1 / 24

Involvement in e-government – trick or trade?

Oslo, October 15 2006. Involvement in e-government – trick or trade?. Kim Viborg Andersen Department of Informatics, Copenhagen Business School andersen@cbs.dk. Presented at Workshop on user involvement and representation in e-Government projects

vincentc
Download Presentation

Involvement in e-government – trick or trade?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Oslo, October 15 2006 Involvement in e-government – trick or trade? Kim Viborg Andersen Department of Informatics, Copenhagen Business School andersen@cbs.dk Presented at Workshop on user involvement and representation in e-Government projects The Fourth Nordic Conference on Human Computer Interaction Octobre 14-18, Oslo, Norway

  2. Oslo, October 15 2006 Abstract / key points • E-government has the potential to transform interaction patterns, but from end-user point of view few results • Involvement in design and implementing IT projects – lost the Scandinavian touch? • Leading to succesfull projects (?) and less resistance to implementation • Balance participation objectives on rationel-technocratic motives versus (?) democractic motives • Involvement fading out? Replaced by new mechanisms fueled by NPM?

  3. Oslo, October 15 2006 From the Danish menu (summer 2006)#1 • ”When you have found the form needed, you can complete the form at the computer or print it and complete the form by pen. NB. It is very important that you sign the form by pen – otherwise the form is not valid”

  4. Oslo, October 15 2006 From the Danish menu (summer 2006)#2 • ”We...do not use e-mail to respond to inquiries from the citizens. An answer will therefore be mailed by ordinary mail. Therefore it is important that you state your full name and postal address when you send e-mails to the agency”

  5. Oslo, October 15 2006 From the Danish menu (summer 2006)#3 ”If you have questions regarding the progress of your case/ inquiry, please call the staff in the office hours: Monday, Tuesday, Wednes, and Friday 9:30 AM till 12:30 PM Thursday: 10:00 AM till 12:30 PM”

  6. Oslo, October 15 2006 Institutional top-down participation versus bottom-up driven participation

  7. Oslo, October 15 2006 Participation issues • Multiple technical channels for participation– fewer institutionalized? • Willingness to pay split from finance of the services • Normative views on involvement • Limits to participation (professional ethics, time, etc. )

  8. Oslo, October 15 2006 Participation in government • Positive og negative regulation • The citizen role • Voter • The user and the target of regulation • The company • Politicians • The employee

  9. Oslo, October 15 2006 Maturity models of e-government

  10. Oslo, October 15 2006 Maturity models – CapGemini, Economist, Accenture

  11. Oslo, October 15 2006 Maturing eGovernment – The challenge: digital services Maturing eGovernment

  12. Oslo, October 15 2006 Process rebuilding

  13. Oslo, October 15 2006 The case of teaching evaluation

  14. Oslo, October 15 2006 Teaching at universities • Free of charge for students • Income for universities generated by number students that pass the examns • Quality standards for teaching performance • Mandatory to evaluate teaching performance

  15. Oslo, October 15 2006 Teaching evaluation • Students’ feedback • Process and ex post • Formalized evaluations • Major challenges • Low participation rate • Legitimacy problems • Lack of transparency

  16. Oslo, October 15 2006 The conventional teaching evaluation process

  17. Oslo, October 15 2006 The online teaching evaluation at the ITU

  18. Oslo, October 15 2006 Online evaluation • Quantitative and qualitative results displayed • Teachers response to comments published • Students and teachers prompted for response • Teachers obliged to response to all individual comments

  19. Oslo, October 15 2006 Concerns • Decrease the academic level/ ambitions • More focused on (good) feedback than learning cycles • Hyper-efficiency rather than building acacemic sound institutions • Evaluation favors easy courses • Replaces dialogue on teaching performance

  20. Oslo, October 15 2006 Outcome • Increased and more accurate bottom-up information AND more top-down control • Lack of experimental/ rich media • Higher participation rate • Students choose NOT to be anonymous • Formal evaluation culture established (no complaints) • Improvement of current teaching • Highlight management of teaching • To be replicated by other universities?

  21. Oslo, October 15 2006 Conclusion & perspectives

  22. Oslo, October 15 2006 Digitalization of government

  23. Oslo, October 15 2006 Point of departure (normative statements) • New IT applications are to be initiated and oriented towards the end-users primarily • IT-capabilities among staff is acute need of updating • Politics, values, people, and attitudes towards technology is the key to better design and implementation • The added value (not cost) of each public servant should be in focus • The core activities, not the support/ flow of document should be in the periscope designing the new government

  24. Oslo, October 15 2006 Thank you for your attention! Questions ?? Contact at andersen@cbs.dk

More Related