Measuring e-government impact: Existing practices and shortcomings

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Volumn 60, Issue , 2004, Pages 480-489

  Peters, Rob M ^a   Janssen, Marijn ^b   Van Engers, Tom M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

architectures; e government; evaluation; interoperability; law; measurement

Indexed keywords

BUSINESS PROCESS; CURRENT MEASUREMENTS; CURRENT PRACTICES; E-GOVERNMENT; EVALUATION; GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES; MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS; NEW TECHNOLOGIES; NUMBER OF SERVICES; OFFICE PROCESS; PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION; RESOURCE USAGE;

ELECTRIC CURRENT MEASUREMENT; ELECTRONIC COMMERCE; INTEROPERABILITY; MANAGEMENT; MEASUREMENTS;

GOVERNMENT DATA PROCESSING;

EID: 77954466606     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1052220.1052281     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Accenture (2001). Governments Closing Gap Between Political Rhetoric and eGovernment Reality, http://www.accenture.com/xdoc/en/industries/government/20 01FullReport.pdf.
2. Accenture (2002). eGovernment Leadership -Realizing the Vision, http://www.accenture.com/xd/xd.asp?it=enWeb&xd=industri es/government/gove- welcome.xml
3. Accenture (2003). eGovernment Leadership: Engaging the Customer, http://www.accenture.com/xd/xd.asp?it=enweb&xd=industri es/government/gove- capa-egov.xml
4. Armour, F.J. Kaisler, S.H. and Liu, S.Y. (1999). A bigpicture look at Enterprise Architectures, IEEE IT Professional, 1(1): 35-42.
5. Bigné, E., Moliner, M.A., and Sánchez, J. (2003) Perceived Quality and satisfaction in multiservice organizations. The case of Spanish public services. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(4), pp. 420-442.
6. Boer, A. Engers, T. van and R. Winkels (2003). Using Ontologies for Comparing and Harmonizing Legislation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), Edinburgh (UK), ACM Press.
7. Alexander Boer, Radboud Winkels, Rinke Hoekstra, and Tom M. van Engers. Knowledge Management for Legislative Drafting in an International Setting. In D. Bourcier, editor, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2003: The Sixteenth Annual Conference., pages 91-100, Amsterdam, 2003. IOS Press.
8. Bons R., Ronald M.Lee and Tan, Yua-Hua, (1999). A Formal Specification of Automated Auditing of Trustworthy Trade Procedures for Open Electronic Commerce. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICCS).
9. Buckland and F. Gey (1994). The relationship between recall and precision. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1):12-19.
10. Bruin, H. de (2002). Performance measurement in the public sector: strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 578-594.
11. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester.
12. Coase, R. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economia, 4: 386-405.
13. European Commissions (2002). 2003 European Innovation Scoreboard: European Trend Chart on Innovation. Innovation/SMEs Programme.
14. European Commission (2004). Green paper on Public private partnerships and community law on public contracts and concessions, European Commission, no. 327.
15. Fagan, J.C. & Fagan, B. (2004). An accessibility study of state legislative web sites. Government Information Quarterly, 21: 65-85.
16. Galliers, R.D. (1992). Information Systems Research. Issues, methods and practical guidelines. Alfred Waller, Fawley, England.
17. Green, S.H.B. (1998), Cyberspace winners: how they did it, Business Week, 22 June, pp. 154-60.
18. Groot, H., de and R. Goudriaan (1991). De productiviteit van de overheid: over prestaties, personeel en uitgaven in de publieke sector. Academic Service, Schoonhoven, The Netherlands.
19. Hazlett, S.A. and Hill, F. (2003). E-government: the realities of using IT to transform the public sector. Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 445-452.
20. Janssen, M.F.W.H.A. (2001). Designing Electronic Intermediaries. Doctoral Dissertation, Delft University of Technology.
21. Janssen, Marijn & Davidse, Anouk (2004). Evaluation of a Performance-based Accountability System. The 4th European Conference on E-government (ECEG), Dublin Castle, Dublin, Ireland, 17-18 June 2004
22. Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and capital structure, Journal of Financial Economics, 5: 305-360.
23. Layne, KJL & Lee, J. (2001) "Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model", Government Information Quarterly, Vol 18, No. 2, pp 122-136.
24. Lee, J.K. (2003). A model for monitoring public sector web site strategy. Internet Research. Electronic networking application and policy. Vol. 13, no. 4, pp259-266.
25. Malone, T.W. & Crowston, K. (1994). The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 87-119.
26. Merwe, R. van der, and Bekker,J. (2003). A framework and methodology for evaluating e-commerce web sites. Internet Research: electronic Networking Applications and Policy. Vol. 13, No.5, pp. 330-341.
27. Moon, M.J. (2002). The Evolution of E-Government Among Municipalities; Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review. Vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 424-433.
28. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, pp. 12-40.
29. Peters, Rob and Wilson, Frank (2003). Natural Language access to regional information sources: the PortofRotterdam case: 4th International Workshop on Image Analysis for Multimedia Interactive Services, WIAMIS 2003.
30. Provincial council (2003) Innovatiebrief kenniseconomie Zuid-Holland "Kennismaken met Kenniszaken, http://www.zuid-holland.nl/images/126-107822. pdf, page 14.
31. Rohleder, S.J. et al. (2004). eGovernment Leadership: High Performance, Maximum Value. Fifth Annual Accenture eGovernment Study. Accenture Government Executive Studies, http://www.accenture.com/xdoc/en/industries/government/go ve-egov-value.pdf
32. Simeon, R. (1999),"Evaluating domestic and international Web site strategies", Internet Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 297-308.
33. Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J.W. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Management Science 29: 363-377.
34. Van Engers, T.M., 2004, Legal Engineering: A Knowledge Engineering Approach To Improving Legal Quality, in eGovernment and eDemocracy: Progress and Challenges, Padget, J., Neira, R., De León, J.L., Editors, Instituto Politéchnico Nacional Centro de Investigacion en Computación, ISBN 970-36-0152-9, p189-206.
35. Williamson, O.E. (1975). Market and Hierarchies, Analysis and Antitrust Implications. A study in the economics of internal organization. Macmillan, New York.
36. Yin, R.K. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and methods. Sage publications, Newbury Park, California.