icegov2012 proceedings

of citizens' participation to the policy making process” and
“lack of measurement system on eGovernment process
performances and outcomes” [7]; [51]; [64]; [65]. According
to the authors discussing them, these barriers have the side
effects of producing a “lack of transparency and trust on
political decisions” [64]; [65]; [66], together with a “lack of
trust and empowerment of the citizens” [13]. Such authors
suggest a possible way for overcoming these barriers by both
tackling the “lack of eGovernment policy framework that can
be applied at local level” [14] and the “lack of formal
methods for supporting eGovernment decision making
process” [5]; [52]; [53]; [65]; [67]. An initial attemp of
analising barriers related to the “lack of sustainability of
eGovernment initiatives” is presented in [51]. At the same
time “technological/operational” barriers seem less
important for the scientific community except for the “lack of
open sources and open data standards” [67] and the
“shortage of financial resources in public sector
organizations” [14]; while the “managerial/organizational”
barriers are considered still important with particular
reference to the behaviour of policy makers and civil servants
in supporting actions enhancing trustworthiness of the
citizens, by reducing “lack of trust in the government
willingness to allow citizens to have their say if their views
contradict official policy”, “lack of transparency and trust in
government” and “lack of personalized and secure services”
[18].
In coherence with the MM (Figure 1), if we make a cross-analysis
of the evolution of the barriers to eGovernment, we can say that in
the last twenty years for the most mature public administrations,
the technological barriers have been significantly reduced but
eGovernment services adoption is far to be effective and there is
no clear evidence of which benefits ICT offer to citizens. This
situation is not so different from what private organizations met at
the early stages of ICT introduction - between the ’80s and the
’90s - where ICT has produced significant expectations. Also in
the private sector at the very beginning of the technological
revolution, ICT possibilities were overestimated [68], and the
“manifesto” of Hammer and Champy [69] in 1993 was considered
the ultimate solution for improving performance and
competitiveness in any private organization. Just few years later
(see [51]; amongst several other authors) ICT assumed the role of
enabling factor for supporting organisational changes and
business process integration [70], and the role of both “change
management” and “customer satisfaction” became central for
competitiveness. No more than fifteen years later similar ICT
adoption pathways and pit-falls have been followed by the public
sector, unfortunately without learning too much from mistakes
and failed experiences occurred in the past in the private sector
[42]; [45]. An evidence of such argumentation can be found by a
comparison of the position papers that Accenture has written on
eGovernment services adoption at the beginnings of the years
2000 and what the same organization has recently considered as
the best approach to the take up of eGovernment services. In the
Accenture’s position paper of 2001 “multichannel delivery and
CRM” were identified as “the key issues government had to
consider to improve the level of online services provided to
citizens and business” [15]; ten years later the same organization
recognized that “only cultural changes in public sector workers
and collaborative learning between citizens and civil servants,
together with ICT as enabling factors, could support an effective
eGovernment adoption” [21]. Therefore it seems now evident that
290
eGovernment adoption in mature public administrations is
affected by the lack of trust on both government behaviour and on
possible misuse of digital information provided by citizens to civil
servants. These two aspects of the problem are more related to the
stakeholders’ and citizens’ perception of the policy making
process and their expectation on eGovernment services [28]; [71].
As Van de Walle [54] says: “achieving good performances in
public services by governments is only a partial way to achieve
citizens satisfaction and to improve trust in government”, only a
transparent and participative policy making process can close the
gap [10]; [47]; [65], as shown in Figure 2, where only a well
structured policy planning process fully integrated with a
performance management system and truly participated by
stakeholders and citizens, can support a wide adoption of
eGovernment services and creating a well established Digital
Society.
But, what does it mean “better Policy Planning Process”? Which
are its key components? Which are main barriers to its adoption
and which are the real benefits gained by its use in public
governance?
Possible answers to these questions are discussed in the following
section, where we have gone deeper in understanding the
meanings and usefulness of Policy Planning Process in
eGovernment adoption.
Figure 2 – eGovernment services adoption virtuous cycle
4. DISCUSSION
From the findings of our review as presented in the previous
section we identified the Policy Planning Process as the core area
where public administrations must make improvements in order to
support eGovernment adoption and the overall development of the
Digital Society. In this section we go a step further discussing key
barriers that hinder an efficient and effective Policy Planning
Process. Before doing that we have to define such process and its
main components.
The Policy planning process. As Heeks [10] says: “Policy
Planning Process has a circular lifecycle”. It starts from needs
arising from the community where the policy makers have been
elected and it follows several stages that describes a policy cycle
as shown in Figure 3, that we have adapted from [10]; [72].
• Step 1 – Policy Strategy Formulation. It is the key step
because it provides motivations and justifications of why a
certain Policy Programme has to be implemented.
Unfortunately, policy makers often begin to formulate a