Why do eGovernment projects succeed or fail? The eGovernment for the Development Information Exchange project, coordinated by the Institute for Development Policy Management (IDPM), at the University of Manchester, suggests that a key factor is the level of difference between the current reality and the model/conception and assumptions built into the project’s design. The larger this design-reality gap, the greater the risk of failure, conversely, the smaller the gap, the greater the chance of success.
A model based on seven identified dimensions necessary to provide an understanding of this gap is put forward. These dimensions are information; technology; processes; objectives and values; staffing and skills; management systems and structures, and other resources – namely time and money. Six case studies from South Asia, Southern Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East are used to test this model and two sets of ‘thumbnail sketches’ for failure and success are drawn up which highlight the need for greater emphasis to be placed on the softer, person- oriented side, rather than the harder, IT side.
Three archetypes of eGovernment failure are identified that highlight the need for better communication between those who need to use and operate the system, and those who are brought in to design it:
- Hard-soft gaps: most government organisations are dominated by ‘soft’ factors – people, politics, emotions and culture and e-government systems tend to get designed according to harder notions of machinery, rationality and objectivity.
- Private- public gaps: many IT systems have been designed in the private sector and shoehorned into a public sector reality which operates very differently. Again, these differences are large and likelihood of failure high.
- Country context gaps: an ‘off the shelf’ approach which is commonly adopted is set to fail. Infrastructure and mindsets are very different across the world. It is likely that a system designed for New Delhi will not suit Johannesburg.
Three principal points of relevance can be determined from these findings to avoid expensive failure:
- That each case should be taken individually – there is no one solution that will fit all situations.
- That greater importance should be attached to determining the expectations and reality of those for whom the project will serve and be operated by.
- That these expectations should be incorporated before the design of the project and revisited during the course of implementation.
