Advertisement

Developing Criteria for Evaluating a Multi-channel Digitally Enabled Participatory Budgeting Platform

  • Amizan Omar
  • Vishanth Weerakkody
  • Uthayasankar Sivarajah
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10429)

Abstract

“Enabling Multichannel Participation through ICT Adaptations for Participatory Budgeting ICT-enabled platform” (EMPATIA) is a multi-channel participatory budgeting (PB) platform that represents a significant social innovation process of democratic deliberation and decision-making, involving citizens within complex public-institution structures. EMPATIA was targeted to deliver socio-economic and political benefits, such as enhancing citizen-government engagement, increasing public value through PB process, promoting ‘inclusiveness’ among the marginalized groups of citizens, and impeding political discontent that underpins distrust and scepticism towards the government. The attainment of these benefits will be driven by the EMPATIA’s performance. Hence, a performance measurement tools is needed to enable assessment of EMPATIA, empirically. With an aim to propose an integrated performance evaluation metrics, this study presents a set of assessment criteria for multi-channel digitally enabled PB service platforms – especially EMPATIA. Findings from a qualitative, multi-strategies research approach suggest that the metrics should include five key technical and non-technical performance indicators, to be used as the basis for the development of future evaluation instruments. Of major signposts, the metrics would inform key performance aspects to be considered during the PB platform development, and evaluated to indicate the PB platform performance.

Keywords

Digitally enabled services Participatory budgeting e-government Public sector Evaluation 

References

  1. 1.
    Wampler, B.: A Guide to Participatory Budgeting Public Sector Government Accounting Service - Participation Budgeting, pp. 21–52. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cabannes, Y.: The impact of participatory budgeting on basic services: municipal practices and evidence from the field. Environ. Urban 27, 257–284 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., Röcke, A., Allegretti, G.: Transnational Models of citizen participation: the case of participatory budgeting. J. Public Deliberation 8(9) (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kamal, M.M., Sivarajah, U., Allegretti, G., Secchi, M., Autunes, S.: Enabling multichannel participation through ICT adaptations for participatory budgeting, pp. 1–9 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Agostino, D.: Using social media to engage citizens: a study of Italian municipalities. Public Relat. Rev. 39, 232–234 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nitzsche, P., Pistoia, A., Elsavier, M.: Development of an evaluation tool for participative e-government services: a case study of electronic participatory budgeting projects in Germany. Revista Administratie si Management Public 18, 6–25 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pateman, C.: Participatory democracy revisited. Perspect. Politics 10, 7–19 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    OECD, The case for e-government: excerpts from the OECD report the e-government imperative. OECD J. Budgeting 3, 61–96 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wampler, B.: Participatory budgeting: core principles and key impacts. J. Public Deliberation 8, 1–13 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cordis, H2020-EU.2.1.1. - Industrial leadership - Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies - Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), European Commisson. http://cordis.europa.eu/programme/rcn/664147_en.html. Accessed 10 Feb 2017
  11. 11.
    Omar, A., Weerakkody, V., Millard, J.: Digital-enabled service transformation in public sector: institutionalization as a product of interplay between actors and structures during organisational change. In: 9th International Conference of Theory Practice in Electronic Government, pp. 305–312 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weerakkody, V., Omar, A., El-Haddadeh, R., Al-Busaidy, M.: Digitally-enabled service transformation in the public sector: the lure of institutional pressure and strategic response towards change. Gov. Inf. Q. 33(4), 658–668 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Džinić, J., Svidroňová, M.M., Markowska-Bzducha, E.: Participatory budgeting: a comparative study of Croatia, Poland and Slovakia. NISPAcee J. Public Adm. Policy 9, 31–56 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loeffler, E., Power, G., Bovaird, T., Hine-Hughes, F.: Co-production of Health and Wellbeing in Scotland. Governance International, Edinburgh (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Omar, A., El-Haddadeh, R.: Structuring institutionalization of digitally enabled service transformation in public sector: does actor or structure matters? Full paper. In: Twenty-second America Conference of Information. System, San Diego, pp. 1–7 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osmani, M.: Examining the Antecedents of Public Value in E-Government Services. Brunel University London (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spada, P., Mellon, J., Peixoto, T., Sjoberg, F.M.: Effects of the internet on participation: study of a public policy referendum in Brazil. In: World Bank Policy Research Work Paper (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roberson, Q.M.: Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group and Organisation Management 31, 212–236 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jennings, W., Stoker, G., Twyman, J.: The dimensions and impact of political discontent in Britain. Parliament Affliation 69, 876–900 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rooduijn, M., Van der Brug, W., De Lange, S.L.: Expressing or fuelling discontent? The relationship between populist voting and political discontent. Electoral. Stud. 43, 32–40 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brandtzæg, P.B., Heim, J., Karahasanović, A.: Understanding the new digital divide—a typology of internet users in Europe. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 69, 123–138 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clarke, N., Jennings, W., Moss, J., Stoker, G.: Anti-politics and the left. J. Labour Politics 24, 9–26 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yin, R.K.: Mixed methods research: are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel? Res. Sch. 13, 41–48 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yin, R.K.: Qualitative research from start to finish (2011). doi: 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
  25. 25.
    Morse, J.M.: Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qual. Health Res. 25, 1212–1222 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    ISO, IEC25010: Systems and software engineering–Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – system and software quality models. Int. Organ. Stand. 34(2011), 2910 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Manage. Inf. Syst. Q. 36, 157–178 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bailey, J.E., Pearson, S.W.: Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Manage. Sci. 29, 530–545 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pang, M., Lee, G., Delone, W.H.: IT resources, organizational capabilities, and value creation in public sector organisations: a public-value management perspective. J. Inf. Technol. 29, 187–205 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    DeLone, W.H., Mclean, E.R.: The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 19, 9–30 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dinev, T., Hart, P.: Privacy concerns and levels of information exchange: an empirical investigation of intended e-services use. e-Service J. 4, 25–60 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Olson, M.E.: Two categories of political alienation. Soc. Forces 47, 288–299 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Olson, M.E.: Rapid growth as a destablizing force. J. Econ. Hist. 23, 529–552 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brunel University LondonUxbridgeUK
  2. 2.University of BradfordBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations