Luc Lagrandeur and Denise Fortier
To derive the managerial problems, a case was prepared for each of the eight( 8) communities whenever respondents expressed them during the interview. Based on the cases, the categorized challenges have been turned into managerial problem questions:
The external managerial problems / challenges faced by the communities are:
• How can a community improve the engagement level of its citizens in the affairs of the city and the likes?
• How can a community promote a single brand when“ internal” organizations develop their own web presence?
• How can a community increase accessibility for its citizens?
• How should a city cope with the increased demands from its citizens in e‐services and new technology such as social media and mobile applications?
• How can a city improve the citizen‐client( customer) experience?
The internal managerial problems / challenges faced by the communities are:
• How can adoption of e‐services by city departments be improved?
• How can a city develop e‐services when access to expertise is unavailable within the community?
• How best to integrate e‐services with back‐office systems?
• How best to provide transparency on city’ s operations with the use of e‐services?
The purpose of this study was to identify the managerial problems and“ real‐world” issues that are relevant to elected officials and city administrators. Indeed, we know that municipalities that have a web presence are faced with complex challenges. Interviews results not only confirmed this reality, but participants also provided detailed lists of issues related to the following: 1) Reasons for cities to undertake e‐service initiatives, 2) Reasons for using the information highway, 3) The resulting internal impacts within their communities, and 4) The resulting external impacts on their communities.
We then asked the Intelligent Community Forum to further identify which of the nine( 9) managerial problems should be further studied for research purposes. The three( 3) challenges that they thought are of greatest importance and relevance is the following:
• How can a community improve the engagement level of its citizens in the affairs of the city and the likes?
• How can adoption of e‐services by city departments be improved?
• How can a city develop e‐services when access to expertise is unavailable within the community?
As pragmatic IS researchers, this knowledge enables us to pursue the next steps of the research life cycle, beginning with problem identification, in order to bridge a gap not only in the academic literature but also provide relevant solutions for practitioners.
2.3 The identification of research problems
In his evaluation of current e‐government research, Löfstedt( 2005) finds deficiencies and some directions for future research. His findings show that research at the local government level is in its infancy; more research is required. He proceeds to suggest an empirical study to investigate the state of development, e‐services provided and e‐strategies of local government to identify good and bad practices. Moreover, Lenk and Traunmüller( 2000) propose that e‐government be studied under four angles: the point of view of the citizen, the process( or reorganization) angle, the cooperation perspective, and the knowledge angle.
“ The direction for future research is proposed to be from the citizen perspective. By placing the individual user, i. e., the citizen, in focus the general perspective will be more of‘ Citizen Systems’ and less of‘ Governmental Systems’.”( Löfstedt, 2005, pp 48)
There is a lack of information of the impact of municipal online services on the municipality( the organization) and the relationship with citizens. To provide research directions, Löfstedt( 2005) suggests these research questions:
289