Terry Keefe et al.
An echo of the view that e‐Government projects, by their nature, face a unique set of challenges can be found in“ Foundations of Strategy” by Grant and Jordan. In their book the authors describe how the process of strategy formulation in the public sector is made difficult by a set of unique characteristics not found in the market led sectors( Grant & Jordan, 2012). Three of the seven distinguishing features are:
Multiple, potentially conflicting goals where organisations have many aims and drivers, not necessarily closely related and at times in conflict with each other. In effect, strategic activities require collaborations between different stakeholders within public sector organisations. As Cadognone and Wimmer point out, e‐ Government projects frequently involve collaboration between organisations, thus increasing the level of risk.
Distinctive constraints and levers. The rules, constraints and procedures applying in the public sector are significantly different from those in the market sectors, and as a consequence the challenges for management greater.
Less predictability. Government takes place in a complex political, social and economic environment where the factors influencing and driving change are many and varied. When the risks inherent in IT and innovation projects are added to this mix it is hardly surprising e‐Government projects find success so difficult to achieve.
Similarly Ward and Daniel in discussing the application of Benefits Management to management of IT projects identify two distinctive and potentially disruptive characteristics of public sector projects: imposed drivers and many stakeholders. The authors go on to discuss the value using Benefits Realisation techniques to manage the range of drivers and stakeholder expectations( Ward & Daniel, 2006), an approach which was used successfully in iSAC6( Keefe, et al., 2012).
A consequence of the complex and unpredictable environment within which e‐Government initiatives take place is that they are inherently innovative insofar as that their purpose is invariably aimed at establishing new IT enabled solutions to complex problems. As Melin and Axelsson, quoting Heeks, put it“ New e ‐government projects are typically initiated based on:“ a problem that needs to be solved” or“ identification of an opportunity which could be seized”( Melin & Axelsson, 2009). The problem in project management terms is this makes e‐Government projects inherently high risk. The challenge for the project manager is to find ways which enhance chances of success. To this end the paper will now focus on a success story, iSAC6.
3. The case study ‐ iSAC6 +
3.1 Background
iSAC6 + is an EU funded initiative aimed at utilising semantic web technology to enhance the provision of advice to Citizens by government Citizen Advice Service( CAS) offices. iSAC6 is the culmination of a series of developmental projects which created an innovative semantic web based application, refined it within a single pilot location and then moved on to a wider implementation.
The value added by iSAC6 + is in helping local government offices carry out their responsibilities for supporting the needs of citizens most at risk of social exclusion or marginalisation. Desired project outcomes were to:
• Reduce long term costs, a critical issue in the current“ do more with less” economic climate;
• Apply innovation strategically and organisationally to improve competitiveness and enhance clientorientation as part of the drive towards professionalization of the public sector
• Improve the quality of citizen information services in terms of availability, accessibility, and usability, as well as enriching the information content and ensuring consistency of use.
3.2 Summary of success from final report
Overall the project has been a marked success. The final report to the European Commission describes the key objectives( report wording in brackets). A synopsis of the project result, in italics, follows each objective.
• To achieve change in delivery of the public service within the pilot( Did iSAC catalyse change in the pilots?)
The pilots experimented several shades of change in the service, in procedures, in policies of measuring quality of services, and impact in the organisation. The examples range from deep implication with strong leaders in
278