UHD Second International Scientific Conference

IRAQ - KRG- Sulaimaniyah, 1-2 April 2015.

ICT: As a Critical Success Factor for Transparency and

Governance in Public Sector
Dr. Salahideen ALHAJ
Software Engineering Dept, Arab American University, UNDP Governance Expert, Kuwait.

Abstracts

In recent years, many governments have worked to increase openness and transparency in their actions.
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) seen by many as a cost-effective and convenient means to
promote openness and transparency and to reduce corruption. This paper explores the potential impacts of ICTs on
Public Sector Transparency and Governance and aims at providing a better understanding of the underlying factors
and dimensions that describe service delivery and highlight the factors that incorporates a critical contribution to the
success in service provided by public sector through suggestion the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) at
Implementation. Therefore, it expands the scope of service delivery research in governance context, stating the need
for more research to be conducted regarding the new service deliveries in public sector using CSFs, by identifying
the potential success of future projects, a number of implications for public sector as well as administrators become
known. The paper builds on merging the best practice technologies with existing literature that advocates the use of
CSFs, to study the implementation of these services and proposed a model that incorporates the determinants of
success for the service through a set of variables, which is believes to help with the empirical research of CSF in
service delivery. The suggested approach attempts to bring experience in leadership and coordination of work theory
and practice together by synthesizing the existing literature with real-life experience and contributes to governance
implementation by developing KPIs dashboard that takes under consideration important CSF for implementing
service delivery.

Keywords: Information & Communication Technologies (ICT); Institutional; Public Sector, Open Data Services, Critical Success
Factors;

1. Background

Organizations (in public and private sector) increasingly use and depends on Information and
communication technologies (ICTs) to achieve their business objectives [1], which has become at focus
of organizational, technical, and culture influences [2] and important for sustaining and extending public
service delivery [3]. On the other hand, the function of good governance in the public sector is to ensure
that entities act in the public interest at all times with an aim to encourage better service delivery and
improved accountability [4]. Recently, many governments working to increase openness and
transparency in their actions. ICTs are seen by many as a cost-effective and convenient means to promote
openness and transparency and to reduce corruption. E-government, in particular, has been used in many
prominent, comprehensive transparency efforts in a number of nations. While some of these individual
efforts have received considerable attention, the issue of whether these ICT-enabled efforts have the
potential to create a substantive social change in attitudes toward transparency has not been widely
considered [5]. Many research projects focused on IT governance, but none has tackle health of public
sector organizations in a holistic approach which is the gap in the research.
Accordingly, this paper addresses attempts to answer two research questions: (1) which factors
influence governance and transparency in public sector? (2) How these factors be integrated into a model
that show the organization health (KPIs) for top management?
To present the research, author structures this paper as follows: the next section briefly reviews the
most important conceptualization and studies that inform our research. We then outline our
methodological approach for answering the research questions. Subsequently, we present synthesize
them into model that explains how KPIs work and how it impacts governance. Finally we summarize our
results, as well as discuss our limitation and research contribution.

1.1 Why to use ICT for Governance?

ICT is a fast-evolving sector. A number of disruptive changes have taken place in recent years and call
for a new strategy to provide guidance on institutional interventions related to ICT. The field of ICT
work for governance is still so new that most of the initiatives reviewed were yet to be evaluated; nor
were steps taken to ensure evaluative work in the future (establishment of baselines, monitoring
procedures, etc.). Furthermore, with the rapid developments that mobile telephony is undergoing, the
availability of oversight studies for triangulation purposes were limited as only the most recent research,
dating back no more than 2-3 years, holds relevant lessons learnt for today’s strategic orientations.
Finally, information on donor ICT activities at global level were difficult to obtain due to decentralization
of programming activities to country level coupled with weak mechanisms for institutional learning. On
the other hand, data governance is the practice of managing the availability, usability, integrity and
security of enterprise data to maximize return [6, 7], Combines the disciplines of data quality, data
management, data policy management, business process management, and risk management into a
methodology that ensures important data assets are formally managed throughout an enterprise [8]. The
challenge lies in how it must work, through collaboration between IT and business, and a cross business
units. This challenge is one of implementation: creating the necessary communication, power sharing,
and accountability.

1.2 Transparency(Government Open Data)

Transparency as an international issue, rise up after World War I in the post-war negotiations [9].
Pursue transparency was a slow process and took considerable time for many nations. As of September
2013, at least 95 countries had nationwide laws establishing the right of, and procedures for, the public
to request and receive government-held information [10]. Transparency and the right to access
government information are now internationally regarded as essential to democratic participation, trust
in government, prevention of corruption, informed decision-making, accuracy of government
information, and provision of information to the public, companies, and journalists, among other
essential functions in society [11, 12, 13, 14]. Government transparency generally occurs through one
of four primary channels [15]: Proactive dissemination by the government; Release of requested
materials by the government; Public meetings; and Leaks from whistleblowers.
Transparency refers to a process by which reliable, timely information about existing conditions,
decisions and actions relating to the activities of the organization is made accessible, visible and
understandable [16]. Open data is a global movement for open government data as a strategy for
transparency, efficiency and innovation. The first government open data portals were established in 2009
by the US and UK. Thus, open data is the rare technological advance being implemented simultaneously
and concurrently in the developed world and the developing world. A global partnership is working to
implement government open data and establish a sustaining ecosystem. Representatives of developed
and developing nations work as co-equals.

1.3 Accountability

Accountability is an amorphous concept that is difficult to define in precise terms. However, broadly
speaking, accountability exists when there is a relationship where an entity, and the performance of tasks
or functions by that entity, are subject to another’s oversight, direction or request that they provide
information or justification for their actions. Therefore, accountability can be achieved through two
distinct stages: Answerability and Enforcement. [17]. Answerability refers to the obligation of the
government, its agencies and public officials to provide information about their decisions and actions
and to justify them to the public and those institutions of accountability tasked with providing oversight
[18]. Accountability ensures actions and decisions taken by public officials are subject to oversight so
as to guarantee that government initiatives meet their stated objectives and respond to the needs of the
community they are meant to be benefiting, thereby contributing to better governance and poverty
reduction. Accountability is one of the cornerstones of good governance; however, it can be difficult for
scholars and practitioners alike to navigate the myriad of different types of accountability. Recently,
there has been a growing discussion within both the academic and development communities about the
different accountability typologies.

1.4 Productivity and efficiency

A measure of the efficiency of a person, machine, factory, system, etc., in converting inputs into
useful outputs. Productivity is computed by dividing average output per period by the total costs incurred
or resources (capital, energy, material, personnel) consumed in that period. Productivity is a critical
determinant of cost efficiency [19]. Where, Efficiency is about doing things in an optimal way, and it is
effort, process, goal, and time oriented [20].

1.5 Accuracy

According to ISO 5725-1, [21] the terms trueness and precision are used to describe the accuracy of
a measurement. Trueness refers to the closeness of the mean of the measurement results to the actual
(true) value and precision refers to the closeness of agreement within individual results. Therefore,
according to the ISO standard, the term "accuracy" refers to both trueness and precision.

1.6 Corruption

Public sector corruption is a key barrier to effective service delivery and an impediment to economic
growth and development [22]. Corruption defined as, "an incident where a bureaucrat (or an elected
official) breaks a rule for private gain" [23].
 2. Critical success factors

Critical Success Factors (CSF) defined as " those few things that must go well to ensure success for a
manager or an organization, and, therefore, they represent those managerial or enterprise area, that
must be given special and continual attention to bring about high performance. CSFs include issues vital
to an organization's current operating activities and to its future success "[24].

3. Proposed Approach

Electronic government (e-government) suggests the use of information technology (IT) and systems
to provide efficient and quality governmental services to citizens, employees, businesses and agencies.
Moreover, it increases the convenience and accessibility of government services and information to
citizens. The multiplicity of anticipated benefits that may stem from the implementation of e-government
has led governments to invest heavily in technologies and systems. The aim of the governments to
provide not only improved and computerized but also innovative services in e-government has spanned
services innovation literature in the public sector and boosted the study of new service development.
However, a major portion of the literature on services has concentrated on the financial-service sector
and hospitality industry, and there has been relatively no significant research on services in e-government
and public sector. Moreover, e-government, sometimes perceived as buzzword in public administration,
implies different things to different stakeholder groups. Despite its numerous benefits – such as greater
public access to information and a more efficient, cost-effective government – e-government is
contingent upon the willingness of the citizens to adapt it. Although providing services remains a
challenge for researchers and practitioners alike, there has been relatively little research exploring the
services delivered in e-government. To address this gap and under the critical success factors (CSFs)
prism, this paper contributes to the providing of services in e-government literature by suggesting a
model that considers CSF for the implementation of e-government projects. The main argument
developed in this paper is that driving success of services in e-government sectors is multi-faceted. In
addition, since the benefits of e-government are much anticipated by governments, the financial
investments involve high risk, it is necessary to suggest a model based both on previous literature in the
field (best practice), and research, which will take under consideration the majority of the factors that
secure the successful outcome of future investments and providing services in e-government.

3.1 Public Sector Transparency & Governance (PSTG)Success Factors

The researches of business development and concurrently with the best practice experiments has
been approved of consideration of ICT as an important
success key factor of Public Sector Governance &
Transparency (PSTG) due to the adoption of it in the tools
as well as process. One of big advantage to assure a
successful integration and driving of ICT in (PSTG) is to
set the critical success factor (CSF) as an element that is
necessary for a PSTG to achieve its mission. In developing
PSTG Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) dashboard,
author consider the triangle: People, Technology, and
Process (PTP) which are the most fundamental elements of
any business. The details of each factor in PTP triangle
(People, Technology, and Process) as shown in figure 1.
Fig. 1. Critical Success Factor
The main goal of PSTG is to capture, manage, use, and analyze the information for sustaining and
extending public service delivery for the public interest at all times. To assure a successful business
integration, a CSF of data quality and accuracy should be considered, the ease of use, the functionality
and usability of ICT should stabilized with the security based on the rule of Security, Functionality, and
Ease of Use Triangle [25]; high security will affect the ease of use and the functionality and vice versa,
see Fig. 2. Complexity and Invention of technology are also constraints that can potentially affect the
results of IT projects, the lack of relevant technical skills within the project team has been founded to be
an important factor, and finally integrating different firms by unification the technology with increase
the CSF of adopting the technology to reach the aim.

Fig. 2. Ease of Use Triangle

3.2 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

The proposed approach aims to highlight and implement the factors that incorporates critical factors
contributing to the success in service provided by PSTG.

3.2.1 Research approach

The approach built on the existing literature that advocates the use of critical success factors (CSFs)
to study the implementation of these service deliveries, Suggest an integrated model that incorporates
the determinants of success or failure for the service through a set of variables.

3.2.2 Modeling Equation

𝑲𝑷𝑰 % = 𝜶 (𝐕𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 %) + 𝛃(𝐕𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 %) + Ɵ(𝐕𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 %) (1)

Where:
𝑰𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒔
𝜶%= %
𝑷𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝑪𝑺𝑭
 𝑰𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒔
𝛃%= %
𝑻𝒆𝒄𝒉𝒏𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒚 𝑪𝑺𝑭

𝑰𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒔

Ɵ% = %
𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝑪𝑺𝑭

3.2.3 Best Practice

Which is more important: People? Process? Or Technology? One of the most acceptable conclusion
to drive an organization to become high ranked, from social and collaborative and successful enterprise
perspective is treating people, process, and technology equally, while others focusing on process, then
people and finely technology when they reforming their business. The author believes that the success
key of any organization is the people, who drives the processes and design & operates ICTs. In general,
we need to focus our attention on people, technology, and process (PTP Triangle), but with the ICTs
invention revolution and its added value to business, we might think in role and impact of ICTs.

1.1.1 Factors and Weight

From theoretical and practical evidence based, author weighted people (50%) then technology (25%)
and finally process (25%). The following table (Tab.2) is a practical implementation of the proposed
integrated model, the value (%) of the “People” factor distributed in a way reflecting the weight
described in the proposed model, where the value for each element of the factor presents the best practice
distribution, and so on for remaining factors.
Table 2: KPIs of integrated model

1.1.2 Organization Governance Gauge

The output of calculation in table 2 will be show on top management dashboard as single value,
figure.4 shows organization governance gauge.
 Fig.4: Organization Governance Gauge

1.1.3 Research limitations

The approach contributes to the PSTG implementation literature in terms of suggesting a factors that
takes under consideration important CSF for implementing service delivery to keep up transparency
and governance in public sector organizations. The model is flexible and can be adapted to fit with any
environment (in terms of weight and /or sub factors).

1.2 Findings

The proposed integrated model, which is believed to help with the empirical research of CSF in
service delivery framework attempts to bring experience in leadership and coordination of work theory
and practice together by synthesizing the existing literature with real-life experience, the current situation
analysis indicates no establishment for productive relation “process” between people and ICT, the
elements of the factors described in the proposed model brings to implement a productive relation for
PSTG which has the capability to use both of them in tracing the achievement of strategic goals which
impact e-government management as well, and enable top management to focus on Strategic goals
without drilling-down in operations.

2. Conclusion

The research aims at providing a better understanding of the underlying factors and dimensions that
describe service delivery in PSTG and e-government through the suggestion of a factors that takes under
consideration important CSF for implementing those services. Therefore, it expands the scope of service
delivery research in e-government context, stating the need for more research to be conducted regarding
the new service deliveries in e-government using CSF. By identifying the potential success of future
projects, a number of implications for public sector as well as administrators become known.

3. References

[1] Lazic M., Heinzl A., and Neff A. IT Govenance Impact Model : How mature it govenance affects business perfomance
, 2011.
[2] Sethible T., Campbell J., and McDonald C., IT governance in public and private sector organizations , Examining the
differences and defining future research directions, 2007.
[3] Lazar R., and Edephonce N. , Critical Success Framework for Implementing Effective IT Governance in Tanzanian
Public Sector Organizations.
[4] Good Governance in the Public Sector CIPFA
[5] Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools
for societies John C. Bertot, Paul T. Jaeger, Justin M. Grimes University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
[6] http://agiledata.org/essays/dataGovernance.html (Acceess on Jan 27th ,2014).
[7] http://searchdatamanagement.techtarget.com/definition/data-governance (Acceess on Jan 27th ,2014).
[8] Paper 084-2013 Best Practices in Enterprise Data Governance Scott Gidley and Nancy Rausch, SAS Institute Inc.,
Cary, NC
[9] Braman, S. Change of state: Information, policy, and power. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press. 2006.
[10] http://www.right2info.org/access-to-information-laws/access-to-information-laws#_ftnref7 (Access on jan 24th , 2014)
[11] Cullier, D., & Piotrowski, S. J. Internet information-seeking and its relation to support for access to government records.
Government Information Quarterly, 26, 441−449, 2009.
[12] Mulgan, R. Truth in government and the politicization of public service advice. Public Administration, 85,
569−586,2007.
[13] Quinn, A. C. Keeping the citizenry informed: Early congressional printing and 21st century information policy.
Government Information Quarterly, 20,281−293, 2003.
[14] Reylea, H. C. Federal freedom of information policy: Highlights of recent developments. Government Information
Quarterly, 26, 314−320, 2009.
[15] Piotrowski, S. J. Governmental transparency in the path of administrative reform. New York: SUNY Press,2007.
[16] http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/Resources/AccountabilityGovernance.pd
f
[17] http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/quality-framework/technical-
notes/accountability/ (Access on jan 25 th 2014)
[18] http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/transparency/overview.html
[19] http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/productivity.html
[20] http://www.diffen.com/difference/Effectiveness_vs_Efficiency
[21] BS ISO 5725-1: "Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and reults - Part 1: General principles
and definitions", pp.1 (1994).
[22] Hanna, R., Bishop, S., Nadel, S., Scheffler, G, Durlacher, K. The effectiveness of anti-corruption policy: what has
worked, what hasn‟t, and what we don‟t know–a systematic review. Technical report. London: EPPI-Centre, Social
Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, 2011.
[23] Banerjee A, Hanna R, Mullainathan S (2011) Corruption. http://econwww. mit.edu/files/6607 .
[24] Boynlon, A.C., and Zmud, R.W. 1984. "An Assessment of Critical Success Factors,"
[25] Kimberly Graves.”CEH Offical Certificd Ethical Hacker Review Geuid”, 2007