Assessing Effects of eGovernment Initiatives Based on a Public Value Framework

  • Øyvind Hellang
  • Leif Skiftenes Flak
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7443)


Assessing effects of eGovernment initiatives is considered an important but challenging endeavor. Assessments are, among other things, important to justify e-government investments. They are challenging because they are complex, often based on locally defined indicators, many times over-emphasizing financial effects, imprecise, faced with a number of contingencies and very seldom validated. Consequently, effect assessments can be seen as imprecise and difficult to compare across different initiatives. This paper addresses some of the challenges by attempting to assess effects based on a public value framework through an action design study with a Norwegian government agency. Based on our findings, we suggest 5 design principles for adapting and using performance indicators for assessing effects from eGovernment initiatives.


e-government performance indicators public value interpretive evaluation of IS eGEP measurement framework action design research 


  1. 1.
    Flak, L.S., Dertz, W., Jansen, A., Krogstie, J., Spjelkavik, I., Ølnes, S.: What is the value of eGovernment - and how can we actually realize it? Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 3(3), 220–227 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jenner, S.: Realising Benefits from Government ICT Investment: a Fools Errand? Academic Publishing International Ltd. (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smithson, S., Hirschheim, R.: Analysing information systems evaluation: another look at an old problem. European Journal of Information Systems 7(3), 158 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D.: Developing a frame of reference for ex-ante IT/IS investment evaluation. European Journal of Information Systems 11(1), 74–82 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Irani, Z., Gunasekaran, A., Love, P.E.D.: Quantitative and qualitative approaches to information systems evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research 173(3), 951–956 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Serafeimidis, V., Smithson, S.: Information systems evaluation as an organizational institution – experience from a case study. Information Systems Journal 13(3), 251–274 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stone, D.N.: Assumptions and Values in the Practice of Information Systems Evaluation. Journal of Information Systems 4(3), 1–17 (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D., Elliman, T., Jones, S., Themistocleous, M.: Evaluating e-government: learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities. Information Systems Journal 15(1), 61–82 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boyne, G.A.: Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies 39(1), 97–122 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bretschneider, S.: Management-Information-Systems in Public and Private Organizations - an Empirical-Test. Public Administration Review 50(5), 536–545 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Codagnone, C., Boccardelli, P.: eGovernment Economics Project (eGEP) - Measurement Framework Final Version, 2006, European Commission, p. 67 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lonti, Z., Woods, M.: Towards government at a glance: Identification of core data and issues related to public sector efficiency. In: OECD Working Papers on Public Governance (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moore, M.H.: Public value as the focus of strategy. Australian Journal of Public Administration 53, 296–303 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moore, M.H.: Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Persson, A., Goldkuhl, G.: Government Value Paradigms - Bureaucracy, New Public Management, and E-Government. Communications of the AIS 27, 45–62 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rose, J., Persson, J.S.: E-government value priorities of Danish local authority managers. In: Rose, J., Persson, J.S., Kræmmergaard, P., Nielsen, P.A. (eds.) IT Management in Local Government: the DISIMIT Project. Software Innovation, Aalborg, pp. 27–56 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Quarterly 35(1), 37–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stockdale, R., Standing, C.: An interpretive approach to evaluating information systems: A content, context, process framework. European Journal of Operational Research 173(3), 1090–1102 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Iacono, C.S.: Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the IT in IT Research. A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact. Information Systems Research 12(2), 121–134 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boland, R.J.: Design in the Punctuation of Management Action. Managing as Designing: Creating a Vocabulary for Management Education and Research. In: Boland, R. (ed.) Frontiers of Management Workshop, Weatherhead School of Management, June 14-15 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boland, R.J.: Design in the Punctuation of Management Action. In: Collopy, F., Bolland, R.J. (eds.) Managing as Designing. Stanford Business Books, Standford (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ministry of Finance (Norway). Det sentrale styringsdokumentet (2008), (cited March 2012)
  24. 24.
    SSØ - Senter for statlig økonomistyring, Håndbok for samfunnsøkonomiske analyser, Senter for statlig økonomistyring, Oslo (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    SSØ - Senter for statlig økonomistyring, Gevinstrealisering - En innføring i planlegging og oppfølging av gevinster, Senter for statlig økonomistyring, Oslo (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rambøll Management AS, Utredning – Offentlig Elektronisk Meldingsboks - Ref 70192482, Ministry of Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs, Oslo (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    NSD - Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste AS. Antall enheter per COFOG (2011), (cited March 2012)
  28. 28.
    Difi – Direktoratet for forvaltning og IKT, En felles meldingsboks - Rapport 2011: Agency for Public Management and eGovernment (Difi), Oslo (July 2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Øyvind Hellang
    • 1
  • Leif Skiftenes Flak
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for eGovernment, Department of Information SystemsUniversity of AgderKristiansandNorway

Personalised recommendations