Evaluating e-Government: A comprehensive methodological framework to assess policy impacts

Government e-Strategic Planning and Management: Practices, Patterns and Roadmaps

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 25-47

  Misuraca, Gianluca ^a   Savoldelli, Alberto ^b   Codagnone, Cristiano ^c  

^a JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^b State University ^*  (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

e Government; Evaluation; Measurement; Policy making; Strategic planning; Trust

Indexed keywords

EID: 84934319414     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8462-2_2     Document Type: Chapter

References (49)

1. Alford, J. (2002). Defining the client in the public sector: A social exchange perspective. Public Administration Review, 62(3), 337-346.
2. Andersen, K. V., & Henrisken, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity model: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. In Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236-238.
3. Arnaboldi, M., Azzone, G., & Savoldelli, A. (2004). Managing a public sector project: The case of the Italian treasury ministry. In. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 213-223.
4. Atkinson, T. (2005). Atkinson review: Final report: Measurement of government output and productivity for the national accounts. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Bannister, F. (2007). The curse of the benchmark: An assessment of the validity and value of e-Government comparisons. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(2), 612-631.
6. Belanger, F., & Carter, L. (2008). Trust and risk in e-Government adoption. In Strategic Information Systems, 17, 165-176.
7. Bertot, J. C., & Jaeger, P. T. (2008). The e-Government paradox: Better customer service doesn't necessarily cost less. In Government Information Quarterly, 25(2), 149-154.
8. Best, J. (2001). Damned lies and statistics: Untangling numbers from the media, politicians, and activists. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9. Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. In Public Administration Review, 5, 846-860.
10. Bresnahan, T., Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. (2002). Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 339-376.
11. Capgemini. (2007). Online availability of public services: How is Europe progressing? European Commission, Brussels.
12. Capgemini, (2009). Smarter, faster, better e-Government, 8th measurement. European Commission, Brussels.
13. Capgemini, (2010). Digitizing public service in europe: Putting ambition into action, 9th benchmark measurement. European Commission, Brussels.
14. Castelnovo, W. (2010). Is there an e-Government paradox? In D. O'Donnel (Ed.), 10th European e-Government conference on e-Government (pp. 90-98). Limerick: Academic Publishing.
15. Castelnovo, W., & Simonetta, M. (2008). A public value evaluation of e-Government policies. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 11(2), 61-72.
16. Codagnone, C., & Cilli, V. (2006). eGEP expenditure study. EC: Brussels.
17. Codagnone, C., & Undheim, T. (2008). Government efficiency and effectiveness: The theory and practice of evaluation and measurment. European Journal of ePractice 1(4), 1-15.
18. Cordella, A., & Bonina, C. M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512-520.
19. Dawes, & Pardo, T. (2002). Building collaborative digital government system. In W. J. McIver, & A. K. Elmagarmid (Eds.), Advances in digital government. technology, human factors and policy. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
20. Dawes Sharon, S. (2008). An exploratory framework for future e-Government research investments. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science.
21. Esteves, J., & Rhoda, C. J. (2008). A comprehensive framework for the assessment of egovernment projects. Governmnet Information Quarterly, 25, 118-132.
22. Etzioni, A., & Lehman, E. (1967). Some dangers in 'valid' social measurements: Preliminary notes. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 373(1), 1-15.
23. Fernández-i-Marín, X. (2011). The impact of e-Government promotion in Europe: Internet dependence and critical mass. Policy and Internet, 3(4), 0.
24. Foley, K. (2006). Using the value measuring methodology to evaluate government initiatives. Proceedings of the 2006 Crystal Ball User Conference. May 1-3. Denver.
25. Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). E-government success factors: Mapping practical tool to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 187-216.
26. Guida, J., & Crow, M. (2008). E-government and e-governance. In T. Unvin (Ed.), ICT4D -Information and communication technologies for development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved January 18, 2012 from http://books.google.com.
27. Heeks, R. (2006). Understanding and measuring e-Government: International benchmarking studies. Paper prepared for UNDESA workshop on eParticipation and e-Government:Understanding the present and creating the future. 27-28 July, Budapest.
28. Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002). Creating public value: An analytical framework for public service reform. London: Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office.
29. Kunstelj, M., & Vintar, M. (2004). Evaluating the progress of e-Government development: A critical analysis. Information Policy, 9(3-4), 131-148.
30. Layne, K., & Lee, J. W. (2001). Developing fully functional e-Government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 9(2), 122-136.
31. Magoutas, B., Halaris, C., & Mentzas, G. (2007). An ontology for the multi-perspective evaluation of quality in e-Government services. Electronic Government, Proceedings, 4656, 318-329.
32. Misuraca, G. (2012). Assessing ICT-enabled Innovation for Governance and Policy Making. PhD Thesis, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland, 2013.
33. Misuraca, G., Codagnone, C., & Rossel, P. (2013). From practice to theory and back to practice:Reflexivity in measurement and evaluation for evidence-based policy making in the information society, Government Information Quarterly, (Suppl 2), Jan 2013 (pp. S68-S82).
34. Misuraca, G., & Rossel, P. (2011). Reflexivity, modelling and weak signals of transformational tracks to support both micro- and macro-measuring of Information society services. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV2011), Tallinn, Estonia, 26-28 September 2011 - ACM International Conference Proceedings Series, ACM Press.
35. Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value strategic management in government. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
36. Moore, M., & Khagram, S. (2004). On creating public value: What business can learn from government about strategic management. A working paper of the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative. Harvard University.
37. OECD. (2009). Implementation guidelines on evaluation and capacity building for local and micro regional level - "the Hungary case". OECD, Paris.
38. Perrin, B. (2006). Moving from outputs to outcomes: Practical advice from governments around the world. Managing for performances and results series. Report sponsored by World Bank and the IBM Center for the Business of Government.
39. Petricek, V., Escher, T., Cox, I., & Margetts, H. (2006). The web structure of e-Government - developing a methodology for quantitative evaluation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web.
40. Papadopulos Y., & Warin, P. (2007). Are innovative participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective? European Journal of Political Research. 46, 445-462.
41. Reddick, C. G. (2005). Citizen interaction with e-Government: From the streets to servers? Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 38-57.
42. Salem, S. (2008). Benchmarking the e-Government bulldozer: Beyond measuring the tread marks. Measuring Business Excellence, 11(4), 9-22.
43. Savoldelli, A. (2012, October). La valutazione dei Progetti ICT per lo sviluppo della società dell0informazione. Paper presented in the "Bologna Smart City Workshop - SmartER", Bologna.
44. Savoldelli, A., Codagnone, C., & Misuraca, G. (2012, October). Explaining the e-Government paradox: An analysis of two decades of evidence from scientific literature and practice on barriers to e-Government. Paper presented in: ICEGOV 2012, New York.
45. Savoldelli, A., Codagnone, C., & Misuraca, G. (2013). Assessing the impacts of ICT-enabled services in the public sector: A participatory evaluation process to overcome the eGovernment paradox. Paper presented to the 2nd International EIBURS-TAIPS Conference:Innovation in the Public Sector and the Development of E-services, April 18-19, 2013, Urbino.
46. Sheridan, W., & Riley, T. B. (2006). Comparing e-Government and egovernance. Available at http://www.inst-informatica.pt/servicos/informacao-e-documentacao/biblioteca-digital/gestao-de-si-ti-1/it-governance/SheridanRileyComparEgov.pdf. Last retrieval on February 7 2012.
47. Titah, R., & Barki, H. (2005). E-government Adoption and Acceptance: A Literature Review, Chaire de la Chaire du Canada en implementation et gestion des technologies des information. HEC Montreal. Available at http://neumann.hec.ca/igti/cahiers%20de%20recherche/chaireIGTIcahier0503.pdf. Last retrieval: January 20 2012.
48. Van Dooren, W. (2009). A politico-administrative agenda for progress in social measurement:Reforming the calculation of government's contribution to GDP. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(3), 309-326.
49. Van Ryzin, G. (2009). Outcome, process and citizens0 trust of the civil services. Paper prepared for the 10th national management research conference, October 1-4. Ohio State University, John Glenn School of Public Affairs, Columbus.