6. Conclusions
Juan Carlos Barahona and Andrey Elizondo
In terms of relevance, the proposed framework and methodology are clearly focused on the interaction between citizens and government agencies and are scalable to a national level. Nevertheless, there is incipient dialogue on defining the evaluation subject. Should it be the institution or the service provided? As interoperability evolves, the service provided will become more relevant to the citizen and it will probably have its own location( for example, a government‐wide e‐procurement platform). Interesting and important as this discussion is, we believe that focusing on particular institutions and leaders is consistent with the way resources are allocated, thereby helping and motivating institutional leaders to support e‐Government projects.
The proposed methodology is easy to understand and replicate, solving the opacity problem of other measures. The granularity of the measurement facilitates identification of specific areas or variables needing improvement. As described, the methodology proves to be feasible, scalable, and citizen‐centered.
Altogether, this assessment tool contributes to the development of e‐Government by creating awareness, informing demand and facilitating knowledge exchange. An annual ranking is a key mechanism to accomplish these goals, as it has been publicly recognized by practitioners and high‐level public officials.
However, greater efforts must be made to improve the methodology’ s reliability. The challenge is to do so without violating the design criteria and limitations on relevance, replicability and trustworthiness, which are the foundations of the methodology itself. Using more variables to estimate the latent variables would facilitate further analysis and redesign to improve reliability. Furthermore, the weighting can also be improved using techniques such as factor analysis.
In general, this instrument points us in the right direction to align strategy and the commitment of public officials with public services by digital means. At the same time, it fosters exchanges among technicians to share the technological knowledge necessary in order to compensate for the existing heterogeneity in digital institutional sophistication.
References
Aman, Aini, and Hasmiah Kasimin.“ E‐Government Evaluation and Organizational Learning.” International Journal of Digital Society( IJDS) 2, no. 2( 2011).
Ambali, Abdul Raufu.“ E‐Government in Public Sector: Policy Implications and Recommendations for Policy‐makers.” Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes, no. 17( 2010).
Andersen, Kim Viborg.“ e‐Government: Five Key Challenges for Management.” The Electronic Journal of e‐Government 4, no. 1( 2006): 1‐8.
Azab, Nahed Amin, Sherif Kamel, and Georgious Dafoulas.“ A Suggested Framework for Assessing Electronic Government Readiness in Egypt.” Electronic Journal of E‐Government 7, no. 1( 2009): 11 ‐ 28.
Barahona, Juan Carlos, and Andrey M. Elizondo. Evaluación de Sitios Web del Gobierno y Municipalidades de Costa Rica. Alajuela: INCAE Business School, 2009.
Barahona, Juan Carlos, and René Zuleta.“ Análisis de la Presencia en Línea de Instituciones del Gobierno Central de Costa Rica.” " Cátedra Software AG de Gobierno Digital " del INCAE, 2006.
Barahona, Juan Carlos, René Zuleta, and David Zamora. Evaluación de Sitios Web del Gobierno y Municipalidades de Costa Rica. Alajuela, Costa Rica: INCAE Business School, 2008.
Barahona, Juan Carlos, René Zuleta, and Olga Calderón.“ Marco conceptual y herramienta para la evaluación de la calidad de la prestación de servicios públicos por medios digitales.” 1er Congreso Iberoamericano de E‐Government. Santiago, Chile: Cátedra Software AG‐Alianza Sumaq de e‐Government – INCAE, 2006.
Dodgson, Mark, Gann David, and Salter Ammon. The management of technological innovation: Strategy and practice. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Dutton, William H., and Paul W. Jeffreys,. World Wide Research: Reshaping the Sciences and Humanities. The MIT Press,
2010. Eppler, Martin J. Managing Information Quality. Berlin: Springer, 2006. Esteves, J.“ Análisis del Desarrollo del Gobierno Electrónico Municipal en España,.” Revista de Empresa., 2006. Esteves, José, and Bohorquez Victor.“ Analyzing the Development of Municipal E‐Government in Peruvian Cities.”
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, 2007. Fallas, Gustavo. INS y Municipalidad de Belén mantienen primer lugar de calificación de sitios web. Amelia Rueda, 27 de 11 de 2012. Fitsilis, P., L. Anthopoulos, and V. C. Gerogiannis.“ Assessment Frameworks of E‐Government Projects: a Comparison.” PCI
2009 Conference Proceedings. 2009.
61