icegov2012 proceedings

management, budget, and information systems (82.7%). The
second largest benefit perceived by respondents was improving
inter-disciplinary collaboration. Respondents consider that the
PbR-SED makes more effective working relationships between
different internal areas and staffs in the organization such as
planning, budget, program management, and information systems
(78.2%). With regards to the increase in communication,
respondents felt that the PbR-SED generated performance
information useful for decision-making of public programs
(70.4%). Respondents consider more strengthened accountability
between different staffs and areas within the organization as a
benefit as well (69.8%). For the benefit of improving public
services, respondents felt that the PbR-SED gave them rise to a
better delivery of public services based on performance (66.5%).
In terms of improving inter-organizational collaboration, a 64.2%
of respondents consider that the PbR-SED resulted in a better
collaboration between their organizations and other agencies and
ministries. About the benefit of increasing efficiency, respondents
perceived that the PbR-SED improves the organizations efficiency
(60.9%). In contrast to the benefit of cost reduction, respondents
have a divided opinion over whether the PbR-SED really saves or
reduces costs (50.8%).
Table 3. Benefits of e-government (179 responses)
* Note: A 7-points Likert scale was used from “totally agree” to “totally disagree”.
For the % agree, only the categories of "somehow agree", "agree" and "totally agree"
were considered.
These results present areas of improvement. On one hand, the
adoption of PbR-SED has resulted in: better collaboration across
different members within the organization (inter-disciplinary
collaboration); a critical tool to enhance accountability within the
organization; and an instrument to share knowledge and
information among different areas of expertise like program
management, budgeting, and information systems. However, there
are some divided opinions if the PbR-SED has really improved
efficiency in the organization, reduced costs, improved public
services, and enhanced inter-organizational collaboration between
different agencies and organizations involved in the initiative
(inter-organizational collaboration).
4.3 Contextual Factors
Table 4 lists the results for each contextual factor. The contextual
factors more influential in the adoption of the PbR-SED are the
support of top officials (75.6%) and the usefulness of the strategic
planning (75.0%). The first is political and the second is
organizational. Other contextual factors were less influential but
significant such as budgetary norms and regulations (75.0%),
341
level of standardization of processes and tasks (67.4%), level of
centralization (64.5%), and size and number of jurisdiction
(59.9%). The economic factor, social factors and the political
factor of support of congress people present divided opinions
about their influence on the success of the PbR-SED. In sum, the
political factor of top officials support, the institutional factor of
budgetary norms and regulations, and all organizational factors
were considered influential.
Table 4. Contextual factors of e-government (172 responses)
* Note: A 7-points Likert scale was used from “totally agree” to “totally disagree”.
For the % agree, only the categories of "somehow agree", "agree" and "totally agree"
were considered.
4.4 Budget & Information Systems Factors
Table 5 lists the results for the budget and information systems
factors. Three budget factors were considered influential by
respondents: budgetary methodology for performance information
(80.2%), top-bottom strategy of implementation (68.5%), and
strategies of implementation of the ministry of finance (63.6%).
Information systems factors presented lower levels of agreement
about their influence on the adoption of the PbR-SED, but two
factors figured among this battery of questions: development and
use of proprietary information systems in implementer
organizations (60.0%), and definition of roles and accesses in the
official information system (59.9%). There were divided opinions
for two budget factors: the influence of flow of performance
information (54.3%) and official calendar (44.4%). Similarly,
divided opinion was also present for some information systems
factors such as: the official information system (57.4%), previous
experience developing information systems and data bases in the
organization (57.4%), and sharing data bases, catalogues, and
tables (46.3%). In general, budget factors reached higher levels of
agreement than information systems factors.
Table 5. Budget & Information Systems factors of egovernment
(162 responses)