An Analysis of Failure in a Government-to-Government E-Government Context via the Updated Delone and McLean Model - Information and Communication Technologies in Public Administration - page 181

table 8.4 Match between Additional Causes of Failure and the Road Map
for Determinants of iS Success

Characteristics RSD ECREMOS

Task characteristics — —

Project and
organizational
characteristics

C1.8: Organizational
competence

C2.8: Organizational
competence

C1.9: Path dependency on
IT infrastructure

C2.9: Path dependency on
IT infrastructure

C2.10: A lack of local
management support

User and social
characteristics

C1.7: Unfulfilled user
expectations

C2.7: A lack of trust

Note: ECREMOS = Environmental Complaints Registration and Monitoring
System; IS = information systems; IT = information technology; RSD = Road
Sign Database.

◾ Authors such as Scholl and Klishewski (2007) and Gil-Garcia & Pardo
(2005) distinguish “organizational competence” as well.
◾ “Path dependency on IS infrastructure” is remarked by, for example, Rigg
and O'Mahony (2013) and Heeks and Bhatnagar (1999).
◾ That “unfulfilled user expectations” can contribute to IS failure is recognized
by Rigg and O'Mahony (2013), Chen (2008), and Dugdale, Daly, Papandrea,
and Maley (2005).

◾ Gil Garcia and Pardo (2005), and Heeks and Bhatnagar (1999), among oth-

ers, warn of “a lack of local management support.”

◾ Finally, “a lack of trust” can be a recipe for failure, according to Thompson et

al. (2008) and Chen (2008).

Based on the Updated D&M model and the road map for determinants of IS
success, 14 causes of failure of RSD and ECREMOS were detected (Table 8.5).
The analyzed cases have causes of failure in common: poor technical issues, a lack
of purpose, reputation issues, insufficient organizational competence, and path
dependency on IT infrastructure. The other causes are case specific.
Different stakeholders may validly come to different conclusions about the same
IS's degree of success (Seddon, 1997). Information systems managers should be aware
of different stakeholders' desires and perspectives. For both cases, the central govern-
ment IS managers did not pay enough attention to the situation of the user, that
is, local governments, before the IS were launched. Quick alternatives existed, and
many invested in their own IT infrastructure and organizational competence as well