Automating the Public Sector and Organizing Accountabilities

Smith, Matthew L.; Noorman, Merel; Martin, Aaron

doi:10.17705/1cais.02601

Cited by 24 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, the critical question is raised here: how do public organizations manage accountability issues when e-government is being implemented? (Smith et al, 2010). However, a little is known about how e-government enhances accountability in public organizations, which is still a vague issue for both academics and government managers in many nations (Chen et al, 2010;Lourenco et al, 2017;Orelli et al, 2010;Pina et al, 2010a).…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

E-government and accountability

Al-Shbail

Aman

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Electronic government (e-government) is perceived as an effective tool to enhance accountability in public organizations. However, e-government implementation to enhance accountability is still unclear and involves many complex processes because of the multiple accountabilities disorder. The e-government elements that contribute to mitigate the disorders and dysfunctions of accountability relationships are still underdeveloped in the current literature. This paper aims to provide understanding on how e-government enhances public organizations’ accountability by highlighting the key elements of e-government that mitigate the disorders and dysfunctions of accountability relationships. Design/methodology/approach This study adopts a qualitative case study approach by using the case of Jordan Customs. Data were collected using a triangulation approach that involved semi-structured interviews, document reviews and observation. Findings The findings revealed that the e-government elements that mitigate the disorders and dysfunctions of accountability relationships are classified into three contexts, namely, technological, environmental and organizational aspects. The technological elements include systems integration, single window and electronic connectivity. The environmental elements embrace public participation and partnership council. The organizational elements comprise having well-defined strategic plan and risk management approach. Research limitations/implications This study contributes and gives further insight into how to address the confusion, fuzziness and dysfunctions in accountability relationships existing in the literature by providing several success elements that mitigate the problematic of disorder between accountability relationships in public organizations. The paper highlights the need to investigate further elements, particularly, in the organizational context, to assist public organizations in improving their performance to enhance accountability in their operations. Practical implications This study provides guidelines for future e-government implementation strategy in public organizations, particularly, in the context of developing countries, as most of the recent studies of e-government in developing countries indicated that they are suffering from difficulty of managing e-government implementation to promote accountability successfully and are struggling with a lack of resources and experiences to handle this new trend of technology. Originality/value This study is of a significant value, as it is one of the preliminary studies that empirically extend the accountability dimensions suggested by Koppell (2005) with the key success elements of e-government that enhance accountability proposed by Heeks (1998b) and other current literature. This paper enriches the body of literature by providing some new key success elements of e-government that enhance accountability in public organizations. It also contributes to the expansion of the boundaries of knowledge by adding further interpretation on how these elements reduce the existing confusions and dysfunctions in accountability relationships.

show abstract

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

E-government and accountability

Al-Shbail

Aman

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Francoli () chronicled how national governments like Canada's have signed onto the Open Government Partnership, an international movement requiring signatories to meet certain standards for reporting and share information about progress and best practices. Smith, Noorman, and Martin (), having explored the competing values and multiple directions for accountability, called for information architectures which allow for diverse data and information to be shared across levels and organizations inside government. Similarly, Roy () proposes that information architecture should be designed at the national level to coordinate work and flows across governments and sectors.…”

Section: Have Digital Tools Improved Accountability and Democratic Gomentioning

confidence: 99%

Accountability and monitoring government in the digital era: Promise, realism and research for digital‐era governance

Lindquist¹,

Huse²

2017

Can Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Furthering the accountability of elected governments and the public administration apparatus which serves them is a fundamental principle of democratic societies. Over the last fifty years, there have been significant debates about how to operationalize and balance the principles of accountability in our federal governance system. The emergence and proliferation of Web 2.0 capabilities and advocates for their use in government has led to new rounds of experimentation, initiatives and reform under the banner of Government 2.0 in many jurisdictions. This article surveys the Canadian and international literature on accountability in the digital era, including contributions from scholars with interests in information technology, transparency and digital culture, to identify whether Canada is lagging or leading international contributions in this area. It sets out a research agenda inspired by the concepts of interactive, dynamic, and citizen-initiated accountability (Schillemans, Van Twist, and Vanhommerig 2013).Sommaire : Un principe fondamental des soci et es d emocratiques consiste a promouvoir l'imputabilit e des gouvernements elus et de l'appareil d'administration publique qui est a leur service. Nous sommes aux prises, depuis les cinquante dernières ann ees, avec des d ebats très importants sur la manière d'op erationnaliser et d' equilibrer les principes d'imputabilit e au sein de notre système de gouvernance f ed eral. L' emergence et la prolif eration des capacit es du Web 2.0, ainsi que de leurs d efenseurs pour l'utiliser au sein du gouvernement, a engendr e de nouvelles s eries d'exp erimentation, d'initiatives et de r eformes sous la bannière du gouvernement 2.0 dans de nombreuses comp etences. Cet article examine la litt erature canadienne et internationale portant sur l'imputabilit e dans l'ère num erique, y compris les contributions d' erudits qui s'int eressent a la technologie de l'information, la transparence et la culture num erique, afin de d eterminer si le Canada est en retard ou en tête des contributions a l' echelle internationale dans le domaine. L'article article etablit un programme de recherche inspir e par les concepts d'imputabilit e interactive, dynamique, et a l'initiative des citoyens (Schillemans, Van Twist, et Vanhommerig 2013).

show abstract

“…Thus, like the dichotomy between self‐interest and normative motivations, there can be more than one reason why people might trust in an institution (including rules, roles, norms and ethos or values). Of course, a complicating factor is that democratic bureaucracies represent a variety of values (Kallinikos, 2004) and e‐government implementations can alter the balance of these values (Cordella, 2007; Smith et al , 2010). As we will see, the role of the different, and sometimes competing, values that are expressed through the e‐services studied here play an instrumental role in shaping citizens' e‐government experiences and consequently their trust judgements.…”

Section: Institutional Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building institutional trust through e‐government trustworthiness cues

Smith

2010

Information Technology &Amp; People

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeMost theory and empirical research on the impact of e‐government on citizens' trust in government remains at the macro‐level and misses out on the complexities of the interaction between e‐services and citizens' trust in government. The purpose of this paper is to provide a deeper understanding of this complexity.Design/methodology/approachThe research strategy is a comparative case study of two e‐services in Chile: a tax administration and an e‐procurement system. Data were collected from a variety of users (citizens and business owners) and public sector employees in the Araucania Region in Chile.FindingsWithin e‐services, the most easily perceived and influential trustworthiness cues are those outcomes that directly impact the citizen. These cues shape citizens' resultant interpretations of and trust in the public sector agency. Furthermore, the direction of this influence is mediated by individuals' particular circumstances and value positions. Key to understanding the process of building and destroying trust is the identification of the value conflicts that can emerge from e‐service implementations and how they align with citizens' values.Research limitations/implicationsThe research conclusions are potentially an artefact of the financial nature of the e‐service transactions and the cultural uniqueness of Chileans.Originality/valueThe paper presents an original integrated conception of trust and institutional trust as well as a comparative analysis of citizens' perceptions and interpretations of “successful” e‐services.

show abstract

Automating the Public Sector and Organizing Accountabilities

Cited by 24 publications

References 34 publications

E-government and accountability

E-government and accountability

Accountability and monitoring government in the digital era: Promise, realism and research for digital‐era governance

Building institutional trust through e‐government trustworthiness cues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About