Accountability for Digital Dreamers: : Patterns of Failed Digitalization Initiatives
Pages 1 - 13
Abstract
To contribute to digitalization and accountability research, this study adopted a pattern arising from failure due to weak accountability that was initially identified in Great Britain. This was done to investigate if the pattern reappeared in digitalization initiatives at the Swedish municipal level. Attempting to answer this, the present study structured a survey sent to every municipality in Sweden, resulting in a response rate of 40.4%. It was not possible to statistically claim that the pattern repeated itself in the chosen context, making this study's main contribution to stress that there might be a pattern as an effect due to weak accountability, without any knowledge of how this pattern presents itself.
References
[1]
Almarabeh, T., & Abu Ali, A. (2010). A general framework for e-government: Definition maturity challenges, opportunities, and success. European Journal of Scientific Research, 39(1), 29–42.
[2]
Almqvist, R., Grossi, G., Van Helden, G. J., & Reichard, C. (2013). Public sector governance and accountability. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(7-8), 479–487.
[3]
Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C. G., Giannakidou, I., & Mavridis, N. (2016). Why do e-government projects fail? An analysis of the healthcare.gov website. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 161–173.
[4]
Bloomberg. J. (2018, April 29). Digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation: confuse them at your peril. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2018/04/29/digitization-digitalization-and-digital-transformation-confuse-them-at-your-peril/?sh=6397dc122f2c
[5]
Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1986). Public management information systems: Theory and prescription. Public Administration Review, 46, 475–487.
[6]
Bretschneider, S. (1990). Management information systems in public and private organizations: An empirical test. Public Administration Review, 50(5), 536–545.
[7]
Burga, R., & Rezania, D. (2017). Project accountability: An exploratory case study using actor-network theory. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1024–1036.
[8]
Clift, S. (2003, September). E-democracy, e-governance, and public network. Publicus.net. http://www.artefaktum.hu/btk03osz/clift.htm
[9]
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point, and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61–104.
[10]
Gray, C. W., & Kaufmann, D. (1998). Corruption and development. Finance & Development, 35(001).
[11]
Griffin, D., & Halpin, E. (2005). An Exploratory Evaluation of UK Local e-Government From an Accountability Perspective. Electronic . Journal of E-Government, 3(1), 13–28.
[12]
Guerin, B., McCrae, J., & Shepheard, M. (2018). Accountability in modern government: what are the issues? Institute for Government, 23.
[13]
Gunawong, P., & Gao, P. (2017). Understanding e-government failure in the developing country context: A process-oriented study. Information Technology for Development, 23(1), 153–178.
[14]
Gürdür, D., El-khoury, J., & Törngren, M. (2019). Digitalizing Swedish industry: What is next?: Data analytics readiness assessment of Swedish industry, according to survey results. Computers in Industry, 105, 153–163.
[15]
Haque, M. S. (2000). Significance of accountability under the new approach to public governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(4), 599–617.
[16]
Harrison, T. M., & Sayogo, D. S. (2014). Transparency, participation, and accountability practices in open government: A comparative study. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 513–525.
[17]
Heeks, R. (2003). e‐Government in Africa: Promise and practice . Information Polity, 7(2/3), 97–114.
[18]
Hood, C., & Heald, D. (2006). Transparency: The key to better governance? (Vol. 135). Oxford University Press for The British Academy.
[19]
Johnston, M. (2006). Good governance: Rule of law, transparency, and accountability. United Nations Public Administration Network.
[20]
Joinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and Internet-based questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(3), 433–438. 10502866.
[21]
Kho, C. W. (2018). The Likert scale. In Naimie, I. Z., Sirah, S., & Akma, N. (Eds.), Future studies research methodology: A collection of studies (pp. 17–31). University of Malaya Press.
[22]
Kluvers, R. (2003). Accountability for performance in local government. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(1), 57–69.
[23]
News, M. I. T. (2012, February 9) Explained: Sigma. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://news.mit.edu/2012/explained-sigma-0209
[24]
Orji, C. I. (2019). Digital business transformation: Towards an integrated capability framework for digitization and business value generation. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 15(1), 47–57.
[25]
Ossege, C. (2012). Accountability–are We Better off Without It? An empirical study on the effects of accountability on public managers’ work behaviour. Public Management Review, 14(5), 585–607.
[26]
Pina, V., Torres, L., & Acerate, B. (2007). Are ICTs promoting government accountability?: A comparative analysis of e-governance developments in 19 OECD countries. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(5), 583–602.
[27]
Plesner, U., & Justesen, L. (2022). The double darkness of digitalization: Shaping digital-ready legislation to reshape the conditions for public-sector digitalization. Science, Technology & Human Values, 47(1), 146–173.
[28]
Poon, P., & Wagner, C. (2001). Critical success factors revisited: Success and failure cases of information systems for senior executives. Decision Support Systems, 30(4), 393–418.
[29]
Ray, S. (2012). Reinforcing accountability in public services: an ICT enabled framework. Transforming Government: People. Process and Policy.
[30]
Rocheleau, B., & Wu, L. (2002). Public versus private information systems: Do they differ in important ways? A review and empirical test. American Review of Public Administration, 32(4), 379–397.
[31]
Sharma, B. (2008). Voice, accountability and civic engagement: A conceptual overview. Commissioned by Oslo Governance Centre, 1-33.
[32]
Sundberg, L. (2019, October). If digitalization is the solution, what is the problem? European Conference on Digital Government (pp. 136-IX). Academic Conferences International Limited. 10.34190/ECDG.19.023
[33]
Thomas, P. G. (1998). The changing nature of accountability. In Peters, B., & Savoie, D. J. (Eds.), Taking stock: Assessing public sector reforms (pp. 348–393). McGill-Queen’s University Press.
[34]
Wade, M., & Shan, J. (2020). Covid-19 Has accelerated digital transformation, but may have made it harder not easier. MIS Quarterly Executive, 19(3), 213–220.
[35]
Winkler, H., & Zinsmeister, L. (2019). Trends in digitalization of intralogistics and the critical success factors of its implementation. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(3), 537–549.
[36]
Zahedi, F. (1987). Reliability of information systems based on the critical success factors-formulation. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 11(2), 187–203.
[37]
Zsolt, S., & Frolova, Y. (23 February 2023). European ICT Spending to Reach $1.2 Trillion This Year Despite Fear of Recession, Says IDC. International Data Corporation.
Recommendations
Accountability and the new media: use of ICTs in governance in India
ICTD '10: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and DevelopmentCitizens across the world are constantly innovating new mechanisms of holding their governments accountable for their actions. One such mechanism that is gaining popularity in developing countries is E-governance. Using two case studies of Online Public ...
Governing the Public Sector E-Performance: The Accounting Practices in the Digital Age
Over the past several decades the demand for accountability in the field of public administration has been growing exponentially in Europe. The particular emphasis for this theme was the stimulus for the significant adoption and use of information ...
e-Government Adoptions in Developing Countries: A Sri Lankan Case Study
This paper presents a set of lessons learned from the adoption of an e-Government initiative in Sri Lanka. The case study presented in the paper is the e-Pensions project of the e-government initiative of the Government of Sri Lanka called "e-SriLanka". ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Copyright © 2023.
Publisher
IGI Global
United States
Publication History
Published: 05 May 2023
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 25 Feb 2025