Evaluating the use and impact of Web 2.0 technologies in local government

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 473-487

  Sivarajah, Uthayasankar ^a   Irani, Zahir ^a   Weerakkody, Vishanth ^a  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Case study; e Government; Evaluation; Impact; Local Government Authorities (LGAs); Qualitative research; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937485540     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. Accenture, Web 2.0 and the next generation of public service, Accenture, United States. 2009.
2. Adams, M.O., Smith, L.D., Changing the face of public affairs: A look at how social networking is impacting the business of the public sector. National Social Science Journal 34:1 (2010), 10–16.
3. Ajjan, H., Hartshorne, R., Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The internet and higher education 11:2 (2008), 71–80.
4. Ala-Mutka, K.D., Broster, R., Cachia, C., Centeno, C., Feijóo, A., Haché, S., et al. The impact of social computing on the EU information society and economy (EU report. Available at http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/SC.html, 2013 (Accessed: 12 Dec 2013).
5. Andresen, J., Björk, B., Betts, M., School, H.O., Carter, C., Lecturer, A.H., et al. A framework for measuring it innovation benefits. ITcon, 5, 2000, 72.
6. Anfinnsen, S., Ghinea, G., De Cesare, S., Web 2.0 and folksonomies in a library context. International Journal of Information Management 31:1 (2011), 63–70.
7. Anttiroiko, A., Innovation in democratic E-Governance: Benefitting from Web 2.0 applications in the public sector. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 6:2 (2010), 18–36.
8. Atkinson, P., Hammersley, M., Ethnography and participant observation. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 1994, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 248–261.
9. Baxter, G.J., Connolly, T.M., Stansfield, M.H., Organisational blogs: Benefits and challenges of implementation. The Learning Organization 17:6 (2010), 515–528.
10. Benaroch, M., Managing information technology investment risk: A real options perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 19:2 (2002), 43–84.
11. Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Grimes, J.M., Crowd-sourcing transparency: ICTs, social media, and government transparency initiatives. Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Public Administration Online: Challenges and Opportunities Digital Government Society of North America, 2010, 51.
12. Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Hansen, D., The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly 29:1 (2012), 30–40.
13. Bin Al-Tameem, A., Chittikala, P., Pichappan, P., A study of AJAX vulnerability in Web 2.0 applications. Applications of Digital Information and Web Technologies, 2008. ICADIWT 2008. First International Conference on the, 2008, 63.
14. Blank, G., Reisdorf, B.C., The participatory web. Information, Communication & Society 15:4 (2012), 537–554.
15. Bonsón, E., Royo, S., Ratkai, M., Citizens' engagement on local governments' Facebook sites. An empirical analysis: The impact of different media and content types in Western Europe. Government Information Quarterly 32:1 (2015), 52–62.
16. Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., Flores, F., Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly 29:2 (2012), 123–132.
17. Brynjolfsson, E., The contribution of information technology to consumer welfare. Information Systems Research 7:3 (1996), 281–300.
18. Buchanan, E., Luck, E., The electronic village: The digital challenges in communication strategies for sporting organization. International Journal of Business Environment 2:2 (2008), 258–279.
19. Bughin, J., Chui, M., The rise of the networked enterprise: Web 2.0 finds its payday. McKinsey Quarterly 4 (2010), 3–8.
20. Chadwick, A., Web 2.0: new challenges for the study of e-Democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 5:1 (2009), 9–41.
21. Chang, A., Kanna, P.K., Leveraging Web 2.0 in government. 2008, IBM Center for The Business of Government, Washington, DC.
22. Charlton, J., Wed, 06 Apr-last update, Public sector use of social media takes off [Homepage of Guardian News & Media Limited], [Online]. Available http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2011/apr/06/public, 2011 (2011, July, 06).
23. Chen, H., Thoms, S., Fu, T., Cyber extremism in Web 2.0: An exploratory study of international Jihadist groups. Intelligence and Security Informatics, 2008. ISI 2008. IEEE International Conference on Taipei, Taiwan, 2008, 98.
24. Clemons, E.K., Row, M.C., Limits to interfirm coordination through information technology: results of a field study in consumer packaged goods distribution. Journal of Management Information Systems 10:1 (1993), 73–95.
25. Cole, R., Social media: What does it mean for public managers?. Public Management, International City/County Management Association, Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
26. Corbin, J., Strauss, A., Basics of qualitative research. Third ed., 2008, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
27. Dadashzadeh, M., Social media in government: From eGovernment to eGovernance. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 8(11), 2010.
28. Danis, C., Bailey, M., Christensen, J., Ellis, J., Erickson, T., Farrell, R., et al. Mobile applications for the next billions: A social computing application and a perspective on sustainability. 2nd Workshop on Innovative Mobile Technology and Services for Developing Countries (IMTS-DC 09) in conjunction with International Conference on Computing and ICT Research (ICCIR), 30–31 July, 2009 ICCIR, Kampala, Uganda, 2009.
29. David, J.S., Schuff, D., St Louis, R., Managing your total IT cost of ownership. Communications of the ACM 45:1 (2002), 101–106.
30. de Kool, D., van Wamelen, J., Web 2.0: A new basis for E-Government?, information and communication technologies: From theory to applications, 2008. ICTTA 2008. 3rd International Conference on, 2008, 1.
31. Delone, W.H., McLean, E.R., The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems 19:4 (2003), 9–30.
32. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W.R., Robinson, J.P., Social implications of the internet. Annual Review of Sociology 27 (2001), 307–336.
33. Dixon, B.E., Towards e-Government 2.0: An assessment of where e-Government 2.0 is and where it is headed. Public Administration and Management 15:2 (2010), 418–454.
34. Drogkaris, P., Gritzalis, S., Lambrinoudakis, C., Transforming the Greek e-government environment towards the e-Gov 2.0 era. Proceedings of the First international conference on Electronic government and the information systems perspective, 2010, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 142.
35. Dyer, W.G. Jr., Wilkins, A.L., Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. The Academy of Management Review 16:3 (1991), 613–619.
36. Eckartz, S., Daneva, M., Wieringa, R., van Hillegersberg, J., A conceptual framework for ERP benefit classification: A literature review. 2009, University Twente.
37. Eisenhardt, K.M., Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review 14:4 (1989), 532–550.
38. Farbey, B., Land, F.F., Targett, D., How to assess your IT investment: A study of methods and practice. 1993, Butterworth-Heinmann, Oxford.
39. Freeman, R.J., Loo, P., Web 2.0 and e-Government at the municipal level. Privacy, Security, Trust and the Management of e-Business, 2009. CONGRESS '09. World Congress on, 2009, 70.
40. Gable, G.G., Integrating case study and survey research methods: An example in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems 3:2 (1994), 112–126.
41. Gov.uk, Social media guidance for civil servants: October 2014 — GOV.UK. [online] Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-media-guidance-for-civil-servants/social-media-guidance-for-civil-servants, 2014 (Accessed 20 Apr. 2015).
42. Grabner-Krauter, S., Web 2.0 social networks: The role of trust. Journal of Business Ethics 90:4 (2009), 505–522.
43. Grimmelikhuijsen, S.G., Meijer, A.J., Does Twitter increase perceived police legitimacy?. Public Administration Review 75:4 (2015), 58–607.
44. Guardian, 19/12/2011-last update, Hillingdon goes for Google Apps [Homepage of The Guardian], [Online]. Available http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2011/dec/19/hillingdon-council-google-apps/print, 2011 (2012, 03/08).
45. Hakim, C., Research design: Strategies and choice in the design of social research. 1987, Allen and Unwin, London, UK.
46. Hochstrasser, B., Justifying IT investments. Conference Proceedings: Advanced Information Systems; The New Technologies in Today's Business Environment, 1992, 17–28.
47. Hong, S., Nadler, D., Which candidates do the public discuss online in an election campaign?: The use of social media by 2012 presidential candidates and its impact on candidate salience. Government Information Quarterly 29:4 (2012), 455–461.
48. Huijboom, N., Broek, T., Frissen, V., Kool, L., Kotterink, B., Nielsen, M.M., et al. Public Services 2.0: Impact of social computing on public services. 2009, European Communities, Luxembourg.
49. Hughes, B., Joshi, I., Lemonde, H., Wareham, J., Junior physician's use of Web 2.0 for information seeking and medical education: a qualitative study. International journal of medical informatics 78:10 (2009), 645–655.
50. Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D., The propagation of technology management taxonomies for evaluating investments in information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems 17:3 (2001), 161–177.
51. Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D., Developing a frame of reference for ex-ante IT/IS investment evaluation. European Journal of Information Systems 11:1 (2002), 74–82.
52. Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D., Information systems evaluation: A crisis of understanding. Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D., (eds.) Evaluating Information Systems: Public and Private Sector, 1st ed., 2008, Butterworth-Heinemann, UK, 20.
53. Jaeger, P.T., Paquette, S., Simmons, S.N., Information policy in national political campaigns: A comparison of the 2008 campaigns for President of the United States and Prime Minister of Canada. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7:1 (2010), 67–82.
54. Jick, T.D., mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24:4 (1979), 602–611.
55. Johannessen, M., Rohde, Different Theory, different result: Examining how different theories lead to different insights in Government 2.0 research. Proceedings of the 1st Scandinavian Conference of Information Systems and the 33rd Information Systems Research in Scandinavia (IRIS) Seminar IRIS, Skørping, Denmark, 2010, 17.
56. Kavanaugh, A.L., Fox, E.A., Sheetz, S.D., Yang, S., Li, L.T., Shoemaker, D.J., et al. Social media use by government: From the routine to the critical. Government Information Quarterly 29:4 (2012), 480–491.
57. Kinder, T., E-Government service innovation in the Scottish Criminal Justice Information System. Financial Accountability and Management, 26, 2010 (21–41(21)).
58. Klievink, B., Janssen, M., Simulation gaming as a social development instrument: Dealing with complex problems. Information Polity 15:1.2 (2010), 153–165.
59. Klischewski, R., Drift or shift? propositions for changing roles of administrations in e-Government. Proceedings of the 9th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference on Electronic Government, 2010, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 85.
60. Kusters, R.J., Renkema, T.J.W., Managing IT investment decisions in their organizational context: The design of ‘local for local’ evaluation models. Conference Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference for IT Evaluation Bath University School of Management, Bath University, Bath, UK, 1996.
61. Lathrop, D., Ruma, L., Open government. 2010, O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA.
62. Linders, D., From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly 29:4 (2012), 446–454.
63. Love, P.E., Irani, Z., Ghoneim, A., Themistocleous, M., An exploratory study of indirect ICT costs using the structured case method. International Journal of Information Management 26:2 (2006), 167–177.
64. Marston, S., Li, Z., Bandyopadhyay, S., Zhang, J., Ghalsasi, A., Cloud computing — The business perspective. Decision Support Systems 51:1 (2011), 176–189.
65. Meijer, A., Thaens, M., Alignment 2.0: Strategic use of new internet technologies in government. Government Information Quarterly 27:2 (2010), 113–121.
66. Mergel, I.A., Schweik, C.M., Fountain, J.E., The transformational effect of Web 2.0 technologies on government. Social Science Research Network Working Paper Series, 2009 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1412796 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1412796.
67. Mintz, D., Government 2.0—Fact or fiction?. Public Manager, 36(4), 2008 (21–21–24).
68. Myers, B.L., Kappelman, L.A., Prybutok, V.R., A comprehensive model for assessing the quality and productivity of the information system function: towards a theory for information systems assessment. Information Resources Management Journal 10:1 (1997), 6–25.
69. Nam, T., Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly 29:1 (2012), 12–20.
70. O'Reilly, T., What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. International Journal of Digital Economics 65 (2007), 17–37.
71. O'Reilly, T., 26/10/2008-last update, Web 2.0 and Cloud Computing [Homepage of O'Reilly radar], [Online]. Available http://radar.oreilly.com/print/2008/10/web-20-and-cloud-computing.html, 2008 (2012, 03/07).
72. Osimo, D., Web 2.0 in government: Why and how?. 2008, European Communities, Luxembourg.
73. Osimo, D., Campbell, D., Kerr-Stevens, J., Bishop, C., Bryant, L., Public services 2.0: Web 2.0 from the periphery to the centre of public service delivery. 2009, European Commission Information Society and Media, Brussels.
74. Pan, S.L., Tan, B., Demystifying case research: A structured–pragmatic–situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies. Information and Organization 21:3 (2011), 161–176.
75. Panagiotopoulos, P., Bigdeli, A.Z., Sams, S., Citizen–government collaboration on social media: The case of Twitter in the 2011 riots in England. Government Information Quarterly 31:3 (2014), 349–357.
76. Paquette, S., Jaeger, P.T., Wilson, S.C., Identifying the security risks associated with governmental use of cloud computing. Government Information Quarterly 27:3 (2010), 245–253.
77. Parycek, P., Sachs, M., Open government–Information flow in Web 2.0. European Journal of ePractice 9:1 (2010), 1–70.
78. Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., Luna-Reyes, L.F., Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly 29:4 (2012), 504–511.
79. Plepys, A., The grey side of ICT. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22:5 (2002), 509–523.
80. Poba-Nzaou, P., Uwizeyemungu, S., Raymond, L., Paré, G., Motivations underlying the adoption of ERP systems in healthcare organizations: Insights from online stories. Information Systems Frontiers 16:4 (2014), 591–605.
81. Ramanathan, T., The role of organisational change management in offshore outsourcing of information technology services: qualitative case studies from a multinational. 2009, Universal Publishers, USA.
82. Reinwald, A., Kraemmergaard, P., Managing stakeholders in transformational government—A case study in a Danish local government. Government Information Quarterly 29:2 (2012), 133–141.
83. Remenyi, D., IT investment: Making a business case. 1999, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, MA.
84. Ross, J.W., Vitale, M., The ERP revolution: Surviving versus thriving. Information Systems Frontiers 2:2 (2000), 233–241.
85. Sander, T., Government 2.0: Building communities with Web 2.0 and social networking. 2008, e.Republic, Inc., California, US.
86. Schweik, C.M., Mergel, I., Sandfort, J.R., Zhao, Z.J., Toward open public administration scholarship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21:Suppl. 1 (2011), i175–i198.
87. Seddon, P.B., A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Research 8:3 (1997), 240–253.
88. Shang, S., Seddon, P.B., Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise systems: the business manager's perspective. Information Systems Journal 12:4 (2002), 271–299.
89. Sivarajah, U., Irani, Z., Jones, S., Application of Web 2.0 technologies in E-Government: A United Kingdom case study. System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on, 2014, 2221.
90. Stamati, T., Papadopoulos, T., Anagnostopoulos, D., Social media for openness and accountability in the public sector: Cases in the Greek context. Government Information Quarterly 32:1 (2015), 12–29.
91. Sternstein, A., 20/11/2006-last update, Web 2.0 for feds — Federal Computer Week [Homepage of Federal Computer Week], [Online]. Available http://fcw.com/articles/2006/11/20/web-20-for-feds.aspx, 2006 (2012, 1/18/2012).
92. Sumner, M., Risk factors in enterprise-wide//ERP projects. Journal of Information Technology 15:4 (2000), 317–327.
93. Traunmuller, R., Web 2.0 creates a new government. Proceedings of the First international conference on Electronic government and the information systems perspective, 2010, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 77.
94. Tsui, H., Lee, C., Yao, C., E-government, politics and Web 2.0. New Trends in Information Science and Service Science (NISS), 2010 4th International Conference on, 2010, 687.
95. Ward, J., Taylor, P., Bond, P., Evaluation and realisation of IS/IT benefits: An empirical study of current practice. European Journal of Information Systems 4:4 (1996), 214–225.
96. Wattal, S., Schuff, D., Mandviwalla, M., Williams, C., Web 2.0 and politics: the 2008 U.S. presidential election and an e-politics research agenda. MIS Quarterly 34:4 (2010), 669–688.
97. Weerakkody, V., El-Haddadeh, Ramzi, Al-Shafi, Shafi, Exploring the complexities of e-government implementation and diffusion in a developing country: Some lessons from the State of Qatar. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 24:2 (2011), 172–196.
98. West, D.M., Improving technology utilization in electronic government around the world, 2008. 2008, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
99. Wilson, C., Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy. Slate Magazine, 2008 Retrieved 21 July 2015, from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2008/02/the_wisdom_of_the_chaperones.html.
100. Whitmore, A., Using open government data to predict war: A case study of data and systems challenges. Government Information Quarterly 31:4 (2014), 622–630.
101. Wilbanks, L., Kuhn, R., Chou, W., IT risks. IT Professional 16:1 (2014), 20–21.
102. Wilderman, B., Enterprise resource management solutions and their value. 1999, MetaGroup, Stanford, CT.
103. Wu, L., Ong, C., Management of information technology investment: A framework based on a real options and mean–variance theory perspective. Technovation 28:3 (2008), 122–134.
104. Yin, R.K., Case study research: Design and methods. Fourth ed., 2009, Sage Publications, California.
105. Zissis, D., Lekkas, D., Securing e-Government and e-Voting with an open cloud computing architecture. Government Information Quarterly 28:2 (2011), 239–251.