In the Evaluation section:
Evaluation
Causes of eTransparency Success and Failure: Factor Model
Why do some e-transparency projects in developing/transitional countries succeed and others fail? This page offers some answers.
A Factor Model for eTransparency Success and Failure
this model summarises the reasons behind success and failure of e-transparency projects. Left-pointing items (constraints) encourage failure; right-pointing items (drivers and enablers) encourage success. the factors are explained in more detail in the tables below.
Critical Success Factors: Why eTransparency Projects Succeed
the table lists and explains some of the main factors that help support success of e-transparency in the public sector of developing/transitional countries. Cases in which these factors have been identified are cited in the right-hand column.
Factor |
Explanation |
Examples |
|---|---|---|
External pressure |
Drive for reform from outside government, e.g. from donors, voters, taxpayers or other clients |
|
Internal will |
Drive from key government officials acting as channels for external pressure and/or with internal agendas of their own |
|
Overall strategy |
Overall plan for public sector transparency and accountability; seeing ICTs as the means not the end, and integrating ICTs with broader reform objectives (with institutional strengthening possibly preceding ICTs) |
|
Effective project management |
A transparent approach is needed to build an e-transparency system with clear responsibilities, good planning and consideration or risk, and good organisation of resources; building knowledge from past and current projects; balancing use of in-house and external staff; with well-managed partnerships between public agencies, and public-private |
|
Effective change management |
Including leadership with a project champion, use of incentives/disincentives to create commitment to and ownership of e-transparency project, and stakeholder involvement to build support and minimise resistance |
|
Effective design |
An incremental/piloting approach following KISS (Keep it Small and Simple) principles; participatory involvement of all stakeholders, leading to designs that meet real user needs and match real user contexts |
|
Requisite competencies |
Presence of the necessary skills and knowledge, especially within government itself; need both subject-area and IT skills/knowledge, which may be combined within individual 'hybrids' |
|
Adequate technical infrastructure |
A sound foundation of electricity, computers and networks and/or use of more pervasive and accessible ICTs such as cell phones or interactive TV |
|
Adequate data infrastructure |
Good quality of underlying digitised data, supported by clear controls and incentives/disincentives. |
|
Adequate legal infrastructure |
Provide a broader legal framework that provides guidance on transparency procedures and sanctions for transgression; may include Freedom of Information and eTransactions legislation |
|
Sufficient money and time |
These should cover both implementation and ongoing operation of the e-transparency system |
Other critical success factors identified include: good timing.
Critical Failure Factors: Why eTransparency Projects Fail
the table lists and explains some of the main factors underlie failure of e-transparency in the public sector of in developing/transitional countries. Cases in which these factors have been identified are cited in the right-hand column.
Factor |
Explanation |
Examples |
|---|---|---|
Lack of drivers |
No strong driving force behind e-transparency, or no driving force for proper implementation |
|
Lack of strategy |
Lack of an overarching view or guidance about transparency and good governance, and lack of link between ends and means; may be caused by ever-shifting senior staff and/or ever-changing policy and political environment |
|
Poor project management |
Dispersed responsibilities due to multiple ownership of project; absence or weakness of controls; ineffective procurement and management of technical and consulting resources |
|
Poor change management |
Lack of support from senior officials (causing lack of resource allocation, and negative message to other groups); lack of stakeholder involvement (causing lack of ownership) |
|
Dominance of politics and self-interest |
Focus of key players on personal needs and goals, often related to 'playing politics', with symptoms like inter-agency battles, resistance where loss of power or bribes is feared, focus on image and symbolism and short-term kudos rather than delivery of e-transparency (leading to ineffective implementation) |
|
Poor/unrealistic design |
Caused particularly by lack of inputs from key local stakeholders, leading to designs that are over-technical, over-ambitious, or mismatched to local environment (culture, values) and needs; can occur particularly where external designers are involved. Other design problems: lack of piloting, lack of fit to organisational structure |
|
Lack of requisite competencies |
Lack of IT awareness, knowledge and skills among developers, officials, operators and external clients; lack of awareness of e-transparency system's existence among client groups; lack of information and subject-specific skills; high rates of staff turnover; attitudinal deficiencies such as lack of trust of public servants |
|
Inadequate technical infrastructure |
Lack of adequate electricity, computers or networks; Incompatibilities or other deficiencies of key digital systems |
|
Inadequate data infrastructure |
Data that falls down on one or more CARTA characteristics (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness, appropriateness of presentation); Data incompatibilities or inaccessibilities |
|
Inadequate legal infrastructure |
Absence of legal framework for transparency and accountability (including sanctions for misdeeds), and for ICT-based government processes |
|
Insufficient money and time |
Particularly lack of later funds for post-pilot roll-out, or for post-implementation ongoing operations |
Taking Action on Success/Failure Factors
Follow this link for details about actions to take to reduce the risk of e-transparency failure.
Basis for analysis of factors: synthesis of 17 case studies of e-transparency in developing/transitional economies submitted during November-December 2003 to the eGovernment for Development Information Exchange, plus online discussions on the Exchange email list. Cross-checked with analysis of success/failure factors from a broader e-government survey.