icegov2012 proceedings

* 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.
4.7 Trust Factors
Most of trust factors obtained high levels of agreement about their
influential effects such as (see Table 8): confidence based on
budgetary knowledge (71.7%), confidence based on information
systems knowledge and technology use (71.1%), and clear roles
and responsibilities (78.3% and 69.1%). Only motivation factors
presented low levels of agreement: incentives (39.5%) and public
recognition (37.5%). Building trust is an important enabler for egovernment
success not only by establishing clear roles and
responsibilities, but by enhancing knowledge and expertise of
participants across multiple disciplines (not just IT).
Table 8. Trust factors of e-government (152 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.
5. PRACTICAL ADVISES
These results from the questionnaire allow us to derive 11
“practical advices” for a successful adoption of e-government.
There are five advises taken from the general characteristics
section: (1) Avoid multiple goals for the e-government initiative;
(2) establish inter-disciplinary mechanisms of collaboration
343
among participants from different staffs at the interior of the
organization as first level of coordination of the e-government
initiative; (3) establish inter-organizational mechanisms of
collaboration among participants from different organizations as a
second level of coordination of the e-government initiative; (4)
define better and more complete governance schemes for the
organization by creating channels of participation between key
organizations, not just the traditional reformer agencies; in order
to (5) establish strategies of support of the initiative by sharing
financial, human, technological, training and knowledge
resources. Results from the benefits section suggest that (6)
specifying a clear set of goals and activities helps to direct action
towards achievable plans. For agencies, it was easier to improve
by having a clear set of goals and performance indicators for
improving a particular public service than goals set in general
terms. With the complex goals of the PbR-SED, respondents were
only able to improve knowledge sharing and interdisciplinary
collaboration, but efficiency, cost reduction, and public services.
From the contextual section, (7) the lesson is to consider in
advance potential economic, social, political, institutional, and
organizational risks that may influence the adoption of the
initiative. It was found that economic, social and political factors
cannot be forecasted, but general trends can be detected and
prevented for a better adoption of the initiative. Institutional and
organizational factors may enable or inhibit internal strengths for
e-government success. An analysis of contextual factors provides
a useful map for where the initiative is standing. For budgetary
and information systems’ components, it is critical to consider that
(8) both work together not in isolation. Depending of the context
and necessary fields of expertise required in the project, egovernment
initiatives need to acquire relevant disciplinary
knowledge and experience across participants for a successful
adoption. For collaboration, (9) implementers should preview the
multiple levels of collaboration. It is necessary to exercise clear
mechanisms of collaboration such as authority, leadership,
governance and different types of resources to support potential
interdisciplinary and inter-organizational collaborations during the
adoption of the initiative. In terms of knowledge, (10) reformers
need to provide official training in different disciplines (not just
budgeting) as an incubating step in the process of adoption. It is
critical to pay attention of the professional experience, teamwork
experience, and different disciplinary and areas of knowledge and
expertise of participants, project leaders, members of teams, and
people involved in the e-government initiative. Finally for trust,
(11) there are motivational schemes that build confidence among
participants and motivate participation and collaboration. This
study found influential to build confidence the following
mechanisms: promoting knowledge and expertise on the different
areas or disciplines; setting clear roles and responsibilities; giving
monetary and non-monetary incentives like public recognition.
The lack of these trust builders may act as inhibitors of egovernment
adoption.
6. CONCLUSIONS
This research provides evidence of the multiple structures and
factors involve in e-government adoption. The results also suggest
the multi-dimensional nature of the structures involved in egovernment
success. It is not the intention to suggest that “all
matters”, but to provide a conceptual map for evaluation that
serves to diagnose what components of the initiative require the
attention of both, reformers and implementers, for a successful
process of adoption. The questionnaire as research instrument