icegov2012 proceedings

eGovernment services to a large extent of the population are
also deployed. Some significant examples of information,
data sharing and data integration among public organizations
are also evident. Measurement systems of public values of
eGovernment services are significantly implemented even if
not fully integrated with policy decision-making processes.
The evaluation of public administration managers is largely
based on their capability to achieve outcome related
objectives.
• Stage 5 – A large extent of data and information are made
available for all and some significant business initiatives
based upon public sector information usage are in place.
Cloud computing infrastructures and cloud repositories for
public administrations data are also largely available and
empowering actions aimed at stimulating citizens and civil
servants towards ICT and eco-sustainability of eGovernment
services are conducted. Measurement systems are fully
implemented and linked with policy decision making
processes.
• Stage 6 – ICT is not anymore a barrier to the take up of
eGovernment services and the behaviour for continuous
improvement is pervasive in public administration also
unleashing social innovation [48] is widely diffuse in
designing and developing public services.
It is clear that the MM applied to eGovernment is not independent
from the broader level of maturity of the Digital Society [49]
within which eGovernment deployment and adoption is embedded
[29]. Yet, the process of digital maturation of a given society or
local community is never as linear as the MM would suggest [6];
[50]; [51]; [52]. Therefore for a long-term sustainability of
eGovernment services we have also to understand the needed
efforts that each public administration has to make for reaching
the required level of maturity suitable for deploying and rollingout
a given eGovernment product/service and, then, supporting its
effective adoption and long-term sustainability [29]; [52].
However in most mature administrations neither the level of
digital divide nor the lack of ICT infrastructures seem to be
among the most constraining barriers to eGovernment adoption. It
is rather the lack of a structured and trustworthy decision making
process, effectively involving citizens and stakeholders that slow
down adoption, which in turn weaken the capability to effectively
and timely absorb and use public funds [53]. In this respect the
lack of formal methods for managing and monitoring
eGovernment initiatives further compound the challenges of
successful adoption of eGovernment services [37 - 54]. These
barriers are more and more evident at local level [4], where there
is still an high variance in performances as commented for
instance in [14]; [55]. At the same time the local government
represents the most favourable ground for enhancing citizen
centred eGovernment services with a real engagement of
stakeholders and beneficiaries and an effective empowerment of
the local community [13]; [19]; [43]; [47]; [56], [57] as discussed
in the next chapters.
3. RESULTS
In this section we first apply a synchronic perspective to better
interpret the evolution of adoption barriers and then extract the
key lessons learned. The synchronic perspective we adopted,
foresees the following three periods of implementation of
eGovernment: 1994-2004; 2005-2009; 2010-2012. The choice of
analysing time periods that have different length is due to the need
289
of observing the eGovernment phenomenon of mature public
administrations in their evolutionary pathways that were quite
slow at the beginning as mainly related to deployment of ICT
infrastructures and awareness actions (see MM in Figure 1) and
faster as much as the pathways were related to deployment and
take-up of eGovernment services:
• 1994-2004: this period ranges from the start-up of the
“reinventing government” [1]; [2]; movement, to the first
review of the Lisbon Strategy [58] launched by the European
Union in the year 2000 with the aim to promote ICT in all
competitive domains, including public administration. The
optimistic view on ICT performance and the Internet
diffusion has led to emphasize the lack of telecommunication
infrastructures [8] and their communication capacity [38] as
key barriers to eGovernment adoption. Both of which in turn
have been associated to the lack of institutional support and
standards [8] as a source of “Political/Institutional” barrier.
The concept of “trust in eServices usage by citizens” is often
associated with the concept of “security in transactions”
and “trust in government in preserving personal data
privacy, once the citizens provided them for using an
eService” [38]; [59]. “Managerial/Organizational” barriers
were also important to overcome with particular reference to
“shortage of ICT skills” in public administration [41], while
[8] sees as important barriers the “information
mismanagement and reluctance to share information among
departments”.
• 2005-2009: the period of implementation of the i2010
strategy in the European Union [60]. ICT infrastructural
problems are still considered relevant and in particular
operational costs and maintenance of eGovernment systems
are considered as crucial obstacle [4]; [9]; [20]; [40]; [44],
especially at the local level where the lack of financial
resources is more evident [4]; [9]; [42]; [55]. Technological
and operational barriers are still mentioned, and the most
noteworthy are the “lack of integration across government
systems”, the “lack of knowledge regarding eGovernment
interoperability”, together with the “lack of citizens’ trust
about eGovernment services privacy and security”. Lack of
ICT skills in governmental organization and lack of
cooperation amongst departments together with resistance to
change of the civil servants are also still mentioned [4]; [9];
[40]; [42]; [43]. During this period, however, the most
important barriers affecting eGovernment adoption are the
lack of “evaluation and measurement of eGovernment
services” [4]; [10]; [39], the “difficulties in establishing a
firm connection between ICT innovation, benefits and
outcomes” [3]; [9] and the “digital divide” [9]. Even if still in
embryonic terms, during this period start to be considerd
important barriers the “lack of demand side involvement in
the eGovernment decision making process” [10], the “lack of
trust on government and on government reform” [45] and the
“cost of the services for the users and their perception of
benefits” [4]; [62]; [63], together with the “lack of
eGovernent policy framework that can be applied at local
level” [4]; [42].
• 2010-2012: this period starts from the launch of the so called:
“Digital Agenda for Europe” [66] until today. Most recently
the “political/institutional” barriers have been seemingly
singled out as the most important obstacle for the full take up
of eGovernment services, with particular reference to “lack