José María Moreno‐Jiménez, Cristina Pérez‐Espés and Maria Wimmer
tools( Information Society) and then looks at the EF 3 approach, proposed for the evaluation of e‐governance models in the Knowledge Society.
2.1 The evaluation of e‐participation experiences in the information society
The evaluation of e‐participation processes is an issue of relatively recent interest since it is only in the last ten years or so that real‐life contrastable e‐participation experiences have been implemented and documented and a variety of evaluation theories and concepts have been developed( Rogers, 2003; Venkatesh et al 2003). In 2006, the European Commission( EC) launched the‘ e‐Participation Preparatory Action’ to spur innovation and to support pilot projects showing how the deployment of ICT may simplify the participation of people in decision‐making and legislation formation processes.
According to Aichholzer and Westholm( 2009), evaluation should generate information on the results of an e‐ participation project and its process organisation. Whether the focus is on outcomes( summative evaluation) or on process aspects( formative evaluation), both involve a systematic comparison with predefined criteria, performance standards or expectations. Motivations for evaluating e‐participation projects can be quite varied. Organisational learning, management enhancement, audit, project control, assessment of tools and the enhancement of democracy are among the most important interest.
Published studies on the evaluation of e‐participation applications are very small in number and, so far, only a few embryonic evaluation frameworks have been put forward( Whyte and Macintosh, 2003a, Frewer and Rowe, 2005). Anttirioko( 2003) suggests that the evaluation of e‐democracy should include the broad capability of technology to add value and this should be articulated through the parameters of Institutions, Influence, Integration and Interaction. Whyte and Macintosh( 2003) argue that to evaluate how effective e‐ participation is in engaging a wide audience and thereby informing and influencing the policy process, the analytical framework has to consider three dimensions: the evaluation criteria, the analysis methods available and the actors involved; the evaluation criteria itself should consider three, overlapping, perspectives: democratic, project and socio‐technical. These authors believe that any generalised evaluation framework for e‐participation needs to clearly define the evaluation criteria that are being considered, the actors involved and it must also ensure that relevant research methods are matched to the appropriate actor with regards to timing, skills and the willingness to be involved. Forss( 2005) identifies three functions for the evaluation of e‐ participation: audit; management and learning, and states that in the public sector, the emphasis has generally been placed on audit( where there is a need to monitor the spending of public money and assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the services).
Since the 2006 European Commission launch, a number of evaluation methods have been proposed( Macintosh and Whyte 2008; Aichholzer and Westholm 2009; Mamaqui and Moreno‐Jiménez, 2009; Wimmer and Bicking, 2013) for the evaluation of transparency, participation, efficiency and effectiveness; most of them are focused on the evaluation of the tools and technologies of the e‐participation experiences and only a few have analysed policy making and policy support.
If the evaluation of e‐participation in the Information Society has concentrated on( Aichholzer and Westholm, 2009) Products( efficiency) and Processes( efficacy), the evaluation of e‐participation in the Knowledge Society should deal with the third and most important‘ P’ of the‘ 3P’ perspective( Moreno‐Jiménez, 2002): People( effectiveness).
2.2 The evaluation of e‐participation experiences in the knowledge society
In the Knowledge Society, ICT developments make it possible to assess the impact of people on e‐governance and the impact of experiences of e‐governance on the people. This allows greater political transparency and accountability and more citizen control and participation. When public funds are used in an activity, evaluation is desirable as a means for improving the system. In general, the evaluation of e‐participation is indispensable if knowledge of greater precision and objectivity on the effectiveness, the value or the success of an e‐ participation project, initiative or program is required( Aichholzer and Westholm, 2009). When evaluating e‐ participation experiences, the objectives and goals of the experience must be taken into account. The objectives can be considered from the differing points of view associated with the actors implicated in the resolution of the problem: the Public Administration; the politicians, the citizens etc.
356