icegov2012 proceedings

showed to be useful, for collecting data from respondents from
their natural settings. Using an online technique to collect
responses was limited, but useful to collect the data across
participants of the PbR-SED dispersed in the territory. This
allowed less expensive and more control process of data
collection. Particular attention of the phrasing of questions needs
to be considered carefully for this type of research method. In
particular, the section of questions valuated by using the 7-point
Likert scale proved to be very useful for capturing the opinion of
respondents. The dispersion of responses shows that the scale
goes from high levels of agreement to low levels of agreement
(disagreement). This dispersion was useful to scale the opinions
about factors influence going from enabling or positive impact to
inhibiting or negative impact over a successful adoption of the
PbR-SED. In other words, the results show that there is a set of
powerful enablers and inhibitors during the adoption of the PbR-
SED initiative. For enablers (equal or higher than 5.0 on average),
this study found some particular political, organizational, and
budgetary factors, but among all collaboration, knowledge and
trust factors obtained the highest levels of agreement about their
influence on e-government success. For inhibitors, several factors
across different structures showed low levels of agreement (less
than 5.0 on average) meaning not necessarily no relation with egovernment
success, but a negative impact on e-government
success. Another important result from this study is that the
connection between the goals of the e-government initiative and
the benefits perceived is weak. This may be resulted from the lack
of clarity about the goals and expected results of the PbR-SED in
organizations creating confusion across participants of the project.
In general, participants share knowledge and information,
collaborate more with others, and are more accountable for what
they do; however, they are unable of clear set of goals and
performance indicators for improving efficiency, cost reduction
and improving public services.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Agranoff, R. and McGuire, M. 2001. "Big questions in
public network management research". Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 11. 295-326.
[2] Ambite, J. L. et al. 2002. Data integration and access. In
William J. McIver and Ahmed K. Elmagarmid. Advances in
digital government technology, human factors, and policy.
Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[3] Andersen, D. F. and Dawes, S. S. Government information
management. A primer and casebook. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991
[4] Bryman, A. Social Research Methods. Oxford University
Press, 2004.
[5] Cresswell, A.M., Pardo, T.A., and Hassan, S. 2000.
"Assessing Capability for Justice Information Sharing', The
Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Digital
Government Research Conference 2000.
[6] Cresswell, A.M., Pardo, T.A., Canestraro, D.S. and Dawes,
S.S. 2005. Why Assess Information Sharing Capability?
Center for Technology in Government.
[7] Davenport, E. and Hall, H. 2002. "Organizational knowledge
and communities of practice". Annual Review of Information
Science and Technology, 36 171-222.
344
[8] Dawes, S.S. and Eglene, O. 2008. New models of
collaboration for delivering government services: A dynamic
model drawn from multi-national research. CTG Working
Paper No. 01-2008
[9] Dawes, S. S., and Pardo, T. A. 2002. Building collaborative
digital government systems. Systematic constraints and
effective practices. In W. J. McIver and A. K. Elmagarmid
(Eds.), Advances in digital government. Technology, human
factors, and policy (pp. 259-273). Norwell, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
[10] Dawes, S. S., Helbig, N., and Gil-García, J. R. 2004.
Highlights: Exploring the feasibility of a digital government
journal. Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government,
University at Albany, SUNY.
[11] Dawes, S. S. 1996. "Interagency information sharing:
Expected benefits, manageable risks". Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377-394.
[12] De Lancer Julnes, P., and Holzer, M. 2001. "Promoting the
utilization of performance measures in public organizations:
An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and
implementation". Public Administration Review, 61(6), 693-
708.
[13] Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L. 2001. "The Role of Trust in
Organizational Settings," Organization Science, vol. 12(4),
pp. 450-467.
[14] Fountain, J. E. 2001. Building the virtual state: Information
technology and institutional change. Washington, D.C.: The
Brookings Institution Press.
[15] Gant, D. B., Gant, J. P., and Johnson, C. L. 2002. State Web
Portals: Delivering and Financing EService. The
PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of
Government, Arlington, VA.
[16] Gant, J. P. 2004. Digital Government and Geographic
Information Systems. In A. Pavlichev and G. D. Garson
(Eds.), Digital Government: Principles and Best Practices.
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
[17] Garson, G. D. 2004. The promise of digital government. In
A. Pavlichev and G. D. Garson (Eds.), Digital government:
Principles and best practices (pp. 2-15). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group Publishing.
[18] Gil-Garcia, J. R. and Pardo, T. A. 2005. "E-Government
Success Factors: Mapping Practical Tools to Theoretical
Foundations". Government Information Quarterly, 22(2),
187–216.
[19] Gil-Garcia, J. R. 2005. Enacting state websites: A mixed
method study exploring e-government success in multiorganizational
settings. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany,
NY.
[20] Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., and Burke, G. B. 2007.
"Government leadership in multi-sector IT-enabled
networks: Lessons from the response to the West Nile Virus
outbreak", Paper presented at “Leading the Future of the
Public Sector” – The Third Transatlantic Dialogue, Newark,
DE, Mon, 02 Jun 2007