Assessing Policy Making for ICT Innovation: A Decision Support Research Agenda

Our study explores European telecare policy and considers the different types of uncertainties for policy makers when addressing ICT innovation. We specifically examine 14 European countries in our study using document analysis, expert interviews and workshops. The findings reveal nuances in how policy makers are reacting to the uncertainty of telecare technologies as a representative of ICT innovation. Our contribution lies in exploring decision support as per Alter’s contention that to improve the quality of decision making we most focus on broadly defined avenues for decision support rather than exclusively Decicion Support Systems [1]. Following Earl and Hopwood (1980), we analyse the case of European telecare policy and outline implications to strengthen policy making for ICT innovation [2]. Our study is pertinent to policy makers as we argue that they will increasingly be challenged to consider ‘responsible innovation’ in their policy making efforts.

[1]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Developing a framework for responsible innovation* , 2013, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[2]  C. Lindblom.  THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .

[3]  Gayle J. Yaverbaum,et al.  THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENT , 2004 .

[4]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[5]  Steven L. Alter.  Why Persist with DSS when the Real Issue is Improving Decision Making? , 1992, Decision Support Systems: Experiences and Expectations.

[6]  Lihua Yang,et al.  Internet's impact on expert-citizen interactions in public policymaking - A meta analysis , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[7]  Åke Grönlund,et al.  "You can't make this a science!" - Analyzing decision support systems in political contexts , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[8]  Theo J.B.M. Postma,et al.  DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS : EXPERIENCES AND EXPECTATIONS , 1992 .

[9]  Frank Bannister,et al.  ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research , 2014, Gov. Inf. Q..

[10]  Julienne Hanson,et al.  Big brother or brave new world? Telecare and its implications for older people’s independence and social inclusion , 2006 .

[11]  Toni Ahlqvist,et al.  Integrating future-oriented technology analysis and risk assessment methodologies , 2009 .

[12]  Diana Ishmatova,et al.  Towards a framework for analyzing and comparing ICT for aging society policies: a first approximation , 2013, ICEGOV.

[13]  Gerald G. Grant,et al.  Critical issues pertaining to the planning and implementation of E-Government initiatives , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[14]  Parliamentary technology assessment institutions as indications of reflexive modernization , 2011 .

[15]  Martina Maida,et al.  Success of Multi Criteria Decision Support Systems: The Relevance of Trust , 2013, 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[16]  J. Thompson,et al.  Strategies, Structures, and Processes of Organizational Decision , 1959 .

[17]  M. J. Earl,et al.  From management information to information management , 1986, Trends in Information Systems.

[18]  David J. Silverman,et al.  Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook , 1999 .

[19]  Mark S. Silver,et al.  Decisional Guidance for Computer-Based Decision Support , 1991, MIS Q..

[20]  Steven L. Alter.  A work system view of DSS in its fourth decade , 2004, Decis. Support Syst..

[21]  France Bélanger,et al.  The utilization of e‐government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors * , 2005, Inf. Syst. J..

[22]  Melanie Bicking,et al.  Method and Tools to Support Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development: The OCOPOMO Project , 2012, Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res..

[23]  A. M. Evans,et al.  Open Government Initiatives: Challenges of Citizen Participation , 2013 .