Government Support to Information Systems Innovation in Small and Medium Enterprises

Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)


Small and medium enterprises need external assistance to accomplish their information systems initiatives. Governments have been addressing this by funding numerous programmes. The aim of the chapter is to understand these programmes. Doing so, the analysis focused on the discretion in programme worker activities and the contexts that influence workers’ choices. The findings indicate that programme workers tend to exert considerable discretion. This discretion appears to be the result of inadequate evaluation and auditing mechanisms, a probable collaboration of policy administrators, as well as broad and ambiguous policies. Apart from this, programmes tend to operate within problematic contexts. These contexts are composed of poor evaluation mechanisms, power of programmes over SMEs, scarcity of resources, low demand for programme services and alienation of workers. A relevant implication is that the improvement of contexts could also reduce discretion. However, the actors that could do this are located at diverse parts of the system. Therefore, the reform of programmes is a difficult task given the priorities and power of the participants. Finally, the chapter suggests that SME associations may represent a counteractive force to these policy influences in order to materialise policy reforms.


Information systems Public policies Discretion Programme contexts SME associations 


  1. Bannock, G., & Peacock, A. (1989). Government and small business. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, R. (2011). Local business voice: The history of chambers of commerce in Britain, Ireland, and Revolutionary America 1760–2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkeley, N., Clark, D., & Ilbery, B. (1996). Regional variation in business use of information and communication technologies and implications for policy: Case study evidence from rural England. Geoforum, 27(1), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovens, M., Hart, P., & Kuipers, S. (2006). The politics of policy evaluation. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 319–335). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Coen, C. (1998). The European interest and the nation state: Large-firm lobbying in the European Union and member states. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cuadrado, J., & Garcia, A. (2004). ICT policies for SMEs and regional disparities: The Spanish case. Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development, 16(1), 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curran, J., Berney, R., & Kuusisto, J. (1999). A critical evaluation of industry SME support policies in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland—Stage one report: Introduction to SME policies and their evaluation. Helsinski: Ministry of Trade and Industry of Finland.Google Scholar
  8. Dahler-Larsen, P. (2005). Evaluation and public management. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynn Jr, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 615–639). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dannreuther, C. (1999). Discrete dialogues and the legitimation of EU SME policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(3), 436–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010). Backing small business. British Government. Accessed 5 February 2011.
  11. Ellis, K., Davis, A., & Rummery, K. (1999). Needs, assessment, street-level bureaucracy and the new community care. Social Policy and Administration, 33(3), 262–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans, T., & Harris, J. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. (2008). San Salvador Commitment: Plan of action eLAC 2010. United Nations. Accessed 18 June 2012.
  14. European Commission. (2010). ICT and e-business for an innovative and sustainable economy. DG Enterprise and Industry. Accessed 10 June 2012.
  15. Gengatharen, D., Standing, C., & Burn, J. (2005). Government supported community portal: Regional e-marketplaces for SMEs—evidence to Support a staged approach. Electronic Markets, 15(4), 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greene, J., Mole, K., & Storey, D. (2008). Three decades of enterprise culture: Entrepreneurship, economic regeneration and public policy. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Harrison, S. (1998). Clinical autonomy and health policy: Past and future. In M. Exworthy & S. Halford (Eds.), Professionals and the new managerialism in the public sector (pp. 50–64). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hertogh, M. (2009). Through the eyes of bureaucrats: How front-line officials understand administrative justice. In M. Adler (Ed.), Administrative justice in context (pp. 203–225). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Hill, M. (2009). The public policy process (5th ed.). Essex: Pearson.Google Scholar
  20. Juma, C., & Clarke, N. (1995). Policy research in sub-Saharan Africa: An exploration. Public Administration and Development, 15(2), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lambert, R. (2003). Lambert review of business-university collaboration. Her Majesty’s Treasury. Accessed 25 February 2011.
  22. Lebre, R. (1996). IT diffusion in small and medium-sized enterprises: Elements for policy definition. Information Technology for Development, 7(4), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lenihan, H., Hart, M., & Roper, S. (2007). Industrial policy evaluation: Theoretical foundations and empirical innovations: New wine in new bottles. International Review of Applied Economics, 21(3), 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis, J., & Glennerster, H. (1996). Implementing the new community care. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas of individuals in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas of individuals in public services (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  27. MacDonald, G. (1990). Allocating blame in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 20(6), 525–546.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, L., & Matlay, H. (2001). Blanket approaches to promoting ICT in small firms: Some lessons from the DTI ladder adoption model in the UK. Internet Research, 11(5), 339–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matlay, H., & Addis, M. (2003). Adoption of ICT and e-commerce in small business: An HEI-Based consultancy perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(3), 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counsellors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  31. Moran, M. (2009). Business, politics and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pitts, D. (2007). Representative bureaucracy, ethnicity and public schools: Examining the link between representation and performance. Administration and Society, 39(4), 497–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scott, J. (1990). A matter of record: Documentary sources in social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  34. Simpson, M., & Docherty, A. (2004). E-commerce adoption support and advice for UK SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(3), 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Storey, D. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. Andover: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  36. Storey, D. (2006). Evaluating SME policies and programmes: Technical and political dimensions. In M. Casson, B. Yeung, A. Basu, & N. Waldeson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of entrepreneurship (pp. 248–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Talbot, C. (2005). Performance management. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynn Jr, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 491–517). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2011). Information economy report—ICTs as an enabler for private sector development. United Nations. Accessed 15 June 2012.
  39. Vega, A., & Brown, D. (2011). Systems of innovation, multidisciplinarity and methodological pluralism: A realist approach to guide the future of information systems research and practice. In M. Chiasson, O. Hendridsson, H. Karsten, & J. DeGross (Eds.), Researching the future of information systems (pp. 249–1268). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vega, A., Brown, D., & Chiasson, M. (2012). Open innovation and SMEs: Exploring policy and scope for improvements in university based public programmes through a multidisciplinary Lens. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 18(4), 457–476.Google Scholar
  41. Vega, A., Chiasson, M., & Brown, D. (2007). Extending the research agenda on diffusion of innovations: The role of public programs in the diffusion of e-business innovations. In T. McMaster, D. Wastell, E. Ferneley, & J. DeGross (Eds.), Organisational dynamics of technology-based innovation: Diversifying the research agenda (pp. 379–392). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vega, A., Chiasson, M., Brown, D. (2011). Adoption and programme contexts effect in the support to the informatisation of SMEs. Paper presented at the 34th Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ISBE) Conference: Sustainable Futures: Enterprising Landscapes and Communities, Sheffield, 9–10 November.Google Scholar
  43. Vega, A., Chiasson, M., Brown, D. (2013). Understanding the causes of informal and formal discretion in the delivery of enterprise policies: A multiple case study. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(1), 102–118Google Scholar
  44. Wiggins, A. (2010). Worlds apart: SMEs, e-business and policy initiatives. Saarbrucken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Winter, S. (2000). Information Asymmetry and Political Control of Street-Level Bureaucrats: Danish Agro-Environmental Regulation. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Research Meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM), Seattle, 2–4 November.Google Scholar
  46. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and method (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business and ManagementCanterbury Christ Church UniversityCanterburyUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of Management ScienceLancaster University Management SchoolLancasterUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations