I’ve been reading Richard Heek’s book Implementing and Managing eGovernment: An International Text as part of my doctoral thesis research and the book is, in a few words, foundational, seminal, required reading for anyone in the field of Innovation and Technology Management with a focus on eGovernment. I highly reccommend it.
Below are two organizational spreadsheets, followed by notes from the book.
Data Stakeholder Governance Considerations
Sample Item Costs for eGovernment Planning
Notes
There may be a focus on problem solving and innovation, and a focus on team-working and flexibility (Hafeez and Savani, 2003). The agencies may be characterized by what is known as a ‘task culture’.
This hybrid management model argues first for an analysis of current public sector realities; and second for an assessment of which management and e-government system designs will best fit this reality.
The sectors differ in many ways, including:
their espoused objectives (broader in the public sector);
their view of ‘customers’ (more holistic in the public sector);
their relation to ‘customers’ (mixed with roles as citizens and compliers in the public sector)
their accountabilities and perceived stakeholders (broader in the public sector)
their human and technological infra- structure (weaker in the public sector);
the politicization of their processes (greater in the public sector);
the scale and nature of competition (smaller and political in the public sector)
Where decentralized information systems, manual or computerized, are already in place, barriers to centralization may be severe. In order to centralize, changes may need to be made to the organization’s whole information systems architecture: new data fields and formats, new hardware and software, new processes by which to handle data, and new processes by which to make decisions and take actions.
Differences between the objectives and values (that is, the cultures) of particular groups in the public sector also cause a problem.
Centralized approaches require the commitment of four key resources – money, time, people, and skills – all in short supply in the public sector. For many public organizations, a centralized approach may not be possible because of financial constraints; because staff are too busy on other things; or because no-one has the confidence or capabilities to undertake the necessary planning and coordination tasks.
decentralized units develop different ways of working, different mindsets that create quite different views of the world between groups; different jargon used in communication; and different issues and people that are valued.
aspects of system use such as implementation, operation, troubleshooting and maintenance are also likely to occur more quickly under a decentralized regime.
Training, maintenance and administration costs also contribute. Large, centralized computing systems are estimated to cost something like one-third to one-half of this amount per user per year (CBR, 2001).
A decentralized approach may be most economic for public organizations, because it saves on overt input costs. A centralized approach may be most efficient, because it avoids waste and duplication. But a successful hybrid approach may be most effective because it can simultaneously provide:
- the control necessary to share key resources (including data), to avoid duplication, and to achieve economies of scale; and
- the freedom necessary to meet user needs, and to overcome blocks to IT usage and system development.
US State Department, for example, successful progress on e-government has come from retaining computing and data management architecture under control of a central IT office, while decentralizing systems develop- ment responsibilities
Division is compatible with – indeed, is defined as – simultaneous centralization and decentralization. It can be seen in the possible division of responsibilities described for systems development. It can also be seen in the division of responsibilities between client and server computers.
That which we can call a managerial or information systems centralization, reflects Nolan’s (1979) well-known ‘stages of growth’. It shows the gradual increase in managerial attempts to control the information systems (which would include e-government systems) within an organization. Nolan’s model has been criticized for a lack of predictive power and a generality that fails to match individual organizational experience. However, its core sense of increasing managerial engagement with IT does appear sound.
A decentralized approach will also help to spread IT awareness and skills, and even some understanding of the informational aspect of e-government, in a way that other approaches might not. For some public agencies, it is the lack of just such awareness, skills and under- standing that represents a key barrier to effective use of IT in government.
there are tensions between the somewhat theoretical notions of organizational rationality, and the more real forces of politics in government. Hence, rational logic may play only a minor role in determining which approach is used.
For example, the approach adopted will be shaped by the organization’s technology (e.g. whether the computing architecture is already centralized or decentralized); staffing and skills (e.g. what skills are avail- able); management systems and structures (e.g. whether the main organization has a centralized or decentralized structure) and other resources (e.g. the availability of finance).
Stakeholder values will also play a role, such as their perceptions, their awareness of the costs and benefits of particular approaches, and their historical experi- ences. For instance, the recent experiences of staff with e-government systems create either a satisfaction that is inertial, or a dis- satisfaction that demands change.
buuuut it is organizational politics and its roots in the self-interest of particular stakeholders that will help determine what management approach to e-government is selected
Four familiar political constituencies (see Figure 2.2) can be identified, whose conflict or compromise within organizations helps to determine which approach is chosen: senior managers, politicians, IT staff, and mainstream staff.
Broader political, pressures from the outside world – ranging from national political initiatives to dominant ideologies/philosophies – also play their part. Staff in public sector organizations are subject to continuous external pressures, that include (Barrett and Greene, 2001; Abramson and Morin, 2003):
- Pressure to conform to the requirements of external bodies, such as central government bodies and funding agencies. An e-government unit run by central government may, for example, be pushing a department to adopt certain centralized ‘best practices’: see, for example, Box 2.6.
- Pressure through (mis)perception of what other organizations are doing, which may be transmitted through informal contacts, management texts and training programs, or dealings with consultancy organizations.
- Pressure from private sector IT vendors to purchase particular technologies and systems.
Chapter 3
eGovernment Strategy
Centralized e-government strategic planning is a six-step process that, overall, asks: ‘Where
are we now?’, ‘Where do we want to get to?’, and ‘How do we get there from here?’
a successful strategy can develop senior management understanding that e-government systems are information systems not just IT, and build consensus and commitment to a strategic vision for e-government. It permits a fundamental review of the organization’s use of informa- tion and technology, leading to a comprehensive understanding of information systems requirements.
It also provides a detailed plan of action on e-government for the organization.
Problems of Federal eGovernment Expenditure in the US
The 2003 US federal budget identified ‘six chronic problems that limit results from Federal IT spending:
- Agencies have automated existing outdated processes, instead of fixing underlying management problems or simplifying agency procedures to take advantage of new e-business and e-government capabilities.
- Agencies have made unnecessarily duplicative IT investments.
- Inadequate program management – many major IT projects have not met cost,
schedule and performance goals.
- Few agencies have had plans demonstrating the linkage between IT capabilities
and the business needs of the agency.
- Agencies have built individual capabilities that are not interoperable with one
another. Few IT investments significantly improve mission performance.
- Poor IT security – major gaps have existed in agency and Government-wide inforsmation and IT-related security.’
e 2003 Federal Enterprise Architecture: A ‘business-based framework for Government-wide improvement … constructed through a collection of interrelated ‘reference models’ designed to facilitate cross-agency analysis and the identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration within and across federal agencies.’ (FEAPMO, 2003)
The Strategic Context for Federal Public Agency eGovernment Strategy in the US
The 2002 eGovernment Act
The 2002 Federal Information Security Management Act
The 2001 President’s Management Agenda
The 1998 Government Paperwork Elimination Act
The 1996 Clinger-Cohen Act
The 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act amendment:
The 1993 Government Performance Results Act:
Where are we now?
An answer would include details of the organization’s current structure and functions; key client groups; existing problems that need to be addressed; and important current and forth- coming factors – particularly policies and political priorities
Where do we want to get to?
An answer would include details of the organization’s objectives, and some vision of the future organization that will enable it to overcome current and forthcoming problems, and to achieve its objectives. Finally, it asks, ‘How do we get there?’ This would be achieved through a statement of management strategy about major changes to organizational structure and functions in order to reach its future vision.
two types of organizational function are derived from the organization’s wider business strategy and prioritized for further investigation:
- Existing organizational functions that are to be retained in order to meet organizational objectives
- New organizational functions that need to be introduced in order to meet organizational objectives.
This is the essence of ‘portfolio’ or ‘program’ management: using criteria to align projects with agency strategy.
Impact priorities, for example, might be:
highest savings/financial return on investment
highest public visibility/political return on investment
highest learning/demonstrator effect
strongest focus on existing organizational deficiencies
strongest support to key external client services (as opposed to internal administrative activities).
Implementation priorities, for example, might be:
lowest risk/highest feasibility
lowest cost to implement
fastest time for completion
eGovernment Systems Architecture needs three main components:
- A data model showing the structure of unified, organization-wide data to which the e-government systems will have access; often illustrated using an entity-relationship diagram (this and the other diagrams mentioned here are described in greater detail in Chapter 8).
- A process model showing the key activities of the organization that the e-government systems will either support or under- take; often illustrated using a process diagram.
- A data/process model showing the organization-wide connection between business processes and data entities, and the organization-wide movement of data that e-government systems will enable; often illustrated using a data flow diagram.
Information engineering
This looks across the whole organization and focuses on two components:
business processes: the individual activities of the organization that help meet public sector objectives.
data classes: data entities of relevance to the organization that are made up from individual data elements (or attributes).
Data and process are principally connected, and therefore principally investigated, through the mechanism of decision making and action.
From this investigation, the entire organization is analyzed into two long lists of business processes and data entities. These are cross-checked through a process/data matrix that shows which processes create or use which data. The data entities and processes can then be grouped together into clusters of data and processes that represent required e-government systems within the organization.
Critical success factors
it starts by asking managers to specify the factors they consider to be critical for the successful performance of particular organizational functions
It is the intention that e-government strategy be shaped by organizational objectives and process/information requirements rather than by technology:
Determining eGovernment organizational architecture:
As part of the ITSPMO analysis, general strategic decisions may include:
- making sure that it is the government rather than the company that steers e-government
- stating the approach to management of organizational change, including a determination of the needs for cultural change
- clearly allocating responsibilities for e-government systems development and management
- identifying major competency gaps and approaches to closing them through human resource strategies
- deciding how back-office procedures may be restructured to support e-government
- locating the e-government/IT function within the wider organizational structure
- demarcating which services (e.g. systems development, training and systems operation) are to be sourced in-house and outsourced
- identifying procedures to be used when tendering for and selecting e-government systems products and services
- specifying standard systems development methodologies and tools to be used
- identifying financial approaches to be adopted, such as public–private partnerships.
Strategy Implementation
Disseminate and Plan eGovernment Actions
A typical business case for an e-government project might include a statement of project objectives; an estimation of benefits, risks and constraints; and an estimation of resource requirements covering finance, human resources (i.e. jobs and skills), technology, and timescales. Details of project deliverables (i.e. things the e-government projects should produce such as feasibility reports, specification documents, and both interim and final versions of the system) and timetables can be approved at this stage. So, too, can mechanisms for reporting back to the eGovernment Steering Group on progress.
for personnel training and development, for finance, for technology, etc. There may also be an additional dimension to the matrix – time – showing what is to occur and be paid for within particular financial years.
Many public organizations also find themselves in situations of constant and largely uncontrollable flux from factors such as changeover in ruling political parties; constant circulation of senior politicians and officials; emergence of new political initiatives and legislation that alter organizational activities, priorities and even structures; sudden imposition of cost- cutting measures; sudden external crises that demand a reaction; changes within the client groups the organizations serve; and changes in IT, IT standards and IT suppliers.
The Outcome of eGovernment Strategy
There are many ways for strategies to go wrong:
- Lack of Strategy
- Underused Strategy – The strategies give the impression of box-ticking – doing just enough to meet the demands of external policies and oversight agencies; and often doing that in a hurry – without true internal ownership of, or commitment to, the strategy.
- When strategy has been hijacked
- When strategy is ‘strategic concrete’
Focus on process, not content
The process of trying to create a strategy may be more valuable than the formal deliverables. Value is sought from the informal process deliverables such as: making sense of the past, learning from experience, encouraging dialogue and communication, and making choices
A hybrid approach to e-government planning will mean a balance between central and local. So, for instance, it could mean that e-government planning is seen as incremental, as participative, as limited in scope: guiding more than dictating. This approach is sometimes referred to as ‘pick- ing a course and steering it’: being adaptable to new constraints and new circumstances as they arise rather than imagining that the strategy is cast in ‘tablets of stone’.
Sub-Strategic eGovernment Planning
Given the many constraints to strategic plan- ning, it may be more feasible to plan at what might be termed the ‘sub-strategic’ level. This pares back what planning hopes to achieve until the intention matches what can be achieved in the organization.
Tactical-Plus eGovernment Planning
pushing the objectives of an individual e-government system ‘upstream’ to think how it contributes to the overall work of the organization;
assessing the opportunity costs of going ahead with this particular e-government system rather than others; and/or
assessing whether there should be com- patibilities between this and other exist- ing or planned systems.
Chapter 4 Managing Public Data
CARTA
Completeness
Accuracy
Relevance
Timeliness
Appropriate presentation
Prosumption – Where the consumers of public services themselves become producers of their own data often via web-based electronic forms.
What are the Positions to Consider when Managing?
Situation A: Departmental Location
Situation B: Low-Level Independence
Situation C: High-Level Independence
Situation D: Outsourcing
Outsourcing
An equal, if not greater drive to outsourcing is to address human resource constraints by accessing staff, skills and ideas that are not available in-house. Other perceived benefits of outsourcing include the provision of a higher quality of service; greater certainty about costs; greater flexibility, especially of labor since it is easier to hire and fire external staff; access to advanced technology; and greater ability to focus management on the core deliverables of the public sector
Cons
a clash of work cultures and understanding between the public sector client and the private sector sub-contractor;
a loss of control over the service being provided, with the sub-contractor starting to dictate to a dependent client;
a loss of core e-government competencies to the sub-contractor, such as controls over security.
However, in practice, decision making about outsourcing in the public sector has only partly been driven by organizational rationality. It has also been driven by behavioral/political factors (Peled, 2000a). Managers are found to outsource e-government work because they:
- have been naive in their assumptions about the benefits that will ensue
- believe association with such an initiative will be good for their careers
- wish to ‘clip the wings’ of the in-house IT unit
- stand to gain financially thanks to the covert generosity of the sub-contractor
5.2 People
Competencies can be understood in relation to three domains:
Skills, Knowledge, Attitude
Attitude is changes by appeals to the the rational mind, the political mind, and the heart.
Greater use of case studies of e-government failure and/or best practice will likely be a move in the right direction (Parrado, 2002). Cases can persuade stake- holders, for instance, of the dangers of ignoring basic systems development prac- tice, or of the importance of understanding the organizational and human context of e-government systems.
A good hybrid manager will recognize that psychological factors play a role: autonomy, challenge, recognition and the opportunity for career advancement. Direct work content factors are also important, such as training opportunities, flexibility of work schedule and clarity of task specification.
On a shorter-term basis, responsibility for a personal development plan can be shifted to the employees, and used as part of the annual performance review.
Plans must be far more than just a critical path; they must include deliverables, resource requirements, and reporting arrangements. Over time, the number of elements that must be planned has grown, typically in response to perceived problems with past projects. What was once just a ‘project plan’ has now been broken down; for example into: a scope management plan, a resource plan, a risk management plan, a procurement plan, a quality plan, a communication plan, a security plan, a change management plan, and a cost management plan.
Which standards should be followed? ISO 9001:2000
Peer review – a hybrid rather than rational project technique – seems to have a better record, and has now been adopted by a number of governments as a best practice.
Behavioral Approaches to Project Management
the rational model fails to fully explain or predict what happens in the public sector. It also fails to fully guide real-world best practice, leading e-government practitioners to criticize PMMs for their inflexibility. Indeed, some who study the realities of projects see the rational approach as potentially guiding worst practice:
“IT projects die by their own hand. The more they are bound by lists, rules, checks, restrictions, regulations, and so on, the more they drive out the human spirit of creativity, of innovation, of dealing with ambiguity, and of fun. People brought up in technical environments may not see the horror of this kind of approach.”
To plug this gap, and ensure that a more behavioral approach and more behavioral expertise are introduced, some governments are mandating the involvement of senior non-IT officials. The Canadian government, for example, defines a formal requirement on e-government projects for two things (OECD, 2001). First, a project sponsor who is responsible for the business function, and who has solely behavioral-side competencies ( judgment, leadership, communication, organizational awareness). Second, a project leader who is a senior departmental official with, again, largely behavioral-side competencies and only cursory IT management skills at best. Similarly, the UK government’s analysis of e-government project failures concluded with the requirement for projects to have a ‘senior responsible officer’ (CITU, 2000). The officer would be drawn from the business not the IT side of the organization.
Primary Project Stakeholders
decision makers: those who make major project-related decisions, such as whether or not to proceed with the project
gatekeepers: those who control access to higher authorities
influencers: those who advise decision makers or whom decision makers take note of
end users: those who will directly use the output from the e-government system and/or from the business function it supports
champions: those who will support and muster resources for the project
Smart behavioral players work to break through the rationality barrier to get to the real objectives and values underneath.
- by understanding that professional relationships have different bases and require different techniques from those adopted with social relationships
- by establishing rapport with the other person: looking for common ground
- developing on their areas of interest; even mirroring their speech and body language in order to ‘tune in’
- by active listening that involves really concentrating and asking questions to get to the root of issues, beliefs, problems, needs, and so on
- by tailoring communication to the needs of the recipient
Tailoring your Message
| The sociable ones: |
The idealistic ones: |
- Be clear and explicit, don’t just imply.
- Show me how people will benefit.
- Demonstrate immediate and
practical results.
- Show me respect.
|
- Engage with my personal values.
- Paint pictures and draw analogies
that have meaning.
- Be passionate and engage my
imagination.
- Show how it will contribute to
the greater good of human kind.
|
| The theoretical ones: |
The down to earth ones: |
- Show how it fits into the bigger picture.
- Ensure the theoretical base is sound.
- Appeal to my intellect and imagination.
- Be a credible source of information.
|
- Be organized and structured.
- Be practical and realistic.
- Work logically and systematically
through your analysis.
- Offer proof and evidence.
|
1. Preparation: Getting as much information as possible not just in relation to the topic under discussion but also in relation to the objectives and values of other parties; being clear about one’s own ‘bottom line’.
2. Initial exchange: Drawing out other individuals and probing with questions to develop a better sense of their objectives and values; weighing up relative bargain- ing powers.
3. Negotiation: being assertive; using and observing body language; identifying issues that can easily be agreed and issues that are low-cost to one side but high benefit to the other; being creative about what can be traded; exploring
possible compromises.
4. Agreement: summarizing the discussion; avoiding/dealing with last minute conditions.
5. Implementation: setting out a clear schedule of tasks and responsibilities.
The acquisition of negotiating skills and the ability to apply the techniques just described is becoming increasingly integral to e-government project management
Components of Massachusetts model:
- business problem and scope of work: the problem being addressed; the rationale for the e-government project; and the major tasks to be undertaken;
- workplan and time schedule: a Gantt chart ‘not intended to be a project log of each and every small detail, but rather a comprehensive plan of tasks, team resources and timelines’
- management approach and personnel: for both the steering committee and project implementation team;
- acceptance criteria and deliverables: the key outputs from the project and criteria that will be used to judge whether or not that output is acceptable
- task order budget
- signatures: of all the key ‘business partners’.
Such structures as the above will allow
- early identification of failures
- mechanisms to disperse learning about both success and failure.
Why should there be so much politicking around e-government? In short, because two pre-conditions of politicking are met.
First, there are interdependent groups that have different objectives and values. This is clearly the case in public sector organizations. The ‘interdependent but different’ perspective applies to the formal functional divisions within public agencies.
Second, there are important but scarce resources involved.
e-Government brings together in large amounts both critical tangible resources – people, money and equipment – and critical intangible resources – information, power and kudos. They therefore form a key locus for organizational politics.
Techniques of Influence
Reason: ‘Relies on the presentation of data and information as the basis for a logical argument that supports a request.’ Reason is typically a first choice for influencing a boss or subordinate, and it often relates to a base of expert or information power.
Friendliness: ‘Depends on the influencee thinking well of the influencer.’ It is often used with co-workers, but may also be used with subordinates and supe- riors. It often relates to a base of personal power.
Coalition: ‘Mobilizing other people in the organization to support you, and thereby strengthening your request.’ It depends
Bargaining: Negotiation and exchanging benefits based upon the social norms of obligation and reciprocate. The resources that are traded are very varied but can include assistance, support and information. It often relates to a base of reward power. Assertiveness: Uses continuous reminders via an insistent and forceful manner. It is often used with subordinates and relates to a base of legitimate power.
Higher authority: ‘Uses the chain of command and outside sources of power to influence the target person.’ This can be the threat or promise of involving the influencee’s boss, or invoking that boss’ own priorities. It can also involve an appeal to higher ethical or cultural values within the organization. It may involve recourse to outside ‘experts’, such as consultants, or to the media. A variation, much found in e-government, is to blame the technology or the data, though this may fall under the heading of manipulation. Its strength relies particularly on affiliation power.
Sanctions: Influence through the promise of reward or threat of punishments. In its negative form, this may encompass all formal disciplinary procedures up to dis- missal. It may encompass informal actions: blame, bad-mouthing, bullying. It may also encompass the removal of rewards (e.g. transfer, demotion). Sanctions often relate to a base of legitimate or coercive power.
Manipulation: Influence by controlling the framing of discussions, or the claimed rules for discussion, or the information that is allowing into a negotiation. Part of this process will be the manipulation of the public discussions and public relations that set much of the agenda for government. This type of approach may also include undermining others involved.
Withdrawal: Influence through disengagement or non-compliance.
Time and again, middle managers in public sector organizations have good ideas for new or redesigned e-government systems. Yet they cannot get those ideas implemented. They blame their bosses, or the IT staff, or politicians, and so on. In many cases, though, they should blame themselves for failing to recognize their own need for better communication, negotiation and, above all, influencing skills.
Chapter 6
Emerging Management Issues for eGovernment
Great care must be taken that measures are valid (i.e. that they do measure what they seek to measure), relevant (i.e. that they measure something on which the employee’s actions have an effect) and valuable (i.e. that they measure what is organizationally important about the job). IT staff behavior will be skewed by performance measurement towards the measured components of the job and away from the non-measured. Only careful selection of indicators will ensure that this skewing is beneficial for the organization.
Performance management in the public sector
- offer career development opportunities, or psychic pay: quasi-financial incentives such as paid time off or new equipment. In some surveys, public servants rate these above money as preferred rewards.
- Use group incentives since individual rewards can demotivate other team members, whereas group rewards tend to encourage collaboration.
- do not punish occasional mistakes, only chronic poor performance. Use progressive discipline but also use training and peer pressure.
Three main focal points for performance indicators can be applied to the IS/IT function:
Input- IT Measures
Output- Information Services
Outcome- Business Process
Measurement of Performance
In most cases the measurement procedure will be clear within the indicator definition. Three main assessment indicators:
- Internal subjective: The measures are based on the judgment of internal clients, such as customer satisfaction rating scales.
- Internal objective: The measures are based on objective quantification within the organization, such as the jobseeker placement measure.
- External: The measures are based on quantification from outside the organization.
- Price testing: Comparing the internal costs of a service with the estimated cost/price of external providers and benchmarking (which includes a broader set of performance measures)
Control of Performance
Provider management control: Managers within the IS/IT service provider are responsible for managerial rewards and remedial measures.
Client management control: Managers within the IS/IT service client are responsible for managerial rewards and remedial measures.
Client financial control: Managers within the IS/IT service client are responsible for financial rewards and remedial measures.
Arbitrary basis: The sum paid does not relate to service use but to some relatively arbitrary measure such as the size of the user department. The lack of linkage creates limited financial control on performance; arguably less than that available via a managed service level agreement.
Cost basis
Market basis
The central thrust is that agencies must be good at writing documents and at managing projects. It would thus be possible to score a ‘green’ without producing anything that had actually made life better for citizens and other agency clients.
The more the government charges for its data, the greater the barriers to access become. Yet the wider it allows access, the less it can earn from data sales.
Access Policies for Freedom of Information
The enactment of FOI legislation has required the development of in-house policies by public agencies within its purview. Typical issues to be dealt with include (DOI, 2002):
Terminology: Explicitly defining what is meant by terms such as records and requests; and classification of different types of data held by the agency.
Procedures: Clarifying how citizens/ businesses can obtain data direct without requests; how information requests are to be made; and the means by which those requests will be responded to.
Data management: Ensuring that the type of back-office, records and data manage- ment procedures described elsewhere in this chapter are followed so that data and records can be located in a timely and cost-efficient manner.
Performance measures: Setting out performance indicators (typically time taken) for the FOI response service.
Charges: Determining a reasonable level of charges to be levied for searches and copying; determining policy on any fee waivers; putting a billing and payment system in place.
Handling variations: Determining procedures in the case of various types of data/records such as those not held by the agency; those held by other public agencies; those deemed sensitive or covered by privacy legislation; those held by other non-public agencies.
Appeals: Setting in place an appeals procedure to appeal against problems with performance, charges or denial of access.
Responsibilities: Designating specific officers as responsible for FOI implementation, and for appeals.
Update: Putting in place a mechanism for review and update of FOI procedures (e.g. in response to new technology, case law, organizational changes, new orders, or FOI response performance and feedback).
Digital Divide
Because of those costs, there is an uneven profile of those who own and use IT: the rich not the poor; the graduate not the school leaver; the ethnic majority not the ethnic minority; the urban not the rural citizen; the young not the old; men not women.
Pouring resources into e-government can therefore benefit the haves rather than have nots, and increase polarization within society. There are already some signs of this, with evidence that local government electronic service delivery is of poorer quality in areas with lower levels of Internet access
Governments may set up initiatives focused on increasing access to IT that is government-or-community-owned IT. Such IT may be placed in a variety of locations:
- public spaces, such as common areas within shopping malls;
- semi-public spaces, such as libraries or sport facilities;
- dedicated spaces, such as community telecentres housing a room-full of Internet- linked PCs.
The watch- word for government must therefore be ‘supplement’ not ‘supplant’. Provision of public sector data and other services electronically should be seen as an additional weapon in the armory that sits alongside traditional face-to-face and phone-based methods. It should not be seen as a way of replacing those more traditional methods.
Reviewing Sensitive Public Information
The following questions will assist security professionals in reviewing sensitive infor- mation that has been, or could be, made publicly accessible.
Has the information been cleared and authorized for public release?
What impact could the information have if it was inadvertently transferred to an
unintended audience?
Does the information provide details concerning enterprise security?
Does the information contain personnel information such as biographical data,
addresses, etc.?
How could someone intent on causing harm misuse the information?
What instructions should be given to legitimate custodians of sensitive information
with regard to disseminating the information to other parties such as contractors?
Could this information be dangerous if it were used in conjunction with other
publicly available information?
Could someone use the information to target personnel, facilities or operations?
Could the same or similar information be found elsewhere?
Does the information increase the attractiveness of a target? (OCIPEP, 2002)
Policies on Disability
the law sets a clear threshold that must be achieved. However, in practice, e-government managers often seem to be ‘satisficing’ the issue: doing just enough to cover their backs but still leaving a gap between policy and practice.
Difficulties
public managers face a difficult balancing act between the requirements of central legislation and the localized needs of the public agency. These may conflict where, for example, the agency has to make the best of an outdated physical environ- ment, or where lack of money means what is ergonomically-best cannot be afforded. This balancing act can appear in the gap between policy on paper and policy in prac- tice. eGovernment managers may develop an internal policy document that fully meets all legislative requirements, but may then not fully implement the document.
Chapter 7
Success in e-government comes from intelligent selection of individual techniques, from
‘hybrid thinking’, and from action on design–reality gaps rather than from slavish adherence to one particular methodology.
Background understanding of a proposed e-government project comes from asking five
questions: Who is involved? What is the problem? Why is the project happening? What
constraints exist? What will change in the near future?
eGovernment projects can be assessed in relation to their feasibility, priority, opportunity costs, and impact.
Four Core Stages:
1. analysis of what is currently happening, and of whether and why a new e-government system is needed
2. design of the new e-government system’s components
3. construction of the new e-government system
4. implementation of the new e-government system
Successfully planned e-government systems will therefore be those that require a manageable degree of change.
In order to assess this ‘degree of change’, the core of the systems development method described here will therefore consist of three activities:
- mapping out the realities of the current situation
- designing a proposal for the new situation
- assessing the difference between the two, and reacting to that difference
Systems Development Life Cycle
1. Project assessment: Identifying possible e-government projects; outlining basic project parameters; and assessing whether or not to proceed with the project.
2. Analysis of current reality: Description and analysis of the seven ITPOSMO dimensions as they exist within the current situation of the organization.
3. Design of the proposed new situation: Setting objectives for the proposed new e-government system, and then describing in general terms how the seven ITPOSMO dimensions should be different for the new system to meet these objectives. Different options for the new system may be evaluated at this point.
4. System construction: Acquiring any new technology; undertaking detailed design of the new system; then building it, testing it and documenting it.
5. Implementation and beyond: Training users to use the new system; converting data to new formats; introducing the new system; monitoring and evaluating its performance and context; then undertaking any necessary system maintenance.
SSADM: Structured Systems Analysis and Design Methodology,
No method is perfect but there are dangers for the public sector in adopting some of the harder methods. The public sector has had a tendency to choose such methods which then prove too old, inflexible, top-down, detailed, jargonized and time-consuming (Korac-Boisvert and Kouzmin, 1995). While these might have been appropriate to the routine clerical automations of the 1960s, they work poorly in politicized situations of change and uncertainty.
The main aim of the study is to develop a new methodology for KM strategic planning to navigate KM projects strategically. The mixed-method approach was used to develop KM strategic planning methodology.
