Has E-Government Failed?

Introduction

Deployment of information and communication technology (ICT) in the realm of the public sector to improve service delivery has been argued by many scholars as having the promise of enhancing efficiency coupled with improved operational effectiveness.

For this and other reasons such as cost saving, standardisation of regimes throughout states, and instantaneous access to service at any time within 14 hours in a day, e-government projects have been and continue to be implemented by various Nations, especially those from transitional and emerging economies (Heeks & Bailur 2007: Silcock 2001).

However, as the title of this paper suggests, many of such projects have failed at various stages of implementation. For the purposes of discussion of this paper, the term e-government refers to the use of electronic processes to enhance communication and the provision of public services (Bwalya 2009, p.3).

Defining e-government this way implies that it is an internet-based method, a process, and a procedure for communicating that substitutes both local offices of government and paper documents sent by post.

In an attempt to explore the query of whether e-government has failed or not, e-government accomplishments can be divided into three main categories. The first category comprises e-government events, which are considered total failures.

The second category is made up of partial failures while the third category embraces e-government projects that yield total success (Nixon, Kontrakou & Rawal 2010).

Partial failure describes e-government efforts whose central goals were barely achieved or one, where upon implementation; the outcomes were not beneficial (Nixon, Kontrakou & Rawal 2010, p.17).

The converse for this is true. For e- government endeavours that are considered successful. However, the purpose of this paper is not to explore these three categories in detail. Rather, the goal is to investigate whether, overall, e-governments activities have failed or not.

This paper is divided into four main sections. In the first section, the purpose and functions of governments are investigated. The second section covers success factors of e-government.

In the third section, failure factors of e-government are discussed. Finally, an author’s perspective on the possible dangers of e-government and the potential future benefits of e-government are deliberated before concluding with a statement of possible recommendations.

The purpose and functions of government

Governments are established to perform a number of functions and for particular purposes. Ife-government is to be effective in accomplishing its mandates, it has to ensure effective and efficient realisation of the purposes and functions that a government must accomplish.

One of the principal functions of government is to provide security for all citizens through national security defence forces (Davison & Wagner 2005, p.282).

The security forces are strategically arranged to ensure order. For the effectiveness of e- government in the delivery of public services, it implies that e-government projects must enhance the delivery of security services to its entire people.

Another key function of government is to promote national identity for its entire people. Nations approach this in different ways. These differences reflect their cultural and traditional affiliations.

For nations to exist, national identities must also exist implying that one of the noble functions and purposes of government is to ensure that the national identity of all its citizens is protected (Krishna & Walsham 2005). However, can e-government help in the achievement of these objectives?

Governments should also ensure equal representation for all in the national Additionally, in the sphere of the functions and purpose of government, a government tries to design and deliver infrastructural developments and social welfare for all.

Infrastructural developments are realised in the provision of clean drinking water, road construction and maintenance of bridges, electricity networks, and provision of reliable and efficient communication networks.

The provision of social welfare includes “programs to protect and fulfil the interests of minorities so as to provide education and healthcare facilities to the underprivileged classes of the economy” (Ciborra and Navarra 2005, p.148).

The main challenge is whether e-government can indeed facilitate the realisation of this endeavour. In this investigation, it is important to consider what e- government approaches entail.

The term e-government is deployed to refer to the deployment of aspects of the “government’s information technologies, among them being wide area networks, mobile computing services, and the internet to aid in the transformation of the government’s relationships with its citizens, other governmental aims, and or businesses” (Jaeger & Thomson 2003, p.390).

The main aim of the deployment of technology through ICT as an enabling platform for e-government, is to provide a means of improved industry-government interactions, to enhance the empowerment of citizens in terms of ease of access, for public information, and to improve the efficiency in the management of governments (Kunstelj & Vintar 2004: Taylor & Burt 2005: Vintar & Nograsek 2007).

Many scholars in the field of governance contend that e-government can translate into benefits such as “fostering reduction of corruption, increased transparency, greater convenience, and revenue growth and cost reductions” (Jaeger & Thomson 2003, p.390).

These benefits accrue from the fact that, through e-government, the traditional corridors of governance, which provide a means for direct interaction between the administrators and service seekers, are closed.

Through the rapidly developing ICT technologies, it has become possible to transfer centres for delivering services to citizens from localised areas far away from them to much closer places such as their own homes or offices (The Oldie 2013).

For instance, my tax office is 500 miles away, but now I can access all details that I would access at the tax office while at home through my broadband connected personal computer through e-government.

These centres are loosely termed as untended government agency kiosks whose physical presence is felt through home or office computers (Leif & Olsen 2005, p.56).

More analogous to e-commerce models of business transactions such as B2B or B2C, e-government is realised through G2C (government to citizens), G2G (government-to-government agencies), and G2B (government to business) approaches.

These technological domains of e-governance encompass the provision of services such as tax demands, payment of welfare benefits, and issuance of notifications, warnings, and renewal of licences among other service that citizens have traditionally accessed through physical offices (Booz & Hamilton 2005, p.108).

In delivering these services through e-government, internet is the most acceptable tool for enhancing it.

Success factors of e-government

E-government is considered the most plausible way of spearheading the developments and improvements of service delivery in the public sector especially in the developing nations across the globe (Dada 2006, p.2).

One of the success factors of e-government is that, at local fronts, the technologies involve providing electronic communication ensures that people can easily communicate and share information in anon-commercial environment (Dada 2006).

This outcome occurs only when the government and or the mandated government agencies “avail an opportunity to offer new and enhance services to the public, to increase the involvement of the communities in the policy making and improved service provision” (Carbo et al. 2005, p.97).

For e-government to be more than 50 percent effective and successful, they must provide and influence, and draw the attention of the public (Heeks 2006).

Software must also be available to help managers integrate alterations of workflows to provide opportunities for the administrations both at national and municipal level to operate and run in a smooth manner (Moon, 2004, p.424).

Putting up an effective and successful e-government strategy requires freedom of decision-making. Unfortunately, at local levels, governments often do not have independence in decision making due to the limitation of powers to pursue any e-governance agenda.

The central governments are also charged with the overall roles of providing funding and implementing new initiatives in the national interest (Shackleton & Dason 2007). It is also crucial to note that citizens often obtain information from the government via local agencies.

Hence, these locals should be given an opportunity to develop their own e-government online portals to ensure that the public receives filtered information that is only relevant to their jurisdictions.

For this reason, an important success factor for e-government is to develop e-governance models that fit the requirements of the real and actual condition on the ground and incorporate them in the development of an e-government platform.

Pursuant to the above-established success factors of e-governments, typical examples of cases where e-governance has been established with success are Philippines’ bureau for revenue, the Singapore’s e- citizen portal, and Mississippi’s payroll e-Service among others.

Through website, the Singapore citizens are able to access more than 1600 e-services in sectors such as education, family, businesses, employment, health and even recreational information. In fact, more than 1300 of these services are completely executed with the G2C technology online.

Bearing in mind those seeking e-government services face major drawbacks affiliated to educational differences, the Singapore’s e-portal is subdivided into a number of facets depending on the specific needs of people.

In the case of the Mississippi e-government portal, citizens are given an opportunity to view their tax payments information online via a web application called ACE (access channel for employees). Another service that Mississippi citizens can access online via the portal is the receiving of pay checks.

Although the examples depict that e-government portal can be successful in the delivery of public services, many of such endeavours have resulted to total failure in several nations.

Failure factors of e-government

Failure of e-government implies that there exist factors, which hinder the deployment of information and communication to support the various structures and processes, which help to effect governance systems.

Although failures of e-government are restricted to specific countries, the developing nations have been noted as having the most failure rates.

According to Heeks (2003), 35 percent of e-projects established in the developing nation are classified as total failures while 50 percent fits in the category of partial failures (p.13).

Whether they are partial failures or total failures, the conclusion is that the projects did not deliver their intended functions and purposes: to deliver government services to citizens online, effectively and correctly.

One of dominant factors that lead to failure of such projects within developing nations is that such nations often have minimal resources at their disposal to implement such projects.

Limitations of financial resources imply that developing nations’ governments cannot afford wasting their constrained financial resources in wasteful projects.

From the paradigms of the functions and purposes of governments, another failure factor for e-government is akin to the fact that not all services provided by the government can be made effective through it.

Ciborra (2005) upholds this line of view by further arguing that the motive behind the establishment of e-government in many nations is always questionable. The implication of this argument is that good governance is not always a by-product of e-governance.

For instance, in the case of military and bureaucratic administration, the use of e-government does not mean that such forms of administration will become more transparent, result-oriented, or efficient (Alfano 2011).

E-Government is bound to fail due to mismatches between design and implementation gaps. Heeks (2003) confirms through his research on the failure of e- government in the developing nations that most of the e-government project designs do not match the realities and dynamics anticipated in the future.

Consequently, although an e-government portal may be operational at an initial phase, future dynamics and changes in the governance approaches render them useless. As the gaps become wider, probabilities of failure of the e-government projects increase (Carbo et al 2005).

The future systems and current systems have widened the gaps since technology, which acts as the enabling tool for performance of e-governments also changes. Often, technological changes call for total change of systems for enhancing service delivery.

Consequently, investments in e-government involve constant incurring of expenditure. This constraint makes success of e-government in poor nations a mega challenge (Dada 2006).

The effectiveness of e-government in delivery of public services is not only a challenge for the developing nations only but also in the developed nations. For instance, the UK plans to make welfare benefits accessible through the online only (Anushka & McVeigh 2010: The Oldie 2013).

However, this being an effort for the UK to increase the speed of service delivery to all people through e-government, it presents challenges since not all people have access to ICT services, especially the poor and the old. In fact, not all people are able to operate the ICT systems especially the disabled and the illiterate.

Personal perspectives on e-government

Possible future dangers of e-government

The operation of e-government is dependent on the technological developments and interconnectivity between computers and data systems of different governmental departments for their effectiveness.

Utilisation of e-government in the delivery of service to the public implies that people would use the information available on the worldwide website to make vital decisions such as the amount of taxes they would limit to the government and the possible benefits that might be accrued (The Oldie 2013).

This might attract an unwelcome interest among malicious people to steal or impair the information contained in the governmental department’s databases. Such attempts increase cyber threats, which comprise the paramount dangers that face smooth operation of future e-government.

Future e-government also remains open to future archetype challenges in relation to the design and implementation of e-government projects.

For an all-inclusive effective delivery of public service through e-government portals, especially in the era of privatisation of systems of delivery of public goods in the effort to improve the efficiency of a government, a link between the public and private communication systems is vital.

Unfortunately, the two systems often operate indifferent contexts with the private sector being generally more financially affluent to meet incremental changes in their systems.

The ‘design’ differences existing between the information systems that are principally meant for operation in the private and public domain imply that future e-government would continue suffering from meeting the demands of the citizens. Different countries have different needs.

Thus, it is impossible to design systems that are appropriate for all nations. This strategy introduces the danger of nation-context gaps in the e-government approaches of the future.

Potential future benefits

Amid the challenges that are faced by e-government, potential benefits accruing from the implementations of ICT exist.

Should the e-governments who currently suffer be able to overcome their current challenges that truncate into their failures, it is possible that they would make citizens able to access public service at much-reduced cost since the internet is crucial in breaching geographical barriers.

Another benefit of e-government is that people are able to access public services for twenty-four hours per day where such services are available. This argument implies that e-government would have the benefit of increasing both the efficiency and the speed of accessing public services.

Conclusion

Based on the expositions made in the paper, it is evident that information and communication technology has had a central role to play in enhancing quality and effectiveness of services in both the private and public sector.

Organisations have adopted ICT service to the extent that none of them can do without them based on how integrated the technology has been in the organisations’ systems.

E-government is a methodology for substitution of communication procedures involving paper work by government offices with an internet-based means of communication.

As argued in the paper, embracing this approach is important since it aids in the reduction of costs, increasing the speed for accessing government services, and enhancing standardisation of systems in a nation.

Amid these advantages, the paper views e-government endeavours as ones that face various challenges, which may contribute to its failure. Some of these challenges include inability of all people within a nation to access ICT-enhanced services due to limitations such as poverty and disability.

The study upholds the argument that e-government has failed.

In support of this position, the paper not only considered the failure and success factors of e-government in developing nations but also argued a case scenario of the UK as an example of a developed nation whose e-government endeavour to avail social benefit services online only may be bound to fail in meeting its intended aims.

The paper has identified some of the reasons why developing nations fail to succeed in their endeavours to put in place e- government projects, for instance, the challenges of expensive nature of such projects.

In this regard, the paper recommends an extension of research on the mechanisms that can be developed to make developing nations extend the capacity to design, plan, and implement e-government projects in cost-effective ways.

For scenarios such the one faced by the UK, running parallel systems such that, while majority of people can access social benefit services through e-government, the disadvantaged class will also access the same services through conventional approaches.

References

Alfano, G 2011, ‘Adapting Bureaucracy to the Internet: the case of Venice Local Government’, Information Polity, vol. 16 no.1, pp. 345-361.

Anushka, A & McVeigh, T 2010, Government services to be available online only. Web.

Booz, A & Hamilton, N 2005, Beyond e-Government, Rutledge, London.

Bwalya, K 2009, ‘Factors affecting adoption of e-government in Zambia’, Electronic Journal of information Systems in Developing countries, vol.38. 4, pp.1-13.

Carbo, T, Williams, J,& Emeritus, P 2005, ‘Models and Metrics for Evaluating Local Electronic Government Systems and Services’, Electronic Journal of e-Government, vol. 2, no.2, pp. 95-104.

Ciborra, C & Navarra, D 2005, ‘Good Governance, Development Theory, and Aid Policy, Risks and Challenges of E-Government in Jordan’, Information Technology for Development, vol.11, no.2 pp. 141-159.

Dada, D 2006, ‘The Failure of E-Government in Developing Countries: A Literature Review’, Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, vol.26 no 1, pp. 1-10.

Davison, M & Wagner, C 2005, ‘From government to e-government: A transition model’, Information Technology and People journal, vol. 18 no. 3, pp. 280-299.

Heeks, R & Bailur S 2007, ‘Analysing e-Government Research: Perspectives, Philosophies, Theories, Methods and Practice’, Government Information Quarterly, vol.3 no.1, pp. 127-135.

Heeks, R 2003, ‘Most E-Governments for Developments Projects Fail: How Can Risks be Reduced?’, I-Government Working Paper Series, vol.1 no. 4, pp. 1-12.

Heeks, R 2006, E-government for development: Basic definitions for Information Services, Public Works and Government Services, Ottawa.

Jaeger, P & Thomson K 2003, ‘E-Government around the World: Lessons, Challenges, and Future Directions’, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 20 no.4, pp. 389-394.

Krishna, S & Walsham, G 2005, ‘Implementing Public Information Systems in the Developing Countries: Learning from a Success Story’, Information Technology for Development, vol.11, no. 2, pp. 123-140.

Kunstelj, M & Vintar, M 2004, ‘Evaluating the progress of e-government development: a critical analysis’, The international journal of government & democracy in the information age, vol.9, no.4, pp. 306-341.

Leif, F & Olsen, H 2005, ‘Local E-Government in Norway, Current Status and Emerging Issues’, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol.17 no. 2, pp.41–84.

Moon, J 2004, ‘The Evolution of E- Governments among the Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality’, Public Administration Review, vol.62 no.4, pp. 424-433.

Nixon, P, Kontrakou, N, & Rawal, R 2010, Understanding e-Government in Europe, Rutledge, London.

Shackleton, P & Dawson, L 2007, Doing it Tough: Factors influencing local e-Government maturity: Merging and Emerging Technologies, Processes, and Institutions, Bled, Slovenia.

Silcock, R 2001, ‘What is e-Government?’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol.5 no.4, pp. 88-101.

Taylor, J & Burt, E 2005, ‘Managing Trust, Generating Risk – Incorporating the Voluntary Sector in UK e-Government: Information Polity’, The international journal of government & democracy in the information age, vol.10 no.2, pp. 137- 145.

The Oldie 2013, Webster’s Latest Article in the Oldie. Web.

Vintar, M & Nograsek, J 2007, ‘How Much Can We Trust e-Government Surveys? The Case of Slovenia’, Information Polity, vol. 15 no.3, pp. 245-267.