exploring emerging ict-enabled governance models in...

1

Exploring emerging ICT-enabled governance models in European cities

EXPGOV Project

Concept Paper

Theoretical framework and key principles towards the development of a policy assessment framework

for ICT-enabled governance at city level

D.4 - DRAFT V.1.0, 15.03.2010

- DRAFT - This document has been prepared by Gianluca Misuraca, Scientific Officer at the Information Society Unit of IPTS as part of the Research Line on ICT for Governance. The document is based on the preliminary analysis conducted as part of the Exploratory Research on Emerging ICT-enabled governance models in EU cities (EXPGOV).

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this document are purely those of the author and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

© European Union, IPTS, 2010 For more information about the EXPGOV Project visit: http://is.jrc.es/pages/EAP/EXPGOV.html

http://is.jrc.es/pages/EAP/EXPGOV.html

DRAFT – WORK IN PROGRESS

DRAFT – WORK IN PROGRESS 2

Table of Contents

0. Management Summary.................................................................................................... 3

1. Conceptual framework .................................................................................................... 4

1.1. Theoretical orientations ........................................................................................... 4

1.2. Methodological approach: a multi-level network-analysis................................. 11

1.3. Revisiting governance characteristics and mechanisms ..................................... 16

1.4. Defining European governance models................................................................ 18

1.5. Implication for defining ICT-enabled governance models at city level ............ 22

2. Towards building a measurement framework for ICT-enabled governance ........... 25

2.1. The paradox of measuring public governance .................................................... 25

2.2. State of play in measuring governance and ICTs through e-Government ....... 26

2.3. Evaluating the public value of ICT for governance ............................................ 29

2.4. In search of a new paradigm in evaluating ICT-enabled governance............... 32

2.5. A proposal of assessment framework for ICT-enabled governance.................. 33

References ............................................................................................................................... 40



0. Management Summary Background The Information Society Unit of the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre is conducting an exploratory research on ICT-enabled governance models in EU cities (hereinafter referred to as EXPGOV). The EXPGOV Project aims at deepening the understanding of the interplay between ICTs and governance processes at city level in the EU by providing evidence of the changes that ICTs are producing on city governance models. The focus of the research is on the way the different stakeholders interact when introducing ICTs in governance systems and the way these interactions affect institutions and communities, and the related decision-making process. Two main issues will be specifically investigated: 1) the changes produced by ICTs on the governance processes, (e.g. regulatory and legal frameworks, organisational and administrative procedures, roles of various stakeholders involved, etc.) and consequently the effects on decision-making, public management and service delivery; and 2) the socio-economic implications at policy level. Objectives of the Concept Paper Building on a literature review (see EXPGOV Deliverable 3) and consultations with various stakeholders and experts, and in particular representatives of city governments, the document proposes a discussion on relevant theoretical orientations in order to further elaborate a preliminary conceptual framework for the development of a measurement framework to assess policy impacts of ICTs on governance systems at city level. This document should therefore be read as a working paper to be further finalized after discussion with representatives of cities, other experts and researchers. The document will also serve to set the basis for further implementation of the EXPGOV exploratory research, conducted by IPTS in collaboration with cities within the framework of the Knowledge Society Forum of EUROCITIES. In particular, the conceptual and measurement framework will be discussed and validated with experts and city managers during the various Events of the Knowledge Society Forum and in a specific Validation Workshop to be organised by IPTS at the end of the exploratory project. The conceptual and measurement framework will also be presented to specific policy events in order to be enriched with feedback from practitioners and policy makers.



1. Conceptual framework 1.1. Theoretical orientations In spatial, economic and cultural terms, the Information Society is dominated by cities and metropolitan regions (Graham 2004). Around 70% of all Europeans live in cities. They are throughout recognized as the dominant space of ICTs industries and uses, but they are also the area where most of the poor, the disadvantaged and excluded live. They are the government layer closest to neighbourhood and citizen initiatives and local non-government organizations. Most public services are offered on the local government level. In some member states this share amounts to 70% of all public services. Furthermore, city governments are in an excellent position to engage in necessary strategic partnerships across the public, private and third sector. Cities are therefore positioned to play a key role in the field of ICT-enabled governance in various areas, but especially when their capacities and possibilities are used in an integrated way that allows the highest impact on social cohesion and local economies. (Misuraca and Ollé Sanz, 2010, forthcoming). Accordingly, and considering governance as a multidimensional construct, the focus of the research is on the way the different stakeholders interact when introducing ICT-enabled services and innovations in specific policy areas and the way these interactions affect institutions and communities, and the related governance processes. The governance changes under scrutiny are both technologically and socially driven and manifest themselves in new governance models and public management practices, revised institutional processes and organisational structures. In particular, the research is based upon the believing that the socio-economic perspectives, which stand at the interface between analyses of individual behaviour and wider societal structures, are well placed to elucidate the impacts of ICTs on governance, especially if we look at the context of more industrialized countries, such as the EU Member States.

Such an analysis also forms an important link to other levels of explanation employed by providing insight into social identification, the experience of social divisions (e.g., the digital divide) and economic activity. It is important to note that the theoretical frame on which we will base the development of the measurement framework (see later) does not presuppose either technological determinism, or social determinism of ICT effects. It is therefore to reject theoretical approaches that seek to make general determinations of technology’s implications irrespective of specific social contextual factors, and which tend to produce utopian or dystopian visions of the networked society.

In the theoretical framework underpinning the research we therefore combine neo-institutionalist perspectives (e.g. Hay, Colin, 2006) with constructivist approaches to policy and socio-political institutions such as the ones developed by Schmidt and Vivien (2008) and Berger and Luckmann (1966) This is especially useful in understanding how social phenomena develop in the particular social contexts characterized by ICTs and emerging technologies, assuming that interactions among various stakeholders are done with the understanding that their respective perceptions of reality are related and, as they act upon this understanding, their common knowledge of reality becomes reinforced (Misuraca, 2009). With specific regard to new institutionalism theory, two main perspectives can be distinguished: one is developed into the tradition of research of economics, and the other into the tradition of research of sociology. The New Institutional Economics is a theoretical perspective common to different approaches, among which those more relevant for our research are the transaction cost theory (Williamson, 1975, 1985, 1996) and the institutional theory (North, 1990; Rowlinson, 1997; Rutherford, 1996).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966



Both approaches share the idea that institutions and institutional (legal) assets, through the influence of economic micro-behaviours of single agents and single organisations, also strongly affect economic performance, interorganisational relationships, and the form and path of innovation diffusion. The transaction cost theory focuses on the comparative efficiency of different ways to organise economic transactions, and specifically develop the analysis of the choice between hierarchical, network and market solutions, while the institutional economics applies the transaction cost approach to the institutions, stating that their survival or choice depends on the relative comparative efficiency. These theories help in many ways to explore our research themes, because ICTs affects (generally, they reduce) transaction costs, and thus, they change the organisational structures and interorganisational relationships. For the costs of institutions are mainly transaction costs, ICTs make institutions more efficient: at least some more than others. Moreover the creation of inter-organisational and inter-national (cross-country) networks of institutions are facilitated by the diffusion of ICTs. Positive network externalities can be generated at regional (cross-border) level, allowing for more rapid processes of identification and citizenship formation. Finally, the rate and path of diffusion of ICTs are themselves influenced by the different national institutional assets, and thus their comparative analysis could help to suggest policy interventions in order to remove the obstacles and to steer the forms of technological diffusion. The impact of ICTs in shaping the inter-organisational relations can be studied also by adopting the sociological perspective (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991). This approach holds that organisations are deeply affected by the processes of institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation occurring at the society and organisational fields level (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Technology, as any other social institutions, is reproduced by and progressively taken for granted as long as it is widely applied by organisations. In this way, organisations make sense of both the economic and the institutional environment and take the opportune decisions. Using the sociological perspective of the New Institutionalism, it is possible to analyse the economic impact of ICTs from a perspective combining both managerial and social factors. In particular, we can account for the dynamics of constitution of the alliances in the ICTs field. Moreover, as the ICTs are going to shape the field of mass media, the entire process of legitimising at the social level is going to be redefined. New Institutional theory tenets on organisational legitimacy (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Deephouse, 1996) will prove useful in address this issue1.

With regard to social constructivism, it is a sociological and psychological theory of knowledge that considers how social phenomena develop in particular social contexts. Within constructionist thought, a social construct is a concept or practice which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality it is an invention or artefact of a particular culture or society. Social constructs are generally understood to be the by-products (often unintended or unconscious) of countless human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature. This is not usually taken to imply a radical anti-determinism, however.

A major focus of social constructivism is to uncover the ways in which individuals and groups participate in the creation of their perceived social reality. It involves looking at the ways social phenomena are created, institutionalized, and made into tradition by humans. Socially constructed reality is seen as an ongoing, dynamic process; reality is reproduced by people acting on their interpretations and their knowledge of it. Social Constructivism became prominent in the U.S. with Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann's 1966 book, “The Social

1 This analysis of literature of New Institutionalism is in part drawn also from eGEP Working Documents, (2005), Codagnone, C. et al.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociological_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_artifact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_phenomena

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_%28logic%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge




Construction of Reality”. Berger and Luckmann argue that “all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted common sense knowledge of everyday reality, is derived from and maintained by social interactions. … Since this common sense knowledge is negotiated by people, human typifications, significations and institutions come to be presented as part of an objective reality. It is in this sense that it can be said that reality is socially constructed”.

In our research, we make also reference to the concepts of 'Innofusion' (or 'diffusation'), developed by a specific school of thought coming from Social Constructivism (the Edinburgh School) which focuses on Social Shaping of Technology. It argues that the user’s needs and requirements are discovered and incorporated into the system while the users struggle to get it to work in useful ways, and it can lead to systems more suitable for their purpose being developed. Although design has previously been seen as a single stage of the system life cycle, it can be more useful to view it as an iterative process whereby the impact of earlier design decisions are fed back to improve those made in the future.

Taking a social learning perspective as Stewart and Williams (2005) suggest can give a greater understanding of the innovation process and ease the domestication process in the hope of creating more acceptable systems. Dominant literature in this area includes: Fleck, James (1988) `Innofusion or Diffusation? The nature of technological development in robotics' Edinburgh PICT Working Paper No. 7, Edinburgh University; Sørensen, K. and Williams, R. (eds) (2002) Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy. Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham; and Stewart, J. and R. Williams (2005). The Wrong Trousers? Beyond the Design Fallacy: Social Learning and the User. User involvement in innovation processes. Strategies and limitations from a socio-technical perspective. H. Rohracher. Munich, Profil-Verlag: 39-71.

Moreover, and in a user-oriented perspective, the design of the measurement framework for policy impact assessment will also have to take into consideration adoption and usages of ICTs. In doing so, we will mainly make reference to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) which is based on an information systems theory that models how users come to accept and use a technology. The model suggests that when users are presented with a new technology, a number of factors influence the decision about how and when they will use it. This include notably: the perceived usefulness (PU) (this was defined by Fred Davis as 'the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance', or put in other terms, his/her quality of life); and the perceived ease-of-use (PEOU) (Davis defined this as 'the degree to which a person believes that using a particular technology would be free from effort', Davis, 1998).

TAM is one of the most influential extensions of the Ajzen and Fishbein’s Theory of reasoned action (TRA) in literature. It was developed by Fred Davis and Richard Bagozzi (Bagozzi et al., 1992; Davis et al., 1989). It replaces many of TRA’s attitude measures with the two technology acceptance measures described (PU and PEOU). TRA and TAM, both of which have strong behavioral elements, assume that when someone forms an intention to act, they will be free to act without limitation. In the real world however there will be many constraints that should be considered, such as for example the limit to the freedom to act (Bagozzi et al., 1992).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_interactions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_institution



Therefore, in our research, we define governance as the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented and ICT-enabled governance2 as 'the use of ICTs to comprehensively: (1) simplify and improve the internal administrative operations of government and their relations with other bodies involved in public management and service delivery; (2) facilitate public service interaction between government, citizens and other stakeholders (legislative bodies, private sector, civil society organizations, self-organised communities), thus enabling better citizen participation and overall monitoring and evaluation of decision-making processes and their implementation; and (3) ensure inclusiveness and equal opportunity for all'. (Misuraca, IPTS, 2010).

This concept is to be intended as an 'ideal model' to indicate the comprehensive framework enfolding a broad range of informal and formal descriptions to represent core aspects of the governance process, including policy and decision -making, strategic and operational processes, legal and organisational structures, working practices, inter-actor relationships, and the public service delivery, aiming at creating -in a proactive manner- public value.

In this regard, while the specific analysis of ICT impacts at organizational and policy levels are informed by neo institutionalism and social constructivism, the analysis and characterization of the various dimensions underpinning the ideal model of ICT-enabled governance are placed within the broader framework of network theory, assuming that the ICT effects on multi-level governance can be better explained by looking at the network effects enabled by ICTs. Networks in fact have been widely recognized by both scholars and practitioners as an important form of multi-level governance (Provan, K., and Kenis, P., 2007). The advantages of network coordination (and especially if ICT-enabled) in both private and public sectors are considerable, including enhanced learning, more efficient use of resources, increased capacity to plan and address complex problems, greater competitiveness and better services for clients and customers (see Alter and Hage 1993; Brass et al. 2004; Huxham and Vangen, 2005).

However, according to (Provan, K., and Kenis, P., 2007) despite much progress made by researchers studying networks of organizations over the past twenty years and more, there is still a considerable discrepancy between the acclamation and attention networks receive and the knowledge we have about the overall functioning of networks, where by network functioning it is intended the process by which certain network conditions lead to various network-level outcomes. Only understanding the importance of functioning of networks then we can better understand why networks produce certain outcomes, irrespective of whether network results from bottom-up processes or are the product of strategic policy decisions made by network participants, government officials or policy makers. Although networks have been studied from a variety of perspectives, little attention has been paid to the governance of whole public organization networks. A broader focus on the governance of the whole organizational networks has been given by research from Powell et al. (2005), referred to as 'illuminating the structure of collective action'.

In this connection, the work of Manuel Castells is of particular importance as the 'father' of the 'network society', in which he posits that changes to the network form of enterprise predate the electronic internet technologies (usually) associated with network organisation forms. Despite network researchers do not seem to have adopted Castells’ framework, probably due to his use of 'network' in more qualitative terms or the lack of his use of the standard network toolkit, a closer reading of how he understands and builds his theory from networks, as opposed to merely using it as a metaphor, reveals more sympathy to the spirit of relationalism and hence to much network research. 2 Source: Misuraca, IPTS 2010, based on: OECD, 2001 and 2006; UNDP, 1997 and 2003; UNDESA, 2007.



According to [Stalder, Felix. Manuel Castells and the Theory of the Network Society. Oxford, Polity Press (2006)], this can be resumed as follows: 1) Networks are the primary unit of social organization. Castells argues that there is a new “variable geometry” that connects economic activity, states, and society. This variable geometry is the network. “The network is the unit, not the node.” By this, Castells invokes a series of key ideas about networks as fundamental geometry. 2) Networks are flexible and endlessly reconfiguring. The relentless hyper-competition of global commodity production throughout sourcing and integrated supply chains is one example. 3) They have a fundamental logic tied to cultural meanings: for each network, culture is embedded in binary exclusion/inclusion states. Whatever nodes do not enhance that network’s logic are soon decoupled. In the global financial meta-network, production centers that do not enhance shor-term return are soon excluded as the numerous financial crises from Mexico (1994), Asia (1997-98), Russia (1998), and now the US (2008-) amply demonstrate. 4) Networks have porous and mobile boundaries such that they might as well be infinitely adaptable (see also Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society. Vol. 1NR. Key. General background; 1. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. Castells, Manuel. The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). Building on Castells, the concept of 'network administration' and of city models as network of networks (referring to the specific case study of Barcelona) have also been developed [see Castells, M., Ollé Sanz, E. (2004). The Barcelona Model II: The Barcelona City Council in the Network Society. Barcelona: Open University of Barcelona, and Rodríguez, Batlle, & Esteban (2007). e-Government City Models: cases from European cities: EUROCITIES]. In this study, supported by empirical analysis, the city network administration is referred to in the analysis of the various dimensions that define the Barcelona e-Government model, and in their simultaneous interrelation ICT-enabled.

In our research, however, we refer to ICT-enabled governance as Networked-Governance, using a narrow definition of the term 'network', by focusing on selected autonomous organizations or groups that work together to achieve not only their own goals but also a collective goal. Such networks may be self-initiated, by network members themselves (outside of the official public administration sphere), or may be mandated or contracted, as is often the case in the public sector. When defined in this way, as 'multilateral collectivities', networks can become extremely complex entities that require explanations that go well beyond the dyadic approaches that have been traditionally discussed in the organization theory and strategic management literatures.

Our definition is inspired by what Kilduff and Tsai (2003) refer to as 'goal-directed' (or goal-oriented) as opposed to 'serendipitous' networks. Although goal-oriented networks occur less frequently, they have become extremely important as formal mechanisms for achieving multi-level organizational and governance outcomes, especially in the public and non-profit sectors where collective action is often required for problem solving (cf. Agranoff and McGuire 2003; Imperial 2005; Lemieux-Charles et al. 2005; Provan, Isett, and Milward 2004; Provan and Milward 1995).

Especially in the European literature, which is less based on an individualistic fiction (Coleman 1990), a substantial number of cases of goal-oriented networks have been empirically described (Acevedo and Common 2006; Daguerre 2000; Entwistle et al. 2007; Sydow 2004; Teisman and Klijn 2002). Serendipitous interactions, of course, occur also within goal-oriented networks, resulting in co-evolutionary trajectories that may prove advantageous or detrimental to network outcomes. However, unlike serendipitous networks, which develop opportunistically, goal-oriented networks are set up with a specific purpose, either by those who participate in the network or through mandate, and evolve largely through conscious efforts to build coordination.



Addressing complex issues that demand multilateral coordination (thus multi-level governance), as is often the case in the public and non-profit sectors (to deal with major disasters, increase economic activity in the region, address critical and complex health or social service needs, etc.), requires more than just achieving the goals of individual organizations (O’Toole 1997). It requires collective action and the governance of these activities. Although networked governance may not be a legal issue, as with organizational governance, we argue that it is critical for effectiveness and to achieve public value. Unlike organizations, governance networks must be governed without benefit of hierarchy or ownership. In addition, network participants typically have limited formal accountability to network-level goals and conformity to rules and procedures is purely voluntary.

In this connection, another perspective we will explore is also that of systems analysis that refers to 'explicit formal inquiry carried out to help someone (referred to as the decision maker) identify a better course of action and make a better decision than he might otherwise have made'. The characteristic attributes of a problem situation where systems analysis is called upon are complexity of the issue and uncertainty of the outcome of any course of action that might reasonably be taken. Systems analysis usually has some combination of the following: identification and re-identification of objectives, constraints, and alternative courses of action; examination of the probable consequences of the alternatives in terms of costs, benefits, and risks; presentation of the results in a comparative framework so that the decision maker can make an informed choice from among the alternatives.

The typical use of systems analysis is to guide decisions on issues such as national or corporate plans and programs, resource use and protection policies, research and development in technology, regional and urban development, educational systems, and health and other social services. Clearly, however, the nature of these problems requires an interdisciplinary approach. There are several specific kinds or focuses of systems analysis for which different terms are used: for instance, a systems analysis related to public decisions is often referred to as a policy analysis (in the United States the terms systems analysis and policy analysis are in fact used interchangeably). A systems analysis that concentrates on comparison and ranking of alternatives on basis of their known characteristics is also referred to as decision analysis.

In practice, we can therefore use systems analysis to study the governance construct as a system of interrelated components that are interpedently connected among them as part of a comprehensive structural system. Each element of the system can have different characteristics in different time periods, which can be considered as variables of the system. The particular characteristics of each component in a specific time period represent the form of the system in that time period, and can be defined as the state of the variables. The characteristics of the system as a whole in a specific time period can be defined as the state of the system. The formal representation of a system refers to the whole of rules and functions that link the variables of a system or organization to another system or organization.

In this context, for example, ICTs can be referred as a variable of the interrelation between different parts of the system or different organization of the governance construct. Where the informational and organizational rules enabled by ICTs provide a description about the way in which a system is organized and the way in which the system is structured.

Therefore, system analysis in this context implies the study and understanding of the characteristics (or properties) of the system and of each of the components of its structure. This means, that the following properties should be looked at:

1) The system as a whole: this will allow us to understand the internal organization of the system unveiling that each property of a system is function of the way in which each component is related with the others;

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/CONSTRAINT.html



2) The hierarchical organization: it means that each system is part of a broader system (or network) and at the same time it is a synthesis of the whole system and of each sub-system of which it is composed, thus it is required to identify the level of complexity of each system.

3) Interdependence: it means that each system is organized in a way that changing one of the variables of which it is composed will influence the state of all variables (and normally in a specific hierarchical level). Thus it is required to analyse the specific relations that link the elements of each system among them.

4) Dynamic activity: the interdependence between variables within a system implies that systems are dynamic (and not static or reactive). Changes in a variable affect the state of each other variable, thus the system is in a permanent transformational process.

5) Self-maintenance: it refers to the capacity of a system to maintain its form and properties for a long period of time and within different contextual situation (e.g. political or socio-economic changes, etc.). An analysis of the structure of the system will allow us to a better understanding of how it is possible for a system to maintain its properties while being in a process of permanent transformation.

6) Self-transformation: it means the capacity of a system to transform its form and properties in time, but also the capacity to generate transformation not only in forms and properties but also in structures and rules, either through internal hierarchical decisions or through external (top-down or bottom-up) approaches. An example of this is what is called organizational learning, or resilience, where a self-transformation in a specific level of the system influences a structural (and even hierarchical) reorganization.

With specific regard to this last consideration, a hierarchical reorganization (including a shift in roles and power balances for example) involves the differentiation between elements of the same system in processes and units of analysis, and the further reintegration of the findings of the analysis at a higher level of investigation. However, the hierarchical reorganization of a system is a discrete process more than a gradual one. Radical Changes in power-relations, for example, do not happen according to a linear process, but more often through paradigmatic shifts. This is because structured organizations of systems do not allow to modify one function at the time, without altering the whole of system and the relations between its sub-systems and elements of it.

If we then apply this to networks of systems, and without wanting to enter in a further detailed discussion, we can also argue, that in an era of open innovation, ICTs can produce a potential disruptive impact on organizational changes and governance relations. In this regard, we refer to open innovation as the term originally promoted by Henry Chesbrough3 where the concept is related to user innovation, cumulative innovation and distributed innovation. Open innovation is particularly referred to as 'a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology'. According to Chesbrough, the boundaries between a firm and its environment have become more permeable; innovations can easily transfer inward and outward. The central idea behind open innovation is that in a world of widely distributed knowledge, companies cannot afford to rely entirely on their own research, but should instead buy or license processes or inventions (e.g. patents) from other companies. In addition, internal inventions not being used in a firm's business should be taken outside the company (e.g., through licensing, joint ventures, spin-offs).

3 Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cumulative_innovation&action=edit&redlink=1



In this regard, and without going into much detail, the logic of open innovation could have an high potential for ICT-enabled governance in the public sector. It could be capable of supporting user-centric transformation of public administrations and facilitating cross-organisation collaboration and knowledge management implementation, especially through codifying and exploiting tacit and "sticky" knowledge and building on user-driven innovation (often incremental and market led). However, it is important to understand how to integrate ICT-enabled innovations into public services and how to develop new and sustainable business models and more general ICT-enabled governance mechanisms for public service delivery. In spite of the emerging trends and some consolidated cases (mainly from northern countries and much more scattered in other regions of the world), there are still limitations in the practical implementation of open innovation and user-driven innovation for improving governance through ICTs4.

1.2. Methodological approach: a multi-level network-analysis Most research on organizational networks can be broadly characterized by two basic approaches: the 'network analytical' approach and the 'network as a form of governance' approach, both of which are limited when it comes to analyzing multi-level networks functioning and governance. Network analytical approaches focus mainly on micro-level, egocentric aspects of networks, building largely on work done by sociologists studying networks of individuals. This perspective has had a long history (Moreno 1934). Scholars have contributed especially to the description and explanation of network structural characteristics using such concepts as density, centrality, and structural holes (Burt 1992; Wasserman and Faust 1994). The units of observation are a set of objects called nodes, positions, or actors, and a set of present or absent relations among these objects referred to as edges, ties, or links (Knoke 1990). In network analytical approaches, the main objective can be either to describe, explain, or compare relational configurations or to use these configurations to explain certain outcomes. The functioning of organizational networks can be partially addressed using this approach, since we defined functioning as the process by which certain network conditions lead to network outcomes. The problem, however, is that for the most part, what gets analyzed and explained is not the network itself, but the 'nodes' and ‘‘relations’’ that comprise the network (cf. Graddy and Chen 2006; O’Toole and Meier 2006). Apart from some notable exceptions (e.g., Owen-Smith and Powell 2004; Powell et al. 2005; Provan and Milward 1995; van Raaij 2006), the unit of analysis (i.e., the phenomenon to be investigated) in this literature is not the complete network but a node (ego) or a dyad. In these studies, findings are related to questions of whether or not the way an actor is embedded in a network has an effect on the outcomes of the actor (such as level of innovation, performance, and learning) (Ahuja 2000) or on describing and explaining the birth, death, effectiveness, etc. of dyadic relationships (cf. Larson 1992; Ring and Van de Ven 1994; Uzzi 1997). Consequently, this literature tells us little about the functioning of networks, because networks are seldom treated as the unit of analysis. The network as a form of governance approach, in contrast, does treat networks as the unit of analysis. Network is viewed as a mechanism of coordination, or what has often been referred to as network governance. Starting with Williamson’s (1975) Markets and

4 With specific regard to the debate on Social Computing and governance, see Misuraca, G., (2009), 'Social Computing and Governance', in 'The impact of Social Computing on the EU Information Society and Economy', (Eds. Punie, Y., Lusoli, W., Centeno, C., Misuraca, G., Broster, D.,) IPTS, JRC, European Commission



Hierarchies, a rich literature has developed on different forms of governance over the last two decades. As seen from an economic perspective, this literature challenged the conventional wisdom that the market is the only efficient system of non-hierarchical coordination. From an organization and administrative science perspective, the most innovative aspect of this literature is that it made clear that organizations cannot be taken as something for granted (see Perrow 1986) and that other forms of coordination, such as networks, can equally achieve goals. Consequently, a discussion unfolded as to whether networks are simply a combination of elements of market and hierarchy, and could, therefore, be placed on a continuum between market and hierarchy, or whether they would be better understood as unique forms of governance in their own right (see Powell 1990). This literature moved toward treating networks as discrete forms of governance, characterizing them as having unique structural characteristics, modes of conflict resolution, bases of legitimacy, etc. (cf. Jones et al. 1998; Raab 2004). Although the governance approach considers networks as the unit of analysis, the tradition has been for networks to be treated as undifferentiated forms, as if they all be characterized in the same general way (e.g., Jones, Hesterly, and Borgatti 1997; Powell 1990). This may be due to the fact that for the most part, networks were seen as a 'new' and 'positive' mode of coordination that needed to be distinguished from markets and hierarchies. A functionalist argument dominated, claiming that networks are a response to failures of markets, failures of hierarchical coordination, and to societal and technological developments. The implication was, and continues to be, that despite problems, networks in general can produce positive outcomes that would not be possible in a market or a hierarchy. What we propose in our approach, instead, is to combine the network analytical and 'governance' perspectives, and focusing specifically on the enabling networking role played by ICTs in support of the functioning of the governance system, intended as a network (networked governance as ICT-enabled governance model). The governance perspective is valuable in that the network itself is considered to be the unit of analysis. Networks are forms of social organization, which are more than the sum of the actors and their links and which deserve to be studied in their own right (O’Toole 1997). The network analytical perspective contributes another central idea to our work—that networks are a set of actors or nodes, with relationships between these nodes as being either present or absent. Thus, networks are considered to vary with regard to their structural patterns of relations and according to the use of ICTs for governance to enable network effects. Consistent with this logic, we view networks enabled by ICTs as a variable, examining different networked governance configurations and the conditions for the effectiveness of each form (i.e. ICT-enabled governance models at city level) we aim at demonstrating that ICT-enabled governance networks with different configurations have different network-level effects. This can be considered also our main research hypothesis and the basis for establishing a rationale for developing multi-level network theories in the area of ICT-enabled governance and the further development of a measurement framework. In this regard, and without having the pretension of analyzing here in details all the theories and approaches that will inform in some way our conceptual framework, in figure 1 here below we propose a simple overview of the theories and approaches that could be further used in our research to better describe some of the relationships within the framework of the complex of ICT-enabled governance



Figure 1 Overview of theoretical orientations and approaches

To build our case, we formulate a number of propositions about the relationship between the configuration of networked governance enabled by ICTs and network effects. We also argue that the role of city government management is critical for effective networked governance, especially regarding the handling of tensions inherent in each governance form. Essentially, our focus is not on networks as a means of governance, but on the governance and management of networks themselves, enabled by ICTs. Recalling the objectives of the research, which aims at deepening the understanding of the interplay between ICTs and governance processes at city level in the EU by providing evidence of the changes that ICTs are producing on city governance models and, based on specific policy areas as example, identifying the key drivers of these changes, as well as their socio-economic implications, the research focuses on the way the different stakeholders interact when introducing ICTs in governance systems and the way these interactions affect institutions and communities, and the related decision-making process. Within this framework, two main issues are specifically investigated: 1) the changes produced by ICTs on the governance processes5, (e.g. regulatory and legal frameworks, organisational and administrative procedures, roles of various stakeholders involved, etc.) and consequently the effects on decision-making, public management and service delivery; and 2) the socio-economic implications at policy level.

5 We refer here to changes due to ICTs both at inter-administration level and with regard to the relationship between the government and the different stakeholders involved in the specific service, either directly provided by the city government or mediated by other actors as intermediaries.



The core research question underpinning the analysis is the following: What new ICT-enabled governance models are emerging at city level in Europe? In order to answer this research question three sub-questions will be researched: a. Which are the main dimensions of new ICT-enabled governance models emerging in

European cities? b. What are the effects of the changes driven by ICTs on the interaction 1) within the city

administration and 2) between the city government and other stakeholders in specific policy domains?

c. What are the implications of new ICT-enabled governance models on specific policy domains?

The development of our conceptual model proceeds as follows. First, we identify the main forms of city governance models existing in Europe, and identifying the main characteristics of ICT-enabled governance emerging at city level as reference models for the specific governance model identified. Second, we will focus (in a separate Working Document) on development of main public value drivers and key dimensions of governance that are likely to affect the successful adoption of each ICT-enabled governance form. We do this by revisiting traditional characteristics of good governance and developing specific propositions of indicators to be integrated in an overall 'policy-governance' measurement framework (i.e. the Policy-Governance Model). Although many factors (not only ICTs) can contribute to network effectiveness, governance performance and quality of public service delivery, our arguments are built around the assumption that there is a rationale for utilizing one model over another and that there are consequences for selection of each ICT-enabled governance model depicted. In order to do so, and to test our conceptual model, we will consider various city governance systems representatives of EU countries, and the multidimensional characteristics underpinning city governance models as well as the multi facets (network) effects of ICTs, defining a typology of governance models and identifying 'value drivers' that will serve as proxies for measuring (in both a qualitative and quantitative manner) the network effects of ICTs on the governance models under investigation. Moreover, using as a test-case the city governance policy areas most impacted by ICTs, identified during the EXPGOV Mapping Survey6) a system of indicators (output-outcome-impacts) will be further designed and hypothesis on the implications that ICTs would have on service-delivery efficiency/effectiveness/quality and in terms of influencing city governance models will be defined.

In practice, two different (though eventually intersecting) level of analysis will be considered. The first considers the perspective of the specific target category of ICT-enabled service selected, as a general and aggregate target, in order to calculate the benefits (or opportunity costs) to economy and society as a whole of specific representative/exemplary initiatives. We can refer to this perspective using the expression “service level of analysis”. At this level only benefits (in terms of outputs-outcome are considered). The second level of analysis, instead, looks at costs and benefits from a policy and organisational perspective (including public, private and third sector organisations in their role as service designers, providers or suppliers, or other). We will refer to this perspective using the expression “governance level of analysis". At this level of analysis we will make 6 During the first phase of the EXPGOV Project, in parallel to a preliminary analysis and consultations with experts and representatives of cities and city-network organisations, IPTS conducted an Online Mapping Survey to identify key city governance policy areas most impacted by ICTs. For more information see the EXPGOV Deliverable 2 available at http://is.jrc.es/pages/EAP/EXPGOV.html





an attempt to estimate impacts that the ICT-driven changes on governance models have on society and economy at large. Finally, we will attempt to outline the key principles for designing an implementation strategy and we discuss the tensions that result from choice of specific ICT-enabled governance model. To provide a preliminary overview of the linkages between the research questions, the research hypothesis and the theoretical and methodological approaches that we will further develop in implementing our research, the figure 2 here below attempts to outline in a synoptic manner the overall conceptual framework of the research.

Figure 2 Synopsis of the proposed Conceptual Framework of the research



1.3. Revisiting governance characteristics and mechanisms For the purpose of this research, we consider the main elements of good governance as defined by the UN and OECD, adapting them to a simpler framework, considering ICTs as an enabler of the major characteristics of good governance. Based on this elaboration, the key attributes of good governance have been therefore adjusted as follows: 1) Effectiveness and efficiency (enabling optimal use of resources for citizens and tax payers in the service delivery); 2) Responsiveness (serving all citizens in a consistent and predictable way); 3) Participation (enabling the process of empowering citizens to legally control the service delivery to their advantage); 4) Transparency (bringing visibility to the service workflow for citizens by means of an automated service delivery); 5) Consensus oriented (following democratic practices and respect of minorities); 6) Accountability (creating standards against which the individuals providing a service and the service delivery can be held accountable); 7) Rule of law (ensuring that the laws and regulations governing the service are applied in an impartial way); 8) Equity and inclusiveness (refers to citizens receiving the service on an equal basis and providing services to disadvantaged and minority groups in society). Making then reference also to the principles of good governance outlined by the European Commission in the White paper on European Governance (i.e. openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence, complementing the proportionality and subsidiarity principles), we have "categorised" the "adjusted" elements of good governance in groups of "public value drivers" according to specific governance dimensions, as follows:

Table 1 Revisiting good governance characteristics Good governance characteristic "Public value drivers" (and related Governance Dimensions) Effectiveness and Efficiency Responsiveness

Performance (measured in terms of efficiency and effectiveness)

Participation Transparency Consensus oriented Accountability

Openness (measured in terms of access to information and accountability)

Rule of Law Equity and inclusiveness

Inclusion (measured in terms of accessibility and equity)

Source: IPTS elaboration, Misuraca, IPTS, 2010

We will discuss more in details this categorisation of public value drivers-governance dimensions when developing the operational measurement framework for ICT-enabled governance city models (i.e. the policy-governance model)7 (see Section 3). Looking now at the mechanisms to implement governance, we can distinguish between the traditional mechanisms of 1) authority-based governance, characterised by direct supervision and general rules; 2) output-based governance, where the market performance principles (market or transfer prices) apply, complemented by financial control with incentives; and finally 3) consensus-based governance, in which self-organisation is the main rule for both institutions and subjects of the governance process (see Figure 3 below). 7 This will be done in a separate methodological document.



Of course, these mechanisms are separated only in theory, while in reality they are often complementary and diverse typologies of mechanisms are applied to different areas of governance of the same organisation. What we are interested in, however, is to see how however these may change in relation to the introduction of ICTs into any governance mechanism. For this purpose, we simply consider ICT-enabled governance as the additional horizontal layer in support to various traditional governance mechanisms, where ICTs are in effect the enabler of different governance processes no matter their ruling mechanisms. However, it is our assumption that changes enabled by ICTs have different effects according to different governance mechanisms adopted in specific policy domain and governance contexts.

Figure 3: Governance mechanisms (Source: adapted by M. Morner, 2009)

In our research, in fact, we are interested in better understanding how governance processes and mechanisms changes due to the application of ICTs, and this will be further explored during the analysis of specific case studies.

ICT-enabled governance



1.4. Defining European governance models A particularly challenging aspect of our research consists in the need to consider the diversity and complexity of different contexts when discussing about governance systems, and this especially when referring to Europe. As outlined in their speech delivered as scientific rapporteurs at the closing plenary of Rotterdam 3QC conference, eminent scholars of public administration such as Bouckaert, Loeffler, and Pollitt, among the various lessons and conclusions, stressed also that the context and differences in terms of cultural and administrative traditions matter and that naïve imitation of experiences without considering the peculiarity of national context are bound to fail8. EU Member States present a very rich diversity of structural and cultural elements that shape their administrative systems traditions. A synthetic and selective list of key dimensions of comparison and differences is presented in the figure 4 here below. Without wishing to do a comparative study of administrative systems, that is by now such a rich field, thus evidently beyond the scope of our work to review it, we have selectively chosen the following sources from literature: Pollit, C. and G. Bouckaert, Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004 (second edition); and Loughlin, J. "Nation, State and Region in Western Europe." In L. Beckemans, ed., Culture: The Building-Stone of Europe, Brussels: Presses Interuniversitaires, 1994, where in particular four state traditions are identified (Anglo-Saxon, Germanic-organicist, French-Napoleonic, and Scandinavian). For the typology of welfare states we have used the well-known work of Esping-Andersen, which is referenced directly in the figure here below.

Figure 4: Key dimensions of public administration system comparison

8 Bouckaert, G., Loeffler, E. and Pollitt, C., “Taking Stock: The Quality Journey From Lisbon To Rotterdam And Beyond” Speech and Presentation Delivered as Scientific Rapporteurs at the Rotterdam 3QC Conference, September, 2004.



With regard to the four state traditions identified (Anglo-Saxon, Germanic-organicist, French-Napoleonic, and Scandinavian) following Loughlin, J. (2004) as further elaborated by Codagnone C. et al (2005), we can summarize the key features of European administrative traditions as follows (see table 1).

Table 1: Key Features of Administrative Traditions

Anglo-Saxon Germanic French Scandinavian

IS THERE A LEGAL BASIS FOR THE "STATE"?

No Yes Yes Yes

State-society relations Pluralistic organicist antagonistic organicist

Form of political organization limited federalist integral/ organic

federalist jacobin, "one and indivisible" decentralized unitary

Basis of policy style incrementalist "muddling through" legal corporatist legal technocratic

consensual

Form of decentralization

"State power" (US); local government (UK)

cooperative federalism

regionalized unitary state

strong local autonomy

Dominant approach to discipline of public administration

political science/ sociology public law public law

public law (Sweden); organization theory (Norway)

Countries UK; US; Canada (but not Quebec); Ireland

Germany; Austria; Netherlands; Spain (after 1978); Belgium (after 1988)

France; Italy; Spain (until 1978); Portugal; Quebec; Greece; Belgium (until 1988)

Sweden, Norway, Denmark

Source: Codagnone C, (2005) elaboration on Loughlin, J. 2004. "Nation, State and Region in Western Europe." In L. Beckemans, ed., Culture: The Building-Stone of Europe, Brussels: Presses Interuniversitaires, 2004. In summary9, in Europe we can find, first of all, unitary states and federal states and various versions of unitary decentralised or regionalised states. The level of horizontal coordination within government can range from high to very low in cases of fragmented executives characterised by a great deal of competition and negotiation among ministries and agencies. European welfare states vary quite considerably in the extent of labour market regulation and of benefits guaranteed. Finally, cultural administrative tradition, with an analytical simplification, can be positioned at different points of the continuum between the two ideal-type of so called Public Interest and Rechtsstaat traditions10. Ceteris paribus, unitary states with high level of horizontal coordination and a majoritarian system of executive formation should be in a better position to introduce uniform innovation

9 This analysis draws in part from the eGEP eGovernment Economics Project, Discussion Document for the First Project Workshop (Rome, 8 April 2005), Codagnone C., et al. 10 Codagnone C, et al (2005) eGEP Working Documents



reforms than decentralised states with low level of horizontal coordination and consensually formed governments, where a lot of negotiation and compromise are needed. On the other hand, in the first ideal type there is a risk of an extreme top-down approach creating a lack of ownership at the lower level where innovation reforms must be implemented. On the contrary in consensualistic systems, if agreement is reached on what to do, there are fewer lower level ownership problems. In federal states there is also the opportunity that particular regions become the place of experimentation and innovation. The actual reality of European public administration is certainly more complex and blurred than the two ideal-types outlined above, nonetheless these differences exist and do matter. The typology of welfare states and particularly the extent of labour market regulation impact clearly on the ability of government to introduce and actually accomplish reform aimed at making the public sector more efficient also through personnel reduction. The cultural administrative tradition shapes very much the reform strategies and the limit of what is possible to do. In a Public interest model such as the UK, for instance, the Thatcher government, as a result of the agentification process, transferred a large number of personnel from central departments to new agencies without the necessity to introduce a single piece of legislation or regulation. This would have been impossible in Rechtsstaat models where, given the central role played by legislations, the first important step in the drive of public administration reforms and modernisation has been de-legification and administrative simplification. Looking specifically at the use of ICTs in government, the picture becomes even more complex. An illustration of the different development of e-Government in relation to different cultural administrative traditions in Europe has been developed by Millard and Iversen (2004) and it is presented in the table here below. Table 2: Cultural administrative traditions and e-Government development in EU27

Source: J. Millard and J. Iversen, “Evolving Scenarios of Organisational and Technological Innovation in European Public Administrations”,Copenhagen, October 11 2004

Northern Europe Anglo-Irish Central Europe,West

Central Europe,East

Southern Europe EU AccessionStates

Denmark, Sweden,Finland, Nether-lands (Nordic &Dutch)

UK, Ireland(Anglophone)

France, Belgium,Luxembourg(Francophone)

Germany, Austria(Germanophone)

Italy, Spain,Portugal, Greece(Latin)

13 Eastern Europeand Mediterraneanstates

History of freedom ofinformation.

Stress oneGovernment as partof ‘informeddemocracy’.

Notion of activegovernment notnecessarily viewedwith suspicion.

Strong role for localdemocracy.

eGovernment seen asa response to ‘neweconomy’ and hencedriven by businessneeds.

Emphasis ontransactional servicesto increase efficiency.

But also strong rolefor non-governmentalcivic institutions.

For citizens, concernsabout privacy mayretard development.

Tradition of strongcivic pride and strongpublic sector andcentralised state.

Mainly centralisedstate structures,making it relativelyeasy to integrateeGovernmentservices, though manyrecent changes.

Tradition of strongcivic pride and strongpublic sector.

Federal structure withrelatively weak centremaking it relativelydifficult to integrateeGovernmentservices.

Strong role for non-governmental civicinstitutions.

Importance of cityregions leadingeGovernmentdevelopment, such asBarcelona, Bolgna.

Central governmentrole in standardisationand funding but notnecessarily indevelopment.

Former commandeconomy states havea strong tradition ofcentralised bureau-cracy and universalpublic services, evenif at a low level. Astransition societies,opportunities exist toleapfrog both techni-cally and organisation-ally to front-runnerpositions if investmentcan be found.

Mediterranean statesof Malta and Cyprusshare many of thecharacteristics ofSouthern Europe,although have arecent colonial Britishpast which still affectsgovernment structuresand mindsets.



In addition to this, when talking about the city governance, other issues should be taken into consideration, such as the competences delegated to city and local governments, and the role of city government within the overall framework of the structure of the state. Without again wanting to enter into details, we propose a simple overview of the governance models (at country level) according to the key dimensions identified above, and limiting in particular to the dimension of state strucure. The purpose of this simple typology of European governance models, to be eventually further developed and discussed, is to identify case studies belonging to different governance models that could be somehow representative (and not only exemplary) of various European models.

Table 3 Typology of state governance systems in the EU27 Typology Unitary state Decentralised

unitary state Regionalised unitary state

Federal state

Description Existence of local level infra-national hierarchy only. Regional levels may exist for administrative reasons but are subordinate to the central state

States which have undertaken a process of reform to establish elected regional authorities above the local level

Characterised by the existence of elected regional governments with constitutional status, legislative powers and a high degree of autonomy

Power-sharing guaranteed by the constitution

EU27 countries by typology

Cyprus (6 districts) Estonia (15 counties) Ireland (29 Counties and 5 City Councils) Latvia (26 regions, 524 local municipalities) Lithuania (10 administrative units, 60 local governments) Luxembourg (3 districts and 116 municipalities) Portugal (18 districts and 2 autonomous regions) Romania (41 counties) Slovenia (58 administrative units, 192 municipalities)

Denmark (5 regions and 98 municipalities) France (22 regions) Finland (5 provinces and 1 autonomous region. 415 municipalities) Hungary (19 departments and 19 counties) Malta (3 regions, 68 municipalities) Netherlands (12 provinces and 467 municipalities) Slovakia (79 districts and 8 regions) Sweden (20 counties and 290 municipalities) United Kingdom (4 regions and devolution process

Bulgaria (28 provinces and 294 municipalities) Czech Republic (14 regions) Greece (13 regions and 52 departments) Italy (20 regions, 110 provinces and 8000 municipalities) Poland (16 regions, 379 counties) Spain (17 autonomous communities and 2 autonomous cities, 3282 municipalities)

Austria (9 landër) Belgium (3 regions and 3 communities) Germany (16 landër)



1.5. Implication for defining ICT-enabled governance models at city level The broad administrative and cultural tradition differences of European governance models are translated also at the city level and have implications in the way we can define ICT-enabled governance models. These in fact present both areas of convergence and of differences with respect to the governance model of reference. The implication of these considerations for our research is precisely that when defining an ICT-enabled governance model at the level of city government, we should also consider the administrative traditions and cultural context on which ICTs are applied. This is of particular importance when then attempting to assess the changes driven by ICTs through a measurement framework. Just to give an example, indicators of cost savings in term of human resources or of improved effectiveness through the redeployment of resources freed-up from the success of an ICT-enabled application (i.e. resources moved to the front-end thanks to efficiency gains in the back-off) must take into account that in certain countries rules and regulations, labour contracts negotiations with public employment trade unions and the likes, can hinder and/or delay the exploitation of such gains. In such instances a strictly defined indicator of human resources cost saving would find difficulties to be accepted by all European administrations. In the same way, if one wants to measure inter-operability and degree of shared/joined-up services, he/she must take into account that the likelihood of reaching such objectives depends also on the governance structure of the state (not only at the city level then) and it is reasonable to assume them to be more difficult to achieve in decentralised and federalist states. In conclusion, while in the end even in such difficult cases some measures must be found, it is advisable that they emerge from stakeholders’ consultation involvement rather then being passed top-down. Therefore the first stage of analytical and scientific work that will inform the development of the measurement framework will necessarily remain at a high level of abstraction, while further operationalisation and the identification of indicators will have to be produced in strict consultation with stakeholders. While the first objective (a measurement framework model) will be elaborated in a specific document, the refinement and effective validation of it (and the conceptual framework underpinning it) will be further validated through case study analysis, where the framework will be tested against concrete real-case examples (see also EXPGOV Deliverable 5). However, in order to start defining ICT-enabled governance models at city level, we will use here also the preliminary findings of the cluster analysis of the data of the mapping survey conducted as first step of our research. The survey conducted by IPTS in collaboration with EUROCITIES gathered 62 Responses from 27 countries, including 25 of the EU27 Member States (and in addition to them also Croatia and Switzerland). Results can therefore be considered highly representatives of the various governance models characterising the EU27 countries. Four clusters have been defined according to the responses of cities to the survey. They are represented in the following table.



Table 4 Clusters of Cities according to the analysis of the survey on ICT impact on governance Cluster 1 2 3 4

Description Overall very significant impact of ICTs on governance and especially on decision-making processes and characterised by changes in ICT infrastructure and participation toolbox, mainly in the policy area of information and communication (e.g. public relations, citizens' participation and engagement)

Overall significant impact of ICTs on governance and especially on service delivery mechanisms and characterised by changes in the policy area of economic development (e.g. industry, business and SMEs, taxation, etc.)

Overall significant impact of ICTs on governance and especially on service delivery mechanisms and characterised by changes in the policy area of information and communication (e.g. public relations, citizens' participation and engagement)

Overall not very significant impact of ICTs on governance, but when impact is present this is especially on service delivery mechanisms and characterised by changes in the policy areas of Urban Planning and Management (e.g. infrastructures, housing, transportation, etc.) and Tourism and Culture e.g. tourism services, museums and cultural heritage, event management, library management, etc.) and manifested by changes in ICT infrastructure and participation toolbox

Survey respondent Cities by cluster*

Abla (Almeria) (SP) Agios-Stefanos (GR) Amaroussion (Athens) (GR) Barcelona (SP) Bilbao (SP) Bologna (IT) Cologne (GE) Eindhoven (NL) Enschede (NL) Groningen (NL) Helsinki (FI) Stockolm (SW) Tampere (FI) Torino (IT) Trikala (Thessaly) (GR) Valletta (MT) Vienna (AT) Zurich (CH)

Aarhaus (DK) Manchester (UK) Seville (SP) Szombathely (HU)

Ancona (IT) Ano Liossa (GR) Bristol (UK) Lausanne (CH) Linkoping (SW) Nea Ionia (GR) Nicosia (CY) Prague (CZ) Prato (IT) Rennes (FR) Rijeka (CRO) Sofia (BUL) Tallin (EST) Terrassa (SP) The Hague (NL) Venice (IT) Vilnius (LI)

Berlin (GE) Birmingham (UK) Bratislava (SK) Cork (IR) Geneva (CH) Genoa (IT) Ghent (BE) Liverpool (UK) Ljubljana (SLO) Lodz (PL) Norwich (Norfolk) UK Paris (FR) Thessaloniki (GR) Zaragoza (SP)

City initiatives proposed as candidate for case studies **

Barcelona (SP) Bilbao (SP) Bologna (IT) Eindhoven (NL) Enschede (NL) Torino (IT) Valletta (MT)

Aarhaus (DK) Manchester (UK) Seville (SP) Szombathely (HU)

Tallin (EST) Venice (IT)

Berlin (GE) Bratislava (SK) Cork (IR) Ghent (BE) Lodz (PL) Norwich (Norfolk) UK Zaragoza (SP)

* For some cities respondents to the survey it was not possible to be grouped into a specific cluster. These city are: Bucharest (ROM), Issy Les Moulineaux (FR), Lisbon (PT), Madrid (SP), Rome (IT) and Trento (IT). ** Other cities initiatives proposed as candidate for case studies were: Lisbon (PT) and Trento (IT).



In investigating how the increasing use of ICTs affects governance structures and the overall urban development, we assume that the various structural characteristics of cities (e.g. size, economy, population) are distinguishing features. Furthermore an underlying hypothesis of the research is that cities with different structural characteristics must react differently towards ICTs in order to be successful. Different types of cities must adopt different strategies to meet the requirements set by the Information Society. Classifying cities or urban regions in Europe referring to its possible impacts on ICTs and urban development should help to reduce the complexity as well as facilitating comparison and selection of appropriate cities for case studies. Thereby a typology should reflect those structural features of cities which are most relevant for the relationship of ICTs and urban development. There are various models for classifying city regions developed since the 1990s (see Castells 1997; Graham/Marvin 1996; Krätke 1995). Most of them distinguish at least between prospering city regions and old industrial regions. Very useful as a basis for classifying cities according to their economic-functional rank is the model offered by Krätke. This model, approaching the structural change of city systems as a process of economic-functional hierarchisation, takes into account that studies focussing on population trends and degrees of urbanisation are not useful. In Europe cities which are ranked first in terms of population are often not the strongest economic centres (e.g. Berlin, Rome). Also the degree of urbanisation of a country is not a good indicator. There are countries with high degrees of urbanisation but great difference in economic strength (Spain, Germany), vice versa there are countries with similar economic power but different degrees of urbanisation (UK, Sweden). Therefore Krätke classifies the European city systems along the following components: a) quality and range of controlling capacities, finance and service functions and b) degree of specialisation on innovative or traditional production structures. For empirical studies these components can be broken down into several factors and specific indicators, i.e. the component production structure can be subdivided to (a) intensity of interlacing productions (indicator: share of regional supplier), (b) intensity of regional innovation activity (indicator: share of new products and productions procedures of the regional production etc.). This heuristic ranking model can help in assessing the current position of a city region in the European system. Thereby cities can move from one position to another if they fulfil the above mentioned criteria. Moreover the interesting question is, in what direction certain city systems develop and which position they are able to achieve. However, despite it might be a good example of how classifying cities or urban regions in Europe, it is not our interest to discuss in details the economic-functional ranking model. But, as a matter of fact, we should take into consideration the fact that these economic-functional features reflect those characteristics of cities relevant for the interrelations of ICTs in governance systems and urban development in general, and in relation to current prospective trends affecting city governance systems, especially by taking into account the trends of globalisation and 'cultural localisation' further reinforced by ICTs as a spatial and functional amplifier of decentralisation and sub-urbanisation. Due to the pervasiveness of ICTs which might reinforce polarisation within the European urban systems, large cities with high population trends could be seen as forerunners of ICT-enabled innovations and pioneers in adopting new ICT-enabled governance models.



2. Towards building a measurement framework for ICT-enabled governance 2.1. The paradox of measuring public governance An UNDESA report (2002) reviewing the literature assessing public governance shows that there is no definitive authority in public governance evaluation, and instead sees considerable contributions from very diverse sources, institutional or private. Users are encouraged to take advantage of these different but complementary perspectives. Efforts to measure governance have run into various kinds of problems related to the specific interests of the clients or constituents of the specific organisations, which attempt to measure governance. For example, Freedom House focuses only on civil liberties and political rights. The World Bank views governance from an economic perspective. Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) for example – a composite index - aggregates the perceptions of well-informed persons with regard to the extent of corruption, defined as the misuse of power for private benefit. The extent of corruption reflects the frequency of corrupt payments, the value of bribes paid and the resulting obstacles imposed on businesses.

But attempts to compare the amount of corruption between different countries are fraught with difficulties surrounding the fact that bribery is usually illegal and firms are expected to be reluctant to admit that they pay bribes. Bribes paid by firms range from getting licenses and permits; dealing with taxes and tax collection; procuring of government contracts; dealing with customs/imports; and influencing the content of legislation.

The measurement of governance also suffers from the lack of relevant objective data, which has forced many organisations, which attempt to measure governance to rely on subjective data. How do you for instance, measure corruption or people’s confidence that property rights are protected, except by relying on the views of well-informed persons?

Using the example of measuring corruption again, one might think that it would be possible to measure corruption indirectly. But relying on the frequency of references to corruption in the media, for example, runs into problems of determining the extent to which the press is free and objective in each particular country. Another indirect measure could be derived from relying on prosecutions or conviction rates in corruption trials. But such a measure would to no small extent reflect the competence and independence of the policing and judicial system, rather than the prevalence of corruption itself.

Some recent attempts to measure corruption by looking for patterns in objective data have also been made. One example is the variation in the prices paid for very homogeneous medical inputs such as syringes across hospitals in Buenos Aires, as an indicator in procurement. Another attempt has been to measure the variation in the differences between existing stocks of public infrastructure and past flows of infrastructure spending across Italian regions, interpreting this gap as a measure of procurement corruption. But cross-country measures of corruption based on such objective data are not available. One can also attempt to tally the presence or absence of independent anti-corruption commissions, across the world, but the issue here becomes one of the varying degree of their effectiveness. In the same vein, while measures of decentralisation may be correlated with the incidence of corruption across countries, generally, the explanatory power of this variable is not sufficiently strong that decentralisation could be considered to be a reasonable proxy for corruption.

Other objective measures of governance that have been put forth, are variables such as the waiting time required to obtain a telephone line, and the number of telephone faults, which can serve as proxies for public administrative capacity. The reliance of the government on trade taxes can serve as a proxy for the inability of the government to broaden the tax base. The willingness of individuals to hold currency in the banking system has been put forth as a proxy of the extent to which individuals in a country can be confident that their property



rights are protected. The number of administrative procedures required to start a business and to collect unpaid debt, have also been put forth as measures that capture the complexity of the regulatory and legal environment. But these concepts measure special aspects of governance.

For example, the number of procedures required to start a business measure, may not be a good indicator of the complexity or burden of regulation in other areas. The willingness of individuals to hold deposits in banks may in a similar vein reflect their confidence in a particular set of property rights vis-a-vis the banks and may not necessarily capture other dimensions of property rights protection, such as confidence in the police and judicial system to uphold private property rights.

The discussion on how to measure governance presents therefore a paradox: despite large volumes of data, the quality inference is very limited due to quality and incompatibility issues. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that the discussion is splitting now into local and global, with the local assessment increasing in flexibility and relevance, whereas the global assessment will take necessary steps towards standardization and better trend analysis.

2.2. State of play in measuring governance and ICTs through e-Government According to the OECD (2009, Rethinking e-Government Services) there are several categories of international measurement frameworks and models to assess ICT-enabled user-focused services and modes of delivery, where continuous feedback on usage and satisfaction can improve service quality, development and delivery so that services better match user expectations. They are applicable not only to e-Services, but to public agencies’ overall business objectives, so that an organisation as a whole can learn from their users’ constantly shifting preferences. Internationally, comprehensive user take-up and satisfaction measurement frameworks are still in their infancy, and they focus on different aspects:

Internally focused approaches consisting of frameworks which are mainly applied within an organisation and focus on quality assurance processes, addressing areas such as: leadership, strategy and planning, human resource management, process and change management, etc.

Externally focused approaches consisting of frameworks assessing areas such as: customer satisfaction, portal/site quality, and quality of service for web services.

Even though different approaches are being used – either as a quality assessment and assurance tool (the internally focused approaches) or as a “satisfaction” measurement tool (the externally focused approaches) – each approach to measurement depends on the concrete situation and specific needs in a given situation. Internationally known e-Government measurement frameworks are increasingly addressing outcome measures including those that describe user take-up and satisfaction. For example, the 2008 UN E-Government Survey describes user participation in its e-Participation Index as a measure for how proactively governments consult citizens as one of the elements of a user-focused e-Government perspective. The yearly global e-Government benchmarking undertaken by Brown University, which assess national government websites, also covers user accessibility questions in its assessments. For all the above-mentioned types of measurement frameworks giving cross-country comparable data on e-Government, their main focus is broader and assesses different aspects of e-Government readiness (looking at accessibility and provision of e-Government services rather than targeting outcomes for users of those services). These kind of indicators need to be developed further to better capture the outcome aspects of e-government services.



Waseda University has since 2004 benchmarked 34 countries on a yearly basis within six dimensions (indicators): network preparedness, required interface-functioning applications, management optimisation, national portal, CIO in government, and e-Government promotion. Especially, the dimension of “required interface-functioning application” is meant to measure user-friendliness of e-Government services. The benchmarking gives a cross-cutting overview of e-Government development trends with a focus on selected e-Governance issues. The European Union has come far in creating e-Government indicators, with a recent attempt to develop a convincing measure for user centricity, and tested such an indicator in its 2007 e-Government measurement for the first time. Moreover, over the last five years, the European Union has carried out a number of demand-side surveys and important insights have been gained. Since 2004, Eurostat – the Statistical Office of the European Union has been collecting data on e-Government usage (demand side) through business and household surveys, and Capgemini on behalf of the European Commission has since 2001 been collecting data on e-Government service availability (supply side). In terms of usage, these annual surveys now include e-Government: Internet-based interaction with European businesses and citizens; e-Government usage by enterprises; and e-Government usage by individuals (separately for males and females). There are also occasional one-off Euro-barometer surveys. More specifically, Eurostat and other European Commission surveys of public services provide data for:

the number of “basic public services” fully available on line; the share of individuals using the Internet for interacting with public authorities by purpose: obtaining information, obtaining forms, returning filled-in forms;

the percentage of enterprises using the Internet for interacting with public authorities by purpose: obtaining information, obtaining forms, returning filled in-forms, full electronic case handling, and submission of proposal in an electronic tender system.

The i2010 e-government measurement framework, approved in April 2006 by the member states of the European Union, has been developed for piloting in 2007 and roll-out in 2008 and consists of three main types of indicators (see Figure 5):

availability and sophistication indicators (existing supply-side indicators supplemented with qualitative supply indicators focusing on user centricity);

take-up indicators from the Eurostat Household and Enterprises surveys; impact indicators in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and democracy.

The framework covers a set of thematic indicators which aim at measuring the progress made towards the prioritised goals of the i2010 strategy by the European Union: i) the completion of a Single European Information Space which promotes an open, competitive and content-rich internal market for electronic communications, media and content; ii) strengthening Innovation and Investment in ICT research to promote growth and jobs through a wider adoption of ICT; and iii) achieving an Inclusive European Information Society that prioritises better public services and quality of life.



Figure 5: i2010 e-Government signposts (key benchmarking indicators) The first application of a user-centric composite indicator was the given in the seventh measurement of e-Government within the European Union in 2007. A composite indicator was defined based on four sub-indicators: personal data security (trust); administrative burden (convenience for users); channel choice and access (multi-channel access); and accessibility standards (compliance with international standards of accessibility). This provides a first look at how such an indicator could be built, and whether the indicator will be useful for European Union member states (as it is still being discussed among countries). From an international perspective, the indicator provides a first cross-country data set measure of how four different indicators of high relevance for user take-up might become useful as a tool to further analyse the central question of why user take-up and satisfaction of e-Government services is lagging. In addition to the broad EU measurement framework, and aware that traditional metrics such as counting website hits and page impressions are not sufficient and often provide a very narrow and simplistic view of user take-up, several countries have developed specific measurement systems and analysis to monitor and evaluate patterns of use, traffic volumes, user likes and dislikes, user satisfaction and attitudes towards information and data use, seasonal variation, audience breakdown, e-mails and feedback, and the use of search terms, all important elements in understanding how users consume electronic services. Such analysis should feed directly into e-Government service development and delivery so that those services better match user expectations. Across OECD countries, there have been more studies and data on the service provision and usage side of e-government services than on take-up. This is because: it is much easier to collect supply-side data than take-up data, and chronologically, take-up and usage tend to come after service roll-out and are thus dependent on availability; such demand-side surveys are costly, given the huge numbers of potential users compared to suppliers, and the conceptual and technical difficulties in designing and implementing such surveys.



For example, some of the country approaches to user-focused measurement methodologies have been developed in:

Australia, which since 2004-2005 has conducted yearly systematic surveys on use and satisfaction with e-Government services.

Belgium, which has also since 2005 measured the use and satisfaction of federal e-Government services.

France, which developed an analytical method for analysing the value of e-Government projects called MAREVA (Méthode d’analyse et de remontée de la valeur).

Germany, which developed a measurement system called the WiBe framework which seeks to map both monetisable and non-monetisable efficiency gains for both public administrations and their users.

The Netherlands, which has since 1998 conducted a yearly systematic monitoring of e-Government progress including use and satisfaction of e-Services.

The selected examples highlight country cases in which national e-Government measurement frameworks has included user-centric measures to track take-up and satisfaction – two central parameters which allow governments to learn more about user needs and demands. These types of information are important for the continuous improvement of e-Government services.

2.3. Evaluating the public value of ICT for governance With a more specific focus on the application of ICTs in governmental operations, in the last decade considerable resources have been invested in supporting innovation in Public Administration through ICTs. Nevertheless, in spite of the efforts made by many institutions, and in particular the European Commission itself (see for instance the eGEP project mentioned above), there still not exist a consensus about how to evaluate the results of the investments in e-Government projects. On the one hand this is due to the fact that not all the results of the e-government innovation processes, which have been put into action, are visible yet. On the other hand, the complexity itself of the concept of e-Government makes it difficult to define an evaluation system that can be applied to all the areas covered by that concept (e-Administration, e-Services, e-Inclusion, e-Participation, etc.). Adopting a broad definition of e-Government, such as the one suggested by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2003), where e-Government can be considered as the process of innovation of Public Administration in order to achieve innovative forms of government and governance through the use of ICTs, the evaluation of an e-Government system must be referred to its capacity of improving on the whole the performance of the organisation adopting it. In this perspective, the concept of public value can provide an interesting point of view for the evaluation of the performances of Public Administration (Kelly, Mulgan, Muers (2002). In a broad sense, public value refers to the value created by government through services, law regulations and other actions. Public value provides a broader measure than is conventionally used within the new public management literature, covering outcomes, the means used to deliver them as well as trust and legitimacy. It addresses issues such as equity, ethos and accountability (Kelly, Mulgan, Muers (2002).



Figure 6: Comparison between different public management approaches (Kelly et al. 2002) The close relationship between the concept of public value and e-Government has been pointed out first of all by Kearns (2004). In a critical discussion about the excessive emphasis given to online services as the central element of e-Government systems, Kearns applies the work of Kelly, Mulgan and Muers directly to the evaluation of e-Government. Public Administration aims at producing value for citizens; from this perspective, the use of ICTs to improve government is a means to improve the production of public value. Thus, an e-Government system resulting from a process of technological and organisational innovation can be indirectly evaluated by considering the possible increase of public value deriving from the adoption of that system. Since e-Government aims at achieving a citizen centred vision of government, also the evaluation of an e-Government system as regards the public value produced should be based on a citizen-centred approach (Bannister (2002), Alford (2002). In this connection, the use of ICTs to improve government and governance, as implied by e-Government policies, can be considered as a means to increase the public value produced by Public Administration. Hence, the policies for e-Government can be evaluated according to their ability to increase the Public Administration capacity of producing public value (Kearns, 2004). In general, a public value-based evaluation must be performed by considering the value that citizens perceive in their interactions with Public Administration (Alford, 2002). Discussing the value of ICTs for Public Administration, (Bannister, 2002) underlines that the definition of value reflects the fact that citizens interact with Public Administration, and therefore with public value, playing different roles.



Taking as a starting point the set of roles defined by Bannister, in (Castelnovo and Simonetta, 2007) the following classification of roles has been suggested by (Bannister, 2002, and Castelnovo and Simonetta, 2008): external roles, that is roles in which citizens receive a value from Public Administration as

users of services or participants in democratic processes; internal roles, that is roles in which citizens, as directly or indirectly involved in the

processes of production of value, nevertheless receive a public value from Public Administration, for instance in terms of good functioning of Public Administration;

mixed roles, that is roles external to Public Administration and yet involved on different levels in the production of public value, as it is the case of Networked Governance systems.

Since the interactions between citizens and Public Administration can concern both citizens as users and citizens as operators of Public Administration, public value can be measured both from an external point of view (citizens as users) and from an internal point of view (citizens as operators). In the first case, the policies for e-Government can be evaluated with respect to the quality of the services delivered to citizens; in the latter case they can be evaluated with respect to their ability to improve the system of local government (Castelnovo and Simonetta, 2008). (Kelly, Mulgan and Muers, 2002) identifies three sources of public value for citizens: services, outcomes and trust. Services, outcomes and trust can be considered as elements generating value also as regards the internal stakeholders involved in the management of innovation processes. Generating public value for citizens through services depends on the level of quality with which they are delivered in terms of: service availability; satisfaction levels; importance; fairness of provision; cost. As observed in (Castelnovo and Simonetta, 2007) the evaluation of the government as regards achieving the desired outcomes concerns first of all the impact of policies on the related context on which they are applied. In a broader meaning of the concept, the context is referred also to the concept of constitutive environment, intended as the local and global system of Public Administration. It follows that the evaluation of the outcomes of different e-Government policies should consider also their capability to increase: the degree of policy integration in homogeneous territorial areas; the organizational and operational simplification of the single institutions forming the

network; the capability to maintain cooperative relations with other administrations, suppliers, and

associations. All these results can be achieved only if the aggregations (for example at city or community level) that are set up maintain stability in time. In these terms, the stability attribute can be related to the outcomes evaluation as described by Kelly, Mulgan and Muers. Finally, trust is the third source of public value defined in (Kelly, Mulgan and Muers, 2002). The trust attribute evaluates the capability of government to increase through its activity the citizens’ trust towards Public Administration, or activities that are set up by government to make their members willing to make increasing and irreversible commitments towards the cooperation (Doz, 1996). Therefore trust can be evaluated by considering elements such as the reiteration of the members’ commitment towards the aggregation (for instance by developing new innovation projects) or the extension of the competencies the members attribute to it (Castelnovo and Simonetta, 2008).



2.4. In search of a new paradigm in evaluating ICT-enabled governance Most European countries are already transforming government through the use of ICTs and ICT-enabled governance structures, new collaboration models (i.e. shared data, processes and portals), and “networked” or “joined-up” administrations are emerging. As indicated by OECD (2009, several e-Government studies have shown that ICTs are used to support broader public sector development objectives, aimed at creating a more coherent, user-focused and efficient public sector by i) changing service delivery approaches through the creation of personalised, high quality services to users, thereby increasing user satisfaction and effective service delivery; ii) facilitating major work organisation and management changes creating back-office coherence and efficiency gains; iii) increasing transparency of government activities, and iv) increasing citizen engagement. Public sector transformation and e-Government are therefore increasingly seen as closely linked policy areas. However, there is still an extensive debate about how to measure outputs, outcomes and impacts in the public sector, especially in relation to ICTs and governance, and even leading countries and cities follow different paths. The challenges associated with measuring outputs, outcomes and impacts of ICTs policies and contribution of ICTs to other policy areas go beyond the difficulty to develop valid indicators that truly measure the outputs and outcomes of public service delivery. For example, output and outcome measurement affects organizational behaviours and while the existence of output measures may lead staff to strive for improved performance, it may also lead to the neglect of non-measured dimensions or to a sort of 'gaming', in which either the output itself is adjusted or the measurements are distorted in order to achieve the appearance (rather than the reality) of 'good performance'. In addition, while it is usually reasonable to hold government responsible for outputs, it may not be reasonable to hold it responsible for outcomes because many other factors may influence the final impact on society. And this is especially the case at city level, where policy impacts are affected by other elements that cannot be directly controlled or influenced by the city government. In addition, the emerging discussion on 'values' in the public sector production makes the definition of outputs and outcomes even more complex. Moreover, despite the 'measurement paradigm' is now becoming consolidated also in the public sector, there are still profound differences between countries in Europe, mainly due to the cultural and organizational diversity of different governance models. This is even more the case when we look at city government, where despite leading cities in Europe are already putting in place measurement systems for policy performance, there is still a lack of maturity of methodologies, mainly due to the inherent limitation of data availability, or, when indicators exists data are not easily quantifiable or comparable between different cities. Due to these challenges, building on the work already carried on by several organizations and scholars, it is required in future research to design, in collaboration with cities and other organisations, a measurement framework that would be able to capture information about the effectiveness of public management practices and structures at city level. For example, if we look at the issue of 'open government' (as indicated by OCED, 2009, 'Focus on Citizens: public Engagement for better policy and services') it is required not only to see if public organizations have established the legal framework for transparency, participatin and accountability, but also to evaluate whether these goals are actually achieved, looking at how the laws are implemented, used and enforced. In designing such a measurement framework, validated and operationalised by city governments, it would be possible to contribute to improve the performance and overall quality of governance systems at city level, while at the same time to provide more nuanced details of individuals city (and country) policies, practices and governance models that can be used to better understand the drivers behind performance differences.



2.5. A proposal of assessment framework for ICT-enabled governance In this section a very preliminary proposal of assessment framework, to be further refined and implemented after discussion with experts and stakeholders, especially at the city level, is presented. First it briefly describes the relations between the value drivers identified and the governance dimensions defined above (see Section 1). Furthermore, based on recent work by researchers and experimentations conducted within various contexts (in which the author of this paper has also been involved), we present a general framework of assessment that is to be intended as a proposal for discussion and therefore a work in progress to be further defined and be translated into an measurement framework, complemented by an operational implementation methodology. Key principles Building on the revisited categorization of good governance characteristics in value drivers and governance dimensions, as depicted in section 1 of this document we propose here an interdisciplinary assessment framework to exploit the various dynamics emerging through the applications of ICT-enabled services and innovations in city governance contexts and to achieve coherence between the theoretical and methodological frames described above. Among the different disciplines and theories presented, we focus on social, organizational and technological issues as starting point for the definition of the governance changes and the policy impacts to be assessed. To this end, we address in the methodological framework the theoretical approaches of research in social studies on ICT-enabled innovation and policies, namely the approach grounded on the assumption of the reciprocal influence between social and technological issues (Avgerou et al., 2004). This assumption is recognized as a core element of the approaches sharing a socio-technical perspective (Cherns, 1976; Clegg, 2000; Mumford, 1995, 2003; Trist & Murray, 1993) that conceive the social and the technical sub-systems as interdependent, and deal with the reciprocal fit of social and technical solutions within the innovation process. The mutual-shaping relationship between technology, organizational structures, and actors informs the concept of technological frame (Bijker et al., 1989). It deals with the co-construction of the technical and the social worlds, while the concept of socio-technical reference frame (Flichy, 1995) helps to think through the ways in which different actors and different social worlds interact using a technology. We make reference to recent work in the area of e-Government planning and measurement (and in particular Batini et al, 2009)11, that building on a number of scholar contributions in the area of social studies and ICTs argue for the adoption of a wide definition of e-Government as a system of ICT enabled innovation policies for the public administration and related governmental functions. In this view, ICT-enabled projects can be considered high-level, context-sensitive interventions aimed at introducing and facilitating gradual changes (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).

11 See in particular Batini, C., Viscusi, G., Cherubini, D., (2008), “eG4M: The Planning Methodology”, QD Research Report, University of Milan Bicocca, DISCO, Starrylink Ed..; building on previous work conducted for the Italian Government for the development of the eModel under the Italian Presidency of the G8 (2001) and the Italian Initiative on e-Government for Development (eG4D) conducted with the United Nations and the World Bank in the period 2002-2005.



In this connection, we define the main value drivers underpinning our framework as follow: Value driver 1- Performance: it includes effectiveness and efficiency (enabling optimal use of resources for citizens and tax payers in the service delivery); and as an indirect dimension also responsiveness (serving all citizens in a consistent and predictable way). Value driver 2 – Openness: it includes access to information as a proxi to participation (enabling the process of empowering citizens to legally control the service delivery to their advantage) and transparency (bringing visibility to the service workflow for citizens by means of an automated service delivery); and accountability (creating standards against which the individuals providing a service and the service delivery can be held accountable), that also serve the goal of ensuring consensus orientation (following democratic practices). Value driver 3 – Inclusion: it includes equity and inclusiveness (referring to citizens receiving the service on an equal basis and providing services to disadvantaged and minority groups in society), which also implicitly ensure the respect of the rule of law (ensuring that the laws and regulations governing the service are applied in an impartial way). A further description of each of the dimensions considered in each value drivers follows. Value driver 1- Performance It is widely recognized that the first objective of ICT-enabled services and innovations is to improve efficiency and effectiveness of public management practices, and thus ensure better and timely responsiveness, increasing the quality of public service delivery. In our measurement framework, we propose to assess the governance performance in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, defined as follows: Efficiency, it should be distinguished in terms of temporal (i.e. the efficient use of time in service production and provision); economic (i.e. the cost sustained for service provision and their trends in time); and procedural (i.e. the obligations and constraints imposed by law on the administrative processes and on the interactions between administrations and users). This is usually associated with a metrics consistent in the level of administrative simplification, and can be measured in terms of the number of interactions required by users to provide useful information in order to complete a service). Effectiveness of administrative processes is measured in terms of the achievement of the final outcomes, and this has implications with regard to the users’ perception of accuracy and reliability of service provision, and the evaluation of the service-oriented attitude of personnel in charge of the services. It also refers to completeness of data and documentation and the cost/benefit gained by automatizing business processes. Value driver 2 - Openness It is argued that government systems functions best when they are open and accountable for their actions. Communities are strong when residents understand and participate in the civic process, have access to good, clear information, and are able to place confidence in their public officials. Transparency in government is the basis for accountability, improved decision-making, public trust, and informed participation. The principle of open, transparent government reaches virtually every aspect of a city government's operations (everything from the adoption of an ordinance to the posting of an annual budget or the way the city responds to a customer’s inquiry about a water bill for example). Greater transparency can also have a



transformational impact on how government serves those who live, work and invest in a city. Clear procedures and accessible, easy-to-understand records and information can promote the accountability of public servants as they make decisions and conduct the public’s business and can invite the participation of residents to collaborate in the strengthening of governance processes. We propose to assess the governance openness in terms of access to information and accountability as follows: Access to information: it should be distinguished the following characteristics: temporal access (i.e. the time interval during which a specific service can be requested); cultural access (i.e. the diffusion among the users of the skills and capabilities required for an autonomous usage of the service, and the attitude, preferences, and perception expressed by users on the technological channels which support the provision of the service: e.g., trust, ease of use. A number of metrics can be used to measure this dimension, such as the media richness of the channel, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use of the access channels. In addition to this, another element concerns the interoperability, both in terms of technological interoperability (i.e. diffusion of standards and technological infrastructures and systems enabling interoperability); and Shared data/services (i.e. the ability of administrations to access data by means of the inter-administration back office, and the possibility for external users to access administrative data via ICTs). Accountability: it should be considered with regard to two dimensions: transparency (i.e. the volume of information that the public administration provide to users describing their internal functioning and informing users on what they can expect or claim while using the service. A metrics for transparency is the presence and quality of information available for users on the web portal); and participation (i.e. the effective level to which users' opinions reach the PAs in charge of the service and influence the provision. A basic metrics for this dimension is the percentage of responses to complaints. A more advanced metric is the level of engagement of citizens, which can be measured with more sophisticated online systems and webmetrics tracking inputs provided in online forums, blogs, and social media. Value driver 3 - Inclusion Today, inclusion is more widely thought of as the practice of ensuring that people in given societal or organisational setting feel they belong, are engaged, and connected to society or organisation. In Europe, inclusion is considered an all-encompassing practice of ensuring that people with different abilities belong, are engaged, and are connected to society. That said, Europe is by no means homogeneous in relation to the degree with which inclusion as a topic or a definition is influenced by local conditions. Basically there are two main policy perspectives to consider when focusing on inclusion and ICTs. Policies to help people use ICTs and the use of ICTs to help people (see the EU Vienna Study Codagnone et al.12) overarching trends identified within the field of inclusion. Firstly, various types of existing and emerging divides (e.g. eSkills) and secondly an increasing demand by citizens and businesses for high quality government services. More specifically, we propose to assess the governance inclusion in terms of accessibility and equity as follows.

12 See http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/docs/eco_summary.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/docs/eco_summary.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/docs/eco_summary.pdf



Accessibility: it refers to service accessibility for disabled persons (i.e. for example, one instance of data accessibility for disabled people is the existence/non existence of alternative text for blind people). Possible metrics refer to the ability of users to access the service despite his/her physical status/functions)13. In addition to this, another element concerns the accessibility to technological infrastructures (i.e. diffusion of the infrastructure and technologies which support the service provision). A basic measure for this is the % of Internet penetration and broadband availability, or in some cases the number of Internet access points per inhabitant); and channel accessibility (i.e. it focuses on the existence of different channels for service access and delivery, such as desktop PC, mobile phone, TV and radio, etc.). Equity: it refers to the ease of access for minority groups (e.g. number of languages in which the service is provided) and disadvantaged groups (e.g. poor, illiterate and elderly people, etc.) Equity of service provision is an integral part of the founding principles of EU policies. The promotion of European diversity by fostering equity through participation and inclusion in a democratic society based on values such as freedom, tolerance, equality, solidarity though pluralism, cultural and linguistic diversity is at the heart of many policies at European, national and local level in Europe14.

13 Particularly important in the social domain is physical accessibility for disabled persons. Metrics for physical accessibility have been proposed by, among others, the World Wide Web Consortium (2007) 14 See for instance European Commission (2001), eEurope 2002 - An information society for all, COM(2001)140, DG INFSO, Brussels. European Commission (2002), eEurope 2005 - An information society for all, COM(2002) 263, DG INFSO, Brussels



Table 5 Preliminary proposal of an assessment framework for ICT-enabled governance Value Driver Governance Dimension Sub-dimension Metrics and Examples of Indicators Source of verification

Economic the cost sustained for service provision and their trends in time);

Organisational Budget

Temporal User time (the average time spent by users to obtain the service) Service provision time (the average time spent by organisational units to produce the service)

Ad-hoc measures (internal)

Efficiency (i.e. the balance between the output of service provision and the amount of resources required

Procedural (i.e. the obligations and constraints imposed by law on the administrative processes and on the interactions between administrations and users)

Level of administrative simplification (i.e. number of interactions required by users to provide useful information in order to complete a service)


Performance

Effectiveness (i.e. the closeness of the provided service to user's expectations and needs)

Service Reliability, including Accuracy and Completeness of information requested for the service provision in order to achieve the user's expectation

N. of complaints Users' perception of accuracy and reliability of service provisions Service-oriented attitude of personnel in charge of the service (or automatic system)

Users' Surveys (External)



Value Driver Governance

Dimension Sub-dimension Metrics and Examples of Indicators Source of verification

Temporal Time interval during which a specific service can be requested

Ad-hoc measures (internal) Access to information

Cultural Diffusion among the users of the skills and capabilities required for an autonomous usage of the service Media richness of the channel, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use of the access channels

Users' Surveys on attitude, preferences, and perception expressed by users on the technological channels which support the provision of the service: e.g., trust, ease of use. (External) Ad-hoc measures (internal)

Interoperability Technological (i.e. diffusion of standards and technological infrastructures and systems for interoperability)

Presence of standards and technological infrastructures and systems for interoperability


Shared data / services (i.e. the ability of administrations to access data by means of the inter-administration back office, and the possibility for external users to access administrative data via ICTs)

Presence and level of shared data / services Ad-hoc measures (internal) Users' Surveys (External)

Transparency (i.e. the volume of information that the public administration provide to users describing their internal functioning and informing users on what they can expect or claim while using the service)

presence and quality of information available for users on the web portal

Ad-hoc measures (internal) and Users' Surveys (External)

Openness

Accountability

Participation (i.e. the effective level to which users' opinions reach the public administration in charge of the service and influence the provision)

% of responses to complaints Level of engagement of citizens

Ad-hoc measures (internal) Users' Surveys (External) Web metrics



Value Driver Governance Dimension Sub-dimension Metrics and Examples of Indicators Source of verification

Service accessibility for disabled people

User possibility to access the service from his/her physical status/functions (e.g. existence/non existence of alternative text for blind people)


Accessibility

Technological (i.e. diffusion of the infrastructure and technologies which support the service provision) and channel accessibility (i.e. it focuses on the existence of different channels for service access and delivery, such as desktop PC, mobile phone, TV and radio, etc.).

% of Internet penetration (of which broadband availability) number of Internet access points per inhabitant Channels' availability for service delivery (and usage x target groups)


ease of access for minority groups number of languages in which the service is provided Ad-hoc measures (internal) Users' Surveys (External)

Inclusion

Equity

ease of access for disadvantaged groups (e.g. poor, illiterate and elderly people)

Specific initiatives for these target groups Ad-hoc measures (internal) Users' Surveys (External)



References Acevedo, Beatriz, and Richard Common. 2006. Governance and the management of networks in the

public sector—Drugs policy in the United Kingdom and the case of cannabis reclassification. Public Management Review 8:395–414.

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2003. Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.

Ahuja, Gautam. 2000. Collaborative networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45:425–55.

Alter, Catherine, and Jerald Hage. 1993. Organizations working together Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Avegrou, C., Ciborra, C., Corcella, A., Kallinikos, J., and Smith, M., (2005), “The role of Information and Communication Technology in Building Trust in Governance: Towards Effectiveness and Results”, Washington D.C., Inter-American Development Bank

Badger, M., Johnston, P., Stewart-Weeks, M., & Willis, S. (2004). The Connected Republic: Changing the Way We Govern: CISCO SYSTEMS - Internet Business Solutions Group.

Baptista, M. 2005. e-Government and State Reform: Policy Dilemmas for Europe. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 3, 167-174.

Bass, F. M., (1986), “The adoption of a marketing model: comments and observations”, in Mahajan, V., and Wind, Y., (Eds), Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance, Cambridge, Mass. Ballinger

Batini, C., Viscusi, G., Cherubini, D., (2008), “eG4M: The Planning Methodology”, QD Research Report, University of Milan Bicocca, DISCO, Starrylink Ed.

Batista, J. R., 1977, 'The holistic paradigm and the general System Theory', in General Systems, Vol.22

Bellamy, C., and Taylor, J., “(1998), “Governing in the Information Age”, Buckingham: Open University Press

Benjamin, R.I., and E. Levinson (1993) "A Framework for Managing IT-Enabled Change," Sloan Management Review (34)4, p 23–33

Benjamin, R.I. and J. Blunt (1992) "Critical IT Issues: The Next Ten Years," Sloan Management Review (33)4, pp 7-19

Berger P. L. and Luckmann T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality'

Bijker, Wiebe E./Hughes, Thomas P./Pinch Trevor F. (Ed.) 1989: The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press

Brandes, Ulrik, Patrick Kenis, and Dorothea Wagner. 2003. Communicating centrality in policy network drawings. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 9:241–53.

Brass, Daniel J., Joseph Galaskiewicz, Henrich R. Greve, and Wenpin Tsai. 2004. Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal 47: 795–817.

Campanella, M., 1984, 'Stato-Nazione e ordine sociale: modelli e paradigmi delle società complesse', Collana G; Solari, Dipartimento di Scienze Sociali, Università di Torino, Franco Angeli

CapGemini (2006-2009). Online Availability of Public Services: How is Europe progressing?

Castells, Manuel 1997a: The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Volume 1. Malden Mass., Oxford: Blackwell

Castells, M., Ollé Sanz, E. (2004). The Barcelona Model II: The Barcelona City Council in the Network Society. Barcelona: Open University of Barcelona




Chaskin, Robert J., Prudence Brown, Sudhir Venkatesh, and Avis Vidal. 2001. Building community capacity New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (3), 35-41

Ciborra, C., “(1993), “Teams Markets and Systems”, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Ciborra C (2002) The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ciborra C (2004) Encountering information systems as a phenomenon. In The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology (AVGEROU C, CIBORRA C and LAND F, Eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ciborra C and Navarra D (2005) Good governance, development theory and aid policy: risks and challenges of E-government in Jordan. Journal of Information Technology for Development 11(2), 141-159.

Codagnone, C., et al., eGovernment Economics Project (eGEP) 1st Workshop Discussion Document, 2005, LUISS Management and RSO Spa for the European Commission

Codagnone, C., et al., eGovernment Economics Project (eGEP) Working Documents, 2005, LUISS Management and RSO Spa for the European Commission

Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundation of social theory Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Journal of European Public Policy 7:244–60.

Coleman, S., & Gotze, J. (2001). Bowling Together: online public engagement in policy deliberation. London: Hansard Society.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.

DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48:147–67.

Dosi G., Technological paradigms and technological trajectories, (1982) Research Policy, pp.147-162

Doz, Yves L. 1996. The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic Management Journal 17:55–83.

Drazin, Robert., and Andrew H. Van de Ven. 1985. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 30:514–39.

Dunford, Mick/ Kafkalas, Grigoris (ed.) 1992: Cities and Regions in the New Europe: the global-local interplay and spatial development Strategies. London.

Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Simon, B. and Tinkler, J.: Digital Era Governance - IT Corporations, The State, and E-Government. Oxford University Press, London (2006)

Edelenbos, Jurian, and Erik-Hans Klijn. 2007. Trust in complex decision-making networks: A theoretical and empirical explanation. Administration & Society 39:25–50.

Edward Elgar, Cheltenham; and Stewart, J. and R. Williams (2005). The Wrong Trousers? Beyond the Design Fallacy: Social Learning and the User. User involvement in innovation processes. Strategies and limitations from a socio-technical perspective. H. Rohracher. Munich, Profil-Verlag: 39-71

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review 14:57–74.

Esping-Andersen, 1990, The three World of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge, Polity Press



Entwistle, Tom, Gillian Bristow, Frances Hines, Sophie Donaldson, and Steve Martin. 2007. The dysfunctions of markets, hierarchies and networks in the meta-governance of partnership. Urban Studies 44 (1): 63–79.

EU (1997). Framework for sustainable urban development in the European Union: European Commission.

EU (2003). Innovative e-Government actions at local and regional level in the EU: Committee of the Regions.

EU, French Presidency 2008, Ministère du Budget, des comptes et de la fonction Publique, 2008, 'Administration and the Civil Service in the EU 27 Member States: 27 country profiles', DGAFP

Faerman, Sue R., David P. McCaffrey, and David van Slyke. 2001. Understanding interorganizational cooperation: Public-private collaboration in regulating financial market innovation. Organization Science 12:372–88.

Fama, Eugene F., and Michael C. Jensen. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics 26:301–25.

Fisher, Dana. R.; Wright, Larry Michael (2001): On Utopias and Dystopias: Towards an Understanding of the Discourse Surrounding the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 6 (2). (http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/fisher.html)

Fleck, James (1988) `Innofusion or Diffusation? The nature of technological development in robotics' Edinburgh PICT Working Paper No. 7, Edinburgh University;

Forsyth, Donelson R. 1999. Group dynamics, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Fountain, J.E., (2001), “Public Sector: Early Stage of a deep transformation”, in R.E., Litan (ed.) “The Economic Payoff from the International Revolution”, Washington D.C., Brookings Institution Press

Fountain, J. (2008). Notes on the Impact of Research on the Development of eGovernment." European Review of Political Technologies, Special Issue: Towards a Common eGovernment Research Agenda in Europe. Vol 5

Goldsmith, Stephen, and William D. Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Graddy, Elizabeth A., and Bin Chen. 2006. Influences on the size and scope of networks for social service delivery. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:533–52.

Graham, Stephen/Marvin, Simon 1996: Telecommunicatins and the City. Electronic Spaces, Urban Places. London, New York: Routledge

Graham, S. (ed: 2004). The Cybercities Reader. London: Routledge

Gulati, Ranjay. 1995. Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 40:619–52.

Gulati, Ranjay, and Martin Gargiulo. 1999. Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology 104:1439–93.

Hay, C. (2006). Constructivist Institutionalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, ed. RAW Rhodes, S Binder, B Rockman, pp. 56-74. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

Heeks, R., (2002), “Reinventing Government in the Information Age”, in R. Heeks, (ed.), “Reinventing Government in the Information Age – International Practice in IT-enabled Public Sector Reform”, London, Routledge, pp. 9-21”

Hill, Carolyn J., and Laurence E. Lynn. 2005. Is hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence from empirical research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:173–95.



Huxham, Chris, and Siv Vangen. 2005. Managing to Collaborate London: Routledge.

Imperial, Mark T. 2005. Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society 37:281–320.

Inzerilli, Giorgio. 1990. The Italian perspective: Flexible organization and social management. International Studies of Management and Organization 20:6–21.

Isett, Kimberley R., and Keith G. Provan. 2005. The evolution of interorganizational network relationships over time: Does sector matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:149–65.

Jones, Candace, William S. Hesterly, and Stephen P. Borgatti. 1997. A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review 22:911–45.

Kenis, Patrick, and David Knoke. 2002. How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. Academy of Management Review 27:275–93.

Kenis, Patrick, and Keith G. Provan. 2006. The control of public networks. International Public Management Journal 9:227–47.

Kickert, Walter J. M., Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop E. M. Koppenjan. 1999. Managing complex networks: strategies for the public sector. London: Sage.

Kilduff, Martin, and Wenpin Tsai. 2003. Social Networks and Organizations. London: Sage Press.

Knoke, David. 1990. Political networks. The structural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Koza, Mitchell P., and Arie Y. Lewin. 1999. The co-evolution of network alliances: A longitudinal analysis of an international professional service network. Organization Science 10:638–53.

Larson, Andrea. 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly 37:76–104.

Lloyd, M. G., & Peel, D. (2006). Devolution, Decentralisation and Dispersal: Asserting the Spatiality of the Public Sector in Scotland. European Planning Studies, 1(6), 24.

Marche, S. & Mcniven, J. D. 2003. E-government and e-governance: The future isn't what it used to be. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences-Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 20, 74-86.

McCubbins Matthew D. and Schwartz Thomas, “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols Versus Fire Alarms,” American Journal of Political Science 28, no 1 (1984): 165-179

McCubbins Matthew D., Noll Roger D., and Weingast Barry R., “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control,” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 3, no 2 (1987): 243-277.

McEvily, Bill, Vincenzo Perrone, and Akbar Zaheer. 2003. Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science 14:91–103.

Misuraca, G., Rossel, P., Finger, M., (2006), “Governance with and of ICTs: the need for new institutional design in a changing world”, egov magazine, Volume II – Issue 5, May 2006

Misuraca, G. and Rossel, P., “Triggering the governance perspective of e-Government projects: beyond mere digitization of administration services”, background paper for the Third Global Knowledge Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 10-13 December 2007.

Misuraca, G. (2009). e-Government 2015: exploring m-government scenarios, between ICT-driven experiments and citizen-centric implications. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 21(3), 18.



Misuraca G., Viscusi G. (2009), Roadmapping e-Governance for Development: Strategic and Methodological Issues, In Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Methodologies, Technologies and Tools enabling e-Government (METTEG-09) Centro Social Caixanova, Vigo, Spain – 28 - 29 September 2009

Misuraca, G., (2009), 'Social Computing and Governance', in 'The impact of Social Computing on the EU Information Society and Economy', (Eds. Punie, Y., Lusoli, W., Centeno, C., Misuraca, G., Broster, D.,) IPTS, JRC, European Commission

Misuraca, G., Ollé Sanz, E., 2010 forthcoming, 'Exploring ICT-enabled governance models in European cities: a preliminary analysis towards developing a conceptual and measurement policy impact framework', paper submitted to the 10th European Conference on e-Government (ECEG2010), University of Limerick, Ireland, 17-18 June 2009

Mizruchi, Mark. 1983. Who controls whom? An examination of the relation between management and boards of directors in large corporations. Academy of Management Review 8:426–35.

Moe Terry M., “An Assessment of the Positive Theory of ‘Congressional Dominance’,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 12, no 4 (1987): 475-520

Monge, Peter R., and Noshir S. Contractor. 2003. Theories of communication networks New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Moran Mark J. and Weingast Barry R.. “Bureaucracy Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission,” The Journal of Political Economy 91, no 5 (1983): 765-800

Moynihan, Donald. 2005. Leveraging collaborative networks in infrequent emergency situations Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

OECD e-book, Citizens as Partners - Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making (2001), http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?K=5LMQCR2KHGS8&LANG=EN

OECD 2005, “Modernising Government: the way forward”, OECD, Paris

O’Toole, Laurence J. 1997. Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review 57:45–52.

O’Toole, Laurence J., and Kenneth J. Meier. 2006. Networking in the penumbra: Public management, cooptative links, and distributional consequences. International Public Management Journal 9:271–94.

Ogburn, William F. 1964: Cultural lag as theory,. In: On culture and social change, edited by William F. Ogburn, 86-95. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Owen-Smith, Jason, and Walter W. Powell. 2004. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science 15:5–21.

Park, Sang-Ho. 1996. Managing an interorganizational network: A framework of the institutional mechanism for network control. Organization Studies 17:795–823.

Perrow, Charles. 1961. The analysis of goals in complex organizations. American Sociological Review 26:688–99.

Perrow. 1986. Economic theories of organization. Theory and Society 15 (1–2): 11–45.

Pollack Mark A., “Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the European Community,” International Organizations 51, no 1. (1997): 99-134; European Commission (2008).

Powell, Walter W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In Research in organizational behavior, ed. Barry M. Staw and Cummings L. L., vol. 12, 295–336. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/4201131E.PDF

http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/4201131E.PDF

http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?K=5LMQCR2KHGS8&LANG=EN



Powell, Walter W., Douglas R. White, Kenneth W. Koput, and Jason Owen-Smith. 2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology 110:1132–205.

Provan, Keith G. 1980. Board power and organizational effectiveness among human service agencies. Academy of Management Journal 23:221–36.

Provan, Keith G., Amy Fish, and Joerg Sydow. 2007. Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management 33:479–516.

Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward. 2001. Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review 61:414–23.

Provan, Keith G. and Kenis, Patrick, 2007, Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness, Oxford University Press

Richard, S., Barnes, M., Coulson, A., Gaster, L., Leach, B., & Sullivan, H. (1999). Cross-cutting Issues in Public Policy and Public Services. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Roderick Rhodes, “The new governance: governing without government” (1996), in Political Studies, Vol. 44

Rogers, Everett 1983: The Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Macmillan

Rouse Amelia, Waterman Richard W., and Wright Robert, “The Venues of Influence: A New Theory of Political Control of the Bureaucracy,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Vol 8, no 1 (1998): 13-38. 15.

Rossel, P., Finger, M., Misuraca, G., (2006), “Assessing and steering mobile e-Government options: findings and indication proposals”, Proceedings, ECEG, 2006

Salancik, Gerald. 1995. Wanted: A good theory of network organization. Administrative Science Quarterly 40:345–9.

Sassen, Saskia 1991: The Global City. New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press

Schmidt, V (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. Vol. 11 (303-326).

Scholz John T and Wei Feng Heng, “Regulatory Enforcement in a Federalist System,” The American Political Science Review 80, no 4 (1986): 1249-1270

Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations: Penguin.

Sorensen, K., and Williams, R., (Eds.), (2002), “Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy. Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

Sullivan, H., & Skelcher, C. (2002). Working across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sydow, Joerg. 2004. Network development by means of network evaluation? Explorative insights from a case in the financial services industry. Human Relations 201–20.

Teisman, Geert R., and Erik-Hans Klijn. 2002. Partnership arrangements: Governmental rhetoric or governance scheme? Public Administration Review 62:197–205.

UK, L. G. I. U. (2009). Local Government 3.0: how councils can respond to the new web agenda.

UNDESA, 2003, World Public Sector Report

Uzzi, Brian. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42:35–67.



Uzzi, Brian. 1999. Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review 64:481–505.

Van Bueren, Edith M., Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop F. M. Koppenjan. 2003. Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13:193–212.

Van de Ven, Andrew H. 1976. On the nature, formation, and maintenance of relations among organizations. Academy of Management Review 1:24–36.

Van Raaij, Denise P. A. M. 2006. Norms network members use: An alternative perspective for indicating network success or failure. International Public Management Journal 9:249–70.

Waterman Richard W. and Wood Dan B. “The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy,” The American Political Science Review 85, no 3 (1991): 801-828.