# ![](media/image1.png){width="2.8125in" height="0.6736111111111112in"}

# 

[[E-Government Best Practices]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}

[[An Implementation Manual]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}

[Murali Chidurala]{.smallcaps}

[Peter Kaminskas]{.smallcaps}

[Samir Pathak]{.smallcaps}

[Anjali Sridhar]{.smallcaps}

###### Segev Tsfati

[**Faculty Advisor:** Prof. David Darcy]{.smallcaps}

[Robert H. Smith School of Business]{.smallcaps}

[University of Maryland, College Park]{.smallcaps}

[May 2001]{.smallcaps}

**[Preface]{.underline}**

# The aim of this study, commissioned by the GSA's Office of Governmentwide Policy, was to develop an e-government 'implementation handbook'. This report is designed to address the needs of government officials seeking to implement e-government projects, or those already involved with such venture. It outlines key strategic issues that need to be considered and addressed in the implementation of technology based e-government initiatives. 

# 

# The study was conducted by a team of MBA students from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, College Park, under the guidance of Prof. David Darcy. In compilation of this report we have consolidated information obtained through interviewing individuals from government and industry associated with best practice projects; we have also used current studies and literature. We welcome questions regarding our research, findings or conclusions.

# Murali Chidurala <mchidura@rhsmith.umd.edu> 

# Peter Kaminskas <pkaminsk@rhsmith.umd.edu> 

# Samir Pathak <spathak@rhsmith.umd.edu> 

# Anjali Sridhar <asridhar@rhsmith.umd.edu> 

# Segev Tsfati <stsfati@rhsmith.umd.edu> 

May 2001

*"The best plan is only a plan, that is good intentions, unless it
degenerates into work. The distinction that makes a plan capable of
producing results is the commitment of key people to work on a specific
task."*

*Peter Drucker*

# **Table of Contents**

# 

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 5

Framework of Analysis 6

Legislative Context 8

Baseline Practices 10

Emerging E-Government Trends 11

Key Findings 14

Implementation Manual 22

Summary 35

Appendix I -- List of Interviewees 36

Appendix II -- Interviews and Cited Research 37

Appendix III -- Guidelines for Interview Questions 48

Appendix IV -- Additional resources 49

# **Executive Summary**

The goal of this study was to compile an "implementation manual" ---- a
"road map" to be used by government officials involved with e-government
projects (as managers, participants, or supporters). A review of
literature and publications, as well as interviews with individuals
associated with 'best-practice projects' as identified by the Office of
Governmentwide Policy's Office of Electronic Government and the
literature, provided us the basis for analysis.

##### Findings

**1.** **New legislative approaches to e-government stress interagency
cooperation** and the use of private sector project standards (e.g.
planning, budgeting, short time frames). At the same time, online
services evolve from being information-centric to service-oriented -- it
is clear that current and future end-users demands necessitate a move
away from static web presence listing policies, services, and procedures
to a *dynamic* presence -- centered around services provided from a
product perspective, regardless of the number of agencies involved.

**2.** **A clear distinction is between top-down and bottom-up
projects**: The former emerge as agencies respond to legislation or
directives by high-level agency officials; the latter emerge as agency
"line employees" -- those directly responsible for providing a service
-- devise new approaches to business processes.

**3.** **Eight areas --or "spheres of influence"- must be addressed by
project managers**: Political environment, leadership, budgets,
technology, stakeholders, "transparency"/visibility, planning, and
innovation. This concept was developed into a practical framework termed
"the Innovation Zone" to stress the key role innovation plays in making
projects succeed; guidelines to making innovation an organizational
capability are suggested.

##### **Conclusion**

As end-users increasingly demand the availability of *complete* online
services, e-government projects are being steered towards seamless
integration both within and between agencies. The legislative
environment further supports this demand. This is a unique moment in
time when uncertainties represent more opportunity than risk. Project
leaders can and should leverage the confluence of demands in the
implementation of new projects; key to success will be the alignment of
projects and programs with the new legislative environment and the
emerging needs. More important, you, the reader, can recast your agency
as an innovative trendsetter by adopting the recommendations herein.

# **Introduction**

The emergence of the Internet and the proliferation of connectivity in
the 1990s revolutionized many aspects of modern life, as distribution of
products and services became independent of physical limitations like
location or time of day and feasibility constraints like the need to
keep inventories or rely on intermediaries. Private sector organizations
were the first to identify and exploit these newly afforded
capabilities. In short order, information became cheap and ubiquitous
and service availability and accessibility increased exponentially.

The standards by which government agencies will be judged by, thus, have
been set by the private sector. At first, government Internet presence
and utilization revolved around making information available online.
Increasingly, however, the government has heeded end-user[^1] requests
to align the ways in which services are being provided with the
capabilities of this new communication medium. From permit issuance to
regulation enforcement to procurement, the Internet has provided an
alternative solution to past standard operating procedures and the
traditional division of responsibilities between different agencies.

Agencies at all levels of government, despite substantial disparities,
have shown signs of moving from a "stovepipe" model of delivering
services to a more "common face" approach. In the traditional
"stovepipe" model, each agency provides specific service regardless of
required interactions with other agencies involved in the complete
solution. In the "common face" approach, services become the core around
which web-based offerings are arranged, as agencies cooperate to provide
their part of the service through a single point of entry. Evidence for
this trend of service integration is the re-emergence and increased use
of portals by agencies seeking to provide a seamless user interface.

It is in this new environment that e-government projects are being
conceived and executed; it is this environment that dictates the new
rules of project management. This report provides an implementation
model based on review of best practice projects. The model outlines the
various components that need to be fully addressed (to a varying degree)
in the implementation of e-government project, provides examples of how
other agencies addressed these components, and suggests possible ways of
approaching implementation. It is intended for practical use by
individuals involved in e-government projects at all levels. It can also
be of benefit to those who see a need for change, allowing them to weigh
the pros and cons for becoming change agents.

# **Framework of Analysis**

The challenge of compiling a best practice implementation manual lies in
distinguishing the various roles played by the different individuals
involved in e-government projects. Further complicating affairs, is the
high degree to which roles and responsibilities are interchangeable
among team members, and the intertwined interactions with elements
outside the project proper.

A list of generic interview questions was developed and used in
interviewing government officials and private sector personnel.[^2]
These questions approached specific projects from the perspective of the
*life cycle methodology*. The major building blocks of this reiterative
model are:

-   Identification / Selection -- needs are identified; a proposed
    solution is selected.

-   Initiation / Planning -- project is initiated; planning commences.

-   Analysis -- study of systems and procedures generates alternative
    approaches.

-   Logical Design -- solutions are proposed and described; fit to
    overall project is evaluated.

-   Physical Design -- project structure finalized through modeling,
    prototyping, and scaling.

-   Implementation -- solution is deployed, tested, and pronounced
    operational.

-   Maintenance -- system performance maintained within specified
    optimum ranges.

Relating this paradigm to e-government, however, proved to be less than
satisfactory, as initial interviewing yielded several common dominant
themes *not covered by this model*. These included:

(a) Obstacles and different ways for overcoming them,

(b) Communicating and promoting projects,

(c) The effects of the political, internal, and external environments,
    and

(d) The management of resources.

Additional definitive themes that emerged from interviewing were:

(a) The primary role of legislation,

(b) The paramount importance of leadership, and

(c) The underlying need for employing innovative practices in
    approaching the various aspects of project management.

Interviewees delineated a clear distinction between top-down projects
that are initiated as a result of legislation or instructions from the
high levels of an agency, and bottom-up projects that are initiated by
divisions or groups who become aware of an opportunity to improve upon
current processes.

A separate issue that emerged was the reasons for failure of some
projects. These included:

(a) Politics as usual,

(b) The lack of resources, or

(c) Distinct management shortcoming -- an isolated, catastrophic event
    that by itself, and regardless of contingency planning, leads
    directly to failure (e.g. the departure of a dominant and
    irreplaceable leader; the failure of technology to live up to its
    promise).

A more complicated type of failure identified was systemic failure --
where several factors combine to create an insurmountable obstacle, or
sets of obstacles. This type of failure is more prevalent among
bottom-up projects that suffer from chronic lack of political support,
resources, funds, and personnel. It is important to note that sometimes
the lack of sufficient budgetary commitment contributes to the failure
of top-down inter-agency projects as well.

Beyond conducting interviews, a review of publications and research
papers was undertaken to gain insights into additional best practice
projects and the environment surrounding e-government. The legislative
arena shows clear impetus for e-government projects that stress
inter-agency service provision through a single point of entry. Existing
and emerging bills prioritize such projects. The e-government
environment also stresses the need to use private sector standards of
project management and execution, with several small-scale
demonstrations, pilots or proofs of concept.

# To conceptually pull together the above ideas---the deficiencies of the life cycle model as applied to e-government, the disparity between top-down and bottom-up projects, failure's cause and effect, and legislation---a list of influential factors that must be touched by project managers was compiled. This list was combined with the reiterative characteristic of the life cycle model and with project-external influences to create an implementation manual that represents a way of approaching e-government projects (see the Key Findings section of this report for both frameworks). The model was termed "the Innovation Zone" to stress that the application of innovative techniques to every aspect of project management is critical to (1) a successful navigation of obstacles and (2) the creation of synergistic opportunities among the different entities involved in a project. Also noteworthy is the merging of the needs of innovative and entrepreneurial bottom-up projects with the new legislative requirements, creating an opportunity to adopt the idea of innovation as a capability. 

# **Legislative Context**

Traditionally, the paramount impetus for government agencies to seek and
incorporate new technology has been legislation. Some of the significant
pieces of legislation that has driven agencies to implement new
technologies are:

-   The [Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of
    1993]{.underline} provided the initial impetus for government
    agencies to explore the role of the Internetworking in everyday
    operations. GPRA holds all federal agencies more accountable for
    their budgets; implementation efforts include strategic planning,
    benchmarking, and performance reports aimed at making agencies more
    customer-focused.

-   The [Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996]{.underline} required GSA to provide
    agencies with information on products and services available under
    multiple award schemes. Agencies are developing management,
    evaluation, and internal investment control processes to oversee the
    management of IT projects. Many of the internal monitoring systems
    developed are web-based.

-   The [Government Paper Elimination Act (GPEA) of 1998]{.underline}
    requires agencies to develop capabilities to permit electronic
    maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information, including use
    of electronic signatures. Agencies have until 2003 to develop and
    implement these processes.

-   The [FAIR Act (Federal Activities Inventory Reform) of
    1998]{.underline} requires federal agencies to provide inventory of
    all commercial activities undertaken inhouse. Following OMB review,
    agencies are required to examine practices and determine ways in
    which commercial activities not inherently governmental can be
    outsourced.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The [E-SIGN Bill (Electronic Signatures in Global and National
    Commerce Act) of 2000]{.underline} authorizes the use of electronic
    signatures in online contracts, making digitally signed electronic
    transactions legally binding, equivalent to handwritten signatures.
    States are preempted from deviating from E-SIGN, allowing for
    standardization in its acceptance.

While these acts and others are expected to remain the main
modernization drivers, agencies are increasingly aware of opportunities
to leverage the Internet's capabilities beyond what is mandated by law.
From a government-to-citizen perspective, for example, early-adopter
agencies display a distinct move from early information-laden web
presence to "second generation" sites that seek to provide citizens
looking for a particular service with a functional, single point of
entry *regardless of the number of agencies involved in providing this
service*.

Looking forward in this context, we find the following two proposals
symbolic of the new legislative/executive approach to e-government. Both
stress the need to focus on inter-agency projects that streamline
processes from the perspective of the end-user (citizen or otherwise)
and both implore agencies to use business-world practices:

-   The [E-Government Fund]{.underline} is a proposal by the new
    administration, aiming to allocate \$20 million in FY2002 and \$100
    million over the next three years to promote e-government
    initiatives. Managed by the OMB Deputy Director for Management, the
    fund will emphasize inter-agency projects, and will aim at the
    unification of procedures and processes *around* citizen needs. In
    addition, the fund will mandate the use of private sector
    performance measures, and project budgeting standards.

-   The [E-Government Bill]{.underline} is a comprehensive proposal by
    Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) that is gaining bipartisan support. It
    calls for the creation of a new office within the OMB---the "Office
    of Information Technology"---to be headed by a CIO reporting to the
    Director of OMB. The new office will control the annual allocation
    of \$200 million to inter-agency projects, with an overall goal of
    aligning citizen needs with services provided by agencies.

Regardless of the final shape, fiscal characteristics, or passage of
these and similar proposals, these two initiatives, at the very least,
are useful in that they indicate the future attitude to e-government
among the top levels of the executive and legislative branches.
Government agencies able to rearrange their IT operations to emulate
some of the basic principles common to these propositions will be able
to reap substantial benefits in the form of political power and support
of IT initiatives.

Innovation and the application of e-government best practices *must*
complement this recommended realignment of efforts. This report's
frameworks for understanding and applying innovation to e-government
projects, which were drawn from projects identified as "best practice",
are designed to turn the attention of individuals involved with projects
to the different, interrelated factors that could make a project
successful.

# **Baseline Practices**

While this report focuses on best practices derived from e-government
projects, it is important to note that in the final analysis, these are
derivatives and extensions of "classic" best practices. These factors
establish a baseline and are necessary but not sufficient conditions for
highly successful projects. The factors can be outlined as:

-   **Sufficient political support**, which is expressed through the
    dedication of budgets, resources, and other essentials.

-   **Leadership** committed for the duration of the project (or clear
    succession contingency plans), which must be (1) in possession of
    the required management skills, (2) able to formulate a clear
    compelling vision for the project, (3) able to align project goals
    with organizational goals, and (4) knowledgeable of the procedures,
    processes, or mechanism the project aims to improve upon or replace.

-   **Thorough and detailed planning** encompassing technical and
    business issues.

-   **Needs validation and customer base identification**, which is
    critical for the formulation of valid, attainable goals.

-   **The establishment of credibility** through the employment of sound
    control and evaluation procedures (for example the use of
    independent third party evaluators).

The above list contains project management principles proven time and
time again in a variety of different scenarios. From the perspective of
e-government however, it loses some of its effectiveness due to the
fluid characteristics of e-government implementation some of which are:

-   The much **higher number of stakeholders** and the increased need
    for lobbying and marketing-type activities.

-   Potential **complexities introduced by new technologies**.

-   **Competing technical standards**.

-   Possible **infringement on services provided by private sector
    companies**.

-   The **lack of common operating procedures**.

Thus, while e-government projects can certainly benefit from awareness
and adherence to the traditional management practices outlined above,
there is an apparent need for identification and dissemination of
current practices derived from a study of contemporary projects.

# **Emerging Trends in e-Government**

Above and beyond the traditional success practices listed earlier,
cutting-edge e-government projects repeatedly display common
characteristics:

1.  Public-private partnerships

2.  Alliances with stakeholders

3.  Interagency cooperation

4.  Defined and scalable milestones

5.  End-user focus

**1. Public Private Partnerships**

Forward-looking e-government projects exhibit reliance on public-private
partnerships. Cooperation with the private sector grows in importance as
technologies grow complex and government seeks to *mimic* ways in which
services are delivered in the private sector. The \"lack of clear
theoretical guidance regarding the separation between government and
business in a digital economy\"[^3] represents a significant challenge
for government. It is impossible to determine where along the
private-public continuum this separation will come to rest. It is
certain, however, that this subject will continue to remain at the top
of the priority list for policy makers and industry leaders, and
therefore that agencies are better off enhancing their skills in
creating and developing relationships with private sector entities.

There are practical, beneficial side effects to cultivating
relationships with private sector organizations as well. Government
project mangers can "recruit" experienced industry experts loaned by
their companies as part of their "social responsibility" agenda. The
expertise, leadership skills, and technical know-how imported thus can
allow e-government projects to make significant strides. The equipment
and resources made available by participating companies can ease some of
the technology and budget constraints. While there are legal and ethical
implications to such relationships, careful analysis of these potential
roadblocks often lead to the devising of ways to overcome these while
remaining in compliance. The imperative is to identify those companies
whose *interests* (not necessarily the winning of contracts -- the
goodwill these companies can derive from contribution to government
efforts is often compensation enough) *overlap with those of your agency
or department*, and cultivate relationships.

**2. Alliances With Stakeholders**

This seemingly apparent extension of the public-private partnership
concept is substantially significant to merit a separate category. It is
as important for an agency to identify other entities that can share the
risks and rewards of its e-government ventures, as it is to identify
companies. Developing strategic alliances all along the service spectrum
is crucial for the success of a project.

The term "stakeholders" refers to all entities that could possibly have
any interest in joining a project -- private-sector companies are
stakeholders, and so are other government agencies, employees, private
citizens, civic association, research institutes, etc. The forging of
stakeholder alliances is comprised of two parts: the identification and
the recruitment. When trying to identify stakeholders, the
organizational goal is to [not]{.underline} focus on who gets what
pieces of the pie, but on making the pie larger. This can be achieved by
[looking beyond]{.underline} the "usual suspects" -- beyond the
traditional pool of possible candidates for cooperation. When recruiting
stakeholders, the goal is first to identify if there is any overlap
between the project and the interests of the stakeholder group. Then, it
is necessary to ascertain if there is any possibility that the
particular stakeholder might object to the proposed project. Depending
on the answer to this question, the next move is to either propose
cooperation to stakeholders open for the idea, or convince potentially
hostile stakeholders of the inherent worth of the proposal.
Straightforward and open conduct of operations is critical for
establishing of credibility in this stage, and is especially vital when
considering the long-term implications on the reputation and standing of
your organization within its community of stakeholders.

**3. Interagency Cooperation**

Interagency projects, without exception, tend to be complicated,
protracted, and of mixed results. Yet the growing importance of
interagency cooperation cannot be stressed enough. While this dichotomy
makes the identification of specific best practices difficult, it is
clear that the sooner an agency adopts the required mindset for
interagency cooperation, the likelier it is that that agency will be
able to take advantage of the resources made available specifically for
interagency implementations.

When approaching the identification of possible cooperation, the main
question to ask is: Are there any new requirements---legislative or
need-based---that are placed upon other agencies that create new needs
that can be answered by the existing portfolio of e-government projects
managed by your agency? To actively answer this question, an emphasis
must be placed on the development and cultivation of formal and informal
networks across organizational boundaries. Concurrently, the
introduction and implementation of a clear communications plan (i.e.
making sure others are aware of ongoing projects, and putting a generic
spin on projects so that they can be related to by other agencies) can
assist in spreading the message.

**4. End-User Focus**

Put bluntly, a prerequisite for any project is that it answers a need
that is acutely felt by intended end users. Best practice projects go
beyond the idea of providing a service or a solution that is indeed in
demand - - they address the *delivering* aspect itself. From EDI versus
XML to digital divide implications, e-government projects must devise
new approaches to accessing intended end-users.

The role played by technology is both significant and positive. As means
of distribution become cheaper and standardized, new answers to old
problems are presented and tested on a daily basis. For example,
information kiosks that were cumbersome, non-interchangeable proprietary
machines, are being replaced by inexpensive PC-based, web-connected
workstations that are positioned in neighborhoods of low average
connectivity. Similarly, new interface technologies allow people with
serious disabilities (e.g. visual impairments) to access Internet-based
services.

The challenge for e-government project managers is to design solutions,
as well as their delivery, with a *complete* set of end-users in mind.
It can be conquered through careful planning, and especially through
paying attention to the changes in the end-user base that result from
project changes that are made "on-the-fly".

**5. Defined and Scalable Milestones**

The dovetailing of e-business and e-government practices is evident not
only in the blurring of the lines between services offered, but also in
the crossover of practices and processes. Founders of technology
startups that made a successful transition from an entrepreneurial
organization to a publicly traded company often cite the important role
of early institution of quarterly goals across all operating areas, from
marketing to product development. There is mounting evidence among best
practice e-government projects that the adherence to strictly defined
short time horizons, and the emphasis on prompt deliverable turnaround
is spreading through e-government. To stay ahead of the irrelevancy
curve and abreast of developing technology and changing end-user needs,
project leaders will have to focus on reiterative, short-term
implementation cycles that yield verifiable product.

# These five emerging e-government trends are distinct, and yet they clearly overlap on certain issues. This is a positive characteristic from an implementation perspective, as adoption of one or few makes the adoption of the rest not requiring a drastic leap of faith. By paying attention to each of these trends, e-government project leaders and participants can increase the likelihood of implementation success, as well as enhance the level of potential impact of the deployed system. 

# **Key Findings**

Our analysis of the (1) literature[^4] (2) interviews conducted and (3)
best practice e-government initiatives provided substantial insights
into the e-government project life cycle. These insights were reduced to
a fundamental set of common elements, or "spheres", that influence the
success or failure of a project. To assure project success, project
leaders must addressed these "spheres of influence" at the appropriate
stages of the project life cycle[^5]. They can be mapped as follows:

**1. Political Environment:** The political environment represents the
overall climate within which a project is conceived, initiated, and
executed. We have identified two general types of projects:

[Top-Down Projects]{.underline} are either (a) initiated by agency
executive/s, or (b) undertaken as part of fulfilling a legislative
mandate.

[Bottom-Up Projects]{.underline} are inspired by a need felt by a "line
person" - - an employee responsible for providing a certain service or
product, that is able to devise a more efficient process.

[Top-Down Projects]{.underline}

Potential efficiencies enabled by applying e-business processes to the
improvement of government services are prompting campaign promises of a
more efficient government. Furthermore, state and local agencies have
realized that websites and access to services improve the perception of
the government--citizen interaction. Governors and local officials have
placed the creation of government Internet interface in their list of
priorities. The Governor of Illinois, for example, has included
electronic government initiatives among his campaign pledges[^6].
Government officials may leverage such promises in the support of
e-government initiatives.

The other project initiation source is agency management at the
executive level -- a decision by high-ranking officials that control the
allocation of resources (funds, personnel, office space, equipment,
etc.) is as powerful a driver as the legislative mandate.

[Bottom-Up Projects]{.underline}

E-government initiatives are also developed within agencies as
"front-line" employees or departments (regardless of their hierarchical
status) recognize Internet enabled synergies. These change agents use
their familiarity with processes and end-user requirements to create and
develop innovative, localized projects that, *ideally*, gain attention
and support from within the agency. For these projects to succeed, the
value they generate must be easily quantified; small-scale design and
easy to perceive benefits, thus, must be integral.

[Importance:]{.underline} Political support holds the key for propelling
and sustaining all projects, those initiated by line personnel as well
as those mandated by Congress or agency executives. Project leaders must
continuously seek and cultivate political support to ensure resource
availability throughout the project life cycle. While this task may seem
initially less daunting for top-down project leaders, several factors
may diminish their ease of maintaining political support, compared with
bottom-up project lead: (1) size and scope of top-down projects; (2)
complexity, especially in technologically complex inter-agency projects;
and (3) internal and external conflicts of interests. It is imperative
for top-down project leaders to be aware of these factors, and to devise
appropriate contingency plans.

Bottom-up project leaders, on the other hand, do not benefit from the
by-default political sponsorship enjoyed by top-down project managers.
Rather, these change agents must identify and recruit idea champions --
high-level executives willing and able to commit to and sponsor the
project. The inherent resistance to change, and the overall bias towards
the status quo make the finding of sponsors difficult and precarious.
Nevertheless, it is clear that political support is of the chief
importance to the success of projects.

**2. Leadership:** Leadership refers to the project leader who steers a
project through the implementation process. Leadership of a project is a
sustained effort throughout the project life cycle. The "leadership
horizon" symbolizes the required continuity, and link between the (1)
political forces, (2) resource base, and (3) stakeholders -- a linkage
that must be established and maintained by the project leader.

Thus, there are several burdens that must be met by the project leader:

1.  The articulation of a clear vision that is compelling enough to
    rally subordinates, superiors, and the agency itself, as well as
    other stakeholders.

2.  The ability to construct a comprehensive project plan.

3.  The ability to "market" and "lobby" the project to executives, other
    agencies, intended end-users, and other stakeholders.

4.  The ability to recognize and overcome obstacles.

5.  An in-depth knowledge of business processes, which must take
    precedence over understanding of or familiarity with technology[^7].

6.  A basic understanding of the technology employed.

It is important to note the divergence from the original approach of
entrusting technology personnel with the ownership over technical
projects. While project leaders may come from the technology side of
operations, for them to succeed they must have a clear understanding of
the processes the project seeks to improve upon. For example, control
over the look and feel of web sites was at first delegated to the
technologists; as web sites' role evolve from mere information conduits
to service gateways, agencies discover that a more effective utilization
of web sites necessitates the bringing in of the people most familiar
with the particular service.

[Importance:]{.underline} Intuitively, leadership is ultimately
responsible for implementing executive orders or perceived needs. The
leadership can drive innovative solutions and convince agencies to share
in the innovation. Dynamic leadership can identify creative ways of
funding projects as well as making projects innovative to attract
budgets[^8]. Leadership is essential to developing the interests of
stakeholders and marketing the project successfully. By engaging a broad
array of stakeholders at various stages of the project, the project
leader can increase the likelihood of successfully overcoming the
departure of key stakeholders[^9]. The perception of a strong and
innovative leader is also important for establishing credibility. The
true test of leadership is the ability to nurture and build a cadre of
individuals capable of assuming the leadership in case of leader
departure[^10].

**3. Planning:** A comprehensive project plan, developed at the outset
of a project and constantly evaluated and modified throughout the
project life cycle, is critical for success. It is important to develop
creative and flexible plans that can accommodate unexpected occurrences,
and reflect the actual work and customer base of the project.

The planning process for an e-government initiative includes several
aspects of the project implementation. The planning should take into
consideration technical aspects of the development phase. This includes
elements like the use of public-private partnerships, security
procedures, transfer of technology, documentation, training, feedback
procedures, and scalability. Planning should also address marketing of
the project, resource planning, and evaluation mechanisms. An important
consideration is allowing for the incorporation of unique and innovative
features throughout all project phases.

[Importance:]{.underline} Planning is important in the development of
any initiative, and especially e-government initiatives that often cross
the boundaries of known organizational operating procedures into the
realm of the new and untested. Successful planning creates a common
basis for understanding key processes, competitive advantages, and
obstacles in a project. The articulation of project goals through the
planning stage is critical to the implementation and long-term success
of a project.

**4. Stakeholders:** Stakeholders are defined as every group of people
or organizations that has potential interest/s in the implementation of
a project -- other government agencies, employee unions, private
industry, not-for-profit organizations, associations, and so on.
Stakeholders may or may not be aware of the applicability of a project
to their distinct needs. One of the main responsibilities of project
leaders is to identify as many stakeholders as possible, and bring them
to pull in the same direction.

Stakeholders should be an integral part of any project. They include the
people who implement and maintain projects as well as those who end up
utilizing project outcomes. Stakeholders, of course, can undermine a
project by not implementing it appropriately ("destructive obedience")
or rejecting the proposed system or solution.

Stakeholders can be classified into four broad categories:

1.  **Employees** must be brought into the process. Project leaders must
    recognizing that 'institutional pain' is part of every
    organizational change, and design ways to overcome it: e-government
    initiatives are often feared as harbingers of staff reductions. To
    obtain the support of employees, it is necessary to address their
    concerns and assure them that their interests are met by the
    project. (i.e. projects must be designed to converge with employees'
    interests and concerns.)

2.  **Other Government Agencies** may have interests in the particular
    initiative that need to be included and considered. It is necessary
    to identify these identities and obtain the buy-in of key players
    inside other agencies. This will increase cooperation between
    agencies, and pre-empt turf wars; it may also increase the potential
    customer base.

3.  **Private Sector** interfaces with the government in several ways.
    Private contractors may be implementing e-government projects;
    private providers may be providing services from the government to
    individuals. It is thus important that e-government projects take
    into account the interests of these groups. The following
    private-public friction points are examples for the sometimes
    conflicting roles government and private enterprise play: (a)
    Delivery of mail/packages and the facilitation of e-payments
    (USPS); (b) Gathering and dissemination of financial data (SEC); (c)
    Consolidation and analysis of demographic statistics (Census
    Bureau); (d) Providing tax filing capabilities (IRS). The private
    sector may view as threatening projects that seem to overlap with
    already provided services. It is important to recognize the concerns
    of these commercial entities and align projects with these concerns
    in order to (at the very least) quiet the opposition, or even (at
    best) generate partnership opportunities.

4.  **Final End-Users** are the most critical group of stakeholders --
    answering end-user needs must be the goal of every project. The only
    way for e-government initiatives to generate high rates of adoption
    is to ensure that these needs are addressed in a substantially
    meaningful manner.

There are several ways stakeholders can be involved in e-government
projects. A commonly used method is through pilot or demonstration
projects, which are extremely useful for getting stakeholders involved,
as well as obtaining their buy-in. For example, the HHS-led Federal
Commons project, a portal aimed at standardizing online access to
grants, is currently in a pilot phase. This allows stakeholders to test
the project and identify interests. Developing an interest in the
project helps develop a committed customer base and thus muster
resources and budgets for full implementation[^11].

Another successful way for getting stakeholders involved, learning their
interests in a project, and obtaining their buy-in, is through
focus-group meetings. For example, the Access America for Students Task
Force used focus groups effectively to get inputs from stakeholders in
education financing. Multiple government agencies, private lenders,
universities, and students participated in focus group meetings
coordinated by a non-profit agency. This provided input to
implementation of a successful demonstration project[^12].

[Importance:]{.underline} The only way to justify an e-government
project, or any other initiative for that matter, is to identify a
substantially broad customer base that can justify the effort.
Ascertaining stakeholder interests can mould a project as user-friendly
both in terms of delivering services and obtaining services. Internally,
vested interests of several stakeholders can help mobilize budgets
faster and provide greater resources to a project. Externally,
stakeholders create the customer demand for services, providing a
project with the forward momentum necessary.

**5. Transparency/ Visibility:** Project transparency and visibility are
closely linked to the stakeholders. Transparency refers to the public
availability of documents that track and monitor the progress of a
project. Transparency and the public distribution of the strategic plan,
needs analysis, evaluations, etc. help establish the credibility of the
project and implementation process. External evaluation of a pilot or
development phase of a project ensures the legitimacy of the project and
its relevance to end-users[^13].

Not all projects must be inherently transparent in their
conceptualization and development stages. Often, cutting-edge projects
have too many variables, thus are too difficult for a large bureaucracy
to "digest". Rather, dynamic leadership is required to the garnering of
the budgets and resources needed for implementation. Once prototypes or
demonstration projects are developed, transparency mechanisms must be
engaged to assure the promotion of the project to its stakeholders.
Marketing mechanisms assists in the promotion of the project by creating
and developing customer bases across departments and agencies[^14].

[Importance:]{.underline} Branding and promoting a project is part of
implementing an e-government project; the marketing process should occur
both externally and internally.

**6. Budgets:** Budgeting involves obtaining the resources necessary for
the implementation of a project. It is, of course, at the core of the
development and implementation of any project. A previous study[^15]
summarized the different budgeting methods e-government initiatives can
be based upon.

Projects with high-level support often have basic budgets allocated to
them. Single agency projects often are able to obtain resources easier
than inter-agency projects. However, even within these environments,
budgets can be an obstacle in implementation[^16]. The lack of
sufficient budgets has been cited as the greatest obstacles projects
face: only 19% of projects initiated are able to overcome this
obstacle[^17]. In this context, it is critical for project leaders to
consider creative ways of resource generation. Often, innovative
projects capture the interest of agencies willing to invest in it;
successful pilot projects that create a customer base help attracting
funds[^18].

**7. Technology:** Technology is closely related to budgeting.
Technology used and processes implemented are integral to every
e-government process. The availability of funds dictate the technology
used in the development of an e-government project. For more on the
relationship between technology and budgets see the Implementation
Manual section of this report.

**8. Innovation:** Innovation is often referred to as a "Holy Grail" --
an elusive, intangible ingredient of business possessed by a lucky few.
Innovation, rather, stems from a set of clear directives that can be
applied by *any* organization, towards the solving of *any* problem.
Gary Hamel outlines the four key rules for innovation[^19]:

1.  Imagine -- generate new ideas

2.  Design -- construct models that transfer ideas to reality

3.  Experiment -- test small scale models

4.  Asses -- determine the probability of success

5.  Scale -- if project is judged to be "transferable" to full-scale

Innovative techniques should be applied to every sphere described in our
framework of analysis. Navigating the political environment, creative
budgeting and the use of technology, engaging stakeholders, planning and
marketing the e-government project can be done in unique ways, allowing
the establishment of 'brand identity'. It is important to keep the
benefits of a creative spirit in mind while designing and implementing
an e-government project.

# **[Implementation Manual]{.smallcaps}**

The following scheme is a pictorial representation of the major
dimensions influencing e-government project:

-   Idea Conception

-   Obstacles

-   Budgets and Technologies

-   External Environment

![](media/image3.png)

The creation of productive relationships between these "spheres" and the
various stages in the project life cycle holds the key for successful
project management. We use the term "innovation zone" for the gamut of
leadership activities, like planning, marketing to stakeholders,
gathering resources, and others, that must be successfully undertaken
throughout each reiteration as projects evolve from an idea through
proof of concept and demo stages to full scale implementation.

# **Idea Conception**: It is important to be aware of the differences between **Top-Down** executive directive or legislative mandate driven projects, and **Bottom-Up** perceived need driven projects. Some of the issues that can be addressed include:

-   Identify changes in the political environment that would be
    conducive for the project. (e.g. Federal Commons developed by Health
    and Human Services).

-   Develop a project that can take advantage of current political
    environment ***and*** further your our e-government strategy.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ensure that a successful project initiated, *even at a small-scale
    within a division,* will capture political interest. E.g. Employee
    Express developed by Health and Human Services is now being used by
    several Federal agencies.

# **Leadership and the Leadership Horizon:** The leadership task must be applied *throughout* the project life span. One big push isn't enough to sustain the team/project in the long run. A project leader is the key link between all aspects of the project -- the technical, budgetary, implementation and the marketing. A good leader should: 

-   Have a clear and articulate vision of the project trajectory.

-   Have a full understanding of the 'business' side of the project.

-   Be able to translate the business requirements to technical
    requirements.

-   Understand who all the stakeholders (existing and potential) in a
    given project.

-   Help overcome 'institutional pain'.

-   Reach out to several groups of stakeholders and build coalitions and
    alliances.

-   Market the idea sufficiently to garner resources and budgets.

-   Be an 'idea champion' who encourages experimentation and innovation.

[^20]

The foundation of planning for projects rests on five ideas:

1.  Systems approach -- planning for solutions that encompass all
    systems processes -- the input, output, internal processes and
    controls.

2.  The use of information technology.

3.  Process improvement.

4.  Private-public partnerships -- as a source for talent and resources.

5.  Empowerment -- of stakeholders from end users to project personnel.

*[Aspects of Overall Planning]{.underline}*

-   Identify end user and purpose of project

-   Map detailed steps and areas of operation necessary for
    implmentation

-   Create function-based plan rather than agency-based plan

-   Distribute plan widely and incorporate suggestions as appropriate

-   Keep in mind process improvement and complete solution as
    end-product

-   Process needs to be end-user focused

-   Examine use of public-private partnerships

The project plan should also layout a technical plan and a
communications plan that incorporate various aspects of the project. The
technical plan should include:

-   Evaluation plan of technologies and solutions to be used

-   Security, privacy and access control

-   Alignment with existing systems

-   Ability to scale, add functionalities, innovate

-   Ability to reduce paperwork

-   Transferability, maintenance, training -- documentation, help desk,
    FAQ etc.

-   Ability to identify well-defined processes that provide assessable
    results withing short periods of time[^21]

The Communications Plan should include:

-   Various proposed channels of communication to various stakeholders

-   Training plan for employees

-   Pilot systems with feedback mechanisms[^22]

-   Focus groups for input into development and/or implementation
    process

-   Marketing plan and public awareness campaigns to increase 'brand
    awareness' i.e. project awareness.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   
-   

## Stakeholders -- Stakeholders in a project range from top-level officials to employees to end-users. For the successful implementation of a project, stakeholders need to be engaged in several ways at various stages. In involving them, the project management needs to keep in mind:

## Who are all the stakeholders who may have vested interests in the project.

## What are the areas of influence of the various parties (resources, users, private institutions, political obstacles...).

## How can you develop and what are the channels of communication you need to get their buy-in. (e.g. Focus groups developed by Access America for Students)

## How do you address the needs and fears of employees and get their buy-in.

## How do you address the needs and suspicions of the end-users.

## How can you and do you need to demonstrate early that the project is aligned to the needs of the customers as well as the providers.

## How can you encourage network effects among stakeholders.

## Would 'development teams' with greater decision-making authority increase the interests of employees.

**Transparency, Marketing & Evaluation**-- Government projects need to
be transparent to gain credibility among its stakeholders. A more
transparent project can help gain the acceptance of the user groups as
well as employees. In order to maintain a level of public access to a
project, it is recommended that:

-   Projects have clearly developed and well distributed documentation
    like strategic plans, evaluations and marketing materials. (E.g.
    Access America for Students had clear documentation that showed
    reference to use of existing research and studies done on education
    financing. It utilized Department of Education's "wish list" in
    developing its own plan.)

-   Regular communication channels are maintained both upstream and
    downstream

-   Prior studies and analyses are used in the development of projects.

-   Pilot projects or proofs of concept are executed in short time
    frames to demonstrate early success.

-   Results from pilots are visibly incorporated in the next
    demonstration or implementation.

-   Outside evaluators (third-party) are utilized to evaluate
    demonstrations or implementation.

### Budgets and Technology Cycles

Budgets and the selection of technology for a project are closely
interlinked. Projects with sufficient budget allocation have the freedom
in selecting technology that is most suitable for the project as well as
being cutting edge. On the other hand, projects with insufficient or no
budget allocation are unable to experiment or choose the most
appropriate technology. Instead, they choose technologies that are
cost-efficient and able to provide an immediate solution.

Nevertheless, the threat of implementing "experimental" technology (i.e.
systems or solutions that have not been deployed or tested in live
environment conditions) can affect even the most carefully planned
implementations. Project leaders should carefully evaluate technology
demonstrations solutions and consider opting for proven technology in
most cases.

The scarcity of funds necessitates use of technologies that are:

-   In the public domain and readily available

-   Tested and proven (e.g. Employee Express at HHS which used kiosks
    and touch tone telephones)

-   Within skill set of available personnel

-   Require little to no support staff and user training

-   Easily distributed via existing channels (e.g. touch tone telephone;
    web browsers)

-   Compliant with existing systems; featuring easy integration.

A case in point is Colorado's Public Safety Department is rolling out
web based budget reporting system that reduces the amount of time it
takes to collect and analyze information form two weeks to 30 minutes --
using Microsoft SQL server and an off-the-shelf commercial application
-- all for less than \$100,000.

### Obstacles[^23]

An e-government project can face several obstacles within the
bureaucracy, at the political level or with outside entities. Some of
the obstacles can be defined as:

*[Within the Bureaucracy]{.underline}* (the Largest number of
obstacles):

-   Who takes ownership, responsibility and the lead in a project

-   Turf wars that lead to hHostility

-   

-   How do you keep enthusiasm for the project

-   How do you deal with issues of continuity of leadership, project
    champions

-   How do you overcome implementation difficulties regarding standard
    systems, legacy systems, budgets etc.

-   Union/middle management opposition

*[At the Political Level:]{.underline}*

-   Inadequate funding or allocation of resources

-   Legislative or regulatory constraints

-   Political opposition

-   Can services be justified in light of FAIR Act etc.

*[Outside Entities:]{.underline}*

-   Does the public trust the government in implementing an effective
    solution borrowed from the private sector?

-   

-   How do you reach the appropriate or complete audience in the face of
    the 'digital divide'?

-   How do you handle opposition from parties that may compete with the
    government in provision of certain services?

-   

#### Identifying and Overcoming Obstacle[^24]

A way to manage obstacles is for the idea champion/change agent to weigh
the following questions, thus identifying potential obstacles and
designing ways to overcome them:

*[Within Bureaucracies:]{.underline}*

-   Understand interests

-   Build coalitions; motivate players

-   Demonstrate projects

-   Communicate regularly

-   Train adequately

*[At the Political Level:]{.underline}*

-   Lobby legislature

-   Explore creative sources of funding

*[Outside Entities:]{.underline}*

-   Increase awareness and involvement

-   Enter partnerships

-   Address concerns and fears

Two general ways for dealing with these questions (with specific sets of
tactics for each specific issue) are:

*[Persuasion:]{.underline}*

-   Share benefits with potential opponents; find common ground in
    creation of win-win situations.

-   Demonstrate project.

*[Accommodation:]{.underline}*

-   Train affected parties.

-   Consult with affected parties.

-   Co-optation -- bringing opponents to participate.

-   Compensate losers (win-win, not zero-sum).

-   Attention to cultural issues.

*[Avoiding "strong arm tactics"]{.underline}*

Success depends on the ability to take objections seriously and
responding accordingly:

-   Finding additional resources.

-   Effort and persistence.

-   Resolve logistics.

-   Alliance building.

-   Clear vision.

-   Recognize participants.

Some particular tactics that can help overcome obstacles are outlined
below:

a)  Legal mandates:

    -   Will the new innovation require changes to current laws?

    -   How difficult will it be to push legislation if so?

b)  Organizational capabilities:

    -   If an interagency project, what are the ongoing relationships?

    -   Is there a history of rivalry? Will there be fights over
        control?

c)  Opposition by core agencies:

    -   How do you motivate key participants?

    -   How do you manage volunteers?

d)  Resources availability and the cost of innovation:

    -   How much is it going to cost?

    -   Where can funds come from (appropriations vs. private sector
        donation or participation)?

    -   Are user fees a possibility?

e)  Implications of using new technology:

    -   Are there legacy system issues?

    -   Will the implementation new technology result in job losses?

    -   What is the level of user training required?

f)  Attitudes of different stakeholder groups:

    -   Cooperation depends on bringing stakeholders together, on
        mitigating interest conflicts.

g)  The difficulty level of reaching the target audience:

    -   Are there special needs?

h)  Public skepticism and/or opposition:

    -   Could there be security and privacy implications?

    -   Will a public/private partnership make the public view govt. as
        colluding with profit-driven private sector?

### 

-   
-   
-   
-   
-   
-   

### 

### External Environment

A project is finally developed to service a group of end-users, whether
they are citizens, employees, private institutions or other government
agencies. In managing and involving this external environment, project
leaders need to develop strategies to mediate with these organizations.
Some tactics are:

-   Entities within the department -- manage the political implications
    of the project.

-   Other agencies within your government level -- share and try to
    achieve buy-in.

-   State, local, and regional government bodies that may be affected --
    approach, inform, recruit.

-   Public sector service providers feeling encroached by new project --
    adjust to/ accommodate concerns.

-   Industry groups -- seek support, offer goodwill, stress pro-bono
    aspects.

-   Grassroots organizations, civic committees, non-profits,
    associations -- mobilize; seek commitment of time, money,
    resources[^25].

Each of these entities could be a potential ally or adversary -- the
leadership challenge is to identify:

1.  Willing potential partners -- "offer" partnership.

2.  Potential partners not yet aware of the mutual confluence of needs
    -- "sell" partnership (through identifying and bringing to their
    attention dovetailing interests).

3.  Adversaries that cannot be converted -- minimize friction points;
    remain below radar coverage as long as possible; adjust operations
    to negate objections.

#### "Innovation Zone"

E-Gov initiatives, big and small, have been implemented as a result of
leadership being able to "think outside the box", take risks, and
implement. Some examples include:

-   Washington State' *Digital Government Applications Academy*, an
    "extra-territorial" agency where government officials from various
    agencies convene to devise innovative solutions for problems shared
    by their respective organizations[^26]. Projects that emerged
    included electronic forms for permit issuance processes and the
    development of an "application development template" that can be
    used outside the Academy. Participants engage in experimental
    activities, brainstorming, and other planning and design activities,
    and meet with outside experts, all undertaken in order to facilitate
    moving at "near-Internet speed".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In Montgomery County, Maryland, web-connected kiosks and
    workstations are to be positioned in schools and housing agency
    offices. These 'next generation' kiosks are simpler to operate and
    maintain than non-standard first generation systems.

-   In Phoenix, workstations with assistive technologies for visually
    and auditory impaired are at libraries, senior citizens center and
    community centers.

One important lesson that can be drawn from these examples revolves
around the identification of simple technologies that can be used
effectively for a customer base. Another focuses on the ability to
identify how and where solutions can get high penetration rates among
the intended users, and the ability to implement it in those areas.

Innovation and innovative practices can be established in an
organization as a capability. A study of 300 award-winning e-government
projects from an innovation perspective revealed five major
characteristics of successful innovation[^27]:

(1) The use of systems approach -- especially in large-scale service
    integration projects. This requires clear political mandates --
    either force all to participate, or "build it and they will come")

(2) The use of new information technology:

    -   NYPD - providing databases organized by precincts to better
        discern trends.

    -   HUD -- development of a Geographic Information System enabling
        to see the interaction of local community programs.

    -   FEMA -- developed Consequences Assessment Tool Set that enables
        forecasting disasters' impact.

> Due to the high costs of failures, an emerging trend is the
> development of low-cost prototypes.

(3) Improvement upon processes -- using the 80-20 Pareto Rule.

(4) Involvement of private/voluntary sectors

(5) Empowerment of communities, citizens, or staff -- by showing greater
    tolerance of risk, for example.

The study found that the most frequent initiators of innovative
practices are middle managers and frontline staff. This goes against
conventional wisdom that middle management is an impediment to
innovation. The study provides 7 concrete advices to managers seeking to
enhance level of innovation inside their organization:

(1) Support innovative culture from the top. (E.g. Department of Labor
    under Reich):

    a.  Establish departmental awards.

    b.  Bring together career staff and politicians.

    c.  Let staff share the limelight (e.g. Presidential signing
        ceremonies)

(2) Reward (bonus, promotion):

    a.  Merit pay.

    b.  Awards given by department or even outside organizations, like
        the Ford-Kennedy School of Government's Govt. Innovation Award.

    c.  Royalties for cost-saving ideas (In Canada, innovative practices
        that result in cost-savings for the government result in
        'profit-sharing\' - 65% of the savings go to the department and
        35% to the innovator).

(3) Alternate and creative ways of resource allocation:

    a.  Start an Innovation Fund. Philadelphia, Oregon and Florida have
        successes with this initiative.

    b.  Establish "Skunk Works" sections where people are given the
        freedom to tinker with new ideas (The Technology Department of
        IRS encourages new ideas this way)

(4) Diversity enhances ability to see things differently -- the greater
    the number of different backgrounds, the likelier it is that new
    ideas and approaches could be generated.

(5) Look outside government boundaries:

    a.  Professional publications.

    b.  Conferences and workshops.

    c.  Outside experts.

    d.  Site visits.

    e.  Benchmarking.

    f.  Participating in professional networks.

    g.  Have participants in outside events conduct internal learning
        seminars.

(6) Draw ideas from all hierarchical levels.

For example, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
decided to cross-train its inspectors to look at overall environmental
impact of projects. They moved from function-specific training,
inspectors looking for air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution,
to an integrated approach of looking at pollution. This helped them see
the links between different kinds of pollution more effectively and made
the inspection more effective.

(7) Innovative organizations effectively:

    a.  Experiment and evaluate these experimentations:

    b.  Lower the cost of failure to preclude

    c.  Know how to discontinue failures in an honorable way

![](media/image4.wmf){width="4.285416666666666in"
height="2.767361111111111in"}In "Leading the Revolution", Gary
Hamel[^28] provides a reiterative framework for viewing innovation as a
process:

**Imagine:**

-   *[Embrace unreasonable expectations]{.underline}* -- it will force
    you to think in new ways.

-   *[Elastic definition of roles.]{.underline}* Look at what you know
    and own, not at the things that you do. Ask yourself and your
    colleagues the following questions:

    a.  Who we are?

    b.  Where is the opportunity to make an impact?

    c.  What are the things we think we cannot do?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *[You are a cause champion -- ask:]{.underline}* what is the
    difference I want to make? Infuse a sense of purpose in the
    organization.

**Design:**

-   *[Listen to all voices.]{.underline}* Newcomers add a different
    perspective to entrenched thinking.

-   *[Create an "Idea Exchange" - an "Idea Bank"]{.underline}* that
    could be mined for true innovative suggestions.

-   *[Enable funding of pilots and demos.]{.underline}*

-   *["Cellular Division"]{.underline}* -- keep units small and focused
    around innovation rather than existing ways of doing business.

**Experiment:**

-   *[Allow your best people to investigate with new idea.]{.underline}*
    Just looking at the trends will indicate where are the areas that
    deserve your attention.

-   *[Low-risk experimentation.]{.underline}* Make failure safe. Many
    small-scale experiments are not to be viewed as "insignificant" but
    as sources for potentially significant impact.

-   *[Reward the risk takers]{.underline}*

**Assess** -- and if "go" -- **Scale,** and Repeat.

# **Summary & Conclusion**

The *Innovation Zone* and *Spheres of Influence* frameworks are designed
to turn the attention of government officials involved in e-government
projects to various issues requiring their consideration. As such, they
represent *one possible way* of seeing e-government projects at any
stage of the project life cycle -- a way that promotes the use of
non-traditional perspectives and operating procedures.

Perhaps the most important takeaway from this study is the role of
innovation in the formulation and execution of e-government projects.
The guidelines provided herein may serve as blueprint for the
introduction of innovation as a capability. Early adopter organizations
are already at work eliminating traditional agency boundaries. The
message they send is clear:

-   Promote an environment welcoming non-traditional idea generation.

-   Encourage and assist experimentation.

-   Enable change through the establishment of appropriate reward
    system.

-   Create a culture that thrives on trial and error and accepts
    small-scale failure as a legitimate learning tool, thus
    acknowledging the inherent high rate of failure in advanced
    technology initiatives

The people most capable of innovation are those that are at the front
line of customer service. They are at the periphery of the organization
and have not succumbed to business as usual. Innovation thus, draws on
the organization's ability to encourage diversity and provide a space
for safe interaction, regardless of rank or seniority. One possible way
of promoting this process is the creation of anonymous idea exchanges.

Embracing innovation as the major approach to the design and
implementation of e-government projects is not an alternative -- it is
an imperative of the first degree. Just as the application of Internet
technology to all facets of operations revolutionized ways in which
industry conducts business, so does it stand to wreck havoc on
organizations clinging to the old ways of doing business as usual. The
double upside is that while adopting this organizational frame of mind
is admittedly difficult, once implemented this approach to operations
will allow government to do more----and better----with less,
simultaneously satisfying end users needs and legislative sanctions.

# **Appendix I:** **Interviews Conducted**

1.  P.K. Agarwal, NIC Commerce. Telephone interview conducted by Samir
    Pathak on March 19, 2001.

2.  David Andersen, Ariba. Interview conducted by Murali Chidurala on
    February 26, 2001.

3.  Eric Brenner, Illinois Federal Clearinghouse. Interview conducted by
    Anjali Sridhar on April 23, 2001

4.  Jean Bryan, Office of Information Technology Services, State of
    North Carolina. E-mail and Phone correspondence with Peter
    Kaminskas.

5.  Jennifer Duncan, Veterans Administration. Interview conducted by
    Segev Tsfati on March 2^nd^, 2001.

6.  John Hart, Liquidation.com. Interview conducted by Peter Kaminskas
    and Samir Pathak on April 3^rd^, 2001.

7.  Katherine Hansen, Council for Excellence in Government. E-mail
    correspondence with Anjali Sridhar.

8.  Bryan Hochstein, QuickHire. Interview conducted by Murali Chidurala
    on March 12, 2001

9.  Richard Kellett, General Services Administration. E-mail
    correspondence with Segev Tsfati.

10. Steve Mahaney, Health and Human Services. Interview conducted by
    Anjali Sridhar and Segev Tsfati on April 11, 2001.

11. Michael Moore, Veterans Administration. Interview conducted by Segev
    Tsfati on March 2^nd^, 2001.

12. Elizabeth Phillips, Health and Human Services. Interview conducted
    by Anjali Sridhar and Segev Tsfati on April 11, 2001.

13. David Temeshok, General Services Administration, Access America for
    Students Task Force. Interview conducted by Anjali Sridhar on March
    18, 2001.

14. Tony Trenkle, Social Security Administration. Interview conducted by
    Segev Tsfati on March 12^th^, 2001.

15. 

**Appendix II: Interview Summaries**

**[Case Study #1:]{.underline}**

####### Source: Illinois Federal Clearinghouse

**Contact: Eric Brenner**

**Date: April 23, 2001.** *Interview conducted by Anjali Sridhar.*

**Category:** The Illinois Federal Clearinghouse provides information on
Federal grants that can be accessed by the state and local governments.

**Description:** The State of Illinois realized that it has been unable
to attract the maximum Federal dollars available in grants and
procurements. While Federal disbursements to states for the payment of
Medicare, Medicaid Social Security etc. cannot be controlled by the
states, they can influence the Federal dollars coming in by way of
grants and procurement. As part of his campaign promise two years ago,
the Governor of Illinois committed to improve information dissemination
about Federal grants available. This would allow state and local
agencies more information and easier access to specific grants.

The Federal Clearinghouse had a very basic purpose -- increase the
inflow of Federal dollars. To this end, the implementation of the
Clearinghouse involved developing a website that consolidated
information from several agencies regarding available Federal grants. As
it was a project that agencies did not see as a threat to their core
operation, they were willing to participate in both providing
information and in providing technical support and other resources. As
the project was a low-budget effort with the use of standard technology,
there was no need to involve private partners in the effort. The project
did not face budgetary constraints. The Federal Clearinghouse was very
quick in implementing a tangible product available for its users within
a short period of time.

The management and the confluence of political interests in the Federal
Clearinghouse project were essential in its achieving its end. The
Governor publicly endorsed the need for a process of information
dissemination regarding Federal grants. The agencies and other players
in the state saw the opportunity to attract greater Federal funding and
were willing to cooperate. Importantly, the money and not technology
drove the project. Accordingly, the manager was someone who came from
the core operations of the agency rather than the technology side of the
business. The uniqueness of the project lies in the fact that even
though it is so simple to implement, no state has provided such
consolidated information before.

**Key Takeaways:**

-   Know the Customer -- Need to have a customer base that wants the
    project to happen.

-   KISS -- Be sure that you can deliver on promises. Break down
    processes into parts you have control over and can be counted as
    distinct, measurable output.

-   Leadership -- The right people need to run the show. The management
    should not rest solely in the technology division.

-   Political Factors -- Need to be able to translate project need into
    political need. Even if you upset a few people, important to break
    down complicated single-agency systems.

-   Allow project to be scalable to different levels.

-   Utilize other technologies and infrastructure if more applicable
    i.e. Federal Commons will achieve goals of Illinois Federal
    Clearinghouse making the latter obsolete.

**[Case Study #2:]{.underline}**

####### Source: Access America for Students (AAFS)

**Contact: David Temeshok, GSA**

**Date: March 16^th^, 2001.** *Interview conducted by Anjali Sridhar.*

**Category:** Access America for Students (AAFS) is a student gateway
for all information and services provided by the Federal government
relevant to education. It is the combined effort of several Federal
agencies along with universities, lending institutions etc.

**Description:** Access America for Students (AAFS) is an initiative set
up to provide easier access to information and services essential to
post-secondary students. The ***students.gov*** portal displays the
'common face of government', acting as the "yellow pages" for student
related services offered by the Federal government. This initiative has
been an inter-agency development pulling together all agencies involved
in the provision of student financial services. These include the
Department of Education, Labor, Treasury, Internal Revenue Services,
Social Security, Veterans Affairs etc. AAFS is a public/private
partnership and included universities, lenders, non-profit organizations
and private businesses in its development.

AAFS was implemented through a task force set up to include
participation from several constituents involved in student financial
aid. A non-profit organization experienced in bringing together focus
groups was responsible for creating a Partnership Forum. This Forum
allowed several constituents to participate in different ways. While
some agencies were involved in the Task Force and the design and
development of AAFS, the input from other agencies, universities and
private entities was solicited through the Partnership Forum. Further,
the Partnership Forum was open to all to attend.

The AAFS Task Force did not have budgetary or resource constraints. The
structure of a task force allows for easy passage of budgets for
experimental work. It also had high level political blessing that
ensured the cooperation of several government agencies.

**Key Takeaways:**

-   Do not reinvent the wheel -- Utilize existing studies and
    information. This allows project to move faster and buys credibility
    with agencies whose studies you use.

-   Be transparent in your deliverables -- Documents like Strategic Plan
    and Evaluation Reports should be visible to show customers and
    stakeholders where you want to go with the project. This increases
    accountability with implementation as well.

-   Stakeholders -- Make sure that they are involved from the outset.

-   Public-Private Alliances -- Utilize the private sector in areas they
    have proven competitive advantages in. Do not attempt to replicate
    processes that can be outsourced.

-   Pilot Project -- Provide a demonstration project that is fully
    capable as a stand-alone project as well as easily scaled up for
    full implementation.

-   'Institutional Pain' can cripple the project if not effectively
    addressed during the planning and implementation of the
    demonstration.

**[Case Study #3:]{.underline}**

####### Source: Health and Human Services

####### Contact: Elizabeth Phillips

**Date: April 11^th^, 2001.** *Interview conducted by Anjali Sridhar and
Segev Tsfati.*

**Category:** Federal Commons is a portal for Federal e-Grants.

**Description:** The Federal Commons is a grant management portal that
provides grant-seekers with access to different Federal grants through a
single point of entry. It simplifies the grant-giving process through
electronic processing. It allows for standardization of the grant
application process across several agencies, providing grant-seekers
with a single user-name/password point of entry and single set of
functionalities.

Technology has been the big driver for the Federal Commons project. Most
electronic grant applications were processed through electronic data
interchanges (EDIs). Large institutions invested in mainframes and
terminals that supported grant applications through this process.
However, several small grant seekers did not have access to the
electronic grant process. The prevalence of the Internet has facilitated
the development of the Federal Commons to serve as an interface between
EDI technologies and Web technologies. The portal provides a standard
point of entry for easy access to Federal grants.

The Federal Commons has received much political visibility and goodwill.
The previous administration supported the project and the current
administration has includedits full implementation in plans to Congress.
While the political climate for the Federal Commons is favorable, it is
still at its demonstration phase. The greatest challenge the project has
faced is the lack of ownership of the project. This has resulted in the
Federal Commons not receiving the necessary budgetary allocation to be
fully implemented.

The lack of budgetary resources has led to problems of technology and
management. Without full-time staff or adequate revenue to support the
technology needed to implement Federal Commons, the project has been
unable to obtain the necessary results. Several pilots have demonstrated
its usefulness to state and local governments as well as non-profits and
other organizations, and Federal Commons is now obtaining the buy-in of
all the Federal agencies involved in the grant-giving process. By not
adequately addressing this group of stakeholders, the Federal Commons
would have been restricted in its penetration in the e-grants world.

**Key Takeaways:**

-   Stakeholders -- Know and address every group of stakeholders. They
    hold the key to your resources as well as customer base.

-   Political Visibility -- Visibility at an early stage may set
    expectations high, but begins a process of political support for the
    project.

-   Technology -- Explore solutions that cover people who have made
    large investments as well as future users.

-   Leadership -- Large projects like this need strong project
    coordination.

**[Case Study #4:]{.underline}**

####### Source: Health and Human Services

**Contact: Elizabeth Phillips**

**Date: April 11^th^, 2001.** *Interview conducted by Anjali Sridhar and
Segev Tsfati.*

**Category:** Employee information kiosks and touch tone telephones to
automate Human Resources function

**Description:** Along with the rest of HHS, the Human Resources
Department was facing a shrinking workforce. With no one replacing
people retiring, it increased the workload on HR functions throughout
HHS. In order to alleviate this pressure on the workload, the HR
Department was looking for innovative solutions.

Touch tone telephones and kiosks are located everyone in the HHS
building. They provide employees the ability to view and manage their
personnel related information automatically. The project grew
organically and employees were involved in developing the final product.
Employees were engaged in the process in several ways:

-   The name "Employee Express" provided a positive connotation of how
    it would enhance services to them.

-   Focus groups were used to develop proper systems and generate and
    vet ideas.

-   Internal programming and development encouraged the IT people to
    think innovatively.

The leadership of the project helped promote and keep the momentum of
it. The manager used personal interest and potential success to motivate
employees, gain recognition politically and align various aspects of the
projects to ensure its success. The low budget nature of the project and
its ability to use existing technology allowed it to be viewed as a
natural extension of existing system rather than an overhaul. The use of
foolproof technology, easily accessible to all employees, allowed for a
quick and successful turnaround.

The successful adoption of Employee Express through HHS and several
other agencies provide several key insights into an implementable,
low-budget best practice.

**Key Takeaways:**

-   The project was not viewed as a threat by people within the
    organization, reducing resistance.

-   It used networks (focus groups) built during earlier projects,
    increasing the sense of ownership.

-   It used ideas of 'brand management' and 'image management' to
    increase its penetration into the whole agency and other agencies.

**[Case Study #5:]{.underline}**

####### Source: Social Security Administration

**Contact: Tony Trenkle**

**Date: March 12^th^, 2001.** *Interview conducted by Segev Tsfati.*

**Category:** Channel convergence (online process migration)

**Description:** The Social Security Administration (SSA) is one of the
most forward-looking agencies. As a rule, its projects are top-down;
accordingly, planning is structured and strategic in nature. The
drawback is that the strict environment makes innovation challenging.

Project selection is utilitarian; not all projects, however, are taken
from this greatest benefit to the greatest number perspective.
Development is done in-house; the three most significant issues are (1)
legacy systems, (2) authentication and security, and (3) development of
goals and specifications. The assistance or advice of public sector
entities is usually easily available.

Project life cycle issues are as follows:

-   Internal versus Interagency projects: for an intra-agency project,
    the buy-in of top management is critical. Coordination between the
    different elements of the agency is also important. The designation
    of one group as lead is thus key to avoiding turf wars. Interagency
    projects' success depends on the clear establishment of roles and
    responsibilities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Funding.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Final product assessment is best accomplished through an independent
    third-party evaluator.

One project that illustrates the pilot approach to the development of
solutions is the channel convergence proof of concept (POC). The pilot's
objective was the evaluation of private sector technology applicable to
the integration of call centers and the web.

It is important to design answers around the customer's needs, and to
confirm that customers are interested in these technologies/capabilities
in the first place. Customers identified web chat, web collaboration,
and call back as most useful among the technologies evaluated. Solutions
of these types, furthermore, required little training for both end-users
and customer service representatives (CSR).

Technical evaluation should look at the following aspects: scalability
-- the solution's ability to "grow" with the organization's needs;
integration and interoperability; security; and section 508 compliance.
KPMG was brought in as an outside evaluator of the technology,
operational, customer's and CSR's perspectives.

**Key Lessons:**

Commercial off the shelf (COTS) products are applicable to SSA needs;
mature technology can be adapted and applied. Legacy and security
issues, in both the policy and technology level, will have to be
addressed prior to any actual implementation.

**[Case Study #6:]{.underline}**

####### Source: US Department of Veterans Affairs

**Contact: Michael Moore, Jennifer Duncan**

**Date: March 2^nd^, 2001.** *Interview conducted by Segev Tsfati.*

**Category:** Digital Divide issues among veteran population

**Description:** The Department of Veterans Affairs uses technology to
increase access to services for the veteran population. It takes
advantage of the legislative environment to create opportunities and
provide technology training to its constituents.

Nurturing the project from conception to execution, in the unique
environment, is dependent upon the creation of a flexible definition of
the project as a scalable project; success can be achieved through the
creation of a network effect

**Key Lessons:**

-   Success factors:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Flexible project definition -- the project goals can be modified to
    fit changing environments i.e., as a new budget is proposed, project
    team can identify the agencies that are in a sudden need for ideas,
    and bring them onboard (dependant on "no strings attached" offering)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Relationship redundancy and inclusiveness -- relationships are
    forged with more than one entity within each set of constituents.
    For example, as many as 7 veteran associations are directly
    involved; the feedback of many others is encouraged

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Experience and access to a wide community of veterans in virtually
    all parts of society

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Knowledge management cannot be seen as the panacea for the
    identification of pertinent private-public initiatives

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Diplomacy and transparency are key when trying to bring onboard
    additional players; signing up other agency requires both a need and
    solution scarcity

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Innovative Practices:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Loaned Executives -- high-level private sector officers (Verizon,
    SAIC) volunteer time and efforts with no expectation of rewards.
    Responsible for doing many of the things that VA personnel cannot
    pursue due to a variety of reasons:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Solicit donation

-   Recruit new organizations and key persons outside the reach of VA
    managers

-   Applying experience and knowledge gained in private sector
    initiatives to public sector problems

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Organic Structures -- key for project survival (and, eventually,
    success) from inception to maturation. Projects can be protected -
    and defended from attacks originating from inside or outside the
    agency -- through:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The creation of three dimensional networks of stakeholders

-   The generation of interest among other agencies and the proactive
    identification of unanswered needs

-   "Quiet Period" modus operandi -- providing the project team with an
    environment that is clean of interference (political,
    organizational, etc.)

**[Private Sector Insights]{.underline}**

**[Case Study #7:]{.underline}**

**Organization: Ariba**

**Contact: David Anderson.** *Interview conducted by Murali Chidurala.*

**Takeaways: Promotion of a project is key to the success of the
project**

**Summary:**

-   **Leadership & Project Management:** Projects involve more than one
    party/contributor, thus role and responsibility mapping is key to
    avoid problems.

-   **Project Management:** Scope creep is to be avoided at all costs,
    as it leads to delays, budget over runs, decline in enthusiasm and
    potential irrelevance of project.

-   **Financing:** Different financing models work in some cases, e.g.
    an e-procurement system, but third private party usually is
    involved.

-   **Innovation:** Success stories in other agencies- private parties
    are usually the propagators, especially if it fits their offering.

######### [Case Study #8:]{.underline} 

**Organization:** NIC Commerce

**Contact:** P.K. Agarwal. *Interview conducted by Samir Pathak.*

**Takeaways:** Insight to the following areas: Leadership, Governance,
Architecture, Time-Boxing, Marketing, Simplicity

**Summary:**

-   **Leadership and Vision:** 8 Imperatives for leaders:

1.  Focus on how IT can reshape work and public sector strategies

2.  Use IT for strategic innovation, not simply tactical automation

3.  Utilize best practices in implementing IT initiatives

4.  Improve budgeting and financing for promising IT initiatives

5.  Protect privacy and security

6.  Form IT-related partnerships to stimulate economic development

7.  Use IT to promote equal opportunity and healthy communities

8.  Prepare for digital democracy

-   **Governance:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Identify and bring together the community of stakeholders to
    establish enterprise-wide policies on various issues.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Architecture:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Component based architecture suits best for scalability requirements
    and developing role based applications.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Branding of system and system components is important for success

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Time-Boxing:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Demonstrating progress starting early and throughout the
    implementation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Keep granularity of project components and ensure timely delivery of
    these components

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Marketing:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Marketing of project is a critical factor in project success.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Simplicity:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It is important to keep technology as simple as possible.

-   Any high-end technology solution should fit into criterion of "What
    does it do for me?"

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Let the customers be the drivers for project initiative.

-   Good understand of funding models is critical to ensure timely
    executions and avoid failures.

-   Security and privacy issues should be dealt with in the very
    beginning.

-   Adoption is the primary measurement of success. Redefining the value
    is also important in doing success measurement. He gave examples of
    doing certain extra things that are not expected in governance, but
    IT enables us to do that.

**Relevant readings:**

http://www.govtech.net/publications/gt/2000/mar/pov/notesfromthefield.phtml

http://www.ec3.org/InfoCenter/1999_Survey_Results/Blueprintv3.pdf

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/stratcom/hpg/eightimp.pdf

**Case Study #9:**

**Organization:** Quickhire

**Contact:** Bryan Hochstein. *Interview conducted by Murali Chidurala.*

**Takeaways:** Motivation factors for departments, budget process, First
step

**Summary:**

-   Key Issues**:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Unclear requirement

-   Personnel

-   Deadlines not met

-   Scope Creep

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Key obstacle:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Once everything is in place, people get cold feet. What happens if
    we fail?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fear of failure and implied prosecution

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Motivation factors for departments:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Success stories

-   Need to do job better -- Managers

-   Lost staff members and so have to be more efficient

-   Knowledge of IT not sufficient and hence outsource.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The budget process is a major issue with managers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Generally a one-year process.

-   Most projects start with the year-end funding surplus.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Company's solution for multi agency projects

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Minimize customization

-   Try to simplify guidelines

-   Develop 5-6 flavors maximum

**Case Study #10:**

**Organization:** Liquidation.com

**Contact:** John Hart. *Interview conducted by Peter Kaminskas and
Samir Pathak.*

**Takeaways:** Helping to identify successful eBusiness initiatives
while he was with the GSA.

John Hart served previously in the U.S. General Services
Administration's Office of Electronic Government. He now is a staff
member of Liquidation.com.

**Summary:**

-   Managed a study of the disposition of public assets across the
    federal government. At the request of the Interagency Governmentwide
    Asset Sales Team, led a team of analysts who developed a
    governmentwide strategy for disposal of public assets.  This
    strategy was presented to OMB in an effort to obtain a champion of a
    pilot project for streamlining the disposition of public assets.   

-   The team approach underscored the importance of establishing a
    business case to highlight the opportunities for other agencies.

-   At Liquidation.com, the company's role is to provide governmentwide
    strategic initiatives for streamlining the process for disposing of
    public assets and improving public access to information about
    available classes of assets, agency disposition plans, schedules,
    locations and methods for asset disposal, and the procedures
    governing public participation.

-   Piloting of pubic/private partnership arrangements with federal,
    state and local government agencies could be a productive approach
    in addressing the issues associated with partnerships and strategic
    approaches for disposal of public assets.

-   Liquidation.com as a global Internet-based marketplace for surplus
    sales serving several over 130,000 surplus business-to-business
    traders.  In addition to its Internet-based business service
    provider platform, Liquidation offers co-branding arrangements and a
    storefront facility on the seller's website. 

# **Appendix III: Guidelines for Interview Questions**

Note to interviewer: focus on \"Best-practice\"-type projects, and also
on failures - and the lessons learned.

**Project Initiation:**

-   Can you provide me an overview of the project?

-   What were the broad goals of the projects?

-   What was/were the need/s it was aimed at addressing?

-   Was the focus internal (- govt. operations) or external (- citizen
    services)?

-   Was a more efficient process a **key driver** towards making this
    project happen?

-   Where did the initiative for this project initiate? - Bottom-up or
    top-down?

-   Was it a \"start-from-scratch\" effort, or were you trying to
    improve an existing system?

-   Who were the identified \"clients\" the project aimed at better
    serving? How were the needs of these clients identified/quantified?
    Were these clients represented in the project team?

-   Were there pre-determined success measures that could enable
    managers to track, monitor, and assess the success of the
    initiative?

-   To what extent was cost-benefit analysis an issue? Were budgetary
    constraints detrimental?

-   What are the effects of white papers such as the one issued recently
    by the Council for Excellence in Government? Are they having an
    impact on the decision makers? Are \"people in the trenches\"
    relying on such publications?

**Project Life Cycle:**

-   Did clients have input over the course of the project? Was their
    feedback requested?

-   Organizational resistance - - what were your concerns? Was it an
    issue? How did you skirt it if so?

**Technology, Processes, Integration:**

-   What was the key technological solution identified as the underlying
    feature in the project? How difficult was integration of it into the
    project plan?

-   Were issues like high volume of transaction vs. complexity of
    transactions weighed?

-   How many people were involved at your stage?

-   What were the significant issues the team wrestled with - - Was it
    privacy? Security? Integration of networks and databases? Legacy
    issues? Service providers?

-   What was the technology infrastructure prior to the project?
    Afterwards?

-   Was the project a stand-alone/ad-hoc designed to solve a specific
    problem, or was it part of a greater initiative?

-   To what degree did knowledge management play a role? How accessible
    were other agencies? How easy was it to figure out if a similar
    undertaking took place somewhere else?

-   Was the project mimicking existing paper-based processes (i.e. a
    quick fix), or was the reengineering of processes part of it?

**General Project Questions:**

-   Management commitment - - what was your perception of the degree of
    commitment by the agency\'s top management? To what degree did the
    message coming from top management assisted/derailed project
    progress?

-   Which factors outside your influence do you see as restricting
    projects - for example the issue of electronic signature that may
    prevent a complete transformation of online form filling and
    submission; other restrictive regulations, etc.

-   What are the key recommendations you would make for an agency
    embarking on a similar project? What are the essential steps in
    projects such as this?

-   What is the most challenging aspect of this project?

-   If you could redo the project, what would you change?

-   What are the most pertinent lessons you took away from this project?

# **Appendix IV: Additional Resources**

# **\[1\] Step-by-Step Guide to Successful eGovernment**

URL: http://www.govtech.net/govcenter/solcenter/peoplesoft-feb01/

**\[2\] States proceeding with portals** *by Nicholas Morehead*

URL: http://www.fcw.com/civic/articles/2001/0416/web-portal-04-18-01.asp

**\[3\] Bush e-gov fund** **to double** *by William Matthews*

URL: http://www.fcw.com/civic/articles/2001/apr/civ-cover-04-01.asp

**\[5\] eGovernment 101** *by Merrill Douglas*

URL: http://www.govtech.net/magazines/story.phtml?id=2530000000001594

## \[6\] Electronic Government - Building A Successful E-Govt Strategy *by Drew Robb*

URL: http://www.govtech.net/magazines/story.phtml?id=2530000000001599

**\[7\] Gartner\'s Four Phases of E-Government Model** *by C. Baum, A.
Di Maio*

### URL: http://gartner3.gartnerweb.com/public/static/hotc/00094235.html

# **\[8\] Year 2000 Report on Citizen and Business Demand,** *July 26, 2000*

URL:
http://www.nicusa.com/NIC_flash/download/Benchmarking_eGovernment.pdf

**\[9\] Citizens Expectations for Electronic Government Services** *by
Federation of Government Information Processing Councils*

URL: http://policyworks.gov/org/main/mg/intergov/citizens1.pdf

**\[10\] Built To Last** *by Darby Patterson*

URL: http://egov.govtech.net/reports-winter/builttolast.phtml

**\[11\] Why Reengineering Fails** *by Alisoun Moore*

URL: http://egov.govtech.net/reports-winter/editorial.phtml

**\[12\] Talent on Loan** *by Dibya Sarkar*

URL: http://fcw.com/civic/articles/2001/apr/civ-case-04-01.asp

**\[13\] Idaho earns best in show** *by Dibya Sarkar*

URL: http://fcw.com/civic/articles/2001/mar/civ-comm7-03-01.asp

**\[14\] E-Government: Using Technology to Transform North Carolina's
Governmental Services and Operations in the Digital Age** *Report for
the General Assembly*

URL:http://www.its.state.nc.us/News/EGovernment/\_Docs/EGovernmentReport2001.pdf

**\[15\] New Mexico tests vision online** *by Brian Robinson*

URL: http://www.civic.com/civic/articles/2001/0409/web-dmv-04-13-01.asp

**\[16\] Colorado system simplifies budgeting** *by Dibya Sarkar*

URL: http://www.fcw.com/civic/articles/2001/0409/web-colo-04-09-01.asp

**\[17\] New Hampshire preps for e-gov** *by Dibya Sarkar*

URL: http://www.fcw.com/civic/articles/2001/0402/web-hamp-04-05-01.asp

**\[18\] Missouri takes e-transaction leap** *by Dibya Sarkar*

URL: http://www.fcw.com/civic/articles/2001/0319/web-employ-03-22-01.asp

### \[19\] Phoenix at Your Fingertips: Project Summary

URL: http://www.ci.phoenix.az.us/payfinfo.html

**\[20\] Forms in Honolulu**

URL: http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/

**\[21\] Getting it Done in South Dakota**

URL: http://www.state.sd.us/state/sitelist.cfm

**\[22\] Local Government Marketplace - Pennsylvania**

URL: http://www.psats.org/vendorsearch.html

**\[23\] E-Montgomory Emerges** *by Bill Murray*

URL: http://egov.govtech.net/reports-winter/emontgomery.phtml

**\[24\] Come One Come All (RFPing portal in Tampa**) *by Bryan M. Gold*

URL: http://egov.govtech.net/reports-winter/comeOne.phtml

**\[25\] GreenWorks.TV** , produced by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection and the nonprofit Environmental Fund for
Pennsylvania.

URL: www.greenworks.tv

**\[26\] SBA speeds HUBZone application** *by Greg Langlois*

URL: http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2001/0319/web-sba-03-20-01.asp

**\[27\] HUD next-door kiosk success story**

URL: http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf15/kiosk/bkkiosk.cfm

**\[28\] Kiosks (GSA) link people to government** *by Colleen O'Hara*

URL: http://fcw.com/fcw/articles/2000/0731/web-kiosks-07-31-00.asp

**\[29\] Kiosk program fades as group forms** *by Christopher J.
Dorobek*

URL: http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2001/0416/news-kiosk-04-16-01.asp

**\[30\] Centre for eGovernment.com**

URL: http://www.centre-for-egovernment.com/

# **\[31\] E-Government in California, Providing Services to Citizens Through the Internet** *by Legislative Analyst\'s Office*

URL: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2001/012401_egovernment.html

# **\[32\] TexasOnline: A Feasibility Report on Electronic Government** *by Electronic Government Task Force*

URL: http://www.dir.state.tx.us/egov/report/finalrpt.htm

**\[33\] City Of Los Angeles E-Government Services Project, Final
E-Government Strategy Report** *by PriceWaterhouseCoopers*

URL: http://www.ci.la.ca.us/311/EGOVT.pdf

**\[34\] Developing a Successful E-Government Strategy** *by Liza M.
Lowery*

URL:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan000343.pdf

**\[35\] Developments in electronic governance**

URL: http://www.britishcouncil.org/governance/newsletter.pdf

**\[36\] Best practices identified:**

URL: http://www.govtech.net/magazines/story.phtml?id=2530000000001594

**\[37\] Alternative Funding Strategies for Electronic Commerce
Projects**

URL: http://www.egov.gov/documents/ec_fundingfinal.doc

**\[38\] The E-Gov Presentation \"Building the Business Case for an
e-Procurement Solution\"**

URL: http://www.egov.gov/presentations/businesscase/index.htm

**\[39\] Federal Electronic Commerce: Performance Metrics for FAFSA on
the Web**

URL: http://www.egov.gov/documents/metrics_fafsa.doc

[^1]: In the context of this study "end-users" are the consumers of
    government services -- end-users can be private citizens or other
    government agencies, employees, not-for-profit organizations,
    educational institutions, commercial concerns, etc.

[^2]: See Appendix III for the list of interview questions.

[^3]: According to Peter Orszag, former special economic policy
    assistant to President Clinton, as quoted in Federal Computer Week,
    11/13/2000.

[^4]: Especially guided by detailed analysis presented in GAO document:
    "Electronic Government Federal Initiatives are Evolving Rapidly but
    they Face Significant Challenges", GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-00-179.

[^5]: Details for implementation of spheres is addressed in the
    Implementation Manual.

[^6]: See interview with Eric Brenner (Illinois' Federal Clearinghouse),
    Appendix II.

[^7]: See interviews with Eric Brenner, P.K. Agarwal, Steve Mahaney

[^8]: See interview with Elizabeth Phillips (Federal Commons)

[^9]: See interview with David Temeshok (AAFS Task Force)

[^10]: See interview with Elizabeth Phillips (FAMES Project)

[^11]: See interview with Elizabeth Phillips (Fed Commons)

[^12]: See interview with David Temeshok (AAFS Task Force)

[^13]: See interview with David Temeshok (AAFS Task Force)

[^14]: See interview with Michael Moore (VA)

[^15]: See Office of Electronic Government web site
    (<http://egov.gov/documents/ec_fundingfinal.doc>)

[^16]: See references to Fed Commons, AAFS

[^17]: "The Challenge of Innovating in Government", a research paper by
    Sandford Borins, University of Toronto, February 2001

[^18]: See references to VA, Employee Express

[^19]: Hamel, Gary. "Leading the Revolution", 2000.

[^20]: **Planning** Based on "The Challenge of Innovating in
    Government", a research paper by Sanford Borins, University of
    Toronto, February 2001.

[^21]: The Defense Information Systems Agency wanted to test wireless
    technology. Within 30 days, it established a prototype that account
    managers could tinker with, in preparation of a more comprehensive
    proof of concept. \["Defense Information Systems Agency pilots
    wireless portal", see Http://fcw.com/articles/2001/0430\]

[^22]: "Missouri take e-transaction leap", www.fcw.com, March 2001.

[^23]: Based on "The Challenge of Innovating in Government", a research
    paper by Sandford Borins, University of Toronto, February 2001.

[^24]: Based on "The Challenge of Innovating in Government", a research
    paper by Sandford Borins, University of Toronto, February 2001

[^25]: At the Veterans Administration, project leaders connect with
    veterans' associations to identify areas for possible cooperation.

[^26]: See
    http://www.govtech.net/magazines/story.phtml?id=2530000000001594.

[^27]: Based on "The Challenge of Innovating in Government", a research
    paper by Sandford Borins, University of Toronto, February 2001.

[^28]: Hamel, Gary. "Leading the Revolution", 2000, p. 294.