Transcript Slide 1

“Just sociology”: looking beyond the
technology of e-government to
assure social value.
Mike Grimsley & Anthony Meehan
SHU - 14 March 2007
1
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Context: public services and e-Government
Social Value: Public Value + Engagement + Trust
Case 1: Public Services and Production of Social Value
Case 2: Community Development and Social Value
Political Dynamics of Attainment and Under-attainment of
Social Value
• Moving the focus of our attention beyond ‘the technology’
SHU - 14 March 2007
2
Public Services Context
E-government goals include:
• effectiveness
• efficiency
• community regeneration, sustainability, well-being
“There is a need to understand the social value of government
action; the impact of eGovernment systems and the way they
contribute ‘social value’”. (Irani & Elliman, 2007)
SHU - 14 March 2007
3
A Second Context
“We are making the public services user-led, not producer or
bureaucracy led.” (Blair, 2001)
E-government goals include:
• private and 3rd sector capacity building
• government “transformation”
Citizen
•
•
•
•
•
Consumer
State
•
Public
•
Political •
Collective •
Rights
•
Market
Private
Economic
Personal
Opportunities
Bureauratic Model
Post-bureaucratic Model
• Locus of Expertise • Networks or Chains (PPP)
• Locus of Power
• Provider of Choice
• Public Interest
• For Profit, Not-for-Profit,
Ethos
Social Entrepreneurship
(After Clarke et al., 2007)
SHU - 14 March 2007
4
Context: Choice-based Letting
Significant change in approach to allocation of public housing:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Available properties advertised.
People registered as being in need may apply for properties.
Allocation determined according to priority and other policy considerations.
Encourages ‘out of borough’ and ‘non public sector’ alternatives.
Encourages a multi-agency approach to needs.
ICT-mediated route complemented by Local Estate and Central Housing
Officers.
SHU - 14 March 2007
5
Two Case Study Organisations
HC Councils:
Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Haringey,
Islington, Kensington & Chelsea,
Merton, Royal Borough of Kingston,
Westminster.
SHU - 14 March 2007
6
Elements of Social Value
• Public Value (Moore, 1995)
– “normatively compelling collective purposes” (p30) identifiable in respect of
‘universal entitlements’ such as health, education, housing and sanitation,
personal security, civil and criminal justice,…
– related to values such as fairness, equity and/or equality – “people value the
entitlements of others”
• Engagement
– promotes effectiveness and efficiency
– driven by:
• need to engage
• structural opportunity to engage
• ability to engage (c.f. Cummings, Heeks & Huysmans, 1993)
• recommendation
• Trust…
SHU - 14 March 2007
7
Trust
vertical trust
political, social and economic institutions
Rothstein, 2001; Grimsley, Meehan,
Green and Stafford, 2003
horizontal trust
community – family, friends, neighbours
“The level of trust in an organisation affects levels of use and engagement with
services. Some [people] avoid contact with services they do not trust unless it is
absolutely essential. This can have a direct impact on how well services meet the
wider community's needs.” (MORI, Trust in Public Institutions: A Report for the UK Audit Commission
2003)
“Trust is an expression of a community’s capacity to co-operate to achieve a
better quality of life than would otherwise be available if its members acted merely
as individuals.”
SHU - 14 March 2007
8
Production of Social Value
E
Willingness to
Recommend
Changed Trust in
Providers
B
C
A
D
Users’ Experiences
ICT-mediated
Service Provision
Users’/Citizens’ Experiences
Leads to
Public Value Service
Outcomes
• Conceptual Framework and Analytical Pathways
SHU - 14 March 2007
9
TCH Survey
August – Sept 2006
(about 6months post-launch)
• 2315 TCH ‘IT-Users’
• 3625 TCH ‘non-IT-Users’
• 244 responses (11%)
• 427 responses (12%)
Older IT-users were under-represented.
Older non-IT-users were over-represented.
SHU - 14 March 2007
10
Service Experience 1
N
Recommendation level (base:
Not recommend: 26.7%)
Recommend
(49.1%)
OR [95% CI]
Explanatory
variables
Changed Trust level
(base: Less: 35.0%)
Unsure
(24.1%)
OR [95% CI]
More
(12.6%)
OR [95% CI]
Unchanged
(52.4%)
OR [95% CI]
Model 1 (Pathways A and C)
TCH website:
ease of use
Easy
38
5.61
[1.45 - 21.66]
1.63
[0.40 - 6.61]
19.31
[1.79 - 208.34]
4.14
[1.14 - 15.01]
Fairly
easy
43
1.96
[0.61 - 6.30]
0.59
[0.17 - 2.02]
5.00
[0.50 - 49.84]
1.25
[0.42 - 3.68]
Difficult
(ref)
36
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
*Adjusted for Age group and Gender
Ease of Use
•
•
•
•
•
•
Search
Secure Login
Apply
Track Application
Other Boroughs
Alternatives to Public
Housing
SHU - 14 March 2007
E
Willingness to
Recommend
B
C
A
D
Users’ Experiences
ICT-mediated
Service Provision
Changed Trust
in
Providers
Users’/Citizens’ Experiences
Leads to
Public Value
Service
Outcomes
11
Service Experience 2
Explanatory
variables
N
Recommendation level
(base: Not recommend:
26.7%)
Recommend
(49.1%)
OR [95% CI]
Unsure
(24.1%)
OR [95% CI]
Changed Trust level
(base: Less: 35.0%)
More
(12.6%)
OR [95% CI]
Unchanged
(52.4%)
OR [95% CI]
Model 2 (Pathways A and C)
Housing
Officer: easy
contact
Yes
96
5.40
[1.46 – 19.98]
1.44
[0.36 - 5.82]
12.38
[0.99 - 155.25]
3.36
[0.98 - 11.50]
No (ref)
64
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Housing
Officer: able to
help
Yes
76
2.02
[0.56 - 7.31]
2.03
[0.47 - 8.76]
2.36
[0.40 - 13.96]
1.86
[0.54 - 6.38]
No (ref)
76
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Model 3 (Pathways A and C)
TCH helpful:
properties
information
Yes
143
1.43
[0.58 - 3.53]
1.11
[0.41 - 3.04]
2.71
[0.63 - 11.70]
2.06
[0.90 - 4.71]
No (ref)
96
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
TCH helpful:
properties
selection
Yes
119
3.91
[1.56 - 9.78]
1.81
[0.65 - 5.08]
4.85
[1.12 - 20.99]
1.67
[0.72 - 3.84]
No (ref)
103
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
SHU - 14 March 2007
12
Experience of (PV) Outcomes
Explanatory
variables
N
Recommendation level (base:
Not recommend: 26.7%)
Recommend
(49.1%)
OR [95% CI]
Unsure
(24.1%)
OR [95% CI]
Changed Trust level
(base: Less: 35.0%)
More
(12.6%)
OR [95% CI]
Unchanged
(52.4%)
OR [95% CI]
Model 4 (Pathways B, D)
TCH:
appreciate
why others
allocated
Yes
57
3.62
[0.90 - 14.55]
0.74
[0.14 - 3.93]
22.81
[3.81 - 136.68]
6.77
[1.41 - 32.43]
No (ref)
173
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
TCH: helped
consider
alternatives
Yes
71
4.21
[1.36 - 13.00]
2.72
[0.84 - 8.86]
1.99
[0.56 - 7.10]
0.67
[0.28 - 1.62]
No (ref)
160
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
TCH: better
informed on
housing
Yes
115
10.24
[4.15 - 25.27]
3.35
[1.31 - 8.62]
6.70
[1.49 - 30.12]
2.79
[1.32 - 5.91]
No (ref)
115
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
*Adjusted for Age group and Gender
E
Willingness to
Recommend
• PV Outcomes are about the extent to which people
develop a community-level picture (even when the desired
outcome eludes them personally).
B
D
Users’ Experiences
ICT-mediated
Service Provision
SHU - 14 March 2007
C
A
Changed Trust
in
Providers
Users’/Citizens’ Experiences
Leads to
Public Value
Service
Outcomes
13
Trust and Recommendation
Explanatory
variables
N
Recommendation level (base: Not
recommend: 26.7%)
Recommend (49.1%)
OR [95% CI]
Unsure (24.1%)
OR [95% CI]
Model 5 (Pathway E)
Trust level
(covariate)
less to more
Score:
3 to 9
206
3.96
[2.64 - 5.96]
1.91
[1.33 - 2.75]
*Adjusted for Age group and Gender
E
Willingness to
Recommend
• Trust is a powerful driver of
recommendation.
B
C
A
D
Users’ Experiences
ICT-mediated
Service Provision
SHU - 14 March 2007
Changed Trust
in
Providers
Users’/Citizens’ Experiences
Leads to
Public Value
Service
Outcomes
14
ICT Mediation of Trust?
political, social and economic institutions
vertical trust
ICT
horizontal trust
community – family, friends, neighbours
Poorly designed/managed e-government will damage the relationship between
citizen and public service provider…
…and may have much wider implications for community well-being.
SHU - 14 March 2007
15
Change in Trust
User respondents
(N=244)
Trust Councillors
No.
%
Non-User
respondents
(N=427)
No.
Change in Trust (Percentage of clients)
%
More
13
5
72
17
Same
137
56
151
35
Worse
59
24
64
15
Missing
35
15
140
33
User respondents
(N=244)
Trust Council
No.
%
Trust in Council (non-users)
%
More
24
10
119
28
Same
137
56
127
30
Worse
57
23
54
12
Missing
26
11
127
30
Trust Staff
No.
%
Trust in Council ors (users)
Non-User
respondents
(N=427)
No.
User respondents
(N=244)
Trust in Council ors (non-users)
Tru st inCouncil (users)
Trust in H.O.s (non-users)
Non-User
respondents
(N=427)
No.
Trust in H.O.s (users)
%
More
22
9
97
23
Same
143
58
131
31
Worse
53
22
66
15
Missing
26
11
133
31
-30
-20
SHU - 14 March 2007
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Trust is Less : Trust is More
16
Trust in Public Services
Drivers:
horizontal trust
vertical trust
.4
.6
.3
.4
.2
.1
95% CI Horizontal trust
• Well-informedness
95% CI Vertical trust
.2
-.0
-.2
-.4
-.6
N=
1052
1030
1724
poorly informed
0.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
-.4
N=
414
not well informed
0.0
0.0
95% CI Horizontal trust
.1
95% CI Vertical trust
.2
.2
-.2
-.4
-.6
-.8
140
590
strongly disagree
435
2219
neither
disagree
-.2
-.3
-.4
N=
837
140
.2
.1
95% CI Horizontal trust
95% CI Vertical trust
.2
-.2
-.4
-.6
-.8
631
disagree
Grimsley, Meehan, Green and Stafford, 2003
617
2114
neither
711
strongly agree
agree
Sense of ability to influence
SHU - 14 March 2007
2219
837
strongly agree
agree
Sense of personal control
0.0
146
435
neither
disagree
agree
.3
strongly disagree
590
strongly disagree
strongly agree
.4
N=
414
very well informed
-.1
Sense of personal control
• Influence/Contingency
1724
fairly well informed
Sense of being well-informed
.4
N=
1030
not well informed
very well informed
Sense of being well-informed.
• Personal Control in Life
1052
poorly informed
fairly well informed
-.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
N=
146
631
strongly disagree
disagree
617
2114
neither
711
strongly agree
agree
Sense of ability to influence
17
HC: Trust Reinforcement
Information
Control
“I like the autonomy of being able to pick.”

“You can choose the area in which you want to live.”

“You can visit the property before you bid if you want to (only the
outside though).”


“You can see what’s available every week, so you can start to see
where [in the borough] you want to be.”


“It’s nice to see what’s available when previously you have always
been told there was nothing.”

“I like the right to refuse a property without it affecting your future
chances of being housed.”

“The “I like having a say in the property and being able to turn a
property down.”

SHU - 14 March 2007
Influence

Chan & Harkness (2004) Home Connections Focus Groups Report.
Home Connections Customer Comment
18
HC: Threats to Trust
Information
Control
“The system works fine, but nobody looks at your personal situation.”
X
“It would be nice to meet someone from Housing to let you know where
you stand [on bids].”
X
“The website is a jazzed up version of the council trying to get out of
answering questions! If the correct information was up there on the
website, we would not be phoning up for reassurance.”
X
“It gives you false hope…. You’re just left waiting…. The system raises
people’s hopes – you have to wait for two to three months before
you find out if you have been successful.”
X
“The real blockage with these schemes, which are excellent, is with the
council.”
X
X
X
X
“There is no communication so the wheels grind ever so slowly – the
right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.”
X
“The officer told me that properties are allocated on a ‘first come first
served’ basis, so the people who bid earlier in the morning have a
better chance than those bidding in the afternoon [untrue]. People
in the councils don’t know as much as we know about it [Home
Connections]!”
X
SHU - 14 March 2007
Influence
X
Chan & Harkness (2004) Home Connections Focus Groups Report.
Home Connections Customer Comment
19
Experiential Modulators of SV
Public
Service
Outcomes
Client
Experience
Willing to
recommend
N
Outcome: Overall trust
change (score 3-9)
GLM adjusted*
parameter estimates
[95% CI]
low
(3-9)
69
-2.21
[-2.68 to -1.74]
moderate
(9-11)
82
-1.27
[-1.73 to -0.81]
56
0
Explanatory
variables
Citizen/Client
Experience
Model
Well-Informedness,
Personal Control,
Influence.
Delivers
Promotes
Summated
score: WCI
Client
Experience
Public
Service
Provision
Client
Experience
Trust
high
(12-15)
(ref)
Adjusted R2
0.32
*Adjusted for gender and age group
Grimsley & Meehan, 2007a
SHU - 14 March 2007
20
Context:
Gateway to Community Advice Online
Goals:
• avoid social exclusion resulting from “digital divide”;
• promote co-operation between community advice agencies to achieve
multi-agency approach to clients’ needs.
Strategy:
• position voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) on the ‘right side’
of the digital divide;
• support community advice agencies in developing an online presence that
faces both their clients and (more importantly) other agencies.
SHU - 14 March 2007
21
Gateway to Community Advice Online
• Directory services
• Surveys & polls
• Sharable/reusable documents
– policies, procedures, reports, guidelines, codes, forms,…
• Secure case discussion/referral fora
• Links to national and local e-government services
• Community awareness features
• Local VCO control (design, content and administration)
• Open Source Tools
• Hosted by Greater London Authority – but may be hosted by VCO
SHU - 14 March 2007
22
4-Capitals Perspective
• Origins in the literature on growth and environmental economics (Ekins et al,
1992; Perlman et al, 2003).
• Elaborated by Grootaert (1998) in the context of community sustainability.
• Green et al (2001, 2005) developed the model and incorporated the capitals as
key drivers of community wellbeing.
• Hancock (2001) has given an interpretation of the 4-Capitals from a health
perspective.
SHU - 14 March 2007
23
Interpreting the 4-Capitals
Infrastructural
Capital
computing artefacts (hardware and software) which are
created, purchased, integrated into the technological
infrastructure that facilitate the goals of the system
Environmental
Capital
ICT amenities that afford/mediate relations
Human
Capital
Social
Capital
skills and competences required for the development,
management, and use of the system, including
communication, relational and governance skills
bonding, bridging and linking relations within and
between stakeholders. We distinguish between the
value arising from the existence of the relations and the
value arising from the quality of the relations – with
special reference to trust
SHU - 14 March 2007
24
Relating 4-Capitals in Design
Infrastructural
Capital


Architectural
Design
~
System
Management and
Administration
Affordance
Design
Environmental
Capital
~

Infrastructural
Facilitation of
Relationships
Balancesheet
Credit
• Infrastructure
• Software tool set
• Initial technical
skills

Debit
Human
Capital

Relational
Conduct
and
Management
Social
Capital

Mediation of
Relations
~

SHU - 14 March 2007
• Advanced technical
skills
• Non technical skills
• Relational context
• Organisational
Development for VCOs
25
Relating 4-Capitals in Design
Social Capital:
How to construct and
sustain the required
relationships?
Environmental Capital:
What environmental resources are
appropriate for mediation of the
relations?
Alignment
Human Capital:
What relational skills are
available? need? attainable?
Infrastructural Capital:
What infrastructural resources
are need to facilitate the
relational environment?
SHU - 14 March 2007
26
A Second Context
“We are making the public services user-led, not producer or
bureaucracy led.” (Blair, 2001)
E-government goals include:
• private and 3rd sector capacity building
• government “transformation”
Citizen
•
•
•
•
•
Consumer
State
•
Public
•
Political •
Collective •
Rights
•
Market
Private
Economic
Personal
Opportunities
Bureauratic Model
Post-bureaucratic Model
• Locus of Expertise • Networks or Chains
(PPP)
• Locus of Power
• Provider of Choice
• Public Interest
Ethos
• For Profit, Not-for-Profit,
Social Entrepreneurship
(After Clarke et al., 2007)
SHU - 14 March 2007
27
Common Context?
E-government Strategies:
• ‘New Public Management’ (1980s-90s)
“an inappropriate emphasis on narrow concepts of cost-efficiency and a
downplaying of non-functional objectives that were difficult to
measure…reduction of goals to simplistic targets that lend themselves to
manipulation and contrivance in their attainment.” (Kelly, Mulgan, Muers, 2002; Moore,
1995)
• ‘Citizens as Customers’ (late 1990s - )
Images of the citizen-consumer…
“harvesting information”, “making informed choices in the market”, “walking
away from public services which do not command their confidence” (Milburn,
2002)
And of the poor…
“The norm which is broken by the poor today … is the norm of consumer
competence or aptitude.” (Bauman, 1998)
SHU - 14 March 2007
28
Some References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bauman, Z. (1998) Work, Consumerism and the New Poor. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Clarke, J., Newman, J., Smith, N., Vidler, E., Westmarland, L. (2007) Creating Citizen Consumers. London,
Sage.
Cummings, Heeks and Huysmans (2003) Knowledge and Learning in Online Communities in Development: A
Social Capital Perspective. Development Informatics Working Paper Series, Institute for Development Policy
and Management, University of Manchester.
Green G., Grimsley, M. and Stafford, B., (2001) Capital Accounting for Neighbourhood Sustainability, CRESR,
Sheffield Hallam University, UK.
Green, G., Grimsley, M. and Stafford, B. (2005) The Dynamics of Neighbourhood Sustainability, Joseph
Rowntree Foundation: York Publishing Services.
Gilbertson J., Green G., Grimsley M. and Manning J. 2005. The Dynamic of Social Capital, Health and
Economy. CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Grimsley, M, Meehan, A, (2007a) e-Government systems: evaluation-led design for public value and trust.
European Journal of Information Systems (in press – to appear May 2007).
Grimsley, M, Meehan, A, Tan, A, (2007b) Evaluative design of e-Government projects: a community
development perspective. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. (in press - to appear in Vol.
1, Issue 2, 2007).
Kelly, G., Mulgan, G. and Muers, S. (2002) Creating Public Value: An analytical framework for public service
reform, Strategy Unit discussion paper, Cabinet Office.
Moore, M.H. (1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
MORI (2003) as Duffy, B., Browning, P. and Skinner, G. (2003). Trust in Public Institutions: A report for the Audit
Commission. MORI.
SHU - 14 March 2007
29
Mike Grimsley & Anthony Meehan
Supplementary Slides
• For possible use in discussion.
SHU - 14 March 2007
31
Some Lessons/Issues (1)
• Customer/client/citizen relates to whole process – need for
seamless integration of all system elements, and in ways that
support diversity and avoid exclusion.
• Well-informedness is promoted by:
– personalised proactive communication;
– consistency/lack of contradiction;
– and reinforced by trusted 3rd party mediation.
• Personal control is promoted by:
– flexibility (multiple paths to the same end);
– clarity of where the initiative resides.
• Sense of influence is promoted by:
– timeliness of context sensitive communication/feedback.
SHU - 14 March 2007
32
Some Lessons/Issues (2)
• It is possible to maintain trust (even if the desired outcome is very
difficult to attain) by taking a holistic view of clients needs and
proactively supporting the client in recognising and addressing
these needs.
• Introduction of e-government raises client and citizen expectations
and it is these raised expectations that must be met. This is
particularly challenging for developers and managers of egovernment systems as the introduction of the system itself raises
benchmark by which it will be judged.
SHU - 14 March 2007
33
Trust Management Matrix
Project
Activity
Information
Strategy
Distribution of
Control
Deployment of
Influence
Target Experience in Citizen/Community Group/Agency
Sense of being well-informed
How should information be structured
and organised to promote wellinformedness? Address the volume,
quality, and scope (breadth) of
information, and the effectiveness with
which it is communicated.
Sense of personal control
What information is needed and how can
it be organised to promote a sense of
personal control?
Address the information needed to make
clear the scope for alternative courses of
action/opportunity.
Sense of being able to influence
What information is needed to facilitate
the formation of informed views and how
to convey them appropriately and
effectively? What information is needed
to provide evidence that views have been
considered and/or acted upon?
Where should the initiative lie in the
elicitation/provision of information?
For each information element of the
information strategy (see row 1, above)
determine whether it should be reactivly
or proactivly communicated.
In persuit of the shared objective of the
trust-relationship, how might
responsibility for the subtasks and
objectives be distributed between the
parties? Demonstrate flexible practice
(distribiution of tasks) in respect of the
distinctive needs of each individual,
group or agency in the community.
With whom should the initiative lie in the
elicitation of views on current and future
policy?
Establish a consultative dialogue. Adapt
(standard) provision in light of expressed
needs.
What balanced and (preferably)
independent evidence is available to
legitimate current policy and practice?
How might perceptions of needs be
changed so that any diminution of the
space of alternative courses of
action/opportunity is not experienced as a
diminution of a sense of control?
What negotiation strategies will be
perceived as trustworthy?
Adopt coordinative (recognises others
priorities) or even integrative (trades off
own low priorities if they meet other
party’s high priorities) negotiation styles.
SHU - 14 March 2007
34
Willingness to recommend TCH
Willing to Recommend TCH
40
35
30
%
25
IT-Users
20
non-IT-Users
15
10
5
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Unsure
Disagree
Strongly disagree
No Opinion
• IT-Users are more willing to recommend TCH.
SHU - 14 March 2007
35
The Hysteresis of Trust
Trust
- ve
+ ve
Experience
when trust is lost, there is rarely a quick and easy way to
rebuild the relationship.
SHU - 14 March 2007
36
Exclusion
Acting in
the
World
voting?
Alienation  exclusion
Confidence
Anxiety  exclusion
Trust
mental health?
fear of crime?
Note: Confidence and Trust are not linearly additive
after Luhmann, 2001
SHU - 14 March 2007
37