PUBLIC MANAGERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF E-GOVERNMENT EFFICI ENCY:

A CASE STUDY OF ANDALUSIAN MUNICIPALITIES

Laura Alcaide-Muñoz (lauraam@ugr.es)

Assistant Professor

University of Granada

Carmen Caba-Pérez (ccaba@ual.es)

Associate Professor

University of Almeria

Antonio M. López-Hernández (alopezh@ugr.es)

Professor

University of Granada

Abstract.

Many public administrations use ICT both to facilitate procedures related to public

services, to promote economic transparency and to improve effectiveness and

efficiency. Nonetheless, the development, in the implementation e-governments by the

public administrations, has been very different. In fact, although public administrations

have developed websites, their efforts to improve performance regarding public sector

services and online government information remain irregular. Therefore, this pilot study

presents the opinion of this category of stakeholder at the municipal level. In order to examine

the public manager' perceptions of e-government efficiency, survey of the public manager of

municipal government are carried out. Specifically, this study highlights the opinion of the

efficiency of Spanish municipal governments, municipalities situates in the biggest region of

Andalusia.

1. Introduction

Information and communication technologies (ICT) are fundamental to

managerial reform in public administration (Chan and Chow, 2007), and their use by

public administrations – e-government – has enabled local, regional and national

governments to improve their internal managerial efficiency (Pardo et al., 2012) and the

quality of public service delivery (Lindgren and Jansson, 2013).

In recent years, public administrations have created official websites, viewing e-

government as an internet-driven activity that improves citizens’ access to government

information, services and expertise, thus enhancing participation and satisfaction with

the government (Welch et al., 2005). The internet is now widely used to access

government information via official websites or portals.

Many public administrations use ICT both to facilitate procedures related to

public services (Reddick and Turner, 2012) and to promote economic transparency,

allowing users free, easy and appropriate access to fiscal and economic information

(Meier, 2013). At all levels of government, administrations are striving to address the

challenge of achieving transparency, effectiveness and efficiency, and ICT provide an

invaluable means of doing so.

Many studies have examined e-government, focusing on questions such as

increased economic and financial disclosure (Caba et al., 2008), the better provision of

public services (Lodge and Hood, 2012) and enhanced participation, transparency and

confidence in the management of resources by public managers (Kim and Lee, 2012).

However, others have concluded that the outcome, in general, has been disappointing

(Bekkers and Homberg, 2007), in that while public administrations have indeed

developed websites, their efforts to improve public sector services and to provide online

government information remain very irregular (Paris, 2005).

These differences of opinion reflect the fact that public administration reform is

often difficult; among other aspects, it involves diverse stakeholders whose interests

frequently diverge, and conflicts often occur (Reddick, 2013). Accordingly, some

studies have examined the views of various stakeholders in the adoption and

implementation of e-government (Ho and Smith, 2001; Garson, 2006), while others

have analysed the perceptions of city managers regarding privacy and the security of e-

government (Edmiston, 2002; Garson, 2006). Other researchers have focused on the

citizen as stakeholder, relating to government through the internet (West, 2004; Welch

et al., 2004). In some studies, researchers have asked city managers about their opinions

and perceptions of the efficiency of e-government (Streib and Navarro, 2005; Reddick

and Frank, 2007a, b), and recent surveys have reported the perceptions of IT managers

on the efficiency of the implementation, adoption and development of e-government

(Reddick, 2009; Reddick, 2004; Norris and Reddick, 2013). Most of this research has

been conducted in the USA, and very few published studies have considered the

question of e-government in Spain.

Many studies have highlighted the existence of significant differences in the

implementation of e-government and in governance in general, according to the

administrative culture in question (Kickert 1997; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2000; Rodríguez

et al., 2006). Accordingly, it would be valuable to analyse the efficiency of e-

government as applied by Spanish administrations, inquiring into both of these aspects

and furthering our understanding of e-government. This pilot study, therefore, presents

an evaluation of public managers' perceptions of e-municipal government efficiency in

Andalusia, the largest of Spain’s regions.

The rest of this study is organized as follows. The next section provides an

overview of the diverse stakeholders in the implementation of ICT by public

administrations. We then consider the organizational and legislative context of these

administrations in Spain, in general terms, with particular respect to e-government and

the internet. Section 4 of the chapter introduces the empirical study, describes the

sample selection, the research methodology and the content of the survey held with

public managers, and then presents the analysis carried out of the findings. In section 5,

we discussed the results and the main conclusions drawn. In the final section, we

presented the future research.

2. Literature Review

In recent years, many public administrations have sought to improve the

efficiency of public services by incorporating ICT (Chan and Chow, 2007). These

reforms have posed organizational and technical challenges, requiring the incorporation

of new systems, but the outcome has been enhanced performance, greater satisfaction

among citizens, the tighter integration of business processes, support for collaborative

decision-making and lower costs of ITC infrastructure, which is both flexible and easy

to maintain (Kamal et al., 2011). However, this organizational change has not been

propelled by financial reasons, but is more the result of decisions taken by those most

organized politically or in control of public organizations (Lindblom, 1959).

The efficient, effective integration of ICT has long been a priority objective of

public administrations, especially since the introduction of e-government (Beynon-

Devies and Williams, 2003). The adoption of these systems is a complex process (Lam,

2005) that affects all operational activities and numerous internal and external

stakeholders, each with their own domain of knowledge, experience and characteristics.

In the latter respect, different types of categories have been proposed. Nutt and

Backo (1992) divided stakeholders into primary and secondary, with the former being

the fundamental, strategic actors who are directly involved in the implementation of e-

government, while secondary stakeholders are those that are not essential to the survival

of the public administration (Chan et al., 2003). On the other hand, Kamal et al. (2011,

2009) focused on three main categories, decision takers, management and IT staff. The

latter are those specifically involved in the process of ICT adoption and the

implementation of e-government. In evaluating e-government, the supply side

perspective should also be considered, analysing the public administration in its role as

a supplier of services.

Although it is widely recognised that the different stakeholders in e-government

play an important role in its long-term success (Tan, Pan & Lim, 2005), there has been

very little comparative analysis of the perspectives of different stakeholders, possibly

due to an excessive focus on the supply side and on the implementation of technology

(Kosaker & Lee-Kelley, 2006).

There is general agreement that the public sector is complex, that it involves a

variety of stakeholders and that this complexity is translated into e-government

(Rowley, 2011). Accordingly, e-government stakeholders should be identified and

typologies developed, to respond to diverse stakeholder requirements. Although

stakeholder theory has primarily been applied to the private sector, the insights from

this area can be applied in part to public sector settings, and in particular, to the context

of e-government (Flak and Rose, 2005).

Rowely (2011) conducted a literature review of stakeholders in e-government

and identified the following categories (Table1).

Table 1. E-government stakeholders

Source Stakeholder categories Heeks (2006) Non-profits, other agencies, citizens/customers, businesses, communities,

government Mintzberg (1996) Customers, clients, subjects and citizens (constituents for e-government

services) Orange, Burke, Elliman & Kor (2006)

Politicians, staff, public, project managers, design developers, other government agencies

UN (2008) Public administrators, programmers, end-users, politicians Yildiz (2007) Government, citizens, business, civil society Beynon-Davies (2005)

Customers, suppliers, partners, employees (general) Large and small businesses, individual tax payers, students/graduates, senior citizens (for Inland Revenue, UK)

Flak and Nordheim (2006)

Regional council, regional partners, national and international policy makers, systems vendors, county governor, county municipality, citizens of municipality, municipal politicians, municipal administration, municipal service production units (for a local government project in Norway)

Heeks (2003)

Senior managers of the Epidemiology Service, Ministry of Health, internal users (managers, health specialists, statistical specialists, information systems personnel), external users (in various ministries, local authorities, research institutions and international organizations), citizens (computerisation in a national epidemiology service in Central Asia)

Irani et al. (2007) Informed citizens (academic), elected representatives, local government staff, regional and central staff, others (VIEGO participants)

Millard (2008)

Policy makers, researchers, practitioners, constituents as citizens and businesses (stakeholders in impact measurement)

Tan et al. (2005)

Singapore government, IRAS (Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore), tax officials, taxpayers, employers (e-filing for tax initiative)

Source: Rowley (2011)

Different stakeholder groups do not always have the same interests, and so those

of each stakeholder category must be identified (Yildiz, 2007). In this context, the

analysis of the ‘fit’ between supply assumptions and usage drivers is fundamental,

through stakeholder identification (Lee-Kelley & Kolsaker, 2004).

Therefore, it is of interest to obtain and analyse the opinions of one of the main

stakeholder groups in the implementation of e-government initiatives. In this case, we

focus on Spanish government authorities and in particular, regional bodies in Andalusia

(southern Spain), which have been active in implementing e-government initiatives to

promote the disclosure of government information, citizens’ participation in public

affairs and enhanced performance in the provision of public services.

3. Organisational and legislative context of e-government

In 2001, Andalusia launched its first ICT modernisation programme, with two

main elements: the Master Plan for Service Quality (PLADOCS) and the i@landalus

plan of strategic initiatives to develop the information society, by which numerous

projects were implemented to accelerate Andalusia’s incorporation into this new era,

through the balanced deployment of the necessary infrastructure, creating quality e-

services and promoting greater awareness of ICT use.

In 2005, spurred by the new European framework for ICT and the Spanish

Avanza Plan, the Andalusian government implemented its second ICT modernisation

project, known as the Information Society Plan for Andalusia 2007–2010 (ISPA). The

aim of this was to achieve a series of strategic IT objectives, affecting the whole of

Andalusian society, though four areas of action: Digital Community, Companies for the

New Economy, Intelligent Administration and Digital Infrastructure and Context. The

area of Intelligent Administration included the strategy for digital public services, to

bridge the gap between public services and citizens and companies by the application of

online methods and by coordinating the public entities involved in providing these

services.

The development and implementation of new ICT by the Andalusian

government has greatly improved the quality of services provided and the facilities for

attending the public. Using the internet, many administrative procedures can now be

performed, information accessed online and public attention services requested of the

regional administration.

The aim of these strategic plans for e-government is to modernise public

services, and significant adjustments have led to the adoption of new legislation to

incorporate reforms in local and regional governments, in administrative procedures and

in procedures for public attention (Table 2).

Apart from the above legislation, perhaps the greatest impact on e-government

has been achieved by Act 11/2007, of 22 June, on e-Access to Public Services, which

recognized the right of citizens to interact electronically with public authorities, and the

obligation of the latter to ensure the realization of this right. The Act also sought to

promote the use of e-services by creating the necessary conditions, and thus indirectly

exerted a ‘pull’ effect on the information society in general.

Table 2. Legislative framework for e-Government in Andalusia

E-ADMINISTRATION: STAGE 1

I@landalus Plan for Strategic Initiatives to Develop

the Information Society 2001-2006

Master Plan for Service Quality

(PLADOCS) 2002-2005

Decree No. 183/2003, of 24 June, regulating public attention and information and the online

performance of administrative procedures.

Decree No. 72/2003, of 18 March, on measures to promote the knowledge society in Andalusia.

Decree No. 177/2005, of 19 July, on the menu of services and on service quality.

Order, 10 June 2005, on online tax registry.

Order, 10 June 2005, on online payment and presentation of declarations.

E-ADMINISTRATION: STAGE 2

Information Society Plan for Andalusia

2007–2010

Andalusian Government Strategy for the

Modernisation of Public Services 2006-2010

Order, 11 October 2006, on the online issuance of authenticated copies.

Order, 11 October 2006, regulating the use of the e-signature system in online documentation

Act No. 9/2007, of 22 October, on government administration in Andalusia.

Order of 20 February 2007, regulating the implementation and use of the information system for

the management of ownership and/or management files by the Andalusian Government (the

@rchivA Andalucía project)

Decree No. 68/2008, of 26 February, eliminating the requirement for a photocopy of official

identification documents and of the municipal residence certificate in administrative procedures,

and establishing a website for the purposes of e-notification.

Order of 22 February 2010, approving the Manual of Administrative Simplification and

Streamlining of Administrative Procedures.

Source: The authors

4. Empirical Study

4.1. Sample selection

To achieve our study goals, we sought the opinions of public managers in ICT

departments in local authorities in Andalusia (southern Spain). This area was selected to

carry out this pilot study because it is the most populated region in Spain, with nearly

8.5 million inhabitants (National Statistics Institute - INE), followed by the region of

Madrid, with nearly 6.5 million. Andalusia has 18% of the total population of Spain,

and has more inhabitants than some European countries, such as Denmark (5.5 million),

Finland (5.3 million) and Ireland (4.7 million). It has a surface area of 87,000 km2, 17%

of the total area of the country, and is larger than countries such as Austria, Belgium,

the Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark. It consists of 771 municipalities (nearly 10% of

the Spanish total), with 240,000 public employees, and the regional budget for 2012

exceeded 32 billion euros, the largest of all the Spanish regional governments.

Andalusia consists of eight provinces – Almeria, Cadiz, Cordoba, Granada,

Huelva, Jaen, Malaga and Seville – of diverse characteristics and containing

municipalities of different sizes, and so we obtained a study sample representing these

different types of municipalities. Nevertheless, we focused on those with more than

50,000 inhabitants (large municipalities), because under Local Government Act 7/1985

these authorities are assigned the highest level of competences related to service

delivery, and the municipalities with over 20,000 inhabitants (medium-size

municipalities), this sample will allow us to make a comparison of the perceptions of

public managers from two types of these municipalities (over 50,000 inhabitants vs.

49,999-20,000 inhabitants), since there are empirical findings that the population is one

of the main variable causing significant evidence on differences in perceptions (Moon,

2002; Holden et al., 2003; Norris and Reddick, 2013).

The sum of municipalities with over 20,000 inhabitants in the province of

Andalusia is 81 (National Statistics Institute) –see Table 3-. This represents a total

population of 5,724,234 inhabitants (67.74% of the Andalusia population). To identify

the public managers´ opinion, an online survey was sent. The survey was responded by

31 municipalities –see Table 4-, hence, 38.27% was the response ratio which is greater

than the results obtained in current studies. (Norris and Reddick, 2013). This sample

consists of 12 municipalities with over 50,000 inhabitants and 19 municipalities with a

population between 49,999 to 20,000 inhabitants). Thus, we obtained information,

perceptions and opinions from public managers in a wide range of municipalities

representative of the provinces of Andalusia.

Table 3. Municipalities with over 20,000 inhabitants in Andalusia

Province of Andalusia Number of municipalities Population

Almeria 6 443,038 Cádiz 15 1,052,074 Córdoba 8 512,059 Granada 7 414,815 Huelva 6 262,291 Jaen 6 299,890 Málaga 16 1,395,810 Sevilla 17 1,344,257

TOTAL 81 municipalities 5,724,234

Source: National Statistics Institute (INE)

Table 4. Sample of Andalusian Local Governments

Municipality Province Population

Córdoba Córdoba 328,841 Granada Granada 239,017 Huelva Huelva 148,568 Marbella Málaga 140,473 Dos Hermanas Sevilla 128,794 Cádiz Cádiz 123,948 Roquetas de Mar Almería 90,358 El Puerto de Santa María Cádiz 89,068 Chiclana Cádiz 81,113 Fuengirola Málaga 75,953 Estepona Málaga 67,101 Utrera Sevilla 51,587 Mairena del Aljarafe Sevilla 42,784 Lucena Córdoba 42,592 Rincón de la Victoria Málaga 41,216 Écija Sevilla 40,683 Ronda Málaga 36,698 San Roque Málaga 30,516 Nijar Almería 29,465 Rota Cádiz 29,094 Almuñecar Granada 27,703 Camas Sevilla 26,485 Tomares Sevilla 23,921 Cartama Málaga 23,664 Los Barrios Cádiz 23,141 Barbate Cádiz 22,885 Nerja Málaga 22,617 Coin Málaga 21,791 Maracena Granada 21,514 Ayamonte Huelva 20,998 Banea Córdoba 20,266 Total Population 2,113,154

Source: National Statistics Institute (INE)

4.2. Methodology

This research is based on a case pilot study of municipalities in Andalusia,

seeking the opinions of public managers involved in the innovation and modernization

of local administrations regarding their perceptions of the development and

implementation of e-government in their municipalities.

To obtain the views of these stakeholders, an interview was conducted with each

one. For the sake of maximum efficiency, a few days before the meeting, each

interviewee was sent a summary of the questions on which the conversation would

focus.

The questions included in the tables presented below are based on a wide-

ranging, detailed review of the literature (Norris and Reddick, 2013; Reddick and Frank,

2007; Nasi and Frosini, 2010; Streib and Navarro, 2005; Reddick, 2004; Reddick and

Frank, 2007 a, b), and investigate the following aspects that influence the efficiency of

e-government:

1. The reasons leading municipal governments to implement e-government

processes. In each respect, the participants were asked to award a score from

1 to 10 (see Table 5).

2. The barriers and factors that may limit the efficiency of e-government in

Andalusian municipalities. As in the previous question, and following

previous research, the respondents were asked to evaluate various

alternatives, awarding a score from 1 to 10 (see Table 6).

3. The changes that might arise from the development of e-government in a

number of respects, scored from 1 to 10 (see Table 7).

4. Two final questions: in the first, how the efficiency of e-government may be

facilitated (scored as above), and the second, an open question, whether the

municipality has a model to assess this efficiency (see Table 8).

4.3. Analysis of results

Table 5 shows that one of the main factors that have led to the implementation of

e-government is the conviction among the respondents of its advantages for these

Andalusian municipalities. Regarding this, the public managers from large

municipalities (over 50,000 inhabitants) present the highest mean score 8.17, while

those from medium-size municipalities indicate an average of 6.95. The second main

finding is that the IT managers in our sample believe that the implementation of e-

government has been directly influenced by Act 11/2007 of 22 June on e-Access to

Public Services, with the medium-size municipalities being most influenced by this

legislation.

The managers surveyed consider that e-government can enhance the flexibility

of administrative processes, scoring this with 6 or more. Despite this, it is worth

mentioning that this flexibility is mainly perceived by the survey respondents that

belong to large municipalities. Finally, the implementation of ICT is not generally

considered to be the result of political pressures, with over 80% of the respondents

awarding a score of less than 3 in this respect. However, such pressure is differently

perceived by each municipality, as it is indicated in the high standard deviations (2.29

and 2.23).

Table 6 presents the main barriers to the implementation, evolution and

development of e-government, according to these IT managers. The results reflect the

impact of the current economic crisis in Spain; the respondents believe their financial

resources are insufficient, and that this shortcoming is serious (scored at 7 or more), and

especially so in the large municipalities (average score 7.50). In this respect, 75% of the

respondents have suffered reductions in budget allocations, and believe this will reduce

the development of e-government in their municipalities. From the scant differences in

the mean scores (SD = 1.57), we conclude that the financial cutbacks are affecting all

these municipalities to a similar degree.

This lack of financial resources is again reflected in the fact that a majority of

the respondents report difficulties in financing e-government projects; in this case, the

perception of large municipalities is somewhat higher than the medium-size ones

(average score, 7.42). Although the difficulty in justifying the return on investment does

not appear to represent an obstacle (the large municipalities present a score less than 5

and the medium-size municipalities indicate a mean value of 5), diverse opinions and

comments were made in the respondents, as reflected in the high level of standard

deviation (3.03 and 2.75).

This situation of economic crisis and reduced financial resources is accompanied

by problems regarding the staff assigned to ICT initiatives. In this regard, 50% of the

managers believe their staff are not sufficiently skilled, with the managers responsible

for large municipalities showing the greatest concern in this respect (average score

6.42). In addition to the staff assigned to the ICT department, those employed in

operative departments are believed to lack skills by 68.42% of the managers

interviewed, especially those in medium-size municipalities (average score 6.84).

The staff assigned to this type of initiative are not only lacking in skills but also

present a strong aversion and resistance to change, according to 91.67% of the

respondents (average score of over 5) this resistance being perceived in all

municipalities. However, it should be noted that this behaviour is slightly greater in the

medium-size municipalities (7.68). These data reflect a situation of unskilled labour and

of a lack of training, with a great majority of respondents awarding a score of 5 or more

in this respect. In all municipalities, regardless of size, it is considered necessary to train

staff to enable them to cope with changes and innovation in public administrations; the

homogeneity of opinions in this respect is mainly shown by the large municipalities

which present a low standard deviation (1.90). Conversely, the responses on this aspect

differs amongst the medium-size municipalities (SD = 2.32). Moreover, 75% of the

respondents perceived a low level of user training in ICT, with a score of 5 or more, this

perception being greater in the medium-size municipalities.

Together with this lack of qualified personnel, the ICT managers believe there

are organizational problems, with 75% of respondents awarding a score of 5 or higher to

the perceived lack of collaboration between operative departments, especially in the

medium-size municipalities. This lack of cooperation is exacerbated by the lack of

support from the managers and politicians involved. In this regards, 73.69% of

respondents considered this lack of support to be considerable (average score over 7) in

the medium-size municipalities, although this perception was expressed by all the

managers, regardless of the size of the municipality. The municipalities regardless of

size consider there is not a lack of support from the regional and/or national

administrations (average score 5.33 and 5.68).

On the other hand, the external stakeholders – citizens and businesses – seem to

present an active attitude toward e-government initiatives. 75% of the managers were

aware of no particular resistance to change among citizens (average score less than 4),

with this resistance being slightly higher in the medium-size municipalities (4.11), and

there are not the similarity of their views, it was reflected in the high standard deviation

(2.56). It was remarked in the surveys that citizens and businesses are interested in e-

government and make use of the services offered; in this respect, a score of less than 7

was awarded by 75% of the managers. Nevertheless, there appeared to be less interest in

the medium-size municipalities (average score 5.37).

With respect to computer security, privacy and bandwidth, over 83.33% of

respondents awarded a score of less than 5. The managers did not report any problems

related to computer privacy, and their general consensus is reflected in the low standard

deviation (2.08) of the large municipalities. To a lesser extent, this consensus amongst

the medium-size municipality’s managers (2.57) is shown. Furthermore, the opinion on

computer security and privacy issues did not present relevant differences based on

municipalities’ size. In keeping with this, large municipalities´ managers agree when

considering that virus attacks and, privacy and security problems are not a barrier to e-

Government adoption (SD = 2.26).

Table 7 shows the aspects that are influenced by the implementation of e-

government. The perception of managers in this respect reflected satisfaction in the

implementation of e-government as regards organization, and administrative

management was believed to have improved considerably. Thus, 91.67% believe it

decreases processing time in large municipalities (8.08), however, this opinion is not

shared by medium-size municipalities´ managers (6.26). Furthermore, 100% of

respondents consider that e-government reduces administrative costs in the large

municipalities (7.25). This perception differs from the answer obtained by the managers

of medium-size municipalities (5.25). With respect to the valuation of these aspects, it

should be highlighted that, there is a consensus amongst the large municipality’s

managers (reduced standard deviation), however, the point of view of the medium-size

municipalities´ managers is heterogeneous (high standard deviation).

The respondents believe that the implementation of ICT improves the

organisation of the functions assigned to the staff of the operative departments (mean

score 6.08 and 5.95). 83.33% of the large municipalities’ managers consider that e-

government enables inter-departmental collaboration and information Exchange (6.00).

This interaction is less valued by the managers of medium-size municipalities (5.32).

However, despite the acknowledged benefits derived from e-government, these

managers do not believe it will reduce the number of staff in operative departments or

increase their numbers in the ICT department. This opinion is shared equally among the

public managers of large municipalities, and the standard deviations are small (2.07 and

1.97).

The majority of respondents believe fewer processes are carried out manually,

scoring this at 5 or more, and the standard deviation in this respect is very low (1.80) in

large municipalities. However, the opinion to this respect amongst medium-size

municipalities´ managers is diverse (2.47). Moreover, large municipalities´ managers

consider that, e-Government increases productivity and teamwork (5.83). These

advantages are not shared by the survey respondents that belong to medium-size

municipalities (2.32). Furthermore, the respondents did not consider that the

introduction of e-government produced an increase in municipal purchases via internet,

or any increased quality or reduced cost in the procurement of municipal goods and

services. The comments made in this regard were very similar, with little variation in

the scores and with low levels of standard deviation.

All of the respondents believed customer service had improved, as had

communication and interaction with these stakeholders (average scores, 7 or more), and

made very similar comments in the interviews, as shown by the low level of standard

deviation. However, with respect to communication between these managers and

politicians, the perception is not so clear, the ratings assigned reflected a variety of

opinions among the public managers, as shown by the high level of standard deviation

(3.14 and 2.60).

Contrary to the findings of empirical research, the present data show that e-

government initiatives do not lead to greater participation by staff in decision-taking

(3.92 and 3.47), or to better control of the provision of outsourced services in the large

municipalities (3.17). This point of view differs from the opinion of medium-size

municipalities´s managers. In particular

they consider that e-Government improves their services (mean score 5), however,

certain differences among the respondents are identified (SD = 2.65).

Table 8 shows that ICT managers of large municipalities do not consider

collaboration with other local governments to have favoured efficiency (3.58), whereas

the managers of medium-size municipalities believe that collaboration amongst local

municipality foster e-government efficiency (5.95). However, they do believe that

cooperation with regional and national government improves the efficiency of e-

government.

In addition, 75% of the large municipalities and 68.42% of the medium-size

ones surveyed do not use any kind of model to assess the efficiency of e-government,

and of those that do, only one uses its own design, while the rest use the Balanced

Scorecard technique or the efficiency and quality model (EFQM) in the case of large

municipalities. The medium-size municipalities follow the models carried out by others

public administrations (Government of Andalusia and County Council).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

E-government has led to the modernization of public administrations and has

strengthened democracy in governance (Calista and Melistki, 2007), providing greater

accessibility and information transparency (Caba et al., 2008), improved provision of

public services (West, 2004) and greater interaction and citizen participation in public

management (Dunleavy et al., 2006). These findings have been reported in many

academic studies, but do ICT managers and public officials have the same perception?

In this study, interviews were conducted with officials from the ICT departments

in different local governments in Andalusia (Spain), and the conclusion was drawn that

these managers are aware of the many advantages of implementing e-government,

especially the administrative flexibility achieved. However, political officials do not

appear to be as aware of the benefits of implementing e-government, in view of the

absence of political pressure in this respect.

In Andalusia, these initiatives have been implemented as a legal obligation,

particularly under Act 11/2007 on e-Access to Public Services, which required public

administrations to facilitate access to e-services. ITC managers believe that citizens are

receptive to these initiatives, and that businesses and citizens are the key stakeholders

making use of the facilities provided by e-government.

One of the main obstacles to the adoption, evolution and development of e-

government initiatives is the lack of financial resources. The economic crisis affecting

Spain has dealt a serious blow to these initiatives, with budgetary allocations for the

implementation of ICT being reduced. The managers questioned emphasized the severe

difficulties being faced, with the largest municipalities being the most affected on this

aspect. This could be due to; the largest municipalities are those with a most complex

organizational structure. Therefore, their need for resource allocation in ITC is greater

In addition to insufficient financial resources, the ICT managers commented that

their IT and operative staff lacked the appropriate skills to properly implement these

initiatives. In addition, concern was expressed about staff resistance to change and about

the lack of training; in this regard, previous research had shown that education and

training could make workers more aware of the many advantages of e-government

(Ebbers and Van Dijk, 2007). In our opinion, this resistance among the staff is caused

by the perception that not even the politicians are interested in the implementation of e-

government, and due to the dearth of leadership.

As a result of this skills gap, according to our respondents, the implementation

of e-government has not led to any reduction in staff numbers in the operative

departments, nor to any increase in those in the IT department, despite the findings of

previous research that the implementation of e-government is associated with a

reduction in staff levels (Moon and Norris, 2005).

The most positive aspects identified by the respondents are that the

implementation of e-government increases the efficiency of business-associated

processes, reducing both processing time and administrative costs. Therefore,

corroborating previous research (Moon, 2005; Moon and Norris, 2005), we find that

local administrations have experienced organizational change and are aware of the

operational benefits arising from the adoption of e-government.

In addition to the above benefits, there have been organizational advances

concerning the functions assigned to staff in operative departments, facilitating

interdepartmental collaboration and information sharing, and reducing the number of

manual processes required. However, this advantages are also perceived by small

municipalities and, bearing in mind, that their opinions are diverse. Moreover, the

comments made in the surveys show that these managers are aware that the adoption of

e-government increases productivity, but it does not promote teamwork. On the other

hand, they also note that there is no resulting increase in municipal procurement via the

internet.

Contrary to previous findings (Feeney and Welch, 2012, Xu, 2012), the

comments made and the scores awarded by our respondents suggest that e-government

does not improve communication and interaction with stakeholders and employees in

decision-taking, although opinions are mixed in this respect. This diversity shows that

future studies of this question should be more broad-based, to be more representative,

and also that e-government in general, and specifically, the participation of citizens in

public affairs requires further research to obtain representative, empirical data.

In summary, we agree with the findings of previous studies (Reddick and Norris,

2013; Ballager and Hiller, 2006) that the lack of financial resources for ICT investment,

the absence of skilled personnel and the insufficient support received from policy

makers are the main barriers to the adoption of e-government. This adoption involves

organizational changes, which give rise to reduced processing times and administrative

costs. However, this change does not result in greater participation by citizens in public

affairs or in decision-taking.

4. Future research and limitations

This paper presents the results of a pilot study carried out in the province of

Andalusia. Due to its dimensions and characteristics, this study as a first example of

how can be performed this research could be considered. The data obtained encourages

us to develop a wider analysis that embraces a survey to all Spanish municipalities with

over 20,000 inhabitants. Based on the National Statistics Institute, that sample would

cover 399 Spanish municipalities. Whether the response ratio is maintained, it could

identify a representative sample of the Spanish public managers´ perception on e-

Government implementation amongst the different Spanish provinces

Therefore, a better understanding of the barriers that reduce the implementation

of these initiatives could be performed. Particularly, this future investigation could

identify whether the multiple national and regional strategic action plans are efficient or,

at the contrary, there are still too many barriers to their adequate development. In this

regard, a route map with actions to solve those problems could be analyzed. Beside this,

it could be interesting to contrast if the e-government advantages indicated by the

literature are in line with the ICT managers´ opinion.

Moreover, with a considerable number of observations, the analysis of

determining factors that influence in the items of the survey and, other aspects such as

population, could be carried out. In this sense, it is possible that the greater dispersion

obtained in our survey could be also explained in such analysis. In keeping the

explanatory factors, the literature states the importance of socio-demographic variables

such as population dispersion, level of population education, level of Internet access.

Likewise, previous studies note the relevance of political variables like political

competition, political ideology of the party that currently govern.

Although the scope of the conclusions given in this study should be considered

with caution, bearing in mind, that our sample represents a small portion of all the

Spanish local public sector. However, it should be mentioning that, this study shed light

on some questions that will be contrasted when developing the research with a wider

sample size.

References

Belanger, F., & Hiller, Janine S. (2006). A framework for e-government: privacy implications. Business Process Management Journal, 12 (1), 48-60.

Beynon-Davies, P., & Williams, M. D. (2003). Evaluating electronic local government in the UK. Journal of Information Technology, 18, 137−149.

Chan, C. M. L., Pan, S. L., & Tan, C. W. (2003). Managing stakeholder relationships in an e-Government project. Proceedings of the 9th Americas Conference on Information Systems.

Chan, Hon S., & Chow, King W. (2007). Public management policy and practice in western China: metapolicy, tacit knowledge, and implications for management innovation transfer. American Review of Public Administration, 37, 479-497.

Ebbers, W. E. & Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2007). Resistance and support to electronic government, building a model of innovation. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 554-575.

Feeney, M. K. & Welch, E. W. (2012). Electronic participation technologies and perceived outcomes for local government managers. Public Management Review, 14(6), 815-833.

Flak, L. S. & Rose, Jeremy (2005). Stakeholder governance: adapting stakeholder theory to the e-government field. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 642-664.

Ganapati, S. & Reddick, C. G. (2012). Open e-government in U.S. state governments: Survey evidence from Chief Information Officers. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 115-122.

Holden, S. H., Norris, D. F. & Fletcher, P. D. (2003). Electronic government at the local level: Process to date and future issues. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 325-344.

Kamal, M. M., Weerakkody, V., & Jones, S. (2009b). The case of enterprise application integration in facilitating e-Government services in a Welsh authority. International Journal of Information Management, 29(2), 161−165.

Kamal, M., Weerakkody, V. & Irani, Z. (2011). Analyzing the role of stakeholders in the adoption of technology interaction solutions in UK local government: An exploratory study. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 200-210.

Kosaker, A., & Lee-Kelley, L. (2006). Citizen-centric e-government: A critique of the UK model. Electronic Government: An International Journal, 32 (2), 127-138.

Lam, W. (2005). Barriers to e-Government integration. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 511−530.

Lindblom, C. (1959). The Science of “Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.

Lindgren, I. & Jansson, G. (2013). Electronic services in the public sector: A conceptual framework. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 163-172.

Meier, A. (2013). Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 429-439.

Moon, M. & Norris, D. F. (2005). Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of reinventing government and e-government at the municipal level. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 43-60.

Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433.

Nasi, G. & Frosini, F. (2010). Vision and practice of e-government: an empirical study. Financial Accounting and Management, 26(1), 95-101.

Norris, D. F. (2005). E-Procurement management in state governments: Diffusion of e-procurement practices and its determinants. Journal of Public Procurement, 5(1), 54-72.

Norris, D. F. & Reddick, C. G. (2013). Local e-Government in the United States: transformation or incremental change?. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165-175.

Nutt, P. C., & Backo, R. W. (1992). The strategic management of public and third sector organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pardo, T. A., Nam, T. & Burke, B. (2012). E-Government interoperability: interaction of policy, management, and technology dimensions. Social Science Computer Review, 30(1), 7-23.

Paris, M. (2005). “Local E-Government and devolution: electronic service delivery in Northern Ireland”. Local Government Studies, 31 (3), 307-319.

Reddick, C. G. (2004). The growth of e-procurement in American state governments: A model and empirical evidence. Journal of Public Procurement, 4 (2), 151-176.

Reddick, C. G. & Frank, H. A. (2007a). E-Government and its influence on managerial effectiveness: A survey of Florida and Texas city managers. Financial Accounting and Management, 23(1), 1-26.

Reddick, C. G. & Frank, H. A. (2007b). The perceived impact of e-government on U.S. cities: A survey of Florida and Texas City managers. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 576-594.

Reddick, C.G & Turner, M. (2012). Channel choice and public service delivery in Canada: Comparing e-government to traditional service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 1-11.

Rowley, J. (2011). “e-Government stakeholders –Who are they and what do they want?”. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 53-62.

Streib, G., & Navarro, I. (2005). Citizen demand for interactive e-Government: The case of Georgia consumer services. American Review of Public Administration, 36(3), 288-300.

Tan, C. W., Pan, S. L. & Lim. E. T. K. (2005). Managing stakeholder interest in e-government implementation: Lessons learned from a Singapore e-Government project. Journal of Global Information Management, 13 (1), 31-53.

Welch, E.W., Hinnant, C.C., & Moon, M.J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 1-21.

Xu, H. (2012). Information technology, public administration and citizen participation: the impacts of e-government on political and administrative processes. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 915-920.

Yildiz, M. (2007). “E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward”. Government Information Quarterly, 24 (3), 646-665.

Table 5. Implementation of e-government

To what extent do you consider the following factors motivated

the introduction of e-government in your municipality?

LARGE MUNICIPALITIES MEDIUM-SIZE MUNICIPALITIES

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MEAN S.D. 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MEAN S.D.

Legal obligation (Act on e-Access to Public Services) 8.33% 8.33% 16.67% 41.67% 25.00% 6.92 2.47 5.26% - 10.53% 57.89% 26.32% 7.63 2.06 Political pressure 66.67% 16.67% 8.33% - 8.33% 2.83 2.59 68.42% 10.53% 5.26% 15.79% - 2.74 2.23 The advantages presented by its implementation - 8.33% 8.33% 33.33% 50.00% 8.17 2.17 10.53% 5.26% 15.79% 26.32% 42.11% 6.95 2.80 Greater flexibility in administrative processes 16.67% 8.33% 8.33% 41.67% 25.00% 6.75 2.90 10.53% 15.79% 21.05% 26.32% 26.32% 6.11 2.73

Source: The authors

Table 6. Obstacles to the implementation of e-government To what extent do you consider the following

factors limit the efficiency of e-government in

your municipality?

LARGE MUNICIPALITIES MEDIUM-SIZE MUNICIPALITIES

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MEAN S.D. 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MEAN S.D.

Lack of financial resources - 25.00% 8.33% 33.33% 33.33% 7.00 2.52 5.26% - 10.53% 36.84% 47.37% 7.84 2.19 Lack of skilled personnel in ICT department 16.67% - 33.33% 33.33% 16.67% 6.42 2.64 36.84% 10.53% 5.26% 47.37% - 4.68 2.89 Issues of computing security 16.67% 25.00% 41.67% 8.33% 8.33% 4.75 2.26 31.58% 21.05% 15.79% 31.58% - 4.47 2.67 Difficulty in justifying return on investment 33.33% 16.67% 16.67% 25.00% 8.33% 4.67 3.03 31.58% 10.53% 26.32% 21.05% 10.52% 5.00 2.75 Lack of skilled personnel in operative department 16.67% 8.33% 25.00% 33.33% 16.67% 5.92 2.68 10.53% - 15.79% 47.37% 21.05% 6.84 2.54 Resistance to change among staff - 8.33% 33.33% 33.33% 25.00% 6.83 2.08 5.26% 5.26% 10.53% 31.58% 47.37% 7.68 2.36 Lack of training in ICT among staff 8.33% - 16.67% 58.33% 16.67% 6.83 1.90 5.26% 10.53% 15.79% 42.11% 26.32% 6.95 2.32 Low level of ICT skills among users 16.67% 8.33% 25.00% 41.67% 8.33% 5.58 2.31 10.53% 5.26% 26.32% 36.84% 21.05% 6.53 2.46 Issues of privacy 41.67% 16.67% 33.33% 8.33% - 3.83 2.08 31.58% 10.53% 26.32% 31.58% - 4.42 2.57 Lack of collaboration between municipal departments

8.33% 16.67% 16.67% 50.00% 8.33% 6.17 2.44 5.26% 5.26% 31.58% 31.58% 26.32% 6.84 2.22

Lack of interest or demand among citizens and businesses

16.67% 25.00% 33.33% 16.67% 8.33% 5.08 2.68 10.53% 26.32% 26.32% 26.32% 10.53% 5.37 2.54

Insufficient bandwidth 50.00% 8.33% 33.33% - 8.33% 3.58 2.91 31.58% 21.05% 15.79% 26.32% 5.26% 4.37 2.73 Lack of support from managers and politicians 16.67% 8.33% 25.00% 16.67% 33.33% 6.33 2.96 10.53% 10.53% 5.26% 31.58% 42.11% 7.16 2.79 Resistance to change among citizens 58.33% 16.67% 16.67% 8.33% - 3.17 1.90 31.58% 31.58% 15.79% 15.79% 5.26% 4.11 2.56 Lack of support from regional and/or national administration

16.67% 25.00% 16.67% 25.00% 16.67% 5.33 2.87 15.79% 15.79% 15.79% 47.37% 5.26% 5.68 2.31

Budget cutbacks in ICT due to the economic crisis - - 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 7.50 1.57 10.53% 15.79% 21.05% 21.05% 31.58% 6.26 2.83 Difficulty in financing e-government projects - - 33.33% 41.67% 25.00% 7.42 1.83 15.79% 21.05% - 52.63% 10.53% 5.89 2.92

Source: The authors

Table 7. Aspects influenced by the development of e-government To what extent do you consider the

development of e-government has facilitated

changes in the following aspects?

LARGE MUNICIPALITIES MEDIUM-SIZE MUNICIPALITIES

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MEAN S.D. 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MEAN S.D.

Improved customer attention - - - 33.33% 66.67% 8.58 1.24 5.26% 5.26% 5.26% 57.89% 26.32% 7.37 1.98 Improved communication and interaction with citizens

- - 16.67% 25.00% 58.33% 8.25 1.42 5.26% 5.26% 10.53% 52.63% 26.32% 7.37 2.01

Increased efficiency in business procedures - 8.33% 25.00% 41.67% 25.00% 7.25 1.86 10.53% 5.26% 26.32% 36.84% 21.05% 6.58 2.34 Greater contact between citizens and politicians 33.33% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 4.85 3.14 21.05% 15.79% 26.32% 31.58% 5.26% 5.32 2.60 Reorganization of functions assigned to staff in operative departments

16.67% 8.33% 8.33% 50.00% 16.67% 6.08 2.97 5.26% 10.53% 47.37% 26.32% 10.53% 5.95 2.60

Reduction in processing time - - 8.33% 50.00% 41.67% 8.08 1.31 5.26% 15.79% 26.32% 36.84% 15.79% 6.26 2.18 Reduction in administrative costs - - 33.33% 41.67% 25.00% 7.25 1.71 5.26% 26.32% 31.58% 21.05% 15.79% 5.89 2.49 Reduction in staff numbers in operative departments

58.33% - 41.67% - - 2.92 2.07 31.58% 42.11% 10.53% 10.53% 5.26% 3.79 2.64

Increase in staff numbers in the ICT department 75.00% 8.33% 8.33% 8.33% - 2.33 1.97 57.89% 15,79% 10.53% 10.53% 5.26% 3.11 2.56 Greater participation by staff in decision taking 33.33% 8.33% 41.67% 16.67% - 3.92 2.23 26.32% 52.63% 15.79% - 5.26 3.47 1.98 Reduction in manual processes - 16.67% 50.00% 25.00% 8.33% 6.17 1.80 10.53% 26.32% 26.32% 21.05% 15.70% 5.68 2.47 Higher degree of collaboration and information exchange among departments

8.33% 8.33% 41.67% 33.3% 8.33% 6.00 2.13 21.05% 10.53% 36.84% 21.05% 10.53% 5.32 2.54

Increased productivity - 16.67% 41.67% 25.00% 16.67% 6.33 2.10 15.79% 31.58% 21.05% 26.32% 5.26% 4.95 2.50 Encouragement for team work among personnel 16.67% 8.33% 25.00% 41.67% 8.33% 5.83 2.37 63.16% 26.32% 5.26% 5.26% - 2.32 1.70 Increased municipal procurement via internet 41.67% 16.67% 41.67% - - 3.17 1.95 57.89% 31.58% 5.26% 5.26% - 2.68 1.95 Increased quality and reduced costs in the procurement of municipal goods and services

58.33% 8.33% 33.33% - - 2.83 1.99 47.37% 15.79% 21.05% 10.53% 5.26% 3.58 2.59

Greater control of the provision of outsourced services

58.33% - 33.33% 8.33% - 3.17 2.25 26.32% 15.79% 21.05% 31.58% 5.26% 5.00 2.65

Source: The authors

Table 8. Efficiency of e-government and assessment models used To what extent do you consider the efficiency of e-government to be favoured by the following aspects?

LARGE MUNICIPALITIES MEDIUM-SIZE MUNICIPALITIES

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MEAN S.D. 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MEAN S.D.

Collaboration in ICT between local administrations

50.00% - 41.67% 8.33% - 3.58 2.35 15.79% 10.53% 31.58% 21.05% 21.05% 5.95 2.72

Collaboration in ICT between the municipality and the regional administration

8.33% 16.67% 33.33% 41.67% - 5.67 1.83 5.26% 26.32% 26.32% 21.05% 21.05% 5.95 2.61

Collaboration in ICT between the municipality and the national administration

8.33% 25.00% 8.33% 50.00% 8.33% 6.17 2.17 15.79% 21.05% 21.05% 26.32% 15.79% 5.47 2.86

Does your municipality use any kind of model to

assess the efficiency of e-government? NO (75.00%) SI (25.00%) NO (68.42%) SI (31.58%)

If so, what kind? Balanced Scorecard EFQM Own design

Own design MOAD Model – Government of Andalusia Model Eprinsa Model – County Council Model

Source: The authors