Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
table 8.3
the Updated D&M Model and eCReMoS
System quality
ECREMOS outgrew its technical teething problems, but
most respondents describe it as a slow system with a bad
search engine or too many pop-ups. The majority make
updates once a year. They have to study the instructions to
do so. Five municipalities upload data via xml; each time
ECREMOS is updated, they reinvest in interoperability. The
police refuses to invest for fear of duplication: It too
receives environmental complaints but registers these in
their own database.
The system times out after 10 minutes of nonuse, and data
often are lost as civil servants have to deliver front office
services while updating. The system is not as complete nor
flexible as hoped. Complaints cannot be pictured on
geographic maps, and no attachments are allowed and the
topic list does not cover all complaints. System quality
appears to be low.
Low system quality seems to be caused by technical
issues (C2.1) and a user alienated design (C2.2).
Registration cannot be done on the fly as complaints are
reported. By the time the IS opens, complainants have left.
Registration and monitoring in ECREMOS are therefore
done afterward and only to receive the financial reward.
Local politicians wanted the money.
Some municipalities report all their complaints, where only
others are important ones. This raises questions on
reliability. Big reporters fear that benchmarks will damage
their reputation.
Municipalities do not know what happens with their data,
e.g., by the Flemish environmental inspection. They also fear
that politicians might use data for electoral purposes.
Information quality in terms of data security is low. This
seems to cause bad information quality in terms of
completeness of data.
A lack of purpose (C2.3), fear for a bad reputation (C2.4),
and fear for data security breaches (C2.5) seem to cause a
decrease in information quality.
( Continued )
Search WWH ::

Custom Search