Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Involvement in e-government – trick or trade?
Kim Viborg AndersenDepartment of Informatics, Copenhagen Business School
Oslo, October 15 2006
Presented at Workshop on user involvement and representation in e-Government projects
The Fourth Nordic Conference on Human Computer InteractionOctobre 14-18, Oslo, Norway
Abstract / key points
• E-government has the potential to transform interaction patterns, but from end-user point of view few results
• Involvement in design and implementing IT projects – lost the Scandinavian touch?
• Leading to succesfull projects (?) and less resistance to implementation
• Balance participation objectives on rationel-technocratic motives versus (?) democractic motives
• Involvement fading out? Replaced by new mechanisms fueled by NPM?
Oslo, October 15 2006
From the Danish menu (summer 2006)#1
• ”When you have found the form needed, you can complete the form at the computer or print it and complete the form by pen. NB. It is very important that you sign the form by pen – otherwise the form is not valid”
Oslo, October 15 2006
• ”We...do not use e-mail to respond to inquiries from the citizens. An answer will therefore be mailed by ordinary mail. Therefore it is important that you state your full name and postal address when you send e-mails to the agency”
From the Danish menu (summer 2006)#2
Oslo, October 15 2006
”If you have questions regarding the progress of your case/ inquiry, please call the staff in the office hours:
Monday, Tuesday, Wednes, and Friday 9:30 AM till 12:30 PM
Thursday: 10:00 AM till 12:30 PM”
From the Danish menu (summer 2006)#3
Oslo, October 15 2006
institutional level of participationnon-institutional
formal communicationinformal communication
experimental/ future technologies traditional technologies
Top down
Bottom-up
Institutional top-down participation versus bottom-up driven
participation
Oslo, October 15 2006
Participation issues
• Multiple technical channels for participation– fewer institutionalized?
• Willingness to pay split from finance of the services
• Normative views on involvement
• Limits to participation (professional ethics, time, etc. )
Oslo, October 15 2006
Participation in government
• Positive og negative regulation
• The citizen role– Voter– The user and the target of regulation
• The company
• Politicians
• The employee
Oslo, October 15 2006
Maturity models of e-government
Oslo, October 15 2006
Maturity models– CapGemini, Economist, Accenture
Oslo, October 15 2006
Maturing eGovernmentStreamliningpotential
Technological preconditions
Portals, simple forms, search engines
Transactions, initial integration & self-service
Integrated/seamless online services across organisations, full automation
Simple home pages
Service level
Maturing eGovernment – The challenge: digital services
Oslo, October 15 2006
Process rebuilding
Oslo, October 15 2006
The case of teaching evaluation
Oslo, October 15 2006
Teaching at universities
• Free of charge for students
• Income for universities generated by number students that pass the examns
• Quality standards for teaching performance
• Mandatory to evaluate teaching performance
Oslo, October 15 2006
Teaching evaluation
• Students’ feedback
• Process and ex post
• Formalized evaluations
• Major challenges– Low participation rate– Legitimacy problems– Lack of transparency
Oslo, October 15 2006
Study board
teacher
students
CourseFall
CourseSpring
timeCourseFall
The conventional teaching evaluation process
Oslo, October 15 2006
Study board
teacher
students
CourseFall
CourseSpring
timeCourseFall
students
Study board
teacher
students
The online teaching evaluation at the ITU
Oslo, October 15 2006
Online evaluation
• Quantitative and qualitative results displayed
• Teachers response to comments published
• Students and teachers prompted for response
• Teachers obliged to response to all individual comments
Oslo, October 15 2006
Concerns
• Decrease the academic level/ ambitions
• More focused on (good) feedback than learning cycles
• Hyper-efficiency rather than building acacemic sound institutions
• Evaluation favors easy courses
• Replaces dialogue on teaching performance
Oslo, October 15 2006
Outcome
• Increased and more accurate bottom-up information AND more top-down control
• Lack of experimental/ rich media• Higher participation rate• Students choose NOT to be anonymous• Formal evaluation culture established (no
complaints)• Improvement of current teaching• Highlight management of teaching• To be replicated by other universities?
Oslo, October 15 2006
Conclusion & perspectives
Oslo, October 15 2006
Digitalization of government
City hall Institutions/ street level bureaucrats
Support activitites
Core activities
Oslo, October 15 2006
Point of departure (normative statements)
• New IT applications are to be initiated and oriented towards the end-users primarily
• IT-capabilities among staff is acute need of updating• Politics, values, people, and attitudes towards technology
is the key to better design and implementation• The added value (not cost) of each public servant should
be in focus • The core activities, not the support/ flow of document
should be in the periscope designing the new government
Oslo, October 15 2006
