Alberto Savoldelli, Gianluca Misuraca and Cristiano Codagnone
selected measurement framework, we have discussed how in order to overcome the ' e‐Government paradox ', the measurement of e‐Government should be participatory and address a public value perspective as eGEP‐2.0 does. The real‐life experimentation and application in the case of the Emilia Romagna Region demonstrates the validity of the model and its usefulness for assessing impacts of e‐Government projects in each of the three stages of the policy measurement process( ex‐ante – in‐itinere‐ ex‐post). The results from the application of the eGEP‐2.0 shows that it presents significant improvement with respect to the approach underpinning the original eGEP methodology, as: 1) it is based on a process of consensus building that allows all actors involved in e‐Government to be an active part in the decision process; 2) it provides a coherent solution establishing a match between political guidelines and implementation process easily traceable and documented, which guarantees a continuous and circular measurement process supporting ex‐ante‐in‐itinere‐ex‐post measures; 3) it is faster and more effective than previous solutions.. At the same time further research is required to better understand the interrelations between the various dimensions of the eGEP2.0 model, as well as to test on a larger scale its validity and with a more depth. This would require for instance to set‐up a social( e. g. quasinatural) experiment to observe and monitor the changes that e‐Government interventions are generating in different contexts, or comparing similar experiences in measuring the impact of e‐Government. The findings from the ' validity test ' suggest, in fact, that the framework is robust enough for being an initial starting point to guide the possible development of theoretical perspectives and practical applications required, on the one hand, to contribute developing a better theoretical understanding of the impacts of e‐Government policy interventions; and on the other hand to implement a practical‐oriented and participatory measurement instrument to assess e‐Government policies and the consequences of different policy implementation options. The proposed methodology is also a clear enhancement in respect to the existing approaches proposed so far and it is easily replicable in different policy contexts. However it clearly shows further areas of improvement both from a research and practice perspective. This implies that further research should explore possible intersections of the proposed methodological approach and the one aimed at establishing cause‐effect relationships between policy actions and social impacts, in order to better appreciate how their synergic use in different stages of the policy planning process could be considered. Moreover it should be investigated better how to improve the citizens participation mechanisms in the consensus building process underpinning formal policy‐making procedures related to the various aspects of the proposed methodology. At present, in fact, the participation of citizens to the decision‐making process is mediated by stakeholders and doesn’ t include any direct mechanism for achieving consensus around specific policy decisions..
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
Acknowledgments
The section on the application of the methodological framework to the case of the Emilia Romagna Region has benefited of the collaboration with the evaluation unit of the ICT Direction of Emilia‐Romagna region. Special thanks go to Carla Carbone, coordinator of the evaluation unit, and the Ervet SpA team, who have provided an extremely valuable effort to sustain and contribute in the design and deployment of the framework to the Emilia Romagna case. Without their competence and passion it would have not be possible to realise the concrete application and further improvement of the eGEP‐2.0 methodology.
References
ADAE,( 2007), MAREVA methodology guide: Analysis of the value of ADELE projects. Fourth High Level Seminar on Measuring and Evaluating E‐Government, Dubai.
AGIMO,( 2004), Demand and Value Assessment Methodology ‐ DAM & VAM. Australian Government Information Office,
Commonwealth of Australia. Anttiroiko, A‐V.,( 2008). Local eGovernment for Development: preliminary remarks. Australian Government,( 2005), ICT and Australian Productivity: Methodologies and Measurement. Occasional Economic
Paper, Department of Communication, Information Technologies and the Arts. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T.( 2008). The E‐Government paradox: Better customer service doesn ' t necessarily cost less. In
Government Information Quarterly, 25( 2), 149‐154. Belanger, F., Carter, L.,( 2008).“ Trust and risk in eGovernment adoption”. In Strategic Information Systems, 17(), pp: 165‐
176. Booz‐Hallen‐Hamilton,( 2004), An Introduction to Value Measurement Methodology. Booz‐ Hallen‐ Hamilton presentation available at http:// www. fgdc. gov / policyandplanning / 50states / introduction‐to‐vmm‐bah‐0ct‐2004. pdf
450