Chapter 2: Literature Review on e-Governance systems

2.1 Concept of Governance

Governance is a process by which individuals and institutions, public & private, manage their

common affairs. It refers to the interaction between the Public sector & Civil Society for

collective decision making (sardi&mlikota, 2002). There are 8 major characteristics of good

governance: participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective &

efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law.

Governance is also the process of governing: “It is the way in which society is managed and how

the competing priorities and interests of different groups are reconciled. It includes the formal

institutions of government, but also informal arrangements for achieving these ends. Governance

is concerned with the processes by which citizens participate in decision-making, how

government is accountable to its citizens, and how society obliges its members to observe its

rules and laws”.

The term “governance” is crucial to understand the concept of e-governance. It is used in

a variety of contexts, but generally refers to all forms of social coordination and patterns of rule

(Bevir, 2012). According to Cariño (2003), governance is about management rather than control,

“because its system is permeable, admits of outside influences, assumes no omnipotence or

omniscience on the part of the decision maker, and subjects decision to the evaluation and

critique of all those with a stake in them.” She indicates that the state is an enabler that provides

the legal and regulatory framework and political order within which the civil society and market

can plan and act. Governance is thus the process of interaction and decision-making among the

stakeholders involved in a collective issue (Hufty, 2011). This process can take place on local,

state, national or international levels, and affect different policy fields and multiple temporal

13
scales (Lange, Driessen, Sauer, Bornemann, & Burger, 2013). It is widely argued by scholars

that there has been a shift from “government” to “governance” in countries around the world in

the contextof globalization and network society since the 1970s (e.g. Healey, 1997). India one of

the largest democracy to some extent was dominated by government-led approaches. However,

recent studies show that there are emerging modes of governance, which are being formed based

on the relationships between state, society and market.

Governance is also the process whereby a society makes important decisions, determines

whom they involve, and how they render account. Governance is not just about how a

government and social organizations interact, and how they relate to citizens (Graham et al.,

2003), but it concerns the state’s ability to serve citizens and other actors, as well as the manner

in which public functions are carried out, public resources are managed and public regulatory

powers are exercised. Mimicopoulos (2006) identified three dimensions of governance, namely

efficiency, transparency, and participation. Efficiency is also a question of correctly prioritizing

government services to correspond with citizen needs (Afonso et al., 2006).“Who is accountable

to whom and for what” are at the heart of all concepts ofaccountability (Scott, 2000). ICT can

involve more people achieve a deeper penetration(Farrell and Shafika, 2007). Sachdeva (2002)

concludes that Information andcommunication technologies have a valuable potential to help

meet good governancegoals in India.

Governance is conventionally conceptualized, as the process by which a political system

achieves such values as accountability, participation, openness (or transparency) and respect for

the rule of law and due bureaucratic process. It also includes, according to Boeninger (1992), the

capacities of a system to exercise authority, win legitimacy, adjudicate conflicts as well as carry

out programme implementation. In other words, the bottom line of governance is its ability to

14
respond to the needs, aspirations and yearnings of majority of the citizenry. And once a political

system is able to achieve these, it is referred to as responsive, accountable and effective

governance.

The lack of appropriate governance arrangements in many of the districts can constitute

the most serious obstacle for their effective transformation into being smart (e.g., Manville,

Cochrane, Cave, Millard, Pederson, Thaarup, Liebe, Wissner, Massink, and Kotterink (2014),

Praharaj, Han, and Hawken (2018)).

2.2 Good Governance:

The good governance concept has been widely discussed in the literature (Agere, 2000;

Graham et al., 2003a; Armstrong et al., 2005; Andrews, 2008; Bovaird, Löffler, 2009). Good

governance is one of the management models in the public sector (Armstrong et al., 2005). It

supports decision making and assists the public administration in the process of fulfilling its

statutory duties. It is a process whereby societies and organisations make important decisions,

select the key participants and hold them accountable for their actions. The process is difficult to

observe. Agreements, procedures, conventions and policies are drafted to delegate authority,

describe the decision making process and render accountability (Graham et al., 2003). There are

many definitions of good governance, and the concept is relevant for both policy-making and

academia. In the academic community, the definition of good governance has been formulated

relatively recently (Esty Daniel, 2006), and it postulates that “good governance is the process

whereby public institutions conduct public affairs, manage public resources and guarantee the

realization of human rights in a manner essentially free of abuse and corruption, and with due

regard for the rule of law” (OHCHR, 2018). Good governance can be described as a decision-

15
making processes. Decisions do not have to be “correct”, but the decision-making process has to

abide by a certain set of rules. Good governance means moving away from corruption,

inefficiency, maladministration, secrecy and red tape to incorporate concern for governance

accountability, transparency, effectiveness, inclusiveness, fairness and responsiveness (Stoker,

1998; Graham et al., 2003a,b; UNESCAP, 2008). Good governance should be analysed at the

national level (Devaney, 2016), but it can also be evaluated at the state level, the district level,

panchyat level or even at the Government organisations department level.Several organisations

have identified the values relevant to governance.Standards Australia (2003) lists the following

values in theGood Governance Principles: accountability, transparency, fairness andbalance,

honesty, dignity and goodwill.The principles that foster goodgovernance are governance

policies, infrastructure and actions thatsupport the implementation of good governance measures

(Gross andŹróbek, 2015).

Research has demonstrated the presence of an undeniable relationship between good governance

as a determinant of sustainable development and the public administration system (Weiss, 2000;

Zakout et al., 2006; Smith, 2007; Williamsonet al., 2010; Buöko et al., 2014; Dawidowicz et al.,

2015).

2.3 ICTs in Governance

Information and communication technologies have a valuable potential to help meet good

governance goals in India. Technologies such- as databases, Internet, BIG Data, Cloud

Computing, IOT, Web 2.0, mobile computing, GIS have impacted the way transaction

processing, information sharing, collaboration, coordination is done. Business community have

achieved efficiency, lower cost' and transparency through use of these technologies. The use of

16
such technology has the potential to provide the same benefits to governance.

The emergence of the new information and communication technologies has all the attributes of

imparting added value to the process that characterize good governance.

Over the last few years, information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been

deeply affecting relationships among individuals and the societies in which they live. Internet

usage has allowed us to overcome many of the technical barriers which hinder a fluent

relationship between citizens and the public administration, by allowing the disclosure of more

detailed information, an increase in the frequency and timeliness of the information provided,

and a decrease in printing and distribution costs of information (Pina et al., 2010).

The use of governmental websites is indeed one of the fastest-growing activities on the Internet,

giving rise to e-government.

In this line, the importance of e-government as a tool that improves public management has

grown in recent years (Alcaide et al., 2007; Nour et al., 2008). E-government can be considered

as ‘any way information technology is used to simplify and improve transactions between

governments and other actors such as constituents, businesses and other governmental agencies’

(Sprecher, 2000). It involves a set of technological processes which attempt to change both the

delivery of public services and the wider scope of interactions between citizens and governments

(Torres et al., 2005). The advantages related to time flexibility without the need for movement,

as well as the cost reduction compared to traditional systems of relationships between citizens

and administration, have made the Internet an optimal mechanism of interaction between both

parties. Grant and Chau (2005, p. 9) define e-government as ‘a broad-based transformation

initiative, enabled by levering the capabilities of information and communication technology: (1)

to develop and deliver high quality, seamless, and integrated public services; (2) to enable

17
effective constituent relationship management; and (3) to support the economic and social

development goals of citizens, business, and civil society at local, state, national and

international levels’. Therefore, e-government is currently considered not only as a tool for

reporting, but also as an effective communication channel for citizens so that they can participate

in democratic institutions and political processes (Justice et al., 2006; Siau and Long, 2006). In

this way, the image of the public administration can be improved; citizens can perceive

governments as accessible, transparent, responsible, effective and participatory, as they

increasingly use public websites to communicate and to carry out procedures and complete

paperwork with public administrations (Tolbert and Mossberger, 2006). Hence, e-government

arises as a way of increasing the citizens' trust in governments and improving the valuations

made concerning political management (Tolbert and Mossberger, 2006). Its objective is focused

on bringing public administration closer to citizens and restoring trust in governments (Torres et

al., 2005). As a consequence of its adoption and implementation, some benefits for governments

and citizens can arise. Governments will achieve significant cost reductions, derived from the

use of new and more efficient technologies (Kim, 2007; Tolbert et al., 2008); they will

rationalize their processes (Torres et al., 2005) and finally their image will be improved. As Siau

and Long (2006) argue, digital government will provide governments with an effective and

efficient channel to facilitate their internal administrations and improve their external services,

thereby increasing transparency and generating a higher degree of trust. In the development of e-

government, Riley (2001) identified three stages: e-government, e-governance (when the

government starts providing services over the Internet) and e-democracy (when we start seeing

active citizen participation). The first stage (e-government) implies a net presence of the public

administration on the Internet, in which the government starts having a presence there. In the

18
second stage (e-governance), the government starts providing services over the Internet (online

service provision). In the final stage (e-democracy), there is active citizen participation, so the

electronic administration will provide comprehensive citizen participation. The last two stages

are generally called ‘e-participatory government’.

2.4 Definitions on e-Government

There is no single definition of e-governrnent, and the concept has different meanings. The

language associated with the term e-government is evocative, ambiguous, fluid, dynamic, vague,

and bound up in rhetoric. Terms such as digital government, e-government, e-administration, e-

governance, and e-democracy are used interchangeably, and these terms have become catch-aIls'

for numerous forms of institutional, organizational, and individual administrative and political

behavior and processes that employ electronic technology. Some see e-government as a goal,

whereas others see it as a tool for achieving broader public-sector reform goals. The former

envisions a fully automated, hence, effective government operation that is oriented toward

service delivery. The latter sees e-government as part of a larger value cycle that is the

democratic process. Some definitions extend beyond government institutions to include the

entire system involved in managing a society (Gronlundand Horan, 2004).

At the core of any definition of e-government is the use by government of information

technology (IT) to transform relations with citizens, businesses, and other branches of

government in its role as service provider (World Bank, 2011). Following this definition, the

term e-government is most often associated with the concept of state governance, referring to

the modernization effort by public administration through information and communication

technologies (ICTs) designed to transform (reinvent) the operation and effectiveness of

19
government. Government harnesses IT to modernize the bureaucracy's functions of production,

coordination, control, and integration through computer networks, to reduce corruption, and to

increase transparency, and thus improves productivity, internal managerial efficiency, and the

effectiveness of public service delivery to citizens. Relationships have become expansive. E-

government includes national, regional, and local government agencies' interactions with each

other (G2G), government's relationship to business and the nonprofit sector (G2B), and citizens

(G2C) for activities that concern the business of government. Two more relationships have been

suggested as they relate to the citizen: government to civil society. organizations (G2CS) and

citizen to citizen (C2C) if that latter relation is related to the other three categories of e-

government (Yildiz,2007). Additional relationships with stakeholders include government to

supplier (G2S), government to government employees (G2GE), and government to nonprofit

organizations (G2NGO).

Although the emphasis remains on efficiency, various authors argue that e-government

redefines government so that it becomes not only more efficient but also more participative,

more interactive, and more informational What is envisaged is e-governance with an emphasis

on decision making, power sharing, and coordination, which leads to a renewal of citizenship

and democracy. The meaning of e-government is thus expanded to include citizen participation,

voting, communication with public and government officials, and mobilization of mail

campaigns by special interest groups to influence decision making. E-government thus

transmutes into e-governance, and ICTs are the servants of good governance (Heeks, 2001).

Table 2.1 illustrates the various definitions of e-government and summarizes their implications

and problems. Some of these definitions of e- government focus solely on the introduction of

technology, others on design and management of infrastructure through technology, and still

20
others on the complex relationships inherent in governance. Drawing the distinctions and

similarities together yields a conception of government as constituting the intersection between

three distinct but interrelated spheres: the political, the administrative, and the private. The

components of an e-government areinterrelated spheres and represents the association of e-

services, e-administration, e-procurement, e-participation, and e-governance.

Table 2.1: Definitions of e-government

Authors Definitions Remarks

Means and Schneider (2000,
p. 121)
The relationships between
governments, their customers
other governments, business,
and citizens), and their
suppliers(other governments,
business, and citizens) by the
use of electronic means
E-government is a tool. The
definition does not consider
the organizational issues. It
does not explicitly mention e-
government goals

Duffy (2000) Use of technology to deliver
government services directly
to the customer 2417. The
customer can be a citizen, a
business, or even another
government entity
Use of technology, especially
Brown and Brudney (2001, p.
Web-based applications, to
1)
enhance access to and
efficiently deliver
government information and
services
This definition does not take
into consideration
improvements in government
operations. It avoids the
organizational issues involved
in producing public services
The e-government concept is
defined by the objective of the
activity. The addition of
"efficiently" acknowledges
one of e-government's goals.

21
Table 2.1 (Contd.)

Authors Definitions Remarks

The concept integrates
Whitson and Davis (2001, p. Implementation of cost
strategy, process,
79) effective models for citizens,
organizations, and technology.
industry, government
The definition acknowledges
employees, and other
the governance side of e-
stakeholders to conduct
government and also
business transaction online
introduces a holistic vision of
government's relation with its
stakeholders
This definition acknowledges
OECD (2003, p. 63)
the governance side of e-
Use of ICTs and, in practice, government
the Internet, as a tool to
achieve better government
Utilization of the Internet and
United Nations. Economic This definition does not take
the World Wide Web for
and Social Council. delivery of government into consideration information
Committee of Experts on information and services to technologies other than the
Public Administration (2002, citizens Internet nor the improvements
p.l) in government operations. It
neglects the organizational
issues involved in producing
public services
This definition acknowledges
European Commission
the governance side of e-
(2004)
Use of ICTs in public government and includes e-
administration combined with government goals
organizational change and new
skills to improve public
services and democratic
processes

22
Table 2.1 (Contd.)

Authors Definitions Remarks

World Bank (2004) Use of ICTs by government agencies to This definition explicitly
reformulated by transform relations with citizens, mentions e-government goals
Gronlund and businesses, and other arms of and acknowledges potential
Horan (2004) government to improve delivery of positive results
services to citizens, improve interactions
with business and industry, citizen
empowerment through access to
information, or more efficient
government management. Resulting
benefits: less corruption, increased
transparency, greater convenience,
revenue growth, and/or cost reductions

E-government encompasses all government roles and activities shaped by ICTs. E-government is

defined as a continuous optimization of service delivery, constituency participation, and

governance, designed to transform, introduce innovation, create greater transparency and

efficiency, and improve effectiveness of governmental operations with ICTs. E-government is

the association of e-services, e-administration, e-procurement, e-participation, and e-governance.

Curtin (2007) provides a useful summary of the components of e-governrnent: e-services connect

internal (back-end, office) processes with end users such as G2C, G2B, and NGOs and G2NGO.

E-administration focuses on the internal mechanisms, structures, and processes such as

government employees (G2GE) and other governments (G2G). E-procurement centralizes

government procurement as a one-stop shop (G2S). E-participation focuses principally on the

external relationships of government with the civil society and the public sphere (G2PS),

encompassing citizen participation in decision making and policy development, direct access to

23
government officials, electronic voting, citizen and social networking, and other tools of citizen

empowerment. E-governance connects government to its political, social, and administrative

environment.

2.5 E-Governance

E-governance has expanded across the world in various forms. e-government, e-democracy and

e-participation are some other terms which have played a crucial role in public administration

and e-governance has emerged as an important medium for government and administrative

reform. It developed dramatically with timely responses and low costs in delivering quality

service and information (OECD 2008; West 2001). The term e-governance has a much more

comprehensive meaning than e-government (Jung &Myeong 2005). It can be used to include and

empower citizens. Its purpose is to enhance governments by utilizing Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) at various levels of government and in the private sector

(Holmes 2001; Srivastava &Teo 2004). E-governance services and information offer a

transformative platform for the public sphere (UNDESA & ASPA 2008). These services

leverage social communication by taking citizens’ opinions and suggestions. E-governance

systems have spread to urban and metropolitan regions throughout the world. These regions have

structured systems that enhance governance through initiatives (Son 2005) that provide

information and public services through access to ICT services and direct citizen involvement in

governmental agencies (Rethemeyer, 2006; Westcott, 2007).

2.6 E-Governance: Meaning And Scope

The term governance needs to be understood before we move on to e-governance. The concept

of "governance" is as old as human civilization. In essence, the term "governance" refers to the

process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not

24
implemented). The word “governance” can be used in several contexts such as corporate

governance, international governance, national governance and local governance. Governance is

not the exclusive preserve of the government. It extends to civil society and the private sector. It

covers every institution and organization from family to the state. It involves exercise of

political, economic and administrative authority to manage the affairs in and the manner in

which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for

development. It can be better understood as the complex mechanisms, processes, relationships

and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights

and obligations and mediate their differences. According to a World Bank paper e-governance

refers to the use of Information Technologies by government agencies to transform relations with

citizens, business and other arms of the government. The resulting benefits can be less

corruption, increased transparency and greater convenience etc.

2.7 Evolution of e-Governance

E-governance concept originated at the beginning of 21st century, mostly as a copy of e-

commerce into public sector. All intentions were directed towards the presence of the public

services on the Internet. In the early years of its development, e-governance follows the

evolutionary e-business evolving model, which in particular means that in the early days of e-

governance evolvement, primary focus of the e-services was simple appearance of graphic user

interfaces with no interactions. Early enthusiasm during the mean time weakened but such

experiences brought crucial acknowledgments (United Nations, 2008). Today, because of those

acknowledgments, the focus is on coordination and effective assessment of the needs, efficiency

and public benefits for such services. The development of electronic public services enters in the

new phase, which is mostly determined by reengineering of existing processes of public

25
government. Public sector by its nature (based on information and communications) is ideal for

international increase of efficiency and quality (Mario, et al 2009).

The term e-governance is of recent origin and there is no commonly accepted definition. The

term was perhaps coined about a decade ago after the success of electronic commerce to

represent a public sector equivalent of e-commerce. Definitions of e-governance abound. The

definition of the concept of e-governance and its evolution in time has been the focus of a large

body of research (Fang, 2002; Hu et al., 2009). More or less restrictive definitions of e-

governance have been given, but there is still no unique definition of the term (Yildiz, 2004).

Nevertheless, it has been generally recognized that e-governance offers a huge potential to

increase the impact of government activities for citizens (Fang, 2002). This shows that the

interpretation of e-governance is quite broad and divergent.

2.8 E-Governance: Definitions

The term is used in a loose manner to describe the legacy of any kind of use of information and

communication technology within the public sector. For those who see it as some form of

extension of e-commerce to the domain of the government, it represents the use of Internet to

deliver information and services by the government (Bhatnagar, 2007).

The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations defines e-governance as

utilizing the internet and the world-wide-web for delivering government information and

services to citizens (United Nations, 2008). General definition describes e-governance as the use

of information and communication technologies (ICT) to transform government by making it

more accessible, effective and accountable. E-governance refers to the use of information

technologies (such as the Internet, the World Wide Web, and mobile computing) by government

agencies that can transform their relationship with citizens, businesses, different areas of

26
government, and other governments. These technologies help deliver government services to

citizens, improve interactions with businesses and industries, and provide access to information

(Moon, 2002). E-governance can be defined as the use of emerging information and

communication technologies to facilitate the processes of government and public administration

(Drucker, 2001). This definition focuses on the use of ICT to assist in the administration or

management of government. Basu (2004) states that “e-governance refers to the use by

government agencies of information technologies that have the ability to transform relations with

citizens, businesses and other arms of government”. In terms of actually using these technologies

following are some ends, better delivery of government services to citizens, improved

interactions with businesses and industries, citizen empowerment through access to information,

or more efficient government management. Benefits resulting from these activities could be less

corruption, increased transparency, greater convenience, revenue growth and cost reductions.

According to Chatfield (2009), e-governance refers to the use of information and communication

technologies, particularly the internet, to deliver government information and services. E-

governance is understood as the use of ICT to promote more efficient and cost effective

government, facilitate more convenient government services, allow greater government access to

information, and make government more accountable to the citizens (World Bank, 1992).E-

governance is the use of information and communication technologies in public administrations

combined with organizational change and new skills in order to improve public services and

democratic processes and strengthen support to public policies (European Commission, 2003).

This definition is quite wide and includes aspects that are fundamental for successful use of ICT,

such as organizational change and user skills. It does not assign a value to ICT or e-governance

per se, but relates them to a wider effort to support public policies. The aim of e-governance is to

27
allow the public to initiate a request for a particular government service without going to a

government office or having direct contact with a government employee. The service is delivered

through government web sites (Brannen, 2001). E-governance comprises of an alignment of ICT

infrastructures, institutional reform, business processes and service content towards provision of

high-quality and value added services to the citizens and businesses. Wimmer and Traunmuller

(2001) contend that the main objectives of e-governance should include the following: (1)

restructuring administrative functions and processes; (2) reducing and overcoming barriers to

coordination and cooperation within the public administration; and (3) the monitoring of

government performance. The scope of e-governance services extend from posting generally

requested information on a website to providing and processing online requests such as

electronic payment of taxes or other fees. The main rationale of e-governance initiatives is to put

together services focused on citizens needs (Moon, 2002). E-governance involves novel forms of

delivering and tailoring information and services, connecting communities and businesses locally

and globally and reforming us towards digital democracy. E-governance offers flexible and

convenient access to public information and services with the view of providing citizens an

improved service (Moon, 2002). A major goal of e-governance projects in developed economies

is to enhance productivity of both public and private sectors through the leveraging of ICT. E-

governance has captured the interest of developing countries. There has been a considerable

demonstration effect of the constructive difference that e-governance has made in advanced

economies in the delivery of services, provision of information and internal administration of the

public sector. A country’s ICT infrastructure and its openness to public sector reform play an

important role in determining the types of applications and kind of goals for which e-governance

is implemented (Bhatnagar, 2007). A country’s willingness to adopt basic public sector reform

28
must determine the breadth and scope of e-governance applications. Many times e-governance

applications are used as a catalyst and enabler to further reform. E-governance projects are

funded with the expectation that these applications will increase efficiency, and bring about more

transparency and accountability to citizens. Bhatnagar, Subash, 2004, define e-governance as a

process of reform in the way governments work, share information, engage citizens and deliver

services to external and internal clients for the benefit of both government and the clients that

they serve. It can be seen from these definitions that e-governance is expected to achieve

efficiency, convenience, transparency while delivering government services to citizens by proper

use of Information Technology. Heeks (2001) studied the effect of new information and

communication technologies and how it can make a significant contribution to the achievement

of good governance goals. Three main contributions of e-governance are: improving government

processes (e-administration); connecting citizens (e-citizens and e-services); and building

external interactions (e-society). Case studies are used to show that e-governance is a current, not

just future, reality for developing countries. However, most e-governance initiatives fail.The

study by Sachdeva (2002) emphasises establishment of various institutions for e-governance,

especially the School of E-Governance. The study brings a six-point strategy for implementing e-

governance in India and brings forth the objective of achieving electronic governance beyond

mere computerisation of standalone back office operations. Lal (1999) reviewed the issues facing

African countries in adopting information and communication technologies (ICTs) to enhance

governance in four areas, reducing poverty, providing basic human needs, improving public

administration, and enhancing democratisation.The study by Dada (2006) drawing from

extensive research conducted by Richard Heeks, suggests existence of wide gaps between the

current reality in developing countries and the future of e-governance systems. These gaps are: a

29
hard-soft gap, implying a gap between the technology and the social context in which it is

applied; a private-public gap, suggesting that what works in the private sector may not work in

the public sector; and a country context gap, that arises from the application of the same e-

governance systems for both the developing and developed countries. Gupta and Jana (2003)

have suggested a flexible framework to choose an appropriate strategy to measure the tangible

and intangible benefits of e-government. Saxena (2005) is of the opinion that e-governance

initiatives in most countries promise a more citizen-centric government and reduce operational

cost. Unfortunately, most of these initiatives have not been able to achieve the benefits claimed.

Akther et al.(2007) highlight that most e-government projects within developing countries like

Bangladesh, employ high-technology intervention whereas citizens are not ready for this. Kalsi

et al.(2009) identify the factors for Good Governance through a participatory stakeholder

analysis.A few studies have been conducted with respect to Indian perspective. Researchers,

Gupta and Jana (2003), Sachdeva (2002), Verma et al.(2008) have tried to cover some specific

projects, study by Kalsi et al. (2008) covers important e-governance policies and initiatives of

important states of India. Koneru(2007) in her study is of the view that e-governance as a

technology-enabled public information services system aids not only in reengineering the

structures but also helps in re-organising the procedures and processes for speedy delivery of

services. Political, economic, social and technological (PEST) changes and developments

ushered e-governance as a salvation to the shrinking role of Governments in delivering goods

and services rapidly. Connectivity, community participation, and content are the prerequisites for

designing effectual government to consumer (G2C) or consumer to government (C2G) systems,

in addition to capital, committed leadership and components evaluation. This study primarily

delves into the prerequisites for designing and developing effective e-governance systems; and

30
the stages to pass through to evolve into e-inclusion systems.Contemporary studies on e-

governance projects report various issues, problems and challenges associated with failure. Most

of these report findings are based on e-governance project initiatives and problems of a single or

few states. Singh (2004) assessed Lokmitra project in Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh and reported

that absence of technological problems, but there existed problems in management and

trainingaspects. In e-Grama project in Orissa, members youth clubs in villages are trained inICT

skill by another body named Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (Under Ministry ofYouth Affairs

and Sports). This body bridges the gap in ‘digital divide’ Dash et al.(2004). In case of Madhya

Pradesh project ‘PRAKH’, officials involved in the process are people who were not a part of the

system implementing the various services. Rao et al.(2008) report that the key strengths of the

system are that it gives opportunity to verify claims of the provider, it is independent from the

provider, and provides information to both administration and public.

2.9 Emerging Technologies in e-Governance

According to Marek et al. (2017) “smart and emerging technologies drive effective governance”

while, for example, “establish[ing] direct and two-sided links between the governance and

citizenry serv[es] for optimization [and] communication.” The focus is on e-governance

activities (e.g., “strong element of public participation and public-private collaboration” (Cano et

al., 2014), “technologically enhanced provision of […] services” (Tranos&Gertner, 2012)) that

can be improved by using new technologies as well as the special highlighting of information

and communication technologies (ICTs) (e.g., de Wijs et al. (2016), Kourtit et al. (2017)) are

common in the review sample. Accordingly, Kourtit et al. (2017) emphasize the key role of

“digital technologies” especially in the transformation process, while Scholl and Al Awadhi

(2016) especially highlight ICTs' role “in both the looking after and making decisions about

31
[governance].” Other technologies that researchers allude to in the review sample are, for

example, “geo-science tools and big data” (Kourtit et al., 2017), “data warehousing and

monitoring tools” (Meijer, 2016), “sensors, virtualizations, geographic information technologies,

social media applications” (Gil-Garcia, 2012) or ‘e-Technologies’ (“knowledge repository,

exploitation eTools, online tech transfer”) (Komninos&Tsarchopoulos, 2013).

2.9.1 Web 2.0 & Social Media

Web 2.0 is the basis of social media (Kaplan &Haenlein, 2010). Web 2.0 is taken as the second

generation of web, which facilitates collaboration from both sides, organizations and users, the

contents and applications are continuously updated on web 2.0 unlike web 1.0 where the content

and applications were created by organizations, and the updates were discrete (O’Reilly, 2005;

O’Reilly, 2007; Webopedia, n.d.; Kaplan, &Haenlein, 2010). The term was coined by DiNucci

(1999). The term in its modern form was conceptualized in Web 2.0 conference held during 5-7

October 2004 (Web2.0Conference, 2004; O’Reilly, 2005; O’Reilly, 2007; O’Reilly, &Batelle,

2010) and popularized by O’Reilly (O’Reilly, 2007; O’Reilly, &Batelle, 2010). Google maps is

an example of Web 2.0, which on being used by users, uses user data to continuously update its

database and its version update is pushed continuously and silently. Other examples of Web 2.0

are search engines such as Google search, which takes into account web history of users. In

today’s digital world most of the sites aud software enrich themselves using consumer data.

User-generated content (UGC) or User Created Content (UCC) is the basis of the emergence of

social media. UCC is defined ascontent generated by user which is publicly accessible (or

accessible to a group according to the security constraints), in creating which the user has applied

some effort (it is not complete copy-paste), and it is not a part of professional activity (OECD,

2007; Kaplan, & Haenlein,2010),

32
Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) defined Social Media “is a group of Internet-based applications that

build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation

and exchange of User Generated:Content” (p. 61). The social media may be broadly divided into

SNS, bookmarking sites, social news, media sharing, blogs, Wikis (TheSocialMediaGuide,

2013). This study categorizes microblogging under blogs. Currently, most of the social media

sites and applications usually fall under more than one category. Social messaging though fulfils

two criteria of UGC but does not fulfil the third criteria of being publicly accessible. Social

messaging was not popular at the time of evolution of this definition of UGC. Currently,

WhatsApp, WeChat, Facebook messenger are popular social messaging apps each with monthly

active users more than 900 million. The definition of UGC is needed to be explored further to

include the pre-defined public access by the users. In the context of e-governance, for the current

study; Facebook, which is currently one of the prominent SNS, and the most popular social

media with monthly active users of greater than 2 billion, is taken for analysingstakeholder or

consumer feedback. For e-governance, popular social mediawere listed to the respondent apart to

give explain the concept of social media.Boyd and Ellison (2007) defined Social Networking

Sites (SNS) as “as web-basedservices that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-

public profile within abounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a

connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within

the system” (p. 211). This definition has two points common with UCC, and the third point

which is tohave the ability to access network of the accessible user makes the definition

complete forSNS. In this study, Facebook is used as a SNS. In case of Facebook, a user is able to

viewand access a friend’s friend list.

33
Before the advent of the internet, the government and the business world were fairly opaque. The

news reaching to the common people was the news provided at the news conferences or through

other official channels, at a specific time. But social media has changed the scenario. Now

anyone anytime can be the bearer of the news. Consumers have more faith in word of mouth

generated through social media from the people they trust and the people similar to themselves

than communication which is directly generated by organizations. There is a wider consensus

that word of mouth is becoming a growing force in shaping government decisions (Kotler, 2011).

The environment is becoming more and more transparent. Government Organizations now

cannot hold or manipulate the information anymore; it will eventually come out in public. “It is

not possible to hide anything online-everything will eventually become public” (Holtz &

Havens, 2009, p. 27). Holtz and Havens (2009) argue both kinds of news (good or bad) must be

communicated by transparent companies, and there should be a clear definition of what kind of

information is beyond public domain, though very less amount of information should be

restricted to the public, if at all. It is in the interest of an organization to be the bearer of news,

instead of firefighting the circumstances aroused by the reaction due to leakage of the news

through other sources. The concept of transparency is not followed by a single person in the

organization but should be embraced at all levels, and the organization should be committed to it.

Social media is making environment transparent.

“Companies are increasingly swimming in transparent bowl” (Kotler 2011).Prior, to the

emergence of social media, any communication from the authorities in government or business

to people was one-way communication, through news, advertisements, etc. Now due to

socialmedia government and business can engage the consumers in an interactive

communication (a two-way process), can observe their responses and use the information. Social

34
media has increased the reach of information exponentially. An information on social media may

become viral i.e. may become contagious/spreading very quickly). A video on YouTube may be

viewed by millions within days due to sharing of the video among people. So, the advent of

social media is shifting power from organizations towards consumers and creating a more

democraticenvironment.

World internet users’ population is: 3.832 billion (InternetLiveStats, 2018) i-e. internet is

accessible to about 50% of the global population. This figure is growing. So, a significant portion

of the adult population will have the ability for the online transaction (Ryan and Jones 2011). As

users are shifting towards internet and social media, govt. and business organizations are

increasing their presence on them. Social media is a common tool used by various organizations

for value creation. This is often done to engage customers and receive their feedback. In the

process, the co-creation occurs (Zwass, 2010). In the process, organizations receive several

consumer complaints. The feedback is continuous and used by authorities or managers for

various purposes. Very often than not, feedback is a mix of positive and negative

consumerVoices.

Government organizations are constantly engaged in capturing stakeholders or consumers’

voice/feedback throughcomments made by stakeholders or consumers. Now, it is more likely

than ever that stakeholders or consumers’ voiceimpacts managerial decision making. Instead of

searching for the vastly dispersed relevant comments on various social media sites or various

individual locations on each site at and reacting accordingly, govt. and business organizations are

providing a platform for consumers to interact, bycreating a presence on social media sites.

These official pages or groups are a waythrough which organizations may interact with their

35
stakeholders or consumers. Now, relevant reactionscould be easily captured and acted on if

required. Missing these reactions could have led tomuch firefighting by the organizations.

In sm-era stakeholders or consumers are taking decisions to participate in governance or buy

goods more on the basis of reference by their virtual social circle and others’ reviews, lesser on

the basis of advertisings. It is common that a stakeholder participating in governance or a

consumer buying an item, searches about it on the internet, checks its expert reviews, observes

other users’ reviews and then makes a decision. Even if a stakeholder had participated in

governance or the consumer had already fixed the brand, the participating further/ buying

decision is more often influenced by the reviews of experts and other consumers on the internet.

Sites like www.mouthshut.com are very popular nowadays in this regard. More and more sites

and applications (applications likeWhatsApp) are making it possible for stakeholders or

consumers to view other stakeholders or consumers’ reviews.

The reach of the stakeholder or consumer voice in social media era has improved manifolds.

After the advent of social media, it is very difficult to avoid the negative voice. “With the

continued growth of social media, no govt. organization or company can safely avoid negative

word of mouth when it crosses into irresponsible governance or production and marketing”

(Kotler 2011). If the negative voice increasesthen anti-consumption can occur.

Facebook is one of the prominent SNS. By UK monthly audience summary (UKOM Jan 2012)

Google has the reach of 57.2% whereas Facebook has a reach of 42.6%, Though Facebook’s

reach has lesser than Google, its reach is much more than other social media viz. Twitter

(10.4%), YouTube (32.8%), and Google+ (3.9%). Monthly time spent per person on Facebook is

6 hours 42 min which is much more than Google (2 hours 32 min), YouTube (1- hour 30 min),

Google+ (3min), and Twitter (43 min). So, government departments can vie for more time per
36
person and higher engagement by being on present on Facebook rather than any other online

media (advertisements on Google, other social media). Its ability to build communities

andengage those communities in the discussion, competition and debate give it an edge over

other social media. Its other benefits are its ability to become highly viral (multiplier effect

works exponentially), searchable on Google (Facebook web search is present so the reverse is

also possible), and interactive (though this feature is offered by all social media to some extent)

(Ryan and Jones 2011). Another advantage of Facebook is its high population. Facebook

monthly active users are currently over 2 billion (Facebook, 2017). Also, government

organisations see higher engagement on Facebook than Twitter (Socialbakers 2012).

2.9.2 Facebook: A SNS

Facebook, with a monthly active user count of more than 2.0 billion (Facebook, 2017; Internet

WorldStats, 2017), currently is most popular social media platform by user base. It is a social

networking site (SNS). It was launched on 4" February 2004 (Facebook, n.d.-b) named as

‘Thefacebook’ with domain name ‘thefacebook.com’ as a Harvard exclusive SNS. After Harvard

Facebook expanded to other Ivy League universities in its initial phase and then to all other US

universities (Phillips, 2007). In Early 2005 ‘Thetacebook’ started expanding to international

universities and by May 2005 had expanded to 800 “college networks” (Facebook, n.d.-c). On 1“

September 2005, Thefacebook started support to highschools (Facebook, n.d.-c). On 20'"

September 2005 Thefacebook dropped “The’ from itsname and became ‘Facebook’ with domain

name ‘facebook.com’ (Facebook, n.d.-c). On 1st May 2006 Facebook expanded registration to

work networks (Facebook, n.d.-c). Till now Facebook had included supports to individual

networks either academic or work network and had an aura of exclusivity. On 26"" September

2006, Facebook opened registration to everyone with eligibility of 13 years of age and having a

37
valid email address (Carolyn, 2006;Phillips, 2007). On 1% August 2006 Facebook introduced

Facebook API. Currently it isknown as graph API. It is “the primary way for apps to read and

write to the Facebook social graph” (Facebook, n.d.-e, para 1). It is used by other apps and

software to retrieve and post data from and to Facebook. The latest version of graph API is 2.7

(Facebook, n.d.-f). There are three types of Facebook accounts: (a) Personal profile, (b)

Facebook page, (c) Facebook group. A profile is for non-commercial use and represent

individual people” (Facebook, n.d.- g, para 1). Through recent updates, Facebook had made

available a type of Facebook page for community and fans (Facebook, n.d.-d). Facebook page is

also known as fan page. It is similar in concept to fan pages or groups available on other social

media such as Twitter. “Facebook Groups are the place for small group communication and for

people to share their common interests and express their opinion” (Hicks, 2010, para 8). While

Pages are public, but profile accounts and groups are private, where access is may be limited to

individual’s frends and members of the group (Hicks, 2010). As discussed earlier in a section of

(Web 2.0 & Social Media), the pages or groups provide convenient locations where stakeholders

or consumers’ discussion related to government or a brand may be found collated. The

stakeholders or consumers’ discussion may also be found on their individual profiles, butthis

data is dispersed over a very large space.

On Facebook, if there is any unauthentic page, it may get removed by Facebook (Hick, 2010). A

Facebook page may be created by any user for or against a cause or entity. The subcategories

have evolved over time and may further be moditied by Facebook in future. The data on profile

accounts and groups is intended to be private data and may not be accessible by non-friend/non-

member user, whereas data on a Facebook page is intended for public access and use (Hicks,

2010).

38
Stakeholdersinteraction with govt. has changed in the social media era (sm-era) from the pre-sm

era. In pre-sm era, the journey taken by a stakeholder or a consumer to finally make a decision or

purchase is known as funnel metaphor (Edelman, 2010). In the funnel metaphor, it was assumed

that stakeholders or consumers narrow down systematically to make a final choice, prompting or

promoting the govt. or brands to use specific points along the funnel to provide service or target

the stakeholders or consumers.

2.10 The Benefits And Challenges Of E-Governance

Many developing countries are now realizing the need for e-governance in order to provide

customer-focused, cost effective, and easy to use services for citizens and businesses and to

improve the internal workings of government (Pathak, et al, 2008). E-governance applications

have emerged rapidly in the developing world. Many countries use e-governance as an enabling

tool to increase efficiency, enhance transparency, collect more revenue and facilitate public

sector reform. While e-governance is not a panacea that can improve the performance of the

public sector, it is a powerful enabling tool that has aided governments achieves some of their

development and administrative reform goals. Although e-governance can be a catalyst for

change, it is not a complete solution and it must be part of a broader commitment to reform the

public sector (Bhatnagar, 2007). Three factors are critical for the successful implementation of e-

government. These include willingness to reform, availability of information communications

technology (ICT) infrastructure, and the institutional capacity to absorb and manage change. The

benefits of e-governance come in different forms. Some relate to the provision of fast,

inexpensive services to the population (Heeks, 2001) and for socioeconomic development and

political reformations for developing countries (Lfinedo, 2004; Ifinedo&Uwadia, 2005). E-

governance enables the citizenry to participate in the governance of their country (Moon, 2002).

39
Nowhere is this benefit more relevant than in the developing countries, where governance

excludes a majority of their populations by either commission or omission. Similarly, corrupt

practices that are rampant in many developing countries, could benefit from a purposeful e-

governance initiative (Ifinedo&Uwadia, 2005). The fourth African Development Forum (held in

Addis in October 2004) produced a Consensus Statement declaring that E-governance is an

important innovation for enhancing good governance and strengthening the democratic process.

It further acknowledged that E-governance can facilitate access to information, freedom of

expression, greater equity, efficiency, productivity growth and social inclusion (Kitaw, 2006).

According to him, successful E-governance initiatives offer tangible opportunities which

include: transformation of cumbersome public administration and service delivery processes

thereby increase efficiency of governments, empowerment and participation of citizens, thereby

contribute to strengthening democratic processes, greater transparency and accountability,

thereby lead to better governance and reduce opportunities for corruption, and Stimulation of the

usage of ICT applications in other development sectors (E-Health, E-Education), thereby opens

opportunities to transform economies.

2.11 E-Government to E-Governance:

Electronic government is a phenomenon that is linked to the information society and the

advantages associated with it. E-governance allows government departments to network and

integrate their services using information and communication technologies (ICTs) in order to

improve service delivery and enhance the relationship between the government and the public.

The major ingredients of e-governance are infrastructure, human resources and information.

The potential benefits of e-governance that accrue from the use of IT according to Shatne (2001)

and Symonds (2000) include: Reduced government spending and increased interest earning.

40
Costs incurred by a government in providing services can be reduced by the use of the Internet,

Reduction in the number of in person government contacts. Governments are under pressure to

meet rising expectations for their service. With the use of the Internet more individuals are able

to access the government’s services without necessarily going to the government office or

contacting by telephone. The use of the Internet will reduce the negative attitude individuals

have toward government agencies because not many people enjoy interacting with their

government, Delivery of government services from any place to citizens 24 hours a day, 7 days a

week. Websites serve as convenient and cost effective platforms for centralized service

provision. Businesses, residents, visitors, and intergovernmental agencies can easily access

public information related to their specific needs by simply checking on different web links.

They can also contact government officers directly though email or online request forms. One

such development is the use of CRM software, which provides a vehicle through which

governments can increase cooperation through integration of back office and front office, and

another beneficial outcome of e-governance is the promotion of e-democracy. Some examples of

digital democracy include voter registration, public opinion polling, and communication among

elected representatives and their constituents.

2.12 Understanding success and failure in ICT projects

In the project management literature, the outcome of a project is frequently conceived of in terms

of “success” or “failure”—although identifying just what constitutes these can be problematic. In

general, there is a lack of consensus on how to define success, lack of success, and failure, and

despite their frequent use, such terms are perceived to be vague and difficult to measure

(Baccarini, 1999; Fowler & Walsh, 1999; Hyväri, 2006; Ika, 2009; Jugdev& Müller, 2005;

Thomas & Fernandez, 2008). Further, success (or failure) is not an absolute or “black and white”

41
concept (Wateridge, 1998). Projects may be viewed as successful to varying degrees, depending

on which success criteria are met (Baccarini, 1999; de Wit, 1988). In this section, we map out

some of the elements that contribute to the conceptual and definitional ambiguity of project

success. These include issues of multidimensionality, scope, temporality, perspective, and

context. There have been various attempts over the history of project management to define

suitable criteria against which to define and measure project success. Perhaps the most well

recognized of these is the long established and widely used “iron triangle” of time, cost, and

quality (Atkinson, 1999; Cooke-Davies, 2002; de Wit, 1988; Ika, 2009; Jugdev& Müller, 2005;

Jugdev et al., 2001). Although the definition of quality is potentially very broad (Ika, 2009) in

relation to the iron triangle, it is often restricted to meeting scope or functional and technical

specifications (Agarwal &Rathod, 2006; Baccarini, 1999; Bannerman, 2008; Ika, 2009;

Wateridge, 1998). Expressed by the mnemonic “on time, within budget and to specification”

(Turner, 1993, p. 76), these criteria constitute economic and technical dimensions of project

success. They are popular, particularly in the engineering, construction, and information

technology (IT) fields (Ika, 2009) because they can be made objective, tangible, and measurable

(Baccarini, 1999; Ika, 2009); they fall within the ambit of the project organization (Pinto

&Slevin, 1988); they are short-term, ending upon project delivery (Baccarini, 1999; Ika, 2009;

Pinto &Slevin, 1988); and they can be used to evaluate a project manager’s performance

(Jugdev& Müller, 2005; Wateridge, 1998). However, as a number of commentators have pointed

out, the iron triangle dimensions are inherently limited in scope (Atkinson, 1999; Ika, 2009;

Wateridge, 1998). Indeed, a project that satisfies these criteria may still be considered a failure;

conversely, a project that does not satisfy them may be considered successful (Baccarini, 1999;

de Wit, 1988; Ika, 2009). In particular, the iron triangle has been criticized for its exclusive focus

42
on the project management process and for not incorporating the views and objectives of all

(both internal and external) stakeholders (Atkinson, 1999; Baccarini, 1999; Bannerman, 2008; de

Wit, 1988; Jugdev&Müller, 2005; Wateridge, 1998). Even if the focus is on the manner in which

the project was conducted, several authors have suggested that meeting time, cost, and quality

specifications are not the only relevant criteria; for example, project management efficiency and

effective project team functioning are also important (Baccarini, 1999; Shenhar&Dvir, 2007;

Toor&Ogunlana, 2010).

Within the project management literature, researchers have progressively widened the scope and

constituency of what is meant by project success, recognizing that project success is more than

project management success, and that it needs to be measured against the overall objectives of

the project (Baccarini, 1999; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Ika, 2009; Jugdev& Müller, 2005). This

reflects a distinction between the success of a project’s process and that of its product (Baccarini,

1999; Markus & Mao, 2004; Wateridge, 1998). Focusing on the latter may lead to consideration

of criteria such as product use, user or client satisfaction, and benefits to users or clients

(Baccarini, 1999; Bannerman, 2008; DeLone& McLean, 2003; Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, &Maltz,

2001; Wateridge, 1998). Bannerman (2008) also suggests that within individual project

disciplines there are discipline-specific processes and practices to which success measures may

be attributed, such as project governance, risk management, change management, and quality

management. Project success has also been extended to encompass the achievement of a broader

set of organizational objectives, involving benefits to a wider range of stakeholders, including

senior managers and project sponsors (Baccarini, 1999; Ika, 2009; Jugdev& Müller, 2005). In

particular, attention has focused on the immediate and direct impact of the project on the

organization, including whether the business case and objectives for the project investment have

43
been met and benefits to the business realized (Bannerman, 2008; DeLone& McLean, 2003;

Markus & Mao, 2004; Shenhar et al., 2001). Project success may even be extended further to

include the accomplishment of more strategic objectives and benefits, including impacts on

markets and competitors, business development or expansion, and ability to react to future

opportunities or challenges (Bannerman, 2008; Jugdev& Müller, 2005; Norrie & Walker, 2004;

Shenhar et al., 2001; Toor&Ogunlana, 2010). For example, Cooke-Davies (2002) and Ika (2009)

discuss measuring the success of organizational portfolios or programs of projects that are

aligned with corporate strategy. Project success criteria that focus beyond the project

management process constitute behavioral, business, and strategic dimensions. While such

criteria can support a more holistic and inclusive definition of success (Jugdev& Müller, 2005),

they tend to be subjective, intangible, and difficult to measure (Baccarini, 1999; Ika, 2009;

Jugdev& Müller, 2005). Such criteria are particularly important in the IS/IT domain, where

considerable emphasis is placed on subjective issues, such as user satisfaction (DeLone&

McLean, 2003; Jugdev& Müller, 2005; Petter, DeLone, & McLean, 2008; Wateridge, 1998).

Table 1 summarizes the various criteria proposed as the scope of what constitutes project success

has expanded. While project success is a multidimensional construct, in practice not all criteria

may be considered relevant on all projects, and different criteria may be emphasized on different

types of projects (Bannerman, 2008; Shenhar et al., 2001; Wateridge, 1998). Temporality is an

element of the evaluation of project success in two ways. First, the different foci of consideration

discussed earlier are meaningful in relation to organizational processes and practices that operate

over different time frames. Thus, project management success and its criteria are relevant over

the time frame of a project; once a product or service is delivered, product success and its criteria

become increasingly relevant as the product or service is used (or not) within its operational

44
environment; while business success and strategic benefits and their criteria are relevant over

even longer time frames (Baccarini, 1999; Bannerman, 2008; Jugdev& Müller, 2005; Pinto

&Slevin, 1988; Shenhar et al., 2001). Second, individual or collective opinions and evaluative

assessments of a project are not necessarily static and may change over time as situations evolve

and contexts change (Lanzara, 1999). A project that initially may be deemed a success can

subsequently come to be regarded as a failure, or vice versa (de Wit, 1988; Ika, 2009; Wilson

&Howcroft, 2002). In recognition of the temporality of project success, various authors suggest

that multiple evaluations should be undertaken at different points in time for different purposes

(Atkinson, 1999; Jugdev& Müller, 2005; Karlsen, Andersen, Birkel, &Odegard, 2005; Khang&

Moe, 2008; Pinto &Slevin, 1988; Wateridge, 1998). A number of authors have highlighted the

subjective and perceptual nature of project evaluations, and that a person’s perception of an

outcome is dependent on his or her perspective or viewpoint (Agarwal &Rathod, 2006;

Baccarini, 1999; Bannerman, 2008; Fowler & Walsh, 1999; Ika, 2009; Shenhar et al., 2001;

Wateridge, 1998; Wilson &Howcroft, 2002). Given that a project has a range of stakeholder

groups, each with a particular viewpoint (Baccarini, 1999), individuals or groups are likely to

differ in their assessments of the extent to which a project is successful. Taken to an extreme, a

success for one group may be perceived as a failure by others (de Wit, 1988; Riley & Smith,

1997). In an IS project, the stakeholders may include senior management, organizational project

management office staff, the project manager, the project governance group, the project sponsor,

the project owner, project team members, developers, and various user stakeholder groups.

While many IS project stakeholders are internal to the organization commissioning the project,

some may be external—for example, external consultants, vendors, or developers in an

outsourced context (McLeod &MacDonell, 2011). Each stakeholder group will have its own

45
view of project success, judging it according to different criteria (Agarwal &Rathod, 2006;

Baccarini, 1999; Riley & Smith, 1997; Wateridge, 1998). For example, in an IS project, the

project manager and project governance team may focus on the success of the project process,

while users are likely to concentrate on the operation and implementation of a project product,

considering success in relation to the impact of the IS on their work and organizational roles.

Project sponsors may be concerned with the survival of their project (Wilson &Howcroft, 2002)

or the activity it was intended to support, while senior management may be interested in the

achievement of business objectives and the strategic benefits delivered by the project

(Bannerman, 2008; Wateridge, 1998). Technical staff such as developers on the project may

view success in terms of product quality and functionality or the opportunities for new skill

acquisition and learning that can be carried forward to future projects (Agarwal &Rathod, 2006;

Linberg, 1999; Riley & Smith, 1997). External contractors may be concerned with containing

project costs and duration (Bryde& Robinson, 2005), and securing further work. The criteria

used to evaluate project success are based on stakeholders’ particular expectations of the project

( Jiang, Chen, & Klein, 2002; Lim & Mohamed, 1999), with success reflecting the extent to

which these expectations are perceived to have been met. In turn, expectations derive from and

express value-based beliefs and desires about how a project will serve stakeholders’interests

and/or needs whether role-related or personal (Baccarini,1999; Bannerman, 2008; Lyytinen,

1988; Lyytinen&Hirschheim, 1987). Thus, the assessment of project success is a value judgment

(Seddon, Staples, Patnayakuni, &Bowtell, 1999), and “success” becomes a subjective evaluation

from a person’s perspective rather than an objective description based on independent criteria

(Mitev, 2005). Different values, interests, needs, and expectations become relevant to particular

stakeholders’ interpretations depending on the social, economic, historical, and organizational

46
context in which a project is situated (Bartis&Mitev, 2008; Lyytinen&Hirschheim, 1987). When

confronted with a complex problem such as evaluating a project outcome, individuals engage in

sense making, seeking, and interpreting information in order to construct meaning in relation to

the project (Galliers& Swan, 2000). This meaning is constantly shaped in response to new

knowledge, changing contextual elements, the behavior of others, and an individual’s

engagement with the project and its product (Constantinides& Barrett, 2006; Giddens, 1984;

Walsham, 1993). The individual and shared stocks of knowledge and systems of meaning that

individuals use to help them interpret and make sense of a project are based on their past

experiences and participation in social processes and professional groups (Kjaergaard, Kautz, &

Nielsen, 2007; Luckmann, 2008; Walsham, 1993). Thus, an individual’s evaluation of a project

outcome may be influenced by (possibly competing) organizational commitments, sectional

interests, or professional affiliations (Butler, 2003). Further, any development of a shared

understanding of the project outcome necessarily involves the communication and negotiation of

individual and collective perceptions, expectations, and evaluations. This makes the formal

evaluation of a project outcome a negotiated, and often political, process. Rather than being

discrete, objective outcomes, success and failure are constructed as contested subjective

interpretations that may be modified in response to political maneuvering, persuasion, or changes

in the organizational and technological context (Bartis&Mitev, 2008; Fincham, 2002; Mitev,

2000; Wilson &Howcroft, 2002). Any apparent definitional closure surrounding a particular

project outcome does not necessarily represent consensus or shared interests and values, as not

all interpretations or viewpoints may be afforded equal status (Bartis&Mitev, 2008; Riley &

Smith, 1997; Walsham, 1993; Wilson &Howcroft, 2002). While some expectations (e.g., client

or user expectations) are expressed as project goals and requirements, other expectations may

47
remain unarticulated or only vaguely expressed. The latter may result from the unclear nature of

an expectation, the sheer number and diversity of stakeholders involved, or an inability or lack of

opportunity for them to voice their expectations (Lyytinen&Hirschheim, 1987). As Thomas and

Fernández (2008, p. 733) note, “how success is defined and who evaluates success therefore

affects the final judgment of success and failure.” Formal evaluations are doubly political, in that

the “official narrative” may be used to confer status or stigma, legitimize particular behaviors or

courses of action, justify large or risky projects, or distance the future from the past

(Bartis&Mitev, 2008; Cicmil& Hodgson, 2006; Fincham, 2002). However, irrespective of the

formal evaluation of a project outcome,other informal evaluations that various individuals and

stakeholder groups make along the way, based on their specific interests and expectations,

influence their decisions and actions, and thus the unfolding project (Walsham, 1993). In

summary, labeling a project outcome as a “success” or “failure” is convenient but overly

simplistic. A degree of conceptual and definitional ambiguity surrounds project success. Further,

evaluations of project success are necessarily perceptual and (inter)subjectively constructed. This

suggests that a subjectivist approach to studying project outcomes would be fruitful; it provides

an understanding of how the wide range of project stakeholders in contemporary IS development

make sense of a project in relation to their various perspectives, interests, and expectations. The

e-Governance or ICT project case studies in Odisha (Appendix), draws on extensive evidence to

illustrate this.

48
Table 2.2 A classification of literature on success/fail factors
Theoretical Studies Empirical Studies

Avots (1969) Rubin and Seeling (1967)

Jonason (1971) Baker, Murphy and Fisher (1983)
Archibald (1976) Pinto and Slevin (1987)
Martin (1976) Morris and Hough (1987)
Markus (1981) Pinto and Prescott (1988)
Hughes (1986) Magal, Carr and Watson (1988)
Schultz, Slevin and Pinto (1987) Nutd (1989)
Pinto and Slevin (1989)
Pinto and Prescott (1990)

2.13 E-Governance in India

During the 70’s, e-governance started in India with a focus on applications in defence, economic

monitoring, census, etc. The emergence of client server technology and subsequent emergence of

the Internet encouraged governments to adopt ICTs to deliver government services.

During 1990's and early part of the millennium, the e-governance projects were based on client

server technologies carrying out departmental automation. However, in the later part of 2000s,

wide popularity of the Internet allowed the government to make the application web based.

The governments National E-Governance Plan (NeGP) envisages establishment of a network

(SWAN), Data Center to host e-governance applications and service delivery centers (SDC). The

NeGP also proposes Mission Mode Projects (MMPs) to be implemented to deliver specific

services to citizens. Using the above infrastructure government has undertaken many e-

governance projects. While some of them have succeeded, some others have failed. A sample list

of projects is given below:

e-sishu: tracking education of children started very ambitiously but has gone into a limbo.

e-registartion: land and other forms of registration processes is very successful.

49
OCTMP: Tank information system is yet to take off.

Vatis: Not very successful initially but relatively successful after its second vision.

2.14 Research Gap:

A study of e-governance projects in Odisha indicate that not all e-governance projects are

successful. Hence here is a need to study what causes success of the projects and what are the

reasons for their failure.

The research study is relevant because it aims to identify the main success factors from a very

comprehensive list of factors. Since factors are usually related to each other, knowing the factors

that have higher influence on projects’ success supports the management process and increases

its efficiency.

Future research should be done in order to continue the study on a higher sample, by testing the

correlation between rankings of success factors and the roles or the experience of respondents

with projects such as e-governance projects.

50