E-Government as an Innovative Product: Theories and Case Study - Information and Communication Technologies in Public Administration - page 134

Phase 2: System-level design: Beyond existing calculations, this stage
relates with the regulatory evaluation issues from the adoption phase of
Kim et al. (2007). Moreover, the undertaken risks that are not defined
(i.e., What might be wrong with regard to process reengineering?)
would be clearly estimated.
Phase 3: Detail design: The context of this phase is combined with the
project plans' finalization from the adoption phase (Kim et al., 2007).
Phase 4: Testing and refinement: This phase is extended with the project
management demands from the adaptation phase (Kim et al., 2007).
Phase 5: Production ramp-up: This phase concerns e-government deliv-
erable production with the combination of the impacts' management
from the acceptance phase (Kim et al., 2007).
This process gives the answer to the first part of the third research question: The
e-government implementation process will be updated from e-strategic implementa-
tion to an interdisciplinary process-based innovation management. This suggested
process incorporates strong commitments regarding focus and management, which
are expected to bring in the two identified missing conditions for innovation (strong
and thorough work; market pull) to the e-government implementation process.
Moreover, recognizing e-government as an innovation would make govern-
ments emphasize the innovation impulses and justify prerequisites that have to be
accomplished before an e-government initiative's launch. A strong scientific base,
for instance, both inside the public administration and the society, will enhance
e-government development education. Moreover, all these impulses can secure the
technological, financial, and political capacities that Moon and Norris (2005) rec-
ognize that positively influence e-government adoption.
6.4 Conclusions
This chapter presents a different concept for e-government development: It addresses
existing corresponding failures with the recognition of e-government as an “inno-
vative product.” To this end, the authors stated three research questions, which
investigated whether e-government can be considered innovation, whether existing
development views e-government as an innovation, and what would change from
such a consideration.
Literature review findings demonstrate that e-government can concern an
“innovative product” and, more specifically, an improved substitute to the offered
services. Moreover, past and recent e-strategic development follows the usual strate-
gic management approach—where strategic definition is followed by program and
project management—which do not meet innovation prerequisites. Moreover, the
case study of the launch of the Healthcare.gov website shows what happens when