13th European Conference on eGovernment – ECEG 2013 1 | Page 489

Shawren Singh
Q15
Civil servants decision making processes are complex and
6.90
1.45
bureaucratic.
Q13
Is influenced by policy shift within government.
6.73
1.28
Q11
The influence of politicians.
6.59
1.50
Q20
Civil servants often do not know what is actually required
6.56
1.32
from the system / project.
Q1
The pressure to modernise government.
6.44
1.07
Q18
Civil servants inability to understand the point of view of the
6.29
1.40
citizen.
Q10
Integrating civil servants and outsourced team members is
6.24
1.24
difficult.
Q12
Interference by government Ministers.
6.12
1.71
Issue No.
Statement
Average Score
Std Dev.
Q2
The need to contain government expenses and thus keep
6.05
1.40
tax from increasing.
Q8
Governments ' outsourcing processes are complicated.
5.95
1.69
Q4
Lack of knowledge within government departments as to
5.85
1.53
how to justify governments’ investment.
Q6
Attitude of outsourcers to government contracts.
5.71
1.29
Q7
Civil servants struggle to manage outsourced contract
5.56
1.80
Q3
The short time horizon of a government i. e. 5 year
5.44
1.66
Q19
Challengers of competition from other governmental
5.29
1.45
departments.
Q9
Civil servants do not understand the need for outsourcing.
5.02
1.60
Table 2: Average Third Round Scores and Standard Deviations for the Group
All statements scored five or more with standard deviations of less than 1.80. This suggests that not only are the statements considered of relative importance by the population, but also that there is a relatively high consensus of this view.
Figure shows the 20 statements, sorted by the third round average score, but with their average score per round and their standard deviation per round plotted on the same diagram. It is important to note that the standard deviation in all but five cases declined each round. We do not consider this a setback, because in round one there were fifty four respondents. In round two there were thirty nine respondents. Round two lost fifteen respondents. Using active encouragement techniques for round three, there were forty one respondents, which affected the final scores. Overall, this indicates that a degree of consensus was established.
Figure 3: Average and Standard Deviation Scores for Each Round
467