Introduction
In e-government projects, the requirements postulated in the project planning and design are often different from the reality faced during project implementation which creates gaps between the requirements of the project and the reality of implementation of public projects.
The design-reality gap analysis compares the project design requirements with the actual situation just before implementation along seven different ITPOMSO dimensions, rated on a scale of zero to ten. This comparison helps to identify the factors underlying the project failure as larger design-reality gaps increase the likelihood of project failure during its implementation.
The design-reality analysis involves the evaluation of each dimension with respect to the prevailing organizational reality just prior to implementation. In addition, it looks into the requirements and assumptions of the e-government design implementation like in the case study involving a single personnel information system. In this particular case study, the large gap scores of the dimension increased the likelihood of e-government project failure.
Causes of E-Government Failure
Large design-reality gaps existed in ‘A single personnel information system for Southern Africa government’ case study (Design- Reality Gap Case No. 4, 2003).
The evaluation of ITOPOMSO seven dimensions showed a disparity between the organizational reality prior to implementation and the requirements/assumptions of the design thus helping to determine the major causes that contributed to project failure. In this particular case study, the gaps that existed between the design assumptions and the current realities were large contributing to the project failure.
In considering the information dimension, information, the gap score was seven out of possible 10. This indicates that the information requirements of the e-government design were slightly different from the multi-storage system previously used. The design assumed a single strategic storage system that would serve all government ministries.
However, in reality, the information was decentralized to each department during implementation. In addition, contrary the design assumption that the system should be able to provide a complete and accurate personal data, most of the personal information obtained from the system was insufficient and not entirely accurate. This generated a gap score of seven indicating a slight variation in the information used in reality from the information requirements of the e-government design.
The technology used during the implementation was also different from the requirements of the design. Considering the technology dimension with regard to the case study, design technology requirements involved use of new soft wares and hard wares but in reality, a manual information system was used instead. The gap score for this dimension was seven representing some degree of variation between organizational reality and the project design.
In the work processes dimension, “the comparison of the processes needed for the successful implementation of the design and the actual organizational reality prior to the implementation of the project produced a gap score of seven” (Design- Reality Gap Case No. 4). The design system introduced new security procedures to prevent alteration of personal records of senior executives.
However, in reality the data entry clerks amended most of the personnel records. Another assumption by the design recognized electronic signatures but in reality, electronic signatures were not recognized as legal producing a gap rating of seven.
The real objectives and values held by the shareholders for effective implementation of the project were different when compared to those assumed by the design. The design assumed that all key shareholders shared the same objectives regarding implementation of the project. However, only officials from National IT unit (NITU) and office of the civil service (OCS) shared common objectives.
The officials of the relevant ministries objected the sharing of information as proposed in the project design. This produced a gap rating of seven. According to Design- Reality Gap Case No. 4 “the staffing numbers and relevant skills requirements of the design for successful implementation of e-government design were different from the reality prior to implementation.” The design required many trained NITU personnel to facilitate the implementation.
However, in reality large personnel with the relevant skills was not available. The design also assumed that a five-day training program was sufficient to get skilled personnel for the implementation. However, the training needs were so variable in reality and could not be met by the workshop training.
The design assumed changes in the formal management systems and structures with some duties delegated to individual ministries and departments but with no changes in formal structures. However, formal changes did change in reality prior to the implementation. In addition, the time allocation and budgetary expenditure proposed in the design were different from the actual expenditure set aside and time required for implementation.
Case Study Questions
A significant overall design-reality gap means the project is likely to fail. To avoid project failure, as the head of Office of Civil service (OCS), I would recommend steps to minimize this gap. To achieve this, I would use two approaches. Firstly, I would make substantial changes to the design to suit the requirements in reality (Brown 2009, 143).
This is through addressing each particular dimension to reduce the gap in the specific dimensions and the overall gap. Alternatively, depending on the dimension with the highest gaps, I can change the reality to suit the requirements or assumptions of the design.
The project ‘A single personnel Information system for southern African government’ was unsuccessful. “The design-reality gaps for staffing and skills were high at eight while for the other dimensions i.e. information, technology, processes, objectives and management systems and structures had a gap rating of seven” (Design- Reality Gap Case No. 4).
The other resources dimension had the least gap rating of four. The larger the overall gap, the higher the likelihood that the project will be unsuccessful. The assessment of the seven dimensions produces a design-reality gap of 42 indicating that the project is likely to fail unless techniques to reduce the design-reality gaps are implemented.
To reduce the risk of e-government project failure, I would recommend that hybrid staff with knowledge of government operations and skills in information system management. These individuals will act as a link between the e-government project developers and the government officials intended to use the application (Martin 2009, p.62).
The developers have limited knowledge of government practices while the ministry officials are knowledgeable of government practices but had little IT skills. Thus, hybrid staff could have enhanced participation by all stakeholders and reduced the design-reality gaps.
Conclusion
The analysis of the design-reality gaps helps in the determination of the likelihood of an e-government project becoming successful or unsuccessful. The gap analysis of individual ITPOMSO dimensions compares the projections of the design to the realities.
In order to reduce the likelihood of project failure, techniques to either change reality to suit the design requirements or assumptions or change the design to fit the reality are necessary. In the case study, the overall rating of 42 implies that the project is at a risk of failure unless actions to reduce the large design-reality gaps are put in place.
Reference List
Brown, T., 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations And Inspires Innovation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Design- Reality Gap Case No. 4., 2003. A Single Personnel Information System for a Southern African Government. Available at: <http://www.egov4dev.org/success/case/centralpersis.shtml>
Martin, R., 2009. The Design of Business: Why Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Inc.