Abstract
Governments define strategies in order to transform their political missions to reality, deal with various challenges, schedule public spending, and control public investments. This phenomenon occurs even at supranational levels, where governments negotiate and agree on common objectives, which comes close enough to competitive political interests. Government strategic planning is crucial and defines necessary strategic elements such as vision, mission, success factors, stakeholders, etc. Moreover, strategic planning is a continuous process, since strategic updates follow previous plans and recognize existing successes and failures. Strategic implementation occurs via framework programs, which allocate funding on alternative priorities, while they identify methods for strategic assessment and monitoring. This chapter focuses on government e-strategies and aims to illustrate whether program evaluation can result in the assessment of strategic transformation. In this context, existing program evaluation methods are compared according to their applicability on strategic transformation’s evaluation. This comparison will be applied on data from Greece, where three government e-strategies have been evolved since late 1990s and respective framework programs have been implemented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anthopoulos, L., & Fitsilis, P. (2014). Trends in e-Strategic Management: How do Governments Transform their Policies? International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA). Vol.4, pp. 14–28
Anthopoulos, L., Triantafyllou, D., & Fitsilis, P. (2012), e-Strategic Management Lessons from Greece. In Reddick Ch. (Ed.), Public Sector Transformation through E-Government: Experiences from Europe and North America (pp. 224–241). ISBN: 978-0-415-52737-8. London: Routledge.
Bachtler, J., & Taylor, S. (2003). The added Value of the Structural Funds: A Regional Perspective IQ-Net RepÎżrt on the Reform of the Structural Funds. EPRC, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/iqnet/downloads/IQ-net_Reports(Public)/IQ_Net_Added_Value.pdf.
European Commission. (2010a). The Lisbon Strategy 2000–2010. An analysis and evaluation of the methods used and results achieved. Directorate General For Internal Policies. Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy. Retrieved March, 2013, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201107/20110718ATT24270/20110718ATT24270EN.pdf.
European Commission. (2010b). EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Retrieved March, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf.
European Commission. (2005). Guidelines of project/programme evaluations. Retrieved May, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation/methodology/egeval/guidelines/gba_en.htm.
European Commission. (2004a). Εx-Ante Evaluation, a practical guide for preparing proposals for expenditure programmes, December 2001 European commission, Benchmarking Enterprise Policy: Results from the 2004 Scoreboard, Brussels 2004. Retrieved, May 2013, from http://www.mfcr.cz/cps/rde/xbcr/mfcr/DGBud_Evaluation_Ex-ante_Guide_2001.pdf.
European Commission. (2004b). Evaluating ΕU Activities, a practical guide for the Commission services, Brussels 2004. Retrieved May, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/evaluation/docs/eval_activities_en.pdf.
European Commission. (2004c). Overview of Evaluation Guides in the Commission, Brussels 2004. Retrieved May, 2013, from http://www.mfcr.cz/cps/rde/xbcr/mfcr/DGBud_Evaluation_GuidesOverview_2004_pdf.pdf.
European Commission. (1999a). Methodological Working Paper No. 2 for the 2000–2006 Programming Period: The Ex Ante Evaluation of Structural Funds Interventions. Retrieved May, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/exante_en.pdf.
European Commission. (1999b). Methodological Working Paper No. 3 for the 2000–2006 Programming Period: Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation: An indicative methodology. Retrieved May, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/indic_en.pdf.
Fitzgerald, J., Kearney, I., Morgenroth, E.,& Smyth, D. (1999). National Investment Priorities for the Period 2000–2006. The Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin. Retrieved May, 2013, from http://ideas.repec.org/b/esr/resser/prs33.html.
Greek Ministry of Finance. (2010). Digital Planning Public Consultation results (in Greek). Retrieved September, 2011, from http://www.opengov.gr/ypoian/wp-ontent/uploads/2010/05/apodeltiosi_ps__v2_0.pdf.
Greek Observatory. (2011). Digital Literacy in Greece compared to EU27 2007–2010 (in Greek). Retrieved May, 2013, from: http://www.observatory.gr/files/press_releases/PR_110714_%CE%A8%CE%B7%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82%20%CE%91%CE%BB%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82.pdf.
Greek Special Secretary for Digital Planning. (2006). Digital Convergence (in Greek). Retrieved May, 2013, from http://www.digitalplan.gov.gr/resource-api/dipla/contentObject/3488695f-ea80-4f4f-9982-151d940dadd2/content.
Greek Special Secretary for Digital Planning. (2006). Digital Strategy 2006–2013 (in Greek). Retrieved May, 2013, from http://www.infosoc.gr/NR/rdonlyres/A13F889F-DE92-4DCF-B64A-37351BFC69B9/3053/ktp_all.pdf.
Greek Special Secretary for Digital Planning. (2004). Annual Ex-Ante Evaluation Report for the Greek Information Society (in Greek). Retrieved May, 2013, from http://www.infosoc.gr/infosoc/el-GR/epktp/Parakoloythish_ajiologish/DiadikasiesAjiologhshs/exante/.
Greek Special Secretary for Digital Planning. (2004b). Annual Mid-term Evaluation Report for the Greek Information Society (in Greek). Retrieved May, 2013, from http://www.infosoc.gr/infosoc/el-GR/epktp/Parakoloythish_ajiologish/DiadikasiesAjiologhshs/EndiameshAjiologhsh.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K.,& Whittington, R. (2005). Managing Strategic Change. Exploring Corporate Strategy, (7th ed.), (pp. 503–543). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Publishers.
Lysons, K., & Farrington, B. (2006). Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Publishing. Chapter 2.
Tavistock Institute. (2003). The Evaluation of Socio-Economic Development, The Guide. London 2003. Retrieved May, 2013, from http://www.pol.ulaval.ca/perfeval/upload/publication_151.pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Annex I: Program Assessment Grid, Used by the European Committee
Annex I: Program Assessment Grid, Used by the European Committee
Quality of the evaluation report | Quality of the evaluation process |
|---|---|
(1) Meeting needs: The evaluation report adequately addresses the requests for information formulated by the commissioners and corresponds to the terms of reference | (2) Coherent objectives and program: The program objectives were coherent and the program was able to be evaluated |
(3) Relevant scope: The rationale of the program, its outputs, results, impacts, interactions with other policies and unexpected effects have been carefully studied | (4) Adequate terms of reference: The terms of reference were well drawn up and proved useful and did not need to be revised |
(5) Open process: The interested parties—both the partners of the program and the other stakeholders—have been involved in the design of the evaluation and in the discussion of the results in order to take into account their different points of view | (6) Tender selection: This was well conducted and the chosen tenderer was able to undertake the evaluation to a good standard |
(7) Defensible design: The design of the evaluation was appropriate and adequate for obtaining the results (within their limits of validity) needed to answer the main evaluative questions | (8) Effective dialog and feedback: An inclusive forum and process was created that provided feedback and dialog opportunities with commissioners and managers that improved the quality of the evaluation |
(9) Reliable data: The primary and secondary data collected or selected are suitable and reliable in terms of the expected use | (10) Adequate information: Required monitoring and data systems existed and were made available/accessed by administrations and partners |
(11) Sound analysis: Quantitiative and qualitative data were analyzed in accordance with established conventions, and in ways appropriate to answer the evaluation questions correctly | (12) Good management: The evaluation team was well-managed and supported by program managers |
(13) Credible results: The results are logical and justified by the analysis of data and by suitable interpretations and hypotheses | (14) Effective dissemination to commissioners: The reports/outputs of the evlauaiton were disseminated to commissioners including steering committee member s and program managements who responded appropriately with timely feedback/comments |
(15) Impartial conclusions: The conclusions are justified and unbiased | (16) Effective dissemination to stakeholders: The reports/outputs of the evaluation were suitably disseminated to all stakeholders and where necessary targeted in ways that supported learning lessons |
(17) Clear report: The report describes the context and goal, as well as the organization and results if the program in such a way that the information provided is easily understood | Â |
(18) Useful recommendations: The report provides recommendations that are useful to stakeholders and are detailed enough to be implemented | Â |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Anthopoulos, L., Blanas, N. (2014). Evaluation Methods for e-Strategic Transformation. In: Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C. (eds) Government e-Strategic Planning and Management. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 3. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8462-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8462-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8461-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8462-2
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)