Systemic Patterns of Practice to Improve e-Government Evaluation

  • José-Rodrigo CórdobaEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 5)


e-Government is now a worldwide and complex phenomenon. A dominant view of how it should be evaluated focuses on assessing both e-Government evolution and use. Questions about the purposes and contributions of e-Government to societal improvement are being excluded from the evaluation. In this chapter a case study of Colombia is used to gain insights into the challenges faced by evaluators. With these insights and using systems thinking as a body of knowledge, three (3) conceptual patterns of practice are defined to help stakeholders engage with evaluation activities and positively improve the influence of e-Government in society.


Government Organisation Ethical Purpose Conceptual Lens Colombian Government Evaluation Stakeholder 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author wishes to thank evaluators from the Colombian government (Programa Gobierno en Línea) for their invaluable insight, advice and information in relation to this chapter.


  1. Ackoff R (1981) Creating the corporate future: plan or to be planned for. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Alshawi S, Alalwany H (2009) E-government evaluation: citizen’s perspective in developing countries. Inform Tech Dev 15(3):193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen KV, Henriksen HZ (2006) E-government maturity models: extension of the Layne and Lee model. Govern Inform Q 23:236–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beer S (1985) Diagnosing the system for organisations. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertot JC, Jaeger P, Grimes J (2010) Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: e-Government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Govern Inform Q 27:264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calista D, Melitsky J (2007) E-government and e-Governance: converging constructs of public sector information and communication technologies. Publ Admin Q 31(1–2):87–120Google Scholar
  7. Castells M (2001) The internet galaxy: reflections on internet, business and society. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman J (2002) System failure: why governments must learn to think differently. Demos Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Checkland P, Holwell S (1998) Information, systems and information systems: making sense of the field. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  11. Checkland P, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  12. Chircu A (2008) E-government evaluation: towards a multidimensional framework. Electron Govern Int J 5(4):345–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ciborra C (2005) Interpreting e-Government and development: efficiency, transparency or governance at a distance? Inform Tech People 18(3):260–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ColombiaDigital (2006) Programa agenda de conectividad—programme update of the Colombian government initiative on e-Government. ColombiaDigital, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  15. Connolly R, Bannister F, Kearney A (2010) Government website service quality: a study of the Irish revenue online service. Eur J Inform Syst 19(6):649–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Córdoba JR (2009) Systems practice in the information society. Taylor and Francis (Routledge), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Espinosa A, Maimani MA (2010) A holistic approach to e-Government: ongoing research in Oman. In: Córdoba JR, Ochoa-Arias A (eds) Systems thinking and e-participation: ICT in the governance of society. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp 109–134Google Scholar
  18. Farbey B, Land F, Targett D (1999) Moving IS evaluation forward: learning themes and research issues. J Strat Inform Syst 8(2):189–207Google Scholar
  19. Foucault M (1982) Afterword: the subject and power. In: Dreyfus H, Rabinow P (eds) Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. The Harvester Press, Brighton, pp 208–226Google Scholar
  20. Foucault M (1984) The ethics of the concern of the self as a practice of freedom. In: Rabinow P (ed) Michel Foucault: ethics subjectivity and truth: essential works of Foucault 1954-1984 (trans: Hurley R). Penguin, London, p 281–301Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert D, Balestrini G, Littleboy D (2004) Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-Government. Int J Public Sector Manag 17(4):286–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. GovLinea (2009) El gobierno en linea en Colombia, vol 88. Ministerio de Tecnologias de la Informacion y Comunicaciones, BogotaGoogle Scholar
  23. GovLinea (2011) Aplicación de la metodología de monitoreo y evaluación de gobierno en línea en Colombia—presentación de resultados—entidades—comparativo 2008–2009–2010–2011. Colombia’s e-Government evaluation model and evaluation results (2008 to 2011). Centro Nacional de Consultoria, Bogota, Colombia.
  24. Grimsley M, Meehan A (2007) E-government information systems: evaluation led design for public value and client trust. Eur J Inform Syst 16(2):134–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1989) Fourth generation evaluation. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. Gupta MP, Jana D (2003) E-government evaluation: a framework and case study. Govern Inform Q 20:365–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heeks R, Bailur S (2007) Analyzing e-Government research: perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods and practice. Govern Inform Q 24:243–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henman P (2010) Governing electronically: e-Government and the reconfiguration of public administration, policy and power, 1st edn. Palgrave MacMillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holmes D (2001) Egov: ebusiness strategies for government. Nicholas Brealey, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Irani Z, Love PE (2001) The propagation of technology management taxonomies for evaluating investments in information systems. J Manag Inform Syst 17(3):161–177Google Scholar
  31. Irani Z, Love PE, Elliman T, Jones S, Themistocleus M (2005) Evaluating e-Government: learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities. Inform Syst J 15(1):61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Irani Z, Love P, Jones S (2008) Learning lessons from evaluating e-Government: reflective case experiences that support transformational government. J Strat Inform Syst 17:155–164Google Scholar
  33. Jackson MC (2003) Creative holism: systems thinking for managers. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  34. Layne K, Lee J (2001) Developing fully functional e-Government: a four stage model. Govern Inform Q 18:122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marche S, McNiven J (2003) E-government and e-Governance: the future isn’t what it used to be. Can J Admin Sci 20(1):74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mattelart A (2003) The information society: an introduction (trans: Taponier S, Cohen J). Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Midgley G (1992) The sacred and profane in critical systems thinking. Syst Pract 5:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mincomunicaciones (2007) Agenda de conectividad—gobierno en línea y plan de acción 2007 (power point presentation no. 39). Ministerio de Comunicaciones, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  40. Ndou V (2004) E-government in developing countries: opportunities and challenges. Electron J Inform Syst Dev Countr 18(1):1–24Google Scholar
  41. Northcott D, Taulapapa TM (2012) Using the balanced scorecard to manage performance in public sector organizations—issues and challenges. Int J Public Sector Manag 25(3):166–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Olphert W, Damoradan L (2007) Citizen participation and engagement in the design of e-Government services: the missing link in effective ICT design and delivery. J Assoc Inform Syst 8(9):491–507Google Scholar
  43. Papadomichelaki X, Mentzas G (2012) e-GovQual: a multiple-item scale for assessing e-Government service quality. Govern Inform Q 29:98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parra D (2011) El gobierno en línea en Colombia (electronic government in Colombia), forum presentation. AGESIC—Uruguayan Government Agency for the Information Society and Electronic Government, Montevideo, UruguayGoogle Scholar
  45. Petrizzo M, Palm F (2009) Ways of citizen learning: political deliberation on the internet. In: Córdoba JR, Ochoa-Arias A (eds) Systems thinking and e-participation: ICT in the governance of society. Idea Global, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  46. Remenyi D, Sherwood-Smith M (1999) Maximise information systems value by continuous participative evaluation. Logist Inform Manag 12(1/2):145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rodriguez A (2011) E-government in Colombia: interview. Ministerio de Comunicaciones y Tecnologias de la Informacion, Bogotá, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodriguez A (2012) E-government evaluation in Colombia: e-mail communicationGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodriguez A, Cusba E (2011) Evaluation of e-Government in Colombia: personal interview. Ministerio de Comunicaciones y Tecnologias de la Informacion, Bogotá, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  50. Seddon J (2008) Systems thinking in the public sector: the failure of the reform regime… and a manifesto for a better way, 1st edn. Triarchy Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Sin H (2007) Gobierno en línea en Colombia (electronic government in Colombia)—personal interview. Bogotá, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  52. United Nations (2010) United Nations e-Government survey 2010: leveraging e-Government at a time of financial and economic crisis. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Verdegem P, Verleye G (2009) User-centered e-Government in practice: a comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Govern Inform Q 26:487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vision-2019 (2005) 2019 visión Colombia II centenario (Colombia’s vision 2019 executive summary report)—propuesta para discusión—resumen ejecutivo. Colombian Government, National Planning Office and Planeta Publishing Company, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  55. Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. Eur J Inform Syst 4(2):74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walsham G (1999) Interpretive evaluation design for information systems. In: Willcocks L, Lester S (eds) Beyond the IT productivity paradox. Wiley, Chichester, pp 363–380Google Scholar
  57. Wilson B (2002) Soft systems methodology: conceptual model and its contribution. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Management, Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonEgham, SurreyUK

Personalised recommendations