Search results

The purpose of this paper is to promote academic discourse around the understanding of the concept of value of eGovernment and how a diverse set of benefits or values can be realized from eGovernment efforts.

The paper is designed as a viewpoint paper with emphasis on grounding a set of arguments on current practice and relevant scholarly papers.

Although not based on a formal, structured review, the paper proposes that the concept of value in relation to eGovernment is insufficiently discussed and defined in the eGovernment literature. Based on the high failure rates of eGovernment efforts, it further proposes that structured approaches to benefits realization, in combination with increased focus on (public) value, can be fruitful avenues for future research. The complexity of the context and the research challenges makes interdisciplinary research teams a necessity.

If addressed, the research propositions can lead to an increased understanding of the complexity of the concept of value related to eGovernment. Further, the propositions promote research that can lead to more pertinent documentation of the actual value of various eGovernment efforts as well as research of good practice on how government organizations can increase their opportunities to maximize value from their eGovernment spendings.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the range of benchmarking applications that can be used in a principal‐agent relationship setting often found in the public sector.

Collection and critical analysis of secondary data from relevant publications addressing applications of benchmarking in the public sector. Extraction of knowledge from several research projects where the authors have been involved in studying and developing benchmarking approaches for different public sector organizations. Induction of new theory about the use of benchmarking in principal‐agent relationships in the public sector, grounded through empirical evidence from case studies.

A number of new approaches to benchmarking in the public sector have been identified and described, some of which are already used in real life cases, others which need further development before being implemented. All of these can introduce benefits to both principals and agents involved in such benchmarking efforts.

The paper explores benchmarking applications that are almost exclusively relevant in a public sector setting, although some of them might be adapted to certain private sector conditions.

Whereas most work on benchmarking in the public sector tend to view only improvement‐oriented, voluntary benchmarking as relevant and useful, this paper demonstrates how many different imposed benchmarking schemes with other purposes can be useful.

This purpose of this paper is to investigate the volume and background of changes done shortly after project completion.

To ensure a consistent set of projects, selection criteria were related to project budget, time of completion, and executing institution. Data collection included an initial survey followed by interviews.

The study identified frequency and extent of changes/alterations within a certain period after project completion as well as the dominating causes for such changes.

The study is based on a limited number of projects and from three specific Norwegian agencies. Future research should include a larger sample, possibly also covering other sectors.

If acted upon, the suggestions for countermeasures can contribute to reducing or preventing post‐project changes. The findings indicate a need for new performance measures for projects, as the classical parameters provide motivation to project managers and their teams to focus on project cost and timely delivery, rather than the life‐cycle cost.

In sectors experiencing a widespread occurrence of changes after project completion, this could mean that cost overruns or functionality beyond what was sanctioned by the financing bodies are “hidden” in this type of change work. If so, this prevents sponsors and society from seeing the real project cost, and is clearly a misuse of resources.

This paper contributes to the limited literature focusing on changes after project completion. The paper includes material that may help project managers and project owners avoid post‐project changes and the costs and inconvenience associated with such changes.