Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Notes on contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Subjective and objective measures of organizational performance: An empirical exploration
- 3 All measures of performance are subjective: More evidence on US federal agencies
- 4 A qualitative evaluation of public sector organizations: Assessing organizational performance in healthcare
- 5 Quantitative approaches towards assessing organizational performance
- 6 Consequences of goal ambiguity in public organizations
- 7 Performance control and public organizations
- 8 Bureaucratic red tape and organizational performance: Testing the moderating role of culture and political support
- 9 All that glitters is not gold: Disaggregating networks and the impact on performance
- 10 Network evolution and performance under public contracting for mental health services
- 11 The design and management of performance-based contracts for public welfare services
- 12 Outsourcing government information technology services: An Australian case study
- 13 International comparisons of output and productivity in public service provision: A review
- 14 Public management and government performance: An international review
- 15 What drives global e-government? An exploratory assessment of existing e-government performance measures
- 16 Public management and organizational performance: An agenda for research
- Index
- References
15 - What drives global e-government? An exploratory assessment of existing e-government performance measures
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Notes on contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Subjective and objective measures of organizational performance: An empirical exploration
- 3 All measures of performance are subjective: More evidence on US federal agencies
- 4 A qualitative evaluation of public sector organizations: Assessing organizational performance in healthcare
- 5 Quantitative approaches towards assessing organizational performance
- 6 Consequences of goal ambiguity in public organizations
- 7 Performance control and public organizations
- 8 Bureaucratic red tape and organizational performance: Testing the moderating role of culture and political support
- 9 All that glitters is not gold: Disaggregating networks and the impact on performance
- 10 Network evolution and performance under public contracting for mental health services
- 11 The design and management of performance-based contracts for public welfare services
- 12 Outsourcing government information technology services: An Australian case study
- 13 International comparisons of output and productivity in public service provision: A review
- 14 Public management and government performance: An international review
- 15 What drives global e-government? An exploratory assessment of existing e-government performance measures
- 16 Public management and organizational performance: An agenda for research
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Perceived to be a technological solution for a better, more efficient and more effective government, e-government has been presented and implemented in nations around the world as one of the most compelling advances for government since the mid-1990s (OECD 2003). Many governments, including those at both the national and sub-national levels, have begun various e-government initiatives to develop and advance their online functions by providing public information and services to citizens and businesses and by interacting with citizens to obtain policy inputs (Demchak et al. 1998; Demchak et al. 2000; Welch and Wong 2001; Wong and Welch 2004). E-government has often been hailed as a means of promoting more effective intra- and intergovernmental relations (Ho 2002; Moon 2002). However, efforts to measure e-government performance have tended to out-distance the conceptual and theoretical work necessary to justify the measures and explain the results.
So what is e-government performance? Recent work by Stowers (2004) proposes a multi-dimensional framework based on different levels of government performance: input measures, output measures, intermediate outcome measures and ultimate outcome measures. Input measures represent various resources used for e-government efforts to develop and maintain e-government applications. The input measures might be operationalized in terms of personnel and financial costs. Output measures reflect specific ‘immediate actions’ and visible indicators resulting from e-government initiatives such as the number of hits, completed downloads, number of e-mail requests and completed financial service/financial transactions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Public Service PerformancePerspectives on Measurement and Management, pp. 275 - 294Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) and United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration (UNDPEPA) (2001) Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective, Available at: www.unpan.org/e-government/Benchmarking%20E-gov%202001.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2004).
CyberSpace Policy Research Group (CyPRG), Available at: www.CyPRG.arizona.edu (accessed on 10 May 2004).
Demchak, C., Friis, C. and LaPorte, T. (1998) ‘Configuring public agencies in cyberspace: A conceptual investigation’ in and (eds.) Public administration in an information age: A handbook. Amsterdam:IOS Press.Google Scholar
Demchak, C., Friis, C. and LaPorte, T. (2000) ‘Webbing governance: national differences in constructing the face of public organizations’, in (ed.) Handbook of public information systems. New York: Marcel Dekker Publishers.Google Scholar
((2004) ‘How do government agencies review and approve text content for publication on their web sites? A framework to compare web content management practices’, Library and Information Science Research, 26: 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Freedom House (2002) Freedom in the world. Available at: www.freedomhouse.org/research/index.htm (accessed on 20 May 2004).
(2002) ‘Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative’, Public Administration Review, 62: 434–444.Google Scholar
and (2003) Digital governance in municipalities worldwide. US, New Jersey: The E-government Institute/The National Center for Public Productivity of the State University of New Jersey-Newark and The Global e-Policy e-Government Institute of Sungkyunkwan University. Available at: www.worldmarketsanalysis.com/e_gov_report.html (accessed on 4 October 2005).Google Scholar
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) (2001) World telecommunications indicators. Geneva, Switzerland: ITU.
(1997) ‘The global revolution in public management: Driving themes, missing links’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16: 446–462.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkman, G., Osorio, C. and Sachs, J. (2002) ‘Networked readiness index: Measuring the preparedness of nations for the networked world’, in (ed.) The global information technology report 2001–2002: Readiness for the networked world, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 10–29.Google Scholar
Lindley, C. (2003) World audit report, available at: www.worldaudit.org/civillibs.htm (accessed on 5 May 2004).
McArthur, J. and Sachs, J. (2001) ‘The growth competitiveness index: Measuring technological advancement and the stages of development’, in , and (eds.) Global competitiveness report 2001–2002, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 28–51.Google Scholar
(2002) ‘The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?’, Public Administration Review, 62: 424–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, M. J. and Norris, D. (2003) ‘Linkage between managerial innovation and e-government.’ Paper presented at Western Political Science Conference, April 2003, Denver, CO.
and (2005) ‘Advances in electronic government at the grassroots: Hare or tortoise?’, Public Administration Review, 65: 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2003) OECD e-government studies: The e-government imperative. Paris, France: OECD.
(2004) Measuring the performance of e-government. Washington, D. C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government.Google Scholar
and (2001) ‘Global information technology pressure and government accountability: The mediating effect of the domestic context on website openness’, Journal of Public Administration Theory and Research 11: 509–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005) ‘Virtual interactivity between government and citizens: The Chicago Police Department's Citizen ICAM Application Demonstration Case’, Political Communication, 22: 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, D. (2001) Global e-government survey. World Markets Research Centre. Available at: www.worldmarketsanalysis.com/e_gov_report.html (accessed on 15 May 2004).
West, D. (2003a) The urban e-government, 2003. Available at: www.insidepolitics.org/egovt03city.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2004).
West, D. (2003b) State and federal e-government in the United States. Available at: www.insidepolitics.org/egovt03us.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2004).
and (2004) ‘Does e-government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability’, Governance, 17: 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2004) A definition of e-government. Available at: www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/egov/definition.htm (accessed on 6 May 2004).
World Markets Research Center (2001) Global e-government survey. Available at: www.worldmarketsanalysis.com/e_gov_report.html (accessed on 15 May 2004).
- 2
- Cited by