E-Government as an Innovative Product: Theories and Case Study - Information and Communication Technologies in Public Administration - page 125

e-government, legal framework adjustments that release e-government poten-
tials (i.e., digital signatures), key driver definition (i.e., eID), political declara-
tions that drive e-government vision (i.e., European Union Malmo Declaration
on e-Government and U.S. Paperless Action, etc.; Anthopoulos & Fitsilis, 2014),
and international monitoring and measurement (i.e., by United Nations, the
WorldBank, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)
(Anthopoulos & Fitsilis, 2014).
Results from international measurements have illustrated some of the fac-
tors that impact e-government development and could be defined as barriers
and drivers. For instance, digital literacy and Internet penetration are drivers
for e-government growth, whereas digital divide and trust are some of the docu-
mented barriers (Anthopoulos & Fitsilis, 2014; Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Reddick
& Turner, 2012).
The purpose of this chapter is to focus on the problem of e-government's slow
implementation and corresponding failures through both theory and a case study.
Our study differs from existing research because although the combination of
“innovation and e-Government” appears to attract some scholarly research, no
works can be located that address the approach addressed here. Moreover, find-
ings from the case study are novel, recent, and result in important outcomes. To
this end, our study aims to consider e-government as an “innovative product” for
government and verify whether governments have approached e-government with
respective means. The authors will attempt to justify this speculation and to pres-
ent how its implementation would be managed. Findings from this analysis will be
compared with existing e-government implementation approaches, and respective
conclusions will be presented. In this regard, the authors aim to answer the follow-
ing research questions:
1. Can e-government be considered an “innovative product”? Although this
question appears to be trivial or cliché, such a speculation might change the
ways e-government is defined and managed.
2. Do governments approach e-government as an innovation? This question
follows up the results from the first question and compares theories from
innovation management with findings from corresponding international
e-strategies.
3. What would change from e-government consideration as an innovation? This
question will demonstrate how the e-government implementation process
will be updated and the benefits that this consideration has for governments.
The answers to these questions aim to justify that e-government failures could
be avoided if governments approached it as an innovation. Then, the previously
mentioned initially grounded and rather ambitious e-government objectives could
be established. Otherwise, it would perhaps be more appropriate for e-government
to focus on the challenge to become another channel for public service delivery