure 1, stage 4 Horizontal communication and information exchange at council X is no better than the vertical scenario described above. Considering that council X has identified the need for a single set of customer records as a key requirement for their e-government efforts, currently staff have to phone or fax other departments to obtain different customer records. For instance, entitlement for certain state benefits and services often require information and verification by a number of different departments both at LG and CG level. In such cases, staff have to wait for replies from various entities before they could discharge the citizen’s benefit or service entitlement. It was revealed that this could take days, and sometimes even weeks or months leaving the citizens helpless. From the citizens’ perspective, the most influential factor for all the citizens interviewed was the long times spent in council X’s offices waiting to be served. Although citizens collect a numbered-ticket upon entering the council, a citizen voiced her concern by stating, “I only need to talk to the education department but I have to wait until my number comes”. It was also observed that although staff in certain departments were free, yet citizens requiring the service of these departments had to wait with everyone else until their number was called in the common ticketing system. Also, council X had a policy of different queues for different departments (meaning that if a citizen has two queries such as on education and housing, he/she has to queue up twice). Therefore, having a common ticketing system did not make any sense and contributed to further confusion and added waiting time for citizens. While addressing the above challenges require commitment and resources, the e-government effort at council X is further compounded by funding issues. Interviews with the IT manager found that council X is finding it difficult to obtain funding from CG for their e-government efforts. Each year, funding is given in packages and the IT managers are under increasing pressure to deliver e-services with the limited financial resources. It was revealed that council X is currently in debt to the CG and any increases to the IT budget is unlikely in the near future. One manager highlighted the financial constraints faced by the council by stating, “Citizens are always demanding less council tax and better services, but, without investment for e-government it is not possible to deliver the services they require”.

5. Discussion: improving local government services and key challenges that need to be addressed in the UK The case study conducted at Council X identified a number of key issues that needed to be considered if the council was to realise integrated e-government services. It is imperative, however, that proposed services ensure increased efficiency and reduced cycle time which was the primary concern where citizens were concerned. and as argued before this can only be achieved through the integration and harmonisation of processes and IT systems within LG and between LG and CG. Such a solution will not only allow better communication between different departments within the council, but also between the council and CG. Some key issues that need to be considered include: . the need for databases from different department to be integrated at LG level so that there is a single set of citizens records; . the ability for LG employees to access the latest information from CG on their screens; . data sharing should be possible between LG departments and CG; and . on-line access for citizens to apply for e-services such as social care, disability allowances and facilities, education, health, etc. As said before, from the CG’s perspective, progress has been made in the context of offering a one-stop-shop for key public service such as health, education, employment, etc. by publishing the “direct.gov.uk” web portal and a link to local councils through the “local.direct.gov.uk/mycouncil” web portal. However, it is fair to suggest that judging by the challenges faced by LG (such as council X), moving beyond the cataloguing stage to vertical and horizontal integration (Figure 1) in the UK will require a great deal of process and information systems redesign work that will need to be supported by new integration technologies such as web services. As seen in council X, inefficient processes were further thwarted by fragmented information systems making the exchange of information between processes and systems impossible. Besides, empirical research in the UK strongly suggests that succeeding at the local level is key for national level e-government success (Hackney and Jones, 2002). Also, many local residents hardly interact with CG in comparison to the level of interactions they have with LG (millions for central vs 3-4 billion for local) (www.kablenet.com). Therefore, we argue that although the central web portal (direct.gov.uk) and the link to local councils (local.direct.gov.uk/mycouncil) is a helpful resource, it does not encompass the need for good local e-government web portals in the UK offering efficient and user-friendly interactive integrated service delivery. Given the above context, moving from cataloguing to the horizontal integration stage in the e-government service delivery structure (Layne and Lee, 2001) will require cross-functional as well as cross-organisational redesign of business processes and supporting software applications (Champy, 2002) in government institutions, at both, local and national levels. Given the communication and information exchange problems at council X, the primary focus therefore needs to be the integration and improved communication between internal as well as external processes and IT systems. From an organisational perspective, the paradigm shift and change of culture that this may introduce to government institutions would certainly face resistance as seen in other forms of organisational change such as business process reengineering

Integrated e-government services 165

TG 1,2

166

(Sahay and Walsham, 1997; Avgerou, 1993; Weerakkody and Hinton, 1999). Moreover, it is imperative that the project planners and implementers understand how the various business processes, software systems and stakeholders that make up the e-government structure will interact with each other to provide integrated services. Figure 4 shows the various problems encountered at council X against Layne and Lee’s (2001) framework for e-government development (Figure 1) and the information processing and communication infrastructure model of (Saxena and Wadhawa, 2004) (Figure 2). It is fair to suggest that this diagram outlines the kind of challenges that not only council X, but many other LG agencies will face when implementing e-government services. Figure 4 also shows the link between the various information systems and the level of integration required between these systems to overcome the challenges faced by local councils in general in the context of delivering efficient and effective LG services to citizens. As revealed before in the previous section and shown in Figure 4 below, the main challenges that council X face revolve around integration and communication problems between various systems (such as internal data bases, ERP/CRM systems, web based systems, etc.) at both vertical and horizontal levels. Therefore, initially the harmonisation of at least the internal systems (data bases) is paramount if councils are to efficiently enable interactive and transaction level LG services to citizens. Furthermore, for higher levels of electronic service delivery the harmonisation and integration of business processes and supporting ICT systems between the main stakeholders (citizens, government agencies, employees, and business partners) are imperative (Champy, 2002). While the integration between two or more of these entities Horizontal Systems Integration LG-LG-CG

One Stop Shop: Single Point of Access to all LG needs of a Citizen– the need for LG systems to communicate with CG and systems of other local business

Vertical Systems Integration LG- CG

Avoid re-entering hardcopy based CG Information into LG systems The need for data sharing between LG and CG to answer customer queries

Transaction Services (Internal Systems Integration)

Difficult to maintain legacy systems Need to Integrate Internal data bases Citizens need to make online applications for LG services

Figure 4. The levels of systems integration necessary to facilitate better LG services

Cataloguing Information (Web Presence)

Provide free Internet access to citizens in public places (library; kiosk)

INFORMATION TRANSMISSION MEDIUM (Internet, Kiosk)

INFORMATION COMMUNICATION MEDIUM (CRM; eBusiness Systems)

INFORMATION PROCESSING APPLICATIONS (Backend Systems)

INFORMATION ACCESS MEDIUM (EDI, Web Services)

may allow governments to deliver e-services at the cataloguing stage, in order to offer fully integrated e-services, the overall integration and harmonisation of all the above elements will be imperative. However, when even successful commercial enterprises are suffering with process and EAI in the context of e-business and supply chain management (Linthicum, 1999; Sutherland and Willem, 2002), government institutions with bureaucratic processes and outdated legacy systems will find this an even more Herculean task. Yet, the reality of having to reengineer these often inefficient and ineffective business processes and ICT systems before e-enabling them for e-government remains encouraging though, as this can promote a degree of standardisation across government institutions which may help ease the above problem. Moreover, we believe that this is where emerging technologies such as web service can offer a fast and effective solution to councils (like X) by helping to retain many existing (functional) applications in the council, but instead of staying in relative isolation from each other, they can be integrated to create new services that are more attuned to the needs of the citizens. As discussed before, in the above context we cannot ignore the progress made towards integrated service delivery by the UK Government where links to all 388 English local councils have now been implemented through the “direct.gov” web portal (Government Computing, 2006). Using the address http://local.direct.gov.uk/ mycouncil/ citizens can now link to access their respective local council services. However, we argue that this is merely a web link and therefore only provides access to the same cataloguing and basic transaction level services that are already available through the local council web sites. On the contrary, the evidence in council X suggests that there are still a number of deeper process and systems integration issues that need to be addressed at both LG and CG levels before fully integrated services are offered to citizens through a single point of access. 6. Conclusion This paper has reported upon the progress made by one large local authority in their efforts to implement e-government in the UK. The research highlighted a number technical, financial and organisational challenges faced at LG level, and indicated that the actual implementation of e-government is a complex and lengthy task that may proceed beyond the government’s target of 2008. From a literature perspective previous research on e-government has identified a number of social-cultural issues such as access to e-services (Fang, 2002; Darrell, 2002), usability of e-government web sites (Porter, 2002; Sampson, 2002), lack of trust (Navarra and Cornford, 2003; Bhattacherjee, 2002), security concerns (Harris and Schwartz, 2000; Jarvenpaa et al., 1999) and resistance to change (Margetts and Dunleavy, 2002) are hindering the adoption of e-government in many countries. While most governments have now addressed these issues which are usually associated with the early stages of e-government implementation, from a more technical and organisational standpoint the debate as to how best to proceed with integration of processes and systems in the public sector (Janssen and Cresswell, 2005; Weerakkody et al., 2006; Allen et al., 2001) is a challenge that still continues to linger. Certainly, the empirical findings in this research coincide with the above suggestions. As seen at council X it is common for government agencies to have a plethora of information systems based on different hardware platforms. While it is fair

Integrated e-government services 167

TG 1,2

168

to state that many of these systems offer valuable operational and strategic support to these agencies, the challenge therefore is not to replace these systems, but to utilize them efficiently by enabling the communication and exchange of information between these systems using available-cost-effective technologies. Besides, with looming deadlines and limited resources the UK Government cannot afford a large-scale radical reengineering (for instance as suggested by Hammer and Champy, 1993) of business processes and IT systems in local councils. Therefore, an incrementally-led process improvement effort (as suggested by Davenport, 1993; Harrington, 1991) supported by cost effective ICT’s will no doubt offer a relatively risk-free transition from the currently cataloguing (information provisioning) and transaction level web sites (Layne and Lee, 2001) to a full e-service oriented integrated LG in the UK. Furthermore, while local councils need to formulate their own e-government plans in line with CG strategy, it is imperative that these plans are focused towards satisfying local citizens’ needs and expectations rather than solely those of CG. In this context, this research has shown the need to organise work flow and integrate various legacy systems within local councils as a key imperative for local e-government success. It is therefore fair to argue that the main e-government implementation focus should now move from front end interface design and linking web sites (i.e. local.direct.gov.uk/mycouncil) to internal business process and information systems reengineering. In summing up, this research has attempted to offer a better understanding of the technological and wider organisational issues that may influence the realisation of a fully integrated e-government service through literature and empirical research. It has also examined the relevance of web services as an EAI platform for process and application integration in e-government. Although the empirical research was undertaken upon one local council, from the secondary data that is available it is fair to state that the above discussed factors are also faced at the national level of e-government implementation in the UK. However, more research is needed to explore these issues and to this effect the authors have already planned more surveys and interviews with a number of local councils in the UK. References Al-Kibsi, G., de Boer, K., Mourshed, M. and Rea, N. (2001), “Putting citizens online not in line”, The McKinsley Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 65-73. Allen, B.A. and Juillet, L. et al., (2001), “E-governance and government on-line in Canada: partnerships, people and prospects”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 93-104. Araujo, M.C.R. and Grande, J.I.C. (2003), “Performance in e-government: web site orientation to the citizens in Spanish municipalities”, Proceedings of European Conference on e-Government, Trinity College, Dublin. Avgerou, C. (1993), “Information systems for development planning”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 13, pp. 260-73. Bhattacherjee, A. (2002), “Individual trust in online firms: scale development and initial trust”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 211-41. Bonham, M.G., Seifert, J.W. and Thorson, S.J. (2003), “The transformational potential of e-government: the role of political leadership”, paper presented at 4th Pan European International Relations Conference.

Chadwick, A. and May, C. (2003), “Interactions between states and citizens in the age of the internet: ‘e-government’ in the United States, Britain, and the European Union”, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 16 No. 2, p. 271. Champy, J. (2002), X-Engineering the Corporation: Reinventing Your Business in the Digital Age, Warner Books, New York, NY. Chandler, S. and Emanuels, S. (2002), “Transformation not automation”, paper presented at 2nd European Conference on E-Government, St Catherine’s College, Oxford. Chircu, A.M. and Lee, D.H.-D. (2003), “Understanding IT investments in the public sector: the case of e-government”, paper presented at 9th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), pp. 792-800. Ciborra, C.U. et al. (2000), From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Computing (2003), “Government IT Problems since 1997”, Computing, 13 March. Cresswell, J. (1994), Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sage, London. Cuddy, I. (2003), “New moves for European e-government”, available at: www.egovmonitor.com/ newsletter/yzdqasd86/talrln02.html Darrell, W. (2002), US State and Federal e-Government Full Report, available at: www. insidepolitics.org/egovt02us.PDF, September. Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA. Denzin, N.K. (1978), The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Europe’s Information Society (2004), “About e-government”, available at: http://europa.eu.int/ information_society/ Fang, Z. (2002), “E-government in digital era: concept, practice and development”, International Journal of the Computer, The Internet and Information, Vol. 20, pp. 193-213. Federal Computer Weekly (2001), “Available for rent enterprise applications”, available at: www. fcw.com Fustes, M. (2003), “The unconstrained business”, Insight, No. 3, pp. 15-17. Gant, J. and Chen, Y. (2001), “Transforming local e-government services: the use of application service providers,”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 343-55. Gant, J.P. and Gant, D.B. (2001), “Web portal functionality and state government e-services”, Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Hawaii. Government Computing (2006), A New Era Dawns: Local Directgov Programme, May. Hackney, R. and Jones, S. (2002), “Towards e-government in the Welsh (UK) assembly: an information systems evaluation”, paper presented at ISOneWorld Conference and Convention, Las Vegas, April. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering The Corporation: A Manifesto For Business Revolution, Harper Collins Publishers Inc., New York, NY. Harrington, H.J. (1991), Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity and Competitiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Harris, J.F. and Schwartz, J. (2000), “Anti drug website tracks visitors”, Washington Post, June 22, p. 23. Heeks, R. (2000), Reinventing Government in the Information Age, Routledge Press, London.

Integrated e-government services 169

TG 1,2

170

Holden, S.H., Norris, D.F. and Fletcher, P.D. (2002), “Electronic at the grass roots: contemporary evidence and future trends”, Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Infoconomy (2004), .Net Live, Series 5,6,7 and 8, Infoconomy Ltd, London, available at: www. infoconomy.com Information Age (2004a), “SeeBeyond empowers Sainsbury’s transformation”, Information Age, April, pp. B10-B11. Information Age (2004b), “J2EE v.NET, understanding, implementing and managing core technologies, information age advisory series”, Information Age, Vol. 1 No. 3, p. 34. Information Age (2004c), “Understanding, implementing and managing core technologies, information age advisory series”, Information Age, Vol. 1 No. 3, p. 26. Irani, Z. and Elliman, T. et al. (2002), “Evaluating the benefits, costs and risks of development an e-government infrastructure (E-GOV-IT): a proposed research agenda”, Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference of e-Government (ECEG), St Catherine’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, EDS. Janssen, M. and Cresswell, A. (2005), “Enterprise architecture integration in e-government”, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’05), Hawaii. Jarvenpaa, S.I., Tractinsky, N. and Saarinen, L. (1999), “Consumer trust in an internet store: a cross cultural validation”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 5 No. 2, (online). Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action, Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Lawrence, A. (2004), “From EAI to SOA”, Information Age, April, pp. B8-B9. Layne, K. and Lee, J. (2001), “Developing fully functional e-government: a four-stage model”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 122-36. Linthicum, D. (1999), Enterprise Application Integration, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA. McGrath, K. (2002), “The golden circle: a way of arguing and acting about technology in the London ambulance service”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 251-66. Margetts, H. and Dunleavy, P. (2002), “Cultural barriers to e-government”, working paper, University College London and London School of Economics for National Audit Office. Masood, S. (2002), “The missing link”, Information Age, November, pp. 31-2. Monson-Haefel, R. (2004), J2EE Web Services, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA. Navarra, D.D. and Cornford, T. (2003), “A policy making view of e-government innovations in public governance”, Proceedings of the Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Tampa, Florida. Office of the e-Envoy (2002), UK Online Annual Report, Office of the e-Envoy, London. POST (1998), E-Government, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, London. POST (2003), Government IT Projects, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, London. Pettigrew, A.M. (1990), “Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice”, Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 267-92. Porter (2002), The Second Annual Report into Key Government Web Sites, available at: www. porter-research.com/govt2002.html Prins, C. (2001), “Electronic government: variations on a concept”, in J, J.E. (Ed.), Designing E-Government, Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, pp. 1-5.

Public Accounts Committee (PAC) (2002), Improving Public Services Through e-Government, HC845 (August), UK. Ragin, C.C. (1987), The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Reffat, R. (2003), “Developing a successful e-government”, working paper, School of Architecture, Design Science and Planning, University of Sydney, Sydney. Sahay, S. and Walsham, G. (1997), “Social structures and management agency in India”, Organisation Studies, Vol. 18, pp. 415-44. Sampson, N. (2002), “Bank marketing international: simplifying in(form)ation online”, available at: www.mandoforms.com Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2000), Research Methods for Business Students, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, London. Saxena, A. and Wadhawa, S. (2004), “E-business perspective of e-governance”, in Gupta, M.D. (Ed.), Promise of E-Governance: Operational Challenges, Tata-McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, pp. 128-35. Sutherland, J. and Willem, J. (2002), “Enterprise application integration and complex adaptive systems”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45 No. 10, pp. 59-64. Tesch, R. (1990), Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools, Falmer, New York, NY. Themistocleous, M. and Irani, Z. (2002), “Novel taxonomy for application integration”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 154-65. Themistocleous, M. and Irani, Z. (2003), “Towards a novel framework for the assessment of enterprise application integration packages”, paper presented at Thirty-Six Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (Hicss 36), Big Island, Hawaii. Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z. and Love, P.E.D. (2004), “Evaluating the integration of supply chain information systems: a case study”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 159 No. 2, pp. 393-405. Themistoclous, M. and Sarikas, O.D. (2005), “Invited viewpoint: thoughts on e-government”, The Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 508-10. Thompson, J. (2002), “Out with the old”, Information Age, July, pp. 32-3. Walsham, G. (1993), Interpreting Information Systems in Organisations, Wiley, Chichester. Weerakkody, V.J.P. and Hinton, C.M. (1999), “Exploiting information systems and technology through business process improvement”, Knowledge and Process Management: The Journal of Corporate Transformation, Vol. 6 No. 1. Weerakkody, V., Baire, S. and Choudrie, J. (2006), “E-government: a case for process improvement in the public sector”, paper presented at Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (Hicss-39), January. Weerakkody, V., Choudrie, J. and Currie, W. (2004), “Realising e-government in the UK: local and national challenges”, Proceedings of the 10th Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, August. West, D.M. (2002), “Global e-government”, available at: www.insidepolitics.org/egovt02int.html Wimmer, M.A. (2002), “A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGov project”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 1, pp. 92-103.

Integrated e-government services 171

TG 1,2

172

Further reading Burn, J. and Robins, G. (2001), “E-government: an Australian case study”, paper presented at 2nd Working with e-Business (We-B) Conference, November. Cabinet Office (2002), Modernising Government, The Stationery Office, London. Ciborra, C.U. (Ed.) (1996), Groupware and Teamwork: Invisible Aid or Technical Hindrance?, Wiley, Chinchester. Ciborra, C.U. and Lanzara, G.F. (1994), “Formative contexts and information technology”, Accounting, Management and Information Technology, Vol. 4, pp. 611-26. Controller Auditor General (2003), “New IT systems for magistrates’ court”, Report by the Controller Auditor General, HC 326, Session 2003. Heeks, R. (2001), “Building e-governance for development: a framework for national donor action”, MMU e-Government Working Paper, No. 12, ISDPM, University of Manchester, Manchester. Intellect (2000), Getting IT Right for Government, Intellect (Formerly the Computing Services and Software Association), London, June. Jaeger, P.T. (2003), “The endless wire: e-government as global phenomenon”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 323-31. Jaeger, P.T. and Thompson, K.M. (2003), “E-government around the world: lessons, challenges, and future directions”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 389-94. Northrup, T.A. and Thorson, S.J. (2003), “The web of governance and democratic accountability”, Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. Oxford University (2003), Computer Weekly Study of IT Project Management, Templeton College, Oxford University, Oxford. Roy, J. (2003), “Special issue on e-government”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-5. Standish Group (2003), CHAOS Chronicles 2003, Standish Group, West Yarmouth, MA. Vasilakis, C., Laskaridis, G., Lepouras, S., Rouvas, S. and Georgiadis, P. (2003), “A framework for managing the life cycle of transactional e-government services”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 20, pp. 315-29. Yttersad, P. and Watson, R. (1996), “Teledemocracy: using information technology to enhance political work”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 3.

About the authors Omiros D. Sarikas is enthusiastic about the fit of technology with organisations (e-commerce) and society (e-government). He has worked in two EPSRC-funded e-government initiatives (www.viego.org and www.eGISE.org) and exhibited related research at the local e-government Expo in 2006. Omiros is an Associate Editor for the new Emerald Journal Transforming Government: People Process and Policy, which has strong links with the Digital Government Society and the BCS e-democracy Group. Omiros has also worked on editing several issues of JEIM. He served as Coordinator and Proceedings Editor for the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS) in 2004 and 2006 and the UK e-government Workshops (eGOV05 & eGOV06). He also served as Associate Editor for the ICIS2006 Conference and Programme Committee member for both the 2006 UKAIS Conference and the International Conference on Information Integration and Web Based Applications & Services in 2005 and 2006. Omiros D. Sarikas is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: omiros. [email protected]

Vishanth Weerakkody is a Lecturer in Information Systems at the School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics at Brunel University in the UK. He holds an MSc in “Business Systems Analysis and Design” from City University in London and a PhD in “Business Process and Information Systems Reengineering” from the University of Hertfordshire. Dr Weerakkody currently teaches Information Systems Strategy and Management at Brunel University and has been involved in project managing a number of research assignments on e-business, application outsourcing and web services. His current research interests include e-government, cross-organisational process redesign (X-engineering) and web services, and he has guest-edited special issues of leading journals on these themes. Dr Weerakkody has also held various IT positions in multinational organisations and his final appointment in industry was as a “methods and process analyst” at IBM UK. E-mail: vishanth. [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Integrated e-government services 173

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm

TG 1,2

Evaluative design of e-government projects A community development perspective

174

Mike Grimsley Faculty of Arts, Computing, Engineering and Science, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

Anthony Meehan Department of Computing, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, and

Anna Tan The Office of The Deputy Prime Minister (Directgov Home and Community Franchise Team), London, UK Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework supporting the design and evaluation of e-government projects, especially those involving voluntary and community organisations. Design/methodology/approach – The research adapts a socio-economic model of community sustainability, reinterpreting it in the context of e-government. It documents the evolution of a conceptual framework for evaluative design through study of a project in London, UK. An interpretive approach was adopted, within which research was guided by the structured-case method. Findings – The research provides an evaluative framework for e-government projects featuring four forms of community capital: infrastructural, environmental, human and social. An ex post evaluation illustrates how the framework identifies design and management issues that are not considered by conventional evaluative frameworks. Research limitations/implications – The main sources of data reflect project management perspectives and information from monitoring the evolution of activities undertaken by participant organisations. There has been limited direct engagement with the latter and the next phase of research will apply the framework from their perspectives to identify factors promoting and inhibiting ongoing engagement with the system. Practical implications – The framework provides an analytic tool for designers and managers of e-government systems, especially those which feature online community building as a strategic outcome. All project stakeholders can use the framework to structure engagement with system design and management. Originality/value – The distinctive contribution is to reinterpret e-government from a community development perspective. It offers a means of identifying project shortcomings ignored by methods taking a narrower approach to e-government information systems development. Keywords Government, Communication technologies, Information systems, Community development, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy Vol. 1 No. 2, 2007 pp. 174-193 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1750-6166 DOI 10.1108/17506160710751995

Introduction The UK Government, in common with many others, is promoting electronically mediated approaches to democratic participation and public service provision. A crucial component of the government’s strategy is the development and deployment

of information and communications technologies (ICT) to support the new service-delivery structures (Cabinet Office 2005). The aim is partly to realise efficiencies, but there are also prominent socio-political aims such as facilitating participation in community decision making, and promoting community well-being and sustainability. Achievement of both social and economic goals depends upon widespread adoption e-government technologies. A particular concern is that those who most need government services are least likely to use e-government systems, either because they cannot access them (Pekonen and Pulkkinen, 2002) or because they do not trust them (Duffy et al., 2003). Historically, a large number of voluntary and community organisations (the so-called Third Sector) have come into being to offer citizens, especially those most in need, advice, support and advocacy in relation to government and public services, fulfilling the important role of trusted intermediary. In the context of the rapid rollout of e-government services demanded by UK Government targets, there is a widely perceived risk that along with individual citizens, the community organisations upon which they depend may also experience digital exclusion Loader et al. (2000). Increasingly, the UK Government casts the Third Sector as key intermediaries in the relationship between potentially excluded citizen and government services (UK Government e-Envoy, 2003). This strategic positioning of voluntary and community organisations brings additional diversity (and arguably a changed distribution of power) to the nature and range of stakeholder interests to be addressed within many e-government initiatives. However, the goals of national government, local government, public service providers (both profit-driven and not-for-profit), voluntary and community organisations and individual members of the public are rarely congruent. In so far as potential synergies exist, they do so in a web of relationships, each with an associated “history” (Vangen and Huxman, 2003). For long-term success, many e-government projects will require information systems that facilitate the construction and mediation of complex and delicate partnerships involving Third Sector organisations. The development of such systems will require appropriate techniques of evaluation, capable of supporting all stages of the development life-cycle. Traditional approaches to evaluation, and especially those used in practice, tend to focus on organisational performance and related economic measures (Serafeimidis and Smithson, 2003; Klecun and Cornford, 2005), often in a context in which a single investing organisation has a final determining viewpoint. Modern approaches to evaluation advocate the importance of more holistic evaluation and acknowledge multiple stakeholder perspectives (Walsham, 1993, 1999; Farbey et al., 1999), but there is limited evidence that such approaches are used in practice (Serafeimidis and Smithson, 2003; Klecun and Cornford, 2005). It remains the case that evaluation is “underdeveloped” (Irani and Love, 2001), and perhaps especially so in relation to e-government (Damodaran et al., 2005). In this paper, we articulate the development of a conceptual framework (CF) which is intended to support the evaluative design of e-government projects, and especially projects in which there is a perceived need to facilitate the contribution of Third Sector organisations. The framework has evolved from engagement with, and reflection upon, a significant e-government project-CASweb (www.casweb.org). CASweb is a strategic e-government initiative in central London, UK, which aims to supporting a large number of voluntary and community organisations in developing an internet presence

Design of e-government projects 175

TG 1,2

176

and in developing new ways of organising to support their members and clients in relation to e-government services. Using an interpretive approach, we view CASweb and similar e-government initiatives as community development projects. This leads us to adapt and develop a socio-economic model of community sustainability developed at the World Bank (Grootaert, 1998) to provide a framework for evaluative design of e-government projects. At the heart of the framework are four forms of capital: infrastructural, environmental, human and social, and the dependencies between them. Using a research process described in Section 3, the CF at the centre of this paper has evolved through iterative engagement with the case study project. The structure of this paper is intended to reflect this and so relevant literature is considered as the paper unfolds rather than being located in a single section. The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we review information systems evaluation in relation to e-government. Section 3 describes our methodology. Section 4 introduces the case study project, CASweb. Section 5 motivates our initial CF and documents its evolution on the basis of the engagement with the case study project. Section 6 uses the framework and the case study to draw out some generic issues and lessons. Section 7 makes some concluding remarks. Evaluation and e-government In all information systems contexts evaluation has a role to play, helping to assure alignment of outcomes with an evolving perception of strategic need. However, as Willcocks and Lester (1999) observe, evaluation is one of the most neglected areas of IS design and development. The most frequently cited obstacles to evaluation are: problems identifying and quantifying benefits, unfamiliarity with evaluation techniques, difficulty interpreting results, and lack of time, data, information, or interest (Ballantine et al., 1999, p. 142). Not only are there well recognised problems with objective evaluation metrics, but there is also little experience (at least outside of the academic world) of using methods, which seek to interpret and/or quantify the subjective, such as feelings, attitudes and perceptions (Powell, 1999, p. 159), or “the intangible” (Farbey et al., 1999, p. 184). In response to the difficulties of evaluation considered above, many academics have argued for interpretive techniques which gain a deep understanding of the otherwise undocumented evaluations of all stakeholders during system design, development and deployment, accommodating subjective assessment and complementing objective techniques (Walsham, 1999; Hirchheim and Smithson, 1999; Jones Hughes, 2001). The interpretive approach is demanding of time and commitment from stakeholders, so is not necessarily justified in all contexts. But, in a comprehensive survey of evaluative approaches and IS project contexts, Farbey et al. (1999) consider qualitative, interpretive, case study approaches as the method of choice for radical projects with fuzzy objectives; a category within which many e-government initiatives fall. The nature of many e-government initiatives is such that the familiar problems and obstacles to evaluation, as outlined above, are posed in a particularly sharp fashion. Intangible objectives such as community sustainability, democratic participation, social inclusion, government legitimacy, citizen satisfaction and trust are poorly understood and difficult to manage and measure. And in a democratic context e-government objectives such as efficiency (cost cutting to reduce overall

public spending) and effectiveness (using efficiencies to release public resources for improved performance or to fund additional projects and priorities) are likely to be contested by a diverse and political stakeholder community. Whilst managing conflicting viewpoints is a familiar problem in IS design, in the context of e-government power is distributed much more equitably than is often the case in stakeholder groups. In the introduction, we described how a strategic reliance on voluntary and community organisations had emerged, which puts them in a particularly influential position in relation to many e-government projects. This distribution of legitimacy and influence makes the problem of designing e-government systems for long-term success particularly complex. Given the difficulties considered above, it is unsurprising to find little evidence of stakeholder involvement in evaluative design of e-government projects. In a recent “survey of surveys” looking for evidence of stakeholder-centric approaches within e-government Damodaran et al. (2005) summarise the situation as one in which “there appears to be far more emphasis on technological aspects of delivery than on engaging citizens in identifying real needs and participating in decision-making regarding perceived priorities and methods of service delivery” and that “understanding of user requirements are therefore insufficient to inform service design and delivery”. This situation exists despite a report to the ODPM on the implementation of local e-government in the UK in which researchers observed that “most importantly, for e-government to achieve its goals, active participation of individuals and business as customers, interlocutors, clients and citizens needs to be configured” (ODPM, 2003). Recently, recognition of the need to foster evaluation in e-government has led the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) to fund a Network for e-Government Integration and Systems Evaluation (e-GISE) with the goal of embedding evaluation within government, the public sector, and their partner organisations (http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/). This paper is a contribution to that objective. Developing an evaluative framework: elements of method Because the term evaluation continues to be used in a number of different ways in the literature, it is appropriate that we make clear that in this paper our use of the term is rooted in the notion of a stakeholder-centric process which makes explicit both the desired and the current outcomes, and which supports the managed alignment of these throughout the project life-cycle. (See Farbey et al. (1999a) and Walsham (1999) for accounts of the development of evaluation design.) The role of an evaluative design framework is to support the evaluator and stakeholders in structuring their mutual engagement at various stages in the design life-cycle. A framework may have a number of elements or devices, such as lists, diagrams, keyword collections, scenarios, etc. It should be interpretable by all parties concerned, though not necessarily consensually. Walsham (1999, p. 374-7) identifies the main elements in interpretive evaluative design for information systems: . Purpose relate to the stage of development: feasibility assessment, design/development progress, achievement of goals. . Content relates to the system goals (functional, economic, human, organisational, social and political), acknowledging that stakeholders will have different perspectives and motives.

Design of e-government projects 177

TG 1,2

.

.

178

Context arises from an analysis of stakeholder assessments, both current and historical. Facilitation requires the interpretive evaluator to assume a number of roles, including facilitator of reflection, learner, teacher, reality shaper and change agent.

A distinctive feature of the interpretive approach is that the emphasis is upon shared learning, rather than formulation of some definitive Olympian judgement, which would only risk engendering distrust or opposition in one or more stakeholder groups. Structuring interpretive evaluation is a difficult task and one criticism of the approach is that the evaluator(s) and stakeholders are offered little support for conceptualising purpose, content and context. The CF developed within this paper is intended to provide such support, and especially for e-government projects in which Third Sector organisations play a strategic role. Our chosen method for developing the CF is structured-case (Carroll and Swatman, 2000). Structured-case provides researchers with a processual model with three components: (1) An evolving CF representing the current state of a researcher’s (evaluator’s) aims, theoretical foundations and understandings. The researcher begins with an initial CF based upon prior knowledge and experience, iteratively revising it until the enquiry terminates. (2) A research cycle organises data collection, analysis, interpretation and synthesis. (3) Literature-based scrutiny is used to compare and contrast the (evolving) outcomes of the enquiry with extant literature. The term “case” is used to define the object of study; it may be a person, a group, a project, an organisation, a process, an IS, &c. A structured-case case study is distinguished from other forms of case study by the use of the three elements of the above framework to structure the enquiry. The goal of structured-case is to produce new or revised knowledge, and sometimes theory, that describes relationships between (abstract) concepts but is demonstrably rooted in observation. Structured-case has been used to develop understanding of ways in which local authorities undertake ex ante evaluation of e-Government projects (Irani et al., 2005). The combination of interpretive enquiry with structured-case provides the basis for engaging with radical, complex and “fuzzy” e-Government IS projects. Data capture The analysis arrived at in this paper emerged through a cycle of data collection and interpretation as described above when outlining the structured-case framework. Data relating to CASweb was acquired over a period of a year and in a variety of ways, including: . System walks-through: a form of unstructured “interview” in which designers/developers/project managers walk the researcher through the aspects of the system, revealing their perspective (purpose, content, context). . Formal project documentation from various stages of the life-cycle including project proposal, project commissioning (planning, resourcing and staffing,

.

.

. .

scheduling, risk management), and project hand-over. (These are inherently “political” sources providing the basis for accountability). “Presentations” and “stories” from both developers and leaders/managers of community organisations. Monitoring of the CASweb site for evidence of ongoing activity and progressive development. Interviews (both structured and unstructured, scheduled and opportunistic). Multi-dimensional concept elicitation techniques from psychology and knowledge engineering (Kelly, 1955; Rugg and McGeorge, 1999) which reveal personal constructs, e.g. project success factors, perceived differences between stakeholders, partners.

At each stage the data from the case project were used to ground the emerging CF. Case project: CASweb For reasons of space, we can only provide an overview of the CASweb project at this point. For a fuller account, see http://mcs.open.ac.uk/am4469/CASweb/CASweb.pdf; the project may be found at: www.casweb.org/. Socio-political context The CASweb project represents a strategic response to the risk of digital exclusion in the provision of e-government services across central London, UK. The central goal of the project is to attenuate this risk by helping voluntary and community advice services develop an online presence and independent ICT capability that would enable them to avoid the potential “digital divide” and to continue serving their respective communities and clients as e-government is rolled-out. The two strategic aims of the project are to enable community agencies to maintain or improve their clients’ access to public and community services, and to facilitate interagency working so that clients’ needs can be viewed and supported more holistically. Stakeholders and stakeholder relations The principal stakeholder groups are: . ODPM is charged with promoting social inclusion across all branches of government and public services. It supports local government authorities through targeted funding of initiatives, including ICT initiatives. ODPM provided time-delimited investment funding to develop and deploy CASweb. . The five boroughs of the London Central Partnership were controlled by different political parties and are economically and socially diverse. LCP relationships operate at various levels (e.g. between elected representatives, between senior officers, or between community development officers). . The voluntary and community organisations operating within the boroughs of the LCP (usually represented by officers or volunteers) include community law centres, ethnic and cultural associations, lesbian and gay associations, elderly groups, housing groups, self-help groups, residents and tenants associations, young peoples’ organisations, parents groups, etc. Many define themselves in relation to the ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs of their client communities and

Design of e-government projects 179

TG 1,2

180

this often entails them seeking to preserve an identity that is independent, especially of government (national or local). Some community organisations have substantial resources to draw upon, including public funds; others have very limited resources and survive “hand-to-mouth”. Some might be described as professionalised while others rely wholly on lay volunteers. In respect of structural funding, many agencies are (part) funded by annual grants awarded by local authorities, upon the basis of competitive bids to a finite budget. Other sources of funding are also perceived as competitive, e.g. lottery funding. These funding arrangements result in tensions that would seem to run counter to the cooperative ethos sought by CASweb. More pointedly, whilst the LCP is keen to promote inter-organisational working, some agencies are concerned that if they become too closely associated with other agencies, they may loose their distinctive identity. System development CASweb seeks to realise the first of it strategic aims by adopting the role of portal. In keeping with portals in other domains, it provides users with public directory services in relation to participating organisations. To provide a basic level of interactivity, CASweb allows organisations to initiate surveys and polls so they can consult their respective communities on topical issues, and obtain feedback on policies and practices. To address its second objective, tools promoting inter-agency awareness, and facilitating sharing and cooperation are provided. CASweb supports connectivity between its member organisations and national and local e-government services via Directgov (the national e-government portal) or any local authority web site that meets interoperability standards. In order to minimise costs associated with purchasing/licensing proprietary software (an issue for all stakeholders, especially the smallest) CASweb integrates a variety of browser-based public domain open-source components. System deployment The five boroughs of the LCP are major public sector organisations each employing large-scale and complex ICT systems. In contrast, even the most developed of the community organisations had fairly rudimentary networked systems running standard “office” software with related bespoke applications. The smallest agencies operate at a level comparable with a personal domestic user with internet access. The provision of relevant software and technology for the project reflected the scale of this diversity. Once developed, the system was hosted by the Greater London Authority (a pan-London local government authority) in a way that maintains the availability of CASweb services across the capital, whilst ensuring the availability and integrity of each organisations web space and of shared systems. To support organisations acquiring or upgrading technology in order to participate in CASweb, the local authorities introduced a scheme which allowed them to purchase recycled hardware. Evolution of the 4-capitals framework Our initial conceptual framework (CF1) springs from our interpretation of e-government initiatives which posit a strategic role for the Third Sector as community development projects. Accordingly, in seeking a conceptual point of departure, we take

a prominent model for evaluating community development and sustainability; specifically, we take the 4-capitals model developed at the World Bank (Grootaert, 1998), a model that had its origins in the literature on growth and environmental economics (Ekins et al., 1992; Perlman et al., 2003). In much the same way as we have taken the model as a point of departure in the context of evaluation of e-government information systems, Hancock (2001) had given an interpretation of the CF from a health perspective and Green et al. (2001, 2005) had developed the model and incorporated the four capitals as key drivers of community regeneration in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The four-capitals of the original model are: (1) Manufactured or fixed capital. Representing the buildings, plant and machinery used in the production of goods and services, along with roads and railways. (2) Human capital. The sum of the skills and knowledge in a community. (3) Environmental or natural capital. Includes natural resources, green space and blue space and may be extended to community amenities, especially those supporting social interaction. (Examples are shops, cafes, public transport, and school gates.) (4) Social capital. Considered as different from other forms of capital in that it is said to “inhere[s] in the structure of relations between and among persons” (Coleman, 1990) and may be considered as the level of productive investment in social relations (Warren, 2001). Social capital has been described as making possible the achievement of community ends that would not be attainable in its absence (Coleman, 1990) and as the “glue” holding all other forms of capital together (Grootaert, 1998). The presence of social capital in the model made it particularly attractive as a point of departure. In Putnam et al.’s (1993) seminal work social capital and the role it is perceived to play in societies is characterised by high levels of political engagement and economic performance, thus providing an underpinning rationale for a strategic emphasis on promoting the role of community organisations in e-government strategy. However, Putnam’s emphasis on horizontal voluntary relations with high-levels of face-to-face contact means that it does not sit entirely comfortably in this context. Clearly, these forms of capital are not immediately interpretable in the context of e-government IS initiatives. Interpreting 4-capitals in the e-government domain The first refinement of the framework (CF2) was driven by the need to arrive at a meaningful interpretation of the 4-capitals of the World Bank model in the context of e-government IS. Recognising that the notion of capital is not unproblematic, we begin by summarising our understanding of the term. In the context of evaluation, we focus on capital as a source of “value”. Thereafter, we document the (re)interpretation of each capital form in turn. We take capital to be an entity that embodies or, more crudely, “stores” value, which may be realised through human use or application. The source of value is human work; the term valorisation expresses the process of adding value in this way. The value of capital is realised through its use, which itself involves human agency. Traditionally, the processes of realising value and of (re)valorisation are distinguished; the former is

Design of e-government projects 181

TG 1,2

182

associated with depreciation of value with use and the latter is seen as the inverse of this, arising from creation, maintenance, repair or enhancement. These processes apply to both physical capital, such as plant or machinery, and abstract capital, such as social relationships. In fact, we suggest that it is sometimes difficult to disentangle within a single human action that which realises value in capital from that which revalorises the same capital; we give two examples. First, in the act of applying a previously acquired human skill, that same skill may itself be reinforced (practice makes perfect), and even extended, e.g. if minor variations and novelties of context are encountered and absorbed. Second, in the context of social relations, active engagement in a relationship may simultaneously realise the benefits of the relationship and regenerate its value. This is perhaps best illustrated in trust-based relations where mutually sustained trustworthy conduct induces renewed, or even enhanced levels of, trust. The above account of capital reveals two distinct dimensions of capital: the first dimension relates to whether capital has a physical or an abstract expression; the second relates to whether capital may be revalorised in its use. The binary nature of each of these dimensions engenders four distinct expressions of capital: (1) physical expression which is not revalorised with use; (2) physical expression which is revalorised with use; (3) abstract expression which is not revalorised with use; and (4) abstract expression which is revalorised with use. Interpreting capital – infrastructural capital It is relatively straightforward to identify the elements of manufactured capital in an e-government project. These are the artefacts which are either brought into being, or purchased, or integrated into the technological infrastructure that facilitates the expression of the goals of the system. Thus, such capital comprises principally the computing and communications hardware and systems-level software deployed along with the documentation that supports it. Considering the nature of these artefacts we adopt the term “infrastructural capital” in preference to “manufactured capital” as we feel this better reflects the role of this form of capital in this domain. Environmental capital In reinterpreting environmental capital, we begin with the notion of community environment as “any amenity which facilitates social interaction” such as public parks, shops, the school gate, public transport, place of work. The internet and other digital communications technologies have significantly extended the potential scope for social interaction, facilitating social relations within and between people and organisations. Thus, in the realm of e-government, it seems natural to interpret the internet and related communications modalities (e-mail, video and webcams, CCTV, conferencing of many sorts, blogs, SMS/txt, &c.) as expressions of environmental capital which complement existing community amenities. Human capital Considered in the context of ICT-mediated community development, there is a distinction to be made between two distinct knowledge and skill sets. The first comprises the technical skills needed to develop, configure and maintain the ICT

infrastructure (traditionally, systems management and systems administration). The second comprises the user skills needed by citizens, staff, volunteers, etc. to make effective use of the available computing and communication environment. This set of skills extends significantly beyond the technical and includes communication skills, relationship management skills, and capacities for consultation, negotiation, collective decision-making, and organisational governance, all of which are mediated by ICT. These latter skills are especially important in the functioning of independent and voluntary community organisations. In an e-government context involving co-production of services by voluntary and community organisations, it is important to recognise that these organisations are much more constrained to work with the skills they posses as that they cannot simply recruit or retrain volunteers to meet the demands of a new system. Social capital There is a considerable literature on forms of social capital and its measurement and it continues to be an issue of debate, even controversy. The UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) has attempted to harmonise a number of approaches measures (Harper and Kelly, 2003). The ONS summarise these types of social capital: bonding, bridging, and linking (Putnam, 2000). We adapt the definitions to reflect our domain of as follows: . Bonding social capital is characterised by strong bonds such as among members of a single organization or a collective of organizations sharing a single focus. . Bridging social capital is characterised by weaker, sometimes transitive, ties that are cross-cutting such as professional networking or campaigning links with people from other organizations. . Linking social capital is characterised by connections between those within a hierarchy where there are differing levels of power. It is different from bonding and bridging in that it is concerned with relations between people who are not on an equal footing. The concepts of bonding and bridging relate naturally to a distinction between intra-organisational and inter-organisational relations. Linking social capital captures the power differentials that occur in a context featuring governmental and managerial relations. In considering Social Capital we distinguish two components of value. The first relates to the very existence of the relation; the second to the extent to which the relationship is characterised by high or low levels of trust. The value of trust is the value of the work that does not need to be done to research, formalise and monitor the experience of a relationship – low-trust relations are expensive in terms of opportunity-costs. Some people avoid contact with public and community services that they do not trust (even essential health services) unless it is absolutely essential (Duffy et al., 2003). Thus, e-government initiatives must not only establish (new) electronically-mediated communicative relations, but they also must do so in a way that engenders trust. The validity of considering the four capitals we have described above as distinct forms of capital is supported by the fact that there is a one-to-one correspondence between them and the four expressions of capital identified earlier (Figure 1).

Design of e-government projects 183

Figure 1. Taxonomic foundation for four expressions of capital exemplified by each of the capitals in the 4-capitals model

Physical expression

Abstract expression

Not revalorised in use

184

Relationships between forms of capital Our most recent evolution of the CF3 focuses on ways in which the 4-capitals are related to each other in our chosen domain. The need for this evolution of CF2 arose from a recognition that a focus on each form of capital in itself does not support a deep conceptual engagement with evaluative design. The 4-capitals are useful as elements of a taxonomic structure that supports an accounting approach to evaluation. However, we find that important, often less prominent, design issues are better accessed by considering the interdependencies of the 4-capitals in a pairwise fashion. For example, in examining the relationship between human capital and any of the other three capitals, evaluative design decisions in relation to skills needed and skills possessed are raised; the existence of any disparity poses questions as to how the gap may be addressed. This may be through revision of the system (infrastructural, environmental or relational specifications), or through the provision of training, or in recruitment of additional human resource, or some combination of these. The four forms of capital give rise to six binary relations between them (Figure 2), each encompassing a set of evaluative design issues arises: (1) Architectural design addresses the well rehearsed issues, embedded in the software development life-cycle, of marrying ICT infrastructure to satisfy functional design requirements. (2) Connectivity concerns the configuration of infrastructural components to ensure that the desired community relationships are supported by the technological infrastructure. (3) Communicative mediation (of relationships) identifies the modes of cooperative communication that are to be supported (examples are conferencing, document sharing, or secure case working) and the related issues of privacy and security needed to promote and sustain trust. (4) System management seeks to marry the system technology with the skills and competences of people involved in its configuration, management and administration. (5) Relational conduct seeks to ensure that the people and organizations involved are equipped to conduct community relationships; for example, do they have skills in electronic communication, participative decision-making, management, or ethical governance.

Infrastructural Capital

Environmental Capital

Revalorised in use

TG 1,2

Human Capital

Social Capital

Design of e-government projects

Infrastructural Capital

Architecture

185 System Management

Environmental Capital Affordance Design Human Capital

Connectivity

Comm. Mediation

Relational Conduct Social Capital

Note: The dependencies between the capital forms each raises a set of evaluative design choices

(6) Affordance design (the domain of human-computer interaction – HCI) concerns the design of the communicative interface(s) to support the selected modes of cooperative communication in ways that reflect both the attainable technological skills and competencies of the ordinary user. The combination of the 4-capitals and the six relations between them constitute a framework which can be used by an evaluative designer when discussing, exploring or negotiating with stakeholders. The precise state of development of the model and each of its elements is governed by the unfolding of the project life-cycle and the intensity of the stakeholder engagement. Identifying generic issues and lessons In this section, we illustrate how the elements of the 4-capitals framework provide evaluative structure by considering CASweb as an example of an ICT-based community development project. In the ex post picture presented (Table I) it is clear that where the project managers and developers had the time and resources to actively address elements of the framework (mainly infrastructural, environmental and technical human capital) then the outcome has been highly positive; on the other hand, where elements of the model were not addressed, for whatever reason, then success is less obvious. On the basis of the above we were able to draw out generic issues which may subsequently be considered as part of the 4-capitals framework (Table II).

Figure 2. Relations between 4-capitals

Table I. Ex post evaluative record of the CASweb project illustrating application of the 4-capitals framework

Social capital

Human capital

Environmental capital

Uneven distribution of technical functions may lock organisations into a dependence relationship. And risks sustainability, e.g. current ISP-like role of GLA establishes an uneven distribution of power/control. Only a few organisations with relatively well developed ICT infrastructure could play role of alternative host Public domain, open source tools and “culture” unfamiliar to most community organisations

Weaknesses

Possible over-reliance on technical/systems admin. staff/volunteers as local “change-agents” within organisations Very few organisations equipped to exploit/extend public-domain open source toolset Non-technical staff/volunteers making only limited use of tools supporting inter-agency working Organisations needed strategic change skills to exploit full capabilities of system Considerable reliance on “local champions”. Many community organisations do not manage organisational knowledge or plan for role succession Unclear/under-defined procedures for regulating participation Accessible to any organisation meeting basic standards of governance Open community acknowledges diversity and possibility of conflicting Broader relational environment in which community organisations exist features strong competitive dynamics which run counter to co-operative views/interests Community organisations have strong identities (bonding social capital) ethos of the project Diverse expressions of bridging capital with organisations (e.g. managerial versus democratic) (continued)

Sensitive to diverse ICT capacity of community organisations Open non-proprietry technical standards facilitate participation Technical functions distributed according to ICT capacity (e.g. GLA fulfils ISP-like role for community) Support for organisations acquiring (recycled) entry-level ICT Policy of a communications environment “fit for basic purpose” not “state of the art” promotes accessibility/inclusivity Suite of communication tools is locally configurable so that local environment can evolve with the needs/capacity of each community organisation Public-domain, open source tools minimise cost Customizability of each organisation’s site constrained to maintain a recognisable “look and feel” which maintains community identity Sensitive to technical capabilities of individual organisations Appreciable enhancement of basic ICT skills for many organisations through well-designed initial technical training Accessible to citizens with even very basic ICT skills so minimal training need in respect of individual clients

Case project strengths

186

Infrastructural capital

Capital form

TG 1,2

System management

Relational environment

Relational management

Affordance design

Connectivity

System architecture

Capital form Weaknesses

Choice of internet and distributed configurable intranet technology with Use of basic architecture means that least developed organisations constrain rate of development browser based environment promotes inclusivity, accessibility and Relatively weak security is a further constraint on potential for joint work extensibility of a confidential nature Internet-based infrastructure supports required community connectivity Choice of internet/browser technology supports basic accessibility (users not entirely bound by location) Configurable, extensible environment accommodates many levels of skill, Organisations appear to adopt an initial configuration that suits their entry-level needs but there is little evidence that organisations develop experience, need, especially in respect of use of intranet and secure and revise this configuration at a later date intra-organisational working Difficult to support an interface that meets needs of two distinct audiences Shared “look and feel” of individual sites supports navigation and (citizens/clients needs versus staff/volunteers needs) accessibility across all organisations in the on-line community Low prominence of tools for intra- and inter-organisational working Extensive support for special needs (community languages, disability, results in lack of use &c.) Prominent client-facing tools The dynamic character of the site encourages participation and reinforces sense of a “live” community Voluntary/community organisations have high-level skills in relational Limited examples of ICT-mediated collaborative working; mainly between organisations that have very similar client/membership base and management (bridging, linking capital), e.g. style of communication, non-adversarial negotiation, management of potential conflict) where staff/volunteers are already known to each other No examples of enduring new forms of client-facing organisation Some support for development of inter-organisational working (shared Policy of adopting basic technology means that significant media document libraries, secure conferences, opinion-polling) (webcams, SMS/txt, &c.) and associated community software tools are not supported Even when present, evidence of inter-organisational activity in the community is not immediately visible to the rest of the community Infrastructure requires low levels of maintenance, allowing organisations Seeming absence of further development to focus on core functions

Case project strengths

Design of e-government projects 187

Table I.

TG 1,2

Capital form

Generic issues

Infrastructural capital

In determining threshold ICT standards that potential participants are assumed to meet, the choice of minimal “every-day” infrastructure standards promotes inclusion Wherever the threshold is set some parties may be excluded. This raises an ethical and in some cases a legal obligation to address the needs/rights of those excluded by chosen threshold Any pragmatic arrangement to ensure that infrastructural support is provided by the organisation(s) with superior technology threatens to “fix” power relations. This makes some organisations vulnerable to others and there may be an implied obligation to develop the ICT capacity in less developed organisations via a parallel and sustained development strategy

Environmental capital

Selecting a (re)configurable tool set that facilitates progressive development of organisations Each participating organisation needs to customise their webspace but agreeing a minimal “look and feel” promotes a sense of community Choice of public domain, open source software tools promotes inclusion

Human capital

Need to distinguish knowledge and skills of at least four distinct roles: i. technical support and system evolution; ii. client-facing core functions; iii. organisational leadership and development; iv. Client In respect of each of these groups there needs to be initial and enduring support and development. Where e-government systems are intended to induce new ways of working within and between organisations then promoting skills to support strategic planning and organisational development (group iii) are important complements to the familiar focus on training in systems administration and core user skills

Social capital

Need for democratic process to govern terms of participation Need to identify and manage broader relational dynamics that represent sources of tension or potential conflict Need to identify forms of, and plan for development of, bonding, bridging and linking forms of social capital.

System architecture

Choice of infrastructure constrains richness of the basic communicative environment which can be made available across all organisations giving rise to need to agree trade-off greater functionality for inclusivity

Connectivity

Choice of infrastructure determines how extensively and how enduringly communicative relations are supported (especially bonding and bridging relations)

Affordance design

Common affordance conventions across the individual community sites support development of inter-organisational working, helping to define constraints on local customization of “look and feel”

188

Table II. Some generic issues and lessons relating to evaluative design decisions raised by the 4-capitals framework

Relational management Need to help identify or even provide every-day incentives for ICT-mediated collaboration Sources of tension between organisations need to be identified and collectively managed, if trust between organisations is to be developed Human/organisational relational skills constrain development of social capital (continued)

Capital form

Generic issues Initial collaboration and trust between organisations is most successful when there is a shared “external” objective and the organisations themselves are not challenged to change rapidly As a project matures, it is natural (indeed desirable) for the nature of the relations between participating organisations to change. However, it is important to main the flow communication amongst all parties. This not only sustains engagement but is also important for renewing trust-based relations

Design of e-government projects 189

Relational environment Choice of environment constrains support for relations between organisations System management

Need for ongoing community-level development of staff/volunteers providing technical support to organisations to help them act as change-agents within their organisations

In addition to these generic issues we can identify some lessons which seem worthy of re-emphasising as, in our view, they presented significant challenges to the long-term success of the project. Firstly, CASweb, like many e-government initiatives, was funded as a capital project. However, community development demonstrably needs sustained effort, which entails ongoing revenue-based support. If this is not adequate, the potential of the investment is unlikely to be realised. Second, all organisations can benefit from support and development to appraise how their core-processes and ways of working might be need to be revised in the light of the potential offered by an online connection to clients and intra-and inter-organisation tools for collaborative work. Third Sector organisations may prefer independent advice in achieving this. Third, a number of the stakeholder parties involved, including authorities of the LCP, relied heavily on “local champions” to play a key part in community building through CASweb. But a strategy which is reliant upon local champions is unlikely to be sustainable; organisations, be they large local authorities or the most modest voluntary organisations, need to plan for succession of individuals, e.g. using organisational knowledge management techniques. Finally, it all four forms of capital need to be developed in parallel, but, as we have suggested, in relation to human and social capital, continuous rather than “one off” revalorative activity is needed – a case of “use it or lose it?” We conclude this section by considering how designers of e-government systems should approach the evaluative design problem in terms of the 4-capitals framework we have defined. Our conclusion flows from identifying constraining dependencies between capital forms in relation to strategic goals. The result is shown in Figure 3, in which we suggest that the starting point should be an assessment of the social relations that must be supported. Thereafter, consideration of the environmental capital and human capital can proceed in parallel, ensuring that there needs to be an alignment of these before the infrastructure capital is specified. Of course, design over this framework will be an iterative process as the project life-cycle unfolds, but we suggest that this general direction of travel should be maintained.

Table II.

TG 1,2

190

Figure 3. Order of development in the 4-capitals framework

Social Capital: How to (re)construct and sustain the required relationship?

Environmental Capital: What environmental resources are appropriate for mediation of the relation?

Alignment

Human Capital: What relational skills are available? need? attainable?

Infrastructural Capital: What infrastructural resources are needed to facilitate the relational environment?

Concluding remarks This paper has given an account of an attempt to use interpretive enquiry to develop a framework for evaluative design of e-government projects that seek to contribute to community development by involving Third Sector organisations in co-production of e-government services. The enquiry was grounded in a case project which sought to bridge a potential digital divide between e-government service providers and community advice organisations and to promote inter-agency approaches to tackling clients’ problems holistically. The framework that emerged is a reinterpretation and extension of a socio-economic model of sustainable development to suit the context of e-government information systems. The framework supports evaluators and stakeholders in identifying and developing four forms of capital (4-capitals) needed for sustainable project development: infrastructural capital, human capital, environmental capital and social capital. Consideration of the interplay between these forms of capital gives rise to and structures an agenda of design decisions to be explored. In considering the extent to which it achieves that goal, the 4-capitals model can itself be evaluated in relation to the suggested shortcomings of traditional IS evaluation introduced at the beginning of this paper. Farbey et al. (1999, p. 184) pointed to the need for an approach that helped identify many of the “intangibles” that contribute to the successful attainment of system goals. Ballantine et al. (1999, p. 142) signalled the need for instruments to support evaluators in addressing the needs of stakeholders during system design, development and deployment. Willcocks and Lester (1999, p. 84) highlighted the need for an approach that enables “timely decisions”. We consider each of these in turn. Firstly, the 4-capitals model of CF3 makes concrete and brings to prominence a number of the important intangibles contributing to e-government IS design: the social (and political) relations which must be established and supported, the diversity of human and organisational skills needed, the communicative environment which mediates relations, and the technology required to facilitate all of these. Secondly, the 4-capitals and the interdependencies between them are readily interpretable and

stakeholders can usually relate strongly to at least some of the elements or the issues arising in respect of their interdependencies. The architecture of Figure 2 allows stakeholders to see where they and others contribute to the project whole. Finally, the elements of the framework persist throughout the life-cycle of the project even as their description (documentation) evolves as the project unfolds. This means there is always some a meaningful “interpretation” of the elements to be arrived at, whether at project conception or project conclusion. Thus, at each stage of the life-cycle, they provide a foundation for stakeholder evaluation of past development and future need. In this way, the framework supports timely review and forward planning, diminishing the likelihood of the need for expensive post hoc revision. References Ballantine, J.A., Galliers, R.D. and Stray, S.J. (1999), “Information systems/technology evaluation practices: evidence from UK organisations”, in Willcocks, L.P. and Lester, S. (Eds), Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 123-49. Carroll, J.M. and Swatman, P.A. (2000), “Structured-case: a methodological framework for building theory in information systems research”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 9, pp. 235-42. Coleman, J. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Damodaran, L., Nicholls, J., Henney, A., Land, F. and Farbey, B. (2005), “The contribution of sociotechnical systems thinking to the effective adoption of e-government and the enhancement of democracy”, The Electronic Journal of e-Government, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-12, available at: www.ejeg.com/ Duffy, B., Browning, P. and Skinner, G. (2003), Trust in Public Institutions: A Report for the Audit Commission, MORI, London. Ekins, P., Hillman, M. and Hutchinson, R. (1992), Wealth Beyond Measure: An Atlas of New Economics, 3rd ed., Gaia, London. Farbey, B., Land, F. and Targett, D. (1999a), “Moving IS evaluation forward: learning themes and research issues”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 189-207. Farbey, B., Land, F. and Targett, D. (1999b), “Evaluating investments in IT: findings and a framework”, in Willcocks, L.P. and Lester, S. (Eds), Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 183-215. Green, G., Grimsley, M. and Stafford, B. (2001), Capital Accounting for Neighbourhood Sustainability, CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. Green, G., Grimsley, M. and Stafford, B. (2005), The Dynamics of Neighbourhood Sustainability, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York Publishing Services, York. Grootaert, G. (1998), “Social capital: the missing link”, SCI Working Paper No. 3, World Bank, Washington, DC, April. Hancock, T. (2001), “People, partnerships and human progress: building community capital”, Health Promotion International, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 275-80. Harper, R. and Kelly, M. (2003), Measuring Social Capital in the United Kingdom, ONS, London, available at: www.statistics.gov.uk/socialcapital Hirchheim, R. and Smithson, S. (1999), “Evaluation of information systems: a critical assessment”, in Willcocks, L.P. and Lester, S. (Eds), Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 381-409.

Design of e-government projects 191

TG 1,2

192

Irani, Z. and Love, P.E.D. (2001), “Information systems evaluation: past present and future”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 183-8. Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D., Elliman, T., Jones, S. and Themistocleous, M. (2005), “Evaluating e-government: learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 61-82. Jones, S. and Hughes, J. (2001), “Understanding IS evaluation as a complex social process: a case study of a UK local authority”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 10, pp. 189-203. Kelly, G.A. (1955), The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York, NY. Klecun, E. and Cornford, T. (2005), “A critical approach to evaluation”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 229-43. Loader, B.D., Hague, B.N. and Eagle, D. (2000) in Guerstein, M. (Ed.), Community Informatics: Enabling Communities with Information and Communication Technologies, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA. ODPM (2003), Local E-government: Process Evaluation of the Implementation of Electronic Local Government in England, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London. Pekonen, O. and Pulkkinen, L. (2002), Social Capital and the Development of Information and Communication Technology: Report for the Committee for the Future of the Parliament of Finland, University of Jyva¨skyla¨, Jyva¨skyla¨, 26 April. Perlman, R., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J. and Common, M. (2003), Natural Resources and Environmental Economics, 3rd ed., Pearson, Harlow. Powell, P.L. (1999), “Evaluation of information technology investments: business as usual”, in Willcocks, L.P. and Lester, S. (Eds), Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 151-82. Putnam, R. (2000), Bowling Alone – The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. Putnam, R., Leonari, R. and Nanetti, R. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Rugg, G. and McGeorge, P. (1999), “The concept sorting techniques”, The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, Vol. 65, supplement 28, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 43-71. Serafeimidis, V. and Smithson, S. (2003), “Information systems evaluation as an organisational institution – experience from a case study”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 251-74. UK Government e-Envoy (2003), UK Online Annual Report, Office of the e-Envoy, London. Vangen, S. and Huxman, C. (2003), “Nurturing collaborative relations”, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 5-31. Walsham, G. (1993), Interpreting Information Systems in Organisations, Wiley, Chichester. Walsham, G. (1999), “Interpretive evaluation design for information systems”, in Willcocks, L.P. and Lester, S. (Eds), Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 183-215. Warren, M.E. (2001), “Social capital and corruption”, in Castiglione, D.S. (Ed.), Social Capital: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, paper presented at EURESCO Conference on Social Capital, Exeter, available at: www.ex.ac.uk/shipss/politics/research/socialcapital/ Willcocks, L.P. and Lester, S. (1999), “In search of information technology productivity: assessment issues”, in Willcocks, L.P. and Lester, S. (Eds), Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 69-97.

Further reading Gilbertson, J., Green, G., Grimsley, M. and Manning, J. (2005), “The Dynamic of Social Capital”, Health and Economy, CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. Irani, Z. and Love, P.E.D. (2002), “Developing a frame of reference for ex-ante IT/IS investment evaluation”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 74-82. Loader, B.D. and Keeble, L. (2004), Challenging the Digital Divide?, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Love, P.E.D. and Irani, Z. (2003), “A project management quality cost information system for the construction industry”, Information & Management, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 649-61. ODPM (2004), Breaking the Cycle’ Social Exclusion Unit, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London, available at: wwwsocialexclusiongovuk/downloaddocasp?id ¼ 262 ODPM (2005), “Inclusion through innovation: tackling social exclusion through new technologies”, Social Exclusion Unit Final Report, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London, available at: www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/page.asp?id ¼ 583 for report and supplementary annexes (accessed November). About the authors Mike Grimsley is a Principal Lecturer in Statistics at Sheffield Hallam University. Mike gained a BSc(Econ) and MSc in Statistics from LSE (1969), a PGCE from Goldsmiths College (1970). He was formerly a Lecturer in statistics and research statistician at the Institute of Child Health, Un of London. He teaches multivariate and survey methods and has supervised many doctoral students. Particular research interests include: modelling pathways between deprivation, social capital, crime and fear of crime, health and well-being; the relevance of health and housing to social and economic regeneration; evaluation of policy interventions; the concept and measurement of community trust. E-mail: m.f.grimsley @ shu.ac.uk Anthony Meehan is a member of the Centre for Research in Computing (CRC) and the Department of Computing at the The Open University, UK. His current research aims to identify principles and frameworks which support e-government systems development. Anthony also supervises research in computational neuropsychology. His current teaching interests are Information Security Management and accreditation of professional and vocational learning. Anthony Meehan is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Anna Tan leads the ODPM’s “Directgov” Home and Community Franchise Team responsible for e-government initiatives supporting community organisations. Prior to joining the ODPM, she worked as a project leader with the London Borough of Camden and the London Central Partnership, including leadership of CASweb. Her early career involved work in both the private and voluntary sectors. E-mail: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Design of e-government projects 193

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm

TG 1,2

Integration of legal constraints into business process models

194

Philipps University at Marburg, Marburg, Germany, and

Sebastian Olbrich Carlo Simon University Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany Abstract Purpose – To demonstrate the value of formal process modelling languages for the description of legal constraints and their verification in public and private business processes. Design/methodology/approach – A highly regulated governmental process in Germany – applying for premium rate service numbers at the German Federal Network Agency – is taken as an example to demonstrate that laws and rules define processes for those who want to use them. A novel formal process language is used to verify whether applicants’ processes fulfil these constraints or not. Findings – With the presented approach, contradictions between business processes of private organisations and the given laws could precisely be identified. Research limitations/implications – The results are currently restricted to the use of formal process languages as the one suggested in the paper. It would be helpful to extend the work on conceptual process models. Practical implications – The paper motivates a process-oriented analysis of laws and rules. The approach can be used for both, verification after the event and as a normative guideline for the development of new workflows. Originality/value – This paper identifies a need for formal process definitions as a medium to understand legal constraints and to behave in accordance with them. Keywords Legal process, Law, Business policy, Modelling, Government, Germany Paper type Research paper

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy Vol. 1 No. 2, 2007 pp. 194-210 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1750-6166 DOI 10.1108/17506160710752002

1. Introduction Business process models are developed to understand, improve and automate the modelled processes (Gaintanides, 1983; Porter, 1985; Davenport, 1993; Hammer and Champy, 1993). The benefit of these models was intensively discussed in this fundamental literature. Their logical structure bases on causal dependencies observed between the tasks within these models. The absence of dependencies enables us to conduct the related tasks independently and in a way that the overall processing time can be reduced. In order to increase the overall performance, one has to relax regulations concerning the arrangement of the tasks as much as possible, i.e. down to the intrinsic necessities of the tasks. Consequently, the possibility to improve the business processes depends on the ability to relax regulations. In public administration, the scope for process improvement is often restricted by laws and further regulations of the same obligation. Especially, in the EU where regulations are formulated on several levels – from local administration, states, nations up to the European Commission – there is a need to keep track of and emphasise them in process models. Consequently, there is much research to be observed introducing standard processes into the public

administration and their emerging e-government programs, to measure and optimise the overall processes (Seel and Daun, 2005). While on the first view this seems to be a problem only of public administrations (Snellen and Zuurmond, 1997), we can also observe a comparable trend for companies (Knackstedt et al., 2006). In order to adapt the living and working conditions in the EU, the number of laws and regulations for processes of private enterprise increases – particularly in human resource management, industrial safety and product and service quality assurance. These laws enforce to extend existing business process modelling methods by means for the representation of legal restrictions of tasks and (partial) processes. In this paper, we investigate the process of applying for so-called “premium rate telephone services” (0900 dial-in phone numbers) in Germany and demonstrate the influence of legal restrictions on the formulation of business process models upon this example. Our goal is to describe this legally regulated process in a formal modelling language, because this allows us to validate the process against its formal specification. In other words, we can tell whether the process of an applicant fulfils the given law and, therefore, will be executed successfully. Recently, a German court revoked almost 30,000 running premium numbers of a single provider and decided that none of the taken services needed to be paid by its customers. Simulations like the one we propose should help to prevent such developments. After pointing out the characteristics of public processes, we begin with a description of the registration procedure and emphasise on the process related restrictions formulated in the official registration document. Afterwards, we translate the regulation document step-by-step into a formal process notation which allows synthesising the entire reference process model from these fragments. We demonstrate how to implement a concrete workflow on the basis of this formal framework with the help of an example. We close our paper with a conclusion in which we show further applications of our modelling approach. 2. Characteristics of public process Given the (democratic) system of the separation of powers, the public administration is defined as the sum of state activities that do not belong to the legislature, jurisdiction or the executive body (Thieme, 1984). Positive definitions describe the administration as a non-governmental executive body that is supervised by the jurisdiction and controlled by the legislature (Reichard, 1987). Hereby these definitions refer to the organisational structure and not to the processes. Another – more process orientated – definition can be derived from the tasks, the output and the organisational structure of public authorities: the public tasks are determined by public and national interests articulated in political debates. As executive bodies that fulfil these tasks, public administrations are organised and regulated by a legal framework which is the basis of all administrative processes. Accordingly, not only the output of the administrative workflow but also each public process (single process steps, decision-making, document regulations, etc.) is well defined in public law (Wimmer et al., 2001). The output of a public process is usually the result of an information process (Lenk, 1999). Hence, the authorities – as producers of informational output – need a knowledge base and information as input. This general structure needs to be applied to individual situations for which civil servants have to find the administrative discretion

Integration of legal constraints

195

TG 1,2

196

within the legal framework. To support the civil servants in their judgment, the authorities are organised in accordance with Max Weber’s bureaucracy model (Weber, 1972). The characteristics of this model are legal obligations, functionally structured institutions, strictly separated areas of competence, hierarchical organisation, and the precept of filing each administrative step. This bureaucratic attributes are the most obvious organisational differences between public and private organisations. Of course, bureaucratic-organised institutions can also be observed in the private sector. Nevertheless, that bureaucratic structures are fixed in public law is the reason why public processes can barely be fully defined with formal methods – they are strictly regulated and are therefore resistant against reorganisation due to the legal framework. Therefore, when public processes are modelled and analysed all laws, regulations, and administrative guidelines have to be taken into account. Within these regulations however, civil servants must interpret the legal framework and apply it to individual situations. As such, some aspects are highly regulated while others are not. A distinction into these two groups is only informally given. Since, the mid 1980s, we have observed several attempts to change the organisation of public institutions from bureaucratic to economic incentive systems (Pro¨ller and Schedler, 2000). These changes, known as new public management (NPM), are typically executed along the workflows and aim to improve the processes for both public and private participants in theses workflows. Hence, they are undoubtedly connected to e-government activities finding future organisational structures which are more process-oriented (Mehlich, 2002). However, these activities are not as formal as they could be. Only formal approaches as the ones introduced in this paper support semi-automatic process synthesis and automatic process integration. Moreover, formal methods are prerequisites for analysing processes against specifications and concerning efficiency (Vossen, 2005). This has some practical implications: as most business process models (especially in the German speaking countries) are depicted as event-driven process chains for which no state semantics is defined like for other formal description languages such as Petri nets, we first must translate these models (manually) into more formal ones. The evidence of this translation must be validated together with domain experts. Moreover, these models must provide a process semantics which is achieved within this paper in form of a Semantic Process Language (SPL) which combines the ability to formally argue about processes and to provide a visualisation of the formal process specifications. Nonetheless, we have seen a lot of progress in e-government lately that could be achieved without using structured modelling techniques. This holds true especially for the improvement of auxiliary processes (like e-procurement, information providing web pages, inviting tenders online, etc.) which are achieved by copying similar e-business solutions. Such auxiliary processes are characterised by being implemented without significant changes in conception or workflow. Developing systems which carry out primary public processes, however, requires an analysis on a more detailed level and therefore formal methods. Their reconstruction towards e-government – i.e. employing the potentials of modern information and communication technology (ICT) to the states institutions – is crucial to respect the characteristics of the public processes. Increased efficiency and reduced costs by using ICT can only be achieved by reorganisation, breaking inefficient structures, and strong strategic leadership (Reinermann, 1995).

Consequently, most of the e-government programs (on national and federal state level) consider business process (re-)engineering as crucial to achieve their goals (e.g. BundOnline, FirstGov, etc.). A suggestion for a specific method or tool however, is not given within these programs. Nevertheless, executive and legislative bodies will be forced to use formal methods to successfully introduce e-government although in recent years this has not been of primary interest to the individual programs (Wimmer and Traunmu¨ller, 2003). In business process management the need for formal methods has been recognised (Vossen, 2005). We address this problem and show an application of a formal process modelling approach to a simple primary public process. 3. Legal process regulations Before the liberalisation of the German post and telecommunication market in 1989, the state owned Deutsche Post (now Deutsche Telekom AG and Deutsche Post AG) was the only distributor and provider of phone lines and numbers in Germany. Since, the customers addressed their needs directly to Deutsche Post, the application process for phone services was relatively simple. Owing to the variety of providers after the liberalisation of the telecommunication market, it became necessary to regulate and control the newly liberalised market. Hence, the responsibility of distributing new phone numbers to private providers fell to the German Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur). The legitimisation of the Agency is derived from the Telecommunication act (Telekommunikationsgesetz, TKG), paragraphs one and two. With the appearance of private companies on the telecommunication market, it became necessary to introduce legal regulations against misuse especially in the area of so-called premium rate telephone services (0900 phone numbers). The regulations concerning existing premium rate numbers have been recently extended by §§43a, b, c TKG (Law on premium services, Mehrwertdienstegesetz, MWDG). Moreover, there exists a strict application process which is installed to prevent abuse of these numbers by already limiting the access to the premium services. The application process at the German Federal Network Agency is one of the first German e-government processes that can be carried out completely online. Even though there are other ways to apply, we focus on the online process since it fully respects the core governmental process (Lenk, 1999). For this, the German Federal Network Agency provides a standard electronic application form and checks the completeness of an application automatically as soon as it is received. The TKG allows every private person or company to apply for (service) phone numbers as long as they are registered at the Network Agency (formalities on applying for phone numbers in general are checked within the registration process, §§3, 43 TKG) and a fee is paid in advance according to the general terms of administrative fees (Verwaltungsverfahrenkostengesetz, VwKosG) §16. In order to receive a legally binding contract without having to appear in person, the federal Network Agency requires a qualified electronic signature (§1 law on digital Signatures, Signaturgesetz, SigG) on every online application form for a (set of) service number(s). Only if these requirements are fulfilled, can the application be further processed. If the application is formally correct, its content is checked afterwards. For proceeding with the checking, the application must not interfere with the general terms on market regulations, superior competition regulations (e.g. EU guidelines) or any other public law (§2 TKG). The criteria of §43b TKG – the terms of how to legally offer

Integration of legal constraints

197

TG 1,2

198

0900 services – are inspected with respect to the company which is applying, this results in an acceptance or rejection of the application. If the application is rejected – e.g. in case that it does not fulfil the legal requirement – the German Federal Network Agency sends a rejection notification. Otherwise the application is granted on base of §43 TKG, the requested numbers are allocated and tested. Meanwhile, a bill is printed and sent to the applicant. Figure 1 shows this process in an extended event driven process chain model (eEPC (Scheer, 1994)). Because of their implementation in the SAP R/3 Analyser and the ARIS

Application received

For premium rate services only §16VwKosG

Check fee paid

Check completeness & signature

§2TKG §1SigG

Check applicant registered

x

Fee paid

§3TKG

x

Complete

Incomplete

Registered

Not registered

For premium rate services only Check service number specifics

§43bTKG

Check general terms

§43TKG

Reject application

Application rejected x

§43bTKG fulfilled

x

§43bTKG violated

General terms fulfilled

General terms violated

Reject application Allocate / Test number

Send bill Application rejected

Figure 1. Application process in eEPC model

Check number regularly

Toolset, eEPC diagrams are widely spread – especially in Germany. Hence, the method of eEPC is also predominant in (German) e-government-programs (CC VBPO, 2005). Consequently, we start with an eEPC model, because we assume that such EPC models can be a typical input for formal mathematical approaches as the one discussed in this paper. In an eEPC, the logical structure of processes is described with the aid of events (depicted as diamonds) which define preconditions for function (depicted as rectangles with rounded corners), i.e. a single step in a workflow. Connector symbols allow us to describe that (sub-) processes are executed simultaneously or alternatively. In eEPCs, the symbol set is extended by symbols for organisational units and information objects. In Figure 1, we make use of information objects to model the respective paragraphs controlling each single step (Alpar and Olbrich, 2004). Thus, not only the workflow itself is visualised, but also the influence of the legal constraints on the workflow can already be observed. The laws can be interpreted as a workflow specification, particularly since they represent the limitations of business process re-engineering. The actual application process closes with the submitted answer of the Federal Network Agency. Since, law codes mostly know no grammatical negation (Radbruch, 1963), the TKG knows, by law, no regulation on how a negative answer (i.e. the notification on rejection) should look or how the process continues after a negative answer. Consequently, we can assume the process to start-over at the point before the application takes place. However, with many process-steps involved in a successful application, the question is which steps have to be undone for a process to end unsuccessfully (e.g. do the fees have to be re-transferred, the registration cancelled, etc.). We will refer to the rollback of process steps later in our analysis. In the event of a successful application, the regulation process is still continued, since the German Federal Network Agency must verify that all information in the application form was filled-out correctly and that the premium rate number is provided in compliance with §§43a, b, c TKG. In the event of a violation of these laws (e.g. the bill was not paid, premium numbers are further distributed or abused), the Agency can revoke the entire application process according to the general terms of the law on administrative proceeding (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, VwVfG) §§48, 49. Such a revocation process (possibly ending with the retraction of the number) must begin with a hearing. The process structure as described so far, does not take time considerations into account although they are also part of the discussed laws and regulations. For instance, after the acceptance letter has been sent, a 90 day period begins during which the number must be activated depending on the customer’s wishes. If no specific date is picked or the period is too short, the Federal Network Agency executes the process as quickly as possible – following a first-in-first-out approach – usually within seven days. A second example for relevant time periods is that – unlike with usual phone numbers – premium rate numbers must be used regularly. Therefore, such numbers are controlled to confirm that they have been used at least seven times a year. The regulations on time become even more complicated if the process of revocation is included in the analysis. The Federal Network Agency differentiates between recollected numbers that have already been in use and numbers that have yet to be used. In the first case, the Agency only distributes the number after a period of 180

Integration of legal constraints

199

TG 1,2

200

days. In the latter, numbers that have not been in use but have been allocated, the Agency begins using the number again after 90 days. Possible further delays, for example due to legal objections are still not respected. We believe these regulations – whether they are given by law or internal public regulations – to be crucial for the processes of both parties (Alpar, and Olbrich, 2004); in our case the applying phone company and the German Federal Network Agency. Therefore, this legal framework cannot be ignored when developing a formal process-model either on public or on private business workflow. 4. A formal model of the registration process The eEPC model (Figure 1) gives an overview of the application process. Such semi-formal process documentations are increasingly important within the e-government programs (see BundOnline, ForstGov, etc.), because without process documentation there is no chance to successfully introduce e-government concepts (Scheer et al., 2003). Although such semi-formal notations are sufficient for human beings to get an overall comprehension of regulations, they are not, nor were they intended to be, a formal specification against which an actual workflow implementation can be verified. A formal, verifiable model which could be used as a specification of a workflow management system, however, would be a qualitatively higher representation of the process. Such a representation is necessary in order to precisely determine the influence of legal constraints. Hence, we take the workflow model of Figure 1 as input and translate it into a formal process specification using the SPL (Simon, 2005). The SPL is a Petri net-based approach for process specification applied to business process modelling (Simon and Rebstock, 2004; Simon and Dehnert, 2004). Simon (2002) also proposes extending this concept by time periods. The SPL provides means for the specification of sequence, alternative, concurrency, iteration, and negation (Simon, 2006). The meaning of the formulas of this language – called modules – is defined with the aid of Module nets – a kind of Petri nets closely related to relaxed sound Workflow nets (van der Aalst, 1998) and (Dehnert, 2003) which are widely known in business process modelling. In opposite to Workflow nets, dynamic properties of Module nets can be verified via a T-invariance analysis, i.e. without generating the set of reachable states. Petri nets are a formal, graphical description of dynamic systems. They consist of two kinds of nodes – transitions and places. Transitions, depicted as rectangles, are the active elements of a Petri net, and places, depicted as circles, are the passive elements which are used as containers for information. Dependent on the current marking of its adjacent places – i.e. on the information carried by a place – a transition might be enabled to fire and change the marking of the net. By this, a state transition of the modelled system is described. Hereby, two aspects must be emphasised: the state transitions are mathematically defined and can be calculated (i.e. they do not depend on human interpretation) and since the enabling of transitions depends on the local marking of its adjacent places, Petri nets are especially suited for the description of complex systems with a high degree of concurrency like workflow management systems. Introductions to Petri nets can be found in Peterson (1981) and Reisig (1985). Module nets are Petri nets with explicit start and goal transitions (where the preset of start and the postset of goal are empty). A process of a module net is defined as a firing

sequence reproducing the empty initial marking where start and goal occur exactly once (at the beginning and the ending, respectively). The transitions firing in the meantime are interpreted by actions and their sequence of occurrence indicates the process. This specific definition of processes allows concluding on non-trivial properties of a module net from the net’s structure without calculating the full state space. Having a formal process specification allows verifying implemented process sets (of a workflow management system) against this specification given that both are described by module nets. For this we have build the intersection of specification and implementation net which is achieved by joining equally interpreted transitions, i.e. transitions that represent the same kind of actions. The resulting process set allows for deciding whether the specification is fulfilled or not. An example of such a proof is given in Section 6. If we translate the legal framework described in the previous section (Figure 1) and develop a formal specification, this formal specification will include a model of the regulations. In the subsequent sections, we will explain how to base an implementation of public and private business workflows on this specification. Figure 2 shows the intended (successful) application process as a module net. Since, transitions are the active elements of Petri nets, they are used to model actions and decisions. We subsume the checking for a complete form and whether the applicant is registered at the Agency in one transition to simplify our model. We also model the testing for a paid fee in a single transition. Since, this transition fires only if the money-flow is recognised, no extra transition for an upcoming event must be included. The module net representation of Figure 2 is based on the following module of the SPL. In this paper, we began with the visualisation, because we believe that this can be understood more intuitively – the typical processing, however, is from modules to module nets: M 1 U ½½a1 , a2
^ a3

, ½½a4 , a5
^ ½a6 , a7

, ½a8 , a9
, M 2 Hereby symbol , indicates a sequence of (sub-) processes, ˆ indicates that processes occur independently. M2 is a module on its own specifying a complex behaviour which will be discussed later. In a stepwise refinement approach, we now extend this model by exceptional behaviour for the case that some check-action fails. For example, presume that the applicant is not registered at the Federal Network Agency and the application is rejected. We therefore extend M1 (using the symbol £ ¼ for the extension operation) by an action for the recognition of this circumstance and the actual rejection action. In a module we formulate this as: M 1£ ¼ a1† , ½Incorrect registration form , Reject application
Hereby a1X is the process state after a1 occurs (i.e. check form and registration has been conducted). Figure 3 shows this first extension. Obviously, this is not sufficient, since in module nets a process is a firing sequence which reproduces the empty initial marking. Although a11 is a transition that removes tokens from the net without replacing them with new ones, we find no such firing sequence in which a11 occurs. The reason for this is that a10 and a11 leave the places in the pre- and post-set of a3 untouched. It is the nature of independent (business) processes that in the case of an exception in one of the independent traces, the others have to be terminated correctly. In our case

Integration of legal constraints

201

TG 1,2

202

start

a1

check form & registration

Register fee paid

a2

a3

Formal registration OK

Synchronize

a4

a5

Check general terms

Check service no specifics

General terms fulfilled

§43bTKG fulfilled

a6

a7

Synchronize

a8

Figure 2. Successful application as module net

Allocate/test number

M2

Send bill a9 Check no regularly

Integration of legal constraints

start

a1

check form & registration

Incorrect rea10 gistration form

Register fee paid

a2

a11

Reject application

203 a3

Formal registration OK

Synchronize

this means a twofold reaction: first, if the fee is already paid (indicated by firing of a3) there must be a rollback on this operation which can be expressed by: M 1£ ¼ a3† , ½Rollback fee
, †a3 Secondly, the token on the preset of a3 must be removed by firing transition a11: M 1£ ¼ a3† , ½Reject application
Figure 4 shows the implementation of these extensions in the module net. In order to avoid a spontaneous rollback of the fee, we could also define a test arc (loop) between the postplace of a10 and the rollback transition. The check actions a4/a5 and a6/a7 can be handled in a comparable way. Instead of discussing this in detail, we consider the second module M2 responsible for regularly evaluating service numbers after they have been assigned, concentrating on the time aspect. Several approaches to extending Petri nets by time exist (first publications are Ramchandani (1974) and Merlin (1974)). Ko¨nig and Qua¨ck (1998) discuss the possibilities of representing time in Petri nets: firing duration associated with transitions, minimal/maximal length of stay for tokens on places and time constraints associated with arcs. We use the time extension of Hanisch (1993) in which time intervals at incoming arcs of transitions describe their permeability with respect to the moment the adjacent place is marked. It is therefore an appropriate representation for periods as they occur in the legal regulations discussed in the previous section. However, instead of using a clock concept for each place (as proposed in Hanisch, 1993), we use timestamps on tokens to designate the moment they were put in place. The advantage of this is that the entire state information (distribution of tokens and time) is completely coded in the marking and no additional concept is required. The process of regularly observing a premium service number can now be described with the aid of a Module net extended by time as shown in Figure 5. The service number is activated – as desired by the applicant – x days after the formal validation of the application has been completed (we assume that 0 # x # 90

Figure 3. Recognition of an incorrect application form

TG 1,2

start

a1

204

check form & registration

Incorrect rea10 gistration form

a3

Register fee paid

a12 Rollback fee

a2 Formal registration OK

Figure 4. Rollback on fees

a11

Reject application

Synchronize

start

a21

[x;90]

Figure 5. Check number regularly

Activate number

a22

[365]

Check use of number

a24 Number calls