S-urb
Urban
Metro
Total
2.
Senior management support
N N/A N N/A Y
8.5
8.5
14.
IT decision capacity
N N/A Y
7.5
Y
7.8
7.7
19.
Adequate infrastructure
Y
7.8
Y
7.8
Y
6.5
7.4
25.
Corporate information security plan
N N/A Y
6.9
Y
7.2
7.1
35.
Well-trained human resources
Y
7.3
Y
6.8
Y
6.4
6.8
37.
Project continuity
Y
5.9
N N/A Y
7.4
6.6
41.
Well-allocated budget to support
Y
5.6
Y
7.5
N N/A 6.5
high-priority projects
46.
Smart innovation according to trends
Y
6.4
N N/A N N/A 6.4
and needs
60.
Budget for technology investments
Y
4.9
Y
6.5
Y
6.3
5.9
60.
Resource managerial methods to
Y
4.9
Y
6.9
N N/A 5.9
allocate budget
65.
Paradigm change
Y
5.8
N N/A N N/A 5.8
67.
Special budget for IT department
Y
4.5
Y
5.7
Y
6.8
5.7
68.
Commitment from public servants
Y
5.1
N N/A Y
6.1
5.6
69.
Long term vision
N N/A N N/A Y
5.5
5.5
77.
Laws and regulations for IT in
Y
5.1
Y
5.5
Y
5.5
5.3
government
* The number represents the place of the capability according to the average development
considering the 91 capabilities
Identifying Core Capabilities 85
5 A PRELIMINARY DYNAMIC MODEL OF CORE CAPABILITIES
Table 7.3 shows a conceptual model, which is based on the comments from the thirty-four local CIOs described in the previous section. Using the
grammar of System Dynamics, the model includes key activities, accumu-
lations, and feedback loops; it is intended to serve as a guide for developing
an eff
ffective digital government strategy at the local level in Mexico. This
initial dynamic model includes twelve key accumulations or core resources
and competencies for local governments. These core competencies and
resources are associated with the main categories and clusters identified
during the workshops. In the current model, not all fl
flows (activities) are
shown explicitly, with the purpose of making the diagram simpler.
The main technical resources are all represented in the stocks inside the
rectangle on the right side of the fi
figure. These four stocks are all built
through eff or
ff t in work and the quality or effi
fficiency of this work. Eff
ffort in
work is conceptualized as a result of fi
financial or human resources in the IT
department in the municipal government, and quality and productivity of
this work results from IT staff ex
ff
pertise and the clear articulation of plans
Figure 7.3 Preliminary dynamic conceptual model of core capabilities.
86 Luis Felipe Luna-Reyes and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia
and objectives inside the IT department. Public policies and other legisla-
tion also have an eff
ffect on these activities, either constraining or enabling
them. In addition, all these resources constrain or enable the development
of other resources and important outputs. For instance, the development of
infrastructure, IT processes and methods, systems, applications, and deliv-
ery channels all promote the development of benefits such as effi
ci
ffi encies,
increases in tax collection, citizen participation, and other important social
impacts. However, these benefi
fits are not only the result of technology use,
but other organizational and contextual factors, such as IT training of gov-
ernment employees or citizens’ access to technology.
Our conceptualization includes fi
five main reinforcing loops. All of these
loops have the potential to promote the development of a digital govern-
ment strategy, but all of them can also work as traps when capabilities and
resources are not well developed. The fi
first of these loops represents learn-
ing and expertise accumulation from the IT staff in
ff
developing infrastruc-
ture and applications. Again, although this loop can be seen as a virtuous
cycle, when IT staff memb
ff
ers have limited expertise, they are not produc-
tive enough to progress in the development of technical resources, and in
turn have a low learning rate. This loop then implies a challenge for many
local governments that lack suffi
c
ffi ient IT expertise.
The second feedback loop shows the impact of IT methods and stan-
dards on productivity, suggesting that this technical capability may have
an investment priority when compared to other resources. The loop named
“effi
fficiencies and savings” suggests that one way of acquiring additional
resources to increase eff
ffort is through savings and efficiencies that result
from digital government projects and applications. Finally, two more
important feedback loops included in the initial conceptualization repre-
sent public involvement and buy-in of key stakeholders. These processes
are, from our point of view, closely related to the social impact of digital
government strategies. All these loops are reinforcing in nature, as we have
previously established. In this way, they all represent potential traps in the
initial stages of a strategy implementation.
6 FINAL
COMMENTS
This chapter presents a preliminary model and more research is clearly
needed. We are in the process of formalizing this model in order to explore
the transformational impact of several investment strategies. We envision
having a series of accumulations describing core resources and capabilities,
all of them depending on investment priorities and a limited budget. In this
way, we will compare investment strat
egies for infrastructure, as opposed
to strategies with a focus on processes, standards, or systems development.
We believe that such experiments have the potential to provide insights
about the interrelations and relative importance of diff
fferent core capabilities
Identifying Core Capabilities 87
and resources, and get a better understanding of their relationships and
impacts on transformational digital government. Future research should
explore some of the specifi
fic capabilities and resources in order to disen-
tangle their potential eff
ffects on other capabilities and resources, as well as
their relative impact on the outputs and outcomes of the digital government
strategy in local governments.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study reported here is the result of research and innovation projects
in collaboration with “Fondo de Información y Documentación para la
Industria—INFOTEC” in Mexico.
REFERENCES
Asgarkhani, M. (2007). The reality of social inclusion through digital government.
Journal of Technology in Human Services, 25(1/2), 127–146.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based theory a useful perspective for strategic
management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41–56.
Beynon-Davies, P., & Williams, M. D. (2003). Evaluating electronic local govern-
ment in the UK. Journal of Information Technology, 18(2), 137.
Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology
capability and fi
firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly,
24(1), 169–196.
Bhatt, G. D., & Grover, V. (2005). Types of Information technology capabilities
and their role in competitive advantage: An empirical study. Journal of Manage-
ment Information Systems, 22(2), 253–277.
Chan, C., & Pan, S. (2006). Resource enactment in e-government systems imple-
mentation: A case study on the e-fi
file system in Singapore. Paper presented at the
ICIS 2006 Proceedings, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, December 10–13.
Evans-Cowley, J., & Conroy, M. M. (2006). The growth of e-government in
municipal planning. Journal of Urban Technology, 13(1), 81–107.
Fagan, M. H. (2006). Exploring city, county and state e-government initiatives: An
East Texas perspective. Business Process Management Journal, 12(1), 101–112.
Feller, J., Finnegan, P., & Nilsson, O. (2011). Open innovation and public admin-
istration: Transformational typologies and business model impacts. European
Journal of Information Systems, 20(3), 358–374.
Fountain, J. E. (2009). Bureaucratic reform and e-government in the United States:
An institutional perspective. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Rout-
ledge handbook of Internet politics (pp. 99–113). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Helbig, N. (2006). Exploring e-government benefits and suc-
cess factors. In A.-V. Anttiroiko & M. Malkia (Eds.), Encyclopedia of digital
government. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). E-government success factors: Mapping
practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly,
22(2), 187–216.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Baker, A. (2007). Understanding context
through a comprehensive prototyping experience: A testbed research strategy
88 Luis
Felipe Luna-Reyes and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia
for emerging technologies. Paper presented at the 40th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, January 3–6.
Holden, S. H., Norris, D. F., & Fletcher, P. D. (2003). Electronic government at the local level. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(4), 325–344.
Kaylor, C., Deshazo, R., & Eck, D. V. (2001). Gauging e-government: A report on
implementing services among American cities. Government Information Quar-
terly, 18(4), 293.
King, S., & Cotterill, S. (2007). Transformational Government? The role of infor-
mation technology in delivering citizen-centric local public services. [Article].
Local Government Studies, 33(3), 333–354.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Gil-García, J. R., & Celorio-Mansi, J. A. (2010). Hacia un
Modelo de Gobierno Electrónico a Nivel Municipal para México: Reporte de
Resultados de Talleres con Directores de Informática Municipales. Cholula:
Universidad de las Américas Puebla-INFOTEC.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Zhang, J., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Cresswell, A. M. (2005). Infor-
mation systems development as emergent socio-technical change: A practice
approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 93–105.
Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rheto-
ric or realit y? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.
Patrick, S. (1995). The dynamic simulation of control and compliance processes in
material organizations. Sociological Perspectives, 38(4), 497–518.
Reddick, C. G. (2004). Empirical models of e-government growth in local govern-
ments. e-Service Journal, 3(2), 59–74.
Reddick, C. G., & Frank, H. A. (2007). E-government and its influ
fl ence on man-
agerial eff
ffectiveness: A survey of Florida and Texas city managers. Financial
Accountability & Management, 23(1), 1–26.
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2002). Edith Penrose’s contribution to the
resource-based views of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,
23(8), 769–780.
Scholl, H. J. (2005). Organizational transformation through e-government: myth
or reality? In M. Wimmer (Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3591,
pp. 1–11). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Staff
fford, T. F., & Turan, A. H. (2011). Online tax payment systems as an emergent
aspect of governmental transformation. European Journal of Information Sys-
tems, 20(3), 343–357.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic man-
agement. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). The Resource-based view and information sys-
tems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS
Quarterly, 28(1), 107–142.
Warren, K. (2002). Competitive strategy dynamics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The resource-based view of the fi
firm: Ten years after. Strate-
gic Management Journal 16(3), 171–174.
Wolstenholme, E. F. (1999). Qualitative vs. quantitative modelling: The evolving
balance. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(4), 422–428.
Part II
Benefi ts a
fi
nd Barriers
to Transformation
8 Examining
Successful
Public Sector Electronic
Services in Finland
Tommi Inkinen
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This chapter provides an account of public sector electronic services from
Finland. I focus on three specially awarded projects that aim to enhance
electronic government. I frame the results with the contemporary litera-
ture on e-government. The three specific cases indicate elements
of suc-
cessful electronic services targeted at citizens. The results of the study are
comparable to other countries advancing their electronic government and
public sector e-services. Finland makes a good platform for case data: it
has been regarded as one of the leading countries in technology develop-
ment (e.g., WEF, 2010) but ranks lower in electronic government measures
(e.g., UN, 2010). I conclude by addressing theoretical notions underlying
Internet services and the signifi
ficance of citizen-government relations in
contemporary society.
1 INTRODUCTION
Political structure and the conduct of the democratic process involve the
Internet in terms of electronic government (in detail Reddick, 2010), which
entails fl
flexible service production, higher civic participation, and effi
ci
ffi ency
gains. This chapter brings together two processes, namely, technology inte-
gration in public sector service production (Löfgren, 2007; Chadwick &
Howard, 2008), and the management process and subcontracting (Hood,
1995; Dunleavy et al., 2006). This chapter presents three selected electronic
services as denominators of how to create a successful electronic public sec-
tor service (Thomas & Strieb, 2003; Reddick, 2004; Saxena, 2005; Taylor,
Lips, & Organ, 2007; Lean et al., 2009).
There are two main principles to implement new electronic services for
public sector: a top-down approach or bottom-up one (Baqir & Iyer, 2010;
Brown & Brudney, 2004). These are ideal opposites and in practice the
implementation process includes elements from both of them. However,
in practice project designs often follow one or other main principle. This
92 Tommi
Inkinen
division is identifi
fiable among the studied three cases. They are projects (full
list in Appendix 8.1) that have been awarded by the “Finnish Government
Information Society Policy Program. ”1 The chapter addresses two main questions: why have the selected cases been successful? and what common
elements do these cases share?
Electronic government and governance involve a recognition of democ-
racy, transparency in administration, public policy development, and
participation in and improvement of public services (e.g. European Com-
mission, 2010). Extensive research on electronic government has produced
a number of classifi
fications that segment public sector operations in terms
of technological platforms (Grant & Derek, 2005). Carter and Bélanger
(2005, p. 12) identifi
fied several key relations for the end-user to engage
Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government Page 16