Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Strategies are systematic and long-term approaches to problems. Federal, state, and local
governments are investing in the development of strategies to further their e-government goals. These
strategies are based on their knowledge of the field and the relevant resources available to them.
Governments are communicating these strategies to practitioners through the use of practical guides.
The guides provide direction to practitioners as they consider, make a case for, and implement IT
initiatives. This article presents an analysis of a selected set of resources government practitioners use to
guide their e-government efforts. A selected review of current literature on the challenges to information
technology initiatives is used to create a framework for the analysis. A gap analysis examines the extent
to which IT-related research is reflected in the practical guides. The resulting analysis is used to identify
a set of commonalities across the practical guides and a set of recommendations for future development
of practitioner guides and future research into e-government initiatives.
D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Information technology; Government; IT implementation; Success factors; Relevance
1. Introduction
E-government has been conceptualized as the intensive or generalized use of information
technologies in government for the provision of public services, the improvement of
T Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tpardo@ctg.albany.edu (T.A. Pardo).
0740-624X/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.giq.2005.02.001
188
189
It is important for both practitioners and researchers that these tools be grounded in the
latest information systems research and practice. At this point however, there is no empirical
evidence that this goal has been achieved. The extent to which practitioners have found the
results of years of IS research relevant to their efforts to produce tools that limit the risk of IT
initiatives is unclear. A continuing high level of systems failures, however, encourages an
examination of the relationship between research and practice.
The latest debate about the relevance of information systems research was presented in the
March 2001 issue of the Communications of the Association for Information Systems
(CAIS). This issue presented the thoughts, concerns, and recommendations of a wide range of
researchers in the field. The 26 articles included discussions about (1) expanding the notion of
relevance;5 (2) the question of relevance to whom;6 and (3) the need for better matches
between academic research goals and goals of constituents.7 Paul Gray, the editor of CAIS, in
his introduction to the special issue describes the relevance issue as one that bconcerns the
importance of academic IS research to the practitioner community.Q8 According to Gray, the
authors of the 26 papers in the special issue seem to have consensus that published work is
not being read by practitioners. The explanations presented for this gap include abstractedness
of writing, lack of practical experience of faculty, latency of publication of academic research,
and a failure to focus on applications for non-business constituencies such as the public sector
and the community use of computing.9
Therefore, the summary concern stated from articles and surveys is that practitioners are
not reading researchthe inference being, therefore, it is not informing their practices. The
premise of this article is that an examination of the tools being used by practitioners for
evidence of empirically supported practices and strategies will inform this discussion. We
may find that although practitioners are not systematically reading research, they realize the
benefit of research that is incorporated into the practical guides they are reading and in some
cases required to use.
3. Method
A gap analysis between a selected set of practitioner tools and a set of key success factors of
IT initiatives has the potential to inform questions about the relationship between research and
practice. A gap analysis strategy represents an opportunity to do a component-by-component
analysis to determine the extent to which the design of each reflects awareness of relevant
research on information systems success.10 This strategy could also inform future refinement
of practical tools as well as suggest strategies for the future development of research-based
practical tools. The gap analysis is comprised of the four-step process outlined below.
First, a review of current literature in information systems research is used to identify
factors found to influence the success of IT initiatives. This review includes the scanning of
the last 5 years (19992003) of five top journals in public administration.11 Articles with a
focus on e-government success factors were selected. The literature review also includes
selected journal articles and book chapters that specifically address IT success factors in both
public and private organizations.
190
Second, the research identified and described a set of tools used for government IT
initiatives. These tools were selected based on their visibility and central role in informing
practitioners at the national level in the United States and Canada and at the state level within
the United States. The review and description of the tools was selective and based on sections
that explicitly deal with IT risks and success factors. Third, a comparison of the factors
against the selective descriptions was conducted. This comparison focused on four categories
of challenges and strategies found in the IS success literature. Fourth, an identification of the
gaps between the research and the practical tools is presented and discussed.
191
Table 1
Challenges for e-government initiatives
Challenge category(s) Challenge
Authors
Information and
data
Information
technology
Security issues
Technological incompatibility
Technology complexity
Legal and
regulatory
Project size
Managers attitudes and
behavior
Users or organizational
diversity
Lack of alignment of
organizational goals and project
Multiple or conflicting goals
Dawes and Pardo, 2002; Brown, 2003; Kim and Kim,
2003
Resistance to change
Dawes and Nelson, 1995; Best, 1997; Caffrey, 1998;
Burbridge, 2002; Ho, 2002; Edmiston, 2003
Turf and conflicts
Barki et al., 1993; Dawes, 1996; Caffrey, 1998;
Bellamy, 2000; Jiang and Kleing, 2000; Barret and
Green, 2001; Burbridge, 2002; Edmiston, 2003;
Rocheleau, 2003; Roy, 2003
Restrictive laws and
Dawes and Nelson, 1995; NGA, 1997; Landsbergen
regulations
and Wolken, 1998; Chengalur-Smith and
Duchessi, 1999; Harris, 2000; Dawes and Pardo, 2002;
Mahler and Regan, 2002
One year budgets
Dawes and Nelson; Fountain, 2001; Dawes and Pardo,
2002
Intergovernmental
Bellamy, 2000; Harris, 2000; Landsberg and Wolken,
relationships
2001; Burbridge, 2002; Dawes and Pardo, 2002;
Rocheleau, 2003
(continued on next page)
192
Table 1 (continued)
Challenge category(s) Challenge
Institutional and
environmental
Authors
Privacy concerns
Source: Adapted and expanded from Jiang, J. and Klein, G. (2000). Software development risks to project
effectiveness. The Journal of Systems and Software, 52: 310.
systems when the decision process calls for bsoftQ data. Dawes19 and Ambite et al.20 address
how poor results in projects emerge from problems with data structures and data definitions.
Overall, Brown21 cautions us against taking information quality problems for granted.
4.1.2. Information technology challenges
System usability and ease of use are important factors to consider.22 Technology
incompatibility has also been identified as one difficult challenge to IT-intensive projects.23
Systems that are very different and sometimes very old increase the complexity of IT projects,
especially information integration initiatives.24 Complexity and newness of technology are
also constraints that can potentially affect the results of IT projects.25 The lack of relevant
technical skills within the project team has been found to be an important factor26 as well as the
shortages of qualified technical personnel.27 Legacy systems present additional challenges.28
For example, Duchessi and Chengalur-Smith29 reported conversion of mainframe applications
as one of the problems associated with implementing client/server technology.
4.1.3. Organizational and managerial challenges
Undoubtedly, the size of the project and the diversity of the users and organizations
involved are two of the main challenges to IT initiatives.30 There are at least two other
problems related to the goals and objectives of initiatives. The first is the lack of alignment
between organizational goals and the IT project.31 In addition, Dawes and Pardo32 identified
the existence of multiple, and sometimes conflicting, goals in the public sector as an
additional interorganizational challenge. Finally, individual interests and associated behaviors
lead to resistance to change, internal conflicts, and turf issues.33
4.1.4. Legal and regulatory challenges
Most of the time government organizations are created and operate by virtue of a specific
formal rule or group of rules. In making any kind of decision, including those in IT projects,
public managers must take into account a large number of restrictive laws and regulations.34
For example, government agencies must often contend with one-year budget cycles. One-year
193
budgets are common in many national and state governments, and this type of budgeting
affects the potential results of long-term IT initiatives.35 Federal systems, as in the United
States, present additional challenges derived from the particularities of the relationships
between different levels of governments and the formal checks and balances among the
executive, legislative, and judicial branches.36
4.1.5. Institutional and environmental challenges
There are additional challenges related to a more general institutional framework and the
policy environment in which government organizations operate.37 In this context, institutions
are not only laws and regulations, but also norms, actions, or behaviors that people accept as
good or take for granted.38 Privacy and related security issues are challenges that must be
adequately addressed in government IT initiatives.39 The United States legal framework does
not mention bagency autonomy.Q However, government agencies and programs often act as
independent and autonomous units without taking into account what other public
organizations are doing (stove pipes). This situation can constrain efforts to use technology
to integrate or share information across multiple agencies.40 Finally, external pressures such
as policy agendas and politics may affect the results of IT initiatives.41
The above discussion highlights the range of highly complex and diverse challenges public
managers must face as they work in the e-government arena. Success is not only about
selecting the right technology, but also about managing organizational capabilities, regulatory
constraints, and environmental pressures. For e-government managers to be successful in
their initiatives they must be aware of these challenges and use appropriate strategies to
overcome them.
4.2. Success strategies for e-government initiatives
A set of strategies for achieving success in e-government initiatives, drawn from the
literature, can be mapped onto the five challenge categories. Mapping the strategies to the
challenge categories illustrates the degree of correspondence in the research itself between
challenges and possible strategies for meeting those challenges (Table 2).
4.2.1. Information and data strategies
Dealing with information and data challenges requires an overall plan for managing data
and information products.42 A quality and compliance assurance program is an effective
strategy for dealing with information and data challenges.43 Developing appropriate data
structures and definitions is critical to the success of IT initiatives, in particular in
interorganizational initiatives. The challenge in this area stems not only from gaining
agreement that these are necessary, but also from engaging the necessary partners in the
development and adoption of common structures and standards.44 Managers have attempted
to minimize data-related problems by sharing standards, definitions and meta-data, with their
potential partners. Getting continual feedback from users is also an important strategy to
maintain data quality.45 Overall, having good quality and homogenous information seems to
be an important success factor.46
194
Table 2
Key success strategies for government IT initiatives
Challenge category
Overall plan
Continual feedback from
partners users
Quality and compliance assurance
Training
Information technology Ease of use
Usefulness
Organizational and
managerial
Planning
Good communication
Previous business process
improvement
Adequate training
Adequate and innovative funding
Source
Wang, 1998
Orr, 1998; CTG, 2000
Keil, 1995; Brown, 2000
Burbridge, 2002
Davis, 1989; DeLone and Mclean, 1992;
Caffrey, 1998; Brown, 2000; DeLone and
McLean, 2003; Garson, 2003
Davis, 1989; DeLone and Mclean, 1992; Brown,
2003; DeLone and Mclean, 2003; Garson, 2003
Caffrey, 1998; Dawes and Pardo, 2002
Barki et al., 1993; Jiang et al., 1996; Brown,
2000; Jiang and Klein, 2000; Regan and
OConnor, 2001; Dawes and Pardo, 2002;
Garson, 2003; Mahler and Regan, 2003;
Melitski, 2003
Gagnon, 2001; West and Berman, 2001;
Dawes and Pardo, 2002; Kim and Kim, 2003;
Mahler and Regan, 2003; Rocheleau, 2003
Best, 1997; Brown, 2000; Dawes and Pardo,
2002; Garson, 2003
Barret and Green, 2001; West and Berman,
2001; Dawes and Pardo, 2002; Brown, 2003
Caffrey, 1998; Regan and OConnor;
West and Berman, 2001; Garson, 2003;
Mahler and Regan, 2003
Bajjaly, 1999; Brown, 2000; Barret and Green,
2001; Landsberg and Wolken, 2001; Smith et al.,
2001; Garson, 2003; Kim and Kim, 2003;
Melitski, 2003
Flowers, 1996; Caffrey, 1998; Bajjaly, 1999
Rocheleau, 2000; Landsberg and Wolken, 2001;
Garson, 2003; Kim and Kim, 2003; Melitski,
2003
Caffrey, 1998; Jiang and Klein, 2000; Brown,
2001; Dawes and Pardo, 2002
Dawes and Nelson, 1995; Best, 1997; NGA,
1997; Harris, 2000; Dawes and Pardo, 2002
Caffrey, 1998; Brown, 2000; Barret and Green,
2001; Garson, 2003
NGA, 1997; Caffrey, 1998; Harris, 2000;
Barret and Green, 2001; Landsberg and Wolken,
2001; West and Berman, 2001; Dawes and
Pardo, 2002; Ho, 2002; Moon, 2002; Edmiston,
2003; Holden et al., 2003
Rocheleau, 2000; Mahler and Regan, 2003
195
Table 2 (continued)
Challenge category
Source
Information technology
policies and standards
Environmental or
institutional
Executive leadership or
sponsorship
Legislative support
Strategic outsourcing and
publicprivate partnerships
196
appropriate government-wide IT policies and standards can also provide and adequate
framework for e-government initiatives to be successful.60 In this regard, state governments
are developing IT policies and standards and making them available through their official
Web sites.61
4.2.5. Institutional and environmental strategies
Individual leaders or managers cannot change institutionalized rules or practices. However,
if a coalition is large and varied enough to capture the attention of legislators or other policy
makers, some formal institutions can be changed.62 There are at least two strategies to deal
with institutional and environmental factors: getting executive and legislative support;63 and
using outsourcing strategically.64
Table 3
Selected practitioner tools
Source
Year
Primary audience
Tool
2002
Treasury Board
of Canada
1998
National Association
of State Chief
Information Offices
Center for Technology
in Government
2003
2003
197
formulate, manage and maintain the portfolio of initiatives to ensure that investments made in
IT yield the anticipated benefitQ to members of the federal information technology community.
The Value Measuring Methodology (VMM) How-To-Guide builds on the prior work of
two efforts in particular. In 2001 the Social Security Administration (SSA), in cooperation
with the General Services Administration (GSA), began to develop a methodology to asses
the value of electronic services. Their goal was to produce a tool that that would be
bcompliant with current Federal regulations and OMB guidance, applicable across the Federal
Government, and pragmatically focused on implementation.Q66 In addition, a team from Booz
Allen Hamilton and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard was asked to conduct a
related study. That report, based on interviews with a variety of professionals in the field as
well as the private sector and the academic community, presented the first version of the
VMM, its supporting theories, and philosophy. Since the initial release VMM has been
applied and refined into its current form.
VMM, like the methodologies and frameworks presented in the other guides, calls for the
inclusion of a broad set of stakeholders affected by the initiative, including direct users and
government partners. The warrant for this guide was the gap between current tools and the
bneed for a more thorough and rigorous analytical approach to investment evaluation,
planning, and management.Q67 VMM is positioned as responding to this need by providing a
bcomprehensive and quantitative way to capture the impact that possible investment
alternatives would have on each of these parties.Q68 The methodology is designed in particular
to focus analysis on the value, cost, and risk baseline for any initiative, changes to those
baseline measures over time, and the implications of those changes.
The VMM How-To-Guide is organized into eight sections. The Essential Factors
Framework of value, cost, and risk, the foundation of VMM, is introduced in Section 3
together with a discussion of the value gained from using the VMM methodology to analyze
e-government and other initiatives. Section 4 presents an overview of the four steps of the
VMM. Section 5 provides a comprehensive, step-by-step presentation of the techniques and
tools of VMM as well as a discussion of the resources necessary to complete a VMM
analysis, key concepts and real-life lessons from past implementations, and some best
practices observations.
5.2. Creating and using a business case for information technology projects69
This guide was issued by the Project Management Office, Chief Information Officer
Branch of the Treasury Board of Canada. The production of the guide was organized through
the Project Management Office and was staffed with volunteer members of a working group
as well as many additional volunteers who wrote, reviewed, and contributed to the guide. A
member of the working group was acknowledged for directing the effort and coordinating the
participation of others.
According to its statement of purpose this guide, developed by public service managers for
their colleagues, boffers a blueprint that managers can use to build the business cases needed
to make informed investment decisions.Q70 The Canadian guide is organized around two
consistent themes. The first is that a bbusiness case is the key element of front-end planning
198
and sets the stage for the management of the project and for the achievement of the planned
benefit.Q71 It is considered an bindispensable first activity in the life cycle of an IT
investmentQ72 and when bcorrectly used can serve as a management framework for the
initiative.Q73 The second theme is that no one size fits all. Public managers are urged to use
the business case development process to put their decisions into a bstrategic context.Q
This guide exists within a larger set of guidance from the Treasury Board. The guide
consistently points the reader back to the larger context of governing IT policies as well as the
official Treasury Board framework for managing IT projects. Specifically, wherever
appropriate, the reader is directed to relevant text in the Treasury Boards Management of
Information Technology Policy and their An Enhanced Framework for the Management of
Information Technology Projects.
This tool is structured for use as both a source book and a road map through the IT
investment process for public managers. The introduction also positions it as a tool to
bintroduce other stakeholders to the framework that shapes the decision-making model.Q74
The five central chapters of the guide introduce the framework for examining the
environment and seeking insight about the specific barriers, risks, and benefits of each
solution alternative being examined. The next two chapters focus on customizing the case for
specific audiencesagain stressing the idea that no one size or focus of presentation fits all
audiences. Chapter 10 focuses on tips and techniques for designing and managing ongoing
project reviews. Finally, the appendix introduces Logical Framework Analysis, a dynamic
technique for planning, communicating, and controlling project elements.
5.3. Business case basics and beyond: a primer on state government IT business cases75
This guide was produced by the National Association of Chief Information Officers
(NASCIO). A primary author from the practitioner community worked together with the
NASCIO Executive Committee to write the guide. Feedback was also provided by NASCIOs
customer relationship management committee and a range of government practitioners and
private sector and academic partners. Thirty-eight people from state and federal governments
and fourteen individuals from associations, academic institutions, and the private sector were
acknowledged for their contributions.
The guide addresses the emerging trend of business case use being broadened beyond the
analysis of one project to identify the benefits of whole programs such as data center
consolidation and Y2K. This guide identifies a review of current practitioner literature on IT
business cases as the source of a framework for an enterprise business case. It also presents a
discussion of the current challenges state governments, in particular, are facing in their egovernment initiatives and meeting the policy and service goals of their Governors. The
NASCIO guide provides btools, concepts, and a framework for addressing a number of critical
challenges facing state Governors, chief information officers and enterprise information
technology organizations.Q76 It has three main purposes: (1) provide the basics on State IT
business cases, (2) push beyond the bBasics to Use the Business Case to Address the
Challenges of Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005,Q77 and (3) embrace a statewide enterprise IT
investment management infrastructure. It contains four different types of information for
199
public managers: (1) business case basics, (2) public sector approaches to business cases and
examples, (3) resources and contacts, and (4) suggested solutions to some of the challenges.
One of the unique contributions of this guide is its specific discussion and treatment of an
enterprise business case as separate and unique from a business case for a specific project. It
also speaks to the value of technology in the business of government.
5.4. Making smart IT choices78
This two-part guide, available in print and online, was produced by The Center for
Technology in Government, an applied research center at the University at Albany, SUNY. The
Center formulated the Smart IT methodology through its work with government agencies in
projects where information strategies are applied to the challenges of public service delivery.
According to its introduction, this guide was designed to help public managers and
government organizations bmake good decisions about when and how to invest in information
technology (IT).Q79 Put another way, it was designed to bhelp public managers avoid becoming
one of the statistics that dominate reports on information technology investments.Q80
Smart IT is organized around a short list of basic issues and principles. The problematic
and expensive nature of IT decisions and the high failure rates, which result from hasty,
unrealistic, or uninformed decisions provide the basic issues framework. The principles that
guide the analytical strategy of Smart IT are that public managers must identify and listen to
stakeholders; they must understand what constitutes success for their initiative and they must
pursue it; and form must follow function. The three phase process involves the use of
analytical tools and techniques to first understand the problem and its context; second,
identify and test solutions; and third, evaluate alternatives and make choices. A wide range of
tools is introduced as well as a way of understanding how each tool might best be employed
in the development of a business case within a particular economic, policy, organizational,
managerial, process, and technology context.
Part 1 has four chapters and begins by considering the special characteristics of the public
sector as an environment for making management decisions and IT choices. In the second
chapter, the analytical process that accounts for program goals, stakeholders, processes, costs,
and technology alternatives is presented. Mini case examples are provided throughout.
Chapters 3 and 4 focus on turning the analysis into a business case and presenting it to various
audiences. Part 2 presents 33 skills, techniques, and tools to use in the analytical process.
200
Development strategy
Focus
Value Measuring
Methodology
Creating and
Using a Business
Case for Information
Technology Projects
NASCIO Business
Case Primer
Making Smart
IT Choices
201
impact which challenges. The NASCIO guide presents a warrant for business case analysis;
its unique contribution is a well-developed strategy for assessing the effectiveness of a
business case and the compilation of current practices across the states. Readers of the
NASCIO guide have the opportunity to review many frameworks and tools sets for a model
that will support their environments and issues as well as an extensive reference list.
The NASCIO guide offers examples of business cases and IT investment analysis
processes from as many states as possible. The VMM guide devotes most of its space to a
comprehensive risk and cost alternative analysis. The Smart IT guide focuses its presentation
on a set of tools and techniquesa toolkit of sort, and on the introduction of an analytical
framework to which public managers can apply appropriate tools from the toolkit. The
Canadian guide provides the reader with a comprehensive overview, targeted and actionable
summaries of activity within each step, and unique among the guides, provides
recommendations for the design of a project evaluation process.
6.2. Building the research practice bridge
The selected guides were designed to build awareness of challenges to e-government
initiatives and to present useful strategies, tools, and techniques to overcome the challenges.
The following section highlights the links between the research literature and the selected
guides through an analysis of each guide in terms of the four categories of challenges and
strategies derived from the literature review. Several observations about the guides and
recommendations for future development of practitioner resources and for further research
into the relevance of research to practice are then provided (Tables 5 and 6).
6.2.1. Information and data factors
Research published in the public management literature related to the capture,
organization, management, use, and archiving of information and data appears to be limited.
Coverage of the information and data challenges and the presentation of strategies related to
overcoming them is also limited. The Canadian guide identifies initial data collection and
conversion of archival data as a cost category that must be taken into account when
considering the overall cost of an initiative. Smart IT urges public managers to consider the
information and data that a particular solution strategy depends on to be successful so that
cost and risk analysis can include any threats to access. Other resources addressing these
factors are beginning to emerge from recent experiences with government information
integration initiatives. These initiatives are providing new insights into the challenges posed
by information and data issues;82 insights that need to be reflected in future practice guides.
6.2.2. Information technology factors
In the case of information technology, Canadas guide addresses almost all the challenges.
The risks section of the guide is based on research about software development done by the
Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University.83 All three tools discuss the
need for technical skills and expertise. Two address the complexity of the technology used in
the project. Two others address usefulness and ease of use as important elements.
202
Table 5
E-government challenges address by selected tools
VMM
CUBC
BCBB
MSIT
Security issues
Technological incompatibility
Technology complexity
Technology newness
U
U
Resistance to change
U
U
U
U
203
Table 6
Recommended by selected guides
VMM
CUBC
BCBB
Ease of use
MSIT
U
U
Adequate training
Adequate and/or innovative funding
U
U
204
strategic role of the enterprise. The CUBC focuses more directly on initiative level
managerial challenges such as skills of the project leader, planning as a management tool,
and adequate funding. VMM provides techniques for assessing the impact of organizational
and managerial risks such as a lack of alignment. Further it provides techniques for testing
underlying assumptions about initiatives and for assessing the impact of incorrect
assumptions on an initiative plan. Smart IT raises awareness about organizational and
managerial risks such as lack of attention to users, a lack of alignment between initiative and
organizational goals, and multiple and conflicting goals. It provides techniques such as
structured service objectives, visioning, and a strategic framework for minimizing these
challenges. All of these guides urge stakeholder involvement as a critical strategy for
overcoming organizational and managerial challenges.
6.2.4. Legal and regulatory factors
Legal and regulatory challenges are well addressed in the guides. The NASCIO guide
covers the topic of legal frameworks and provides guidance on reviewing governing policies
and regulations. It advises public managers to be aware of regulatory frameworks in the
development of the IT initiatives. Smart IT speaks to these challenges as well by providing
tools such as partisan analysis, stakeholder analysis, and news analysis. Each guide presents a
discussion of the possible enabling and constraining influences of the regulatory environment
on e-government initiatives. Managers are urged, for example, to carefully consider security
policies that restrict or facilitate infrastructure expansion efforts.
6.2.5. Institutional and environmental factors
Challenges stemming from environmental realities and institutional practices are identified
in each the four selected guides. Timing, in particular, is presented as a strategy for
overcoming some of the environmental and institutional challenges. The NASCIO Guide for
example, encourages public managers to understand the impact of election cycles on their
initiatives. Smart IT also speaks to these environmental challenges and adds in the one-year
budgetary cycles of government and its challenges to multi-year, multi-institutional IT
initiatives. The NASCIO guide, the Canadian Treasury Board guide, and the Smart IT guide
speak to the need to scan the economic and political environments and to carefully choose the
btimingQ of the IT initiative. Smart IT provides a number of tools and techniques for
increasing awareness environmental and institutional factors and their influence.
205
Our comparison of selected research findings and practical guides has provided insight into
the extent to which research is reflected in guides to inform practice. The analysis highlighted
the particular characteristics of the guides and provided a general review of the extent to
which these guides reflect current research. Five observations about the key commonalties
among the guides (see Table 7) and four recommendations for future efforts in both research
and practice also emerged from the analysis.
The four recommendations derived from the analysis of gaps between current research and
the guides are provided to inform both future IS research and practical guide development
efforts. This work also informs future efforts to conduct further empirical studies of the
impact of research on the focus and content of e-government investment decision making
tools in international, national, state, and local governments.
7.1. Characterize risk in context
The guides introduce the concept of risk and speak to the need to identify and invest in
strategies to manage risk. Risk as a concept receives very thorough treatment, however,
challenges tend to be characterized in general terms. A more thorough characterization of the
specific risks to specific kinds of initiatives would complement the presentation of risk
identification and analysis strategies. Practitioners would be more aware of the potential risks
they face and could consider the analytic methodologies in terms of a set of likely risks given
the context of a particular initiative.
7.2. Build understanding of information and data challenges
The impact of information and data challenges such as inconsistent data structures, semantic
issues, and incomplete data, on the success of e-government initiatives need to be explored
further in research and presented more thoroughly in practitioner guides. The success of egovernment initiatives involving multi-agency information sharing and integration such as
homeland security and public health depend on greater understanding of these challenges.
Table 7
Key commonalities of selected E-government practitioner guides
1. Risks, sensitivities, and contingencies tend to be undeveloped and that threatens the credibility of IS
initiatives (NASCIO 2003)
2. The iterative process of information gathering, analysis, and decision making is central to the effort to
build understanding of problems, solutions, alternatives, costs, and risks
3. Investment analysis and business case documents are living documents and if maintained and updated over
time can provide guidance to teams throughout an initiative and beyond
4. Contextualizing technology solutions is critical to success. bNo one size fits allQ is the underlying theme
throughout each of the guides. Finding out what size does fit in which situation is the goal each guide sets
out to achieve
5. Contingency thinking is necessary for planning and preparation for unexpected consequences and changes
in the bvalue, cost, and riskQ determinations
206
Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank Sharon Dawes, Terry Maxwell, Anthony Cresswell, and Luis
Luna-Reyes for their valuable comments in early versions of this paper. Any mistakes or
omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.
207
208
Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. (2002). Building collaborative digital government systems.
In W. J. McIver & A. K. Elmagarmid (Eds.). Advances in Digital Government.
Technology, Human Factors, and Policy. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
DeLone, W., & Mclean, E. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the
dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 6095.
DeLone, W., & Mclean, E. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of information
systems success: A ten year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4),
930.
Duncan, G. T., & Roehrig, S. T. (2003). Mediating the tension between information
privacy and information access: The role of digital government. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Public
Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues. Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Publishing.
Edmiston, K. D. (2003). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges.
American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 2045.
Flowers, S. (1996). Software failure: Management failure: Amazing Stories and
Cautionary Tales. New York: Wiley.
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the Virtual State. Information Technology and Institutional
Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Gagnon, Y. -C. (2001). The behavior of public managers in adopting new technologies.
Pubic Performance and Management Review, 24(4), 337350.
Garson, G. D. (2003). Toward an information technology research agenda for public
administration. In G. D. Garson (Ed.). Public Information Technology: Policy and
Management Issues. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Gray, P. (2001). Introduction to the special volume on relevance. Communications of the
Association of Information Systems, 6.
Harris, N. D. (2000). Intergovernmental cooperation in the development and use of
information systems. In G. D. Garson (Ed.). Handbook of Public Information Systems. New
York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Heintze, T., & Bretschneider, S. (2000). Information technology and restructuring in public
organizations: Does adoption of information technology affect organizational structures,
communications, and decision making? Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 10(4), 801830.
Ho, A. T. -K. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative.
Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434444.
Holden, S. H., Norris, D. F., & Fletcher, P. D. (2003). Electronic government at the local
level: Progress to date and future issues. Public Performance and Management Review,
26(4), 325344.
Irvine, C. E. (2000). Security issues for automated information systems. In G. D. Garson
(Ed.). Handbook of Public Information Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Jiang, J., & Klein, G. (2000). Software development risks to project effectiveness. The
Journal of Systems and Software, 52, 310.
Jiang, J., Klein G., & Balloun, J. (1996). Ranking of system implementation success
factors. Project Management Journal, 27, 5055.
209
Joshi, J. B. D., Ghafor, A., Aref, W. G., & Spafford, E. H. (2002). Security and privacy
challenges of a digital government. In W. J. McIver & A. K. Elmagarmid (Eds.). Advances in
Digital Government. Technology, Human Factors, and Policy. Norwell, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Keil, M. (1995). Pulling the plug: Software project management and the problem of
escalation. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 421447.
Kim, S., & Kim, D. (2003). South Korean public officials perceptions of values, failure,
and consequences of failure in e-government leadership. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 360375.
La Porte, T. M., Demchak, C. C., & de Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and bureaucracy in
the age of the Web: Empirical findings and theoretical speculations. Administration and
Society, 34(4), 411446.
Landsbergen, D. J., & Wolken Jr., G. (1998, October). Eliminating legal and policy
barriers to interoperable government systems. Paper presented at the Annual Research
Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. New York.
Landsbergen, D. J., & Wolken Jr., G. (2001). Realizing the promise: Government
information systems and the fourth generation of information technology. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 206220.
Luna-Reyes, L., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2003, May 1821). eGovernment & Internet Security:
Some Technical and Policy Considerations. Paper presented at the National Conference on
Digital Government Research, organized by the National Science Foundation, Boston, MA,
USA.
Mahler, J., & Regan, P. M. (2002). Learning to govern online: Federal agency Internet use.
American Review of Public Administration, 32(3), 326349.
Mahler, J., & Regan, P. M. (2003). Developing intranets for agency management. Public
Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 422432.
McFarlan, F. W. (1981). Portfolio approach to information systems. Harvard Business
Review, 59, 142150.
Melitski, J. (2003). Capacity and e-government performance: An analysis based on early
adopters of Internet technologies in New Jersey. Public Performance and Management
Review, 26(4), 376390.
Milner, E. M. (2000). Managing Information and Knowledge in the Public Sector. New
York: Routledge.
Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or
reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424433.
NGA. (1997). Barriers to Intergovernmental Enterprise. Washington, DC: National
Governors Association.
Orr, K. (1998). Data quality and systems theory. Communications of the ACM, 41(2),
6670.
Redman, T. C. (1998). The impact of poor data quality on the typical enterprise.
Communications of the ACM, 41(2), 7982.
Regan, E. A., & OConnor, B. N. (2001). End-user Information Systems: Implementing
Individual and Group Work Technology. Second Edition. New York: Prentice Hall.
210
211
212
15. Ballou, D. P., & Tayi, G. K. (1999). Enhancing data quality in data warehouse
environments. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 7379.
16. Ibid., p. 13.
17. Ibid., p. 14.
18. Ibid., p. 15.
19. Dawes, S. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable
risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377394.
20. Ambite, J. L., et al. (2002). Data integration and access. In W. J. McIver, & A. K.
Elmagarmid (Eds.), Advances in Digital Government. Technology, Human Factors, and
Policy. Norwell, MA7 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21. Brown, M. M. (2000). Mitigating the risk of information technology initiatives: Best
practices and points of failure for the public sector. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of
Public Information Systems. New York7 Marcel Dekker.
22. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319330;
DeLone, W., & Mclean, E. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the
dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 6095;
Ibid., p. 4, Caffrey.
23. Ibid., p. 19;
Ibid., p. 12, Chengalur-Smith and Duchessi;
Brown, M. M. (2001). The benefits and costs of information technology innovations: An
empirical assessment of a local government agency. Public Performance and Management Review, 24(4), 351366;
Ibid., p. 2, Dawes and Pardo.
24. Burbridge, L. (2002). Accountability and MIS. Public Performance and Management
Review, 25(4), 421423.
25. Barki, H., Rivard, S., & Talbot, J. (1993). Toward an assessment of software development
risk. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 203223;
Dawes, S. S., & Nelson, M. R. (1995). Pool the risks, share the benefits: Partnerships in
IT innovation. In J. Keyes (Ed.), Technology Trendlines. Technology Success Stories from
Todays Visionaries. New York7 Van Nostrand Reinhold;
Ibid., p. 4, Caffrey;
Ibid., p. 12, Chengalur-Smith and Duchessi;
Ibid., p. 4, Garson.
26. Ibid., p. 4, Caffrey;
Ibid., p. 2, Dawes and Pardo.
27. Ibid., p. 23, Brown.
28. Randall, D., Hughes, J., OBrien, J., Rodden, T., Rouncefield, M., Sommerville, I., et al.
(1999). Banking on the old technology: Understanding the organizational context of
dlegacyT issues. Communications of the Association of Information Systems, 2;
Kelly, S., Gibson, N., Holland, C. P., & Light, B. (1999). A business perspective of
legacy information systems. Communications of the Association of Information
Systems, 2.
213
29. Duchessi, P., & Chengalur-Smith, I. (1998). Client/server benefits, problems, best
practices. Communications of the ACM, 41(5), 8794.
30. McFarlan, F. W. (1981). Portfolio approach to information systems. Harvard Business
Review, 59, 142150;
Davis, G. B. (1982). Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM System
Journal, 21, 430;
Ibid., p. 25, Barki et al.;
Ibid., p. 2, Dawes and Pardo.
31. Ibid., p. 25, Dawes and Nelson.
32. Ibid., p. 2, Dawes and Pardo.
33. Ibid., p. 25, Barki et al.;
Ibid., p. 25, Dawes and Nelson;
Ibid., p. 19;
Ibid., p. 2, Best;
Ibid., p. 4, Caffrey;
Ibid., p. 3, Bellamy;
Jiang, J., & Klein, G. (2000). Software development risks to project effectiveness.
Journal of Systems and Software, 52, 310;
Barret, K., & Green, R. (2001). Powering up. How public managers can take control of
information technology. Washington, DC7 CQ Press;
Ibid., p. 24;
Edmiston, K. D. (2003). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges.
American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 2045;
Ibid., p. 3, Rocheleau.
34. Ibid., p. 25, Dawes and Nelson;
NGA. (1997). Barriers to intergovernmental enterprise. Washington, DC7 National
Governors Association;
Ibid., p. 2, Landsbergen and Wolken;
Harris, N. D. (2000). Intergovernmental cooperation in the development and use of
information systems. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems.
New York7 Marcel Dekker.
35. Ibid., p. 25, Dawes and Nelson;
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state. Information technology and institutional
change. Washington, DC7 Brookings Institution Press;
Ibid., p. 2, Dawes and Pardo.
36. Ibid., p. 3, Bellamy;
Ibid., p. 34, Harris;
Ibid., p. 3, Rocheleau.
37. Bajjaly, S. T. (1999). Managing emerging information systems in the public sector. Public
Performance and Management Review, 23(1), 4047;
Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2003). Learning organizations in the public sector? A
study of police agencies employing information and technology to advance knowledge.
Public Administration Review, 63(1), 3043.
214
38. Scott, W. Richard (2000). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage
Publications.
39. Andersen, D. F., & Dawes, S. S. (1991). Government information management. A primer
and casebook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Prentice Hall;
Ibid., p. 4, Caffrey;
Ibid., p. 3, Milner;
Joshi, J. B. D., Ghafor, A., Aref, W. G., & Spafford, E. H. (2002). Security and privacy
challenges of a digital government. In W. J. McIver, & A. K. Elmagarmid (Eds.),
Advances in digital government. Technology, human factors, and policy. Norwell, MA7
Kluwer Academic Publishers;
Duncan, G. T., & Roehrig, S. T. (2003). Mediating the tension between information
privacy and information access: The role of digital government. In G. D. Garson (Ed.),
Public information technology: Policy and management issues. Hershey, PA7 Idea Group
Publishing;
Ibid., p. 33, Edmiston.
40. Ibid., p. 19;
Ibid., p. 4, Caffrey;
Ibid., p. 35, Fountain;
Ibid., p. 2, Dawes and Pardo.
41. Ibid., p. 3, Bellamy;
Ibid., p. 3, Rocheleau.
42. Wang, R. Y. (1998). A product perspective on total data quality management.
Communications of the ACM, 41(2), 5863.
43. Keil, M. (1995). Pulling the plug: Software project management and the problem of
escalation. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 421447;
Ibid., p. 42;
Ibid., p. 21.
44. CTG. (2000). The insiders guide to using information in government. Albany, NY7
Center for Technology in Government http://demo.ctg.albany.edu/static/usinginfo
45. Orr, K. (1998). Data quality and systems theory. Communications of the ACM, 41(2),
6670.
46. Ibid., p. 44.
47. Ibid., p. 22, Davis;
Ibid., p. 22, DeLone and Mclean;
Ibid., p. 21;
Ibid., p. 4, Garson.
48. Ibid., p. 4, Caffrey;
Ibid., p. 2, Dawes and Pardo.
49. Ibid., p. 25, Barki et al.;
Jiang, J., Klein, G., & Balloun, J. (1996). Ranking of system implementation success
factors. Project Management Journal, 27, 5055;
Ibid., p. 21;
Ibid., p. 33, Jiang, J. and Klein.
215
216