6. Conclusions
Aelita Skaržauskienė, Steponas Jonušauskas and Monika Skaržauskaitė
Public budgets are shrinking, but citizens, now accustomed to new technologies and constant connectivity, have higher expectations as to the speed and quality of public services. E‐Government has reached its critical point, because it seems insufficient to move public services into electronical environment only. Further development of e‐Government requires innovations that increase the efficiency of electronic public services. Innovative activities in public administration could reduce costs, raise productivity, and improve the public’ s opinion of government.
Through our research and experience, we have identified the ingredients necessary to fostering innovation, regardless of the organizational model. It could be concluded employes in public administration deeply understand the value of innovation for every organization and perceive innovation as a new process / procedure or service. The reasons for being innovative are improving / expanding services, organisational matters and creativity processes, which were described as the new techniques in solving problems, production of new ideas, brainstorming etc.
Government leaders can either create a dedicated space for innovation or enable innovation across their entire administration or agency. The research results informs us about the tension between information technology and public organisations. This tension is emerging because the gulf between expectations from new technologies and the reality of operations.
The survey results show organisations have difficulties to cope with technologies and innovations, and support from research organisations is valueable and important for development of innovative activities. Market research as well as changes in environment, are sources for developing innovation. 68 % of respondents identified customers as a source for innovation and similar percentage‐ technology evolutions.
Organisations could foster innovations by creating financial rewards and motivation system, more than half of respondents claim their organisation still lack financial rewards for innovation.
The innovation in public administration could be measured in increase in customer satisfaction as well as service – volume and cost reduction according the answers of this survey respondents. Innovation performance could be measured using innovation scoreboards which provide good overview of trends in innovation over a period of time. They also highlight individual countries’ strengths and weaknesses.
To achieve a wider development of innovative activities, the e‐Government priorities shall be defined and deeper analysis of existing situation related to the main public services provided upon information technologies fullfiled. It`s clear that the successful introduction of new technologies in e‐Government would depend on many factors, including social and attitudinal factors. The insights designed in this research could be used with further studies to examine e‐Government adoption in other countries to sustain the required generalizability of findings.
References
Ancarini, A.( 2005)“ Towards quality e‐service in the public sector: The evolution of web sites in the local public service sector”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15, pp. 6‐23.
Archibugi, A., Denni, M. and Filippetti, A.( 2009) „ The Global Innovation Scoreboard 2008: The Dynamics of the Innovative Performances of Countries“, INNO Metrics Thematic Paper, European Commission, Brussels.
Augustinaitis, A., Petrauskas, R.( 2002)“ Lecture Notes in Computer Science. The First Steps of e‐Governance in Lithuania: From Theory to Practice”, Volume 2456, pp 438‐445.
Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., Higgins, Ch. C.( 2001)“ Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research”, Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 43‐50. Brown, T.( 2012)“ Designing a tech‐enabled government”, McKinsey Center for Government. Capgemini( 2007)„ The services users’ challenge”, Survey on provision of public e‐services, Internet access: http:// ec. europa. eu / information _ society / eeurope / i2010 / docs / benchmarking / egov _ benchmark _ 2007. pdf Civilka, M.( 2012)“ Situation of e‐Government in Lithuania and principles of teaching e‐Government in Lithuania: legal perspectives”, Legal Informatics Center at Vilnius University, Law Faculty, Internet access: http:// www. itc. tf. vu. lt Chesbrough, H. W.( 2003)“ Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology”, Harvard
Business School Press. Data provided by the Department of Statistics under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2012
479