From policy to design and effects: A framework for e-government research

This paper presents a simple model for e-government research consisting of three notions: policy, design and effects. This model should be seen as programmatic statement for e-government research. Central in the model is design process and designed products of egov artefacts. Design is in the egov context considered to be a process of policy implementation. The policy background of egov systems are thus seen as pivotal to study. The use of egov systems by different types of users will lead to different kinds of effects. There might be positive and negative effects and the effects might be intended or un-intended. The model is grounded in earlier and on-going research in e-government. The model is also operationalised in different research themes, which can be interpreted as a research agenda. The model is also related to current discourses in information systems concerning the need to focus the IT artefact, practice theorizing and design research.

[1]  Göran Goldkuhl,et al.  Generic regulation model: the evolution of a practical theory for e‐government , 2011 .

[2]  Warda Allouache,et al.  Strategies to Construct e-Government Services in Compliance with Legal Framework Case Study: Services Dedicated to the Algerian Health Insurance , 2011 .

[3]  G. Goldkuhl.  The research practice of practice research : theorizing and situational inquiry , 2011 .

[4]  Rohit Nishant,et al.  What is electronic government service quality? , 2011, ECIS.

[5]  Anders Persson,et al.  Webbtjänster i samspelmellan statlig och kommunal företagspolitik : verksamt.se i samverkan medkommunala IT-miljöer och verksamhetsprocesser , 2010 .

[6]  Göran Goldkuhl,et al.  Socio-instrumental Service Modelling: An Inquiry on e-Services for Tax Declarations , 2009, PoEM.

[7]  Sevgi Ozkan,et al.  Exploring citizens' perception of government to citizen services , 2009 .

[8]  Göran Goldkuhl,et al.  Joined-Up E-Government - Needs and Options in Local Governments , 2009, EGOV.

[9]  John Krogstie,et al.  What is the value of eGovernment – and how can we actually realize it? , 2009 .

[10]  Francesco Virili,et al.  Value generation in e‐government from service‐based IT integration , 2009 .

[11]  Göran Goldkuhl,et al.  Innovation in a regulated environment? : Legal barriers for e-government development , 2009 .

[12]  Göran Goldkuhl,et al.  Socio-Instrumental Pragmatism in Action , 2009 .

[13]  Stefan Cronholm,et al.  Design criteria for public e-services , 2009, ECIS.

[14]  John A. Taylor,et al.  The citizen in the information polity: Exposing the limits of the e-government paradigm , 2008, Inf. Polity.

[15]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations , 2000, Theory in CSCW.

[16]  Klaus Lenk.  Reconstructing Public Administration theory from below , 2007, Inf. Polity.

[17]  Ralf Klischewski,et al.  E-Government Integration and Interoperability: Framing the Research Agenda , 2007 .

[18]  Richard Heeks,et al.  Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[19]  Euripidis Loukis,et al.  An Ontology for G2G Collaboration in Public Policy Making, Implementation and Evaluation , 2007, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[20]  France Bélanger,et al.  A framework for e-government: privacy implications , 2006, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[21]  Euripidis N. Loukis,et al.  Computer-supported G2G collaboration for public policy and decision-making , 2005, J. Enterp. Inf. Manag..

[22]  Marinos Themistocleous,et al.  Evaluating e‐government: learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities , 2005, Inf. Syst. J..

[23]  Åke Grönlund,et al.  Introducing e-Gov: History, Definitions, and Issues , 2005, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[24]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers? , 2005, Gov. Inf. Q..

[25]  Jane E. Fountain.  Central Issues in the Political Development of the Virtual State , 2005 .

[26]  Mateja Kunstelj,et al.  Evaluating the progress of e-government development: A critical analysis , 2004, Inf. Polity.

[27]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[28]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties , 2003, MIS Q..

[29]  Vassilios Peristeras,et al.  Analyzing E-Government as a Paradigm Shift , 2002 .

[30]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[31]  Jungwoo Lee,et al.  Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model , 2001, Gov. Inf. Q..

[32]  J. Fountain.  Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change , 2001 .

[33]  M. Scriven.  Prose and Cons about Goal-Free Evaluation , 1991 .

[34]  Chris Hull,et al.  Implementation Research as Empirical Constitutionalism , 1982 .