Principles and Practices - Springer Link

Public Administration and Information Technology 16

Rodrigo Sandoval- Almazán Luis F. Luna-Reyes Dolores E. Luna-Reyes J. Ramon Gil-Garcia Gabriel Puron-Cid Sergio Picazo-Vela

Building Digital Government Strategies Principles and Practices

Public Administration and Information Technology Volume 16

Series Editor Christopher G. Reddick, San Antonio, USA

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10796

Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazán Luis F. Luna-Reyes • Dolores E. Luna-Reyes J. Ramon Gil-Garcia • Gabriel Puron-Cid Sergio Picazo-Vela

Building Digital Government Strategies Principles and Practices

Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazán Political and Social Sciences School Autonomous University of the State of Mexico Toluca, Mexico

Luis F. Luna-Reyes Department of Public Administration and Policy, University at Albany State University of New York Albany, New York, USA

Dolores E. Luna-Reyes Department of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, Universidad de las Américas Puebla Cholula, Puebla, Mexico

J. Ramon Gil-Garcia Department of Public Administration and Policy & Center for Technology in Government University at Albany State University of New York Albany, New York, USA

Gabriel Puron-Cid Department of Public Administration Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, A.C. (CIDE) Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, Mexico

Sergio Picazo-Vela Department of Business Administration Universidad de las Americas Puebla, Puebla, Mexico

ISSN 2512-1812 ISSN 2512-1839 (electronic) Public Administration and Information Technology ISBN 978-3-319-60347-6 ISBN 978-3-319-60348-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60348-3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017943516 © Springer International Publishing AG 2017 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Printed on acid-free paper This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, we are able to witness the advent of new technologies that are adopted and appropriated by people, businesses, and governments around the world. Social media; cloud computing; open, big, and linked data; and other digital innovations are being used to connect people, to facilitate access to computing resources, to deliver innovative services, and generally to improve our quality of life. Such technologies deeply transform people’s daily behavior and interaction with businesses, governments, and each other. They also transform institutions—how they conduct operations, deliver services, and cooperate. Such transformations are associated with not only benefits but also risks and challenges. Among them are deepening digital and social divides between those who have access and can benefit from new technologies and those who do not have access or cannot benefit from access, exposure of our personal data on digital platforms and consequent threats to our privacy, and manipulation of people’s sentiments and fears through precisely targeted political marketing based on the personal data available about them. Examples of government challenges include classification of government information to decide which data can be disclosed to the public and which one should be kept closed on the grounds of national security or individual privacy; countering cybersecurity attacks on nations, institutions, and people; or building capacities within institutions to be able to utilize new technologies and address their negative effects. The commitment and responsibility to address such risks and challenges rests primarily with government institutions. This commitment includes efficient and equitable delivery of public services, ensuring and protecting social equity and inclusion; building social consensus to address threats of violence, social instability, climate change, and others; and protecting national, urban, and territorial assets and interests. At the same time, governments are expected to respond to citizen needs, to facilitate citizens’ participation in public affairs, to increase transparency in their operations and decision processes in order to build trust, to empower various social and economic actors to take responsibility for their own development, and to ensure proper use of scarce public funds. To fulfill their missions and to

v

vi

Foreword

provide effective responses to existing and new problems facing their communities and territories, government organizations should have sufficient resources, capacities, and partnerships. Undoubtedly, digital technologies serve as essential tools for government organizations today. During the last two decades, governments have been utilizing the latest technological inventions to respond to the problems and challenges faced by their societies and to transform themselves in the process. According to the well- known digital government evolution model,1 such transformations take place in four distinctive stages: deployment of technology to digitize and automate government operations (Digitization stage); deep transformation of government structures and operations to improve internal efficiency and facilitate institutional and administrative reform (Transformation stage); involving citizens and other nonpublic actors in government decision-making (Engagement stage); and creating better conditions for pursuing development within healthcare, education, justice, and other sectors and within communities and territories under jurisdiction (Contextualization stage). Despite ample evidence of digital government evolution provided by government policy and research literature, still many governments around the world lack the resources and capacities to benefit from the strategic use of digital technologies and address associated risks. Such capacities include qualified human resources as well as methodologies, techniques, and guidance for planning, designing, implementing, and sustaining digital government initiatives. Recognizing the need to assist government institutions in the strategic use of digital technology in various stages of the digital government evolution, this book consolidates knowledge and experiences in seven areas: (1) defining strategies for information systems development and how such systems and strategies can deliver public value; (2) conceptualization of digital government projects, including dimensions of data and information quality, information technology, organizational structures and processes, institutional arrangements, and economic, political, and social contexts; (3) strategies for financing and resourcing digital government projects, including financial management cycle, sources of funding, and principles for sound financial management; (4) delivering one-stop seamless services through networked government underpinned by interoperability standards and intergovernment collaboration; (5) principles for managing government information technology projects including agile deployment of information technology solutions; (6) opening of government data, local open data ecosystems, and collaboration among social actors to promote data-enabled innovation; and (7) the use of social media and other technologies to engage citizens and improve government-citizens interactions.

Janowski, T. Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 32, pp. 221–236, 2015. 1

Foreword

vii

In addition to covering these areas by different chapters, another objective of the book is to serve as a reference to relevant concepts, principles, and techniques and a source of meaningful advice for practitioners responsible for planning, implementing, and sustaining digital government initiatives. Written by academics and experts with record of experience conducting digital government projects in collaboration with government agencies, the book is grounded in both theory and practice of digital government. I trust that this book will empower its readers with awareness, knowledge, and capacity to plan and implement technological change to serve their institutions and constituencies better. Elsa Estevez Institute for Computer Science and Engineering (UNS–CONICET) Department of Computer Science and Engineering Universidad Nacional del Sur Bahía Blanca, Argentina

Acknowledgments

This book is the result of the collective effort of a research team that collaborated over a period of about 3 years, but it summarizes insights and experiences of more than a decade working together. This volume would not have been possible without the hard work and collegiality of the team; the series editor, Christopher Reddick; and the staff at Springer. This project has also received valuable feedback from Elsa Estevez and Donna Canestraro, whose comments and suggestions were extremely valuable to highlight the contribution and improve the clarity of the book. We are grateful to them for their help and willingness to share their impressive knowledge with us. In addition, we would like to thank Elsa Estevez for writing the preface. We want to especially thank Jana Hrdinova whose dedication and tireless effort have been instrumental for the completion of this book. Jana’s editorial support along the development of the multiple chapters of the book was critical for the completion of this editorial effort. We are also grateful to our home institutions, the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico, Universidad de las Américas Puebla, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, and the Center for Technology in Government and Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy both at the University at Albany, State University of New York. We have found support and sponsorship to our joint research agenda from these institutions in the last 15 years. Research featured in this book has received partial support from our home institutions, as well as from the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) in Mexico and the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States. The book editorial work has been partially funded by CONACYT under grant number 240992. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF, CONACYT, or our home institutions. Toluca, Mexico Albany, NY, USA Cholula, Mexico Albany, NY, USA Aguascalientes, Mexico Puebla, Mexico

Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazán Luis F. Luna-Reyes Dolores E. Luna-Reyes J. Ramon Gil-Garcia Gabriel Puron-Cid Sergio Picazo-Vela ix

Contents

1 Introduction............................................................................................... 1 2 Developing a Digital Government Strategy for Public Value Creation......................................................................... 7 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 9 2 National Digital Strategy...................................................................... 10 3 Digital Government Enterprise Strategy............................................... 14 4 Final Comments.................................................................................... 20 3 Conceptualizing and Preplanning for a Digital Government Project.................................................................................. 21 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 23 2 Digital Government Projects as Multidimensional Initiatives.............. 24 2.1 Information and Data Quality...................................................... 26 2.2 Information Technologies............................................................ 26 2.3 Organizational Structures and Processes..................................... 27 2.4 Institutional Arrangements........................................................... 28 2.5 Economic, Political, and Social Context...................................... 29 3 Before Selecting, Designing, or Developing a Digital Government Project............................................................... 29 3.1 The Definition of the Problem..................................................... 30 3.2 Identification and Evaluation of Stakeholders............................. 31 3.3 Creation of Alternative Solution Scenarios.................................. 32 3.4 Evaluation of Alternatives............................................................ 32 4 Final Comments.................................................................................... 33 4 Financing and Resourcing Digital Government Strategies................... 35 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 38 2 Defining a Funding Portfolio................................................................ 38 3 Analyzing Budget Trends..................................................................... 44 4 Organizing Budget Data....................................................................... 45 5 Formulating Operating Budgets............................................................ 46 xi

xii

Contents

6 Preparing Current and Capital Budgets................................................ 47 7 Decision-Making Strategies Enabled by a Financial Plan.................... 47 8 Presenting the Budget........................................................................... 48 9 Implementing the Budget...................................................................... 49 10 Final Comments.................................................................................... 49 5 Networked Government and Interoperability........................................ 51 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 52 2 Interorganizational Collaboration......................................................... 54 3 Interoperability and Information Integration........................................ 60 4 Final Comments.................................................................................... 63 6 Managing Information Technology Development Projects................... 65 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 67 2 Management of Information Technology Projects................................ 68 3 Lean Project Management.................................................................... 71 4 Agile Development of Projects............................................................. 75 5 Final Comments.................................................................................... 77 7 Opening Government: Open Data and Projects.................................... 79 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 80 2 Understanding Open Government........................................................ 80 3 Prioritizing Data for Release................................................................. 82 4 Building Data Catalogues..................................................................... 84 4.1 Open Format to Maximize Data Reuse........................................ 85 4.2 Colloquial Language.................................................................... 86 5 Promote Discussion and Data Sharing with the General Public........... 87 6 Create a Culture of Government Open Data: Inside and Outside......... 88 7 Importance of Multidisciplinary Teams................................................ 90 8 Creating an Open Government Ecosystem........................................... 91 9 Final Comments.................................................................................... 93 8 Fostering Citizen Engagement................................................................. 95 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 96 2 Creating General Strategy..................................................................... 97 3 Project Implementation......................................................................... 101 4 Organization, Rules, and Procedures for Interaction............................ 102 5 Organization Pitfalls in Government Use of Social Media................... 104 6 Final Comments.................................................................................... 106 9 Conclusions................................................................................................ 107 1 Create and Empower a Chief Information Officer (CIO)..................... 108 2 Adopt Flexible and Agile Information Technology Project Management and Implementation Practices............................. 109 3 Increase Citizen Engagement Through Coproduction, Peer-to-Peer Production, and Participation........................................... 109

Contents

xiii

4 Develop an Open Data Ecosystem Encompassing Citizens, NGOs, and Government Agencies........................................................ 110 5 Develop Funding Strategies to Financially Support Digital Government Projects and Develop Accountability Mechanisms.......................................................................................... 111 6 Build a Permanent Collaboration Network to Engage Public Managers from Multiple Agencies in Digital Government Projects............................................................................. 112 7 Utilize Social Media Tools to Engage Citizens and Public Managers in Solving Social Problems................................ 113 8 Final Comments.................................................................................... 114

Authors’ Biographies

Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazán is Professor of the School of Political and Social Sciences of the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico (UAEM) in Toluca, México. He has been professor of the Graduate School of Public Administration (EGAP) and Business Administration (EGADE) of the Institute of Technology and Superior Studies of Monterrey (ITESM). He is a member of the Mexican National Research System Level 2. He has authored or coauthored research articles published in Government Information Quarterly, Information Polity, Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales, Sapiens Research. In 2013 he won the 2nd Latin American Award for Public Administration (INAP). He was the Editor of the Academic Journal RECAI (Journal of Studies on Accounting, Management and Informatics) sponsored by the UAEM. Dr. Sandoval Almazán is a member of NovaGob and some editorial boards e-government journals. His research interests include e-government, open government, information technology organizations, online social networks in government and public innovation. Luis F. Luna-Reyes is an Associate Professor of Public Administration and Policy at the University at Albany in Albany, NY. He holds a Ph.D. in Information Science from the University at Albany, and he is also a member of the Mexican National Research System. Luna-Reyes is one of the top 20 digital government researchers world-wide. His research focuses on electronic government and on modeling collaboration processes in the development of information technologies across functional and organizational boundaries. His research interests are related to areas such as inter-organizational collaboration, information sharing, success of government-wide Web sites, and information policy to promote economic exchange in the NAFTA region. He is the author or co-author of articles published in Government Information Quarterly, Public Management Review, European Journal of Information Systems, Information Polity, Gestión y Política Pública, System Dynamics Review, and Information Technology and Management among others.

xv

xvi


Dolores E. Luna-Reyes is Professor in the Industrial and Mechanical Engineering Department at Universidad de las Américas Puebla, México. She holds a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from Texas A&M University. She is a member of the Mexican National Research System. She is a founding member of the Mexican Society of Operations Research and belongs to the Digital Government Society. Her research activities focus on e-government, information systems, inter-organizational collaboration, and the application of operations research to e-government, production and logistics systems. She is the author or co-author of articles published in Public Management Review, Information Polity, Expert Systems with Applications, Journal of Heuristics, Annals of Operations Research and TOP. Her most recent projects are on manufacturing cell formation, facility location, as well as the study of success factors in e-government projects. She has experience as a consultant in production and logistics systems. She has been a consultant in lean systems since 2008. J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Ph.D., M.S. is an Associate Professor of Public Administration and Policy and the Research Director of the Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY). Dr. Gil-Garcia is a member of the Mexican National System of Researchers and of the Mexican Academy of Sciences. In 2009, he was considered the most prolific author in the field of digital government research worldwide and in 2013 he was selected for the Research Award, which is “the highest distinction given annually by the Mexican Academy of Sciences to outstanding young researchers.” Dr. Gil-Garcia is the author or co-author of articles in prestigious international journals in Public Administration, Information Systems, and Digital Government and some of his publications are among the most cited in the field of digital government research worldwide. His research interests include collaborative electronic government, interorganizational information integration, smart cities and smart governments, adoption and implementation of emergent technologies, digital divide policies, new public management, public policy evaluation, and multi-method research approaches. Gabriel Puron-Cid is Professor at the Department of Public Administration of the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, A.C. (CIDE). His areas of research are adoption and impact of technology innovations using data, technology, and analytical methods for policy analysis, performance management and evaluation, public budgeting, and government accounting in the public sector (e-government, open government and open data). His background is multidisciplinary and complementary (accounting, public administration, and information systems). He has a solid formation in public administration theory, practice, and applied analytical and methodological tools based on years of experience in government, teaching, consulting, and training in the U.S. and Mexico. Today he is collaborating in several international research projects funded by the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT), the INEGI and the CIDE in Mexico and the GTZ, the United Nations, the World Bank and the Center for Technology in Government (CTG) at the international level.


xvii

Sergio Picazo-Vela is Dean of Research and Graduate Studies and Professor in the Business Administration Department at the Business School of the Universidad de las Americas Puebla, he is member of the Mexican Research System. He received his Ph.D. in Business Administration from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. His research interests include e-government, e-commerce, information technology outsourcing, and social media sites. His research has been published in different peerreviewed journals such as Government Information Quarterly, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Computers and Human Behavior, and Public Management Review, and in proceedings of different conferences. Dr. PicazoVela has participated writing chapters for books published by Mexican and International Publishers, and writing opinion articles for digital and traditional media.

Chapter 1

Introduction

The technological advancements of the twenty-first century have transformed the way we live and work and how we interact with each other and with private and government entities. Social and technological trends are increasing pressures on governments to provide better services, engage and collaborate with the public, and open and share government data and information to foster innovation in the public and the private sector. These same trends are transforming citizens into coproducers of information and government services. Integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has presented great opportunities and benefits for governments across the globe, as well as a number of challenges. Every day, government officials are faced with difficult tasks ranging from the digitizing historical documents and solving interoperability issues of disparate data repositories to the new communication challenges associated with the rapid adoption of the ever-evolving social media and other emergent digital communication channels. Entities at all levels of government, from large federal agencies to state and local government departments, face these challenges. Obstacles, such as insufficient human resources or technological infrastructures, lack of appropriate regulatory frameworks, diverse data formats, low digital literacy, uncertainties about the effect of new technology on work practices, and lack of willingness to use new technologies, hinder present efforts to modernize public administration around the world. In addition to the challenges mentioned above, government entities are faced with frequent budget cuts and the challenge to finance digital government projects from multiple sources. This results in a contradiction: the need to modernize the government by greater incorporation of ICTs without spending too much on technological infrastructure. Many government agencies try to adopt innovative technologies such as websites, portals, or data catalogues, only to see their efforts undermined, stopped, or canceled due to bureaucratic, legal, or financial limitations and lack of staff and other resources. The resulting slow pace of technology application often results in public’s perception that government entities are behind in regard to © Springer International Publishing AG 2017 R. Sandoval-Almazán et al., Building Digital Government Strategies, Public Administration and Information Technology 16, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60348-3_1

1

2

1 Introduction

u tilizing innovative technologies to improve services and create efficiencies in their operations. The public also believes that government officials only solve some of the problems’ symptoms instead of solving the roots of them, resulting in recurrent crises that grow continuously, becoming extremely difficult to understand and solve in the long term. Government IT professionals also face the challenge of electoral cycles and the uncertainty that it brings into long-term projects. Every new administration might have different priorities in regard to digital government, often resulting in digital government projects that are scrapped all together or no longer receive the financial and executive support necessary for their completion. This situation further demonstrates the need for executive leadership or technological champions to promote and overcome the bureaucratic obstacles in order to implement digital government plans and introduce technological innovations into the public sector sphere. The aim of this book is to help government officials, public managers, government consultants, leaders of nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and citizens interested in developing or promoting effective digital government strategies understand the promises and limitations of information technologies from a wider and integrated perspective. This book is unique, and we believe a first of its kind, in that it combines results of traditional academic research with lessons learned through current practice reviews and professional and consulting experience. For the past 10 years, an interdisciplinary international team of researchers has been studying different aspects of digital government as a sociotechnical phenomenon and as a strategy for government administrative reforms. As a result of multiple research projects funded by several institutions, we gathered cumulative experiences, case studies, and knowledge about implementation and assessment of digital government projects around the world. By using diverse data collection procedures such as surveys, interviews, and focus groups, we have gathered and analyzed information from a diverse group of stakeholders including public managers, elected officials, government chief information officers (GCIO), and private consultants. This book documents and presents this collective knowledge in a balanced academic-practitioner perspective. Throughout each chapter, we highlight concrete principles designed to help practitioners and academics understand digital government challenges and opportunities and to introduce best practices into the digital government field. The value of this book is that it provides the reader with insights and lessons learned from leaders, both academic and practitioners, within the digital government field of study. These lessons are condensed into easy-to-use and easy- to-understand principles to be applied in real-world projects and strategies. The book does not provide answers to all digital government challenges and neither do we claim to fully address all of the issues public managers face when using technology in their work. We also do not aim to provide solutions for every situation because every problem is unique in its background and context. Rather, the book should be viewed as a guide providing general principles and ways to understand and solve the challenges associated with digital government projects and strategies. This is a starting point to help government practitioners reflect on and

1 Introduction

3

Fig. 1.1 Strategic framework for digital government

understand digital government opportunities and challenges from an academic and practical perspective. We present a relevant collection of principles and ideas around strategies to foster digital government implementation in government agencies using strong evidence and the scientific approach to classify, order, and present relevant arguments and cases. Every chapter begins with a small case study to illustrate the challenge at hand, describes main principles, and presents arguments and conclusions based on our own research findings and references to previous studies. The book is organized around seven interrelated sets of strategic principles (see Fig. 1.1). We start with a chapter on developing a digital government strategy focusing on creating public value. The chapter distinguishes two different levels of IT strategy in government: a national digital strategy as a way to promote social and economic development of a society as a whole by using information technology and enterprise digital strategy, which focuses on developing plans to facilitate the creation of technology infrastructure and systems that support the substantive work of government. Particularly, the chapter builds on the assumption that strategy is a continuous

4

1 Introduction

p rocess of negotiation of goals and means, balancing between planned and opportunistic activities to achieve goals. In this chapter, the reader will find a set of recommendations for how to facilitate strategic conversations to create digital government plans. The third chapter, titled “Conceptualizing and Preplanning for a Digital Government Project,” identifies a series of steps needed to understand a government problem and its potential solutions and proposes a business case approach as a path to analyze the problem’s characteristics and risks. Through our research and practice, we have learned the importance of understanding that information technologies are not the only solution to complex public problems and are unlikely to be an end in and of themselves. Within the context of a digital government project, information technologies are a very important component, but they require a complementary series of changes in the organizational structures and processes and in the public policies and laws that affect the project both directly or indirectly. The fourth chapter, “Financing and Resourcing Digital Government Strategies,” examines critical policies and organizational mechanisms for resourcing ICT- enabled innovations in the public sector. This chapter presents a number of recommendations and strategies for how government entities can manage the difficult task of financing and resourcing digital government projects and services. It provides the basis for better understanding the financial and resource management cycle of digital government projects by identifying risks and challenges of this process. For a successful implementation of a digital government, several strategies and principles are presented for building a solid financial and resource management strategy based on years of experience. Digital government is a collective endeavor involving multiple stakeholders and government actors. In this way, building collaborative networks is the objective of the fifth chapter. The chapter starts with a discussion on the main mechanisms to build effective collaboration, such as trust, leadership, knowledge sharing, or institutional designs. The chapter continues by providing additional guidance on key concepts and processes to build interoperable systems. The sixth chapter explains how to manage information technology development projects using proven methodologies to reduce the time required for project implementation. The chapter first introduces concepts of agile project management methodologies and then presents two methods successfully used in the development of information technology projects. The seventh chapter focuses on open government. The aim of this chapter is to describe the principles that help to build open data ecosystems, such as open data culture and creation of communities to use and promote the ideas of accountability, transparency, and openness in public administration agencies. Finally, the eighth chapter, “Fostering Citizen Engagement,” describes the benefits of engaging with the public through social media platforms and presents a set of principles related to the following issues: general strategy, project implementation, organizational pitfalls, rules, and procedures for interaction. This chapter also describes how governments should use specific characteristics of different

1 Introduction

5

e ngagement tools and the importance of providing interesting content driven by a well-designed communication strategy. We chose these principles because they reflect our previous research experiences and findings. There are more principles that are not described here and that are also important—or maybe more important—but we consider the set of principles included in this book to be essential, since they are based on strong empirical evidence. In summary, we expect this book to provide key insights for your everyday work based on a strategic framework that assures a successful implementation toward public value creation, help in decision-making, or start discussions about new projects in your agency or challenges in the public administration as a whole. This book does not provide solutions to every problem, but ideas to produce solutions or paths to solve problems in digital government design and implementation. The aim of this book is to reduce uncertainty about information technology strategies and projects in the public sector and promote the development of improved digital government practices around the world.

Chapter 2

Developing a Digital Government Strategy for Public Value Creation

Abstract This chapter introduces the concept of digital government and its potential to transform government operations at two different levels. The first broader level refers to the conceptualization of a national digital strategy as a way to promote social and economic development of a society as a whole. Such national digital strategy is the result of negotiations among a multitude of actors within and outside the government and involves managing challenges resulting from power imbalances among key stakeholders and the creation of appropriate institutions to ensure a long-term vision. The second level, which we call enterprise strategy, focuses on developing plans and implementing programs to facilitate the creation of technology infrastructure and systems that support the substantive work of government. Digital government enterprise strategy encompasses those who are responsible for managing information technology and systems in different government agencies and working closely with the programmatic areas to plan and implement technology initiatives that deliver public value. Summary Points • This chapter defines the concepts of national digital strategy and enterprise government strategy using two approaches to strategy in information systems. • Designing strategy is a continuous process of negotiation of plans and opportunities for the creation of public value. • Defining public value is another ongoing process of negotiation and clarification among government actors and other stakeholders. Initial Case Toward the end of the twentieth century, the world witnessed a digital revolution consisting of widespread adoption of information technologies as well as increased use of the Internet to develop business and government applications. At the same time, world leaders observed an increasing gap in access to information and information technologies between developed and developing countries as well as between the rich and poor within countries, also known as the digital divide. The recognition of both, opportunities provided by the digital revolution and challenges © Springer International Publishing AG 2017 R. Sandoval-Almazán et al., Building Digital Government Strategies, Public Administration and Information Technology 16, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60348-3_2

7

8

2 Developing a Digital Government Strategy for Public Value Creation

posed by the digital divide, motivated the development of national digital strategies to help address the issues of the digital era.1 The first attempt to establish such national strategy in Mexico took place in the first few years of the twenty-first century with the e-Mexico strategy, a very ambitious effort to promote the Mexican information society and the use of ICTs to improve government services.2 The stated goal of e-Mexico strategy was to “be an agent of change in the country, integrating efforts of public and private actors to eliminate the digital divide and other socio-economic differences among Mexicans, through a system with technical and social components to offer basic services on education, health, commercial exchange, and government services, being at the same time leaders in Mexican technological development.”3 The e-Mexico strategy was intended to provide universal access to information, knowledge, and government services in order to create a more democratic and participative society, where economic and social benefits were distributed more equitably. The goals of the e-Mexico strategy were developed based on an analysis of the existing state of information technologies across federal government agencies in Mexico and best practices research of current e-government practices around the world. The public was provided with an opportunity to review the initial results of this research and provide feedback at a public forum conducted in 2001, involving more than 900 participants from academia, government, private sector, and nonprofit organizations. The forum produced more than 140 different documents and proposals, which were considered along with the current practice research and information about the state of information technologies in government organizations to develop the e-Mexico strategy. The e-Mexico strategy focused on three main goals. The first goal focused on reducing the digital divide by creating 10,000 digital community centers in places such as local libraries and schools, providing computer and Internet access to small communities in the country. The second line of action included the development of content and applications in the areas of health, education, economy, and government. And finally, the last goal focused on the development of enterprise capabili Many of these national strategies were motivated by the United Nations (UN) World Summit on the Information Society. The first phase—the Geneva Summit in 2003—finished with a set of agreements and a road map for achieving an egalitarian information society and the promotion of information and communication technologies for development. The second summit—held in Tunis in 2005—had the main objective of discussing financing and governance issues related to the commitments from the summit in Geneva. As a result of these world summits, many governments around the world have developed national digital strategies. 2 See Luis F. Luna-Reyes, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, and Cinthia Betiny Cruz, “Collaborative Digital Government in Mexico: Some Lessons from Federal Web-Based Interorganizational Information Integration Initiatives,” Government Information Quarterly 24, no. 4 (2007): 808–26; Luis F. LunaReyes, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, and Cinthia Betiny Cruz, “E-Mexico: Collaborative Structures in Mexican Public Administration,” International Journal of Cases on Electronic Commerce 3, no. 2 (2007): 54–70. 3 SCT, “Sistema Nacional E-México: Justificación, Secretaría de Comunicaciones Y Transportes,” 2001 1

1 Introduction

9

ties inside the Mexican government. The responsibility for implementing the e-Mexico strategy was initially given to the Office of e-Mexico Coordination, an office at the Ministry of Communications and Transportation. The Office of e- Mexico Coordination needed to coordinate its deployment efforts with the Ministries of Education, Health, Public Administration, and Economy, as well as other public and private organizations between 2001 and 2012.

1 Introduction Similar to other technologies, the introduction of information technology has been associated with rapid transformation of human and organizational activities. Public administration is no exception. After the introduction of personal computers and the Internet, governments recognized the potential of information technology to impact the way government works, delivers services, and interacts with constituents and each other. Unlike the use of information technology in the private sector, where information technology is seen as a source of competitive advantage and creation of value for shareholders, the use of information technology in government is aimed at supporting the creation of public value.4 Public value management is an approach to public management in which government officials invest their efforts into creating benefits for the public instead of benefits for themselves or benefits for specific interest groups.5 The transformative potential of information technology in the public and private sectors has been one of the most important research topics in information systems.6 One of the key elements in the discussion surrounding the impact of information technology in the private and public sectors reflects that both, value creation and information technology-facilitated transformation, do not come from replicating the same manual processes through technology means, but from the strategic use of technologies (i.e., applying them to mission-critical activities with an emphasis on long-term goals).7 In this chapter, we discuss two different dimensions of information technology strategy as applied in the government sector. The first dimension encompasses a See Sharon L. Caudle, Wilpen L. Gorr, and Kathryn E. Newcomer, “Key Information Systems Management Issues for the Public Sector,” MIS Quarterly 15, no. 2 (June 1991): 171–88. 5 See Mark H. Moore, Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, Reprint edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995). 6 Some of the most influential works in this area are Wanda J. Orlikowski, “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations,” Organization Science 3, no. 3 (1992): 398–427; and Jane E. Fountain, Building the Virtual State : Information Technology and Institutional Change (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2001). 7 See David F. Andersen, Salvatore Belardo, and Sharon S. Dawes, “Strategic Information Management: Conceptual Frameworks for the Public Sector,” Public Productivity and Management Review 17, no. 4 (1994): 335–53. 4

10


strategy for digital society, also called national digital strategy, which refers to strategy aimed at utilizing information technology for and in the society as a whole. The second is a digital government strategy, sometimes also referred to as e-government strategy or e-government enterprise strategy,8 which refers to application of information technology in the government sector with the goal of improving government functions and service delivery. The chapter is designed to draw on these two dimensions to develop core principles and assumptions for managing information systems and technologies in the public sector.

2 National Digital Strategy The first approach that we are calling strategy for digital society or national digital strategy refers to a general vision of how should information technology be utilized to support social and economic development of the society as a whole, as well as focusing on benefitting specific subsets of the society. As we described in the initial case at the beginning of this chapter, national digital strategies have been associated with the development of basic rights to information and knowledge. From some perspectives, digital strategies are closely related to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.9 In this chapter, we discuss the process for creating such strategies, rather than focusing on describing their content, which differs greatly across countries based on their context, level of development, and their goals and objectives. As a starting point, we want to state our assumption that developing a strategy in the public sector is different from the process of developing a strategy in the private sector. In the private sector, a strategy is normally developed by a small group of decision-makers consisting of the company’s executive body, which is overseen by a board of shareholders or owners. Of course, for more than 95% of small and medium companies around the world, the intersection between the management team and the board is high, with both often involving members of the same family.10 While involvement of external stakeholders in companies’ management boards has increased in recent years as a result of a search for greater transparency and corporate social responsibility, the involvement of external stakeholders—both private For definitions of e-government, see J. Ramon Gil-Garcia and Luis F. Luna-Reyes, “Integrating Conceptual Approaches to E-Government,” in Encyclopedia of E-Commerce, E-Government and Mobile Commerce, ed. Mehdi Khosrow-Pour (Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc., 2006), 636–43; A. Grönlund and Thomas A. Horan, “Introducing E-Gov: History, Definitions, and Issues,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems 15, no. 1 (2005): 713–29; S. S Dawes, “The Evolution and Continuing Challenges of Egovernance.,” Public Administration Review 68, no. S1 (2008): S86–102. 9 See Calestous Juma and Lee Yee-Cheong, “Innovation: Applying Knowledge in Development,” UN Millennium Project (London: United Nations Development Programme, 2005), http://www. unmillenniumproject.org/reports/tf_science.htm. 10 See Mike Wright et al., “Family Enterprise and Context,” Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 38, no. 6 (November 2014): 1247–60, doi:10.1111/etap.12122. 8

2 National Digital Strategy

11 Planned strategic opportunities Framework for decision making and problem solving

Environment Creating and managing futures

Managing Political continuity and feasibility strategic change

Jointly understanding, reflecting and negotiating strategy

Making strategy

Confirming and (re)designing strategy

Build coalitions, monitor and influence 'Seeing things differently'

Stakeholders

Emerging strategic opportunities

Fig. 2.1 The strategic process (Adapted from M. I. Huerta-Carvajal and L.F. Luna-Reyes, “City Boosterism through Internet Marketing: An Institutional Perspective,” in Information Communication Technologies and City Marketing: Digital Opportunities for Cities Around the World, ed. M. Gascó-Hernández and T. Torres-Coronas (Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2009), 130–51, http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/city-boosterism-through-internet-marketing/54810)

organizations and civil society—is much higher in the public sector. In fact, creation of a strategy in the public sector can be seen as “a way of regenerating an organization, through continuous attention to a vision of what the people who make up an organization wish to do. It is a pro-active process of seeking to change the organization, its stakeholders (in as much as they are different from the organization), and the context, or environment, within which it seeks to attain its aspirations.”11 This understanding of strategy formation implies that actors are involved in a continuous process of negotiation and problem definition and stakeholders consciously explore both planned and emergent strategies for achieving objectives (see Fig. 2.1). Moreover, developing a national digital strategy requires the involvement See Fran Ackermann and Colin Eden, Making Strategy: Mapping Out Strategic Success, Second Edition (London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2011). 11

12


of leaders from the public and the private sectors, as well as the civil society. The e-Mexico Coordination, in its work of developing the e-Mexico program, started with a wide consultation of stakeholders, looking for agreements on goals and actions to be included in the strategy. Given the nature of the strategic planning process and the fact that objectives of various actors are not always compatible, it is practically impossible to create a strategy that satisfies all stakeholders. In the case of Mexico, for example, many different actors have been continuously trying to influence the direction and goals of the strategy in accordance with their own agendas. For example, the IT industry in Mexico has always lobbied for policies and decisions that benefit industry development. Civil society organizations, on the other hand, played an important role in promoting amendments to the Constitution of Mexico to make access to information and information technologies a basic right for all Mexicans. In this endless process of negotiations, as suggested in Fig. 2.1, different actors are continuously refining their shared understanding of problems, goals, and their implications for the economy and society in general. From the nature of this process, we propose the first principle for developing a strategy for digital society. Principle 2.1 Creating a strategy for digital society involves a continuous process that requires ongoing consultations with citizens and private and government actors to define and redefine the meaning of public value and the key processes necessary to create the desired value and benefits. Along with defining and developing a national digital strategy, managers need to work on creating an environment that enables its execution. Thus, public managers in charge of developing and implementing strategies for digital society need to continuously monitor key stakeholders, recognizing their influence and negotiating the best mechanisms for developing partnerships (see lower right side of Fig. 2.1). Additionally, the environment and context have to be continuously monitored for possible scenarios in which these partnerships can take place. One of the best examples of managing this kind of alliance—partnership of multiple actors aimed at achieving shared objectives for a national digital strategy—was the development of digital community centers in Mexico, one component of the e-Mexico program. None of the involved stakeholders possessed all the economic, technical, and human resources necessary for the creation of these centers. The agency responsible for their development, the e-Mexico Coordination, managed productive relationships with the Ministries of Health and Education, the Latin American Institute of Educational Communication (ILCE), the National Institute for Adult Education (INEA), the Directorate of Libraries, as well as foundations and private institutions to establish over 10,000 digital access centers.12 Managing relationships and power balances was not always easy; for instance, the small office of the e-Mexico See J. Ramón. Gil-Garcia and L.F. Luna-Reyes, “Fostering the Information Society through Collaborative E-Government: Digital Community Centers and the E-Learning Program in Mexico,” in ICTs, Citizens & Governance: After the Hype, ed. A. Meijer, K. Boersma, and P. Wagenaar (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2009), 99–118. 12

2 National Digital Strategy

13

Coordination needed to negotiate with the Ministry of Education, representing the national elementary school system. While the negotiations were not always optimal and the results can be criticized in many ways, the establishment of partnerships was vital for the successful completion of this work. Principle 2.2 The development and implementation of a national digital strategy require a continuous process of developing partnerships and coalitions to influence key stakeholders and promote the attainment of strategic objectives. Carefully assessing power relations and the political environment is key to developing a strategy for digital society because this process helps maintain a balance between planned and unplanned opportunities (refer to “Planned and emerging strategic opportunities” in Fig. 2.1). Moreover, involving different groups of stakeholders in the planning process and deliberations promotes commitment among participants, allowing different perspectives to be considered in the creation of alternative frameworks for problem-solving and decision-making. The e-Mexico program offers an example of the need for balancing planned actions with emerging opportunities. In this case, the aim of the working group was to build four web content portals in the area of e-government, e-health, e-economy, and e-education. Because of the differences in operational structures, sizes, and relative power of the participating agencies, the efforts put into building collaborations between the team of e-Mexico and the Ministries of Public Administration, Health, Economy, and Education met with different degrees of success. While the portals of e-health and e-education reflected the views of a critical mass of stakeholders, the collaborations with the Ministry of Public Administration and the Ministry of Economy were problematic and resulted in a disagreement over the main goals and content areas for the e-government and e-economy portals, respectively. Stakeholders in these networks were asserting their own power positions in every conversation and collaboration and were looking for opportunities to take advantage of existing relationships and resources. In the case of economy, the e-Mexico team looked for support from other organizations, such as the National Commission for the Protection of Users of Financial Services (CONDUSEF) or the National Workers’ Housing Fund (INFONAVIT), to create citizen-focused content and applications. As a result of the continuous negotiations in the creation of these four content portals and the different experiences with the four ministries, the e-Mexico team developed a standard process for developing content Internet portals, which allowed them to respond to the needs of other groups approaching them with similar information needs. This core capability made it possible to develop unplanned content portals for Mexican migrants in the United States, women, indigenous population, and the elderly, among others. Principle 2.3 Continuous assessment of power balances increases the probability of taking advantage of unplanned opportunities and maintaining a balance between these and planned opportunities.

14


Principle 2.4 Be aware of your resources and core capabilities and how they can help you build alliances and take advantage of both planned and unplanned opportunities. Finally, institutions and organizations play a key role in the development of national digital strategies. The e-Mexico efforts described in the preceding paragraphs were made possible largely by a specific presidential mandate and the e-Mexico program and funding. One of the major criticisms of the program was the lack of sustainability planning that accounted for the possibility of political change. While e-Mexico Coordination and other major players in the Digital Government Unit of the Ministry of Public Administration made efforts to ensure continuity of the programs, they lacked the necessary organizational influence and support after changes in the presidency. The experience of e-Mexico suggests that support from the highest levels of leadership is a key factor in successfully implementing long- term national digital strategies. Additionally, to ensure continuity across different administrations, the creators of such strategy should work toward legitimizing these goals through their inclusion in organizational structures and legal frameworks and by making the strategy part of the core mission of government agencies. Principle 2.5 The implementation of a national digital strategy requires support from the highest levels of government and the existence of institutional and legal frameworks that legitimize this activity. Principle 2.6 The continuity of a particular government strategy can be promoted through the creation of institutional frameworks that provide continuity and legitimacy to this activity throughout electoral cycles. One way to ensure continuity is by institutionalizing a high-level management position responsible for the national digital strategy that is not subject to electoral change.

3 Digital Government Enterprise Strategy In addition to a national digital strategy, government entities have also recognized the need for developing a digital government or enterprise-wide strategy. Unlike a national digital strategy that addresses implementation of information technology for the benefit of the society as a whole, digital government strategy encompasses the internal use of information technologies aimed at creating more efficient government and improved delivery of government services. Digital government strategy is closely linked to enterprise architectures, information systems, and information technology in governments, whether within the scope of an individual agency or on a nationwide level. For instance, the United States created a federal-level position of the chief information officer, who is in charge with overseeing a digital government strategy across the federal government, reporting directly to the president.

3 Digital Government Enterprise Strategy

15

Digital government strategy is linked closely with the concept of information systems strategy, which has evolved over time along with the information systems function. In a literature review conducted in 2010, three different ways of approaching the concept were identified.13 The first approach to information systems strategy considers it as a master plan for the area of information systems, i.e., the necessary budget for the maintenance of the systems within the organization, the development of new projects, and the basic operation of the information systems function. The second perspective of information systems strategy involves the alignment of the information systems function and its application to achieve the organizational mission. From this view, information technology and information systems are considered to be tools supporting key organizational goals, processes, and competencies. Finally, the subject of information strategy has been more recently discussed as the development of a shared vision of what the organization may achieve through the smart use of information systems. Each of these three perspectives of information strategy contributes to the concept of digital government strategy. Thus, instead of discussing which of these approaches to information strategy is correct or most appropriate, we will look for fundamental principles that can be inferred from each of them. We start our reflection based on the lessons that we can gather from the concept of strategy as a master plan for information systems and focus on the question of who is responsible for creating and executing such master plan. The question of responsibility can be difficult to answer as the complexity of a given government entity increases. Majority of governments, whether at the local, state, or federal level, encompass a number of departments responsible for different areas of government functions. Even in relatively small municipalities (less than 100,000), the departmental units are often large enough to encompass their own information technology staff. At large government entities, such as federal agencies, there can be a number of information technology units serving individual departments within an agency. The number of these semi-independent IT units can pose a problem to the development of a coherent digital government strategy if they are allowed to develop systems and technologies addressing their particular needs without an overarching strategy. Such splintered approach to information technology adoption can create interoperability issues that hinder delivery of coordinated government services as a whole. This problem was recently identified in the city of Binghamton, NY, in the United States. During a planning process to become a “smart city,” the city administrators identified diversity of information systems and the lack of interoperability among them as one of the main challenges to providing services to citizens in a cohesive manner.14 The diversity of information systems stems from individual IT depart See Daniel Q. Chen et al., “Information Systems Strategy: Reconceptualization, Measurement, and Implications,” MIS Quarterly 34, no. 2 (June 2010): 233–259. 14 See Donna Canestraro et al., “Meeting Today’s Needs and Preparing for Tomorrow: Binghamton’s Information Management Framework” (Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, SUNY., May 2013). 13

16


ments that develop the best IT solutions for their own domains without a more integrated vision of government as a whole. The solution recommended in Binghamton involved creation of a committee representing the interests and needs of different units to facilitate this coordination. Principle 2.7 Coordination of digital government strategy requires the establishment of a governance body, which includes representatives from the information technology and program managers of different government agencies. The committee may set up further subcommittees to work on specific initiatives depending on the complexity of the strategy and the size of the government entity. Conversations about information technology governance frequently lead to identifying the need for a position of chief information officer (CIO), who is responsible for the development and management of digital government strategy as well as the development and management of effective information systems architecture and information technology within the government. Based on our research, we see such position as crucial to the effective creation and implementation of a digital government strategy and argue that such position should report to the highest possible official, just like the US federal government CIO reports directly to the president. The government CIO works closely with those responsible for information systems and technologies within each substantive units. There is an intersection between the role of the government CIO and the director of the national digital strategy. In situations where the functions of national digital strategy and digital government or enterprise strategy are duplicated or are managed in uncoordinated silos, collaboration becomes difficult. When each function reports to a different superior, conflict often arises due to differing goals and agendas. Such lack of coordination and conflict was experienced at the federal government level in Mexico between 2000 and 2006. The department in charge of the national digital strategy, known as e-Mexico, had its home at the Ministry of Communications and Transportation. The head of the digital government strategy, on the other hand, reported to the Ministry of Public Administration. Although the e-Mexico program had large amount of resources, they experienced significant power struggles with the head of the digital government strategy because of perceived overlaps between their areas of influence. Principle 2.8 Governments should establish the position of chief information officer in charge of coordinating the digital government strategy. The CIO coordinates the development of enterprise architecture and information technologies for government agencies in collaboration with the IT managers of all government agencies. Our two previous principles focus on the concept of information technology governance, which is related to the development of basic principles for planning and decision-making processes in the areas of information technology in government. The government CIO is an executive officer that works with the governance body from Principle 2.7 to develop such governance principles. Beyond governance, it is


17

also important to identify the main content areas of digital government strategy. Research and practice in digital government and information systems management suggest that one important component of all strategies involves the definition of common processes and IT standards to facilitate interoperability, collaboration, and system development. Principle 2.9 One of the primary duties of both the CIO and the digital government steering committee is the development of policies, procedures, and standards that facilitate the effective development of a technology infrastructure and systems that provide an integrated view of digital government. While having information technology standards and processes contributes to the effective implementation of a digital government strategy, resource allocation and budget management are undoubtedly another important issue in IT governance. As the CIO of one of the largest cities in Mexico commented during an interview at the beginning of his term, “there is really not much to do at this time, since decisions about our next year’s budget have already been made, and it only covers the current operation. It is hard to talk about new projects unless we have more money.” It is difficult to promote innovation in the government when all resources are committed to maintaining current operations, leaving little or no money to start new projects. CIOs who are faced with this situation need to have a plan to gradually increase the amount of money that can be used for new projects. Under a fixed budget situation, one alternative consists of decreasing operating costs by eliminating inefficiencies and using the resources resulting from savings to start new projects. Many CIOs in the government suggest that an effective path to increased efficiency is the adoption of common processes and standards. The diversity of systems makes their maintenance more expensive, and standardization leads to cost savings that can be used for completion of new projects. Describing the challenge, the CIO at one of the largest agencies in the Mexican federal government commented: “we started by ending what they called biodiversity here, and we chose a single operating system for corporate computing and another for personal computing, which immediately saved us a lot of money on the operation.” Best practices research suggests that world-class organizations allocate about 30% of their IT budgets to new projects.15 Principle 2.10 It is possible to reduce inefficiencies and increase the percentage of resources allocated for innovation projects in the government through the development and adoption of common processes and standards as well as through the meticulous implementation of a comprehensive digital government strategy. Principle 2.11 There should be a balance between maintenance of current systems and budget for innovation and exploration to support the development of an enterprise infrastructure. See Peter Weill and Jeanne W. Ross, IT Savvy: What Top Executives Must Know to Go from Pain to Gain (Harvard Business Press, 2009). 15

18


Another important strategic decision associated with managing resources is related to the selection of new projects and maintaining a balanced portfolio of investments that supports applications to improve decision-making, program development, service delivery, and better public policies through a secure network infrastructure. In the case of the private sector, developing an investment portfolio is usually based on common criteria such as risk and return on investment. In general, higher risk projects are those that also offer a higher return, and the portfolio is a way of managing risk by keeping a good mix of projects. In the public sector, however, the definition of value is not straightforward and should be the outcome of an ongoing conversation about the meaning of public value. That is, the definition of returns from information technology investments is the result of continuous dialogue between different stakeholders about what is considered valuable to the constituents of the government entity. Some of these values are of course related to cost reduction and efficiency, but other important values include improved accountability, fairness, and democracy.16 In a recent project, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York City went through the process of defining requirements for an information system that would manage organizational assets. In order to prioritize system requirements, project participants started conversations about the relationship between system requirements and sources of value for significant stakeholders. In this specific project, managers created a map of their own perception of valuable outcomes for different stakeholder groups and used this value map as a guide for investment decisions.17 Principle 2.12 The creation of investment portfolios in the public sector must be based on the definition of public value and the exploration of different forms of value creation for each stakeholder. It is a continuous process of dialogue about what is valuable to different stakeholders within the government entity. While defining value constitutes an important part of creating an information technology investment portfolio, identifying risks associated with different types of investments represents another important piece of information to be considered. One way to approach the problem is to distinguish different “layers” of IT infrastructure and systems, which may be related to different types of risk. The first “layer” of investment includes projects related to basic infrastructure, hardware, and networks. These investments are generally expensive but involve low levels of risk. Moreover, there are various ways of managing costs of this type of investments through outsourcing and the use of cloud-based services. In the next “layer,” we include projects to support government operations, such as government resource planning (GRP) applications. These investments have lower costs when compared See John Bryson, Barbara Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg, eds., Public Value and Public Administration (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2015). 17 See Teresa M. Harrison et al., “Open Government and E-Government: Democratic Challenges from a Public Value Perspective,” Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age 17, no. 2 (2012): 83–97. 16


19

to infrastructure projects and often contribute to creating efficiencies and saving costs. The risk associated with these investments, although moderate, is greater than the risk associated with infrastructure investments, given the additional complexities introduced by processing and using information. The next “layer” of investments includes applications to support improvements in public policies and programs. Many of these applications provide information processing and analysis capabilities that can bring high value to society. However, these investments involve high risks because few governments have been able to capitalize on them. Examples include projects such as open government, the use of social media, and big data projects, among others. Given the differences in potential risks and benefits from each type of project, a project portfolio may include a mix of projects from all three categories. Principle 2.13 A healthy investment portfolio in digital government should include a mix of investments in infrastructure, systems to support government operations, and systems to support public policies and programs. The second perspective on information systems strategy suggests that technology investments should support the achievement of government’s mission. Unfortunately, it is common to find cases of misalignment between systems, technology, and program development and implementation. One of the main reasons for this challenge resides in the difficulty of maintaining a conversation between IT experts and experts in the program or business areas. Understanding the main problems as well as developing the necessary trust and processes to work together takes time, and political pressures to develop solutions do not always allow the allocation of such time. At this point, we only want to stress the importance of engaging an appropriate mix of IT experts, problem and subject matter experts, and other key stakeholders in the design process of digital government programs. However, this book includes two chapters that address this challenge, one of them (Chap. 3) dealing with the use of the business case to share understanding about a problem and its solution and one that addresses effective ways to increase collaboration and building of interorganizational networks (Chap. 5). Principle 2.14 Program managers and domain experts must actively participate in IT governance as well as in other committees to assess business cases and supervise the development and implementation of project portfolios. Finally, the conceptualization of digital government strategy as a shared vision of how technology and information systems contribute to the development of the mission of government involves a continuous process of educating government leaders and employees on the value of technology. This vision can only be achieved through continuous training and awareness programs involving government employees at all levels and with the support of senior management. Public managers in IT areas should work closely with and frequently interact with those responsible for the substantive areas to promote this shared view.

20


4 Final Comments Promoting government transformation through the use of information technologies does not lend itself to simple solutions. The principles introduced in this chapter can serve as guiding ideas that require perseverance and discipline to achieve long-term changes. The most notable examples of government transformation through digital government programs that we have observed along the years occurred in jurisdictions where those responsible for information technology occupy high positions in the government hierarchy and have managed to stay in office for more than one term. However, we would like to conclude the chapter with a quote from a good friend and a champion of digital government in Mexico from his conversations with IT managers at the local level: “While three years (the term of a mayor) represent very little time to make big changes, they also represent too much time to do nothing.” In other words, everyone can lay the foundation for sustainable improvement through utilization of information technologies in the government sector.

Chapter 3

Conceptualizing and Preplanning for a Digital Government Project

Abstract A digital government project is often thought to begin with the implementation of a new technology or new information systems. However, prior experience and research have shown that it is important to understand the problem at hand and the context in which the problem exists. It is possible to argue that the planning that occurs before the start of a digital government initiative is even more important for success than its development and implementation processes. It is important to clarify that when we talk about conceptualizing and preplanning in this chapter, we are referring to a series of steps at the very beginning of a project, which generate valuable information in order to increase the probability of success; this information includes (1) the definition of the problem, (2) the identification of stakeholders (or interested groups), (3) the creation of scenarios with solution alternatives, and (4) the evaluation of said scenarios according to risk, cost, and the benefits they can potentially generate. What is most important is the understanding that information technologies are not the only solution to complex public problems and are unlikely to be an end in and of themselves. Within the context of a digital government project, information technologies are a very important component, but they require a complementary series of changes in the organizational structure and processes and in the public policy and laws that affect the project both directly or indirectly. Thus, the individual responsible for a digital government project needs to consider all such elements and become a facilitator and leader of a diverse project team. This chapter describes each of the steps necessary to conceptualize and preplan for a digital government project and argues that these kinds of activities are the foundation for developing a successful project in the long term.

Summary Points • This chapter argues that there are other aspects beyond technology that must be considered, understood, and managed to increase the probability of success for digital government projects. • The chapter helps to better conceptualize a digital government project as having multiple dimensions that include social and technical aspects. (continued)

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 R. Sandoval-Almazán et al., Building Digital Government Strategies, Public Administration and Information Technology 16, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60348-3_3

21

22

3 Conceptualizing and Preplanning for a Digital Government Project

(continued) • The chapter identifies a series of steps that need to be followed in order to develop a better understanding of the problem, the stakeholders, and the potential solutions in digital government projects. We further argue that public managers should perform all the steps before initiating digital government projects as a way to develop a solid strategy to deal with the complexity of these projects. • The chapter also proposes a business case approach as a way to analyze and document the characteristics of the problem and the risks and advantages of the potential solutions.

Initial Case A few years ago, Mexico City started an ambitious project to integrate all databases from its social programs across different government agencies and to develop a single service delivery system and a single client database. This system would permit better service offerings for the programs’ beneficiaries and enable the detection of fraud and other types of problems or irregularities. The integrated database would be connected to a single portal where all services could be accessed by the beneficiaries online through an application on their smartphones and in physical government offices created for that purpose. In addition, some public services, such as public transportation and educational scholarships, could be accessed through a smart card linked to the database. It was clear from the start that the new system would encounter several challenges, not only technical but organizational, legal, and political as well. The mayor of Mexico City was thoroughly involved in this early planning process and was aware of the challenges to the project’s design and implementation. Aside from the technical and data challenges of integrating various databases that had evolved over the years in an uncoordinated fashion and would now require the agencies to standardize the type of equipment in use, there were a large number of planning activities related to the other challenges. For example, as there was a need for a formal entity to coordinate the efforts, the mayor designated the Secretariat of Administrative Modernization as the lead agency in the project. Important legal changes had to be made so that information could easily flow among agencies and to institutionalize interagency collaboration. The mayor also personally presided over regular meetings where all involved agencies were represented and where problems could be discussed and decisions could be made about different aspects of the system and about the changes its implementation required. Thanks to these organizational and institutional changes, the first phase of the system was successfully implemented, although it took months to achieve. It was clear that data and technology were important aspects of this project, but the overall effort required all involved parties to think differently and to broadly conceptualize the objectives and requirements of the new system.

1 Introduction

23

1 Introduction Governments are increasingly taking on digital government projects to achieve their goals and objectives in a variety of public policy areas. Many public officials find certain characteristics of information technologies attractive, such as their great potential for transforming government organizations, leading to greater efficiency and effectiveness.1 This is not to say transformation comes easily or that technologies are the sole element necessary to achieve radical change. However, they can become a crucial part of a transformation given other changes and adjustments to the characteristics of organizations, the working processes, and the institutional arrangements that either positively or negatively affect the potential results of the project.2 Since information technologies are already used intensively in many government operations, it is important to better understand how these types of projects work and what can be done to increase their chances for success. Finally, some waves of administrative reform, such as the New Public Management (NPM), recognize information technologies as a catalyst of government transformation and of public sector innovation.3 At the same time, digital government projects are complex, and their chances of complete success have been estimated to be around 20–40%.4 This low success rate is likely due to inattention to the full set of components necessary for this type of project, including managerial, organizational, and institutional aspects. With expenditures for information technologies in the public sector steadily rising over the last two decades, it is more important than ever to understand what makes digital government projects either fail or succeed. This chapter argues that there are other aspects beyond technology that must be considered, understood, and managed to increase the probability of success for digital government projects. Additionally, this chapter suggests a series of steps that approximate a business case approach in order to understand the problem more clearly, identify the “stakeholders,” create alternative solutions, and evaluate them before making any decision.5 The chapter is organized in four sections, including the foregoing introduction. Section 2 argues that digital government should be conceptualized as a multidimen Gil-Garcia, J. Ramon and Natalie Helbig (2006). Exploring E-Government Benefits and Success Factors (Chapter CXXII pp. 803–811). In Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko and Matti Malkia (Eds). Encyclopedia of Digital Government. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc. 2 Gil-Garcia, J. Ramon (2012). Enacting Electronic Government Success: An Integrative Study of Government-wide Websites, Organizational Capabilities, and Institutions. New York, NY: Springer 3 Gil-Garcia, J. Ramon, David Arellano-Gault and Luis F. Luna-Reyes (2010). Electronic Government in Mexico (2000–2006): A View from the New Public Management (In Spanish). Paper presented at the 11th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, organized by the Digital Government Society of North America. Puebla, Mexico, May 17–20. [Proceedings Published in The ACM Digital Library] 4 Heeks R (2003) Success and failure rates of eGovernment in developing/transitional countries: overview. www.egov4dev.org/sfoverview.htm 5 Sharon S. Dawes, Theresa A. Pardo, Stephanie Simon, Anthony M. Cresswell, Mark F. LaVigne, David F. Andersen, and Peter A. Bloniarz (2004). Making Smart IT Choices: Understanding Value and Risk in Government IT Investments. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government 1

24


sional phenomenon with many components. Information technologies are certainly important, but changes to organizational structures, business processes, and public policies are generally also needed. Section 3 summarizes a set of steps that should be taken before starting a digital government project. Probably the most important lesson from this section is that technology should not be seen as an end in itself but as a powerful means to accomplish potential solutions to complex public problems. Finally, Sect. 4 provides some final comments as a way to conclude this chapter.

2 Digital Government Projects as Multidimensional Initiatives There are many definitions of digital government.6 Some of them refer exclusively to the provision of public services through the use of the Internet and other related technologies. Other definitions are wider and define digital government as the selection, design, implementation, and use of any information and communication technology in the public sector, which could include telephones, fax machines, and other technologies not necessarily related to the Internet. There are also efforts to conceptualize digital government according to its relationships between a particular government and other social actors such as citizens, private businesses, and other governments. Similarly, digital government can be conceptualized based on the functions that information technologies allow governments to perform. From this point of view, phases such as presence, interaction, transaction, integration, or participation have been proposed as a way to understand digital government’s evolution and success. Another way to understand digital government is based on the level of institutional and operational changes it requires for implementation.7 For example, a single agency’s website requires little functional change and perhaps no institutional change. In fact, the information on those websites is often material the agency already had, but that is now posted online on the agency’s website. In contrast, the integration of processes from multiple agencies in a single project requires significant changes in the way agencies operate and how they share information. On top of that, this kind of collaboration often requires profound institutional changes (laws, rules, norms, etc.) in order to execute it, as public sector organizations can often act only if they are expressly permitted by law to do so. Considering how wide the concept of digital government is, we have argued that a definition that aims to be useful for both practice and research must in the very least include a series of important elements such as services, internal government operations, democratic participation opportunities, and the legal framework which allows it all to happen. Following such logic, we define digital government as “the use of information and communication technologies within a government in order to provide public services, improve administration effectiveness, and promote democratic values and mechanisms; (these are all supported by) the development of a Schelin SH (2003) E-government: an overview. In: Garson GD (ed). Public information technology: policy and management issues. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 120–137 7 Fountain, Jane E. (2001). Building the Virtual State. Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press 6

2 Digital Government Projects as Multidimensional Initiatives

25

Economic, Political, and Social Context Institutional Arrangments Organizational Structures and Processes Information Technologies

Information and Data Quality

Fig. 3.1 Multiple dimensions of a digital government initiative (Based on (1) Gil-Garcia, J. Ramon, Theresa A. Pardo, and Andrea Baker (2007). Understanding Context through a Comprehensive Prototyping Experience: A Testbed Research Strategy for Emerging Technologies. Paper presented at the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), organized by the College of Business, University of Hawai’i at Mãnoa, United States, January 3–6. [Proceedings Published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)] AND (2) Sharon S. Dawes, Theresa A. Pardo, Stephanie Simon, Anthony M. Cresswell, Mark F. LaVigne, David F. Andersen, and Peter A. Bloniarz (2004). Making Smart IT Choices: Understanding Value and Risk in Government IT Investments. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government.)

legal framework, which facilitates information-based initiatives and fuels the knowledge society.”8 Apart from the complexity of the project itself, digital government must be understood as a multidimensional phenomenon including much more than information and communication technologies.9 Successful projects should consider changes in processes, organization, and policies which might limit or facilitate the implementation of an information system, a mobile application, or some other digital government strategy. In fact, it has been demonstrated that in order to achieve the benefits and promises of information technologies, it is necessary to make important changes in organizational processes, work practices, and institutional arrangements related to or affecting the attainment of the project (see Fig. 3.1). Principle 3.1 A digital government project must be understood as a multidimensional endeavor, wherein aspects such as organizational structures, institutional arrangements, and work practices are as important as the existing information and the employed technology. Gil-Garcia, J. Ramon and Luis Luna-Reyes (2006). Integrating Conceptual Approaches to E-Government (Chapter CII, pp. 636–643). In Mehdi Khosrow-Pour (Ed). Encyclopedia of E-Commerce, E-Government and Mobile Commerce. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc. 9 See Chap. 2 of Gil-Garcia, J. Ramon (2012). Enacting Electronic Government Success: An Integrative Study of Government-wide Websites, Organizational Capabilities, and Institutions. New York, NY: Springer. [United States] [ISBN: 978-1-4614-2014-9]. 8

26


2.1 Information and Data Quality Unfortunately, systems are often designed in a way that takes data availability for granted and that assumes the quality of the data is up to par with one or several of the particular functions.10 In reality this is not always true; in fact, we can even say it is almost never the case, which is why it is important to make sure that the required information and data for a digital government project are taken into account. For instance, information quality is very important and can be represented in many ways and measured with various levels of detail.11 Understanding the relevant aspects of information quality for a specific project is very important. Our recommendation is to evaluate the quality of the data considering how they are going to be used within the context of the problem and the information system.12 It is not a matter of defining an absolute metric for quality but of understanding whether the data at hand are sufficient and have the necessary characteristics for a particular function. For example, we can look at the case of information granularity. If the strategy requires information on a weekly basis, then that is the minimum timeframe for data collection in order to ensure one has the right data for that particular function. If the data are reported daily, they can be aggregated to be available weekly. But were the data only available on monthly basis, then an additional work process has to be considered to gather the data at the right frequency. Principle 3.2 Information and data available to a digital government project must be evaluated from the start taking into account what they will be used for and which characteristics are required for a particular use.

2.2 Information Technologies Information technologies are without a doubt one of the most important components of a digital government project.13 The complexity of technology, the kind of knowledge about it, and the potential risks are only some of the aspects to be Dawes, Sharon and Natalie Helbig (2012). Open Data and Fitness for Use: A Realistic Look. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government. Available at https://www.ctg.albany. edu/publications/issuebriefs/opendata 11 Eglene, Ophelia (Ed) (1999). Dealing with Data. Seminar Summary. Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/ dealing_with_data 12 Dawes, Sharon S. (2010). Stewardship and Usefulness: Policy Principles for Information-Based Transparency. Government Information Quarterly, Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 377–383. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/journals/giq_2010_stewardship/giq_2010_stewardship.pdf 13 Costello, Jim, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Donna Canestraro, and Derek Werthmuller (2007). Tools for Enabling the Next Stage of e-Government. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/issuebriefs/tools_egov_future 10

2 Digital Government Projects as Multidimensional Initiatives

27

considered.14 Another important aspect is knowing the extant systems in the organization and evaluating whether they might be compatible with the technology planned for the new system. If they are not, a strategy has to be developed to make the new system work with existing technologies or to change all prior technology as part of implementing the new project. In cases in which a project requires the integration or exchange of information between two or more governmental agencies, other aspects such as technical standards and interoperability must be considered.15 Principle 3.3 Technology must be evaluated not only in regard to its complexity and compatibility with extant infrastructure but also considering the context in which it is to be used, as this might add to requirements—such as interoperability and technical standards—needed to share information.

2.3 Organizational Structures and Processes On many occasions digital government projects require substantial changes in organizational structures or processes.16 While these changes are not always directly related to the technology, they are necessary to attain tangible benefits from the project. Even when significant organizational changes are not required, many of the organization’s capabilities must be taken into account.17 For example, the available budget, the existing communication channels, or the authority of the project’s leader might affect the results of a digital government project. There is no “recipe” for suc For two good examples, see Cook, Meghan (2008). Mobile Technology in the Public Sector: It’s more than just the laptop. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/issuebriefs/mobile_technology AND Helbig, Natalie & Jana Hrdinová (2010). Exploring Value in Social Media. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/issuebriefs/social_media. 15 See the following two publications: Theresa A. Pardo and G. Brian Burke (2008). Government Worth Having: A briefing on interoperability for government leaders. Albany, New York: The Research Foundation of State University of New York. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/ publications/reports/government_worth_having AND Theresa A. Pardo and G. Brian Burke. (2008). Improving Government Interoperability: A capability framework for government managers. Albany, New York: The Research Foundation of State University of New York. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/improving_government_interoperability. 16 Luna-Reyes, Luis F., and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia (2014). Digital Government Transformation and Internet Portals: The Co-Evolution of Institutions, Technology, and Organizations. Government Information Quarterly, 31 (4): 545–555 17 Luna-Reyes, Luis F., and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia (2012). Identifying Core Capabilities for Transformational Local Digital Government: A Preliminary Conceptual Model (Chapter XVII, pp. 74–88). In Vishanth Weerakkody and Christopher G. Reddick (Eds). Public Sector Transformation through E-Government: Experiences from Europe and North America. New York, NY: Routledge 14

28


cess, but it seems clear there should be a combination of different abilities and resources in order to increase the probability that the project achieves its goals and meets its deadlines.18 For example, an organization that is considering “outsourcing” its IT function does not have to be faced with an all-or-nothing proposition; a middle ground can be reached that allows for some applications or operations to be developed internally while “outsourcing” others. Principle 3.4 Make significant changes in business processes, capabilities, and/ or in organizational structures to help solve a problem through the implementation of a digital government project.

2.4 Institutional Arrangements Institutions are “the rules of the game” and can be characterized as laws, norms, and systems of meaning, which affect and are affected by the behavior of social actors. In the case of digital government projects, some of these institutional arrangements may be directly related to the project, but others may only affect some of the actors, some of the functions under consideration or a certain segment of the information necessary to implement the project.19 On most occasions, project managers have no control over these rules, and in many cases their influence goes little beyond the ability to suggest a much needed legal or normative change to their superior or a legislator.20 However, formal and informal institutions can affect the implementation and results of a digital government project significantly.21 Therefore, whoever is in charge of these projects must find innovative ways to affect or even transform such institutional arrangements. Principle 3.5 Laws and norms that surround the project must be considered and, if required, transformed in order to achieve a favorable institutional environment.

Theresa Pardo (2008). A Capability-based View of Government IT Innovation. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/issuebriefs/capability_innovation 19 Jane Fountain (2008). Bureaucratic Reform and E-Government in the United States: An Institutional Perspective. In The Handbook of Internet Politics. A. Chadwick and P. N. Howard (Eds). Routledge 20 Theresa Pardo, Donna Canestraro, and Anna Raup-Kounovsky (2009). Governance: The Value of a Custom Fit. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government. Available at https:// www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/issuebriefs/itgov_recommendations 21 Luna-Reyes, Luis F., and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia (2011). Using Institutional Theory and Dynamic Simulation to Understand Complex e-Government Phenomena. Government Information Quarterly, 28 (3): 329–345 18

3 Before Selecting, Designing, or Developing a Digital Government Project

29

2.5 Economic, Political, and Social Context Given the scope of many of these projects, which can have budgets of several million dollars, their public visibility is high, and therefore the possibility of a project being disrupted by political matters is also high.22 Further, the economic situation of a country, state, or municipality that is executing a digital government project can affect its design or implementation.23 Sociodemographic conditions may also impact the success of the project, such as the digital divide, comprised of not only Internet access but also of formal education, income, and socioeconomic status of the potential users. The digital divide is the most renowned gap in capability, but it does not refer solely to individual citizens or users.24 It can also become salient when there are differences among private businesses, local governments, or any other group at the center of a digital government project.25 Finally, the political environment and particularly the political support from certain stakeholders could be extremely important for the success of a digital government project. Garnering this support should be seen as one of the main activities of the leader or champion of this type of initiative. Principle 3.6 The project’s context must be understood, even when it does not seem to have a direct impact, since it must be feasible for the project to work in the current economic, political, and social environment.

3 B efore Selecting, Designing, or Developing a Digital Government Project When does a digital government project start? And, where to begin? Two very important questions, the answers to which we believe can enable better decisions about the development of digital government strategies and projects.26 To begin Gil-Garcia. J. Ramon and Armando Aldama-Nalda (2013). Making a City Smarter through Information Integration: Angel Network and the Role of Political Leadership. Paper presented at the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), organized by the College of Business, University of Hawai’i at Mãnoa, Maui, Hawaii, USA, January 7–10 23 For an example of how to incorporate economic and other factors into the understanding and evaluation of IT projects in the public sector, see Luna, Dolores E., J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Luis F. Luna-Reyes, Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazan, and Abel Duarte-Valle (2013). Improving the Assessment of Government Web Portals Performance: A Proposal using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Information Polity, 18 (2): 169–187. 24 Ferro, Enrico, Natalie Helbig, and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia (2011). The Role of IT Literacy in the Definition of Digital Divide Policy Needs. Government Information Quarterly, 28 (1): 3–10 25 Pippa Norris (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press 26 This section is based on several reports and other publications developed by the Center for Technology in Government at the University at Albany, particularly “Sharon S. Dawes, Theresa A. Pardo, Stephanie Simon, Anthony M. Cresswell, Mark F. LaVigne, David F. Andersen, and Peter A. Bloniarz (2004). Making Smart IT Choices: Understanding Value and Risk in Government IT Investments. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government.” 22

30


with, the start of a digital government project should not be conceptualized as the development of a system or the implementation of a new technology. A digital government project ought to begin by understanding the problem that is to be solved. Who are the involved interest groups (stakeholders)? What are the potential solutions to the problem? Is there a technological solution? What are the alternative solutions (and how they compare to each other)?27 This can be called the “start before the start”28 and should be part of designing and planning the system but completed even before deciding which technology will be used and why. On an individual project level, this type of analysis might be mainly driven toward the creation of a business case that documents all of the steps in analyzing the initial problem and the decision about which one of the available solutions is more suitable for the situation at hand. The goals could be defined as different measures of the public value being generated as a result of the IT project or strategy.29

3.1 The Definition of the Problem As previously mentioned, the first step before initiating digital government projects is to ask what is the problem we are facing. We often make the mistake of thinking that lack of a certain technology is the problem, which might lead us to conceptualize problems such as “I need a cloud computing solution,” “we need an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system,” or “this agency needs high quality visuals.” While all of those are potential solutions or at least parts of a solution, they are definitely not a good articulation of the problem to be solved. Information technologies are means to an end, not ends in themselves.30 Therefore, a problem should be defined in terms of a certain internal need or in terms of certain policies or public program objectives. For example, if we are at the secretariat of education, one would hope the problem would be related to the improvement of the students’ performance Sharon S. Dawes, Theresa A. Pardo, Stephanie Simon, Anthony M. Cresswell, Mark F. LaVigne, David F. Andersen, and Peter A. Bloniarz (2004). Making Smart IT Choices: Understanding Value and Risk in Government IT Investments. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government 28 Sharon S. Dawes, Theresa A. Pardo, Stephanie Simon, Anthony M. Cresswell, Mark F. LaVigne, David F. Andersen, and Peter A. Bloniarz. (2004). Making Smart IT Choices: Understanding Value and Risk in Government IT Investments. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government 29 Anthony M. Cresswell (2007). Advancing Return on Investment Analysis for Government IT: A Public Value Framework. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/issuebriefs/proi 30 See the following examples of how information and/or information technologies could be very important elements of a potential solution, but you need to identify the problem first: Taewoo Nam and Theresa Pardo (2012). 3-1-1 for Smarter Governments. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/issuebriefs/ smartcities311 AND Natalie Helbig and Anthony Cresswell (2012). The opportunity and challenge of collecting street-level information. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/issuebriefs/nytd. 27

3 Before Selecting, Designing, or Developing a Digital Government Project

31

or the evaluation of a certain program. In this type of situation, information and analysis are required, and a system or technology might be a part of the solution, but the mere lack of technological tools should not be seen as the problem itself. The problem should always be considered first and before the technology.31 Principle 3.7 Clearly understand and define the problem addressed with the information system or any other technology in consideration, keeping in mind the lack of a particular technology is not the problem itself.

3.2 Identification and Evaluation of Stakeholders It is very important to understand the needs and opinions of everyone involved in a digital government project, both internal and external to government, as many such groups can make or break its design or implementation.32 Often initiatives may focus solely on internal users, without evaluating the abilities and interests of potential external users like citizens. In such cases, the result might be scarce usage of the new system or technology, which will impact the public value it might potentially generate. Sometimes the participation of additional actors is needed for the design or implementation of a project.33 In some other cases, polls are taken or focus groups are assembled with external users, but the needs of internal users are not taken into account, such as those of clerks or public infrastructure workers. For instance, in order to simplify collection of field data for its water and sewage department, the city of Seattle deployed electronic tablet devices among its water and sewage field operators. However, the working conditions of the operators and the fact that they wear gloves most of the time were not considered. Similarly, the NYS Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) tested the use of tablets for child support workers and soon found several concerns derived from the environment in which these individuals work such as safety, professional practices, union rules, etc.34 For an international example, see Sharon Dawes and Brian Burke (2011). Building Transnational Knowledge Networks to Tackle Global Problems. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/issuebriefs/transnational. 32 For an example about open government and an ecosystem approach, see Teresa M. Harrison, Theresa A. Pardo, and Meghan Cook (2012). Creating Open Government Ecosystems: A Research and Development Agenda. Future Internet 4, 900–928; doi:10.3390/fi4040900. 33 For an example in which public libraries could help to improve the use of open government data, see G. Brian Burke, Alan Kowlowitz, Theresa Pardo, and Megan Sutherland (2014). Enabling Open Government for All: A Road Map for Public Libraries. Albany, NY: The Research Foundation of State University of New York. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/ enabling_open_gov_for_all. 34 Cresswell, Anthony M., Meghan E. Cook, Natalie Helbig, Jana L. Hrdinova, J. Ramon GilGarcia, Fawzi H. Mulki, Bahadir K. Akcam, and Donna S. Canestraro. (2006). Assessing Mobile Technologies in Child Protective Services. Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, SUNY. [United States]. 31

32


Details like these might significantly affect the final result of a project and must be carefully thought through. Principle 3.8 It is very important to identify and evaluate all “stakeholders” (internal and external), particularly the ones which might positively or negatively affect the execution or the results of the information technology project.

3.3 Creation of Alternative Solution Scenarios Once the problem and main stakeholders have been identified, the next step would be to look for or create potential solutions to the situation at hand. It is important to consider all available options and to keep in mind that the best solution may not always be the one with a technological component that is complex, expensive, or particularly innovative.35 Actually, new and shiny devices and applications may not fix the actual problem. In fact, many solutions might involve small or simple technology solutions, but big process redesign or important structural or communication channel changes. One way to identify solution alternatives is to conduct a best practice review.36 Review might include online searches, collection of information from other agencies that have carried out similar solutions, and phone calls to those responsible for initiatives facing similar problems. It is important to create a catalogue of comparable scenarios that allow for an open discussion about their advantages and disadvantages. Principle 3.9 Exploring as many solutions to the problem as possible should include identifying solutions that do not necessarily entail a technological component.

3.4 Evaluation of Alternatives Once alternative solutions are identified, the next step is to evaluate them according to risk, cost, and potential value. It is important to carry out the evaluation in a systematic manner, considering the same criteria for every alternative. A useful tool are For an example, see Gil-Garcia, J. Ramon, and Armando Aldama-Nalda. (2013). Smart City Initiatives and the Policy Context: The Case of the Rapid Business Opening Office in Mexico City. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. Seoul, South Korea, October 22–25. [Proceedings Published by the Association for Computing Machinery]. 36 Best practice reviews and environmental scans could be performed in very different ways. For a short example about mobile government, see James Costello (2011). Government in a Mobile World. Albany, New York: Center for Technology in Government. Available at https://www.ctg. albany.edu/publications/issuebriefs/mobile. 35

4 Final Comments

33

multi-attribute utility (MAU) models, which allow for this type of comparison and for the assessment of changes in the evaluation results derived from changes in the evaluation criteria or the weight of each criterion. The process of evaluating alternatives and the entire decision making process must be carefully documented in a business case, which can be used both inside the organization proposing the change and as a pitch presentation for potential sponsors among different government agencies, who could offer financial or political support. Another way to systematically evaluate the alternatives is using computer simulation or similar analytical tools.37 Principle 3.10 Evaluate all identified alternatives in terms of results (generated public value), costs, and potential risks. Once the analysis is complete, make the decision that appears most appropriate, and document the entire process in a business case.

4 Final Comments This chapter helps to conceptualize a digital government project before starting it. It is argued that every digital government project should be looked at as a multidimensional phenomenon where the information system or technological artifact is just one component and many other changes, capabilities, and resources are necessary for the success of such a project. The principles in this chapter help to better understand how each aspect of the project can be identified and how to build better knowledge of those aspects to support the project. Unfortunately, it is important to make clear that there are no recipes for a successful digital government project. However, based on our experience, we think there are actions that can increase the chances of success, and this chapter provides recommendations for some of those actions, particularly in the early stages of conceptualizing and preplanning the project.

See Luna-Reyes, Luis F., and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia (2011). Using Institutional Theory and Dynamic Simulation to Understand Complex e-Government Phenomena. Government Information Quarterly, 28 (3): 329–345. 37

Chapter 4

Financing and Resourcing Digital Government Strategies

Abstract Over the last two decades, information and communication technologies have become an indispensable tool for government entities, which use them for effective delivery of services, internal management processes, and efficient internal and external communication. Digital government projects vary in their scale and complexity, but they all share a complex financial and resourcing management cycle involving defining a funding portfolio, analyzing budget trends, organizing budget data, formulating operating budget, preparing current and capital budgets, decision- making strategies of a financial plan, presenting the budget, and implementing the budget. This chapter presents a number of recommendations and strategies on how government entities can manage the difficult task of financing and resourcing digital government projects and services through this cycle. Unlike other government projects, digital government projects are often financed from multiple sources such as general tax funds, intergovernmental transfers, programs and subsidies from national level, and local taxes and fees. In addition, resources for digital government projects, whether financial or staffing, are often pooled across agencies adding an extra layer of complexity. This chapter recommends several strategies to facilitate better implementation of financing and resourcing digital government initiatives in the public sector. Summary Points • This chapter focuses on strategies for financing and resourcing digital government projects, providing strategies across the public financial management cycle. • We also provide guidance for defining adequate sources of funding and budget implementation for digital government projects. • The chapter identifies several principles for building a solid financial management strategy for digital government projects. Initial Case In the early 2000s, the president of Colombia instructed the National Council of Economic and Social Policy (CONPES) to launch a digital agenda at the national level called the “Connectivity Agenda.” The Council is the highest national © Springer International Publishing AG 2017 R. Sandoval-Almazán et al., Building Digital Government Strategies, Public Administration and Information Technology 16, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60348-3_4

35

36

4 Financing and Resourcing Digital Government Strategies

planning authority and serves as an advisory body to the government on all aspects related to economic and social development of the country. CONPES designated the Inter-agency Commission on Policy and Information Management for the Public Administration (COINFO) as the responsible entity for executing the Connectivity Agenda. The Commission was chaired by the vice president and was comprised of a group of high-ranking officials representing different sectors of government. The role of this Commission was twofold. First, COINFO was in charge of conceptualizing and planning a digital government strategy across four ministries— social affairs, education, health, and administrative modernization. Second, the Commission was responsible of articulating and coordinating implementation strategies of the Connectivity Agenda. The projects at that point were the creation of the Colombian State Portal (PEC),1 the Unified Procurement Portal (PUC),2 the Single Information System of Procedures (SUIT),3 and several strategies for online services and government intranet. In the initial stage, COINFO operated under an ad hoc governance structure that involved the heads of the four ministries. The first project that the Commission undertook was the design of PEC that would create a one-stop access point to services and information from all four ministries. To facilitate a successful and timely implementation, COINFO designated the Ministry of Communications as the official coordinator of the PEC project and assigned project leaders in each agency to collaborate on the redesign and implementation of the portal. Not surprisingly, each project leader experienced multiple problems and conflicts starting with establishing the proper sources for financing and resourcing the initiative in their own agency. No budget appropriations were explicitly allocated to this interagency endeavor nor a particular team of ICT staff, equipment, or other resources. The Commission’s chair and the project leaders quickly realized that there were no standardized processes or rules for funding and resourcing ICT projects across agencies. The first implementation challenge for COINFO was to set up a plan that required a set of strategies across multiple phases of the public financial management cycle (see Fig. 4.1). In spite of the chronological order of each phase of the cycle, these strategies needed to be employed simultaneously for a successful implementation of the PEC project. In terms of funding, COINFO’s chair and project leaders needed to discuss and determine sustainable financial sources of revenue for this project for a period of time: general funds, budget cuts, transfers, taxes, fees, reallocation from existing appropriations, borrowing, or a combination of many. For planning, the Commission’s chair along with project leaders across agencies needed to define the goals and scope of the initiative based on the expected value creation and the PEC PEC is the acronym of the Spanish name of the Colombian State Portal: Portal del Estado Colombiano. 2 PUC is the acronym of the Spanish name of Unified Procurement Portal: Plan Único de Cuentas. 3 SUIT is the acronym of the Spanish name of Single Information System of Procedures: Sistema Único de Información de Trámites. 1

37


Defining Funding Portfolio Implementing the Budget

Analyzing Budget Trends

Presenting the Budget

Decision Making Strategies: Financial Plan

Organizing Budget Data

Formulating Operating Budget Preparing Current and Capital Budgets

Fig. 4.1 Public financial management cycle

conceptualization as discussed in Chaps. 2 and 3. For programming and budgeting, the team needed to prepare the operating budget including estimated cost analysis, budget cuts, ICT investments, and new staff needed for the project. Operating and resourcing implied the articulation of the financial formats and management procedures to request the mix of human and material resources necessary for the realization of the PEC project. This phase also involves building the formal organizational structure and staffing necessary for the project leaders and associated staff related to managing the Connectivity Agenda in each agency. The COINFO’s team also needed to develop a monitoring tool and overtime evaluation instrument to assess the agency’s progress and performance in achieving the goals and targets of the Connectivity Agenda on an annual basis. As mentioned before, each of these tasks needed to be undertaken simultaneously across phases of the financial and resourcing cycle. This chapter attempts to cover some of these challenges of the public financing management cycle by suggesting several practical considerations for successful financing and resourcing strategies of digital government projects based on years of experience in the field.

38


1 Introduction The goal of financing and resourcing any technological innovation in the public sector is to align sources of funding with adequate management of budgetary allocations and resources management for an effective implementation of digital government projects. The goal of this chapter is to present some useful recommendations and strategies for overcoming the challenges associated with financing, budgeting, and resourcing digital government projects through the public financial management cycle (see Fig. 4.1). In other words, assigning and allocating proper sources of funding and managing these resources over this cycle represents one of the first but most critical steps to ensure a successful implementation of ICT projects in the public sector. The public financial management cycle involves two sides of the same coin that need to be addressed concurrently for a successful management of resource and project implementation. On one side, those responsible for managing ICT projects need to secure the necessary funding to support current and future digital government projects. This side involves the creation of a funding portfolio based on a rating system to prioritize digital government projects and on the identification of available sources of revenue or funding opportunities including taxes, fees, charges, grant mechanisms, miscellaneous receipts, or even borrowing. On the other side, they need to define a set of budgetary and management strategies to properly align these sources of revenue with the expected expenditure destinations. This chapter addresses both sides of this coin by recommending 11 strategies derived from years of experience working, researching, and consulting on digital government projects. These strategies correspond to each of the phases of the public financial management cycle but often need to be used concurrently across different stages of the cycle.

2 Defining a Funding Portfolio The environment in which digital government projects are undertaken presents many challenges to public managers who are trying to align their funding sources with expected public value outcomes. Not only is this environment where virtually all funding opportunities for government ICT projects come from general tax funds, it is also an environment in which these funds are widely dispersed across different functions and areas in government and where the issue of what constitutes a valued outcome is disputed and difficult to measure.4 This section discusses the importance of defining the expected public value outcome of a digital government initiative and using this information to create a ranked funding portfolio and identifying the most sustainable sources of funding for each Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Also see Moore, M. H. and Khagram, S. (2004). On Cretaing Public Value: What Business Might Learn from Government about Strategic Management, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 3, Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University 4

2 Defining a Funding Portfolio

39

project. The first step in creating such portfolio is to prioritize digital government projects based on their expected public value outcomes by using a rating system like the one used in Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, or Fitch for financial projects or credit options and then identifying corresponding sustainable funding opportunities that best serve these projects. The following sections discuss each of these steps in creating a funding portfolio of digital government projects. In general, government managers would argue that any ICT project they manage is worth a legislative appropriation of funding because it provides goods and services related to important government areas such as education, health, security, and economic development, among others. However, when defining the sources of funding of a particular digital government project, the targeted public value outcome varies across different stakeholders within and outside of government (elected representatives, citizens, taxpayers, clients of governments, etc.). From the perspective of public managers and politicians, all digital government projects claim that they create a set of “necessary” public value outcomes. From the perspective of this book, public value outcomes are a set of benefits valued differently across different stakeholders, whose scope varies across initiatives and projects. When one takes a view that “all digital government initiatives create public value equally across all stakeholders,” the conclusion then follows that they should all be financed with general public funds. However, the reality indicates a broader sense of what “public value” means in practice.5 Some digital government tools and applications create public value across an extensive group of beneficiaries, but others produce value to a very few.6 A public, ICT-enabled good or service that benefits a larger number of citizens and businesses produces a larger public value outcome than a public good or service that benefits fewer individuals. For any digital government project, it is critical to assess the expected public value outcome for financing and resourcing purposes. There are different criteria to assess public value outcomes.7 We do not attempt to be exhaustive, but here are two main criteria for assessing public value commonly used by governments around the world8: (1) the quality of the delivery of public goods and services and (2) the efficiency of public organizations demonstrated by yielding more benefits than costs incurred in the public service provision. Benington, J. and Moore, M.H. (2011). Public Value. Theory and Practice, United Kingdom: Palgrave MacMillan 6 Chen, Y-Ch and Thurmaier, K. (2008). Advancing E-Government: Financing Challenges and Opportunities, Public Administration Review, Vol. 68, No. 3 (May - Jun., 2008), pp. 537-548 7 Karunasena, K. and Deng, H. (2011). Critical factors for evaluating the public value of e-government in Sri Lanka, Government Information Quaterly, Volume 29, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 76–84. Also see Karunasena, K. and Deng, H. (2009). A conceptual framework for evaluating the public value of e-government, Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference of Information Systems (2009) Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2010/13/ 8 Please see Jorgensen, T.B. and Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values an inventory, Administration & Society, 39 (3) (2007), pp. 354–381; Kernaghan, K. (2003). Integrating values into public service: The values statement as centerpiece, Public Administration Review, 63 (6) (2003), pp. 711–719; Samaratunge, R. and Wijewardena, N. (2009). The changing nature of public values in developing countries, International Journal of Public Administration, 32 (3) (2009), pp. 313–327. 5

40


In terms of efficiency, every resource spent on a digital government project should be allocated to improve the quality of life of the majority of stakeholders while minimizing waste and inefficiencies within government operations. According to several authors, the motto “to do more with less” usually moves many of the digital government initiatives.9 In the United States, this “efficiency” orientation has informed many digital government initiatives since the 1990s like the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.10 Around the globe, different initiatives pursue efficiency by using ICT tools to accomplish similar goals, such as: • Minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, businesses, educational, and nonprofit institutions. • Ensure the greatest possible public benefit. • Improve the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of government. A survey of local governments in the United States conducted by Norris and Reddick11 in 2004 and 2011 indicated that 69.3 and 66.8% of public managers of cities and counties considered saving money and producing more revenue as the main reason for implementing digital government projects. The perception of increased “efficiency” has motivated majority of digital government initiatives across countries and represents the dominant view of public value focused on the management and operational orientation of digital government.12 The gains in efficiency and cost savings generated by digital government initiatives within government are often seen as one source of funding for new ICT projects.13 Garson14 commented that e-services and e-transactions generate cost reductions and thus liberate resources that can be reassigned to other projects and technologies. Human, financial, and material resources assigned to digital government projects with focus on operational gains are considered efficient or productive because these management improvements eventually create benefits to society as whole. Digital government tools and applications are considered efficient as long as Ingraham, P. W. (Editor) (2007). In Pursuit of Performance Management Systems in State and Local Government, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, and OECD (2003). The e-Government Imperative. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 10 For more details, please consult the following link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/ files/omb/inforeg/paperwork-reduction-act.pdf. 11 Norris, D.F. and Reddick, Ch.G. (2013). Local E-Government in the United States: Transformation or Incremental Change? Public Administration Review, Volume 73, Issue 1, pages 165–175, Jan/ Feb. 2013 12 Bonina, C. M. and Cordella, A. (2008). The new public management, e-government and the notion of public value: Lessons from Mexico, Proceedings of the Annual Workshop of the AIS SpecialInterest Group for ICT in Gobal Development 2008, Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=globdev2008 13 Chatterjee, D. and Ravichandran, T. (2004). Inter-organizational Information Systems Research: A Critical Review and an Integrative Framework, Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences HICSS 2004 14 Garson, G. D. (2004). The promise of digital government. In A. Pavlichev and G. D. Garson (Eds.), Digital government: Principles and best practices (pp. 2-15). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing 9


41

they provide public goods and services by reducing costs of production incurred by the government, citizens, and businesses but also do so in an open and accountable manner allowing for compliance and responsiveness to public demands. In terms of the delivery of quality public goods and services, the criteria of public value of digital government projects refer to common general principles such as the quality of information, user orientation, and standards of delivery. Again, we take some examples from the PRA’s purposes as a demonstration of another orientation of digital government initiatives across governments around the world: • Maximize the utility of information created, collected, maintained, used, shared, and disseminated by government. • Improve the quality and use of public information to strengthen decision-making, accountability, and openness in government and society. • Provide for the dissemination of public information on a timely basis, on equitable terms, and in a manner that promotes the utility of the information to the public and makes effective use of information technology. In this view, the public value of digital government represents a trust-building mechanism between government and citizens based on the delivery of quality services. In the survey conducted by Norris and Reddick mentioned above, the improvement of customer service and the improvement of communication with the public represented 86.6 and 78.3% of responses, respectively, among public managers from city/county administrations. This suggests that ICT-enabled public services should aim to improve the quality of life of people, businesses, groups, and regions.15 Digital government platforms, solutions, and applications have been also created to pursue the goals of providing user-friendly tools, quality information, and standards of quality e-delivery. For assessing the expected public value outcome of a set of digital government projects, we recommend using a rating structure like the ones applied in credit or corporate rating systems used in Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, or Fitch. For demonstration purposes, we assess the levels of efficiency and quality of service delivery of the projects presented in our initial case, but other scales or rating methodologies can also be applied. For the purposes of this chapter, we propose four categories for our funding portfolio: A, B+, B−, and C (see Fig. 4.2). Projects rated “A” present efficient levels of operation plus high levels of quality in the delivery of public goods and services that benefit an extensive group of different stakeholders. Projects rated “B-” enable a certain level of high efficiency but demonstrate low quality in the delivery of goods and services. Projects rated “B+” present high levels of quality in service delivery but with poor levels of operational efficiency with costly results. Finally, projects rated “C” are very costly and have poor quality in the delivery of public goods or services. Castelnovo, W. and Simonetta, M. (2007). The public value evaluation of e-government policies. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 11(2), 61-72; and Kearns, I. (2004). Public value and e-government. Retrieved: http://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2011/05/public_value_egovernment_1522.pdf?noredirect=1 15

42


Fig. 4.2 Rating system for digital government initiatives

In our initial case, we have three projects: PEC, PUC, and SUIT. PEC is a unique government portal, and SUIT represents an inventory of all online services and procedures that government offers to citizens. Therefore, both projects intend to reach all groups of citizens and different stakeholders in society. PUC is a procurement system for government purchases and general services. After three exhaustive meetings, the Commission’s chair and project leaders agreed on the following rating: “A” for PEC because of the continuous development of the portal and regular satisfaction ratings among users, “B+” for SUIT because of the irregular management of services and procedures provided online across different agencies, and “B−” for PUC because it contributes to efficient operation of the procurement system but has no quality of service delivery orientation to its users. Again, this is a hypothetical case to highlight the point that digital government implementers need to prioritize their projects by using a rating system in order to find the best sources of funding. Based on this rating system, we recommend the following principle: Principle 4.1 Assess the public value outcomes of digital government projects using a rating system in order to prioritize financial funding for the projects that best contribute to the development of the community based on efficiency enhancement and quality of service delivery. Once all projects are rated, the next step is to earmark the proper sources of funding. Earmarking means aligning appropriate sources of funding with the most efficient and equitable spending destinations. There are different financial sources that may be used, such as general tax funds, intergovernmental transfers, programs and subsidies from national level, and local taxes and fees. Each of them has advantages


43

and disadvantages for funding digital government initiatives. For example, for a local government, locally controlled sources of revenue, such as local sales and gross taxes or individual or corporate taxes, represent more manageable and flexible sources of funding than revenues such as intergovernmental transfers and special programs and subsidies from national level government that often come with conditions attached. Additionally, sources that are less volatile during an economic crisis, such as property taxes, provide a more reliable funding mechanism than revenues that tend to fluctuate more such as income or sales taxes. Some authors have also suggested funding digital government projects from charges and fees for particular e-services.16 We propose that projects rated “A” might be funded mainly by general tax funds from individual and corporate income taxes, sales and gross taxes, other taxes, and self-financing using last year’s savings from projects rated “C.” Projects rated “B+” and “B−” might be financed by intergovernmental transfers, special programs and subsidies, and specific-purpose taxes like gasoline, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages. These types of projects might also be funded by specific e-service charges or fees. This revenue alignment is just a suggestion; government professionals might suggest a different alignment methodology based on their specific context. A secure and sustainable source of funding needs to be identified at the beginning of any digital government project to ensure successful implementation, both long and short term. Figure 4.2 proposes an alignment system between financial sources and our rated projects. In our case, the Commission’s chair and project leaders realized that all projects were funded using general tax funds and were thus susceptible to funding cuts during an economic crisis that forced congress to reduce appropriations for social and education programs (simply ICT projects were not the priority). The chair of COINFO proposed to CONPES fiscal and budgetary support for projects of the Connectivity Agenda based on this rating system. The proposal was accepted, and COINFO now secured a significant amount of resources from the general tax fund for projects rated “A” and reserved some of the savings made by cutting projects rated “C” from last year to continue supporting projects rated “B+.” In addition, the chair of the Commission asked project leaders to identify funding opportunities in the catalogue of intergovernmental transfers and special programs and subsidies for projects rated “B+” and “B−.” Because some of the e-services and online procedures provided by the SUIT platform require collaboration with local governments, it makes SUIT a good fit for some of the intergovernmental transfers and special programs and subsidies aimed at improving efficiency of irregular management models across agencies. In the case of the PUC project, there is a possibility of applying specific charges or fees to improve the quality of the online service delivery. Earmarking financial resources to digital government projects benefits the financial management cycle of government as the amount of funding is driven by their public value outcome criteria (Fig. 4.3). Principle 4.2 Aligning financial sources with digital government projects based on their public value outcome criteria allows for an adequate funding and resourcing of these projects. Chen, Y-Ch and Thurmaier, K. (2008). Advancing E-Government: Financing Challenges and Opportunities, Public Administration Review, Vol. 68, No. 3 (May - Jun., 2008), pp. 537-548 16

44

4 Financing and Resourcing Digital Government Strategies Financial Sources

Rating System

Last Year´s Savings Individual Income Taxes Corporate Income Taxes

A

Sales and Gross Receipts Other Taxes Inter - governmental Transfers Special Programs and Subsidies

B+and B-

Charges,fees and miscellaneous Next Year´s Savings

C

Fig. 4.3 Aligning sources with proposed projects

3 Analyzing Budget Trends The following sections contain a set of recommendations about the public financial management cycle.17 The next phase of this cycle is analyzing budget trends. Government professionals who are in charge of planning and developing digital government initiatives need to identify past budget trends that have led to funding of digital government projects. This can be accomplished by looking at historical budget data to identify how were digital government initiatives funded in the past. Since many past projects were not evaluated according to strict criteria as described

Greg G. Chen, Dall W. Forsythe, Lynne A. Weikart and Daniel W. Williams (2009). Budget tools. Financial methods in the public sector, Washington, DC: United States, CQ Press, pp. 1-276 17

4 Organizing Budget Data

45

above, there may be misalignment of staff, technological equipment, and software that were financed with general funds but that were dedicated to projects rated “C.” In the case of COINFO, their first step was to calculate percentages and change rates of these financial trends in order to identify opportunities for future funding. Analysis of historical budget trends in comparison with the ideal earmarking structure might also be useful to identify possible misalignment over time and to devise budget reallocations, cuts, or saving plans that may affect levels of service or operation. As a result, we recommend the following principle: Principle 4.3 Analyzing historical budget structures helps identify different sources of financial support for digital government initiatives and possible misalignments.

4 Organizing Budget Data An effective budgeting and resourcing strategy for digital government projects does not rely simply on availability of financial resources but also on effective allocation of these resources to each project. The first task towards an effective budget and management process is to create an information management system strategy to organize budget data for all digital government projects. This data organization should correspond to the operational needs of the various initiatives. In most systems, detailed budget data are codified using several standard classifications: administrative, economic, functional, and geographic, among others. Each of these classifications represents best practices and accounting standards around the world. Therefore, those involved in planning digital government projects need to identify ICT-related staff, resources, and investments involved in each initiative according to these classifications. The administrative classification refers to responsibility for digital government projects by areas, divisions, or ministries of governments that are considered units for budgetary analysis, also called cost units. The economic classification of government expenditure is a standard of the International Monetary Fund18 and implies broad and detailed categories for current payments, capital or investment payments, other financial assets, transfers, and subsidies. The classification of functions of government, abbreviated as COFOG, was developed in its current version in 1999 by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and published by the United Nations Statistical Division as a standard for classifying the purposes of government activities. Geographic classification is a new budgetary classification but represents an opportunity for spatial analysis of any policy and in particular of digital government initiatives.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2007). Manual on fiscal transparency, Fiscal Affairs Department, Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund, 2007 revised edition 18

46


The COINFO team found that the present classification of the actual budget data does not match neatly onto the digital government projects’ needs. In fact, they identified a complex budget data structure with cross-boundary areas of responsibility across different agencies. This context inhibited a proper and flexible budgetary operation for COINFO’s projects. The need for reorganizing budget data was urgent, which entailed a revision of the existing classifications in order to build a more adequate structure for digital government projects. The budget data organization needed a careful design because each item had to comply with specific controls and norms. Based on the structure and organization of budget data, the Commission’s chair proposed a set of budgetary rules and controls for budget programming across agencies involved in these projects. As a result, we recommend the following principle: Principle 4.4 Organizing budget data needs to be predefined involving a set of tasks and activities for preparing the budget categories explicitly for monitoring and controlling digital government projects.

5 Formulating Operating Budgets This phase involves analyzing accurate financial and programmatic information about digital government initiatives. The operating budgets of digital government projects generally consist of two main areas: payroll (or personnel service wages and fringe benefits) and capital budget. This analysis entails an examination of the cost structure of proposed activities based on three types of costs: fixed, semifixed, and variable. All these costs are estimated based on the expected level of service or installed capacity for operation. Fixed costs involve items that are relatively constant or are marginally increased over time, including rent, housing, insurance, wages, and fringe benefits of staff. Semifixed costs encompass costs related to a range of activities or services that change depending on workload, output, or installed capacity, such as some utilities, equipment, transportation, operational staff wages, and fringe benefits. Variable costs are assigned directly to a unit of service volume or workload like the material or services that are directly related to a particular public service or good. Payroll and capital budgets may qualify in each of these types of costs. The COINFO’s team recognized that each digital government initiative requires a clear statement about the cost structure when writing the proposal in order to understand the average costs of the initiative per service or per production unit, known as marginal cost per additional unit of production. The cost structure needs to evaluate the budget base using actual workload and level of activities in order to estimate and to update properly the budgetary requirements for payroll and capital budgets for future fiscal years. The chair of the Commission found it critical to incorporate possible scenarios of budget cuts or savings proposals depending on possible costs or service reductions. Principle 4.5 Formulating an operating budget entails a close examination of the cost structure of payroll and capital budgets of the projects based on three types of costs: fixed, semifixed, and variable.

7 Decision-Making Strategies Enabled by a Financial Plan

47

6 Preparing Current and Capital Budgets Payroll represents a significant portion of current budget. It is critical to define the pay period, pay scales for different positions, fringe benefits, and other possible payments in order to calculate the payroll for a particular fiscal year. It is also important to approximate lagging payable accounts and vacant positions. Another needed analysis is the level of service and/or volume of production supported by two types of staff: project specific (core staff) and administrative (support staff). The COINFO’s chair found it useful to understand the relationship between the level of service and the volume of production supported by a team or an employee in order to defend a proposal or to recommend changes to an existing digital government initiative. The number of transactions or service tickets issued or the number of visits or information requests might be useful for this matter. The Commission’s chair also found that the level of service or operations represents the base for costs analysis for preparing a capital budget. Governments invest in different assets like buildings, equipment, furniture, and technology. However, the acquisition of these assets is just an initial investment; there are also recurring costs of operation and maintenance that need to be incorporated into future budgets. Therefore, capital budgets need to account for four components: (1) acquisition costs of a project, (2) operating costs, (3) maintenance costs, and (4) disposal costs. Initial acquisition costs of a project include initial capital expenditure for facilities and equipment, system designs, engineering, and installation. Operating costs entail labor, energy, material, and other overhead costs to keep the project functional. Maintenance costs are maintenance and repair costs. Disposal costs include restoration of the environment and auxiliary services for disposal of waste. For the preparation of the capital budget, the chair of the Commission requested each of the project leaders to estimate these capital costs. A best practice in this area is to train the staff involved in the Commission in applying financial techniques such as life cycle cost, time value money, cash flows, and cost-benefit analysis for estimating capital budgets. Finally, it is possible to consider the opportunity of the acquisition of some of these assets by issuing public bonds or borrowing money. If that is the case, a cost-benefit analysis of debt financing alternatives needs to be included in order to justify the bond or credit structure. Principle 4.6 Preparing current and capital budgets helps develop a detailed estimate of each of the items involved in resourcing digital government initiatives such as payroll, utilities, other generic goods and services, buildings, equipment, furniture, technology, and other assets.

7 Decision-Making Strategies Enabled by a Financial Plan The financial plan represents a summary of revenues and expenditures in a cash flow statement for a particular fiscal year or for a multi-year plan. The revenue side includes forecasts of the different funding sources broken down by specific type of

48


a project: A, B+, and B−. The expenditure side includes estimates of current and capital spending requirements to fund the operations of digital government initiatives. The COINFO’s chair immediately recognized the financial plan as a tool for the following actions: • Reviewing whether revenues from existing sources adequately cover proposed spending destinations • Assessing whether the budget is balanced with actual sources of revenue or requires sustainable debt • Evaluating proposals to increase revenues, cut spending, add, or cancel capital projects • Prioritizing projects and changes • Redefining base, regional, and optional standards of digital government initiatives • Evaluating the level of service and volume of production • Educating different decision-makers about the sources of financing and the distribution of these resources among functions and budget components of digital government initiatives • Organizing and analyzing data over time and across different budget categories and items Principle 4.7 Creating a detailed financial plan facilitates decision-making within government and across different agencies involved in the digital government strategies and projects.

8 Presenting the Budget Budgets are proposals that need to be presented across different arenas such as federal or national government agencies, legislative bodies, nonprofit organizations, and other critical stakeholder groups. When presenting the financial plan, the leaders and their teams responsible for these projects need to clarify the expected results using a performance framework that links performance measures and targets with the components of the projects and their budgets. The financial plan for digital government projects is susceptible to changes and adjustments when presenting them across these audiences. In the COINFO case, the chair of the Commission and/or project leaders found several useful tools for presenting a budget and defining strategic gaps between actual versus expected targets, benchmarks, and standards. Cost-benefit analysis is also a useful format for presenting the budget for a particular digital government initiative by integrating information about expected expenditures and indicators for outcomes, outputs, and processes. Principle 4.8 Presenting a budget or financial plan contributes to the definitions of tasks, activities, and materials that will make digital government projects transparent and accountable by using a financing and resourcing framework associated with the expected results and performance information.

10 Final Comments

49

9 Implementing the Budget The chair of the Commission also suggested incorporating several control and evaluation mechanisms to monitor the alignment of the budget plan with actual project expenditures. Budget control mechanisms involve effective follow-up tools and systems for budget allocation and budget allotment. Allocation refers to the process of designating resources for a particular purpose according to a plan. Allotment refers to the budgetary process that schedules allocations over a fiscal period. From a budgetary perspective, these allocations and allotment systems need to be implemented to control the progress of digital government initiatives by using objects of expenditures or line items specified in budget plans. These line items represent codes that apply existing general budget classifications but with more specific considerations for digital government initiatives. Each of these line item codes implies a group of rules, policies, and evaluation criteria for operations that need to be defined and monitored over time and across organizational units. The purpose of budget control is to identify variances between what is budgeted and what is spent. Variance analysis during budgetary control and monitoring helps to identify potential factors that might cause funding or financing delays or inhibit progress of digital government initiatives. Performance evaluation represents a critical step in the process of financing digital government initiatives. Performance evaluation involves an assessment of what was achieved in comparison with expected outcomes and outputs. Again, a variance analysis between performance goals and outcomes and outputs is critical to understanding the possible factors that facilitate or inhibit the implementation of the digital government initiative. Principle 4.9 Conducting budget controls and performance evaluation of digital government projects across different agencies and internal areas helps implement the planned budget.

10 Final Comments The principles described in this chapter seem common sense but in practice are usually neglected. The responsibility of those in charge of digital government projects is to at least consider them for a successful project design and implementation. A crucial part of the project planning process is the challenge of accurately planning for financing and resourcing digital government initiatives. As we saw in the paragraphs above, establishing proper and sufficient financing and resourcing for digital government projects is not easy and involves several steps: defining the goals and expected benefits, identifying most affected stakeholders, and aligning this information with appropriate sources of financial and other support. In terms of the financial management cycle, this chapter made several recommendations for defining the funding portfolio, analyzing budget trends, organizing

50


budget data, formulating operating budgets, and presenting and implementing a financial plan for digital government initiatives. The principles of the financial management dimension are considered critical for a successful financing and resourcing of digital government initiatives. These principles are not unique but outline the necessary steps to obtaining better public value outcomes based on experience in the field and in the academia.

Chapter 5

Networked Government and Interoperability

Abstract This chapter provides an approach to solving government problems that rests on the principles of sharing information and collaboration among government agencies across different levels of government, nongovernment organizations, and other civil society organizations. From the standpoint of public value creation, developing and maintaining collaboration networks are related to the idea of legitimacy and promoting an enabling environment for the business of government. The main reason for sharing information relates to the need for solving problems, improving living standards, and creating value for citizens. The chapter concludes with a vision of interoperability as an enabler of the processes of collaboration and networking. Summary Points • This chapter introduces the idea of networked government as a way of organizing service delivery and problem-solving and identifies trust as a key factor for network formation and interorganizational collaboration. • Institutional designs that emphasize process over command and control are more effective in supporting collaboration. • Interoperability is an enabler of networks and collaboration for value creation and troubleshooting.

Initial Case Some years ago, the New York State Criminal Justice Information Technology (CJIT) working group—made up of seven different government agencies—was given the task of developing a “framework” for establishing a single-access point to information necessary for the administration of justice in the state.1 The “framework,” which was called eJustice New York, was defined in terms of its scope See L. F Luna-Reyes et al., “Emergence of the Governance Structure for Information Integration across Governmental Agencies: A System Dynamics Approach,” in Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Bridging Disciplines & Domains, 2007, 47–56. 1


51

52

5 Networked Government and Interoperability

through a collaborative process that lasted about 9 months. Like other government projects within the United States, eJustice New York was the result of a funding opportunity from the federal government, and the goals and desired results of the project were not initially well defined. Some of the participants envisioned the project as an upgrade for systems that they had been using for several years. Others viewed eJustice NY as an opportunity to create a gateway to information from a number of different agencies. At the beginning of the project, and given the diversity in agency size, resources, and objectives, the member agencies acted cautiously, wary of their ability to meaningfully contribute to defining the project scope and objectives and concerned about the division of benefits to the individual agencies. After a series of initial disagreements, and through conversations facilitated by a team of leading researchers and consultants, the group was able to define a governance structure, the eJustice NY Advisory Board, which specified basic decision- making rules and assigned responsibilities for the development of the framework. Furthermore, the group managed to successfully define the business problem, its context, and possible solutions.

1 Introduction Public administration faces complex problems such as the sustainable use of natural resources, food safety, public health, or economic development. Given the level of complexity, some of these problems have been characterized as “wicked” problems.2 Other problems, such as the distribution of benefits of government social programs or coordinating emergency response efforts, have been classified as “tangled.” “Tangled” problems do not imply high levels of complexity, yet are complex because they require intense coordination among several agencies across levels of government to be carried out effectively.3 Both types of problems challenge the effectiveness of the traditional bureaucratic structure of government and promote the creation of interorganizational networks, which often include collaboration between the public and private sectors and civil society.4 In other words, services that were traditionally offered by a single government agency are currently delivered through a variety of interorganizational networks, requiring a greater level of collaboration and coordination.

See Colin Eden, Sue Jones, and David Sims, Messing About in Problems: An Informal Structured Approach to Their Identification and Management (Pergamon Pr, 1983). 3 See Sharon S. Dawes, Anthony M. Cresswell, and Theresa A. Pardo, “From ‘Need to Know’ to ‘Need to Share’: Tangled Problems, Information Boundaries, and the Building of Public Sector Knowledge Networks,” Public Administration Review 69, no. 3 (2009): 392–402. 4 See Mila Gascó, “¿Luces? Y Sombras de La Reforma Del Estado En América Latina” (Barcelona, Spain: Institut Internacional de Governabilitat de Catalunya, 2004), http://www.iigov.org/wp/ attachment.drt?art=13135. 2

1 Introduction

53

Fig. 5.1 Models of network government (Adapted from Goldsmith and Eggers, Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector)

Four interrelated trends are pushing the development of network government organization.5 First, governments around the world have been increasingly delivering services through private companies and nongovernmental organizations, a development called “outsourced government.” Quite visible examples of outsourcing include contracting private organizations to deliver public transportation or garbage collection. A second trend involves “joined-up government.”6 Service kiosks that bring together services traditionally offered by different agencies represent an instance of “joined-up government.” These kiosks involve different levels of technical and organizational integration ranging from simply sharing a space to sharing common support services (like banking) or a more specialized integration of processes. A third trend involves the fact that citizens increasingly expect governments to provide the same level of service as private companies. Finally, greater reliance on information technology constitutes a final trend as an enabler of collaboration, even across geographic and organizational boundaries. Because of these trends, we can find at least four government organizational forms that deliver value to citizens, defined by the level of private sector participation and the necessary management capabilities: hierarchical government, outsourced government, joined-up government, and networked government (see Fig. 5.1). It is important to notice that any of these organizational arrangements can See S Goldsmith and W.D Eggers, Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. (Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2004). 6 See Vernon Bogdanor, ed., Joined-Up Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). 5

54


be created to solve a specific problem, such as development of an information system, or for the development of systemic capabilities, such as more efficient response to emergencies or natural disasters. Implementation of these new governance models requires public managers to better understand collaboration processes and the importance of trust. In fact, changing the form of government also changes the traditional view of administrative roles, focusing less on the lines of command and control and more on process coordination and facilitation.7 Additionally, these organizational forms play a key role in building what Moore called “enabling environment,”8 that is, building the legitimacy and authority needed to act on problems affecting the creation of public value. This chapter introduces a vision for networked government and value creation. The chapter is organized into two sections following this introduction. The first section introduces a model of interorganizational collaboration that incorporates a series of principles related to leadership, institutional frameworks, trust, and collaborative processes. The second section includes key concepts of information sharing and interoperability, two core capabilities of a networked organization. As in previous chapters, each section includes principle statements to help the reader discern the main points of each section.

2 Interorganizational Collaboration Collaborative approaches to public administration are not new, and both researchers and practitioners have argued in their favor for a few decades. Unfortunately, despite its growing popularity, we still need to better understand key processes to promote successful collaborations. In the context of “wicked” and “tangled” problems, collaboration may be understood as the process in which two or more parties negotiate a shared vision or a solution to a problem.9 Officials in charge of eJustice New York, for example, had to discuss and agree on the project’s objectives, its aims, and potential outcomes. As a result of this conversation, they agreed that a first step was to define governance and decision-making mechanisms, as well as clarifying basic responsibilities for group participants. Principle 5.1 Creating interorganizational networks requires a continuous process of conversation and clarification of the main issues or challenges that the project is designed to address, as well as clear rules for the conversation. These networks constitute the enabling environment required for the creation of public value and strategy development. See Colin Hales, “‘Bureaucracy-Lite’ and Continuities in Managerial Work,” British Journal of Management 13, no. 1 (March 1, 2002): 51–66, doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00222. 8 See Mark H. Moore, Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, Reprint edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995). 9 See Barbara Gray, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, 1st ed. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Inc., 1989). 7

2 Interorganizational Collaboration

55

In this context, research shows that trust is an important factor in facilitating the initial stages of the conversation and the creation of shared knowledge.10 For instance, the CJIT group started their discussions about eJustice New York with low levels of trust and concerns about the legitimacy of the process. This initial level of trust jeopardized the work of the group several times during the project. In fact, despite continued efforts to build trust, not all participants were convinced of the transparency of the process. Trust building among group members was limited (or enhanced) by their previous experiences of working together on other projects. According to the participants, progress made in the areas of legitimacy and trust among group members was associated with the consistent use of rules of participation and decision-making. Principle 5.2 Trust building is a “continuous process of caring” about the partnership. Through the use of consistent rules and processes, groups manage their expectations about future results from the collaboration as well as their willingness to take risks. Principle 5.3 Trust is only understood in a specific context. An organization or individual A may rely on other individual or organization B to do C, but A may be wary of the same individual B for other activities. Unfortunately, while there is a high level of agreement on the importance of trust in the collaboration process, there is still lack of agreement on the meaning of the term, causes associated with high and low levels of trust, or forms of trust. The literature agrees on the existence of some core mechanisms for trust production as well as the idea that trust is related to the concepts of risk and vulnerability.11 Institutional trust refers to the existence of regulatory frameworks or contracts that reduce the perception of risk. Calculative trust refers to the rational principle of comparing expected risks and benefits, and relational trust implies an ongoing relationship and knowledge of the other partner in terms of previous experiences. Research shows that the institutional component of trust (agreements, regulatory frameworks, and public policy) is necessary, though not sufficient to initiate collaboration. In many cases, trust begins to build once the participants have worked together for a while or achieved first results of the collective effort. In this sense, the results of joint work play an important role in the process of starting or consolidating the collaborative process. These mechanisms operate in different ways inside interorganizational networks. For example, CJIT member organizations whose missions, resources, and activities were aligned with each other tended to trust each other more because of shared understanding of their context as well as similar organization processes, which is closely related to relational trust. Understanding the costs and benefits of a shared See Siv Vangen and Chris Huxham, “The Tangled Web: Unraveling the Principle of Common Goals in Collaborations,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, December 21, 2011, doi:10.1093/jopart/mur065. 11 See Denise M. Rousseau et al., “Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust,” Academy of Management Review 23, no. 3 (1998): 393–404. 10

56


project is the key component for calculative trust, higher levels of benefits shared among all participants tend to increase trust, and higher levels of cost tend to hinder trust. Governance mechanisms, clear decision rules, and other legal and regulatory frameworks are the main sources of institutional trust. Some research suggests that these trust-building mechanisms have different impacts at different times within a collaborative process.12 Principle 5.4 Institutional trust plays a major and continued role throughout the relationship. It contributes to reducing the perception of risk, particularly at the beginning of a relationship or the initial stage of a project. Principle 5.5 Calculative trust is more important at the beginning of a relationship; and the importance of cost and benefit calculations tends to diminish after members of the network get to know each other. Principle 5.6 Knowledge-based trust is built through interaction and shared work and becomes more influential in later stages of a project or a relationship. Past experiences play a major role in any effort to build collaboration networks; and occasionally, they may be an important obstacle for new projects. Inside the CJIT network, some of the agencies that traditionally have little or no input in larger projects in the justice system remained suspicious throughout the project. Their reservations were not irrational; they were justified by previous experiences of working with some of the same organizations. Project leaders need to invest special effort into building trust when past experiences can negatively affect the project at hand. In the particular case of eJustice NY, facilitators dedicated continuous effort to clearly documenting the process and ensuring a fair input from all participants, contributing to building trust in the process. Although trust building is a continuous process, key events may also play a significant role during a project. CJIT network members remember a concrete episode where smaller agencies outvoted the larger agencies in establishing ways of counting votes for decision-making as a key episode in building trust and legitimacy of the process. Unfortunately, in spite of all efforts to build trust and legitimacy, some agencies still ended the process with doubts about the transparency of the project’s decision-making mechanism and the fairness of benefit and cost distribution. Trust building is always a work in progress, even in projects that most participants would assess as successful. Principle 5.7 Past experiences always play a role in the formation of trust in networks. Principle 5.8 Negative experiences tend to have greater and longer lasting impact on trust-building processes than positive experiences.

See Luis Felipe Luna-Reyes, “Trust and Collaboration in Interorganizational Information Technology Projects in the Public Sector,” Gestión Y Política Pública 22 (Special Issue 2013): 173–211. 12


57 Collaboration and outcomes Effort doing work

Institutional trust

Committing to work

Trust Starting Conditions

results from work

Calculative trust

doing work together

Committing to work Shared knowledge of the problem and issues

Institutional design

Learning to work together

Effectiveness doing work Effectiveness of boundary objects

Facilitative leadership

Fig. 5.2 A model of collaborative governance (Adapted from Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al., “Collaborative Cross-Border Security Infrastructure and Systems: Identifying Policy, Managerial and Technological Challenges,” International Journal of E-Politics 4, No. 2 (32 2013): 21–38, doi:10.4018/jep.2013040102.)

Collaboration within networks can be guided through conceptual models like the one shown in Fig. 5.2. This model incorporates five main components: starting conditions, institutional design, facilitative leadership, collaborative processes, and results. The starting conditions are related to the main incentives and conditions of participating in a collective effort. These incentives are shaped by a series of asymmetries in terms of power, resources, knowledge, and prior history of collaboration between potential partners, as we have already discussed. These asymmetries can play an important role in the collaborative process. For example, during the efforts associated with Internet content development in the e-Mexico project (see Chap. 2), important variations in results were observed in the four main content portals: e-economy, e-health, e-education, and e-government. Each portal encompassed information from a network of organizations, and the differences in results can be explained, at least partly, by asymmetries in resources and power among network members, especially among the leaders of each sector and its counterpart in the Ministry of Communications and Transportation.13 In this particular case, the intensity of collaboration was greater in networks where power and resources were more democratically distributed among actors. Thus, the e-health project—maybe the most successful in terms of the amount of content produced—was also the project where the organizational network had the lowest level of asymmetries in terms of See Luis F. Luna-Reyes and J. Ramón Gil-García, “Using Institutional Theory and Dynamic Simulation to Understand Complex E-Government Phenomena.,” Government Information Quarterly 28, no. 3 (2011): 329–45. 13

58


power and resources. In networks where the leader possessed all the resources needed for the project, and thus lacked a clear incentive to collaborate, the level of collaboration was much lower. Principle 5.9 Starting conditions, such as existence of asymmetries in terms of power and resources, can threaten the work and results of the network. A second important element to consider is the institutional design. Institutional design in this context involves the decision-making rules, policy design processes, network structure, and evaluation mechanisms.14 Collaboration inside the network needs to be managed in a participatory and transparent manner. In the case of e-Mexico content development networks, institutional design played an important role both in the process of collaboration and the results. The e-health network, which exhibited a more horizontal power structure and was geographically less dispersed, managed to show results more quickly than the e-education network, which, in addition to being more geographically dispersed, was also organized through a much more complicated networked and hierarchical structure. Thus, the first version of the e-health portal was developed in the span of just a few months, while the first version of the e-education portal took a couple of years to be finished.15 Principle 5.10 Institutional design affects the collaboration process and network configuration, in addition to its impact on the development of trust. The third component involves facilitative leadership. Leadership has been recognized to play a key role in public administration, especially in the context of networks.16 The leader in a networked organization has new roles to play, such as designing a vision, policies, and learning processes to allow knowledge application and innovative approaches to the problem. Finally, the leader must be careful to strike a balance between the needs of individual organizations and the overall mission of the whole network. We can find examples of this kind of leadership inside the e-Mexico network. The e-Mexico coordinator was able to successfully complete two projects under his leadership: the establishment of the digital community centers and the development of the e-Mexico content portal. Implementation of both projects required the coordination of interorganizational and intergovernmental networks. The digital community centers required collaboration between the Ministry of Education, the National Directorate for Public Libraries, the Ministry of Health, the National Institute for Federalism and Municipal Development, and private entities and foundations such as the Tecnológico de Monterrey and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. While the success of these collaborations had a high level of See Goldsmith and Eggers, Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. See Luna-Reyes and Gil-García, “Using Institutional Theory and Dynamic Simulation to Understand Complex E-Government Phenomena.” 16 See Theresa A. Pardo, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, and Luis F. Luna-Reyes, “Collaborative Governance and Cross-Boundary Information Sharing: Envisioning a Networked and IT-Enabled Public Administration,” in The Future of Public Administration Around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective, ed. Rosemary O’Leary, David M. Van Slyke, and Soonhee Kim (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2011), 129–40. 14 15


59

variation, and there has been public criticism of the project, it is remarkable that the e-Mexico coordinator managed the development of thousands of Internet access centers throughout the country in only few years. Principle 5.11 The network leader plays the role of process facilitator. Soft skills together with knowledge of facilitation tools are key to project success and the creation of networks. The fourth component to be considered is the collaborative process itself. This process is shown in Fig. 5.2 as a virtuous circle in which collaboration creates trust and commitment, as well as shared domain knowledge. However, just like any virtuous cycle, this one represents a potential trap in the early stages of the collaboration process. In other words, if you do not have trust, participants in the network will not develop commitment or shared understanding of the problem, making it difficult to achieve any objectives dependent on production of higher levels of trust, understanding, and commitment. As we mentioned earlier in the chapter, trust plays a key role in the collaboration process, and the figure includes representations of the various forms of trust. Principle 5.12 Different mechanisms of trust production (institutional, calculative and relational) must be managed effectively throughout the development of a network or an interorganizational collaboration project. Research and practice have also shown that objects used during the collaboration process play a key role in effectively building shared understanding among network participants. These objects are called boundary objects.17 Boundary objects are objects that facilitate participants’ understanding of the interdependencies among their work and practices, development of shared knowledge about the problem, and finally development of effective solutions. Systems development and information technology practitioners have a long tradition in the development of objects that have the potential to be used as boundary objects: prototypes, process diagrams, use cases, and data dictionaries, among others. Research shows that these objects are most effective when they facilitate exchange of knowledge on three levels, transferring information, translating meaning, and transforming practices,18 and meet the criteria described below in principle 5.13: Principle 5.13 Boundary objects need to be representative, using language that represents all participants in the process so that information can be easily transmitted; they also need to be sufficiently concrete to facilitate translation of meanings between different professional communities and organizational cultures; and they need to be transformable to facilitate the transformation of local practices inside the network to better align them to application development and successful solutions. See Susan Leigh Star, “The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving,” in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, ed. Les Gasser and N. Huhns, Michael, vol. II, Research Notes in Artificial Intelligence (San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1989), 37–54. 18 See Paul Carlile, “Transferring, Translating and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge across Boundaries,” Organization Science 15, no. 5 (2004): 555–68. 17

60


3 Interoperability and Information Integration The type of projects and networking that we discuss in this chapter usually involves the development of interorganizational information systems. These projects require information exchange between different actors or, in some cases, integrating databases or designing interoperable processes and systems. This last section of the chapter briefly introduces these concepts. Given the potential benefits and expected value from collaboration and networking in the public sector, interoperability across different government organizations has become a priority in many programs and public services. On the Mexican public agenda, for example, interoperability and interorganizational platforms were formally discussed for the first time in 2001, when the e-Mexico program incorporated such platforms as its third strategic focus. Interesting examples of these efforts in the country include the COMPRANET and RUPA projects. COMPRANET integrated all procurement activities across the federal government into one single site; the RUPA system constitutes a single repository of individuals and organizations that conduct business with the federal government. Systems are interoperable because a potential government provider, for example, registers only once to deal with the federal government through a single process and system. Moreover, he uses the same processes and systems in responding to federal government procurement requests. Interoperability implies sharing or integrating information to support business processes. Sharing and integrating information are two related issues that are nevertheless conceptually distinct. Integrating information is a more complex challenge that involves considering information and data as a shared resource to be used by different agencies and individuals through a network. In many cases, information integration efforts involve not only transferring data but translating meanings and transforming practices in the development of new interoperable processes, uses, and applications. The point of convergence between the two issues (information sharing and integration) is in the idea that integrated information systems provide better information for the realization of individual goals of a group of agencies collaborating in a specific domain such as the administration of justice or public health. The ability to share information with other organizations has become “one of the basic goals of information management in government.”19 Principle 5.14 Interoperability is a concept that involves organizational and technical factors. Integration of information involves technical integration at the database level, but also the integration of processes, policies, and other organizational aspects. Information integration is made possible through cooperation between agencies, development and implementation of a common strategy, and system interoperability, which constitutes the technological means that enable information systems to exchange messages and data. Networked government provides interorganizational structure for See Bruce Rocheleau Bruce A. Rocheleau, Public Management Information Systems (Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2005). 19

3 Interoperability and Information Integration

61

decision-making and coordination of integration efforts. While there are technical advances that enable interoperability, both research and practice suggest that technology by itself cannot solve the challenges of interoperability. The complexity arises from the interdependence among public policy, technological challenges, and organizational structures. Thus, developing information integration projects requires both: the ability to collaborate and the technical capacities for application development. Interoperability requires ability to create interconnected systems to facilitate better decision-making, coordination among government programs, improved government services to citizens and businesses, and effective service delivery across multiple channels. Interoperability is one of the elements necessary to achieve technology-facilitated transformation in government. Technical interoperability is not an end by itself but a mechanism to deliver public value from the opportunities that are created by it. The value is created through an improved coordination or through new information uses to improve decision-making, planning processes, or public policy development.20 Although interoperability is often a recurring problem for individual agencies, leaders within each agency usually have the skills to promote the development of information systems and technologies to achieve the organizational mission. On the other hand, interoperability crossing interorganizational or international borders requires leadership and authority at the highest levels of government. The literature normally refers to these projects as “enterprise.” One example of such effort to achieve these business capabilities can be found in the European Union vision of creating a “single market.”21 As part of their overarching mission, the European Union wants to promote mobility and economic exchange among member countries through interoperability in areas such as government procurement, higher education, access to medical services in emergencies while visiting another country, or starting a business.22 In the area of government procurement, the European Union seeks to achieve a point at which private organizations from any member country can seamlessly participate in public government bids of any other member country, using standardized processes and data exchange standards that automatically recognize different requirements of each country. Thus, the e-Sens project (Single European Electronic Networked Services) has the goal of creating a network of geographically dispersed public and private organizations to manage the bidding process. The solution uses a combination of interlocking processes, compatible information, and a set of policies that might not be fully compatible to access public services across borders to facilitate the creation of a single European market. While government officials at all levels and countries have a role to play in this integration process, leaders in the highest sphere are the ones who have the power to reduce the institutional constraints of these enterprise projects. In the European Union, the European Commission has worked intensively to achieve adoption of the See Pardo, Gil-Garcia, and Luna-Reyes, “Collaborative Governance and Cross-Boundary Information Sharing: Envisioning a Networked and IT-Enabled Public Administration.” 21 See http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/smact/index_en.htm. 22 See http://www.esens.eu/home/. 20

62


initiative to have a single market or “Single Market Act.” Achieving interoperability and integration of government agencies requires the support of the executive power. Moreover, interoperability requires the development of systems and standards in several spheres, involving political, legal, organizational, semantic, and technical aspects. We will define these aspects with more detail in the following paragraphs. Principle 5.15 The development of interoperability requires the development of systems and standards in five different areas: political, legal, organizational, semantic, and technical. In the case of the European Union, the political willingness comes from the European Commission. In the case of a country like Mexico, commitment and political will of the president and his or her cabinet would be required for any efforts at the federal level, the governor and his or her cabinet at the state level, and the mayor and his or her cabinet at the municipal level. Principle 5.16 The political sphere implies support for collaborative projects and willingness to collaborate from the highest levels of government. In the case of the government procurement system in the European Union, the project started with an analysis of all associated laws in the five countries that have acted as pilot sites, as well as the regulations of the European Commission. Since a high level of automation was desired, the network implementing this initiative developed an “ontology”23 that facilitated the automatic processing of legal requirements in the procurement systems of member countries. Principle 5.17 The legal area requires coordination of institutional frameworks for the development of integration and interoperability. The e-Sens project has developed a standardized process and also the use of standardized formats to facilitate international bidding process. Principle 5.18 The organizational level usually includes the integration or standardization of business processes. The legal ontology plays an important role in this regard, but projects designed to develop interoperable capability also require a common language and understanding of meanings at the database level. Additionally, the technical level incorporates enterprise architecture for capturing and consulting bids and bid participants. Principle 5.19 The semantic level requires harmonization of different terminologies used in different government entities.

In the context of information technologies and information systems, an ontology is a technical tool that specifies a vocabulary, the meaning of terms in the vocabulary, as well as relationships among concepts to enable reasoning. The utility of ontologies in the context of interoperable systems consists of their role in automatic data exchange and processing. 23

4 Final Comments

63

4 Final Comments The ability of information technology to meet the challenges and problems mentioned in this chapter depends, at least in part, on the existence of collaborative networks and cooperation mechanisms, as well as other conditions of interoperability of systems and processes to facilitate collaboration. These technological, managerial, political, and public policy factors impact both the quality of digital government initiatives and the benefits to governments, citizens, and other stakeholders. Sharing information and building capabilities for interoperability are core capacities that enable the creation of collaboration networks in solving problems and creating coordinated action. Despite the obstacles that may be present when adopting a strategy for collaboration, there are facilitators who can help overcome the most common hardships faced by governments. The task is not simple, but the current reality requires public administrators to keep a positive attitude toward these new forms of service delivery for the creation of public value.

Chapter 6

Managing Information Technology Development Projects

Abstract Digital government projects present a unique challenge forcing government entities to create effective management processes that can respond to the rapidly changing environment of information technology. This chapter provides an overview of an agile development and implementation framework that advocates incremental project development and implementation and allows adjustments to project plans based on changes in the environment. The agile development framework allows for faster development and implementation cycle and enables organizations to learn from their past projects and apply these lessons in the future. Summary Points • This chapter introduces the concept of agile deployment methodologies for digital government projects designed to reduce the time elapsed from conception to implementation. • Effective organizations take advantage of the experiences amassed in development of each information technology project, documenting the process, problems, lessons learned, and results using simple tools. Initial Case The government portal of the state of Puebla has evolved since its inception in 2000. Initially, a state portal of limited functionality was created using the HTML editor Fireworks. Given the rudimentary technology, making updates to the site was difficult and resulted in static, difficult to navigate pages that contained only basic information from a select group of government agencies. Simultaneously, individual government agencies and departments that also wished to establish a digital presence began their own efforts to develop departmental sites linked to the state portal. In the first few years, each portal group operated independently of each other, making their own content decisions without overarching guidelines as to what content should be included and in what form. In 2006, as a result of the public relations office collaboration, clearer guidelines on what information should be included on the government Internet portal were established.


65

66

6 Managing Information Technology Development Projects

However, implementation of these guidelines proved more difficult than anticipated due to challenges stemming from the variety of platforms used by the different government entities as well as the widely varied types and forms of content available on each portal. In addition, the terminology of information technology was not familiar to everyone involved, which created communication problems. For instance, the new site had certain requirements in respect to the size of a digital file if it was to be included on the new site. However, this requirement was not effectively communicated to the individual government agencies, which created an unnecessary delay in the development process. With regard to the development platform, the original Fireworks was replaced by a content management system created by the group in charge of the portal, which quickly became insufficient to handle the increasing amount of information and complexity of the various portals. In 2009, the portal development team of the state of Puebla began working on unification and standardization of the government’s Internet presence into one statewide portal that would bring together content from all government entities. At least four factors contributed to the complexity of this project: first, a large number of government departments used the site and the project team needed to maintain effective communication channels to ensure that their needs and expectations were met. Second, the hardware and software characteristics and requirements of the new government portal were not widely known to all government stakeholders, thus hindering communication and making it difficult to reach agreements. Third, it was necessary to take into account the laws and regulations affecting the development of the portal and its content. For example, the transparency law establishes the minimum level of information that must be available on all state portals, as well as the response times to any public consultation. Finally, it was necessary to incorporate new features into the portal, such as two-way communication channels, transactional functions to allow for online payment of taxes or fees, and social media tools. The portal working group took several actions to respond to these challenges. For example, the group switched to open-source tools for portal development in order to have a platform that is continuously improved, scalable, and affordable. The portal development group also adopted Joomla!—an open-source content management system—and took advantage of existing solutions available through the Joomla! community that could be adapted to suit the needs of the Puebla portal. In recent years, the portal team adopted the Scrum agile development method, which allows them to maintain better communication and achieve results more effectively. Additionally, the group adopted a strategy for monitoring technological developments to identify elements that could improve the content and functionality of the portal.1

1 See Luis F. Luna-Reyes and J. Ramón Gil-García, “Digital government transformation and internet portals: The co-evolution of technology, organizations, and institutions,” Government Information Quarterly, 31 (2014): 545–555.

1 Introduction

67

1 Introduction Digital government projects have characteristics that make them unique and different from other projects in the government sector, as well as information technology projects in the private sector. For one, digital government projects tend to involve a large number of stakeholders with conflicting interests, which can hinder project’s progress if finding a mutually acceptable solution proves to be difficult. Additionally, digital government projects are generally large and very complex, often consisting of several segments that require the use of different information technologies. For example, a government Internet portal can allow the payment of services, communication with public servants, search engines to facilitate access to government information, citizen participation, etc. Each of these services may require the use of different information technology. Digital government projects are also unique because of the speed with which information technologies change and develop, thus requiring a continuous attention to the tools employed to deliver services and achieve given objectives. Other factors that increase the complexity of digital government projects include external pressures of public opinion, advocacy by nongovernmental organizations, and media scrutiny, as well as laws and regulations that typically impose greater limitations on government projects as compared to projects in the private sector.2 Because of these complexities and other challenges associated with information technology projects in general, many digital government initiatives end up classified as failures. As we mentioned previously, some studies show that 35% of digital government projects can be classified as complete failures and 50% more qualify as partial failures.3 One factor that may contribute to the high rate of failure is poor project design and lack of adequate project management. Additionally, organizations may lack a system to document and store lessons learned in individual projects, which in turn results in their inability to use the gained knowledge and experience for the benefit of future projects. In Chap. 3 we talked about the importance of properly conceptualizing and planning digital government projects. In recognition of the importance of customer- focused project management methodology,4 this chapter aims to highlight several methodologies that have been successfully used to manage information technology projects in the public sector. This overview does not account for all available methods but rather represents a selection of the most well-known methodologies currently being used.

See Syed. Rasza Abbas Shah, Abdul Zahid Khan and Shahid Khalil, “Project management practices in e-government projects: A case study of electronic government directorate (EGD) in Pakistan,” International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2 no. 7 (2011): 235–243. 3 See Richard Heeks, “Success and failure rates of eGovernment in developing/transitional countries: overview” (2003), www.egov4dev.org/sfoverview.htm. 4 See Mohamed Arif, “Customer orientation in e-government Project management: a case study,” The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 6 no. 1 (2008):1–10. 2

68


2 Management of Information Technology Projects Project management literature contains several definitions of what constitutes a project, and the importance of a clear methodology for developing successful projects has been recognized for some years. The Project Management Institute (PMI) defines a project as “a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result”5 and has proposed methods for managing projects with a high degree of detail. In general, a project management methodology proposes logical hierarchies that allow linking of objectives and goals and develops a series of steps to obtain them. These objectives are usually linked to a set of performance indicators to assess both, the project’s progress and its degree of success. All project steps are documented by following a series of guidelines and forms, often with the help of specialized software designed to support implementation of these methodologies. Although the structure of these methodologies is usually clearly defined, they can be adapted depending on the degree of maturity of an organization and its corporate culture.6 While the names used to describe the various project development stages or phases may differ, in general all project management methodologies include an initial step in which project objectives are defined. These objectives are usually aligned with organizational objectives and serve as the project’s foundation. In addition to the project objectives, this initial stage also encompasses process for defining team’s roles and responsibilities, the project’s projected budget, and a clear understanding of the project scope. The second phase of project management consists of developing project implementation plans and a clear outline of project deliverables. The resulting document from this stage includes a detailed work schedule and identifies a set of metrics to evaluate the success of the project. The third phase of project management consists of the actual production of the project deliverables and testing of the product on a small-scale basis. Finally, the last phase of most project management methodologies entails adoption of the product into daily operations of the organization. Jason Charvat classifies two types of project management methodologies: heavy and light. Heavy methodologies use traditional approaches to project management and are slowly losing popularity because they are seen as being partly responsible for a large number of failed projects.7 These methodologies are characterized by very detailed project plans encompassing all stages of the project regardless of the length of the project’s timeline. The basis of these methodologies is that most of the projects are relatively simple and predictable, and therefore it is possible to plan and monitor these projects easily. Furthermore, they assume that the same methods and See A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 5th Edition (Project Management Institute, 2013). 6 See Harold Kerzner, Project Management - Best Practices: Achieving Global Excellence, 3rd Edition (Wiley 2014). 7 See Jason Charvat, Project Management Methodologies: Selecting, Implementing, and Supporting Methodologies and Processes for Projects (Wiley 2003). 5

2 Management of Information Technology Projects

69

techniques can be used in any project and usually implement the methodology using a set of templates that, when not used rationally, can lead to inflexibility.8 Typically, this type of project planning results in a detailed set of plans, reports, checkpoints, and detailed work schedules that attempt to outline all technical details of the project from beginning to an end and foresee all possible challenges that might be encountered along the way. However, this level of detail and the long-term outlook often make these methods inflexible and do not allow them to efficiently address changes that regularly occur during all projects. Additionally, given the amount of information required for the construction of the initial plan, this method often results in loss of valuable time to detailed planning even though these plans are seldom followed as projects evolve. Examples of traditional methodologies are the waterfall method,9 the V-model,10 the spiral model,11 and the Unified Process, among others. These methodologies are based on a series of sequential steps similar to the ones described in the previous paragraph. Typically, the first step is to define project requirements and schedule all project steps. At this stage the team tries to anticipate any problems that may arise in the development of the project. In the second stage, the technical infrastructure (i.e., the architectural and design plan) of the final product is designed. Once the design is appropriate, the team proceeds to build the final product. The product is then tested involving the customer to obtain feedback. The project is delivered when the customer is satisfied with its performance.12 The waterfall model is perhaps the simplest of them all, and it organizes these steps in a linear way. The V-model can be considered an extension of the waterfall model; however, after the building step, the V-model moves upward in order to associate each test phase with the corresponding part of the project definition. The spiral model is a risk-driven process model generator, in which different risk patterns lead teams to choose among waterfall, evolutionary prototyping, or other subsets of the process elements in the spiral model diagram. The Unified Process organizes all steps into workflows that are performed in iterative and incremental steps. In contrast, light or agile methodologies are considered more flexible, giving them the ability to adapt to different situations and to plan and perform project stages at a greater speed. Unlike heavy methodologies that involve the main stakeholder only in the initial stages of the project, light methodologies use an informal communication style and involve the See Mario Špundak, Mixed agile/traditional project management methodology – reality or illusion? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 119 (2014) 939–948. 9 Bell, Thomas E., and T. A. Thayer. Software requirements: Are they really a problem? Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Software engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1976. 10 Sheilly Padda, Apoorva Arora, Sonali Gupta, and Priya Sharma, “Review of software development methodologies used in software design,” International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering, 3 (2014): 88–93. 11 Boehm, B, “Spiral Development: Experience, Principles, and Refinements,” Special Report CMU/SEI-2000-SR-008, July 2000. 12 Yu Beng Leau, Wooi Khong Loo, Wai Yip Tham, and Soo Fun Tan, “Software Development Life Cycle AGILE vs Traditional Approaches,” 2012 International Conference on Information and Network Technology (ICINT 2012). 8

70


customer at every step of the project through frequent meetings and talks. This informal and continuous communication promotes both flexibility and agility in the project. In general, light methodologies follow only a few rules and established practices and require little project documentation, which makes them more flexible and easily adaptable to different organizational environments. The emphasis of these methodologies is adaptability. Instead of trying to predict every detail of the project from the planning stage through completion, as is done in traditional methodologies, light methodologies recognize that changes are inevitable and give project teams freedom to handle unforeseen situations creatively. These methodologies handle unpredictability by relying on people and their creativity.13 The team in charge of the project plays a key role in both types of methodologies. However, unlike traditional methodologies, light methodologies recognize that the people involved in the project are very valuable and give them autonomy to develop the project. Teamwork and collaboration are key factors for a successful project; therefore, frequent short meetings are a common practice to monitor and make needed adjustments. Another important element is to give all team members open access to information to facilitate the development of the project. A simple set of rules aims to guide the work of the team. For example, in software development one common rule is the test-first design practice that allows development of a functional code in an incremental way.14 Given the ever-evolving nature of information technologies, digital government projects appear better suited for a flexible project management methodology that is able to respond to changes in the environment by rapidly adjusting the project design. Agile project management methodologies have been used for software development because they help address uncertainty through the development of simple and incremental tasks in contrast to traditional approaches that follow a sequential development. Principle 6.1 Agile project management methods allow stakeholders to participate throughout the project, maintaining continuous communication that facilitates change management. There are a number of methods that are considered agile. Extreme programming, Scrum, Crystal, and Lean development; and adaptive software development are just a few examples of these methodologies. In 2001, a group of leaders of this agile software development movement met to discuss their approaches and to find similarities and differences between them. The result of this meeting was the Agile Manifesto for Software Development: We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work, we have come to value: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Sridhar Nerur, Radhakanta Mahapatra, and George Mangalaraj, “Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies,” Communications of the ACM, 48 (2005): 73–78. 14 See ccpace, Agile project management, www.ccpace.com. 13

3 Lean Project Management

71

Responding to change over following a plan That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.15

Twelve principles support this manifesto: • Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software. • Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage. • Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale. • Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project. • Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done. • The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation. • Working software is the primary measure of progress. • Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely. • Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility. • Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential. • The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams. • At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.16

Customer satisfaction, communication and collaboration, frequent delivery of working software, self-organizing teams, and simple rules are the key ingredients for these methods to function properly. It is very important to understand that no matter what method an organization adopts, a crucial element to its successful use is to have a well-trained team that knows the benefits and limitations of the methodology. This fact is especially important in methodologies that seek to empower the teams and develop creative and problem-solving people. Principle 6.2 Developing a team of well-trained people is the basis for successful implementation of agile project management methods.

3 Lean Project Management Another strategy that has received a lot of attention in the last several decades is the idea of “lean systems,” a concept that was first introduced in the manufacturing sector. Beginning in the early 1950s, Toyota has introduced the concept of lean manufacturing focused on eliminating waste in the production process and creating value for consumers. One key element of the system is the development of an 15 16

See http://agilemanifesto.org/ Accessed on 12/30/2016. See http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html Accessed on 12/30/2016.

72


organizational culture of problem-solving and continuous improvement. The company recognizes that its most valuable asset is its people and therefore helps them develop their potential. In this way, each employee uses his skills and knowledge to improve their work processes. The Toyota Production System, as it is known, has since undergone evolution and has been applied in different contexts,17 such as the service and government sector, with the goal to improve efficiency and effectiveness.18 However, many large organizations that have attempted to adopt a “lean system” have failed to realize the expected benefits. One of the main reasons for this failure is that many organizations view the “lean system” as a set of tools to be applied to a specific situation while losing sight of the main emphasis of the system, which is the creation of a culture of learning and problem-solving in the organization. Organizations often exert a lot of time and resources to learn the tools and apply them in their context hoping to obtain quick solutions, without getting any results. While certain project management tools are part of the lean system, as we will see in the paragraphs below, it is the way these tools are used within an organization that creates benefits. Efficiency and value to consumers are created through the continuous process of revision and reflection, combined with an emphasis on the importance of every employee being trained on how to employ these tools to his or her area of responsibility. Creating a culture of learning and problem-solving in an organization can be achieved via the utilization of two problem-solving approaches: the plan-do-check- act (PDCA) cycle and the A3 report. PDCA is a very practical way to apply the scientific method to everyday situations and problems.19 The idea behind the four- step management cycle is to make incremental improvements that can be implemented quickly. The first step of the cycle, plan, defines the project objectives and establishes processes necessary for accomplishing these objectives. This first step is crucial for the ultimate success of this method as any problem-solving requires a clear understanding of the current situation from different perspectives and a detailed analysis of the situation to identify the root causes of the problem. In order to gain complete understanding of the current situation, all relevant information should be included and the situation should be analyzed from as many viewpoints as possible. Once an analysis of the current situation is completed, the organization can move forward with setting project targets and goals, as well as producing a comparison of alternative approaches. Also, a reasonable prediction of the expected results of the project is made. The final product of this first step is an implementation plan with well-defined activities. Toyota recommends making this step carefully and spending as much time as necessary on understanding the situation to 17 See Steven C. Bell and Michael A. Orzen, Lean IT: Enabling and sustaining your lean transformation (CRC Press, 2011). 18 See James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones, Lean Thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation, 2nd Edition (Productivity Press, 2003). 19 Pascal Dennis, Getting the Right Things Done: A leader’s guide to planning and execution (Lean Enterprise Institute, 2006)

3 Lean Project Management

73

ensure that the project objectives and implementation plans adequately address the identified problem. The second step of the cycle (do) is the implementation of the project activities to achieve the said objective. In general, implementation activities are performed in short periods, but tangible results are expected from them. If we relate the PDCA cycle to the scientific method, we can think of the planning phase as designed to build the hypothesis and the experiment to test it, while the purpose of the “do” phase is to carry out the experiment. Principle 6.2 Plan projects carefully considering and analyzing all relevant information to ensure that the desired results will be obtained, and then implement the plan quickly so you can check the results in a short time. The third stage (check) serves to measure results and compare them against the desired objectives established in the planning phase of the cycle. It is at this stage that the project team can evaluate whether they understood the situation and the root causes of the problem. If the results do not fully align with the project goals, it is a clear indication that more analysis is required to understand the nature of the original problem. Finally, in the last step (act), the team takes steps to address any misalignment between results and the originally stated objectives. The PDCA method allows the project team to implement solutions in incremental and rapid steps and to evaluate the results in a short timeframe. At the end of each cycle, it is possible to assess not only the results obtained with the actions taken but also to assess the PDCA process itself. This last element is crucial in the development of a culture of learning, as it allows all members of the project team to reflect and identify elements that contributed to the success or failure in achieving the stated project objectives. Large projects, such as digital government projects, can be broken down into a series of smaller projects that allow the team to take incremental steps toward achieving the ultimate goal. This approach makes it possible to advance large projects without having to wait for the completion of the entire project to test the effectiveness of small actions. By breaking up a large project into smaller subprojects and assessing the degree of success in achieving the incremental goals along the way, a project team is able to make adjustments to the overall project plan and design as is needed. Principle 6.3 Dividing large projects into smaller segments allows the project team to take incremental steps toward achieving the ultimate project goals and implementing changes to the project plan and design based on continuous assessments of the project’s progress along the way. The second tool that can be used in conjunction with PDCA to create a culture of learning in an organization is the A3 report.20 The A3 report consists of an A3 sheet, which tells “the story” of the project in a number of distinct steps, usually varying See Durward K. Sobek II and Art Smalley, Understanding A3 Thinking: a critical component of Toyota PDCA management system (CRC Press, 2008). 20

74


between seven and nine. The storytelling follows the PDCA cycle. The first part of the report documents the history and present conditions that have motivated the inception of the project. It provides the problem background, explains why solving this situation helps to attain the organization goals, and describes the current condition. The objective of this step is to understand the situation, and the use of visuals such as charts, graphs, and tables is recommended to objectively depict all factors in the current state. The report then goes on to set clear goals, establish the metrics that will be used to measure the success of the project, and analyze elements of the project. It is also recommended to represent the goal by using graphs, tables, or other visual tools. The root cause analysis is the following step. The general idea is to establish cause and effect relationships in order to concentrate project team efforts on the tasks that will most contribute to the project goal. The next step is to document actions taken and confirm that these actions have produced the desired effects. As in most project management tools, this step identifies the following elements: actions that must be taken, who will implement each action, when the actions must be completed, and all information needed to complete the actions. The next step has the objective of verifying that the goals have been attained, measuring the results using the metrics defined in the previous step. Finally, follow-up actions are documented. While the format of this tool appears deceptively simple, it is the process that is used to arrive at the final version of this document that creates the true value of this method. The process of reiteration and revision is what promulgates an organizational culture of learning, creating capability that creates value beyond the present project. Furthermore, because the A3 format can document all projects regardless of their size, it enables the organization to document lessons learned for future projects. Because of the simplicity of its format, the A3 report helps create a culture of project documentation, allowing the organization to use its lessons from past projects to accelerate the development of future projects with similar characteristics. Principle 6.4 Organizations should use simple formats to document their projects so that their past experiences and lessons learned can be used to help accelerate the implementation of future projects. It is important to understand that the A3 report is much more than a report documenting the progress of a project.21 Because of the way its steps map onto the PDCA method, if created effectively, an A3 report can provide a structure to guide the development of the PDCA steps. For instance, because of its “story” structure, the A3 report helps the project team maintain a logical thinking process and identify the causes and the effects of the situation. Furthermore, because its steps rely mostly on quantitative analysis of the challenge at hand, it provides an objective analysis of the situation and checks the consistency and coherence between the problem, its causes, and the proposed solution. It also gives the project team an opportunity to analyze the processes used in the project development and planning. Finally, it provides the See John Shook, Managing to Learn: Using the A3 management process to solve problems, gain agreement, mentor and lead (Lean Enterprise Institute, 2008). 21

4 Agile Development of Projects

75

project team with a view of the whole system, which in turn allows for assessment of the impact of each action carried out on other components of the project. Before deciding what actions to implement, it is important to analyze how they contribute to the organizational needs, goals, and priorities and understand how they affect different areas of the organization. Lack of this analysis often results in partial improvement in one area of the organization at the expense of other areas, thus resulting in improvements without a positive effect on the whole organization. Principle 6.5 Before implementing any action, a project team should analyze how it contributes to the needs, goals, and priorities of the project and understand how it affects other areas of the organizations. The A3 report can also be used for just the first phase of a project—the project planning phase—with some subtle but important differences. Unlike the previously described A3 report where the story of a completed project is documented, this type of report only presents an analysis of a situation and alternative plans to solve it. In the plan phase, the project team focuses on describing the problem they are trying to solve as well as the current environment, and all information required to understand the proposed project is collected and analyzed. Subsequently, the proposal is described. Usually, different solution alternatives are evaluated and this analysis is also documented. Typically, the A3 includes all details of the plan and a timetable for its implementation. In organizations such as Toyota, the same methodology is used across the organization, and an important element of training for each employee includes learning how to use this tool.

4 Agile Development of Projects The challenges of projects involving ever-evolving information technology suggest the need for an agile project management method that allows for the development and implementation of successful and rapid changes to the project plan. Agile project management methodologies are used occasionally for software development because they help address uncertainty through the development of simple and incremental tasks in contrast to traditional approaches that follow a sequential development. Although agile development methodologies are very simple, they are also very powerful. An example of these methodologies is Scrum.22 Scrum is a methodology for software development that has been used successfully in a large number of projects. This methodology is based on the PDCA cycle and despite its simplicity is suitable for managing complex projects. This methodology defines three roles: the product owner, the scrum master, and the development team. The product owner represents the interest of all stakeholders and creates a list of all initial requirements, defines the project objectives, and plans 22

See Ken Schwaber, Agile Project Management with Scrum (Microsoft press, 2004).

76


the project in general. The list of requirements is called the product backlog, and the product owner has the responsibility for prioritizing this backlog in order to produce the most valuable functionality of the software first. The scrum master is responsible for the Scrum process and for teaching the methodology to everyone involved in the project. Finally, the team is responsible for developing the software functionality. Teams are self-managing and cross-functional. A software project managed with Scrum starts with a vision of the desired system and the prioritized product backlog. The work is done in 30-day cycles called sprints. In each cycle, a complete increment of potentially shippable product functionality is finished. Each sprint starts with a planning meeting that usually lasts 8 h. In the first 4 h, the product owner and the team select the tasks to be carried out in the sprint. Once the tasks are selected, the product owner leaves the meeting and the team plans how to develop the agreed functionality. At the beginning of each day of the cycle, the team meets for 15 min to review what each team member did the day before and what each team member will do on that day and to discuss potential difficulties that might affect their ability to fulfill their commitment. The purpose of these meetings is to review project progress and synchronize work of all team members. Although there is much flexibility and teams have a lot of freedom to decide how to complete the tasks to which they have committed, day-by-day control of project progress is maintained. At the end of each sprint, the team conducts a review meeting. In this meeting, the team shows the results of their work to the product owner and any other stakeholder who is interested in the progress of the project. The cycle ends with a meeting to review the processes and practices that took place in the sprint with the purpose of learning and improving the next sprint. As the complexity of a project increases, it is more difficult to maintain control of all elements. Scrum recognizes this limitation and decentralizes the control of the project, delegating authority to the teams that are working on specific areas of the software. Another advantage is that Scrum provides a way of bringing the customer and the software developer together, so that communication can be more continuous and timely feedback can be received. Processes, practices, and rules for using Scrum are simple and easy to learn. This methodology provides a number of practices to keep everything visible. The project documentation is maintained in a small number of documents. Examples of these documents are the product backlog (a list of project requirements) and a sprint backlog that contains a list of tasks that will be completed during the given sprint. Due to the simplicity and flexibility of this methodology, the scrum master must use common sense to take advantage of this type of approach and to encourage and guide the team during the sprint. Methodologies like Scrum enable organizations to gradually develop different capabilities and implement increasingly complex projects more efficiently. Information technology projects are generally complex and risky, especially when you are introducing new technology. Sometimes it is desirable to test the impact of the new technology prior to any project implementation through the

5 Final Comments

77

development of prototypes that allow us to evaluate whether to make changes or adjustments to the original project. Principle 6.6 Since information technology is a constantly evolving element, it is wise to use prototypes to understand the scope of a project or application.

5 Final Comments Given the scale of digital government initiatives and their complexity, it is desirable to establish a methodology to facilitate their development before embarking on a large number of projects. The time spent on this kind of planning generally results in a much shorter development time and controlled execution. Recently, many information technology projects have successfully adopted agile methodologies to reduce the time elapsed from design to implementation. These methodologies are based on simple rules and require very little documentation, which makes it possible to use them in a variety of projects. By giving responsibility for successful delivery to the project team, these methodologies take advantage of people’s potential and creativity to obtain solutions quickly. By using short bursts of rapid development, these methodologies allow projects to be built incrementally and deliver results in a shorter timeframe. The experience that is gained through the development of each individual project is valuable, and organizations should strive to take advantage of their experience by documenting their lessons learned for the benefit of future projects. Each organization can become a learning organization if they document these experiences using simple forms that could be read and understand quickly and easily.

Chapter 7

Opening Government: Open Data and Projects

Abstract One of the most important steps toward open government is the creation of an open data ecosystem (for the purpose of this chapter, open government ecosystem can be defined as “with its emphasis on an evolving, self-organizing system of feedback and adjustment among actors and processes, to be a useful heuristic for approaching the design of effective OGD programs (p. 16)” S. Dawes, L. Vidiasova, O. Parkhimovich. Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach, Government Information Quarterly (2016), Volume 33, Issue 1, 15–27) and an open government culture that emphasizes the need for and benefits of transparency, collaboration, and interaction. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce six interrelated and iterative principles to foster open data projects and establish fundamental components to creating an open government ecosystem. Summary Points • This chapter describes the importance of open data ecosystems and open government implementation. • It reflects on the advantages of data catalogues in the context of open government and discusses the importance of an open data culture and the creation of communities that use, share, and collaborate with government information. • The chapter also emphasizes the importance of teamwork to create opportunities to promote innovation inside open government. Initial Case Since 2001, when Mexican President Vicente Fox Quesada launched the government open access initiative, many efforts were undertaken to try to implement an open government ecosystem. The first effort consisted of disseminating information about the initiative and creating the Federal Access to Information Institute (IFAI) tasked with regulating and compelling federal agencies and local governments to open basic government data. Most local governments fulfilled their obligation under the law by simply posting government data on their websites; however, the diversity of data formats and the variety of adopted access mechanisms resulted in a chaotic data release. © Springer International Publishing AG 2017 R. Sandoval-Almazán et al., Building Digital Government Strategies, Public Administration and Information Technology 16, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60348-3_7

79

80

7 Opening Government: Open Data and Projects

In 2007, the sixth article of the Constitution of Mexico was amended to include access to public information as a right for Mexican citizens, and in 2010 congress passed a law covering privacy and personal data protection. Finally, the Federal Law for Transparency and Information Access from May 2015 established general rules and procedures to guarantee the right of access to information held by any government entity or any entity receiving public resources. This law not only greatly increased the number of affected entities but also expanded the minimum transparency obligations that public institutions must comply with, thus creating conditions for a more transparent ecosystem. At the same time, it also created a very heavy regulatory burden for state and local governments, who were suddenly forced to comply with federally imposed standards for open access portals, as well as rules concerning the provision of local data for a centralized federal database for citizen queries. The new regulation also combined open access with personal data protection and resulted in the creation of a new agency, the National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data, which replaced the existing IFAI. While the new law was considered a good step forward in respect to creating access to government information, the law was rather narrowly focused on transparency interpreted as release of information, rather than creating an open government ecosystem as a whole, thus creating a potential weakness.

1 Introduction The trend toward greater transparency of government information is not new, dating back decades to first freedom of information acts adopted in some countries in 1960s and 1970s. However, it was only at the beginning of the twenty-first century when the movement toward open government accelerated and became an international phenomenon with initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership in 2011. This rapid acceleration presented a challenge for many governments suddenly faced with the need to introduce open government principles, activities, and goals into the bureaucratic environment of their administrations. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce six principles for creating an open government ecosystem. As we will see throughout the chapter, all six principles are interrelated and necessary for creating a new culture of transparency and open government.

2 Understanding Open Government While the use of the term “open government” has spread with an unprecedented speed around the globe, the term often remains poorly defined. This lack of clear definition and delineation can create confusion of interpretations and lead to conflation of some of the terms such as transparency and openness, treating them as

2 Understanding Open Government

81

synonymous to each other. For example, the 2015 Mexican Federal Law for Transparency and Information Access, which is often considered the bedrock of open government in Mexico, only mentions the term “open government” once. Out of the 210 articles contained in this legislation, it is only Article 59 which tasks local government agencies dedicated to open government to design and implement policies to promote openness at the local government level. In comparison, the term “transparency” is used throughout the document, creating an impression that transparency, which is generally considered only one aspect of open government, takes precedence in the Mexican context. This conflation of terms and lack of clear understanding of how the various components of open government fit together in a particular country context create uncertainty about the goals and objectives pursued under the umbrella of open government. Because the terms are interrelated and complementary to each other, establishing clear boundaries between them is key to successfully implementing open government initiatives. Principle 7.1 Before embarking on a project or initiative related to open government, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the terms open government, transparency, and open data and how they differ and relate to each other. When government professionals discuss or describe open government, they generally emphasize the role of open government in establishing “a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration.”1 However, for the purposes of this chapter, we understand open government as “a technological and institutional platform that transforms government data into public data, in order to allow usage by the public, protection of data from manipulation by government entities, and enhance collaboration with citizens on public decisions, accountability and the improvement of public services.”2 The term “transparency” presents a greater challenge as its meaning in the context of opening government is still being debated. According to some scholars,3 transparency in this context constitutes of two specific attributes—visibility and inferability. Visibility refers to the common concept of making objects visible, while inferability is understood as “that which can be inferred with some degree of accuracy.” While transparency is undoubtedly a key concept in open government, it is not synonymous with the term itself. Rather, transparency should be understood as a conceptual tool delimiting the boundaries between open and transparent, according to the degree of inferability and visibility as suggested by Michener and

McDermott, Patrice. 2010. “Building Open Government.” Government Information Quarterly 27 (4): 401–13. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.002 2 Sandoval Almazán, Rodrigo. 2013. La Larga Marcha Del Gobierno Abierto. Teoría, Medición Y Futuro. 1s ed. Mexico City, México: INAP. http://www.inap.mx/portal/images/pdf/book/larga_ marcha.pdf 3 Such as Michener, Greg, and Katherine Bersch. 2013. “Identifying Transparency.” Information Polity 18 (3): 233–42. doi:10.3233/IP-130299 1

82


Barsch. For the purposes of this chapter, we understand transparency as the conduct of public affairs in the open or otherwise subjected to public scrutiny.4 Finally, the concept of open data stresses the usefulness and the need for open format of data and databases. In other words, in order for data to be considered “open,” it has to fulfill certain standards of completeness, accuracy, accessibility, and format. Transforming government data into open data is expected to improve government collaboration and information sharing. We consider open government, transparency, and open data as complementary and interrelated concepts. Thus, we understand that open government includes open data principles and goes beyond those concepts to integrate several other components: (1) open government can be understood as a technological and institutional strategy that transforms government information from a citizen’s perspective; (2) citizens can protect,5 reuse, collaborate, or interact with information and data in several forms; and (3) as a result of this transformation, citizens are empowered to scrutinize public officials’ decisions and actions to enhance transparency and accountability. Once a firm understanding of terms and objectives is achieved, government entities are faced with the second step in developing open government ecosystems— prioritizing vast amount of data for release.

3 Prioritizing Data for Release Government entities are stewards of incredible amount of data—contemporary data that is collected on daily basis, as well as massive archives of historical data, some of which is still waiting to be digitized. Because of the volume, one of the most frequent questions asked by government officials is how much data do they need to release and what is the most effective way to do so. While governments should aim to release as much historical and contemporary data as possible, the sheer volume makes prioritization of datasets necessary. For instance, government agencies can use tools such as Google Analytics to identify most frequently asked questions or most frequently requested data to discern which data should be released. Another strategy government agencies can utilize is social media platforms inside government websites, such as Facebook or Twitter, to identify frequent concerns and needs by analyzing topics of discussions Birkinshaw, Patrick. 2006. “Freedom of Information and Openness: Fundamental Human Rights?”. Administrative Law Review 58 (1). American Bar Association: 177–218. http://www. jstor.org/stable/40712007. p. 189 5 The concept of data protection is more important in countries where government entities have been known to manipulate data and information after its release. The idea is that if information is released in an open format, the public can safeguard this information from subsequent changes by the government. 4

3 Prioritizing Data for Release

83

and debates. A more traditional strategy of conducting citizen surveys through email, focus groups, or paper method can also yield important information about relevant data and information. Government entities should strive to create a community interested in specific data to help expose new needs and enable a connection between citizens and organizations with similar information requirements. A Mexican example of this strategy is the program “Mejora tu escuela”6 (Improve your school), developed by the NGO Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad in 2009. This online platform seeks to promote citizens’ participation to improve education in Mexico—the platform allows citizens to search and learn about services offered by various schools, compare schools’ performance across cities and regions, submit their evaluation of a particular school, and express their opinions and concerns in respect to particular schools to help inform change and improvements. Because of previous lack of information related to school quality, this initiative has the potential to create a meaningful ecosystem for education data in Mexico. Another way to determine which data or information would provide the most value to the public at a particular time is to consider displaying information based on the time of the year. For instance, the government portal of the city of Merida, which is located on the Yucatán Peninsula, reserves a prominent spot on their website for weather alerts during the hurricane season and focuses its efforts on providing quality and timely weather information to keep its residents appraised of any potential weather threat. Once the hurricane season passes, the weather information takes on a much less prominent spot as other more pressing issues take precedence. Understanding information needs based on time periods, cycles, and seasons is essential to being able to display the most pressing information that corresponds to citizens’ needs at a specific point in time. Examples of such seasonal information would be tax filing information, school registration information, information about holiday celebration events, and many others. The process of opening government data is very complex as the sheer volume of data available for release and the accompanying challenges can seem overwhelming. Finding a way to prioritize what data should be released first is one way to help manage the process, which leads us to our second principle: Principle 7.2 Government organizations should invest time and effort into identifying potential users and their needs, to better understand which data should be prioritized before undertaking steps toward opening their data. Embarking on an open government initiative without careful planning can be not only time-consuming and costly but also ineffective. Governments that expand energy on releasing data without considering their audience can find themselves in a situation where data that is being released lacks the necessary value and relevance to attract significant use by the public, the media, or the academia.

Guadarrama (2016) Impacto Social de Mejora tu escuela. IMCO. Online: http://imco.org.mx/ articulo_es/el-impacto-social-de-mejora-tu-escuela/ 6

84


As we mentioned above, there are different activities government entities can undertake to understand citizens’ needs so they can proactively release information that they believe is relevant to certain segments of the public, whether they are citizens, nonprofits, businesses, or any other group. Identifying what kind of information would be relevant to their audience is an important step before releasing a new catalogue or database. Displaying information and data based on a specific segment of the population is a frequently used strategy. For instance, the Merida website (merida.gob.mx) provides not only general information covering issues such as transparency and tax information but also specific channels for families, business, and young people. Another portal using government information based on interests of a specific group is the Chilean Poderopedia website, a collaborative platform founded by and working on behalf of the media. This website provides graphical visualization of data provided by government entities and politicians to understand relationships between politicians, firms, and other organizations. Their commitment is to reuse released government data to provide transparency demanded by citizens. They use different strategies to build their visualizations, one of them being a hackathon “Journalism Needs Nerds,” which seeks to bring journalists and web developers together to help make the best use of data released by the Chilean government.7 There are different strategies government entities can employ to identify their users. Online communities, monitoring discussion topics on social media platforms, email requests, and data about frequently asked questions are some of the most common channels used to identify what data is most pertinent to certain population segments. The purpose of developing an open data ecosystem is to manage these needs with a systematic perspective in which users are at the center, with data and information release revolving around them. A crucial part of implementing an open government ecosystem is organizing government data in an efficient manner. In the next section, we focus on data catalogues and what characteristics make such catalogues effective in promoting meaningful access to government data.

4 Building Data Catalogues One recent open government strategy for maintaining data collections and increasing citizens’ interaction and access to data from public organizations is through building data catalogues. Because of the sheer amount of available government data, data catalogues are designed to become a one-stop portal where citizens can find government information and can compare, reuse, distribute, and create new datasets with available government data. The interface allows government to offer Gonzalez-Zapata, Felipe, and Richard Heeks. “The Multiple Meanings of Open Government Data: Understanding Different Stakeholders and Their Perspectives.” Government Information Quarterly, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.001 7

4 Building Data Catalogues

85

all available government data in one place, with each department being responsible for defining its data categories, named datasets, and ultimately publishing them.8 The importance of data catalogues as well as the importance of assessing their effectiveness in promoting open government has been recognized by both, government institutions and academic audience alike. Lourenco9 has developed a methodology to assess open government data catalogues, by analyzing data catalogues from Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States, using a model with a number component related to data disclosure: quality, completeness, access and visibility, usability, timeliness, value and usefulness, granularity, and comparability. Well-built data catalogues are becoming a stepping stone of an open government ecosystem. This linkage between government information and citizen needs is a key aspect of the open government idea, creating a new principle: Principle 7.3 Build data catalogues that use open formats to maximize data reusability and colloquial language to match citizens’ concerns. Building a data catalogue with basic characteristics, such as those described in the above principle, requires important transformations in data recording, storage, maintenance, release, and update. In the following sections, we will describe the characteristics in greater detail.

4.1 Open Format to Maximize Data Reuse Government information is created, maintained, and often released in a number of different formats such as SQL, MongoDB, Access, and others. It is important to implement a public policy that requires the release of data in standardized open formats to maximize data reusability and manipulation across different platforms. Open formats, sometimes also referred to as machine-readable formats, refer to formats that store information in a way that can be accessed by both proprietary and nonproprietary software. The formats exist across different data types, whether multimedia, such as audio and visual, or text and spreadsheets. In other words, data released in open formats allows for reuse and manipulation by any machine using any software. A frequently noted example refers to data released in a PDF format— while the data is technically released, such format is not conducive to data reuse as it is virtually impossible to convert such information into data that can be used and manipulated for other purposes.

Veljković, Nataša, Sanja Bogdanović-Dinić, and Leonid Stoimenov. 2011. “eGovernment Openness Index.” In 11th European Conference on eGovernment (ECEG 2011), 571–77. Ljubljana, Slovenia 9 For a ranking of open government data catalogues see Lourenço, Rui Pedro. 2015. “An Analysis of Open Government Portals: A Perspective of Transparency for Accountability.” Government Information Quarterly 32 (3): 323–32. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.006. 8

86


A data catalogue with open formats is best positioned to reduce obstacles and provide easy access. The best examples for open formats and other characteristics are the data catalogues from the United Kingdom (data.gov.uk) and the United States (data.gov). They have developed open formats without the use of PDF and allow direct access to files, data frames, and databases. These catalogues create the possibility to combine segments of different datasets in an innovative way to allow a more dynamic interaction. Another example of effective data catalogue is represented by a data catalogue maintained by the Ministry of Communication and Transport in Mexico. One of the commitments of the Open Government Partnership for Mexico was to release data from public investments, particularly roads, bridges, and highways. The project held by the Ministry released a government data catalogue with a dynamic interface that allowed reuse of data through an export function to other formats and files, also offering the possibility of visualization and comparison of data.10 Some public organizations are starting to promote sharing of unformatted data among their various departments and even between government entities. However, this open sharing does not always extend to the public. We believe that release of raw data through a portal interface or a data catalogue should become a standard practice for government entities.

4.2 Colloquial Language Additional challenge facing governments in respect to data is language. Government data is full of technical and legal terms that are often unknown to the public, which makes searching government data quite difficult for an ordinary citizen. Thus, data catalogues should not only store information but also provide an accessible translation and description of the technical terms to ordinary citizens. The data catalogue from India11 is one of the best examples of the use of colloquial language. The portal is tailored to citizen information needs by using appealing images and text to provide a commonsense understanding of what kind of data is stored in various datasets. The explicit wording and short sentences provide an easy access catalogue that any adult with basic education can understand. Also the data available through this catalogue—information about hospitals and daily market prices of commodities—reflects most common citizens’ needs. Avoiding government language allows citizens to get close to the data and interact with public officials.

Website is in Spanish only. https://www.datossct.gob.mx/dataset/BD-AGA-Alianza-de-GobiernoAbierto/923j-z7wv. 11 The Open Government Data Catalogue from India is on this webpage: https://data.gov.in/. 10

5 Promote Discussion and Data Sharing with the General Public

87

5 P romote Discussion and Data Sharing with the General Public One way to understand the degree of openness of government data is by assessing the degree to which government data has been disseminated and used by the public for nongovernmental purposes. Open government becomes a reality when government information becomes a public good that creates public value. Our fourth principle points in that direction: Principle 7.4 Promote data sharing and discussions with users to understand their information needs and data problems. The transparency website of the local Zacatecas government12 promotes its data by using social media platforms and allows users to create their own lists of data that they search for the most often. These user-generated lists are shared, and the users are graded and ranked for the number of lists they create or share with other users. The possibility to share “curated” data and online content gives the public an opportunity to discuss government information with family, friends, and even public officials. Users of the government platform can register using an email account or their Facebook profile, which allows them to instantaneously share information, collaborate, and publish their discussions, opinions, and comments. The immediacy of the social media platforms further encourages diffusion of the data and allows government to reach new potential users. Another example is the Mexican Migration and Transparency website,13 developed by a nonprofit organization Fundar Center for Analysis and Research, using official government data. This online platform containing declassified government information on migration and immigration policies is the result of 186 systematized information requests to the government. For example, the website reveals that the Migration Institute spent more than two million Mexican pesos (USD 105,000) on management activities in 2011 alone.14 The purpose of this website is to increase transparency, enhance debate, and design and monitor migration policies with a focus on human rights. Migration and Transparency is the result of a public initiative to collect, organize, and share government data. Promoting discussions and the use of government information to maintain interest of users is not the main objective of public officials, but it is an important component of any open government practice. The public will use government data and will discuss its implication if the data is interesting, easy to find, and well explained in the summary sections. The goal for the government webmaster is to provide the environ Zacatecas Transparency Portal: http://transparencia.zacatecas.gob.mx/ (in Spanish) Migration and Transparency website can be accessed through http://migracionytransparencia. org/. 14 Tellez (2014) Lanzan Plataforma sobre Migración y Transparencia. Published by NewsPaper EL Universal. Online: http://archivo.eluniversal.com.mx/periodismo-datos/2014/osc-lanzan-plataforma-sobre-migracion-y-transparencia-96308.html [last access: 2/18/2016]. 12 13

88


ment and tools for such discussion to happen. One of the ways governments can encourage data sharing is by incorporating social media platforms into their sites as social media platforms are designed to facilitate quick and easy information sharing and public discussion. Citizens who share data or information via their social media networks can help create “viral” content that can reach a different kind of user. Another example of how data can be used to create meaningful discussions was described by Gavin Newsom in his book Citizenville: How to Take the Town Square Digital and Reinvent Government. In his book, Newsom traces the origins of Crime Maps, a crowdsourcing website designed to not only display crime data from around the city of San Francisco but also involve citizens in reporting such data in real time.15 The site, which has later evolved into Crime Reports,16 was developed using an open-source crowdsourcing platform Ushahidi.17 These new tools let the public and government share and build data that support and inform government actions, alert the public about potential emergencies, and allow for discussion and feedback through widely used tools such as WhatsApp or Vine. Opening government data, however, does not open discussion and debate only between the government and the public. Opening government data has the potential to create meaningful dialogues and information sharing among the public, as well as among government agencies, helping solve complex problems such as managing government response to public disasters or creating a more effective public health campaign to combat HIV or diabetes. Creating such culture of open government, both inside and out, is the topic of the next section of this chapter.

6 C reate a Culture of Government Open Data: Inside and Outside Easy access to government data for all public entities, whether private citizens, media, or nonprofits, is the cornerstone of an open government ecosystem. However, if the end users are not aware of how to use the ecosystem in order to share the data, reuse it, or collaborate with it, the system will have only limited impact. Several scholars18 have suggested the idea of developing a culture of open government as Newsom, Gavin, and Lisa Dickey. 2013. Citizenville: How to Take the Town Square Digital and Reinvent Government. 1st ed. Westminster, London: The Penguin Press HC. http://www.amazon. com/dp/1594204721 16 This website can be consulted at https://www.crimereports.com/. 17 The Ushahidi website is an open-source tool designed to enable data sharing using visualization tools and data collection through mobile phones. http://www.ushahidi.com/ 18 Bertot and his colleagues explore the idea of promoting culture of transparency in their research. Bertot, John C, Paul T Jaeger, and Justin M Grimes. 2010. “Using ICTs to Create a Culture of Transparency: E-Government and Social Media as Openness and Anti-Corruption Tools for Societies.” Government Information Quarterly 27 (3). University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA: 264–71. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001. Other scholars conducted similar research. Clarke, Amanda, and Helen Margetts. 2014. “Governments and Citizens Getting to Know Each Other ? 15

6 Create a Culture of Government Open Data: Inside and Outside

89

the main path toward internalizing the change and creating a new culture of openness. Our fifth principle therefore states: Principle 7.5 Create a culture of open data, open government, and transparency inside and outside of government, utilizing capabilities of social media tools. The idea behind the need to create a culture of open data rests on the fact that majority of the public is not familiar with the terms of openness and open government and does not possess the skills necessary to take advantage of the available datasets. Developing a general culture of open data is crucial to developing a culture of open government—by introducing general concepts of open government, open data, and open access to the public, we create a populace that is capable of data use and reuse. One of the best examples of organizations promoting culture of data and openness is the School of Data,19 which provides the general public with short courses on data analysis, data mining, and introduction to data, as well as short lectures covering the fundamental concepts and ideas related to these topics. The second idea focuses on the type of data. Government data varies greatly, from weather monitoring to economic and infrastructure data, passing through public service, security, and health. Each one of these categories can be promoted differently based on the likely group of interested users. Other cases related to education apps that find schools or evaluate teachers are being currently developed.20 In Chile, there are a number of initiatives that promote culture of transparency among users and public officials. For instance, in 2010 a group of nonprofit organizations established the Transparency Consortium, which is a consortium that seeks to promote transparency, access to public information, and the use of that information by citizens. Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente (FCI) (Smart Citizen Foundation), which is a key member of the Transparency Consortium, has sought to promote the Consortium’s general agenda via lobbying for policy reforms and technological innovations (e.g., various applications that use public data and improve accountability of public officials and agencies) and further support for innovations within the civil society. Another example is Derechos Digitales (Digital Rights), which is a nongovernmental organization that focuses on rights within digital environments.21 Creating a culture of open government and transparency among government officials can result in greater willingness to share data in a proper way. Such culture can Open, Closed, and Big Data in Public Management Reform.” Policy & Internet 6 (4): 393–417. doi:10.1002/1944-2866.POI377. Yang, T.-M., J. Lo, and J. Shiang. 2015. “To Open or Not to Open? Determinants of Open Government Data.” Journal of Information Science, no. 1: 1–17. doi:10.1177/0165551515586715. 19 www.schoolofdata.org 20 More information about the CDC app can be found in Tolver (2013) CDC Mobile Tools published at Digital Gov. Online: https://www.digitalgov.gov/2013/05/16/cdc-mobile-tools/ [last access: 2-18-16]. 21 These examples were cited by Gonzalez-Zapata, Felipe, and Richard Heeks. “The Multiple Meanings of Open Government Data: Understanding Different Stakeholders and Their Perspectives.” Government Information Quarterly, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.001.

90


promote acceptance of principles such as reusable data, information sharing, collaboration, and coproduction, with government agencies imprinting their own style according to their information needs.

7 Importance of Multidisciplinary Teams While the need for interdisciplinary teams is important to virtually any IT government effort in government, it is particularly crucial for the creation of open government. Creating an open government ecosystem does not only require just the appropriate technical tools but also well-functioning teams able to implement these technologies, along with necessary policies, programs, and incentives. Building and maintaining effective multidisciplinary teams is difficult as all team members come with their own understanding and expectations in regard to what the objective of open government should be. Thus, our last principle states: Principle 7.6 Foster teamwork and multidisciplinary groups of people who will help with open data. In Mexico, open government portals are mandatory by law since 2001. However, many government entities are still struggling with building such portals. The local government of Zacatecas, a state in Mexico, wanted to release their government data through a traditional website but also incorporate social media tools into the portal. This would enable the public to share and comment on government data through their Twitter and Facebook accounts and also create their own favorite lists—like bookmarks—with their information and share it with their peers using social media platforms. In order to achieve this goal, the Office of Public Management hired an external consulting group, which consisted of people from different academic fields: a political science consultant who specialized in digital government implementation, an engineer and software developer to design and develop the new system, a database expert to migrate their databases into the new system, and a designer for graphics and a communication expert to understand the message and to classify the content. They worked with a government liaison and the official project manager for 6 months to design and implement the new system. They encountered technical as well as political challenges, such as legacy systems, incompatibility of databases, and outdated laws. Their most significant challenge revolved around the opening of historical data—from the technical standpoint as much of this information was not in a digital format or was in an outdated format and political standpoint due to the consideration of the impact of disclosing historical data. Despite these obstacles, the new functions and features of the system were developed on time thanks to the frequent interactions of the team members who shared their views and perspectives on how to present the data. The proof of concept was tested and launched after 10 months of hard collective work. The strength of a team will depend on the extent to which it consists of members representing different fields and disciplines. It is important to share views, discuss

8 Creating an Open Government Ecosystem

91

options, and understand different positions regarding data and the way it can be released. The viewpoint of a politician is not enough to understand citizens’ needs and the process of opening data. A successful project team has to incorporate the technical perspective of a software engineer and the view of a psychologist to understand the impact of different data on people’s lives, the view of a communication expert to ensure that data is released via the most effective channels, and the perspective of an information expert to consult on data classification and organization. The importance of teamwork in digital government and open government projects has been noted by several scholars.22 Building and maintaining interdisciplinary teams is an important component of building a well-functioning open government ecosystem that continuously produces new ideas, collects feedback, and encourages the public to reuse government data in innovative ways to create value and spur economic development.

8 Creating an Open Government Ecosystem According to Janssen and his colleagues,23 adoption of open government ecosystems often renders traditional planning and controls instruments ineffectual, forcing governments to develop new governance mechanisms to enable sufficient capabilities to deal with the interactivity within an open data ecosystem.24 The idea of open government ecosystem was introduced by Harrison and colleagues,25 to describe the interdependent social systems of actors, organizations, infrastructures, and other “symbolic resources that can be created in technology-enabled, information intensive social systems.” They propose multiple government ecosystems organized around practices and products of particular government units. This expands the potential of a single ecosystem but also involves an interaction among different institutions, citizens, and private sector organizations focusing their efforts on opening government. The purpose of this chapter was to introduce a process model for creating an open government ecosystem based on some practical principles. The six principles See Lathrop, Daniel, and Laurel Ruma. 2010. Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency and Participation in Practice. 1st ed. California, Usa: O’reilly. and Luna-Reyes, Luis F., Soon Ae Chun, and Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazan. 2012. “Collaborative e-government.” Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 6 (1): 5–12. doi:10.1108/17506161211214868. 23 Janssen, Marijn, Yannis Charalabidis, and Anneke Zuiderwijk. 2012. “Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government.” Information Systems Management 29 (4): 258–68. doi:10.1080/10580530.2012.716740 24 Yang, Tung Mou, and Yi Jung Wu. 2015. “Examining the Socio-Technical Determinants Influencing Government Agencies’ Open Data Publication: A Study in Taiwan.” Government Information Quarterly 33 (3). Elsevier Inc.: 378–92. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2016.05.003. (pág. 379) 25 Harrison, Teresa M., Theresa a. Pardo, and Meghan Cook. 2012. “Creating Open Government Ecosystems: A Research and Development Agenda.” Future Internet 4 (4): 900–928. doi:10.3390/ fi4040900 22

92


1. Clarify differences between open government, transparency and open data before embarking on a new project of openness.

6. Foster teamwork and multidisciplinary teams to tackle open data and open government projects.

2. Identify potential users or needs before openning the data in your organization.

5. Create a culture of open data inside and outside of government agencies taking advantage of the web 2.0 tools

3. Build data catalogues that reuse data, use open formats and colloquial language, and solve citizen’s needs.

4. Promote data sharing and discussions with users to understand their information needs and data problems.

Fig. 7.1 Open government ecosystem model

introduced in the paragraphs above form an integrated and reiterative process as described in Fig. 7.1. The process begins with coming to a joint understanding of open government, open data, and transparency, and how are these terms interrelated. Having a clear understanding and agreement on what you are trying to accomplish places important boundaries on the scope of your effort and helps you develop meaningful measures to assess your progress toward your goals. The second and third principles are directly related. Prioritizing data based on your primary stakeholders and their interests helps you determine which datasets should be released first. At the same time, building well-functioning data catalogues designed to allow for data reuse and easy searches is an effective strategy for making the prioritized data available to your users. The fourth and fifth principles are built upon the identification of primary stakeholder groups and suggest further strategies for creating communities

9 Final Comments

93

interested and capable of using government data under the open government umbrella. The culture of open data is the main fuel to foster discussions, to share data, and to start the engine of collaboration and coproduction with public officials. Without establishing a culture of openness in the government and the public, open government will become a simple repository for government data, rather than a transformative force. And last but not least, the sixth principle highlights the importance of multidisciplinary implementation teams. Because the process of building open government ecosystem is reiterative, it is important to include perspectives of people from different disciplines and to engage them throughout the whole model. The purpose of the team is to combine the different disciplines and expertise to improve the open government effort that is a combination of technology—catalogues, ICT, and social media—with people’s actions and behaviors originating from the opening of government data. As mentioned above, the process is reiterative because of the fluid nature of the technology as well as political developments. Organizations move around this model at different pace based on their organizational context, capabilities, and needs. Regardless of where they are in the cycle, it is helpful to identify the stage they are in to prepare themselves for the next step in the process and identify possible barriers or drivers that they need to address in order to continue their progress. In sum, the open government ecosystem model is designed to help government agencies promote open government efforts and help government professionals design policies to promote the use and reuse of government data by government and the public alike.

9 Final Comments For vast majority of governments around the world, open government is an ongoing goal rather than a finished project. With the rate of technological innovation and change, new challenges and topics continue to come to light such as personal data and privacy, data safety, and creation of necessary policies to delineate and maintain privacy boundaries. At the same time, governments are grappling with how to define, treat, and safeguard sensitive and classified information and manage the ever-increasing rate of data creation by government and nongovernment entities. One way to deal with these challenges is by building a consolidated open government ecosystem. As we saw above, such process should consist of a number of integrated and reiterative principles. Open government implementation is not an isolated topic; instead, it is a series of tasks, regulations, and cultural changes inside the government organization. While implementation of an open government ecosystem faces many challenges, following an effective process such as the one described above will help overcome them.

Chapter 8

Fostering Citizen Engagement

Abstract Governments have long attempted to actively engage with their citizens. With the advent of new communication tools fueled by the wide availability of Internet, two-way interaction between the public and government entities has become easier. However, just like with any other new tool, government agencies must learn how to incorporate social media platforms into their existing organization and how to use them effectively. The aim of this chapter is to present general principles for social media use in government related to general strategy, project implementation, organizational pitfalls, rules, and procedures for interaction. We expect that technologies will improve not only citizen engagement but also bureaucracy and cost efficiency of the government actions. Summary Points • This chapter discusses the role of social media tools in fostering two-way communication and engagement between government entities and the public. • It also describes the impact of social media adoption on government organizational structure and its benefits for citizens. • We present recommendations for improving the odds of success in implementing social media communication strategies. Initial Case In 2010, the Mexican Secretariat of Health analyzed health data from the state of Puebla and discovered that the leading causes of death in the state were noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) such as diabetes, high blood pressure, or cardiovascular diseases. According to long-standing medical research, these particular diseases may be preventable to a degree through improved access to healthy diet and opportunities for exercise. In response, the Secretary of Health of the state of Puebla created the Puebla Sana program, designed to promote healthy diet and active lifestyle among Puebla’s young residents. Given the target demographic, the strategy relied on traditional as well as digital communication channels to raise health awareness and create a positive health impact in Puebla. One component of Puebla Sana was a social marketing program, in which healthy habits would be “sold” to the public as © Springer International Publishing AG 2017 R. Sandoval-Almazán et al., Building Digital Government Strategies, Public Administration and Information Technology 16, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60348-3_8

95

96

8 Fostering Citizen Engagement

preventive measures to give them control over their own health. To develop this strategy, the Secretary of Health hired a consulting group, which was tasked with choosing appropriate digital channels and developing management processes for the initiative. The consulting group ultimately decided to use the most ubiquitous social media tools—Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube—and developed procedures to manage the various stages of the media presence from account and content creation to addressing incoming citizen questions and comments. In addition, the consulting group was also asked to create a marketing campaign that would help publicize the social program and Internet presence of the Secretariat of Health to their target demographic—young people. However, despite the best intentions, challenges arose within the first few months of the initiative’s launch, which forced the Secretary to respond quickly by hiring a new consulting firm to ensure successful implementation. The new company reacted to the challenges by reassigning responsibility for the social media platforms to a different government unit and changing the type of message and the way the Secretariat responded to comments or questions received from the public.

1 Introduction While use of social media tools by government entities is relatively new, the challenge of encouraging citizen engagement and collaboration is a long-standing issue around the world. However, the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies, along with ubiquitous adoption and availability of Smartphones, is creating an unprecedented opportunity for greater levels of public engagement driven mainly by the ease of use and immediacy of social media channels. There are many different ways governments and political entities around the world use social media. The most frequent use most citizens are familiar with is social media use by political campaigns, whether it is on behalf of a candidate or a specific cause. While such use has significantly changed the way political campaigns engage with citizens, in this chapter we focus on social media use by local, state, and federal agencies to foster engagement and collaboration, build communities of users, and improve delivery of public services. As described in previous chapters, implementation of digital government projects often presents several challenges for government entities. Adoption of social media tools by government agencies is no different, forcing governments to adapt their traditional, formal, one-way communication style and organization to a media that is informal, instantaneous, and multidirectional. In the rest of this chapter, we draw on our research and experience to highlight lessons and principles in four areas of social media management: (1) creating general strategy; (2) managing project implementation; (3) developing organization, rules, and procedures for interaction; and (4) avoiding organizational pitfalls.

2 Creating General Strategy

97

2 Creating General Strategy In the initial years when government entities first started exploring how to best use social media, many departments started using social media tools without a broader strategy of how the tools fit in with the organization’s goals and existing communication efforts. As governments grew more sophisticated in their use, they quickly realized that they needed to treat social media adoption as any other project in respect to the need for a broader strategy for their social media initiative.1 In the following paragraphs, we highlight a small number of strategies for successful implementation of social media in a government entity. Our first principle focuses on the old idea of planning content ahead as part of a broader marketing or communication plan. The same principle should be applied to government’s use of social media; public officials can take advantage of the fact that they know much of the information in advance, so they can decide how and when to release it. A social media strategy should incorporate different tools that enable agencies to communicate with their target audience in a variety of ways. For instance, Snapchat and Twitter can be used in combination with Facebook, which allows for posting of longer text and more substantive content. Additionally, by incorporating several platforms to disseminate the same message, government entities are better positioned to reach diverse groups of users. The use of traditional media, such as radio, TV, or newspaper, can complement a social media strategy to further increase dissemination of the government message. Our initial case of Puebla Sana successfully used this strategy to promote healthy habits to the citizens of the state of Puebla. Principle 8.1 Design a social media strategy with a clear objective using different social media and traditional communication platforms. An important lesson from the Puebla Sana project was the need for effective messaging and multichannel communication campaign. Regardless of which social media platforms are used, the effectiveness of the overall campaign depends largely on well-designed content. Developing content for social media is different from writing a blog or a traditional press statement. The different characteristics and functions of every platform—140 characters for Twitter, a complete post on Facebook, just an image on Instagram, or a video image for Periscope—are challenging to integrate to produce a consistent message. Thus, it is necessary to decide which social media tools should be used and what is the purpose of the message. A wrong message on a wrong channel can create a negative image for the government agency and cause diminished credibility in the long term. It is important to maintain a good fit between the type of content and social media channel to reach the targeted population to obtain their feedback, participation, or collaboration in public programs. Principle 8.2 Content is first; media channel is second. See research from Ruddell, Rick, and Nicholas Jones. 2013. “Social Media and Policing: Matching the Message to the Audience.” Safer Communities 12 (2): 64–70. doi:10.1108/17578041311315030.

1

98


Fig. 8.1 Example of social media balance between image and text

Another key element of the general strategy is the appropriate use of images on different platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat. Images are often more effective in attracting attention and communicating a message. Remember the motto “an image is worth more than a thousand words.” The use of well-selected images enhances the probability that government content will be noticed and remembered by users. However, it needs to be accompanied by text that compliments the image, provides information, or leads to a link to video or website. A Spanish municipality, called the Twitter Township, has linked its police cars, mayor’s office, and the street cleaners with Twitter accounts, so people can communicate with them through this platform. An example of a complimentary posting of text and images is provided by @barredoraJun (sweepJun) about his work (see Fig. 8.1). The translation from the photo is “Good Morning!!! After the storm comes the calm, my brushes clean everything!!! Happy Monday!!!” While it is sometimes difficult to find the proper image on a moment’s notice, certain images can be planned ahead as part of the general social media plan. Forward planning can help make your communication more effective.

2 Creating General Strategy

99

Principle 8.3 Balance appealing images with clear and consistent text. The goal of every government entity when communicating with citizens is to increase their trust in government actions. How can social media help with this goal? There are many answers to this question, but the national police from Spain found Twitter to be a direct path to increasing trust in their police squads. The account @policia has more followers (2.36 millions) than the FBI account (1.67 millions). There are numerous differences between these two accounts; Criado and Rojas-Martin2 provide four of them: • Availability—must be available when required. • Language—you must use informal language. In the case of @policia, the officers sometimes use language of the street that sometimes surprises people. • Content should include little corporate information and a lot of public service information useful for citizens. • Trust—once an institution selects the team to manage their social networks, they must enjoy a large degree of autonomy. Principle 8.4 Create and maintain conversations with citizens using social media platforms in order to build trust. Social media platforms, such as Pinterest, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, or Snapchat, are channels that enable you to send information in a fast and viral way; but the main goal is to increase interaction with citizens and build a conversation through answering questions, concerns, claims, or critiques. This function must be performed by the person responsible for social media—community manager, communication officer, or others. As an example, on September 16, 2013, the Spanish @policia published the following tweet: If you are tempted to play like #BreakingBad, you must know that you are going to end like #PrisonBreak. In real life, playing with drugs drives you to end very bad.

This playful idea to use Twitter to provoke debate and call attention to a specific topic introduces novelty and freshness to government dialogue with citizens. Creating engaging conversations or trending topics is not easy; however, it represents a link with reality. Development of a coherent strategy to achieve goals—more users, more interaction, fast response, and community building—in different periods of time or according to different seasons of the year will add more value rather than only being reactive and only communicating in case of emergency. Principle 8.5 Promote conversations with specific segments of the population in order to promote collaboration with citizens.

Criado, J. Ignacio y Rojas-Martin, Francisco (eds) (2013). Las redes sociales digitales en la gestión y las políticas públicas. Barcelona: Escola d’Administració Pública de Catalunya. Available at: http://americo.usal.es/iberoame/sites/default/files/criado_redes_sociales_digitales.pdf. 2

100


A complementary principle for social media government strategy focuses on the functions and characteristics of Twitter and Facebook and links with other platforms. The short phrases used by hashtags are extraordinarily helpful for three reasons: (1) they help you focus your audience; (2) they help improve geographical reach of the tweet; and (3) they assist with organizing and prioritizing your messages. The use of #Alabama or #Mexico will direct the message to those regions. All of this will help direct your message to a specific type of population that will connect with the government organization and then resend this message. Otherwise, messages are sent to the Twitter universe and go nowhere. The second idea of this principle is to use links in order to share videos and websites or even blog entries. This is useful particularly in the case of Twitter with its limited number of characters, but also can be used for Facebook and other social media tools to highlight the text but direct to another source: video or website. The purpose of this sharing is to expand the scope of the content by using viral tools, but also promote the interaction from the users through different channels—video or text—that increase the possibility of participation, exchange, and start a conversation. Principle 8.6 Use hashtags and links—to video, websites, and other social media platforms—in your posts to expand content interaction. A final principle for developing social media strategy is the use of group messages. Some social media platforms such as Twitter and YouTube have lists in which it is possible to send messages to a group of users. WhatsApp and Snapchat also have a similar feature. The case of Facebook is little different, because groups are organized on fan pages or group pages with restricted access, so the only way to send group messages is to become a member as well. Group message is an important feature to reach target audiences. One part of the general social media strategy is to identify our intended audience and develop specific messages for them. This kind of “personalization” helps engage citizens inside their own communities and promotes more viral exposure of government content; it also allows the possibility to create communities. Principle 8.7 Focus your audience by sending messages to groups using lists on Twitter and YouTube and groups on WhatsApp and Snapchat. The purpose of these seven principles is to help government entities build strategies for the use of social media. These principles summarize previous research and consulting experiences. However, they are not the only ones and they continue to change as technologies evolve. These principles should thus be continuously adapted to such changes, and new principles should be created as needed to better respond to reality and government needs.

3 Project Implementation

101

3 Project Implementation Government entities use social media tools to interact with citizens, but in many cases this interaction is not guided by principles or well-developed communication strategy.3 Social media tools are commonly used as reactive platforms to answer questions or claims from citizens and deliver different kind of information related to their agency.4 However, public officials are increasingly becoming aware of the importance of social media and prefer to create specific projects to reach individual goals—legitimacy, increased brand prestige, larger audience, etc.—to achieve an overarching objective for their department. The best advice we can provide to those agencies is to use multidisciplinary teams to generate a communication strategy. Along with communication professionals, psychologists and journalists are often members of such teams, along with lawyers, political scientists, and public administration officials. The goal of such teams is to generate better ideas and integrate proposals from different fields, creating a consistent proposal for social media. The multidisciplinary nature of such teams is especially helpful in emergencies and crises, when expertise from different disciplines provides a more comprehensive view of the situation and possible solutions. Principle 8.8 Develop a social media strategy with a multidisciplinary teamwork to generate ideas, crisis response, and content agenda. The use of online social media in government is widely covered by academics and practitioners. Some of them developed a collection of ideas and guidelines designed to improve social media projects. From the practitioners’ perspective, the US National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) has published “Friends, Followers and Feeds: A National Survey of Social Media Use in State Government.” The Center for Technology in Government (CTG) has developed the “Designing Social Media Policy for Government: Eight Essential Elements.” A most recent work was published by Ramilo Araujo in Spanish “Claves Some scholars have done recent research about this: Hao, xiaoling, Daqing Zheng, Qingfeng Zeng, and Weiguo Fan. 2016. “How to Strengthen the Social Media Interactivity of E-Government.” Online Information Review, February. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/OIR-03-2015-0084?journalCode=oir. Another example includes the work by Sandoval-Almazan, Rodrigo, and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia. 2012. “Government-Citizen Interactions Using Web 2.0 Tools: The Case of Twitter in Mexico.” In Web 2.0 Technologies and Democratic Governance, edited by Christopher G. Reddick, 12:233–48. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. doi:10.1016/S0267-3649(96)90014-X. 4 This research is about the virtual interaction about users and police. Authors show that most platforms are reactive. Brainard, L A, and J G McNutt. 2010. “Virtual Government-Citizen Relations: Informational, Transactional, or Collaborative?” Administration & Society 42. Brainard, LA George Washington Univ, Trachtenberg Sch Publ Policy & Publ Adm, 805 21st St,NW,Suite 601, Washington, DC 20052 USA George Washington Univ, Trachtenberg Sch Publ Policy & Publ Adm, 805 21st St, NW, Suite 601, Washington, DC 20052 USA George Was:836–58. doi: 10.1177/0095399710386308. 3

102


Para Aprovechar En El Sector Público Las Redes Sociales Digitales de Manera Profesional” (Keys to taking advantage of social media tools in the public sector from a professional perspective).5 Ines Mergel has developed three interesting reports in 2014 that can be used as guidelines or ideas to expand projects of social media in public administration6: • A Manager’s Guide to Assessing the Impact of Government Social Media Interactions • Working the Network: A Manager’s Guide for Using Twitter in Government • Using Wikis in Government: A Guide for Public Managers

Principles 8.8 and 8.9 provide different perspectives on project implementation of social media in public administration. Multidisciplinary teamwork is essential to developing social media; the aforementioned reports can provide useful guidelines for improving interaction and development of different strategies and projects. Principle 8.9 Use guidelines or manuals to improve social media implementation in government.

4 Organization, Rules, and Procedures for Interaction Introducing social media tools into government organizations often creates challenges associated with reorganization of roles and responsibilities, as well as the need to changing long-established procedures and policies. Some entities create new departments to accomplish their goals; others simply reorganize their communication teams to include responsibility for social media content. While the position of communication manager generally remains, the functions of this position in respect to social media can be shared with others, such as public relations or the entity’s press spokesperson. Use of social media platforms often forces agencies to adapt the organizational tasks into a new flow of information: creating content, receiving messages, and managing digital government portals.

References for the studies: Hrdinová, Jana, Natalie Helbig, and Catherine Stollar Peters. 2010. “Designing Social Media Policy for Government: Eight Essential Elements.” Albany, New York. https://www.ctg.albany. edu/publications/guides/social_media_policy. [Last Access; May 25, 2016] NASCIO. 2010. “Friends, Followers and Feeds. A National Survey of Social Media Use in State Government.” 201 East Main Street, Suite 1405 Lexington, KY 40507: National Association of Chief Information Officers. Online: http://www.nascio.org/Surveys/ArtMID/557/ArticleID/145/ Friends-Followers-and-Feeds-A-National-Survey-of-Social-Media-Use-in-State-Government. [Last Access; May 25, 2016] Ramilo Araujo, Mentxu. 2016. “Claves Para Aprovechar En El Sector Público Las Redes Sociales Digitales de Manera Profesional. (in Spanish) Online http://www.novagob.org/file/ view/179671/novagob-estudios-claves-paraaprovechar-en-el-sector-publico-las-redes-socialesdigitales-de-manera-profesional.[Last Access; May 25, 2016]. 6 These three reports can be consulted online: http://www.businessofgovernment.org/content/ social-mediastrategies-government [Last Access; May 25, 2016]. 5

4 Organization, Rules, and Procedures for Interaction

103

Principle 8.10 The use of social media tools requires the creation of new organizational roles oriented toward content creation, media management, and the development of social media strategy. Organizational changes, such as the ones described above, require creation of new rules and clear delineation of roles and responsibilities for affected employees. Tlalnepantla municipality in Mexico was a unique county in a recent survey of social media describing changes in their structure. They created the position of a coordinator for government social media content with specific roles and responsibilities. On the other hand, the municipality of Naucalpan has decentralized their social media along its 23 agencies and has a coordinator for each one that reports to the chief of staff from the mayor’s office.7 A new structure or organizational change leads to new challenges stemming from new roles and rules for employees, especially when it comes to official social media channels. In some municipalities in Mexico, it is normal that with every new election the incoming public officials find that social media accounts were used as personal property of their predecessors. Recovering control of such channels and accounts can be difficult and time consuming, creating harmful disruption to the flow of information. Gavin Newsom8 described that something similar happened in San Francisco with one employee of the electric company who would not let them have access to sign in the control room with his password. These experiences lead us to the next principle in order to avoid those kinds of risks. Principle 8.11 Define employee roles, rules, and tasks to create an efficient and reliable information flow for social media tools. In order to safeguard government social media channels, the government entity must establish guidelines or regulations clearly defining roles and responsibilities—who owns the account, who is authorized to post, who is responsible for timely responses, and so on. These guidelines should also include rules about content, defining what kind of posts, information, links, formats, and language can be distributed using official social media platforms. Having clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities, as well as the content guidelines, is crucial to effective use of social media channels. Additionally, government entities should define policies for acceptable use as described by Hrdinová, Helbig and Peters9 “acceptable use policies outline an organization’s position on how employees are See Sandoval Almazán, Rodrigo, and Juan Carlos Núñes Armas. 2016. “Social Media Experiences at County Level: The Case of the State of Mexico.” In Smarter as the New Urban Agenda, edited by J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Theresa A. Pardo, and Taewoo Nam, 1st ed., 279–95. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17620-8. 8 Newsom, Gavin, and Lisa Dickey. 2013. Citizenville: How to Take the Town Square Digital and Reinvent Government. 1st ed. Westminster, London: The Penguin Press HC. http://www.amazon. com/dp/1594204721. 9 Hrdinová, Jana, Natalie Helbig, and Catherine Stollar Peters. 2010. “Designing Social Media Policy for Government: Eight Essential Elements.” Albany, New York. https://www.ctg.albany. edu/publications/guides/social_media_policy. [Last Access; May 25, 2016]. 7

104


expected to use agency resources, restrictions on social media use for personal interests, and consequences for violating the policy….” Differentiation between agency, professional, and personal use of social media is important in order to produce effective strategies and messages and ensure appropriate use of social media for professional purposes. Principle 8.12 Define the acceptable use for social media platforms in your agency. Due to the ubiquity of social media tools in our everyday lives, many government professionals are proficient in using social media platforms. While personal use differs quite significantly from official use, some of the principles of effective communication remain the same. The skills and expertise of their employees in respect to social media can be an asset for a government agency as it works toward developing effective strategies and communication plans, as well as content. At the same time, this further underlines the importance of assigning clear roles and responsibilities and selecting a champion for social media use. As we have seen in some of the examples mentioned above, having a champion leader that acts and behaves to promote social media inside the organization is crucial to successful adoption of social media tools. Principle 8.13 Identify a champion for social media use in your office, and use their skills and experience on your agency’s behalf. Just as with any other project that requires investment of time and resources, social media projects need to be evaluated to ensure that government entities are achieving their desired objectives. There are several tools that government entities can use to help measure the impact of their social media channels and help them manage their use. Most of these tools are free; others can be obtained for small fee such as Hootsuite or Buffer, which are dashboards that help organize content, program, and schedule posts. Klout measures the level of impact of social media tools. Social Bro, TweetReach, and Tweriod are among many others that are already on the web. Principle 8.14 Use the statistics provided by the Internet-based apps to verify if you are achieving your objectives. These five principles of organization, rules, and procedures intend to set the baseline for any project or action inside government agencies that promote social media. The ideas of managing accounts with public officials; developing rules, roles, and guidelines; and fostering champions of social media are basic paths for implementation of social media strategies at any level of public administration.

5 Organization Pitfalls in Government Use of Social Media The use and implementation of social media in government is a learning process. However, the learning curve is exponential and always changing; new tools, platforms, and language arrive as technology evolves. Accordingly, mistakes are part of

5 Organization Pitfalls in Government Use of Social Media

105

the learning process. Government professionals should be aware of three main pitfalls that appear most frequently. The following principles are designed to help government entities address these challenges. Principle 8.15 Use policies, rules, or guidelines to improve your communication using social media tools with citizens. Policy could be an obstacle or a blessing. It could help us to protect data and personal information or reserve some sensitive data from the government. But nowadays, with the open government movement, this is changing very fast. The best way to deal with this challenge is to be aware of the new policies, rules, and guidelines to improve communication and consider this institutional arrangement as an ally rather than an enemy of communication. The Tlalnepantla municipality has developed a code of conduct for Facebook. It places it in their fan page and let their users to know that they will erase any post using bad words or making any kind of aggressive expression to public officials. Many of their users complain at first sight and ask for a reply; they send the code and then the language and complaint change their tone. The use of policy and guidelines can help frame new behaviors and regulate actions by public officials and citizens. Let us use it as a complement for the social media strategy, not as an obstacle. Principle 8.16 Social media does not lend itself well to formal announcements. Use an informal style of communication, be honest, and get a voice. An important part to establishing a connection with citizens and maintaining a long-term conversation is the use of informal language. If the messaging on social media channels mirrors formal communication channels, such as website or press releases, it is unlikely that the public will be willing to engage. Social media channels demand informal, “human” communication that allows government entities to create a connection with the public. Social media tools are not designed to provide long explanations or to communicate details about new laws, bills, or agreements; such information can be provided by including a link to the agency’s website. Principle 8.17 Treat negative comments as constructive criticisms and respond without being defensive. Refer to the agency strategy, think twice before answering, and consult others about the type of answer you plan to post. Finally, given the conversational nature of social media, government entities need to prepare themselves for responding to any feedback from the public, including critical comments and complaints. It is important to treat these as an opportunity to engage constructively, rather than react defensively or not respond at all. A response protocol should be part of any social media strategy to ensure that the person responsible for social media communication can effectively respond to any type of feedback without causing negatively impacting the entity’s image or raising legal questions. Responding effectively is often easier when a team of people from the entity’s various areas of responsibility are involved. An effective and timely response to a critical comment can often present the agency in a positive light.

106


6 Final Comments The aim of this chapter was to provide its readers with a few basic principles for using social media platforms for government communication. We cover general strategies in the first section; provide a couple of principles for project implementation; give some principles for organization, rules, and procedures for interaction; and, finally, highlight three commonly made mistakes and provide advice on how to avoid them. While social media is easy to talk about, its impact is difficult to assess, and formulating solutions is difficult as each challenge in this field is relatively new and there is only a few years of experience to draw on. We are just opening the door to understanding the impact of social media on government interaction with citizen. There are many paths to explore and understand.

Chapter 9

Conclusions

The purpose of this book is to present a set of principles that government professionals may use to guide them through building a strategy for digital government projects and managing their implementation. The chapters included in this book covered several strategic principles related to digital government initiatives including overall strategy, project design and management, financing strategies, collaboration, citizen engagement, and open government data. We believe that the different elements of digital government projects that were discussed are not implemented as separate parts, but rather in an integrated fashion, which makes them complex and difficult to implement. However, despite these difficulties, digital government efforts provide potential solutions for diverse types of challenges such as addressing demands for information openness and sharing, facilitating greater levels of citizen engagement, or enhancing security. In the end, digital government should create public value to citizens and the society as a whole. In this final chapter, we conclude by reflecting on seven challenges that are drawn from the principles presented throughout this book. 1 . Create and empower a chief information officer (CIO). 2. Adopt flexible and agile information technology project management and implementation practices. 3. Increase citizen engagement through coproduction, peer-to-peer production, and participation. 4. Develop an open data ecosystem encompassing citizens, NGOs, and government agencies. 5. Develop funding strategies to financially support digital government projects and develop accountability mechanisms. 6. Build a permanent collaboration network to engage public managers from multiple agencies in digital government projects. 7. Utilize social media tools to engage citizens and public managers in solving social problems. © Springer International Publishing AG 2017 R. Sandoval-Almazán et al., Building Digital Government Strategies, Public Administration and Information Technology 16, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60348-3_9

107

108

9 Conclusions

The following sections expand on each of the seven challenges and relate them to the principles introduced throughout the book.

1 Create and Empower a Chief Information Officer (CIO) Scholars and government professionals have long recognized digital government projects as powerful strategies for solving tangled and wicked problems—problems without a unique and simple solution. At the same time, digital government projects are frequently complicated and dynamic in nature. One way to deal with the complexity of digital government projects is to understand the different aspects of the initiative and the necessary organizational adjustments before embarking on actual implementation. Such preplanning and conceptualizing activities require strong coordination and leadership to ensure that the necessary time and resources are allocated. The position of a CIO can play a pivotal role in providing such support and preparing government organizations to deal with tangled and wicked problems. The role of the CIO is important not only in terms of conceptualizing and preplanning digital government initiatives (Chap. 3) but also in developing an overarching digital government strategy that generates public value for citizens (Chap. 2). In addition, CIOs decide how to prioritize digital government projects and investments and how to obtain and use financial, human, and material resources for digital government initiatives (Chap. 4). More recently, CIOs are considered not only the managers of technology and informational resources but also the leaders in a networked environment in which interorganizational collaboration is the norm (Chap. 5). Finally, CIOs are also key actors in decisions regarding the adoption and use of new technologies and strategies such as open government (Chap. 7) and social media (Chap. 8), which not only promote internal changes but also new ways of interacting with citizens and other stakeholders. Thus, the existence and the degree of organizational authority of the CIO are key to the success of digital government. Many governments around the world are still struggling with creating the CIO position. In some cases, technology is seen purely as a tool to support other functions of the organization, and the need for a strategic vision is not acknowledged in the areas of data and technology. In other cases, digital government is not seen as a priority, and it is difficult to justify the value of a CIO position in terms of the achievement of the substantive goals of a specific government agency. Creating and empowering the CIO position will continue to be important in the near future since many of the challenges to digital government are enduring and there are always additional challenges derived from the use of emergent technologies and innovative strategies. CIOs are or could become the catalysts of digital government projects and strategies. Their role is central in leading, coordinating, and inspiring technical and program staff in terms of appreciating the strategic value of information and technologies in the public sector. Without an empowered CIO and the clear support of top government officials, the likelihood of success of digital government projects and strategies is significantly reduced and the value generated for citizens will be limited.

3 Increase Citizen Engagement Through Coproduction, Peer-to-Peer Production…

109

2 A dopt Flexible and Agile Information Technology Project Management and Implementation Practices As mentioned before, a large number of information technology projects are complex, are large scale, and require constant adaptations and modifications. This need for adaptation stems from the fact that most of these projects involve application of software tools that are continuously developed and whose functionalities are being continuously changed. In order to effectively manage information technology project development and have tangible results in the short term, it is necessary to adopt project management methodologies that are agile and flexible and allow public managers to develop projects incrementally. For example, Chap. 6 offers a set of principles addressing issues such as project organization, documentation, and use of prototypes designed to help government organizations adopt such methods. Agile project management methodologies allow projects to be properly conceptualized and developed while at the same time involving all stakeholders in the development process. More and more projects require multiple approaches to be implemented, that is why we need to follow a flexible and agile implementation. The widespread trend to leverage resources and knowledge of the entire organization is also being adopted in the government sector. The use of methodologies that have been tested in a variety of situations allows agencies to take advantage of the lessons learned by other organizations in at least two ways. On one hand, it can help accelerate the implementation of digital government projects to respond quickly to the demands of both government agencies and citizens. On the other hand, these methodologies help develop a culture of continuous improvement and organizational learning, allowing active and meaningful participation of public managers and other stakeholders by contributing ideas and thus enriching the results of digital government projects. We do not know the future of project management; however, we know that current trends include multi-stakeholder collaboration, multicausal problems and challenges, and lack of resources to implement solutions. We expect that different approaches using information technologies and other emergent technologies will foster more solutions in the project management field in the near future. Similarly, we hope that recent advancements in project management and software development improve the implementation and management of digital government projects. We strongly believe that one of them is agile and flexible strategies.

3 I ncrease Citizen Engagement Through Coproduction, Peer-to-Peer Production, and Participation Public managers, and our society as a whole, face complex problems that are difficult to solve. Government entities need to expand and explore innovative solutions and new feasible alternatives. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century,

110

9 Conclusions

governments have increasingly looked to open innovation and citizen participation as one way to increase the number and variety of potential solutions. The living labs in the European Union constitute an example of how government innovation may result from a collective effort of citizens, government agencies, and private institutions. Most living labs involve a three-way partnership with private and public organizations and citizens to solve problems in a city or a region. By incorporating citizens’ input in design and decision-making, the living labs contribute to solving problems in a different way. Moreover, the approach has the potential to transform the relationships between the government and the civil society. This book introduces several principles and recommendations addressing both private and citizen engagement in government actions. For example, Chap. 5 discusses institutional and organizational factors required for establishing collaboration networks. Additionally, Chap. 8 discusses how social media tools can help government entities engage the public on a greater level. For example, the Puebla Sana program described in the chapter introduces the use of social media to engage citizens in improving public health. Both processes rely on reinforcing dynamics depending on trust, leadership, participation, and collaboration. While cultivating engaging relationship with the public is challenging for government organizations, the negative consequences of government isolation from citizens are enormous. Active engagement with the public provides opportunities for immediate feedback and service improvement, which is becoming increasingly important given the complex challenges governments are facing. An isolated government is determined to fail in the long term. The future of citizen participation will be built on the transformation of interactions, whether it uses technology as the primary source or not. Citizens’ use of social media, cyberactivism, or physical networking will increase their demands for participation and collaboration with the government. Public administration professionals will need more alternatives to face the demands from different channels.

4 D evelop an Open Data Ecosystem Encompassing Citizens, NGOs, and Government Agencies The global trend toward government openness presents a unique set of challenges for most governments around the world. So far, government efforts have succeeded to some extent in the publication of open data sets, but have been less successful in promoting data use and application development. One way to address this issue is by promoting an ecosystem that organizes data owners, application developers, and citizens to create value by using government data and information. Concrete problems have proven to be effective organizers of such ecosystems through open data collaboratives, which usually involve universities, research centers, private actors, and government agencies in preparing and using data for evidence-based problem- solving and decision-making.

5 Develop Funding Strategies to Financially Support Digital Government Projects…

111

Chapter 7 describes several principles to achieve such goal: build data catalogues, prioritize data, use colloquial language, promote data sharing, and foster teamwork, among others. Data sharing can also be improved by using social media tools, well-designed apps, and other information intermediaries. In addition, as described in Chap. 2, the open government trend is seen by the majority of countries as part of their digital government strategies, considering open government as one of their core objectives. A key challenge involves identifying business models to support sustainable data use. Given the information intensive era in which we live, it is clear that the trend toward greater government openness represents a significant shift. It is important to recognize that government openness is not simply measured by the amount of released data but rather by the quality and timeliness of information released, the degree of ease of information access, and the extent to which citizens, businesses, and other stakeholders are using the information to create public value. Citizens, mass media, corporations, and other government agencies increase their expectations about open data every day, which makes it challenging for government organizations as they adapt to new technologies and information requirements and solve the information needs for the present and the future. We argue that understanding and developing an open government ecosystem could be a powerful strategy to increase the public value generated by these initiatives. Recognizing the role of different actors within the ecosystem is a first step toward this goal. Without a doubt, future research needs to pay special attention to the citizen side of the data ecosystem to better understand value creation and data use from the citizen perspective.

5 D evelop Funding Strategies to Financially Support Digital Government Projects and Develop Accountability Mechanisms Financing a digital government initiative is a challenging mission when different collaborators and requirements come from a complex management cycle involving planning, programming, budgeting, operating, monitoring, and evaluating. A thoughtful analysis of the financial aspects of a digital government initiative increases its chances for a successful adoption. Financial management is a difficult element in digital government projects, but it is also one of the most critical factors for a successful implementation. Understanding the boundaries, challenges, and alternatives to funding a digital government effort is critical. Chapter 4 details several financial strategies, such as classifying and prioritizing projects by assessing their level of positive externalities, earmarking adequate sources of financial support, organizing budget data, and formulating an operating budget and its current and capital chapters. Chapter 2 also describes the perspective of public value creation by exploring some resource allocation and budget management issues for ICT governance and the CIO role. The ideas of conceptualizing

112

9 Conclusions

digital government (Chap. 3) and managing ICT development projects (Chap. 6) are intertwined with the funding and resourcing strategies from Chap. 4 in terms of staffing, ICT investment, and resources needed for a successful digital government project. Depending of the vision and scope of the digital government initiative, different staff and budget requirements and technology investments may be needed. These requirements are necessary steps toward creating public value. In order to create public value, it is important to address the internal and external aspects of managing budgets for digital government projects. Nowadays, inappropriate financing represents one of the most critical causes of failure for any digital government project representing millions of dollars in waste, time, and energy. Many of the principles presented in this book address management and economic considerations of digital government projects that can lead to greater rate of success and creation of public value for citizens and society. In practice, digital government projects involve different agencies and often different levels of government. For this reason, the sources for funding digital government projects are not clearly allocated or are dispersed. Many digital government projects are delayed because of the complex budget controls and regulations across different agencies. The new trends of funding and resourcing digital government, public innovation, smart government, smart cities, and other ICT projects, which are complex in nature, create an opportunity to foster new funding mechanisms for cross boundary projects in order to solve the financial and funding problems. One option is to estimate and register the savings derived from specific digital government initiatives and reinvest them in new technological innovations. It is important to show how financing and funding digital government projects in the long term—5 or more years—is a good investment that also increases trust in the government and promotes high-quality information and public service delivery for citizens. These impacts should eventually translate into public value.

6 B uild a Permanent Collaboration Network to Engage Public Managers from Multiple Agencies in Digital Government Projects Solving the wicked and tangled problems that our society faces today is by itself an important challenge. Although working together, and thus combining strengths of the public, the private sector, and the civil society, offers a potential solutions to complex problems, pulling these efforts together constitutes a new challenge. That is to say, coordinating efforts among different actors to develop strategies to solve problems is a challenging activity for any public manager, particularly for those involved in coordinating government transformation through digital government. As we have described in several chapters in this book, this challenge implies not only the ability for coordinating task forces and work groups (see Chap. 5) but also the vision and leadership to develop and implement strategy (see Chap. 2), as well

7 Utilize Social Media Tools to Engage Citizens and Public Managers in Solving…

113

as the intuition to take advantage of unplanned opportunities. In other words, the new leader of government transformation requires a training in a new set of skills to (1) effectively coordinate meetings, helping different actors to express and negotiate goals in a constructive way; (2) keep all stakeholders involved in a way that allows him or her to operate programs and projects; and (3) understand changes in the political environment that may suggest alternative approaches. In general, the need for collaboration is going to be more important in the future because social problems are continuously increasing in complexity and becoming harder to solve. However, collaborating to solving social problems does not only depend on the goodwill of leaders in the public and private sectors but also the redesign of the institutional frameworks in a way that includes the appropriate incentives for collaboration. These adjustments go beyond the reach of public managers in any individual area of the government.

7 U tilize Social Media Tools to Engage Citizens and Public Managers in Solving Social Problems Governments around the globe have realized the benefits of being able to effectively communicate with their constituents by using existing information technologies. However, engaging citizens is not an easy task; Chap. 8 proposes a set of principles to help governments develop an integrated ecosystem to engage citizens and public officials in digital government projects using social media technologies. Putting citizens at the center of digital government strategy (e.g., in Chap. 3) will result in using IT to satisfy citizens’ needs. The Internet has changed citizens’ participation; nowadays, citizens try to get the more information about products and services and try to be more participatory on issues that are important to them. Open government solutions (see Chap. 7) satisfy citizens’ information needs. Citizen engagement needs may be solved by using social media technologies such as social networks. This type of information technologies may also help encourage citizens to collaborate on digital government projects (see Chap. 5). Developing an integrated ecosystem for engaging digital government stakeholders is key to involving all interested parties in shaping digital government projects. Not developing an integrated ecosystem will result in projects generating very little connection with citizens and therefore less public value. Evolution of information technology is constant; governments lagging in developing such ecosystem will have to take bigger steps than those governments already working on this issue. The evolution of citizen engagement is growing, along with the new information demands from citizens. This trend will eventually transform the relationship between citizens and governments around public problems, demanding instant information and becoming more participatory and collaborative to coproduce ICT tools with more public value.

114

9 Conclusions

8 Final Comments The challenges in this concluding chapter incorporate the overlapping principles presented throughout the entire book. As any public administration challenge, digital government projects are multidimensional and cannot be separated from their broader context. Most implementations of digital government projects are complex and have various levels of stakeholder involvement. Paying attention to the various aspects of a complex project enables us to see the challenges at hand from different perspectives and come up with innovative solutions. This book presents a series of ideas obtained from applied research, consulting, and academic work in the area of digital government implementation and transformation. The purpose behind this book was to present guidelines and principles that could help practitioners and scholars understand the directions of digital government today. We look forward to receiving feedback from our readers and a rich debate about the role of digital government in helping to solve public administration challenges. The principles in this book do not represent an exhaustive set of guidelines but rather are designed to guide its readers through the initial steps of thinking about organizational processes and policies in this area. Finally, this book has its own limitations. The first one relates to the limited number of topics we were able to cover in this book. While we most certainly left out important topics, we have selected the most common and important principles based on our experience as scholars and consultants. The second limitation is that digital government is a fast-changing field of research. The solutions from today could be the problems we face tomorrow. Because technology is evolving rapidly and organizations are changing at different pace, many of the principles included in this book may need to be adapted to fit your own context and environment. Lastly, the field of digital government does not develop in vacuum but is influenced by other developments in the public administration sphere such as big data, information sharing, and interoperability. This interconnectedness needs to be accounted for as government professionals continuously adapt and redefine processes, regulations, and laws to address this new reality. We hope this book will help citizens, digital government practitioners, public managers, and scholars interested in digital government implementation. It is time to test our principles and start transforming your government into digital government.