I Googled ‘twitter’ and ‘e-government’ and found enlightenment, well almost!

Idling away and wondering how to lauch myself on the world of ‘tweats’ I Googled ‘twitter’ and ‘e-government’ and found the following e-pamphlet: “New Labour’s Digital Vision: A Survey of E-government in the UK since 1997”, I then backtabbed and found the site – http://www.knowledgepolitics.org.uk – and the interesting group of researchers e-huddled within.

The content of this very piece was the stimulus for PhD, this second time around anyway! It was having spent so many years trying to fulfill the Whitehall dream and then seeing it for the puff of smoke it was, I felt the need to analyse.

In my opinion this paper, like so many others about UK e-government, might have benefitted from:

  • some input from practitioners – most of the references are to the media or government documents
  • a review of the academic literature – there has been some good research including that by McLoughin & Cornford and Cornford & Richter (see references below).
  • taking a look further back – e-government was actually started by the Conservatives, Nu-Labour picked it up taking along the New Public Management baggage, which was probably the downfall of e-government
  • looking at the bureaucracy – there was little central control, which was actually needed, and a lot of money wasted as a result. The Ministerial control was continually in flux – the Labour brains behind e-government, Liam Byrne, never had power in that arena.

In addition, one thing that seem to be missed was pointing any fingers at Tony Blair. It was his continued raising of the bar that set the ridiculous target (100% services by 2005), presumably to outdo colleagues abroad. Fortunately, other governments were better advised and maintained some rational restraint. The paper almost admits that we never met the targets and accepts that “the reality never met the rhetoric”, however it can’t see the wood for the trees and that essentially e-government is all about using ICT to facilitate improved services to the citizens, which will only be done by improved processes, and much of what has occurred in the past ten years has obfusticated processes and frequently changed them making improvements difficult.

The author is right to criticise it as a failed experiment, but is wrong to use decentralization as a cure. Part of the problem is too much autonomy at Whitehall, whilst continually bullying local government from the CLG/ODPM/DTLR/DETR/DoE. Central government want to get the mote out of its own eye to employ a biblical metaphor.

Incidemtally, if you are “twitterpating” I can be found at http://www.twitter.com/greatemancipato

References:

McLoughlin, I., Cornford, J., (2006). “Transformational change in the local state? Enacting e-government in English local authorities.” Journal of Management & Organization, 12(3): 195 – 208.

Cornford, J., Richter, P., (2007). “Customer Focus in UK e-Government: Or, Putting the Politics back into e-Government.” International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management 2(1): 34 – 46.

Advertisements

2 Responses to I Googled ‘twitter’ and ‘e-government’ and found enlightenment, well almost!

  1. Ken Usman-Smith says:

    I was there at one of the local launches of ‘e-gov’ in Manchester back in the early 2000’s. I had dealt with the ICT developments in Local Authorities and seen GIS and Y2K as milestones in the profile of ICT as a real enabler of change for years prior to that. And authorities that wanted to decentralise, that did not have adequate data on line using middleware such as GIS, had to recentralise despite political ambitions not to. The rush to BVPI 157 and 100% online (no matter how we fudge the term ‘on line’) was another raising of the bar.
    And I agree that by failing to focus on process we got lost in the tree filled woods. And that means that the next big focus is BPR/WORK FLOW and EDRMS, it has to be so we can finally make the services deliver waht the customer wants, not what we are structured to deliver.
    The CSR07 drive and the hopes of Gershon, underpinned with the Legacy Service debates (such as Killian Pretty in Planning) will create a political and officer tension. This will be between where we all focuss resources to be lean/customer centric organisations, and the pressure of credit crunch driven loss of revenues. Improve process to save money, or improve process to focuss on the customer? Are the two opposite or complimentary?

    • Hi Ken
      My concern is that you will be proved right and the service improvements will be employed saving money. This is why I have particular concerns of this use of the term ‘customer’ that forgets that the citizens are both shareholders and customers in their business that we are employees of. Money will come first, disguised in a push for further savings by putting services online whilst excluding citizens and making difficult those services less easily made electronic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: