E-Government among American Local Governments: Adoption, Impacts, Barriers and Lessons Learned Donald F. Norris, Professor and Chair Department of Public

E-Government among E-Government among American Local GovernmentsAmerican Local Governments : :

Adoption, Impacts, Barriers and Lessons Learned

Donald F. Norris , Professor and ChairDepartment of Public Policy andDirector, Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis & ResearchUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore County

Today, e-government is ubiquitous.


Great optimism about

e-government’s impacts.


Step 1Step 2Step 3Step 4Step 5Step 6Baum & Di Maio (2000)

PresenceInteractionTransactionTransformation

Hiller & Belanger (2001)

Information dissemination

Two-way communication

IntegrationTransactionParticipation

Layne & Lee(2001)

CatalogueTransactionVertical Integration

Horizontal Integration

Ronaghan(2001)

Emerging presence

Enhanced presence

InteractiveTransactional government

Seamless

Wescott(2001)

Email & Internal network

Enable inter-org. & public access to information

Two-way communication

Exchange of value

Digital democracy

Joined up government

The E- Government Models

Source: Coursey and Norris, 2008.


Has e-government achieved the potential claimed by

the models?


This Presentation

How e-government has actually evolved

E-government impacts

E-government barriers

Overcoming barriers

Lessons from the American local e-government experience


Why study e-government among U.S. local governments?

A very large number

Most (nearly all) have websites

Local government is closest to the people

Huge spending on e-government


The Data

Three nationwide surveys

Nationwide focus groups



Survey Year200020022004

2002 Census

Population Group

Over 1,000,0000.80.80.60.7

500,000-1,000,0001.01.10.91.6

250,000-499,9993.02.72.72.9

100,000-249,9998.29.69.310.8

50,000-99,99913.714.314.315.6

25,000-49,99922.923.723.323.0

10,000-24,99948.946.047.744.0

5,000-9,9991.21.41.21.1

2,500-4,9990.10.50.10.2

Geographic Region

Northeast16.318.316.6

North-Central27.628.828.1

South32.931.933.2

West23.321.022.2

Representativeness of E-Government Surveys - % of Responses

(continued)


Source: Coursey and Norris, 2008

Representativeness of E-Government Surveys - % of Responses (continued)

Survey Year200020022004

2002 Census

Metro Status

Central19.521.022.8

Suburban53.954.752.5

Independent26.624.424.6

Form of Government

City

Mayor-Council28.418.521.719.2

Council-Manager45.356.354.255.3

Other 5.63.74.03.9

County

Council-Administrator9.010.68.99.9

Council-Elected Executive

11.611.110.811.6


Focus Group Governments

NameGov. TypeNameGov. Type

Albuquerque, NMCityMilwaukee, WICity

Bellevue, WACityMinnehaha County, SDCounty

Boise, IDCityMobileCity

Boston. MACityMontgomery County, MDCounty

Broward County, FLCountyNashville, TNCity/County

Buffalo, NYCityPhiladelphia, PACity

Charlotte, NCCityPhoenix, AZCity

Colorado Springs, COCityPlano, TXCity

Dauphin County, PACountyPortland, MECity

Denver, COCity/CountyProvo, UTCity

Des Moines, IACityRoanoke, VACity

Fairfax County, VACountySan Diego County, CACounty

Hamilton County, OHCountySan Francisco, CACity/County

Indianapolis, INCity/CountySeattle, WACity

Kansas City, MOCitySedgwick County, KSCounty

Lane County, ORCountyStamford, CTCity

Lincoln, NECityTampa, FLCity

Manchester, NHCityWestchester County, NYCounty

Middlesex County, NJCountyTotal37

Source: Norris 2005

Are these data still valid?

Consistent trends

No studies that refute

Lessons from literature on IT and government

) Dauzieger & Andersen, 2002; Kraemer & King, 2006(


Survey Data

E-government in practice:

Information & services, not transformation.



Online Service Adoption

200020022004

%N%N%N

Financial Transactions

Tax payments4.9576.611513.4220

Utility payments3.7436.110513.7224

Fee and fine payments5.1595.69811.1183

Non-Financial Transactions

Permit applications7.08111.420213.1218

Business licenses and renewals4.9565.81018.1133

Government record requests20.623732.357731.4524

Recreational program registration10.412015.827422.6370

Service requests24.828633.358935.1588

Voter registration4.1472.4413.351

Property registration1.7203.3453.961

(continued)


Online Service Adoption (continued)

200020022004

%N%N%N

Non-Transactional / Informational

Government record delivery----21.337222.1363

Download forms for manual completion----65.71,06771.81,203

Communicate with government officials----76.01,27674.11,215

GIS, interactive maps16.0184----39.2639

Council agendas and minutes--------87.41,489

Codes and ordinances--------78.11,307

Emailed newsletter to residents--------32.9531

Streaming video--------13.9221

Employment information, applications --------77.71,305Source: Coursey and Norris, 2008. The data here are from governments that responded to all three surveys .

Survey Data

E-government impacts

Few governments report impacts

Predicted positive impacts not observed



Impacts

200020022004

%N%N%N

Cost Impacts

Reduced number of staff0.7111.3242.646

Increased non-tax revenues0.6100.9161.324

Reduced administrative costs5.0787.914810.9195

Non-Cost Impacts

Reduced time demands on staff8.212917.132025.0447

Increased demands on staff21.133233.062027.6494

Re-engineered business processes17.527524.145325.3453

Business process more efficient13.320919.636823.5420

Increased citizen contact with elected and appointed officials

----38.071235.8641

Improved communication to public--------59.61,068

Improved customer service--------52.8945

Source: Coursey and Norris, 2008. The data here are from governments that responded to all three surveys .

Survey Data

Barriers



Barriers to E-Government

200020022004

%N%N%N

Technical Capabilities

Lack of technology / Web staff58.191356.9106753.0950

Lack of technology / Web expertise40.062936.468231.4563

Lack of information on e-gov applications24.939116.230412.7228

Web site does not accept credit cards--------27.9499

Bandwidth issues-------- 8.2146

Need to upgrade PCs, networks29.546326.048720.5367

Political and Organizational

Lack of support from elected officials10.616710.920510.7192

Lack of collaboration among departments----17.432716.9302

Staff resistance to change----15.128417.0304

Resident resistance to change-------- 4.6 82

Lack of business/resident interest or demand--------22.8408

(continued)


Barriers to E-Government (continued)

200020022004

%N%N%N

Legal

Issues related to convenience fees for online transactions

25.039330.958031.8570

Privacy issues25.139533.562828.6513

Security issues38.360242.479537.4669

Financial

Difficulty justifying return on investment----33.462732.5582

Lack of financial resources48.275753.3 100057.41028

Source: Coursey and Norris, 2008.

Focus Groups

Why adopt e-government?

Services and information

E & E

Citizen contact



Reasons for E-Government(Number of responses – not number of respondents)

ResponsesTotal

Information and Services25

(Information)(15)

(Services)(10)

Efficiency, economy and related13

Citizen contact, access, oriented, centric10

Demand Total7

(Elected officials demanded)(2)

(Citizens, businesses demanded)(2)

(Perceived expectations/demand)(3)

IT department led or pushed7

Economic development, tourism, advertising the city or county6

“Keeping up with the Joneses”6

Other9

Total reasons given83

Source: Norris, 2005

Focus GroupsE-government impacts

Increased contact Met or exceeded expectationsBPRIncreased workloadsAdded costsChanged role of staffIncreased work for staff



E-Government Impacts (Focus Group Data)

Number

Increased work for IT staff29

Decreased work for IT staff4

Increased work for staff in departments6

Decreased work for staff in departments18

Reduced number of IT staff4

Reduced number of staff in departments 9

Changed role of IT staff27

Changed role of staff in departments27

Increased time/work demands of IT staff26

Increased time/work demands of staff in departments13

Decreased time/work demands of IT staff3

Decreased time/work demands of staff in departments13

Produced new revenues15

Added costs (IT)28

Added costs (departments)17

Increased citizen contact with local government (departments, activities, officials)33

Met or exceeded initial expectations31

Business process reengineering is occurring30

Business process are more efficient26

Focus GroupsBarriers

PrivacyLack of cooperationConvenience feesSecurityResistance to change) $ $ $lack of(!



Barriers to E-Government

Number

Lack of technology/web staff8

Lack of technology/web expertise5

Lack of information about e-government applications0

Lack of support from elected officials5

Lack of support from top management officials3

Issues around use of convenience/user fees20

Lack of cooperation among departments23

Difficulty justifying return on investment7

Privacy issues24

Security issues19

Lack of funding16

Need to upgrade existing IT technology/infrastructure4

Staff resistance to change18

Conclusions and Lessons


Conclusion:

The models were wrong

Not based on research; purely speculative

As each new wave of technological change arrives, advocates make large, unsubstantiated claims about the power of the

technology to reform and change all forms of human endeavor; this has been particularly true of informative

technology )Bretschneider, 2003, p. 740(.


Technological determinism


Lessons from local e-government in the U.S.


1 .Scholars should learn from relevant studies and not operate in a vacuum.


2 .E-government has produced positive results in areas like efficiency and effectiveness of service and information delivery.


Three examples

U.S. IRS E-file

Maryland MVA

eCityGov Alliance (Washington state)



Source: http://mycartooncharactersplus.com/popeye

3 .Barriers limit e-government development

$StaffROIPrivacy and securityResistance to change


4 .Constitutional structure of U.S. government.


Top down has not produced different results.


E-government is what it is!


Documents

E-Government among American Local Governments: Adoption, Impacts, Barriers and Lessons Learned Donald F. Norris, Professor and Chair Department of Public