The Electronic Journal of Information Systems = Evaluation

From: Subject: The Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 10:28:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01C32116.0D1FA280"; type="multipart/alternative" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C32116.0D1FA280 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.iteva.rug.nl/ejise/images/title_v.gif R0lGODlhFgC9AZH/AP////8AAAAAAMDAwCH5BAEAAAMALAAAAAAWAL0BQAL/nI+pexEM25OxWnqZ 23ns3zmIGIIR6U1pxybiq1ZoSytfLOMtqUPzdRv1aqfbL3csEmfJhbFpexJppmnJqHQOVwYokGO1 bsPksvmrPauFy5jXtXuCLcwxG7aWyN/noG8/pwWYpybHUoVWU9dGKMiHkQH42JhI9YBXGZcSeLXF 80nJpuhmVzapgYjkRze1+DeYSTd02lqKKhrqKttqNqnrKBXaRSpcbHw8zBkFScuIKYv1x4i8Fhx7 qJw1nGXYKBlpjQSpmlryCgu9Kr59jZ3dq4LSTM31jvqcbu8SXhSdeApGX5hvxUD4KpdPjx2E+9g5 NHeMnzZLtH4t26SuGjpy/wL1jKM07+GVUf6+VCR2SyREkgzTgEt5bw89kzKFWVQFUpItjB2FZDzX cl/JfiyD+vwZ0+jRk0ZDcrk40thNoAsndMvXk2dWre62bl2a1alYlDRPqnyVjKpEeMx2zsQA8JPb WhHn4nqLF+/VHG2GekMK8ynWnMkAF7JLcFcvcIahCuZot+jXu/0a10pMhbHScXEtm9qMtqzNeKS1 yRtz+qPQvXlb3/Ks8DFfD1LXBu4EWnbZySzPurzk1i+hZpgn1k37Eh/Og5GPUrSM0KkGhW9AqfYp mM8c3q7rCnf5PLcY2A87c3+pVfpKzbYdD2Qfl3Ll83HIj/3uHjf9qJklq6nXv555Xtznm1qg/eff TveRZ8ltq7HWEHgSyucagbrNh1+E9GSo4YXANNedgQxeZh9Z63gITFdhgYiigYwpQqJ4fY1IYTsf IvbVVBIyVcpYM0JYI3H7hThbfNcJcmRo3LR3WIl0hZdjlDU6xqM7MP445Gj1ATkhNgVSqWBqVtZm nWLAATicTn+1ZVpp0jg04EZEhmjCQV20CJZ3B7LInJwdeplgUD7OOWcBADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C32116.0D1FA280 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.iteva.rug.nl/ejise/images/bglogo.gif R0lGODlhkwBFAPcAAJzOztbW1v/Ozv////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////ywAAAAAkwBFAEAI/gADCBxI sKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAjSpw4UYBFAQstUtzIsaPHjyAFXhyJMaTJiAAMAkhJsGRCliIPwgzgkuDM lytvqlR5s+ZJmTh1Plw5UGPBmT4R5lxa1KhQgTl/cox6EinPoleHHiUqtatErjSNBkCa1KvZsx6X UkXLtq3bt3Djyp1Lt+5YpkrB2t1b1uDIhVZ3Yk0odmtTvw3/vg0cNqlehYwHgi0M9bFIkoJjXnb8 9OxkygpBS4YJOnLLvncPp978ULRbtWsPXsxMsyNsy4Bv7/34GfXu38CDCx9OvLjx48ghzk7OPHNp rr6bS59ul6R117IV+9UeejlihNet/hOHXRD76rBZ0TfEO5kh+dNxO6uG+Jl2WbLcgWaM3hY/T/n6 aXZUS3nhVV5h/m0FIFqP4badb6adZ15eBJ5XWWIT/qRXePkBVqFNHz4YXnmjncYhf2y999+CEnLm oIqGFRibTTNSp55kIdqI3FpOkaijdAaC+OOQRBZp5JFIJqnkkkw26aST3omI4pNsiRYhla8BqBaW ddXI5ZfgRYnkiBGJeeCUTRWWIZnBuYaZe6wJZuaZ3YUZ5pxwoYknjoMN2Od3CtaXY3doMnjblUIK mGht693k4Ipb/rlYYj7iNF+Jl6XH6H9+ZlRpXTXt6aGkUA06loniMRRqhq89KNOjoTHeyKeioz3K nU5zetkfaa+yaF962B1Kp4S9/qZTkBNdiaiM8J0a6HAbOtQhprKWSmqjFUaLIasm9SaampANKuiZ a1L75oGmevbYdV+R5pi4qJpZ04zsAocshXCSCuu9AdIIK7VdHsrvS6bqWqvACyJssHT5jQvmpJku WujDIFHl3bIUm+Xtpxln6WvHcCH7McheRUryySinrPLKLLdcZEAAADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C32116.0D1FA280 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0018_01C32116.0D293F70" ------=_NextPart_001_0018_01C32116.0D293F70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.iteva.rug.nl/ejise/index.html The Electronic Journal of Information Systems = Evaluation <CENTER> <TABLE ALIGN=3D"CENTER" BORDER=3D"0" WIDTH=3D"110%" CELLPADDING=3D"5" = CELLSPACING=3D"3"> <TR><TD ALIGN=3D"center" VALIGN=3D"center"> <A HREF =3D"submiss.html">Submission Procedure</A> </TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN=3D"center" VALIGN=3D"center"> <A HREF =3D "board.html">Editorial Board</A> </TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN=3D"center" VALIGN=3D"center"> <A HREF =3D "latest.html">Latest edition</A> </TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN=3D"center" VALIGN=3D"center"> <A HREF =3D "previous.html">Previous editions</A> </TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN=3D"center" VALIGN=3D"center"> <A HREF =3D "indpap.html">Index of Papers</A> </TABLE> ------=_NextPart_001_0018_01C32116.0D293F70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.iteva.rug.nl/ejise/menu.html The Electronic Journal of Information Systems = Evaluation

EJISE = Home=20

Submission=20 Procedure=20

Editorial = Board =20

Latest Edition=20

Previous=20 Editions=20

Index of=20 Papers

ITEVA Home = ------=_NextPart_001_0018_01C32116.0D293F70-- ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C32116.0D1FA280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.iteva.rug.nl/ejise/vol5/Issue%202/paper3/citize~1.htm Marching to a = Different Drum: Citizen Centricity and IT Value in Public = Administration

Citizen=20 Centricity: A Model of IS Value in Public = Administration

Frank Bannister=20

Department of=20 Statistics

Trinity College,=20

Dublin = 2

Ireland

Frank.Bannister@tcd.ie

Abstract

While there is = much common=20 ground in the measurement of IT value between the public sector and the=20 commercial world, there are also significant differences. This is particularly so in the = case of=20 public administration where evaluation of IT presents a number of = specific=20 theoretical and practical problems. Starting from an exploration of the = meaning=20 of IS value, the differences between IT value in public administration = and the=20 commercial private sector are explored. =20 A taxonomy of IT value in public administration is developed and = a model=20 of IT value for public administration is proposed.

1. = Introduction

1.1 A = Question=20 of Scale and Perspective

By any measurement, = government is big=20 business. In many first = world=20 countries the state absorbs approximately 40% of Gross National Product. = Government IT spend is correspondingly large. As Muid (1994) puts it, = government=20 is at the apogee of an information industry, a phenomenon also noted by = Hood=20 (1983) in his concept of the nodality of government and by many others = (Snellen=20 1992). Given the size of = this=20 outlay, research into the IT value in the public sector has a relatively = low=20 profile. This is all the = more=20 surprising given the general unease that IT in the public sector has not = delivered the value expected (Lenk 1990, Frokjaer & Korsbaek 1992, = Pye 1992,=20 Margetts and Willcocks 1993, Bellamy and Taylor 1994, Willcocks 1994, = Margetts=20 1999).

This=20 perception of poor value has not been helped by a number of high profile = IT=20 failures[1]=20 and overruns. Margetts = and=20 Willcocks (1993) suggest that there are several factors that make IT = projects in=20 the public sector inherently more risky and thus more prone to failure = and high=20 cost. However the = question of=20 whether public administration is receiving good value from its IT = investment is=20 much more complex and difficult to assess. =20 One reason for this is that there is no agreed model of IT value = in=20 public administration. In = this=20 paper it will be argued that an agreed model is needed if IT development = in a=20 given public administration is to be coherent. Such a model must be = consistent=20 with current thinking in public administration whilst taking into = account civil=20 service culture, legacy infrastructure and technology developments. A model of IT value in public=20 administration based on the concept of citizen centricity, i.e. the = precept that=20 the ultimate beneficiary of civil service IT system must be the citizen = in all=20 his or her roles as customer, recipient, participant, taxpayer and so = on, will=20 be proposed.

1.2 IT in Public=20 Administration

Developing a coherent theory = of IT in=20 public administration is difficult given the current state of = incoherence in=20 public administration theory in general = (Mainzer=20 1994). Van de Donk = and=20 Snellen assert that not only has no such theory been developed, but that = it is=20 virtually impossible to develop anything other than a =91more or less = mature=92=20 theory (Van de Donk and Snellen = 1998). A widely discussed conceptual = framework=20 is informatization (Frissen et al 1992). =20 Another useful concept is the Information Polity. (Taylor and = Williams=20 1992, Bellamy and Taylor 1992, Bellamy and Taylor 1998). More recently Heeks and = Bhatnagar (1999)=20 have proposed the concept-reality gap as a frame for considering how IT = can=20 contribute to the =91reinvention of government=92.

The concept of = informatization can be=20 summarised as:

=B7 = ; =20 Introduction of IT to shape = or take=20 care of the information retrieval process; =20

=B7 = ; =20 The arrangement of = information flows=20 and information relationships to facilitate administrative or management = information process; =

=B7 = ; =20 Changes in the organisational = structure=20 into which IT is introduced; =20

=B7 = ; =20 The development of = information policies=20 as a differentiated area of decision making in an organisation;

=B7 = ; =20 The use of specific expertise = in the=20 field of IT through functionaries or consultants with specific tasks in = this=20 field.

Informatization may be = considered broadly=20 equivalent to the term information management in the sense of managing = the=20 information needs of an organisation. =20 Looking at informatization policies across a range of European = countries,=20 Snellen (1992) found that IT projects in the public sector during the = period=20 from 1970 to 1990 were dominated by the values of efficiency and = effectiveness,=20 controlled by the Ministry of Finance or its equivalent and = that:

=93the interest of = representation with=20 informatization policies reinforces the internal orientation of those=20 policies=94

(Snellen 1992, p21). Inasmuch as customer service = was a=20 consideration, it was viewed in terms of speed of delivery and absence = of=20 errors. Sometimes = appearances were=20 deceptive. Even where = projects were=20 deemed to be successful, ex-post research has shown that in many cases = the=20 =91savings=92 realised to have been illusory (Henman 1996).

Informatization is = positioned=20 by Taylor (1998) as an alternative way of analysing what Heeks terms=20 =93=85the murky,=20 messy world of information systems and public sector reform.=94 = (Heeks 1999b,=20 p76). In the literature on = informatization and=20 IT in public administration a major focus is on public sector reform and = re-engineering (Taylor and Williams 1992, Andersen 1999). Informatization=20 should shift the emphasis from efficiency and effectiveness to reform, = i.e. from=20 automation to information and thence to transformation. The question is how does all = of this=20 relate to the value of IT in public administration? There is a need to = respond to the = challenge posed=20 by Wyatt:

=93Rarely=20 has anyone explicitly addressed the question of why the public sector = invests in=20 IT, and of what it is hoping to achieve if not increased competitive=20 advantage.=94

(Wyatt 1991, p 25). Indeed, if one ignores = self-funding and=20 mandatory investments, why does a civil service invest in IT at = all?

In=20 order to answer this question, a model of IT value in public = administration is=20 necessary. In the = remainder of this=20 paper, such a model will be developed in four steps.

1. =20 First=20 a conceptual model of value will be developed. This will provide a framework = for what=20 follows. =

2. =20 Secondly=20 the differences between public service and private commercial = perceptions of IT=20 value will be explored. =20

3. =20 Using=20 a number of existing taxonomies of IT value, a taxonomy of IT value in = public=20 administration will be distilled. =20

4. =20 Finally,=20 consolidating all of these, a model of IT value in public administration = will be=20 put forward and discussed.

2. Defining IT Value - A Grounded = Approach

2.1 =20 Values and value

The = concept of value=20 in economics goes back to Adam Smith=92s concepts of value in exchange = and value=20 in use (Samuelson 1976). = Economics=20 posits the rationale man and proceeds to build various predictive models = of=20 behaviour on this assumption. = In=20 this model, the return on investment in IT is directly comparable with = the=20 return on investment in a new piece of machinery or in research and = development=20 (Engelbert 1991). = Psychologists and=20 decision theorists discuss value and decision making in quite different = terms=20 (e.g. Tversky and Kahnehmen 1982, Plous 1993, March 1994). In practice human and = organisational=20 decision making is often seemingly irrational when viewed from a = strictly=20 logical or economic perspective - a phenomenon Simon (1953) termed = =91bounded=20 rationality=92. =20

To = understand the=20 nature of IT value as perceived by a civil service we need a definition = of value=20 which will encompass the economic, psychological, cultural and political = aspects=20 of value. The = multidimensional=20 nature of IT value has been discussed by, inter alia, by Symons (1994) = who=20 describes the need for multiple perspectives and Cronk and Fitzgerald = who=20 discuss the value perspectives of functional groups and the dimensions = of IS=20 business value (Cronk & Fitzgerald 1999). To develop such a definition, = we start=20 by distinguishing the concepts of = =91value=92 and=20 =91Values=92 (for clarity spelled with a capital =91V=92). Values may be described = as=20 normative characteristics or modes of behaviour that individuals, groups = or=20 organisations hold to be right or at least better than other = characteristics or=20 modes of behaviour. = Values have=20 their visible manifestation in the ways that individuals or groups = behave and=20 interact with other individuals or groups. =20 For example beliefs in honesty, humility, self gratification, = efficiency,=20 social equality, duty, thrift, service to others and so on are all = Values which,=20 assuming they are applied, result in distinct forms of behaviour and = distinct=20 choices. Values present = as=20 attitudes and beliefs which directly affect the way in which government=20 departments apply IT. =

Given this = definition, =91value=92 is defined to be a quality applied to a good, = service or=20 outcome which supports, meets or conforms with one or more of an = individual or=20 group=92s Values. Thus a = person who=20 holds strongly the Value that all humans should be treated with respect, = is=20 likely to place value on improved work practice and ergonomic aspects of = an IT=20 system. An organisation = whose=20 primary corporate Value is economy in the form of keeping taxation = levels or=20 costs to a minimum will value an IT system which, say, reduces = headcount[2].

The second = distinction is between value and benefits. =20 In assessing any information system, a government department will = judge=20 the value it receives on its ability of the system to meet a number of = stated=20 and unstated needs. These = may=20 include explicit external needs (e.g. implementing government policy) = and/or=20 stated or unstated internal corporate or even individual Values. Benefits can be thought of as = an=20 operationalisation of the value construct. =20 Value is what we perceive; benefit is what we receive. The relationship is = illustrated in=20 diagram 1.

Diagram 1 = -=20 Relationship between Values, value and = Benefits.

The impact = of the=20 objective needs, i.e. those values which are formally stated or = specified=20 combines with Values which are implicit and may or may not be recognised = by the=20 members of the organisation. =20 Together these substantially determine decisions about IT = investment and=20 use. Value perception is = also=20 affected by the information available to the actor. Civil servants will be aware = of the=20 general economic and political climate and will be working within a = broad=20 framework set down by government, the Ministry of Finance/Treasury or = other=20 bodies. In times of = economic=20 cutbacks, there will be greater sensitivity to value for money than = there might=20 be in times of budget surplus. =20

In = summary, all=20 members of any organisation have Values, whether they acknowledge them = or=20 not. Values may be = individual,=20 group or organisational/corporate Values may be fundamental or transient = and may=20 be affected by current events. =20 These Values lead individuals and organisations to seek goods or = outcomes=20 which deliver value - i.e. things which meet or comply with these = Values. For IT investments and = outcomes, we term=20 this the value set. = Benefits=20 are the operationalisation of value. =20 In order to provide an appropriate basis for IT investment = decisions in=20 public administration, it is necessary to define the value set for = public=20 administration.

3. Public and Private Perceptions = of IT=20 Value

3.1 =20 A Question of Perception

An = important=20 issue is the difference between commercial and public administration = perception=20 of value and benefits. = The=20 perception of the role of IT in, and the value of IT to, a commercial=20 organisation is inherently different from that of the civil service for = a number=20 of reasons of which two are fundamental: motivation and complexity.

3.2 =20 Motivation

Private sector commercial = bodies are=20 driven by some combination of a need to:

=B7 =20 survive,

=B7 =20 grow,

=B7 =20 make profits = and/or

=B7 =20 create = wealth

The combination of growth and = wealth=20 creation is the yardstick by which business performance is = measured. League tables of added = shareholder value=20 are published indicating which companies are the most successful at = achieving=20 these ends (e.g. by the Sunday Times). =20 Reflecting this, the language of business management, = particularly since=20 the early 1980s, has been infused with the idea of competitive advantage = (Porter=20 and Miller 1985). While more sophisticated tools to measure company = performance=20 such as the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1993) have been=20 developed, the fundamentals do not change. =20 Investments of any sort are (or should be) primarily measured = against how=20 well they serve, directly or indirectly, the four criteria listed = above. A variety of other rationales = for IT=20 investment may be invoked and filters used (e.g. Boynton et al 1994), = but=20 ultimately they must serve these commercial imperatives.

The above four criteria either = have quite=20 different meanings or no meaning at all in public administration.

Survival

Civil=20 services, like most organisations, seek to survive, indeed they are = highly=20 effective at so doing, but the threats to their survival are primarily = political=20 and social rather than economic. A civil service department does not = normally=20 have competitors. In = Ireland, for=20 example, civil service departments constantly mutate, but the overall = structure=20 and staffing levels have remained broadly stable over the past 30 years = (Dooney=20 and O=92Toole 1992). With = constitutionally protected job security, most civil service managers do = not=20 concern themselves unduly with Grove=92s blunt assertion that one has to = be=20 paranoid to survive (Grove 1996).

Growth

A civil=20 service may seek to expand, but the motivations for such growth are = different=20 from those of a private company. = There are no shareholders or investment managers demanding year = on year=20 increases in earnings. = Internally=20 generated growth driven by civil servants (as opposed to growth driven = by=20 customer demand or government action) may be driven by a desire to = provide=20 better or additional services or for less altruistic reasons such as = power,=20 promotion or control, but not by external pressures to add shareholder=20 value. Furthermore, = unlike private=20 companies, any civil service has, in the central government Finance = function, an=20 internal control mechanism which deliberately tries to restrain = growth.

Profitability

Civil service=20 departments are not profit driven. =20 Department management may be motivated by cost savings or cost = avoidance,=20 but this is a much more limited sphere than profit growth in part = because costs=20 are only one side of profitability, but also because cost savings are = bounded to=20 a much greater extent than profits. =20 The motivation in many civil service departments is still to break-even each year.

Wealth = Creation

Fourthly, while civil service = departments=20 seek to create wealth (a more healthy population, better roads, better = educated=20 workforce), such wealth creation is a vastly broader conception than = that of=20 financially enriching shareholders, management or the workforce. The value of such wealth is often = difficult=20 to measure by comparison with such business metrics as increases in = shareholders=20 funds or earnings per share (Wholly 1979, 1983, Boyle 1993, 1996). The issue of such non material = wealth=20 creation is, however, central to the mission of the civil service (Lalor = 2000)=20 and has a fundamental impact on the role and value placed on IT.

3.3 =20 Complexity

Business decisions can = sometimes be very=20 complex (Clemen 1996), but in general public decisions are much more = so. There are several reasons why = this is so=20 including:

=B7 =20 Public sector decisions tend to = have many=20 more stakeholders;

=B7 =20 The scale of expenditure by = public bodies=20 is, in general, far greater than that of private sector=20 organisations;

=B7 =20 Many public sector decisions = have the=20 force of law and are not optional. =20 They deal with citizens, not voluntary = customers;

=B7 =20 Democratic and political = considerations=20 often add to the level of consultation required and consequently to the=20 timescale.

This=20 difference is often demonstrated when private sector decisions enter the = public=20 arena. For example, a = decision as=20 to whether a company should invest in a waste incinerator can be = evaluated in a=20 few weeks or at most months. =20 Obtaining planning permission to build such an incinerator may = take=20 several years. =

3.4 =20 Interpretation

Given=20 the differences between private commercial and public administrative=20 motivations, it follows that the rationale for investing in general and = in IT in=20 particular is frequently different. However, even where value = perceptions are=20 shared, they can take on a different connotation in public = administration. For example, many commercial = IT=20 investment decisions would include several customer related benefits or = values=20 including:

=B7 =20 Better = customer=20 service;

=B7 =20 Enhancing = customer=20 value;

=B7 =20 Customer=20 retention;

=B7 =20 Enhanced = customer=20 profitability.

But there = is a=20 fundamental difference between the customer/supplier relationship and = the=20 citizen (customer of the state)/state relationship. The commercial customer = generally has=20 the option to reject a supplier=92s product or service and buy elsewhere = or, in=20 many cases, not buy at all. = The=20 state is not only a monopoly supplier or provider of many services, it = often has=20 the authority to compel the citizen to deal with it. For many of its services, = there is no=20 market imperative for the state to treat its customers well[3]. Thus, in public = administration, the=20 above values translate as follows:

=B7 =20 Better = customer=20 service can, up = to a point,=20 be equated with better service to the citizen. However, whereas a company may = quickly=20 suffer the costs of poor customer service, the same is not necessarily = true of=20 public services;

=B7 =20 Enhancing = customer=20 value may or = may not be=20 meaningful. In many = instances the=20 =91customers=92 are at most paying for the services they receive = indirectly or, for=20 example in the case of social welfare benefits, may not be paying for = them at=20 all;

=B7 =20 Customer=20 retention is = largely=20 irrelevant. Customers = can, of=20 course, choose not to use state services, but if they want to travel = abroad,=20 drive a car or even eat, they may have no choice;

=B7 =20 Enhanced = customer=20 profitability has no = direct=20 equivalent meaning in the civil service. =20 Lower cost per citizen served does have meaning, but this covers = only=20 half of the full scope of this value metric.

Finally, = there are=20 also values and benefits which are either only found in a civil service = context=20 or which have a particular emphasis in the civil service which = differentiates=20 them. Examples of such = values=20 include:

=B7 =20 Assuring = equality of=20 treatment;

=B7 =20 Social=20 inclusion;

=B7 =20 Facilitating the=20 democratic will.

None of = these are=20 commercial values. Many = modern=20 businesses deliberately set out not to treat their customers = equally (for=20 example frequent flier schemes, private banking and so on). Social inclusion is not on the = agenda of=20 most businesses (witness the current closure of unprofitable bank = branches in=20 small rural communities) and facilitating the democratic will is not a = Value=20 that many businesses espouse in practice, even with their own = shareholders.=20

In = building the=20 value set therefore, it is first necessary to differentiate those values = which=20 are purely commercial, those which are shared by all and those which = have a=20 different slant in public administration and then to add values which = are=20 distinct to public administration.

4. A Taxonomy of IT Value in = Public=20 Administration

4.1 =20 Values

The first = step in=20 developing a model is to define a core set of Values for Public=20 Administration. The = following list=20 is proposed:

=B7 = ; =20 Duty = Orientated =20 Responsibility to citizen

Responsibility to=20 the government;

Proper=20 use of public funds;

Efficient=20 and effective use of public funds;

Facilitating the=20 democratic will.

=B7 = ; =20 Service=20 Oriented =20 Service to the citizen;

Respect=20 for the individual.

=B7 = ; =20 Socially=20 Oriented =20 Respect for the citizen;

Social=20 inclusion;

Justice;

Fairness;

Equality=20 of treatment.

We term = these core=20 values. The traditional = themes in=20 the study of Public Administration, i.e. accountability, responsibility, = responsiveness, control, equity, justice and democracy are implicit in = the core=20 values.

The = citizen appears=20 under each of the different headings reflecting the fact that (s)he has = several=20 possible roles. At any = given time,=20 the citizen may be some of all of:

Taxpayer:=20 =20 The person who ultimately funds public administration and IT=20 investment;

Customer:=20 =20 Someone who buys a service from the state;

Client:=20 &nbs= p; =20 Someone on whose behalf the state acts;

Claimant: =20 Someone who has entitlements from the = state;

Recipient: =20 A person who receives either money or authority from the=20 government;

Participant: A = member of=20 the public participating in democratic decision making or policy=20 formulation

Agent &nbs= p; =20 Someone working for or on behalf of the = state;

Individual =20 As a person in their own right.

The = citizen=20 qua citizen, as a member of the polity is here term = =91participant=92 to=20 avoid confusion. The = above list is=20 not exhaustive (a citizen could, for example, be a prisoner or a ward of = the=20 state), but it covers the common roles a citizen can take.

These two = constructs=20 will provide the basic structure underlying the model.

4.2 =20 Value Categorisation

A six way = framework=20 categorisation of IT value is now proposed. IT value in public = administration may be=20 classified as:

Foundational. &nbs= p; =20 relating to the legacy of cost efficiency justified IT systems = used in=20 public administration. = These values=20 are close to the traditional three Es of Value for Money, Efficiency,=20 Effectiveness and Economy (National Audit Office (UK)=20 1996);

Policy=20 formulation. =20 relating to the administration=92s role in developing = policy. This includes responsibility = to=20 government.

Democratic &nbs= p; =20 relating to the support for and enhancing of democracy and = citizen=20 involvement in the affairs of the state. =20 This includes informing the citizen, justice, fairness and=20 equity;

Service &nbs= p; = ;=20 relating to the provision of service to the citizen as customer, = client,=20 claimant or recipient. = This=20 includes timeliness, accuracy and convenience to the=20 citizen;

Internal=20 &nbs= p; =20 relating to values which are directed towards employees and = internal=20 operations of public administration. =20 This includes staff motivation and working=20 conditions;

External &nbs= p; =20 relating to the state=92s interactions with external = organisations=20 including organisations outside of its jurisdiction. This may include = many=20 mandatory elements.

4.3 =20 Towards a Taxonomy of Values in Public=20 Administration

Several = researchers=20 have presented or suggested lists or taxonomies of =91IT benefits=92 = (Parker and=20 Benson, 1988, Clince et al, 1992, Farbey et al 1993, Coleman and = Jamieson 1994,=20 Bannister 1995, Remenyi et al 1995, Remenyi and Sherwood Smith = 1997). Most of these lists are not = sector=20 specific, although some of them are grouped in different ways. In converting these = taxonomies/lists to=20 a taxonomy of IT value in public administration, four issues must be=20 addressed. =

=B7 =20 First, it = is=20 necessary to distinguish between benefits and values. Benefits and = values,=20 though closely related, are not the same thing. This = difference/relationship=20 must first be made explicit. =20

=B7 =20 Secondly, = most of=20 the lists are generic and/or business oriented. As has been shown, there are = IT benefits=20 and values which may be important in the commercial sector, but which = have no=20 relevance in public administration. =20

=B7 =20 Thirdly, = there will=20 be benefits and values in public administration which may have little or = no=20 importance in business. A = superset=20 of such lists will not yield a comprehensive list of IT public sector = value=20 metrics and will contain many irrelevant metrics.

=B7 =20 Finally = where=20 benefits and values do overlap, they may have different meanings or=20 interpretations in each sector. =20

The = following steps=20 were then taken:

=B7 =20 Following = an=20 extensive literature search, an extensive list of benefits and values = was=20 compiled;

=B7 =20 This set = was=20 filtered to remove those benefits and values which are not relevant or = not=20 applicable in public administration;

=B7 =20 Where = appropriate,=20 benefits were restructured or re-formulated as = values;

=B7 =20 The = resulting set=20 was reviewed and, where necessary, values were restructured and/or = re-formulated=20 in public administration terms;

=B7 =20 The list = was then=20 augmented with a number of values which emerged from the background = research in=20 the Irish civil service and from the broader public administration=20 literature;

=B7 =20 The values = identified were categorised using the headings = above.

The = resulting=20 taxonomy is shown in the following table:

Table 1 - = Taxonomy=20 of IT Values in Public Administration

Category

Value

Core=20 Values Supported

Foundational

Positive=20 cost benefit

Efficient=20 and effective use of public funds

Cost=20 savings/reduced headcount

Proper=20 use of public funds

Avoided=20 future costs

Responsibility=20 to the citizen as taxpayer

Positive=20 return on investment

Responsibility=20 to government

Positive=20 net present value

Risk=20 reduction

Greater=20 staff efficiency