SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS OF AN E-GOVERNANCE PROJECT

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3: CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF E-GOVERNANCE PROJECTS

Introduction

According to Heeks (2008, p. 26), “Economic, social, and political life in the 21st century will be increasingly digital, and those without ICTs will be increasingly excluded”. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has been blazing trails from health, education, banking and finance, and agriculture to governance and has left behind noticeable ‘footprints’ with the advent of the Digital or Information Age – an era where ICT use can mean the difference between poverty and wealth, bad governance and good governance for a people. Developed countries like the United States, Japan and Singapore have successfully transformed their governance process through e-governance. However, the same cannot be said for developing countries probably because they lack a working framework for monitoring and evaluating e-governance projects in their governments.
In the previous chapter (Chapter 2) of this study, the socio-economic indicators of e-governance in both developed and developing countries were explored. The chapter covered and discussed the following: socio-economic indicators, ICT for development (ICT4D) indicators, socio-economic indicators of e-governance projects in both developed and developing countries, and finally a tabulation of generated matrices. This chapter, however, presents a discussion of critical success factors (CSFs) of an e-governance project’s lifecycle and how these factors are measured. This present chapter is important because it is widely held that failure rates in ICT4D initiatives, including e-gov projects, are significantly higher than success rates (Dodson, Sterling and Bennett, 2013; Stanforth, 2010). The findings from a Heek study indicate between 60 to 80 % of e-gov projects fail in some way resulting in « a massive wastage of financial, human and political resources, and an inability to deliver the potential benefits of e-government to its beneficiaries » (Heeks, 2011, p. 101).
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the critical success factors of e-governance. To realise this purpose, two research questions, RQ2 and RQ3 are tackled. The research questions are: What are the critical success factors of an e-governance project’s lifecycle and how can we measure them? (RQ2) and What are the assessment metrics of a deployed e-governance solution and what are their measurement criteria? (RQ3). It must be noted in the tackling of these research questions within this chapter, the emphasis was significantly placed on the pre-initiation and core part of the project life cycle.
The value of this chapter in the whole thesis lies in the production and delivery of a comprehensive list of CSFs metrics that can be used for M&E throughout an e-gov project lifecycle after identification of success factors that are critical to e-gov projects in developing countries for enhanced monitoring and evaluation success. The foregoing is important in the light of Heeks’ (2008) observation that a lack of monitoring and evaluation of e-gov projects coupled with the notion that e-gov projects that worked in developed countries will naturally work in developing countries has been found to be one of the key causes of failure of e-gov projects (Heeks, 2008). The fact of the matter is that M & E is vital since any successful project largely depends on mechanisms put in place to ensure that all activities during its entire lifecycle are performed at optimum levels with efficiency and effectiveness. Monitoring and evaluation with application to e-gov projects set the stage for all these, allowing for the appropriate adjustment to be done. The objective of this chapter, therefore, is to explore success criteria and assessment metrics for ensuring the successful execution and implementation of an e-gov project.
To address the research objective for this chapter, the research questions were subjected to a rigorous literature review and analysis. The output from this review and analysis was structured in this chapter as follows: section 3.2 discusses the e-gov project life cycle, with subsections as the traditional lifecycle and the proposed e-gov project life cycle. This is then followed by section 3.3, with a discussion on the monitoring and evaluation process coupled with the extraction of CSFs. Section 3.4 provides a proposal of the framework for monitoring and evaluation of e-gov projects. Section 3.5 discusses monitoring and evaluation of e-gov projects. Section 3.6 discusses the logic model as M & E. Section 3.7 provides a discussion of some challenges of M & E in ICT projects. Section 3.8 discusses the benefits of the proposed frameworks, while section 3.9 explored the critical success factors of e-gov projects; and finally, section 3.10 gives a summary and conclusion of the chapter.

 The E-governance Project Life Cycle

In project management, the project life cycle has been defined as the stages found in all projects. These ar definition, planning, execution, and delivery (Larson and Gray, 2011). The project life cycle is one of the ways of depicting the peculiar nature of project work. The project life cycle embraces the fact that projects have a limited lifespan and display “predictable changes in the level of effort and focus over the life of the project” as illustrated in Figure 3-1 (Larson and Gray 2011, p. 7).
As a model, the project life cycle serves three main purposes:
• It allows all project team members to know and understand the processes that would be followed throughout the project’s life cycle.
• It leads to the documentation of lessons learnt in best practice so that continual improvements can be made on processes embedded in each phase, which can then later be applied to similar projects.
• Additionally, the project life cycle provides the milestones based on which effective monitoring and evaluation can be done since it has been found that project managers use the project life cycle as the blueprint to guide their work (Larson and Gray, 2011).

Traditional Project Life Cycle Model

According to Larson and Gray (2011), a standard project will consist of the following four traditional stages (Figure 3.1):
• Definition stage. In this stage, specifications of the project are defined; project objectives are agreed-upon; teams are formed, and major responsibilities are assigned.
• Planning stage. The level of effort increases and plans are developed to determine what the project will entail, when and how it will be scheduled, whom it will benefit, what quality level should be maintained, and what the budget will be.
• Executing stage. This is where a large portion of the project work takes place ─ both physical and mental. The physical product is produced (a bridge, a report, a software program, an e-gov project). Time, cost, and specification measures are used for control in answer to the following investigations:
o Is the project on schedule, on budget, and meeting specifications?
o What are the forecasts for each of these measures?
o What revisions/changes are necessary?
• Closing stage. Closing includes three activities: delivering the project product to the customer or target beneficiary; redeploying project resources, and post-project review. Delivery of the project might include customer training and transferring documents. Redeployment usually involves releasing project equipment/materials to other projects and finding new assignments for team members. Post-project reviews include not only assessing performance but also capturing lessons learned.
Although there are a number of different project life cycle models, the majority of them are exclusive to a particular industry or type of project. It is, therefore, highly possible that the varying project life cycle models may be modifications of the above basic generic model (standard traditional project life cycle), with the stages contracted or expanded. For instance, a new software project may entail five stages: definition, design, code, integration/test, and maintenance. This could be an apparent elaboration of the standard traditional start-plan-execute-closeout phases (Archibald, Filippo and Filippo, 1999). Another example is seen in Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) who proposed a six-stage model of the life of a project, where the standard four-phase project life cycle is expanded into six phases. These latter phases being as follows:
1. Conception phase: the idea for which the project was birthed within the client organization and its feasibility determined.
2. Planning phase: the method to achieve the original idea is planned and designed.
3. Production: the plans are converted into physical reality.
4. Handover: the finished project is handed over to the client for use.
5. Utilisation: the client makes use of the finished project.
6. Closedown: the project is dismantled and disposed of at the end of its useful life.”
All projects consist of a number of different phases that constitute the life cycle (or lifespan) of each project (Archibald, Filippo and Filippo, 1999). Previously, in the field of project management, and for that matter e-gov projects, it was not unusual “to see each phase of a project being planned, scheduled, and managed as a separate project, from start to finish of each phase” (Archibald, Filippo and Filippo, 1999, p. 3). Consequently, every new phase of the project was handled by a new project manager. The result was that unresolved issues and/or conflicts in a preceding phase were carried forward into the next phase, which made them the problems of the new project manager assigned to that next phase. Hence, the new project manager spends time and resources to resolve these issues before actually starting the next phase, thereby throwing the whole project out of gear. The result is the loss of time originally scheduled for the next phase. This time could have been taken to convert an opportunity into an asset (Westney, 2001).
According to Archibald, Filippo and Filippo (1999), the simplicity of the traditional start-plan-execute-close phases is of little practical value in actually planning, authorising, scheduling, and controlling any complex project. This is perhaps because of the many variables – controllable and uncontrollable – that come into play, not to mention the relational and task complexities associated with such projects such as e-gov initiatives.
Although several practitioners and authorities limit the scope of ‘project management’ (PM) to the traditional start-plan-execute-closedown (?) phases, projects begin their existence before the traditional start-up phase (Archibald, Filippo and Filippo, 1999) which can be referred to as the pre-initiation phase. Moreover, the products, results of or deliverables from these projects continue to exist and must be evaluated after the projects are closed down (Archibald, Filippo and Filippo, 1999) and so this phase can also be termed as the post-deployment phase. There is also the added advantage of some level of overlap between the standard project close-down phase and the initiation of the product usage and thus its product life cycle (Archibald, Filippo and Filippo, 1999). Hence, in the face of these two realities, a model for the e-gov project life cycle is proposed which consists of five phases, coupled with two additional elements that are new to standard project management.

 A proposed e-gov project life cycle

Our proposed e-gov project lifecycle consists of ■ pre-initiation phase ■ definition; ■ planning; execution ■ deployment phase and, ■ close-down phase.
Figure 3-1 below shows a suggested e-gov project lifecycle for the study premised on the fact that the project needs to achieve the desired socio-economic benefits for its stakeholders. The pre-initiation phase is added to the suggested e-gov project life cycle because of the need to incorporate feasibility studies to avoid embarking on an irrelevant project; this is very important in e-gov projects because of past experience.
The foregoing suggests therefore that, the two elements new to the standard PM are monitoring and evaluation, and impact assessment. The monitoring and evaluation elements span across the whole project lifecycle ─ from definition to close-down phases. The constituents of the proposed e-gov project life cycle are discussed as follows starting with pre-initiation and ending with monitoring and evaluation:
• Pre-initiation phase
This phase is prior to the definition phase in the proposed e-gov project life cycle during which the necessary information and “embryonic knowledge and understanding” of the potential project is collected, compiled, buffered, and analyzed sufficiently to enable a well-informed decision to proceed with initiation of the standard project starting phase (Archibald, Filippo and Filippo, 1999, p. 10).
The pre-initiation phase of the e-gov project life cycle can be seen as the project incubation or feasibility phase, where the viability of the e-gov project in question is assessed. This phase involves:
o the determination of what the project will create (deliverables) and the change to be effected;
o an evaluation of what business benefits will be produced for the organisation sponsoring the e-gov project (Archibald, Filippo and Filippo, 1999); and
o verification of whether the project is aligned with the strategic plans and objectives of the sponsoring organisation.
Here, the theory of change that would underlie the e-gov program is defined and clarified. Assumptions undergirding the approach that would be used to achieve the expected outcomes are mapped out in a causal chain and communicated to all stakeholders.
At this phase, national governments first communicate their intent and vision in a vision statement. This phase is perhaps the most crucial as all other ensuing phases will rely hugely on its clarity and practicality (Lea, 2003). As such, this phase eventually leads to the transformation of government services (Service Transformation) to citizens and other stakeholders in the governance process. In fact, service transformation is the ultimate goal of the E-gov Project Life Cycle. It is during this phase that the resources for subsequent phases would be defined as well as the delineations set for the e-gov systems.
Adequacy of information coupled with the establishment of the feasibility of the e-gov project at the pre-initiation phase authorises the entry of the project into the next phase – the implementation phase.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Motivation
1.3 Problem Statement
1.4 Research Objectives
1.5 Research Questions
1.6 Research Methodology and Design
1.7 Research Contributions
1.8 Scope and Limitations
1.9 Ethical Considerations
1.10 Chapters Overview
1.11 Conclusion
CHAPTER 2: SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS OF AN E-GOVERNANCE PROJECT
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Socio-economic Indicators
2.3 Socio-economic Indicators of ICT for Development (ICT4D)
2.4 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3: CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF E-GOVERNANCE PROJECTS
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The E-governance Project Life Cycle
3.3 The Monitoring and Evaluation Process
3.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks
3.5 Monitoring and Evaluation of E-Gov Projects
3.6 Logic Model as the M & E Framework
3.7 Challenges of M & E in ICT Projects
3.8 The Benefit of the Proposed Frameworks
3.9 Critical Success Factors (CFS) of E-gov Projects
3.10 Conclusion
CHAPTER 4: THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF E-GOVERNANCE PROJECTS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Impact Assessment: An Overview
4.3 Impact Assessment Methodologies
4.4 Impact Assessment of e-Gov projects
4.5 A Proposed framework for Socio-economic Impact Assessment of e-Gov projects.
4.6 Conclusion
CHAPTER 5: A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR BENCHMARKING e-GOVERNANCE PROJECTS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Overview of e-Gov Frameworks
5.3 Classes of E-Gov Frameworks
5.4 E-Readiness and Strategy Based e-Gov Framework
5.5 Maturity or Stage Based e-Gov Framework
5.6 Introducing Project Life Cycle to Close Existing Gaps
5.6.1 An Integrated Framework for Benchmarking e-Gov Projects
5.6.5 Exploitation of the Framework
5.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER 6: DATA COLLECTION
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Research Approach
6.3 Organizations used for Validation of Framework
6.4 Validation of Instrument
6.5 Sample Design
6.6 Conclusion
CHAPTER 7: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Demographics of Study Participants
7.3 Analysis of the Pre-Initiation Layer of Proposed Integrated Framework
7.4 Analysis of the Monitoring and Evaluation Layer in the Proposed Framework
7.5 Analysis of Impact Assessment Layer of Proposed Integrated Framework
7.6 Further Validation of Integrated Framework using Inferential Statistics
7.7 Key Findings
7.8 Improved e-Governance Framework
7.9 Summary and Conclusion
CHAPTER 8: PROTOTYPING AND PROOF OF CONCEPT
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Prototype Development
8.3 Conceptual Architecture of the Framework/Platform
8.4 Logical Architecture of the Platform
8.5 Physical Architecture of the Platform
8.6 Implementation/Development of the Platform
8.7 User Interface
8.8 Proof of Concept: Prototype Usage
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT