Information Technology Reference
3. Are driven by technology push, without balancing it with market pull, and,
to this end, fail to meet end users' expectations.
4. Are not loyal to the initially grounded vision and mission statements, while
performance measurement does not compare outcomes with regard to the
initially stated objectives.
5. National economic growth lies behind all government e-government strate-
gies (Anthopoulos & Fitsilis, 2014), which is the outcome of innovation.
The above characteristics do not meet two of the conditions for innovate con-
cerns (Fagerberg, 2004): hard, concentrated, and thorough work; and market
focus or market pull (what citizens and enterprises really need). The third condi-
tion for innovation seems to be complied with (Fagerberg, 2004), meaning that
e-government appears to be important for governments because extensive public
funding has been and is being invested in this discipline.
Furthermore, existing e-government approaches depict the following contradic-
tion: Governments feel the change that is demanded for the public sector to enhance
national economic growth, they name it e-government, and they invest hugely in
this direction; however, the corresponding implementation process appears to be
fragmentary and weak because it results in various types of failures. Of course, it is
not easy for a government to perform as good management as an enterprise does,
and government failures cannot be seen only in an e-government arena: Poverty,
economic recession, and wars are also the results of ineffective governance.
If e-government is seen as an innovative government product, then the process-
based innovation management methods (Figure 6.1) suggest the required changes
to the existing implementation approaches. For the purposes of this chapter, the
five-phase interdisciplinary process for innovation management method was fol-
lowed because it involves contributions from various sciences, something that
occurs in the e-government domain (i.e., social and political sciences, ICT, man-
agement and finance, etc.). This process is combined with the one proposed by
Kim et al. (2007), which consists of initiation, adoption, adaptation, acceptance,
routinization, and infusion. The combination (Kim et al., 2007) was performed
because it follows a strong theoretical basis, it is quite recent, and it has been tested
using case studies, while helping to develop better understanding for both ICT and
organizational issues during the e-government implementation process.
Phase 0: A fuzzy-front-end period will determine the corresponding
innovative product (i.e., how a digital public service would be. How
will it be delivered? etc.).
Phase 1: Concept development: This phase deals with the context of the
initiation phase (Kim et al., 2007), where requirements evaluation has
to be combined with the clarification of how the expected added value
(i.e., efficiency improvement, but how much? Cost reduction, but how
much?) would be clearly calculated.