This post, in another group, drew a superb and unusually detailed response from Prof Sam Lanfranco of York University, Ontario, Canada. His views deserve to be widely known as they provide unique insights into e-government project formulation and implementation. I reproduce Prof Sam Lanfranco’s views, with his permission, below. I am grateful to Prof Lanfranco to permit me the use of his post in this manner.

Dr.D.C. Misra
October 18, 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
PROF SAM LANFRANCO’s VIEWS
_____________________________________________________________________________

Dr Misra is fully on target when writing:

“The e-government challenge before us is: How to
Improve E-government Project Formulation and Implementation?”

The real challenge here is an evidence based challenge and that
has to do with not just the persistent failure of e-Gov projects
but the persistent failure to learn from those failures.

In the beginning governments were able to capture the “low hanging
fruit” and easily move routine applications and information online.
Beyond that, “bold efforts” are accompanied by grandstanding press
briefings but are usually “hollow” at four levels. Those levels
are:

1. An implementation strategy that understands neither the
human resource and training requirements.

2. A technology roll out that has virtually nothing to do
with the mission and vision of area (e.g. ehealth) being
targeted. This ranges from the vague (online access) to
the specific (some technology oversold by the supplier).

3. No scope for knowledge networking between those charge
with providing the eGov services, nor for knowledge networking
between the “community of interest” using the service.

4. No defined (or funded) evaluation strategy. Note: in any
eGov initiative there is scope for a rolling (ongoing) strategy
for evaluation where lessons learned are (a) shared and (b)
acted on in real time rather waiting years for a possibly
rarefied “evaluation” by an outside agency that misses most
of the context that was obvious to participants during the
proceeding years. This results in an evaluation that justifies
the fees charged by the evaluators, but is of little use for
going forward.

Is there a place to start to correct this? My bets are placed
on the following:

1. At funding an eGov project should have dedicated funding for
a rolling evaluation that is linked to knowledge networking
clusters between those at various levels who are charged with
implementation the project, and delivering the services. This
includes an initial evaluation framework that is a “living
framework” where networking both refines it and acts on lessons
learned-and-shared in real time.

2. Seldom are there anywhere near the needed number of trained
personnel to roll out the project in the electronic venue. We
have one new initiative here (Ontario) that will have several
tens of thousands of service provides in over 100 clusters where
eGov initiatives should be essential. Instead there is zero
scope for knowledge networking even though each cluster will be
developing the same local services. Of those tens of thousands
of professionals in the initiative probably less than 100 have
even moderate skills for implementing the electronic dimensions
of the initiative. The training programs should be build in
conjunction with peer-to-peer and cluster-to-cluster knowledge
networking. Virtually none of that training is build into the
project, and there are no incentives for participants to bring
their skills up to speed (as well as no knowledge networking
“highways” for the to use those skills).

3. It is hard to know when governments will stop being seduced
by the sales pitches of ICT equipment and services providers.
Many of the online services sold to governments are inferior to
free versions available as online software applications as a
service (SAAP). It is understandable that the sales pitch over
sells the deliverables and under quotes the associated costs of
successful implementation, but that is why buyers (including
governments) are supposed to do their homework and their due
diligence.

4. Of course nothing can be done about the fact that governments
will stand before microphones and cameras and brag about all the
good things that will follow from their efforts. Seldom if ever
do they have to answer for the failures several years down the
road. They simply announce new initiatives (with wild promises)
and take credit for the initiative, but not the resulting failure
to deliver. (Greece has just burried a eGov eHealth project that
costs millions of Euros and had left virtually nothing in the way
of sustained deliverables.)

Can we get there from here? The simple answer is both “Yes” and
that it wouldn’t be hard if governments would (a) take peer-to-peer
knowledge networking seriously in the development and
implementation of projects, (b) use knowledge networking as part
of a training design and implementation strategy, and (c) use
knowledge networking for a rolling evaluation strategy where
lessons learned feed back into implementation.

Lastly, there need to be incentives for participation and
compliance both on the part of those involved in the eGov
service delivery, and for those who fund such initiatives.

Sam Lanfranco
York University
_____________________________________________________________________________