Digital Governance in the Public Sector:

Challenging the Policy-Maker’s Innovation Dilemma

Gianluca Misuraca Gianluigi Viscusi
European Commission, Joint Research Centre EPFL (CDM MTEI CSI)
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies ODY 1 16 (Odyssea)
C/ Inca Garcilaso, 3 - E41092, Seville, Spain Station 5 - CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
Tel. +34 954 48 8718 Tel. +41 21 69 30018
[Link]@[Link] [Link]@[Link]

ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION
In this paper we propose an interpretative framework for the Public sector innovation theory has become a critical avenue
analysis of different configurations of digital Innovation when it comes to evaluating and help fostering the changes and
Governance in the Public Sector. The goal is to provide an capacities that will define, to a great extent, the potential for
instrument suitable to support policy analysts challenging what contemporary societies to cope with digitalization challenges of
we have identified as the Policy-Maker’s innovation dilemma. our time. Indeed, a significant part of the innovation by the
From a theoretical perspective, our proposal intends to public sector is linked to the uptake of Information and
contribute advancing the understanding of the application of Communication Technologies (ICTs). Accordingly, ICT-
innovation and network theories to the governance phenomenon. enabled innovation has been a recurrent topic for those
Moreover, it aims contributing to the current debate on the following the evolution of modern administrations and
assessment of the socio-economic impacts generated by ICT- governments, with at turn hopes and disillusions, but always in
enabled services, and the co-evolution of technological need of a consistent theoretical framework to measure, assess,
advancement and societal changes. From a methodological steer, advise or conduct innovative experiment from within or
standpoint, the interpretative framework, aims to provide a with the public sector [52]. However, as a matter of fact, after
systemic perspective and an instrument to elicit the links over twenty years of research and practical implementation it is
between ICT-enabled innovation and public governance, widely recognized by both the scientific and the practice
outlining the various challenges that this poses. It in fact communities that despite the potential of using ICTs for
attempts to capture those governance changes which are strongly improving government operations, the evidence of its impact is
conditioned by historical transformations in society’s underlying still limited and the promised productivity gains seem not
values and organisational models suggesting to be analysed by having been achieved yet [50,53]. At the same time,
looking at the public value drivers that underpin ICT-enabled governments face the paradox of being able to gather
governance and which include the dimensions of Performance, unprecedented amounts of information, but being largely unable
Openness, and Inclusion. to turn this information into insight and effective action and
problem-solving. This situation of contrast between the
Categories and Subject Descriptors increasing ´data deluge´ [67] and the limited capacity of turning
J.1 [Administrative Data Processing]: Government; K.4 it into ´policy intelligence´ can be summarised as the ´e-
[Computers and Society]; K.4.1 Public Policy Issues; K.6 Governance paradox´[14,54].
[Management of Computing and Information Systems] K.6.1
Strategic planning Within this setting, in our research, we aim at better
understanding how governance processes and policy-making
General Terms mechanisms change due to the application of ICT-enabled
Design, Human Factors, Management, Measurement, Theory innovation. In this connection, if we attempt to transpose the
innovator’s dilemma to the public sector as the ´Policy-maker´s
Keywords innovation dilemma´ we could imagine a government that does
Innovation; Governance; ICT; Policy-making; Public Value everything by the book –following the rule of law, managing by
facts, being disciplined about costs and quality, and so forth –
Disclaimer but probably miss in listening to citizens and not being able to
The views expressed in this article are purely those of the engage properly with them, not being capable of anticipating
authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating unexpected situations, or other, and thus can get blindsided by
an official position of the European Commission. an ´innovation´ that rapidly takes away its sphere of power in
the governance space, because it was doing everything right, but
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or not coping with the transformations happening in the society
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed surrounding its machinery. However, while at the state of the art
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full it is recognised that ICTs have the potential to increase
citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others
than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, innovation [57], most of the studies differ as regards their
or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific methodology and country coverage and they do not focus on the
permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@[Link]. link between ICT use and innovation in public governance and
ICEGOV2014, October 27 - 30 2014, Guimaraes, Portugal
do not consider possible network’s effects on institutional
Copyright 2014 ACM 978-1-60558-611-3/14/10...$15.00 settings and society at large. Taking these issues into account,
[Link] we view governance networks enabled by ICT innovations as a

146
variable, and we aim to examining different networked as well as many and very costly experiments and pilot projects
governance configurations and the conditions for the have been implemented, but often with little outcome [35].
effectiveness of specific forms we aim at demonstrating that Looking at prevalent literature and definitions [25,46,52], we
ICT-enabled governance networks with different configurations can identify three main conceptualisations of e-Governance as
have different network-level effects. To this end in this paper we customer satisfaction, processes and interactions, and tools.
propose an interpretative framework for the analysis of the
different configurations of digital Innovation Governance in the However, most of the literature and the attempts to promote the
Public Sector. The goal is to provide an instrument suitable to concept and practice of e-Governance have produced rather
support policy analysts challenging the above mentioned Policy- controversial results [53]. Rather than being based on a solid
Maker’s innovation dilemma. theoretical and strategic framework, often e-Governance is still
seen as an extension of e-Government (to more political
The paper is structured as follows. The research has a design participation and more relationships with non-State actors). We
orientation [36,42], aiming to build and evaluate a conceptual instead argue that there is a need to consider a more radical
model for policy-governance configuration of digital innovation paradigmatic shift [44,46]. As a complementary activity but
initiatives. As to this connection or entanglement, we inherently different from e-Government, e-Governance is the
acknowledge state of the art contributions in policy science, field of activity where policy design, co-ordination, arbitration,
which points out “the understanding of institutional change as networking and regulation (just to mention essential steering
both a condition for, and an outcome of, policy change” [34] as functions), with ICTs, but also of ICTs, takes place. And this
well as the need for considering the strategies to affect the involves all sorts of non-state actors, the state representatives
wording of policy initiatives together with “the longer term, being however one of the main stakeholders. Thus, we consider
indirect, and subtle influence over discourses of e-Governance as a much broader framework to capture the co-
governance”[64]. Thus, in the model we will focus on the evolution of ICTs' various stakeholders with the political
features and factors of what we call digital governance systems, institutions, at local, national and global level [50, 51, 42,47]. In
that allow an appropriate policy agenda setting and issues this perspective, e-Governance can also be considered as
selection as well as interpretation[38]. knowledge creation and management practice, and therefore a
learning type of dynamics, involving internal forces of
Also, considering the challenges and 'the complexities of organizations, as well as outside or across the board of socio-
designing artefacts on a societal scale', [63], we should underline economic actors in a meso-societal type of change process, with
that the model we propose has either an empirical and a diversified array of necessary knowledge to be triggered and
interpretative nature, aiming to identify a theory based on a enhanced [50]. In this case, the concept of e-Governance has to
classification activity [4]. As for the data collection, the model be actually extended to encompass the key elements of what
results from a literature review and the experience of the authors Dunleavy et al. [21] calls digital era governance: reintegration
in the area of e-Government policy making and strategic of administrative and social issues back into government
planning design [52,68]. In Section 2 we analyse the literature control; needs-based holism, reorganizing government initiatives
for the three main concepts at the basis of our theoretical and activities around distinct client groups; and digitization of
framework. Subsequently, the framework is described in Section administrative services and processes as well as public data.
3. A discussion of the implications of the framework, as well as Consequently, in what follows we adopt digital governance
future work, conclude the paper. concept as the evolution of the e-Governance one.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.2 Innovation
2.1 E-Governance The opportunities provided by ICTs to renew governance
Governance, as a concept and practice is about more than just processes and policy-making mechanisms are in line with
government, focusing on how to manage human relationships at policy-makers and experts' visions of future public services and
individual level as well as corporations and countries do to emerging trends [30,41]. In this context, the role of civil
manage their interactions and activities. Thus, considering the servants as innovators is recognized as a crucial aspect and
combination of ICTs with governance, the debate about e- potential driver for ICT-enabled innovation, both in terms of
Government evolved in the last few years towards a broader organizational empowerment and with regard to the reshaping of
discussion on e-Governance, where the concept and practice of the relations and communication channels with citizens and
e-Governance further encompasses e-Government [53]. businesses. However, innovation can have different facets
requiring diverse perspectives both at theoretical as well as
e-Governance is a means of expressing efficient e-Government,
managerial level.
however, impacting well outside public administration
boundaries, allowing the full-participation of civil society and First we have to consider that major breakthroughs, which are
the private sector as active stakeholders. However, while the called ‘radical’ in Christensen’s model, may or may not be
debate about e-Government has been polarized mainly in disruptive, while minor, or ‘incremental’ innovations can be
industrialized countries, and only after included developing and massively disruptive [16]. Another element to consider,
emerging economies, e-Governance emerged instead mainly especially from a public sector perspective, is that an important
from field-experiences in developing countries. An early attempt barrier to successful radical innovation initiatives is that the real
to conceptualize e-Governance with a developmental driver of innovation is culture, and culture is the most difficult
perspective has been done in 2002 with the e-Africa Initiative layer of the business and governance pyramid to change [26].
for good governance: building e-Governance capacities in New research, however, indicates that corporate culture, not
African countries [52], in parallel with the e-Government for national culture, has the greatest impact on radical innovations
Development Initiative of the Italian Government and UNDESA [66]. This is relevant to public governance as it entails the need
which followed the UN ICT Task Force and the G8 Action Plan. for political leadership to engage in innovation and the role of
Subsequently, a research stream on e-Governance has emerged organisational innovativeness to be further understood.

147
However, innovation may be present in various forms, such as become the categorical framework for analysing innovations and
product or process innovation, market or behavioural, the theoretical foundation for governmental innovation policy.
administrative or technological, etc. For instance, Miller and
Friesen [43] focus on four dimensions: new product or service In light of the numerous open and contested questions, it has
innovation, methods of production or rendering of services, risk taken on a character that is akin to a heuristic concept rather than
taking by key executives, and seeking unusual and novel a certain scientific finding. NIS are systems of forming
solutions. Taking these issues into account, in particular when knowledge, spreading knowledge and combining knowledge, be
attempting to assess the innovation potential of ICT-enabled it internal, implicit, or external. They are 'structures for dealing
applications for public service, a critical aspect concerns the with knowledge' (where Knowledge is seen here as the most
dimension of service innovation [15]. important input factor for innovation). With 'triple helix'
Etzkowitz [23] - taking the USA for example - describes a tight
The major point of reference for assessing the service specific linkage between the government, academia and the economy -
innovation concepts is Schumpeter’s original notion of particularly industry - as a necessary precondition for successful
innovation. Innovation is closely related to development in economic growth.
Schumpeter’s theory of economic development: economic
development is driven by the discontinuous emergence of new Besides the above macro perspectives on innovation networks,
combinations (innovations) that are economically more viable social networks has been studied for their role on social capital
than the old way of doing things [61]. In his later work [62], at individual [12] as well as at inter-organisational level to
Schumpeter stresses that innovation does not have to be radical understand how exchange of information between organisations
and unpredictable to be considered a true innovation. The fact impacts their rates of innovation [8,60]. From the perspective of
that the Schumpeterian perspective on the innovation process evolutionary theory of economic and organisational changes it is
recognizes that innovation does not have to be radical and stressed that networks bridge already existing knowledge and
unpredictable to be considered a true innovation appears experience about innovation, for it is posited that innovation is
appropriate to interpret the changes we are interested in, in this more often the result of recombination of already known aspects
research, and to assess the potential role of ICT-enabled [56]. Networks are in particular studied to identify nodes
innovation for improving governance and policy-making. enabling organisations to share information and knowledge[55].
In this regard, most research on organizational networks can be
It is in light of their inherent characteristics that the service broadly characterized by two basic approaches: the 'network
specific innovation concepts are of particular interest for us, as analytical' approach and the 'network as a form of governance'
their primary goal is to describe how innovation is carried out in approach, both of which are limited when it comes to analyzing
services, and how it takes many other forms than just product multi-level networks functioning and governance [52].
and process innovation. It is this focus on the peculiarities of
services that has led to the development of new innovation The Network analytical approach focuses mainly on micro-
concepts specially aimed at services, such as ad hoc innovation level, egocentric aspects of networks, building largely on work
[20,31,65]; external relationship innovation [19,20]; done by sociologists studying networks of individuals. These
formalisation innovation [20,33] and expertise-field innovation scholars have contributed especially to the description and
[20]. These studies show the multiplicity of ways through which explanation of network structural characteristics using such
innovations can be carried out (i.e. different characteristics of concepts as density, centrality, and structural holes [12,69]. In
innovation processes). More important, the concepts also network analytical approaches, the main objective can be either
distinguish between different types of innovation in relation to to describe, explain, or compare relational configurations or to
their degree of newness – and to their degree of being a true use these configurations to explain certain outcomes. The
innovation. As for these issues, it is worth to be mentioned the functioning of organizational networks can be partially
research that in the recent past is emerging in the area of ICT- addressed using this approach, since we define functioning as
enabled innovation, from a firm oriented perspective the process by which certain network conditions lead to network
[10,11,32,37]. Therefore, it appears that a specific theory or outcomes. Consequently, this literature tells us little about the
interpretative framework that could be adopted to understand the functioning of networks, because networks are seldom treated as
role of innovation in the public sector is missing. This possible the unit of analysis.
`theory of public sector innovation´ should look in fact both at The network as a form of governance approach, in contrast,
the dimensions described above in terms of organisational does treat networks as the unit of analysis. Network is viewed as
innovativeness and at the categories of service innovation a mechanism of coordination, or what has often been referred to
outlined in literature, as well as other more public-service as network-governance. Starting with Williamson’s [70](1975)
specific elements. In doing this, it should be also considered the 'Markets and Hierarchies', a rich literature has developed on
peculiar networked structure of governance systems and the different forms of governance over the last three decades. From
policy-making goals of public value, as well as the various an organizational and administrative science perspective, the
constituencies and stakeholders´ relationships that make the most innovative aspect of this literature is that it made clear that
governance and policy-making phenomenon a complex space, organizations cannot be taken as something for granted and that
difficult to be captured in a comprehensive manner. other forms of coordination, such as networks, can equally
achieve goals. Consequently, a discussion unfolded as to
2.3 Networks whether networks are simply a combination of elements of
The idea that networks are crucial in driving innovation has been market and hierarchy, and could, therefore, be placed on a
widely applied at national innovation system level continuum between market and hierarchy, or whether they
[23,27,28,29]. In particular, Freeman [27] defined the national would be better understood as unique forms of governance in
innovation system (NIS) as 'a network of institutions in the their own right. This literature moved towards treating networks
private and public sector whose activities and interactions as discrete forms of governance, characterizing them as having
engender, modify and spread new technologies'. NIS has since

148
unique structural characteristics, modes of conflict resolution, quality of the services delivered to citizens; in the latter case
bases of legitimacy, etc [58]. they can be evaluated with respect to their ability to improve the
governance system at various levels of implementation [13].
What we propose in our framework is to combine the network However, the evaluation of the governance system with regard
analytical and governance perspectives [59], focusing to the achievement the desired outcomes concerns first of all the
specifically on the enabling networking role played by ICTs in impact of policies on the related context on which they are
support of the functioning of the governance system intended as applied.
a network (ICT-enabled governance as networked governance).
The governance perspective is valuable in that the network itself In this perspective, several attempts have been put forward to
is considered to be the unit of analysis. The network analytical evaluate the public value of e-Government. For instance, a
perspective contributes to another central idea to our work - that pragmatic approach to assess the return on investment of e-
networks are a set of actors or nodes, with relationships between Government through a public value framework has been
these nodes as being either present or absent. Thus, networks are proposed by the Centre of Technology in Government (CTG) of
considered to vary with regard to their structural patterns of the University of Albany [18]. This framework has been
relations and according to the use of ICT innovations to enable designed mainly as a practical tool to assist government
network effects. executives and analysts in understanding and measuring the
value to the public of ICT investments, including a broader view
2.4 Evaluation than just the financial aspects, of how e-Government can
The concept of public value can provide an interesting point of produce results of value to citizens or to the society as a whole.
view for the evaluation of the performances of Public This approach is designed for being used by government
Administration [9]. In a broad sense, public value refers to the practitioners and analysts in connection with return on
´value created by government through services, law regulations investment (ROI) analyses using the E-Gov Economics Model
and other actions´ [40]. Public value provides a broader measure to examine ICT investments by national and subnational
than is conventionally used within the new public management governments. It thus has a very practice-oriented aim but it also
literature, covering outcomes, the means used to deliver them as set the basis for in-depth analysis if adopted largely and if data
well as trust and legitimacy. It addresses issues such as equity, are made available to the scientific community.
ethos and accountability [40]. These can be considered as
elements generating value also as regards the internal In this perspective, recently, a review of literature conducted by
stakeholders involved in the management of innovation Cordella and Bonina [17], in fact, pointed out to the public value
processes. Generating public value for citizens through services paradigm as an alternative approach for studying ICT-enabled
depends on the level of quality with which they are delivered in public sector reforms. In particular, it suggests that the qualities
terms of: service availability; satisfaction levels; importance; of public sector organisations are assessed on the basis of their
fairness of provision; cost. ability to deliver the expected value to the citizens and not only
by their value-for-money ratio. Indeed this is not new, as most
The close relationship between the concept of public value and advanced countries are already transforming government
e-Government has been pointed out first of all by Kearns [39]. through the use of ICTs and, within this context, ICT-enabled
Public administration aims at producing value for citizens; from governance structures, new collaboration models (i.e. shared
this perspective, the use of ICTs to improve governance is a data, processes and portals), and 'networked' or 'joined-up'
means to improve the production of public value. Thus, an e- administrations are emerging. However, there is still an
Government system resulting from a process of technological extensive debate about how to measure outputs, outcomes and
and organisational innovation can be indirectly evaluated by impacts in the public sector, especially in relation to ICTs and
considering the possible increase of public value deriving from governance, and even leading countries follow different paths.
the adoption of that system. Since e-Government aims at
achieving a citizen centred vision of government, also the The challenges associated with measuring outputs, outcomes
evaluation of an e-Government system as regards the public and impacts of ICTs policies and contribution of ICTs to other
value produced should be based on a citizen-centred approach policy areas go beyond the difficulty to develop valid indicators
[2,6]. In this connection, the use of ICTs to improve governance, that truly measure the outputs and outcomes of public service
as implied by e-Government policies, can be considered as a delivery. For example, output and outcome measurement affects
means to increase the public value produced by public organizational behaviours and while the existence of output
administration. Hence, the policies for e-Government can be measures may lead staff to strive for improved performance, it
evaluated according to their ability to increase the public may also lead to the neglect of non-measured dimensions or to a
administration capacity of producing public value [39]. sort of 'gaming', in which either the output itself is adjusted or
the measurements are distorted in order to achieve the
In general, a public value-based evaluation must be performed appearance (rather than the reality) of 'good performance'. In
by considering the value that citizens perceive in their addition, while it is usually reasonable to hold government
interactions with public administration [1,2]. Discussing the responsible for outputs, it may not be reasonable to hold it
value of ICTs for public administration, Bannister [5] underlines responsible for outcomes because many other factors may
that the definition of value reflects the fact that citizens interact influence the final impact on society.
with public administration playing different roles. Since the
interactions between citizens and public administration can Moreover, despite the 'measurement paradigm' is now becoming
concern both citizens as users and citizens as operators of public consolidated also in the public sector, there are still profound
administration, public value can be measured both from an differences between countries, mainly due to the cultural and
external point of view (citizens as users) and from an internal organizational diversity of different governance models and
point of view (citizens as operators). In the first case, the despite leading countries are already putting in place
policies for e-Government can be evaluated with respect to the measurement systems for policy performance, there is still a lack
of maturity of methodologies, mainly due to the inherent

149
limitation of data availability, or, when indicators exists data are projects as well as policy initiatives by international
not easily quantifiable or comparable between different contexts. organisations.
Due to these challenges, building on the work already carried
out by several organizations and scholars, it is required to
design, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, a
measurement framework that would be able to capture
information about the effectiveness of public management
practices and structures at the relevant operational level. In
designing such a measurement framework, it would be possible
provide diverse details of the impacts of specific policies,
practices and governance models that can be used to better
understand the drivers behind performance differences. To this
end in what follows we discuss a conceptual model aiming to
improve a structured understanding of the configuration a given
digital governance system with regard to policy value drivers
and contextual characteristics. This understanding is suitable to
orient policy makers interpretation issues [24] and decisions
about innovation initiatives to be worth carried out, relying on or Figure 1. Conceptual model for Digital Governance analysis
else overcoming their actual digital government systems.
The conceptual model aims to support the elicitation of different
3. THE FRAMEWORK configurations of digital governance systems on the basis of the
relationships between Governance model characteristics (i.e.,
3.1 Conceptual model state governance system, cultural administrative tradition and
As we have seen above, approaches to study the impact of ICT
socio-economic characteristics of the context of intervention),
on public value creation and related indicators have already been
and Value drivers (i.e. performance, openness, inclusion in
proposed and discussed in literature. All these approaches are
based, however, on indicators defined to measure the direct or ).
indirect impact of ICT adoption in public sector administrative
Table 1. Value drivers, quality dimensions and levels of
and economic performances. Hence, the social and political
analysis [44,45]
impacts of public value creation are measured in terms of
improvement of administrative or economic performances in Value Drivers Quality Dimensions Levels of analysis
public administration offices [17]. Thus, as said above, the paper Legal framework
positions e-Government as well as other digital innovation
Efficiency Service
initiatives in the public sector within a broader framework
considering e-Governance, i.e. the governance with, and of, ICT Technology
Performance
[52,53] as part of what Dunleavy et al. [21] have identified as Service
Digital Era Governance (DEG): a complex change in society Effectiveness
impacting also, but not primarily on the government apparatus. Organization
Thus, we consider digital innovation initiatives in the public
Service
sector as different kinds of digital governance systems. Transparency
Accordingly, the theoretical framework on which our analysis is Organization
based has to contemplate factors having influence at different Organization
level on the context where the digital innovation initiatives take Accountability
Openness Legal framework
place. In particular, the framework has to consider the interplay
between the policy and institutional dimensions and the Organization
technical one. Accessibility Information
Taking these issues into account in this section we discuss the Technology
conceptual dimensions underpinning our proposed interpretative Service
model suitable to support the classification and mapping of the Accessibility
Technology
different initiatives that can be labeled as innovations in Digital Inclusion
Governance, identifying the possible configuration and drivers. Organization
Equity
In parallel to efforts conducted by other scholars ([17,18]), we Information
therefore propose a conceptual model to analyse ICT-enabled
innovation for governance and policy-making, based on three
key public value drivers. The model extends the one discussed This model aims to provide an interpretative instrument to deal
extensively in [44,45,50] and applied to the case of national with the duality of influence of the above factors. As for
open government initiatives in [51]. governance model characteristics, factors and dimensions have
been selected and further elaborated with regard to what
Figure 1 shows the resulting higher order conceptualisation of proposed in Misuraca et al. [44], considering, among other
the relationship between a digital governance system and its sources, the work of Esping-Andersen and the further extensions
underpinning influencing factors, resulting from a both state of to its typology and evolution in state of art literature [3,22]. As
art analysis discussed in the previous section as well as practice for value drivers they can be evaluated in terms of
observed by the authors in their work on funded research corresponding quality dimensions, following a systemic

150
perspective on quality assessment to support strategic planning  Technical/Incremental change: use of ICTs to facilitate
of e-Government initiatives [7,68]. Governance model automation of repetitive administrative tasks and thereby
characteristics and value drivers allow to frame policy issues improvement of efficiency of governance processes (e.g.
and requirements for ICT innovation initiatives in the resulting automated filing of forms, periodic information reporting,
digital governance systems. However attentive to factors etc.);
promoting constituencies oriented values such as, e.g., openness
and inclusion [51], the perspective on digital governance  Organisational/Sustained change: use of ICTs to support,
systems provided by the model is yet mainly “from within” the facilitate or complement existing efforts and processes to
public administration. Whereas those systems enact the entrance improve governance mechanisms (e.g. use of ICTs to
of new stakeholders, actually affecting both the governance catalyse existing efforts towards transparency in
model characteristics and the relevance of the considered value government information and functioning, or embedding use
drivers dimensions. of emails, SMS, social computing or other technological
applications in connecting decision-makers with their
Consequently, in this paper, we propose to extend the constituencies);
conceptual model by integrating the network governance
configurations enabled by a given set of digital governance  Transformative/Disruptive change: use of ICTs to initiate
systems. It is worth noting that this extension results from the or improve new services or create new mechanisms for
analysis of the literature discussed in Section 2. Indeed, changes service delivery or policy-making which would be
to digital governance systems should consider the type of impact impossible through non-ICT modes (e.g. online checking of
they produce to the governance configuration of the status of an application - from remote and beyond office
stakeholders’ networks (for example, moving from e- hours; providing instant access to the same information to
Government to Open Government implies the entrance of new all individuals through websites or other technological
actors and a novel role to citizens in public services and data applications / mass collaboration tools; ability to instantly
production). The latter may require or enforce innovation to a access, compare or triangulate information from outside of
given context and governance models characteristics (see left the government or constituency sources, etc.).
hand side of Figure 1). Thus, the conceptual model provides a  Transformative/Radical change: substantial use of ICTs
´map´ for understanding which policies can be designed for an that takes place outside of the recognised institutional
appropriate governance of digital innovation initiatives and setting and aims at changing the governance systems in
reforms in the public sector. power, or radically modifying the existing policy-making
Consistent with this logic, we view governance networks mechanisms (e.g. use of ICTs for mobilising protests and
enabled by ICT innovations as a variable, and examining revolutionary movements, or use of ICTs to reshape
different networked governance configurations and the existing policy-making power-balance).
conditions for the effectiveness of specific forms we aim at
demonstrating that ICT-enabled governance networks with
different configurations have different network-level effects.
This can be considered also our main research hypothesis and
the basis for establishing a rationale for contributing developing
multi-level network theories in the area of ICT-enabled
governance and the further development of an interpretative and
measurement framework.
To this end in what follows, we discuss a typology which
complements and exploit the outputs of the application of the
conceptual model presented in Figure 1.

3.2 Digital Governance Innovation Typology Figure 2. Interpretative framework for assessing ICT-
Within this context, it is our assumption, that the introduction of enabled innovation for governance and the type of change
various ICT-enabled innovations has different effects according The first and second typologies of change are traditionally
to different governance mechanisms adopted in specific policy incremental forms of innovation, characterized by a gradual
domains and governance contexts. However, while it is process of adaptation and sustained technological change. Thus,
recognised that ICTs have the potential to increase innovation they focus on digital governance systems, which mainly result
by: i) speeding up the diffusion of information; ii) favouring from attributing relevance to efficiency and effectiveness as
networking among firms and organisations enabling closer links value drivers, influencing the underlying governance models
between businesses and customers; iii) reducing geographic characteristics (see Figure 1). However the systems involve a
limitations; and iv) increasing efficiency in communication network of external interests and stakeholder, the orientation is
(Koellinger, 2005, OECD, 2012), and evidence from literature yet from within, prevailing a relevance of internal governance
confirms that ICTs play an important role in enabling business mechanisms.
innovation, state of the art studies differ as regards their
The third and fourth typologies of change could produce instead
methodology and country coverage and, most important for us,
disruptive or radical innovation effects, depending on the
they do not focus on the link between ICT use and innovation in
specific socio-political context and cultural tradition, as well as
public governance and do not consider possible network’s
the governance organisational and knowledge capabilities.
effects on institutional settings and society at large.
Indeed, they focus on digital governance systems, which mainly
In this regard, ICT-enabled innovations can produce changes in result from a relevance attributed to openness and inclusion
governance processes in various ways (see Figure 2): (grounded either on efficiency or effectiveness) as value drivers

151
influencing the underlying governance models characteristics conducting specific survey and case studies, so to demonstrate
(see Figure 1). In this case the systems involve a network of the usefulness and validity of the principles and various
external interests and stakeholder, resulting on a strong network dimensions identified, focusing in particular on the service level.
orientation and an actual rather the potential relevance of In fact, it is feasible to say that ICT-enabled services can be
external governance relationships. considered high-level, context-sensitive interventions that aim to
It is evident that we are particularly interested especially to the introduce and facilitate gradual changes in the overall
third form of change, when ICT-enabled innovations have a governance model, thus providing useful indications on the
disruptive effect (but also to a certain extent to the fourth implications of the introduction of ICT-enabled innovations for
category of radical change that could occur in some cases). governance and policy-making, and the possible socio-economic
However, forms of incremental innovation and changes that are impacts they could have in the future.
complementary or preparatory to more disruptive forms of This implies that future work will focus on better understanding
innovations should also be considered. In this connection, and the interrelations between the various dimensions of the model,
with regard to the impacts these could have on governance as well as on testing it on a larger scale its validity. This would
processes and policy-making mechanisms, we make reference to require for instance to eventually setting up a social (e.g. quasi-
the distinction between 'changes of type one' (or first order), that natural) experiment to observe and monitor the changes that
are consequences of ICT-enabled innovations producing an ICT-enabled innovation is generating on governance and policy-
incremental or sustained change, due to technical or organisation making related contexts.
innovations, mainly happening within the boundaries of
traditional/mandated institutional governance settings; and 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
'changes of type two' (or second order), that are instead This paper is in part based upon the PhD research conducted by
transformative in nature, either caused by disruptive or radical Gianluca Misuraca at the College of Management of
innovations, and mainly involving a reshaping of governance Technology of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
processes and policy-making mechanisms, with specific regard (EPFL) and titled “Assessing ICT-enabled innovation for
to the external relationships of the networked governance governance and policy-making” (EPFL, 2012).
systems (on the topic of Change I and Change II see [47,48]).
6. REFERENCES
4. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK [1] Alford, J. Defining the client in the Public Sector: a
This paper has discussed an interpretative framework for the social-exchange perspective. Public Administration
analysis of the different configurations of digital Innovation Review 62, 3 (2002), 337–346.
Governance in the Public Sector. The goal is to provide an
[2] Alford, J. Public Value from Co-production by Clients.
instrument suitable to support policy analysts challenging the
In J. Benington and M.H. Moore, eds., Public Value -
above mentioned Policy-Maker’s innovation dilemma. Being
Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
theoretical in nature, thus, the paper aims to provide an early
contribution to a `theory of public sector digital innovation´. [3] Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. Three worlds of welfare
However, the framework aims to offer a yet already usable tool capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report. Journal of
to policy makers, due to its emergence from a background of European Social Policy 12, 2 (2002), 137–158.
over 15 years of experience. [4] Bailey, K.D. Typologies and taxonomies - An
Thus, from a methodological standpoint, the interpretative Introduction to Classification Techniques. SAGE
framework, aims to provide a systemic perspective and an Publications, 1994.
instrument to elicit the links between ICT-enabled innovation [5] Bannister, F. and Walsh, N. The virtual public servant:
and public governance, outlining the various challenges that this Ireland’s public services broker. Information Polity:
poses. The framework in fact attempts to capture those The International Journal of Government &
governance changes which are strongly conditioned by historical Democracy in the Information Age 7, 2,3 (2002), 115–
transformations in society’s underlying values and 128.
organisational models suggesting to be analysed by looking at
[6] Bannister, F. Citizen Centricity: A Model of IS Value
the public value drivers that underpin ICT-enabled governance
in Public Administration. Electronic Journal of
and which include the dimensions of Performance, Openness,
Information Systems Evaluation 5, 2 (2002).
and [Link] real e-Government and digital governance
experiences. [7] Batini, C., Viscusi, G., and Cherubini, D. GovQual: A
quality driven methodology for E-Government project
Furthermore, from a theoretical perspective, our proposal planning. Government Information Quarterly 26, 1
intends to contribute advancing the understanding of the (2009), 106–117.
application of innovation and network theories to the
governance phenomenon. Through the review of a set of diverse [8] Baum, J.A.C., Calabrese, T., and Silverman, B.S. Don’t
theoretical approaches and scientific disciplines relevant to the go it alone: alliance network composition and startups'
discussion on the effects of changes driven by ICT-enabled performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic
innovations on governance and policy-making, we wish in fact Management Journal 21, 3 (2000), 267–294.
to contribute to the current debate on the assessment of the [9] Benington, J. and Moore, M.H. Public Value - Theory
socio-economic impacts generated by ICT-enabled services, and and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
the co-evolution of technological advancement and societal [10] Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L.M. Beyond the
changes. productivity paradox. Commun. ACM 41, 8 (1998), 49–
However, the interpretative framework to test the model 55.
proposed should be applied in real life contexts, either through

152
[11] Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L.M. Beyond Computation : [29] Freeman, C. The ‘National System of Innovation’ in
Information technology, organizational transformation historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of
and business performance. The Journal of Economic Economics 19 , 1 (1995), 5–24.
Perspectives 14, (2000), 23–48. [30] G., M., Lusoli, W., and (Eds). Envisioning Digital
[12] Burt, R.S. The network structure of social capital. Europe 2030: Scenarios for ICT in Future Governance
Research in Organizational Behavior 22, (2000), 345– and Policy Modelling, EUR 24614 EN, 12/2010. 2010.
423. [31] Gadrey, J., Gallouj, F., and Weinstein, O. New modes
[13] Castelnovo, W. and Simonetta, M. The Evaluation of e- of innovation: how services benefit industry.
Government Projects for Small Local Government International Journal of Service Industry Management
Organisation. Electronic Journal of e-Government 5, 1 6, 3 (1995), 4–16.
(2007), 21–28. [32] Gago, D. and Rubalcaba, L. Innovation and ICT in
[14] Castelnovo, W. Is There an eGovernment Paradox? service firms: towards a multidimensional approach for
Proceedings of The 10th European Conference on e- impact assessment. Journal of Evolutionary Economics
Government (ECEG), (2010), 90–98. 17, 1 (2007), 25–44.
[15] Chesbrough, H. and Spohrer, J. A research manifesto [33] Gallouj, F. and Weinstein, O. Innovation in services.
for services science. Communications of the ACM 49, 7 Research Policy 26, 4-5 (1997), 537–556.
(2006), 35–40. [34] Grin, J. and Loeber, A. Theories of Policy Learning:
[16] Christensen, C.M. The innovator’s dilemma: When new Agency, Structure, and Change. In F. Fischer, G.J.
technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Miller and M.S. Sidney, eds., Handbook of public
School Press, Boston, MA, 1997. policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods. CRC
[17] Cordella, A. and Bonina, C.M. A public value Press - Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, London,
perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: a New York, 2007, 201–219.
theoretical reflection. Government Information [35] Heeks, R. Most eGovernment-for-development projects
Quarterly 29, 4 (2012), 512–520. fail: how can risks be reduced? 14, 2003.
[18] Cresswell, A.M., Burke, G.B., and Pardo, T.A. [36] Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., and Ram, S.
Advancing Return on Investment Analysis for Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS
Government IT: A Public Value Framework. 2006. Quarterly 28, 1 (2004), 75–105.
[19] Djellal, F. and Gallouj, F. Patterns of innovation [37] Hitt, L.M. and Brynjolfsson, E. Productivity, Business
organisation in service firms: postal survey results and Profitability, and Consumer Surplus: Three Different
theoretical models. Science and Public Policy 28 , 1 Measures of Information Technology Value.
(2001), 57–67. MISQuarterly 20, 2 (1996), 121.
[20] Drejer, I. Identifying innovation in surveys of services: [38] Jann, W. and Wegrich, K. Theories of the Policy Cycle.
a Schumpeterian perspective. Research Policy 33, 3 In F. Fischer, G.J. Miller and M.S. Sidney, eds.,
(2004), 551–562. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Theory, Polictics
[21] Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Simon, B., and Tinkler, J. and Methods. CRC Press - Taylor & Francis Group,
Digital Era Governance – IT Corporations, The State, Boca Raton, London, New York, 2007, 43–62.
and E-Government. Oxford University Press, London, [39] Kearns, I. Public value and e-government. London,
2006. 2004.
[22] Esping-Andersen, G. The Three Worlds of Welfare [40] Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., and Muers, S. “Creating Public
Capitalism. Princeton University Press, 1990. Value: An Analytical Framework for Public Service
[23] Etzkowitz, H. and Dzisah, J. Rethinking development: Reform ” - Discussion paper prepared by the Cabinet
circulation in the triple helix. Technology Analysis & Office Strategy Unit, United Kingdom. 2002.
Strategic Management 20, 6 (2008), 653–666. [41] Di Maio, A., Kreizman, G., Harris, R.G., Rust, B., and
[24] Feldman, M.S. Order without design: Information Sood, R. Government in 2020: Taking the Long View.
production and policymaking. Stanford University 2005.
Press, 1989. [42] March, S. and Smith, G. Design and Natural Science
[25] Finger, M. and Pécoud, G. From e-government to e- Research on Information Technology. Decision Support
governance? Towards a model of e-governance. 3rd Systems, 15 (1995), 251 – 266.
European Conference on e-government, (2003). [43] Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. Strategy-making and
[26] Flamholtz, E. and Randle, Y. Measuring and managing environment: The third link. Strategic Management
successful organizational scale-up. Scale up in Journal 4, 3 (1983), 221–235.
education: Ideas in principle 1, (2007), 217–243. [44] Misuraca, G., Alfano, G., and Viscusi, G.
[27] Freeman, C. Technology Policy and Economic Interoperability Challenges for ICT-enabled
Performance: Lessons from Japan. Frances Pinter, Governance: Towards a pan-European Conceptual
London, 1987. Framework. Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Electronic Commerce Research, ISSN 0718–1876
[28] Freeman, C. Networks of innovators: A synthesis of Electronic Version 6, 1 (2011), 95–111.
research issues. Research Policy 20, 5 (1991), 499–514.

153
[45] Misuraca, G., Alfano, G., and Viscusi, G. A Multi- [57] OECD. The Economic Impact of ICT, Measurement,
Level Framework for ICT-Enabled Governance: Evidence and Implications. Paris, 2010.
Assessing the Non-Technical Dimensions of [58] Provan, K. and Kenis, P. Modes of Network
‘Government Openness.’Electronic Journal of e- Governance: Structure, Management, and
Government 9, 2 (2011), 152 – 165. Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration
[46] Misuraca, G., Rossel, P., and Finger, M. Governance Research and Theory 18, 2 (2008), 229–252.
with and of ICTs: the need for new institutional design [59] Raab, J. and Kenis, P. Taking Stock of Policy
in a changing world. egov magazine II, (2006). Networks: Do They Matter? In F. Fischer, G.J. Miller
[47] Misuraca, G. and Rossel, P. Triggering the governance and M.S. Sidney, eds., Handbook of public policy
perspective of e-Government projects: beyond mere analysis: Theory, politics and methods. CRC Press -
digitization of administration services. The Third Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, London, New
Global Knowledge Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 10-13 York, 2007, 187–200.
December 2007, (2007). [60] Schilling, M.A. and Phelps, C.C. Interfirm
[48] Misuraca, G. and Rossel, P. ICTs for Development in Collaboration Networks: The Impact of Large-Scale
Emerging Countries: Revisiting the ‘Knowledge Network Structure on Firm Innovation. Management
Equation’, beyond e-Government. proceedings of the Science 53, 7 (2007), 1113–1126.
International Conference on “Confronting the [61] Schumpeter, J.A. The Theory of Economic
Challenge of Technology for Development: Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit,
Experiences from the BRICS”, University of Oxford, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Transaction
UK May 2008, (2008). Publishers, 1934.
[49] Misuraca, G., Viscusi, G., and Gianluca Misuraca, G.V. [62] Schumpeter, J.A. Capitalism, Socialism and
E-governance for development: lessons learned and Democracy. Routledge, London, 1942.
strategic principles for designing an operational
roadmap. International Journal of Electronic [63] Simon, H.A. The Sciences of the Artificial. The MIT
Governance 3, 2 (2010), 118–133. Press, Cambridge (Mass.), 1996.
[50] Misuraca, G. and Viscusi, G. Managing e-Governance: [64] Stone, D. Public Policy Analysis and Think Tanks. In
a framework for analysis and planning. In Z. F. Fischer, G.J. Miller and M.S. Sidney, eds.,
Mahmood, ed., Developing E-Government Projects: Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics
Frameworks and Methodologies. IGI Global, 2013, and methods. CRC Press - Taylor & Francis Group,
204–224. Boca Raton, London, New York, 2007, 149–157.
[51] Misuraca, G. and Viscusi, G. Is Open Data Enough? E- [65] Sundbo, J. and Gallouj, F. Innovation as a loosely
Governance Challenges for Open Government. coupled system in services. International Journal of
International Journal of Electronic Government Services Technology and Management 1, 1 (2000), 15–
Research 10, 1 (2014), 19–36. 36.
[52] Misuraca, G. e-Governance in Africa from Theory to [66] Tellis, G.J., Prabhu, J.C., and Chandy, R.K. Radical
Action - A Handbook on ICTs for Local Governance. Innovation Across Nations: The Preeminence of
Africa World Press/IDRC, 2007. Corporate Culture. Journal of Marketing 73, 1 (2009),
3–23.
[53] Misuraca, G. e-Governance: Past, Present and Future:
A theoretical framework for prospective policy [67] The Economist. Data, data everywhere. Special Report:
analysis. eGovernance, A Global Journey 4, 9 (2012). Managing information, 2010.
[54] Misuraca, G. “Assessing ICT-enabled innovation for [68] Viscusi, G., Batini, C., and Mecella, M. Information
governance and policy making”, PhD Thesis - College Systems for eGovernment: A Quality-of-Service
of Management and Technology, EPFL, Lausanne, Perspective. Springer, 2010.
Switzerland. 2012. [69] Wasserman, S. and Galaskiewicz, J.C. Advances in
[55] Monge, P.R. and Contractor, N.S. Theories of social network analysis : research in the social and
communication networks. Oxford Univ. Press., New behavioral sciences. Sage Publications, Thousand
York, 2003. Oaks, Calif., 1994.
[56] Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. Evolutionary Theorizing [70] Williamson, O.E. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis
in Economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives and Antitrust Implications. The Free Press, New York,
16, 2 (2002), 23–46. 1975.

154