Design on a Societal Scale: The Case of e-Government Strategic Planning

  • Carlo Batini
  • Gianluigi Viscusi
  • Marco Castelli
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 1)


In this chapter, we discuss the case of the instantiation and development of a methodology for e-Government initiatives design and planning in the specific context of Mediterranean Countries. The methodology aims to support the definition of strategy implementation roadmaps that consider the fitting of e-Government vision principles, policies and the context of intervention. Moreover, the methodology aims to provide a contribution to design science research on a societal scale, by dealing with the obstacles that Simon recognized as a “budget of obstacles or alternatively as a budget of planning requirements”, even with restraint and simplification typical of a complex decision making process. Taking these issues into account, the chapter discusses the case of the methodology application to an information systems integration initiative of the Tunisian Ministry of Agriculture and Hydraulic Resources in 2008–2009. The focus of the case is on problem representation and organizations in social design as challenges for information systems design on a societal scale.


Design science Information systems planning policies e-Government 


  1. 1.
    Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    March, S., & Smith, G. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Desperately seeking the ‘IT’in IT research: A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information systems the state of the field, 34, 121–134.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weber, R. (2003). Still desperately seeking the IT artifact. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), iii–xi.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Batini, C., Viscusi, G., & Cherubini, D. (2009). GovQual: A quality driven methodology for e-government project planning. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 106–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Viscusi, G., Batini, C., & Mecella, M. (2010). Information systems for eGovernment: A quality-of-service perspective. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    King, W. R. (2009). Planning for information systems. Advances in Management Information Systems (AMIS), Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christensen, K. S. (1985). Coping with uncertainty in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 51(1), 63–73.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional eGovernment: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 236–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cordella, A., & Iannacci, F.(2010) Information systems in the public sector: the e-Government enactment framework. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(1), 52–66.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heeks, R. (2005). Implementing and managing egovernment: An international text. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palkovits, S., & Wimmer, M. A. (2003). Processes in e-Government—A holistic framework for modelling electronic public services. In R. Traunmüller (Ed.), Electronic government: Second international conference, EGOV 2003, Prague, Czech Republic, September 2003: Proceedings, LNCS (Vol. 2739, pp. 213–219).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jansen, A. (2006). What role has Scandinavian IS tradition in eGovernment implementations. Electronic Government: 5th International Conference, EGOV 2006, Krakow, Poland, LNCS (Vol. 4084, pp. 47–57). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grönlund, Å. (2002). Electronic government: Design, applications and management. Hershey: Idea Group Inc (IGI).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harrison, T. M., & Zappen, J. P. (2010). Designing e-government: Exploring the potential of new information and communication technology paradigms for democratic purposes. In H. J. Scholl (Ed.), E-government: information, technology, and transformation (Vol. 17, pp. 156–178). M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, NY.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Luftman, J. N. (1996). Competing in the information age: Strategic alignment in practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang, K. (2003). Neoinstitutionalism and e-government: Beyond Jane Fountain. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Misuraca, G., & Viscusi, G. (2010) E-Governance for development: Designing an operational roadmap for ICT-enabled public administration reform. In D. Piaggesi, J. Sund, W. Castelnovo (Eds.), Global strategy and practice of e-governance: Examples from around the world. Hershey: IGI Global Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Avgerou, C. (2001). The significance of context in information systems and organizational change. Information Systems Journal, 11, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baskerville, R. L., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research methods. European Journal of Information Systems, 7, 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Iivari, J., Venable, J. R. (2009). Action research and design science research—Seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar. In proceedings of ECIS 2009.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Iivari, J. (2007). A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 39–63.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23, 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zammouri, K. (2008). Les bonnes pratiques en Tunisie en matière d’e-gouvernement: Une administration électronique pour une administration communicante. In Workshop on E-Government strategic planning and best practices in the Middle East and North African region.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Page, E. C. (2006). The origins of policy. In M. Moran, M. Rein & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 207–227). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lowi, T. (1998). Foreword: New dimensions in policy and politics. In R. Tatalovich & B. Daynes (Eds.), Moral controversies in American Politics: Cases in social regulatory policy. Armonk, NY: M. E.Sharpe.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hansen, A. M., Kraemmergaard, P., & Mathiassen, L. (2011). Rapid adaptation in digital transformation: A participatory process for engaging IS and business leaders. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(4), 175–185.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Viscusi, G. (2011). OECD policy frameworks and instruments: How academics can contribute? Reflections from MENA experiences. The 7th meeting of the OECD Working Group II on Open and Innovative Government “Open to be innovative: a new partnership between citizens and their governments”, 28–29, November 2011, Seoul, Republic of Korea.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Batini, C., Cappiello, C., Francalanci, C., Maurino, A., & Viscusi, G. (2011). A capacity and value based model for data architectures adopting integration technologies. AMCIS 2011 Proceedings -Paper 327 .Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo Batini
    • 1
  • Gianluigi Viscusi
    • 1
  • Marco Castelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Informatics, Systems and Communication (DISCo)University of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations