User involvement in e-government development projects

The deployment of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) methods and processes in e-Government development projects requires knowledge of how user involvement is actually conducted in these projects today. In order to generate such knowledge, an interview survey of Norwegian e-Government project leaders has been conducted. It was found that user involvement is regarded as important by e-Government project leaders, but actual user involvement is often conducted according to the participation practice of industrial democracy rather than the processes and methods advocated within the traditions of HCI. The most frequently deployed user involvement activity is user representation in project terms. Users employed by the government units responsible for the project are more often involved in the development process, and in earlier project phases. The majority of the e-Government projects did not include activities to ensure Universal Design. Studies published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the British Government indicate that the results of the present investigation may be generalized to other European countries. It is concluded that the current practice of e-Government development will benefit on the systematic introduction of HCI methods. Further work should focus on the integration of HCI methods with the user involvement practice of industrial democracy.

[1]  A. S. Zamanakos.  Bits of information , 1958, Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Part I: Communication and Electronics.

[2]  W. C. Kvaraceus,et al.  Principles and Practices , 2006 .

[3]  M. Polanyi.  Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[4]  Einar Thorsrud,et al.  Democracy at Work: The Report of the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Program , 1976 .

[5]  M. Foucault,et al.  Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977 , 1980 .

[6]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Cognitive Systems Engineering: New Wine in New Bottles , 1983, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[7]  T. Pinch,et al.  The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other , 1984 .

[8]  Stewart Russell.  The Social Construction of Artefacts: a Response to Pinch and Bijker , 1986 .

[9]  Max Elden,et al.  Sociotechnical Systems Ideas as Public Policy in Norway: Empowering Participation Through Worker-Managed Change , 1986 .

[10]  Peter Mambrey,et al.  Computer und Partizipation , 1986 .

[11]  Lucy Suchman.  Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication , 1987 .

[12]  T. P. Hughes,et al.  The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology , 1989 .

[13]  D. Edge,et al.  The social shaping of technology , 1988 .

[14]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[15]  Marcus R. Wigan.  Data Ownership , 1991, Managing Information Technology's Organisational Impact.

[16]  Eberhard Ulich,et al.  Software-Ergonomie ’91 , 1991 .

[17]  Steven E. Miller.  From system design to democracy , 1993, CACM.

[18]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Participatory design , 1993, CACM.

[19]  Angèle L. M. Cavaye,et al.  User participation in system development revisited , 1995, Inf. Manag..

[20]  P. Thomas.  The social and interactional dimensions of human-computer interfaces , 1995 .

[21]  Capers Jones,et al.  Patterns of Large Software Systems: Failure and Success , 1995, Computer.

[22]  Philip E. Agre,et al.  Conceptions of the user in computer systems design , 1995 .

[23]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation , 1995 .

[24]  Eric von Hippel,et al.  THE MECHANICS OF LEARNING BY DOING: PROBLEM DISCOVERY DURING PRO0CESS MA CHINE USE , 1996 .

[25]  Gloria Mark,et al.  Integrating User Advocacy into Participatory Design: The Designers' Perspective , 1996 .

[26]  Christian Heath,et al.  Documents and professional practice: “bad” organisational reasons for “good” clinical records , 1996, CSCW '96.

[27]  G. L. Shostack.  Designing Services That Deliver , 1996 .

[28]  Charles Hill,et al.  What do Prototypes Prototype , 1997 .

[29]  Michael Schrage,et al.  Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate , 1999 .

[30]  Mark I. Hwang,et al.  The effect of user engagement on system success: A meta-analytical integration of research findings , 1999, Inf. Manag..

[31]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Soft Systems Methodology: a 30-year retrospective , 1999 .

[32]  George Wheeler-Carmichael.  Government IT Projects: The McCartney Report "Successful IT: Modernizing Government in Action" and the CSSA Report "Getting IT Right for Government" , 2000, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[33]  Daniel M. Berry,et al.  A Method for Extracting and Stating Software Requirements that a User Interface Prototype Contains , 2000, Requirements Engineering.

[34]  Michael D. Johnson,et al.  New Service Development and Innovation in the New Economy , 2000 .

[35]  Rob Kling,et al.  Learning About Information Technologies and Social Change: The Contribution of Social Informatics , 2000, Inf. Soc..

[36]  Benjamin B. M. Shao,et al.  The relationship between user participation and system success: a simultaneous contingency approach , 2000, Inf. Manag..

[37]  Martin C. Maguire,et al.  Methods to support human-centred design , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[38]  Peter van den Besselaar,et al.  Linking Databases and Linking Cultures: The Complexity of Concepts in International E-Government , 2001, I3E.

[39]  Jacob Buur,et al.  The design collaboratorium: a place for usability design , 2002, TCHI.

[40]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction , 2002 .

[41]  Henrik Artman,et al.  Procurer usability requirements: negotiations in contract development , 2002, NordiCHI '02.

[42]  H. Klein,et al.  The Social Construction of Technology: Structural Considerations , 2002 .

[43]  Richard I. Cook,et al.  Nine Steps to Move Forward from Error , 2002, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[44]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do , 2002, UBIQ.

[45]  Patrick W. Hamlett,et al.  Technology Theory and Deliberative Democracy , 2003 .

[46]  Helen Margetts,et al.  Incentivization of e-government , 2003 .

[47]  Ravi Kalakota,et al.  Services Blueprint: Roadmap for Execution , 2003 .

[48]  Øystein Sæbø,et al.  On the Evolution of e-Government: The User Imperative , 2003, EGOV.

[49]  Jens Vium.  Experiences from a Tender Process , 2004 .

[50]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[51]  Stefan Holmlid.  Issues for cooperative design: A procurement perspektive , 2004 .

[52]  Eswaran Subrahmanian,et al.  Boundary Objects and Prototypes at the Interfaces of Engineering Design , 2003, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[53]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Toward preprototype user acceptance testing of new information systems: implications for software project management , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[54]  C. Lovelock,et al.  Whither Services Marketing? , 2004 .

[55]  Rob Procter,et al.  Making a Case in Medical Work: Implications for the Electronic Medical Record , 2003, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[56]  B. Edvardsson,et al.  Service portraits in service research: a critical review , 2005 .