See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264829449

IT Resources, Organizational Capabilities, and Value Creation in the Public

Sector Organizations - Public Value Management Perspective

Article  in  Journal of Information Technology · September 2014

DOI: 10.1057/jit.2014.2

CITATIONS READS

41 1,294

3 authors:

Min-Seok Pang Gwanhoo Lee

Temple University American University Washington D.C.
14 PUBLICATIONS   141 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   1,580 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

William Delone
American University Washington D.C.
37 PUBLICATIONS   15,284 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

digital platform design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gwanhoo Lee on 11 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Information Technology (2014) 29, 187–205
© 2014 JIT Palgrave Macmillan All rights reserved 0268-3962/14
palgrave-journals.com/jit/

Special issue on leveraging the IS organization for business value creation (continued).
The other five articles that make up this special issue can be found in 29.2, pp. 111–185

Research article

IT resources, organizational capabilities, and

value creation in public-sector organizations:
a public-value management perspective
Min-Seok Pang1, Gwanhoo Lee2, William H DeLone2
1
Department of Management Information Systems, Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA;
2
Department of Information Technology, Kogod School of Business, American University, Washington, DC, USA

Correspondence:
M-S Pang, Department of Management Information Systems, Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia,
PA 19122, USA

Abstract
What value does information technology (IT) create in governments and how does it do so?
While business value of IT has been extensively studied in the information systems field, this
has not been the case for public value. This is in part due to a lack of theoretical bases for
investigating IT value in the public sector. To address this issue, we present a conceptual
model on the mechanism by which IT resources contribute to value creation in the public-
sector organizations. We propose that the relationship between IT resources and organiza-
tional performance in governments is mediated by organizational capabilities and develop a
theoretical model that delineates the paths from IT resources to organizational performance,
drawing upon public-value management theory. This theory asserts that public managers,
on behalf of the public, should actively strive to generate greater public value, as managers in
the private sector seek to achieve greater private business value. On the basis of the review
of public-value management literature, we suggest that the following five organizational
capabilities mediate the relationship between IT resources and public value – public service
delivery capability, public engagement capability, co-production capability, resource-build-
ing capability, and public-sector innovation capability. We argue that IT resources in public
organizations can enable public managers to advance public-value frontiers by cultivating
these five organizational capabilities and to overcome conflicts among competing values.
Journal of Information Technology (2014) 29, 187–205. doi:10.1057/jit.2014.2;
published online 1 April 2014; corrected online 29 August 2014
Keywords: information technology resources; organizational capability; government; public
sector; public value; public-value management theory

Introduction

G
overnments are voracious consumers of information
technologies (IT). According to the Federal IT Dash-
board (http://www.itdashboard.gov/), the US Federal
Government spent as much as US$75.7 billion in IT in 2012,
which amounted to $237 per capita. Similarly, according
to the National Association of State Governments (NASCIO,
2005a), between 2001 and 2005, a US state government
annually invested, on average, in approximately $337 million
or 5% of its revenues. Thus, taxpayers might ask – Does this
enormous amount of spending in IT create enough sufficient
value to the public that justifies the investments?
It has been one of the primary research focuses in the
information systems (IS) literature for the last couple of decades
to find out whether or not IT investments can lead an organiza-
tion to generate greater value and achieve sustainable competi-
tive advantage (Brynjolfsson, 1993, Melville et al., 2004, Kohli
and Grover, 2008). Numerous IS researchers to date have repor-
ted a broad range of empirical evidence that IT investments are
 In public sector organisations
188
positively associated with firm performance in terms of produc-
tivity, profitability, and market value (Brynjolfsson and Hitt,
1996, Bharadwaj et al., 1999, Anderson et al., 2006).
However, the IS literature has not paid much attention to
value creation by IT resources in the public-sector domain. As
our literature review in the section ‘Public-sector IT-value
research’ shows, only a minuscule number of studies on IT
value in the government sector have been published in major
academic journals in IS and public administration. We
attribute this dearth of research to the absence of established
theoretical bases. To the best of our knowledge, the theoretical
models for existing IT-value research such as the production
function model (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 1996, Hitt and
Brynjolfsson, 1996, Dewan and Min, 1997) or the resource-
based view (RBV) (e.g., Sambamurthy et al., 2003, Wade and
Hulland, 2004) do not take into consideration idiosyncratic
characteristics and peculiarities of the public-sector organi-
zations. Such characteristics that distinguish governments
from business firms include the absence of profit-seeking
motive and competitive environments, plurality and trade-off
in values (Molina and Spicer, 2004, Nabatchi, 2011, Cordella
and Bonina, 2012), political or bureaucratic nature of public
organizations (Cordella, 2007, Yildiz, 2007), and diversity in
stakeholders who influence public administration and demand
accountability of public officials (Newcomer and Caudle,
1991). Theoretical models and empirical studies in IS incor-
porate these factors. Bozeman and Bretschneider (1986) and
Bretschneider (1990) point out that the IS literature in general
does not fully account for these unique factors of public
organizations such as political environments and bureaucratic
nature in organizations. Therefore, the theoretical models
developed for IT value in the private sector are not completely
suitable for investigating IT value in the public sector.
A related question inspired by the IS literature is how
investments in IT contribute to organizational performance.
This question leads IS researchers to shift their attention
from the direct impact of IT on firm performance to the
mechanisms through which IT contribute to firm performance
(Piccoli and Ives, 2005). In this research stream, a number of
relatively recent studies take a process-view approach, in which
IT resources, which consist of IT assets and capabilities (Wade
and Hulland, 2004), do not lead to greater firm performance
directly but do so through intermediate organizational capabil-
ities such as those in manufacturing, marketing, customer
service, or supply chain management (Ray et al., 2005, Banker
et al., 2006, Rai et al., 2006). These studies assert that the
effective use, management, and leverage of IT resources in
fostering organizational capabilities can lead to value creation
(Pavlou and El Sawy, 2006). The section ‘IT resources, organi-
zational capabilities, and organizational performance’ reviews
prior IS studies with this process view. On the basis of this
process view, the present study aims to identify the processes
through which IT resources contribute to value creation in
the public-sector organizations. Taking an interdisciplinary
approach that combines the IS and the public administration
literature, we propose that the relationship between IT
resources and organizational performance in the public sector
is mediated by organizational capabilities (Figure 1).
In this study, drawing upon public-value management
theory from the public administration literature (Moore,
1995, Alford and O’Flynn, 2009, Moore and Benington,
2011), we develop a theoretical model that explains the rela-
M-S Pang et al
Figure 1 The relationship between IT resources, organizational capabilities,
and organizational performance in the public sector.
tionship between IT resources and value creation in the
public-sector organizations. This theory asserts that public
managers, on behalf of the public, should actively strive to
generate greater public value rather than passively following
the dictates of elected officials, as managers in the private
sector seek to achieve greater private value (Moore, 1995). Our
review of public-value management literature suggests that the
following five key organizational capabilities are paramount
to public-value creation – public service delivery capability,
public engagement capability, co-production capability, resou-
rce acquisition capability, and public-sector innovation cap-
ability (Moore, 1995, Stoker, 2006, Alford and Hughes, 2008,
Alford and O’Flynn, 2009). In addition, as for-profit firms seek
to maximize long-term shareholder values as an ultimate goal
to achieve, we put forth that governments aim at advancing
a public-value frontier by reducing conflicts among competing
values (Public-value frontier).
This research complements the IT business value research
by focusing on the public-sector context, which, as a signifi-
cant part of the overall economy, deserves more attention
from IS scholars. Recognizing that prior theories in the IT-
value literature mainly derived from the for-profit setting may
not be fully applicable to studying IT value in the public
sector, we lay a new theoretical ground for future researchers
interested in IT value in this domain. Active research on
IT value in the context of the public sector will help the IS
discipline influence other disciplines such as public adminis-
tration or public policy and also appeal to new audiences from
the government sector (Straub, 2010). Our theoretical model
can bolster and provide guidance for future government IT
research among IS researchers.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The
next section presents our comprehensive literature review that
was conducted to understand the status quo of research on
government IT value. The section after that reviews the pre-
vious literature on IT resources and organizational capabilities.
The subsequent section summarizes the literature on public-
value management literature and discusses the key organi-
zational capabilities for creating public value. The penultimate
section provides a detailed discussion of the relationship
between IT resources, organizational capabilities, and public-
value frontier. The final section concludes the paper with
discussions, implications, and future research direction.
Public-sector IT-value research
In order to examine the status quo of public-sector IT-value
research, we conducted a comprehensive literature search for
scholarly journal articles in a broad range of fields, spanning
from IS to economics, public administration, and political
sciences.
First, in the IS field, we searched articles in MIS Quar-
terly and Information Systems Research, a journal published
 In public sector organisations
from January 1990 to December 2012. We searched titles,
abstracts, and keywords that contain any of the following terms:
government, public organization, public sector, and public
employee. The initial search yielded only 13 articles. Thus, we
expanded the scope of the literature search to the leading IS
journals identified by Lowry et al. (2004), Rainer and Miller
(2005) and Association for Information Systems Senior Scho-
lars’ Basket of Journals.1 Table A1 in Appendix presents the list
of these journals. We excluded journals targeting practitioners,
such as Harvard Business Review and Sloan Management
Review. We also excluded commentary, editorial articles, and
book reviews. This expanded search generated 139 articles.
We searched for research conducted in the public admini-
stration field by choosing the top 10 journals in the public
administration category in terms of the 5-year impact factor
from Thomson-Reuters’ Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2011
Social Science Edition. Papers published from January 1999
to December 2012 were searched using the keywords compu-
ter, digital, online, Internet, technology, information system,
electronic government, e-government, and open government.
Again, we excluded commentary and editorial articles. We
also referred to JCR 2009 to select top journals in political
sciences and economics. For each discipline, we select the top
10 journals by the 5-year impact factors. In addition to these
top 10 journals, we also included public economics and
industrial organization journals within the top 100 economics
journals. The same timeframe and the same set of keywords
with public administration were employed for the literature
search. In total, 68 articles were found in the non-IS journals.
Among these 207 studies, we first selected IT-value studies
based on the definition of Kohli and Grover (2008), which
states that an IT-value study have two components: (i) IT
variable, IT management variable, or manifestation, and
(ii) endogenous variable with IT economic impact. Applying
these criteria, we discovered 12 articles that are qualified for
IT-value research in the public sector and have been published
in mainstream research journals between 1990 and 2012,
as shown in Table 1(A). Seven studies are published in IS
journals, and the remaining five are published in non-IS
journals. In addition, we conducted a keyword search with
the terms value, performance, efficiency, and effective in two
journals focusing on government IT, Government Information
Quarterly and Information Polity, but found no studies
qualified for IT-value research.
On the basis of the production-function framework, Lehr
and Lichtenberg (1998) discover positive IT productivity in
US federal agencies. Moreover, with the production–function
framework, Lee and Perry (2002) find a positive impact of
IT assets in US state governments on state gross domestic
product (GDP). Mukhopadhyay et al. (1997) discover an
improvement in labor productivity in the toll collection
process after the adoption of a new IT application in the
Pennsylvania Turnpike. Unlike Lehr and Lichtenberg (1998)
and Lee and Perry (2002), however, their study considers
their setting (the Pennsylvania Turnpike) just as a context
for finding the process-level effect in IT value and does not
explicitly aim at examining IT business value in public organi-
zations. In addition, in nine papers in Table 1(A), IT value is
not the main focus, but only part of their research scope.
For example, in a case study of the Singapore Trade Develop-
ment Board, Teo et al. (1997) report that the new electronic
data interchange (EDI) system, which interconnects traders
M-S Pang et al
189
with trading and custom agencies, significantly improved
the effectiveness of trading declaration processes and the
satisfaction of traders. While their study also covers many
other aspects of the EDI systems, such as changes in organi-
zational structures and processes, their main focus is not on
performance improvement.
Given that the public-sector organizations pursue a more
diverse set of values than for-profit firms, we relaxed the
second condition of Kohli and Grover (2008) and identified
prior studies on the impact of IT on non-economic value such
as trust in government, transparency, satisfaction, or confi-
dence in government. However, as listed in Table 1(B), even
this broader search only generated eight studies, three of
which are published in IS journals.
In sum, the literature search reveals that between 1990 and
2012, only 139 papers published in mainstream IS journals are
more or less related to a topic of government IT, and only
11 papers explicitly investigate the impact of IT on economic
or non-economic outcomes. In other words, the IS community
has largely overlooked the public sector, a significant portion
of the economy (35 and 45% of the GDP in the United States
and the European Union, respectively, in 2007) (Tsouhlou
and Mylonakis 2011). Kraemer and Dedrick (1997) call for
more research efforts in the public-sector IT, but it appears that
their call has not been embraced enthusiastically by IS scholars.
Moreover, we have discovered a significant dearth of studies on
IT value in the public sector, compared with a cornucopia of
IT-value articles in the private-sector business setting. In their
review article, Melville et al. (2004) review and synthesize 198
IT-value studies in business settings that are published in IS
journals. On the other hand, our journal search demonstrates
that not only IS, but also public administration researchers
have paid scant attention to IT value in the public-sector
organizations. In addition, as shown in Table 1 and pointed out
by Danziger and Andersen (2002), there are few quantitative
empirical studies on the topic of public-sector IT value.
Why is there a lack of research efforts that focus on under-
standing the contribution of IT to value creation in
the public sector? As most IS researchers are affiliated
with business schools, they simply may not have enough
background knowledge or strong interests in looking at govern-
ment IT. However, we identify two more fundamental chal-
lenges that may have impeded the research. First, it is not as
straightforward to define value or performance in governments
as it is in commercial organizations. There are numerous ways
to measure organizational performance in the business setting,
such as sales revenues, productivity, market share, profit, and
customer satisfaction. Whereas the public administration litera-
ture offers some performance measures for individual govern-
ment service areas such as education (standard test results,
dropout rates) or public safety (crime occurrence and clearance
rates), no consensus performance measure for governments has
been established in prior literature. Therefore, it is still challen-
ging to measure organization-wide performance in government
because conventional market performance measures such as
sales, profitability, and market value do not capture the
governments’ primary objectives. Furthermore, it is difficult to
define and measure other ‘non-market’ values, such as trans-
parency, democracy, and rule of law.
Second and more fundamentally, to the best of our know-
ledge, there has been little theoretical foundation that IS resea-
rchers can draw upon to study the performance implications
 In public sector organisations M-S Pang et al
190

Table 1 Prior Studies in Public-Sector IT Value

Study Journal Setting Performance measure Method IT value as

main focus?

(A) Impact of IT on economic value

Neo (1992) Journal of Strategic Singapore Primary Market efficiency Qualitative No
Information Systems Production Board case study
Williams (1994) Journal of Strategic Australia Taxation Efficiency, Stability, Quantitative No
Information Systems Office predictability survey data
Norris and Kraemer Public Administration US Local Job performance, costs Quantitative No
(1996) Review Governments survey data
Mukhopadhyay et al. Decision Support Systems Pennsylvania Labor productivity Quantitative Yes
(1997) Turnpike archival data
Teo et al. (1997) Journal of Management Singapore Trade Process effectiveness, Qualitative No
Information Systems Development Board Trader satisfaction case study
Cox and Ghoneim (1998) Journal of Strategic UK Stationary Cost efficiency, Transaction Qualitative No
Information Systems Office accuracy case study
Lehr and Lichtenberg Journal of Industrial US Federal Agency outputs Quantitative Yes
(1998) Economics Agencies archival data
Nunn (2001) Public Administration US Police Department expenditures Quantitative, No
Review Departments per capita Archival data
Lee and Perry (2002) Journal of Public US States State GDP Quantitative, Yes
Administration Research and Governments Archival data
Theory
Norris and Moon (2005) Public Administration US Local Business process efficiency, Quantitative No
Review Governments Administrative Costs survey data
Moon and Norris (2005) Information Systems Journal US Local Cost reduction, Tax revenue Quantitative No
Governments increase, Administrative change survey data
Hackney et al. (2007) European Journal of A UK Local Efficiency in procurement Qualitative No
Information Systems Government process case study

Study Journal Setting Value measure Method IT value as

main focus?

(B) Impact of IT on Non-Economic Value

West (2004) Public Administration US Federal/State/Local Trust, confidence Quantitative No
Review Governments survey data
Welch et al. (2004) Public Administration US Federal/State Satisfaction, trust Quantitative Yes
Review Governments survey data
Tolbert and Mossberger Public Administration US Federal/State/Local Trust, confidence Quantitative Yes
(2006) Review Governments survey data
Grimsley and Meehan European Journal of A UK Local Government Public value (trust, Quantitative Yes
(2007) Information Systems satisfaction) survey data
Seltsikas and O’Keefe European Journal of Central Governments in Public value (trust, Qualitative Yes
(2010) Information Systems Europe and North America accountability, national case study
security)
Morgeson et al. (2011) Journal of Public US Federal Agencies Trust, confidence Quantitative Yes
Administration Research survey data
and Theory
Smith (2011) Journal of Information Chile National Trust Qualitative No
Technology Government case study
Kim and Lee (2012) Public Administration A South Korean Transparency, trust Quantitative Yes
Review Metropolitan Government survey data
Lim et al. (2012) Information Systems Singapore Electronic Tax- Trust Qualitative Yes
Research Filing System case study

of IT in governments. The IS literature has established a large
body of theoretical underpinnings on IT business value based
on the production–function model, the RBV, or the dynamic
capabilities. However, there is little or no established theo-
retical foundation for investigating IT value that reflects
unique characteristics of the public sector (Bannister, 2001).
For instance, even though RBV has been a fertile theoretical
framework of a large body of the IT business value literature
(Sambamurthy et al., 2003, Melville et al., 2004, Wade and
Hulland, 2004), it is not entirely suitable for the public-sector
IT-value studies for several reasons. First, the foremost
objective of firms in RBV is to attain competitive advantages
over competing firms and to prevent them from eroding
(Picolii and Ives, 2005). In the public sector, however, such
an objective is irrelevant or at least as salient as in the private
sector. Second, RBV neither accounts for the plurality and
 In public sector organisations M-S Pang et al
191

Table 2 Select Research on IT Resources and Organizational Capabilities by Theoretical View

Research IT resource construct Organizational capability construct Performance construct

Complementarity view a
Brynjolfsson et al. (2002) IT investments Computer-enabled organizational Market value
changes
Bharadwaj et al. (2007) Integrated IS capability Manufacturing-market coordination/ Manufacturing
Manufacturing-supply chain coordination performance
Process viewb
Sambamurthy et al. (2003) IT competence Digital options, Competitive actions
Customer/Partnering/ Firm performance
Operational agility
Rai et al. (2006) IT infrastructure Supply chain process integration Firm performance
integration for SCM
Tanriverdi (2005) IT relatedness Knowledge management capability Firm performance
Pavlou and El Sawy (2006) IT leveraging competence NPD dynamic capabilities/NPD Competitive advantage
in New Product functional competencies in NPD
Development (NPD)
Banker et al. (2006) Plant IS Manufacturing capabilities Plant performance
Rai and Tang (2010) IT integration Process alignment Competitive
IT reconfiguration Offering flexibility performance
Partnering flexibility
Mithas et al. (2011) Information management Performance management Customer-focused/
capability Customer management financial/
Process management human resource /
organizational
effectiveness
Configuration view
El Sawy et al. (2010) Strategic advantages are shaped by a threesome tango (mutual interdependence) among IT systems,
dynamic capabilities, and environmental turbulence.
a
Organizational capabilities moderate the relationship between IT and organizational performance.
b
Organizational capabilities mediate the relationship between IT and performance (Figure 1).

multi-dimensionality of values that governments pursue
(Caudle, 1991, Nabatchi, 2011, Cordella and Bonina, 2012)
nor recognizes the public manager’s ability to discover and
formulate the desired value, as explained in the subsequent
section. Third and most importantly, as mentioned above,
RBV does not suggest specifically which organizational capabi-
lity is paramount to value creation in the public-sector organiza-
tions. It only suggests the certain attributes of resources and
capabilities that are essential to effective competition, which
are not of great interest in the public sector. Our point is
in accordance with Heeks and Bailur (2007), who criticize an
‘a-theoretical’ nature of existing e-government research (243).
Consequently, we maintain that the IS researchers need a
different conception of IT value and a different theoretical lens
in studying governmental organizations. We aim to address
these two challenges and offer a theoretical model that will
stimulate further IT-value research in the public-sector
organizations.
IT resources, organizational capabilities, and organizational
performance
The literature on IT value and strategic IT management has
three related, but distinct, views on the relationship between
IT resources, organizational capabilities, and performance – the
complementarity view, the process view, and the configuration
view (Table 2). In the complementarity view, IT assets and
capabilities contribute to organizational performance in con-
junction with other organizational capabilities. This pers-
pective maintains that IT resources are complement to
other ordinary organizational processes such as human
resource management and customer service. To put it differ-
ently, when accompanied by development in organizational
capabilities, IT resources are associated with firm perfor-
mance to a greater extent. For example, Bharadwaj et al.
(2007) demonstrate that coordination capabilities in manu-
facturing, marketing, and supply chain moderate the impact
of integrated IS capability (the degree to which IS provides
integrated data and process integration) on manufacturing
performance.
The second perspective – the process view – stresses that
IT resources are associated with organizational perfor-
mance indirectly via organizational capabilities. The major
thrust of this view is that IT resources facilitate the develop-
ment of superior organizational capabilities such as those
in marketing, operation, or supply chain management. These
capabilities in turn positively affect firm performance and
become a source of sustained competitive advantages, as illu-
strated in Figure 1. For example, Rai et al. (2006) show that
IT infrastructure integration with suppliers and customers
 In public sector organisations
192
(IT resources) drives supply chain integration (organizational
capability), which subsequently contributes to greater firm
performance with respect to operational excellence, customer
relationships, and revenue growth. Banker et al. (2006) find
that the adoption of plant IS such as resource planning sys-
tems and EDI applications contribute to firm performance by
improving manufacturing capabilities in terms of just-in-time
manufacturing and customer/supplier participation programs.
In a multi-business context, Tanriverdi (2005) finds that IT
relatedness across business units, which refers to a shared,
standardized IT infrastructure or IT management process,
increases firm performance by improving cross-unit know-
ledge management capability.
The third, emerging perspective – the configuration view –
asserts that the relationships among IT resources, organizational
capabilities, surrounding environment, and firm performance
are not as simple as the complementarity and the process views
would suggest. Rather, an organization’s competitive advantages
and performance are rendered by a dynamic, complex mutual
interdependence among IT resources, dynamic capabilities, and
environmental turbulence (El Sawy et al., 2010). This perspective
suggests that organizations strive to understand the holistic
effect of a configuration of resources, capabilities, and environ-
mental conditions rather than aiming at understanding the net
effect of individual resources or capabilities in isolation.
In this research, we select the process view as the theoretical
model for this study over both the complementarity view and
the configuration view, since the objectives of this study go
beyond the input–output relationships and intend to theorize
how IT resources (input) affect public value (output) through
certain organizational capabilities (process). We believe that
the process view can provide implications for the public-sector
managers as to how they can utilize IT resources for organi-
zational capability development and in turn create value in
their organizations. Andersen et al. (2010) also put forth that
IT has a key impact on organizational capabilities in govern-
mental organizations. Kraemer and King (2003) argue that
IT by itself does not directly cause changes or improvement in
public administration. Rather, as Fountain (2001) and Cordella
and Iannacci (2010) posit, technologies are enablers or carriers
of the public-sector reforms initiated by the public-sector
managers. With the process view, we aim to theorize the
organizational mechanisms by which IT assets and capabilities
create public value.
Public-value management theory and public organization
capabilities
What is public-value management?
In this study, we adopt the public-value management theory
as a theoretical basis for our model. The basic tenet under-
lying this theory is that public officials strive to maximize public
value, just as business managers seek to maximize private
business value (Moore, 1995). Public value broadly refers
to the value created by government through services, laws,
regulation, and other actions (Kelley et al., 2002). This theory
emphasizes that rather than passively following the dictates of
elected officials and meeting the given responsibilities of
public service provision, public managers need to use their
ingenuity, creativity, and expertise (Williams and Shearer,
2011) and play an active role in exploring new opportunities
M-S Pang et al
in public-value creation. Specifically, Moore (1995) suggests
that public managers can create greater public value by pro-
actively engaging in: (1) increasing the quantity or quality of
public activities per resource expended; (2) reducing costs
used to achieve current levels of production; (3) making public
organizations better able to identify and respond to citizens’
aspirations; (4) enhancing the fairness with which public-
sector organization operate; and (5) increasing their conti-
nuing capacity to respond. In other words, to generate greater
public value, public managers need to become not a simple
technician or a passive producer, but a strategist and an
entrepreneur with a clear strategic mission and vision, as do
the private sector managers (Moore, 1995, Alford and Hughes,
2008).
Interestingly, the public-value literature promotes entrepre-
neurship in the public-sector organizations, because like for-
profit firms, governments are subject to increasingly dynamic
and uncertain environments (Moore and Khagram, 2004,
Swilling, 2011). Social, political, and economic circumstances
surrounding governments continue to evolve; technologies
advance rapidly and sometimes disrupt business and society at
large; and risks and threats to the public such as terrorism,
outbreaks of pandemic diseases, or global warming continue
to emerge. As a result, citizens’ needs, goals, and expectations
for public organizations are by no means constant. The public-
value literature emphasizes that public managers, who have
extensive expertise and in-depth knowledge in public service
delivery, need to play a more proactive role in sensing changing
environments, responding to new needs for legitimate govern-
ment intervention and public services, and innovating public
management for greater public value.
It should be noted, however, that public-value management
is not free from criticisms, as summarized and addressed by
Alford and O’Flynn (2009). Major criticisms include vague-
ness in what public-value means, confusion as to whether the
theory is empirically testable, and an inappropriate emphasis
on political roles of public managers (Rhodes and Wanna
2007, 2009). As the theory is still emerging and developing,
consensus on the conception of public value is yet to occur.
Alford and O’Flynn (2009) clarify that public-value theory
is both a descriptive theory and a normative prescription.
It intends to explain what public managers actually do and to
stipulate what they should do. Finally, according to Alford and
O’Flynn (2009), the prescription that public officials need
to be active in the political arena bothers some scholars who
believe that the clear distinction between politics and public
administration is sacred. However, Moore (1995) and Alford
and O’Flynn (2009) defend that politicians are the final
arbiters in leading policy development and formulating public
service delivery, and the role of public managers should not
be more than advisors or counselors to elected officials with
expertise in public management.
Two research streams in public-value management research
According to Davis and West (2009), there are two major
research streams in the public-value management literature.
In the institutional perspective, researchers seek to find out
what public value is, how it is defined, and what constitutes
public value. In the generative perspective, scholars discuss and
propose normative frameworks for appropriate behaviors of
public managers who would like to secure greater public value.
 In public sector organisations
The literature in the institutional perspective consistently
highlights that public value is far more multi-faceted than
private value, which in the business context usually refers to
monetary profits. Public value not only includes direct, tangi-
ble benefits from public services such as education or public
welfare that accrue to individual clients (Alford, 2002), but
also comprises other broader, tangible values such as trust
in governments, fairness, and national pride, which are valued
collectively by the public as a whole (Moore, 1995, Alford and
Hughes, 2008, Alford and O’Flynn, 2009). While for-profit
firms may also pursue other objectives such as sustainability,
customer satisfaction, or safety, these objectives in most cases
morph to the ultimate goal, which is to create sustaining
economic value for shareholders. In contrast, Davis and West
(2009) argue that ‘the public interest cannot be reduced to
singular, economic measures. The values that inhere in the
public realm in both government processes and outputs are
irreducibly plural’ (604).
Thus, the institutional perspective primarily examines what
constitutes public value. For example, Beck Jørgensen and
Bozeman (2007) attempt to construct a constellation of public
values that classifies 72 value concepts identified by their review
of public administration literature. This includes not only
economic values such as productivity and effectiveness, but also
non-economic values such as sustainability, responsiveness, or
accountability. Kelley et al. (2002) argue that public values con-
sist of three components – objective outcomes of public services,
service qualities perceived by citizens, and trust in governments.
Nabatchi (2011) proposes a comprehensive set of public-value
universe that consists of four dimensions – political, legal,
organizational, and market value (Table 3).
It should be noted, however, that there is no absolute,
universally accepted conception of public value (Alford and
Hughes, 2008, Alford and O’Flynn, 2009). What is publicly
valued depends on the needs and desires of the public as well
as on social and environmental circumstances with which the
public and public managers deal. Stoker (2006) states that
‘public value is more than a summation of the individual
preferences of the users or producers of public services. The
judgment of public value is collectively built through delibera-
tion involving elected and appointed government officials and
key stakeholders’ (42). This literature thus argues that demo-
cratic processes and active roles of public managers are
essential for true public values to be uncovered, a point that
leads to the generative perspective.
The generative perspective points out that in increasingly
uncertain, unstable environments, public managers need to
Table 3 Nabatch’s (2011) Dimension of the Public Value Universe
Political Participation, representation, political
responsiveness, liberty, and equality
Legal Individual rights, procedural due process,
equity
Organizational Administrative efficiency, specialization
and expertise, authority of positions, merit,
formalization, organizational loyalty, and
political neutrality
Market Cost-savings, cost-efficiency, productivity,
flexibility, innovation, and customer
service
M-S Pang et al
193
play a key role in discovering what truly amounts to public
value. The public-value management stresses that government
officials need to consciously engage in political discussions
and actively participate in discourses with politicians, citizens,
not-for-profit organizations, and businesses to discover how
to advance public value (Hui and Hayllar, 2010). With this
backdrop, the generative perspective attempts to provide
normative prescriptions and guidelines for public managers.
Smith (2004) states that ‘public officials must engage political
authority, collaborate with each other within and across
institutional boundaries, manage efficiently and effectively,
and engage with communities and users of services, and
reflectively develop their own sense of vocation and public
duty’ (69–70). Stoker (2006) asserts that public officials need
to recognize and seek input of a wide range of stakeholders in
an open-minded approach and to equip with an adaptable and
learning-based approach to the challenge of public service
delivery. Hence, what public-value management and RBV
have in common is that both emphasize the importance of
organizational capabilities in value creation.
Public-sector organizational capabilities
On the basis of the generative perspective we explained above,
we present five key organizational capabilities that moderate
the relationship between IT resources and public value. Here,
we do not intend to offer a complete, exhaustive set of capabi-
lities in public organizations. Rather, we propose that it is these
five capabilities for which IT resources can play an enabling
and facilitating role in eventually advancing public value.
Public service delivery capability
One of the primary ways to accomplish greater public value is
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public service
production. In other words, public value is enhanced when a
government improves its public service delivery capability by
improving the quality or increasing the quantity of public
services, given the available resources. Moore (1995) states
that ‘It is not enough to say that public managers create results
that are valued; they must be able to show that the results
are worth the cost of private consumption and unrestrained
liberty forgone in producing the desirable results. Only then
can we be sure that some public value has been created’ (57).
Similarly, Alford and Hughes (2008) argue that ‘although the
term public value draws our attention to results or outcomes,
it does not ignore inputs and processes … creating public
value will mean maximizing within a constraint, that is, seeking
the greatest possible benefit to the public within the available
monetary or legal resources’ (3). Hence, the public-value mana-
gement demands that public organizations have an ability to
deliver the maximum possible outcome of public services with
as limited resources given by the public as possible.
Public engagement capability
The public-value management argues that engagement of a
large number of citizens and stakeholders in policy decision
and service delivery is crucial. Stoker (2006) notes that ‘Poli-
ticians and officials have a particular legitimacy given the
government is elected, but there are other valid claims to
legitimacy from among others, including business partners,
neighborhood leaders, those with knowledge about services as
professionals or users, and those in a position of oversight or
 In public sector organisations
194
regulators … The public value management paradigm relies
on a stakeholder conception of legitimacy in its governance
arrangements. The fundamental idea is that for a decision to
be legitimate or for a judgment to be made, it is necessary to
have all the stakeholders involved’ (Stoker, 2006: 47). As stated
in the section ‘Two research streams in public-value manage-
ment research,’ there is no definite group of public values that
are universally appreciated in every society, and whether a
particular value is treasured or not depends upon the needs
and preferences of the public. For governments to create
public values that are truly endorsed by the public, ordinary
citizens need to actively inform politicians and public mangers
of their needs and demands for their governments. This is why
the public value literature emphasizes that it is the citizens’
responsibility to actively engage in policymaking and public
service delivery (Benington, 2011; Bogason and Musso, 2006).
The public management theory argues that because of
the increasing size and complexity in public administration,
decisions on policies and public services need to be made not
by governments alone but via deliberation and negotiations
among the governments, individual citizens, and other stake-
holders that are potentially affected by the decisions. Simply
put, without participation and consent of the citizen, whatever
outcome public policies or services generate, the public would
not value the outcomes, and public value would not be created.
Therefore, the public-sector organizations require an ability to
seek participation of a broad range of necessary stakeholders
in every step of policy formulation and implementation.
Co-production capability
The public-value literature suggests that in an increasingly
dynamic environment, provision of public services by a single
organization may not be able to keep up with changing needs
and aspirations of the public. Broussine (2003) also states that
‘in order to solve complex problems, public leaders have to be
able to initiate concerted action not only within their own
organizations but among a set of stakeholders with different
and competing interests’ (175). The literature argues that
one single public organization alone does not possess all the
necessary resources and capabilities to tackle challenging
public issues. Co-production is not limited within the public
sector; many public organizations collaborate with private-
sector business organizations to deliver quality public ser-
vices (Donahue and Zeckhauser, 2011). This is illustrated by
recently emerging public management paradigms such as
collaborative public management (Alford and Hughes, 2008),
public–private partnership (Klijn and Teisman, 2003, Ruuska
and Teigland, 2009), and hybrid governance, in which the
lines between the public, the not-for-profit, and the for-profit
sectors are being blurred (Klitgaard and Treverton, 2004).
For collaborative public management to be successful, public
organizations need to have an ability to marshal all the nece-
ssary resources from participating partners, to align their
competing interests, and to coordinate their efforts and
activities toward advancement in public value.
Resource acquisition capability
As we discussed in the preceding section, the public-value
management theory emphasizes an entrepreneurial capability
of government managers and asserts that public managers
play a key, if not leading, role in policy exploration and
M-S Pang et al
formulation. This is because public managers have more first-
hand knowledge and deep ground-level experiences on public
services and operations, putting them in a better position than
politicians to assess and respond to changing public needs,
surrounding circumstances, and emerging challenges. Simply
put, they can act as entrepreneurs and strategists better than
politicians can.
To effectively perform an entrepreneurial role in public-value
creation, public-sector managers need a resource acquisition
capability, which is the ability to garner resources necessary
from resource providers for their initiatives. The resource
providers consist of politicians, taxpayers, higher-level govern-
ments, media, interest groups, and non-governmental organi-
zations (NGO). Just as business entrepreneurs have to raise
capital and other resources from investors for their business
endeavors, so do government officials need to secure sufficient
resources from what Moore (1995) calls the authorizing
environment.
It is the public manager’s job to proactively pursue and
build adequate resources needed to initiate and sustain their
public-value efforts by championing and demonstrating the
causes to the authorizing environment (Moore, 1995, Smith,
2004, Stoker, 2006). Resources include not only tax revenues
but also legal grounds, legitimacy, consent, and political
support from the authorizing environment. Sufficient mone-
tary resources alone do not guarantee successful value creation
in the public sector. For example, without consensus and
consent from citizens and political supports from legislatures,
public officials would not be able to ensure the ongoing, stable
operation of public services for sustained public value. There-
fore, to be truly entrepreneurial, the public-sector managers
need to be politically savvy.
Public-sector innovation capability
Innovation in the public sector could be perceived as an
oxymoron (Borins, 2002). This perception originates from
the absence of competitive pressures and profit motives and
the presence of bureaucratic public managers and outdated
administrative structure. However, the public-value research
recognizes the importance of innovation in public manage-
ment and finds that public managers, who possess deep
knowledge and expertise in administration, can play a pivotal
role in initiating and leading innovation (Borins, 2002). Moore
(1995) states that ‘It is not enough that managers simply
maintain the continuity of their organizations, or even that the
organizations become efficient in current tasks. It is also
important that the enterprise be adaptable to new purposes
and that it be innovative and experimental’ (Moore, 1995: 55).
Thus, the literature stresses that governments be vigilant,
understand changing circumstances, and sense emerging
needs and aspirations of various stakeholders. The govern-
ments need to become flexible and agile and to cope with
emerging challenges in an innovative way (Dunleavy et al.,
2006).
The theoretical model
In this section, we explicate our theoretical model for public-
sector IT value, which is built upon the process view that the
relationship between IT resources and performance is mediated
by organizational capabilities (IT resources, organizational
capabilities, and organizational performance). We begin this
 In public sector organisations M-S Pang et al
195

section by discussing key IT resources in public organizations.
The section ‘Public-value frontier’ defines a public-value fron-
tier, which is the focal performance outcome of our model. The
section ‘Paths from IT resources, to organizational capabilities,
to public-value frontier’ lays out the paths between IT resources,
organizational capabilities (Public-sector organizational cap-
abilities), and public-value frontiers.
Key IT resources in the public-sector organizations
Following Wade and Hulland (2004), we define IT resources
as both IT assets and IT capabilities. IT assets refer to anything
tangible or intangible related to IT that can be used in
organizational processes for creating, producing, and offering
products and services. IT assets may include hardware, soft-
ware, network infrastructure, information assets, or human
resources in IT functions. IT capabilities refer to repeatable
patterns of actions in the use of IT assets. Bharadwaj (2000)
define IT capability as a firm’s ‘ability to mobilize and deploy
IT-based resources in combination or co-present with other
resources and capabilities’ (171). Pavlou and El Sawy (2006)
explain that IT capabilities have three key dimensions – the
acquisition of IT assets, deployment of IT assets through tight
IT–business relationships, and leveraging of IT assets in
formulating business strategies.
Among many IT assets and capabilities, we focus on the five
key IT resources (Figure 2) that we believe play a crucial role
in shaping organizational capabilities in government agencies.
We selected these IT resource constructs from our review of
IT-value and capability literature and public-value theory
literature. We find that one IT resource – public information
dissemination – is unique to the public-sector domain and
thus has not been identified by the prior IT research. The
definition of each IT resource is presented in Table 4. In the
subsections to follow, we explicate how these public-sector IT
resources cultivate organizational capabilities for public value.
Digitized administrative process
Digitized administrative processes refer to a set of IS and
infrastructures that digitize and automate administrative tasks
and transactional processing (assets) and the ability to develop
and implement such systems (capabilities). The public-sector
organizations heavily rely on integrated enterprise systems
and databases to automate a range of business processes that
used to be handled by paperwork-based manual processes.
The digitization in administrative processes can take place
in two areas – internal business processes and external service
delivery to citizens (Moon, 2002, Henriksen and Damsgaard,
2007, Lim and Tang, 2008). As an example of digitization
in internal processes, North Carolina Department of Trans-
portation adopted a tablet-PC-based mobile inspection system
for state transportation infrastructures including highways
and local roads (NASCIO, 2009). The system automates out-
dated manual inspection processes for more than 21,000
bridges, culverts, and signs and enables an inspector to

Information Technology Resources Organizational Capabilities

Public-Value Frontiers
Digitized Administrative Processes Public Service Delivery Capability

Public Intelligence Analytics Public Engagement Capability

Inter-Organizational System
Co-Production Capability
Integration

Online Public Interactive Interfaces Resource Acquisition Capability

Public Information Dissemination Public Sector Innovation Capability

Figure 2 The theoretical framework for IT Value in public sector.

Table 4 Key IT Resources in the Public-Sector Organizations

Digitized administrative process Information systems and infrastructures that automate administrative tasks and
transactional processing and the ability to develop and implement such systems (Bharadwaj
et al., 1998, Armstrong and Sambamurthy, 1999, Wade and Hulland, 2004)
Public intelligence analytics Technological tools to gather information from the public and the environment and the
ability to analyze and derive knowledge and insights from the information (Pemberton
et al., 2001; Sambamurthy et al., 2003, Trkman et al., 2010)
Inter-organizational system Integrated systems and communication technologies that enable exchange of information
integration and intelligence with external organizations and the ability to implement and integrate the
systems with the external organizations (Barua et al., 2004, Rai et al., 2006, Bharadwaj et al.,
2007)
Online public interactive interfaces Online interactive venues such as Websites, social media, or mobile channels and the ability
to use these channels to interact with citizens and other stakeholders in a bilateral manner
and on a real-time basis (Bharadwaj et al., 1998; Bharadwaj, 2000; Sambamurthy et al.,
2003)
Public information dissemination Infrastructures and channels through which the public can access to government
information repositories and the ability to publish government information assets in a
manner that is easily accessible and comprehensible to the public
 In public sector organisations
196
transmit assessment information immediately from a remote
inspection site to the central database, a task for which it
would have taken several days to complete in the old process.
As an example of external service delivery, automation in
citizen-facing processes has enabled citizens to conduct a
range of activities via the Internet such as tax filings, license
application and renewals, or voter registration (Beynon-
Davies and Williams, 2003, Norris and Moon, 2005; Thomas
and Strieb, 2005). Instead of physically visiting an agency
office in-person, the citizens can now use government services
anytime, anywhere, saving both the service users’ time and
efforts and the agency’s resources that would otherwise have
been incurred at the interpersonal service channel.
Public intelligence analytics
Public intelligence analytics refer to both technological tools
(assets) to gather information from the public and the environ-
ment and to the ability to analyze and derive knowledge and
insights from the information (capabilities). Intelligence includes
information on the public’s needs for government services and
the demographic, social, and economic environment that sur-
rounds the public. Governments generate, collect, and possess
a large amount of information regarding policymaking, public
service delivery, and various aspects of the public. Public intelli-
gence analytics offer governments a means to uncover valuable
knowledge and insights from the sheer amount of information
resources in the public sector. Such intelligence generated by
information analytics can be used strategically in policy for-
mulation and implementation and deployment of other public-
sector resources.
For example, a number of law enforcement agencies adopt
business intelligence systems along with data warehouses
and data mining tools. Digitized crime data and state-of-the-
art analytic tools bring new intelligence to law enforcement
agents, who used to rely mostly on their own knowledge and
experience in targeting offenders and solving crimes. By
analyzing and evaluating incident patterns and histories, the
agencies are now able to conduct more proactive, predictive
patrols, and focused deployment of law enforcement person-
nel, targeting specific criminal groups or neighborhoods. Pre-
dictive policing, facilitated by the public intelligence analytics,
enables law enforcement to identify what are known as ‘hot-
spots,’ geographic areas where crime is most predicted and
also prevalent (Government Technology, 2013). Governments
are using similar technologies in public welfare programs and
tax collection to detect fraudulent or illegitimate benefit claims
and to identify unpaid tax revenues, respectively (NASCIO,
2006; Digital Communities, 2010a).
Inter-organizational system integration
Inter-organizational system integration includes integrated
systems and communication technologies (assets) that enable
to exchange information and intelligence with external organi-
zations and the ability to implement and integrate the systems
with the external organizations (capabilities). External organi-
zations include not only peer government agencies, but also
for-profit firms and not-for-profit organizations. Such inter-
organizational system integration is warranted because in
contemporary public administration that is faced with evo-
lving, complex public needs, a single government agency can-
not effectively manage public services by itself. Instead, the
M-S Pang et al
government needs to collaborate closely with external
organizations, a process that demands seamless information
exchange and sharing.
For example, in response to the residents’ demand for effec-
tive emergency response services that a small-scale muni-
cipality is struggling to meet by itself, Waukesha County in
Wisconsin established the Waukesha County Communication
Center (WCC), a county-wide emergency call and dispatch
headquarters (Schultz and Tuma, 2007). This project was
driven by the collaboration of the local municipal agencies,
including police and fire departments within Waukesha
County. Among the objectives was to improve the quality of
public safety services throughout the county, which had been
fragmented by municipal boundaries. By consolidating the
call center systems of small local governments into one entity
and integrating the county-wide dispatch functions that used
to be operated separately by individual municipalities, WCC
could achieve economies of scale in operation and staffing
and proactively adopt advanced technologies such as wireless
911 systems or computer-aided dispatch tools.
Online public interactive interfaces
Online public interactive interfaces refer to online interactive
venues such as Websites, social media, and mobile channels
(assets) and the ability to use these channels to interact with
citizens and other stakeholders in a bilateral manner and on
an ongoing basis (capabilities). Interactive implies two-way
communication between governments and citizens instead of
unilateral information transfer from the former to the latter.
Through online public interactive interfaces, a public organi-
zation is able to not only deliver its messages to the public but
also to listen to the voices and concerns of as many citizens as
possible on a real-time basis and utilize them in policymaking
and implementation.
Recently, several governments are using Web 2.0 technol-
ogies and social media tools to solicit citizens’ ideas and input
for government administration (Lee and Kwak, 2012). For
example, in 2008, the Office of the President-Elect Obama set
up Citizen’s Briefing Book site, collecting policy recommen-
dations from ordinary citizens for the new administration.
State and local governments such as Chicago and Manor,
Texas (Digital Communities, 2010b, Government Techno-
logy, 2012a), are also operating similar crowd-sourcing plat-
forms where residents can submit suggestions and evaluate
ideas submitted by other citizens. Furthermore, social media
tools enabled governments such as New York City and
Chicago to launch participatory budgeting initiatives, in
which citizens are invited to participate and vote for how
and where tax revenues are used (Yes Magazine, 2010; The
New York Times, 2012). Thus, these online public interactive
interfaces provide the governments with the ability to assess
what the public wants and to engage in deliberation with
citizens (Hui and Hayllar, 2010).
Public information dissemination
Public information dissemination refers to infrastructures and
channels through which the public can access government
information repositories (assets) and the ability to publish
government information assets in a manner that is easily
accessible and comprehensible to the public (capabilities).
Similar to the for-profit firms, the public-sector organizations
 In public sector organisations
own a large swath of information that is either internally
generated or gathered from the public. But in contrast to the
private sector, the information resources in the public sector
belong to the public, and public organizations are increasingly
required by the public’s demands, executive mandates, or
various laws to make the growing amount of information
assets available to the public.
In order to meet such demands, many governments
recently began to spearhead open-data initiatives by publish-
ing a large set of government information to the public via
online channels (Rodríguez Bolívar et al., 2007, Lee and Kwak,
2012). These practices allow ordinary citizens, especially those
without expert knowledge on administration, to evaluate how
public managers perform in delivering public services, enrich-
ing openness and accessibility to the administration. Informa-
tion resources such as performance records that have been
accumulated in the enterprise systems can be an effective tool
in such an activity. For instance, US states such as Oregon and
Virginia distribute a wide range of performance information
on their executive agencies. Virginia operates Virginia Per-
forms (http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/), in which they regu-
larly distribute several hundreds of performance indicators
from all state agencies, such as the number of individuals
served by state health-care agencies, the amount of time to
process applications or permits, or satisfaction scores of the
state functions.
Public-value frontier
As we discussed in the section ‘Public-sector IT-value research,’
an important challenge for IS researchers investigating public
value of IT has been that governments aim at fulfilling plural,
competing values concurrently, such as economic growth, social
welfare, and rule of law, which do not combine into one single
value such as sales or profits. Public organizations have to deal
with a more diverse group of stakeholders – citizens, taxpayers,
local businesses, politicians, media, and so forth – than do for-
profit firms, and each group has diverse interests and demands.
This poses another important challenge – the values govern-
ments pursue conflict with one another, an effect that the
public-value researchers call value-based conflicts (Molina and
Spicer, 2004, Nabatchi, 2011).
In many government activities, one value is achieved at the
expense of another. There are two ways in which such a value-
based conflict occurs. First, one type of value directly conflicts
with another. For example, ensuring public safety or national
security may require sacrifice to some extent in indivi-
dual liberty and privacy. Income redistribution for equity
via progressive tax rates or public welfare programs may not
be on par with fairness, efficiency, or economic development.
Democratic process or rule of law, which is sacred in deve-
loped countries, is inherently and intentionally slow and
expensive to maintain. Second, one kind of value negatively
affects another indirectly by limiting resources available to the
latter. As the recent fiscal crises in the public sector vividly
illustrate, governments do not have an unlimited amount of
resources; in fact, government budgets have become tighter
each passing year. Thus, investing in one government service
area comes at the expense of others. If a government is to
improve the quality of education system, for instance, it has
to reduce spending on other services such as public welfare or
transportation.
M-S Pang et al
197
Value-based conflict highlights one of the key differences
between business – and public-sector organizations. Caudle
(1991) note that ‘Markets signals and profit guide the private
sector. In contrast, public-sector organizations face multiple
goals, many of which are intangible or in conflict with one
another’ (172). For instance, an airline company may strike a
balance between passenger safety and short-term profitability.
Ultimately, however, both of them converge to long-term
shareholder value and sustainable competitive advantages,
since overlooking the safety will jeopardize the existence of
the company. On the other hand, as a similar example, a
public transit agency (such as subway or bus) may continue to
exist and operate even with serious passenger safety issues,
since many of the customers would have no alternative but
to use the service of the public agency and the existence of
the agency is chartered by laws and statutes that are hard to be
amended.
Recently, management scholars have proposed that even
commercial organizations should embrace multiple goals that
are above and beyond market-oriented goals. Porter and
Kramer (2011) urge that for-profit firms pursue ‘shared value,’
which accounts for both private business profits and societal
values for surrounding communities and society at large.
Shared value is not at odds with business value in their con-
cept. They state that ‘social harms or weaknesses frequently
create internal costs for firms – such as wasted energy or raw
materials, costly accidents ... And addressing societal harms
and constraints does not necessarily raise costs for firms,
because they can innovate through using new technologies,
operating methods, and management approaches’ (65). In
other words, from their perspective, pursuit of shared value
aims at ensuring continued, long-term value creation for
shareholders, an objective that is not of interest in the public
sector.
Given limited resources available to the public-sector
organizations, it is a constant struggle for them to balance
competing interests and achieve a trade-off among conflicting
values. Therefore, we propose that just as it is the ultimate
goal for business firms to generate maximum, sustained
shareholder value, the paramount objective of the public-
sector organizations is to advance its public-value frontier
(Figure 3), which we define as the set of maximum multiple
public values that is achievable given available resources and
the constraints among certain values. In our conceptual
model, we propose that IT-enabled organizational capabilities
can relax and overcome value-based conflicts in the public
sector and thus move upward the public-value frontier to
further northeast in Figure 3.
Paths from IT resources, to organizational capabilities,
to public-value frontier
IT resources and public service delivery capability
IT resources – in particular, digitized administrative processes
and public intelligence analytics– facilitate the public service
delivery capability by either reducing the amount of inputs or
costs that are necessary to produce outputs, increasing the
quantity of outputs or the quality of outcomes, or both. This
effect in turn alleviates a value-based conflict between outputs
and inputs. An improvement in the delivery capability lessens
both types of conflicts we have mentioned above – a conflict
within one government service and ones in which two or more
 In public sector organisations
198
Figure 3 Public-value frontier.
policy areas compete for limited resources. Alleviation of the
latter is possible by saving the investment of resources in one
government function, which can be used for other competing
functions.
With respect to the first type of value-based conflicts, in the
case of North Carolina’s infrastructure inspection system
introduced above (Digitized administrative process), there is
a value-based conflict between transportation safety (out-
come) and expenditures in infrastructure construction and
maintenance (input). Given the limited amount of input
resources that are available to the agency, it had to make a
trade-off between how safe the infrastructure should be and
how much to invest in it. The digitized administrative proce-
sses that automate and streamline the inspection process relax
the need for trade-off by both enhancing the safety and
reducing the use of tax revenues. With public intelligence
analytics, law enforcement agencies can relax a tension among
public safety, cost efficiency, and individual liberty. Improving
public safety (outcome) requires not only substantial invest-
ments in manpower and equipment (inputs) but sacrifices in
liberty of individual citizens (costs) that may result from strict
enforcement. Predictive and targeted policing enabled by the
public intelligence analytics improves the delivery capability
of law enforcement by both saving necessary resources used in
law enforcement and reducing the possibility of encroaching
on the liberty and rights of innocent citizens, leading to an
expansion of the public-value frontier along public safety,
costs, and liberty.
Regarding the second type of conflicts, resources saved by
digitized administrative processes and public intelligence
analytics can be used in other public services, investments that
would otherwise be forgone. For instance, cost savings in the
infrastructure maintenance made possible by the digitized
inspection process can be directed toward new investments
in transportation infrastructure or other public service areas
such as education or public welfare. Savings in manpower and
expenditures in public safety from deployment of public
intelligence analytics can be used in other valuable public
safety efforts such as improvement in community outreach
programs and effective rehabilitation of criminal offenders.
There are many other ways that the public service delivery
capabilities fueled by IT resources mitigate value-based con-
flicts. Democracy (outcome) is one of the treasured values in
M-S Pang et al
modern developed nations, but maintaining democratic pro-
cesses such as election, voter registration, and financing to
political campaigns requires a substantial use of tax revenues
and human resources (inputs). Digitized administrative pro-
cesses in voter registration and election administration can
improve the delivery capability by reducing the required
amount of resources in maintaining such processes and
thereby expanding the public-value frontier along efficiency
and democratic value dimensions (Government Technology,
2012b). Public welfare by income redistribution is one of the
areas in which value-based conflicts are severe and politically
charged. Ensuring equity and safety nets for the underprivi-
leged not only is costly for governments, but also competes
with interests of overall economic development and growth,
posing opportunity costs. Again, public intelligence gathering
and analytic capabilities in public welfare provision and fraud
detection (NASCIO, 2007) can curb both expenses and
wasteful spending in public welfare programs, leading to an
expansion in the public-value frontier. On the basis of the
arguments above, we propose the following proposition.
Proposition 1: Digitized administrative processes and
public intelligence analytics increase the public service
delivery capability of public-sector organizations, which in
turn advances public-value frontiers.
IT resources and public engagement capability
The preceding section explains that participation of the public
in policymaking and implementation is paramount to public-
value creation. In many cases, however, it is difficult to lure
various stakeholders to engage in decision making. Ordinary
citizens tend to be busy and preoccupied with their everyday
personal lives. Getting involved in governmental decision
making in such ways as attending meetings, writing formal
feedback, and responding to surveys may require significant
time commitment (Ho, 2002). In this respect, online public
interactive interfaces provide an alternative venue for parti-
cipation from and dialog with as many relevant stakeholders
as possible. Stoker (2006) argues that ‘new information and
communication technologies offer a range of further opportu-
nities to get people’s participation in ways that are flexible,
attractive to them, and not too time-consuming’ (48).
A challenge to public managers is that broad, sustained
engagement of relevant stakeholders is a slow and complex
process for both the governments and the participants. On one
hand, as discussed above, having citizens participate in deci-
sion making, deliberation, and negotiation promotes trans-
parency and democratic values. On the other hand, this
participatory process, which involves a variety of participants
with varying interests and points of view, could be time
consuming and slow. For example, a budget appropriation
process would be much faster if budget decisions are made
by only a small number of elected representatives and public
officials rather than by a large number of citizens, interest
groups, and other relevant stakeholders. In the course of slow-
moving processes, governments would lose responsiveness,
flexibility, and efficiency. However, the public engagement
capability nurtured by online public interactive interfaces
such as online forums, social media, and other tools can
both mobilize a wide a range of engagement and simplify the
participation processes simultaneously, thus advancing the
public-value frontier along several competing values such as
 In public sector organisations
participation, responsiveness, and trust. This point leads to the
following proposition.
Proposition 2: Online public interactive interfaces increase
the public engagement capability of public-sector organiza-
tions, which in turn advances public-value frontiers.
IT resources and co-production capability
As we have stated earlier, the environmental landscape and
the public needs that the public-sector faces are profoundly
dynamic and continuously evolving, creating mounting
challenges for a single government agency to cope with alone.
This requires governments to collaborate and co-produce
public services with other public organizations and/or NGO
(such as for-profit firms or voluntary organizations). Such
cross-organizational collaboration aims to pool and leverage
resources, expertise, or capabilities that each co-production
participant has (Donahue and Zeckhauser, 2011). For instance,
Luna-Reyes et al. (2007) chronicle a case of New York State
Bureau of Housing Services (BHS), which provides homeless
support services in a partnership with local governments and
not-for-profit organizations. These local organizations man-
age shelters and assistance programs and directly interact with
the homeless, while the BHS provides funding to the local
organizations and oversees their programs and facilities. This
partnership emerges because the local organizations lack finan-
cial resources and need assistance from the state and local
governments, while the state government does not have
direct, hands-on knowledge of local needs in the community
(Agranoff, 2004).
As inter-organizational system integration is a key ingredi-
ent in integration and cooperation between suppliers, produ-
cers, and customers in the private sector (Barua et al., 2004),
public organizations can utilize integration to cooperate with
peer agencies or private-sector organizations. In the BHS case
above, the State of New York built the Homeless Information
Management System to integrate and share information resou-
rces with partnering agencies and organizations. It includes
information on the homeless, their medical or criminal
histories, the facilities, and the programs. In the past, this
information had been fragmented throughout the various
state agencies and the local organizations. In this initiative,
the sharing of knowledge and technical expertise among the
participating organizations is pivotal, and inter-organizational
knowledge exchange and collaborative tools facilitate a broad
range of knowledge sharing (Majchrzak et al., 2000).
This co-production capability enabled by inter-organizational
system integration is instrumental in advancing public-value
frontiers. For example, emergency response operations, which
aim to ensure public safety and individual well-being, are
costly for governments to offer. It is particularly the case for
small municipalities, since the emergency operations require
a large amount of fixed-cost investments in infrastructure,
equipment, and personnel. Hence, it entails a trade-off bet-
ween cost efficiency and public safety. However, as illustrated
by the WCC case (Inter-organizational system integration),
pooling the emergency operation infrastructures and co-produ-
cing the 911 services across neighboring municipalities improve
cost efficiency of the emergency operations and improved
citizens’ well-being at the same time. The New York BHS case
also demonstrates how IT-driven knowledge exchange and
collaboration across the organizational boundaries enable the
M-S Pang et al
199
State of New York to advance a frontier of competing public
values, including responsiveness, public health, and cost-saving
dimensions.
In summary, we propose the following proposition for a
link from inter-organizational system integration to public-
value frontiers mediated by the co-production capability.
Proposition 3: Inter-organizational system integration in-
creases the co-production capability of public-sector organi-
zations, which in turn advances public-value frontiers.
IT resources and resource acquisition capability
IT resources enable the resource acquisition capability in two
ways. First, public intelligence analytics help governments
build awareness of social and economic environments and
make sense of the citizens’ desires, aspirations, and expec-
tations of the governments. Public organizations can utilize
IT resources in gathering intelligence from the public and the
environment, and subsequently, they use the intelligence to
make the case for necessary government actions to resource
providers (the authorizing environment, Moore, 1995), such
as politicians, taxpayers, higher-level governments, and inter-
est groups. For example, Baltimore, Maryland, periodically
collects a variety of citywide data such as crime statistics,
vacant buildings, and homeless residents and publishes
that data on its Open Baltimore site (http://data.baltimorecity
.gov/). By collecting and making this data available to the
public, the city government aims to build awareness and con-
sensus among the citizens and galvanize monetary and poli-
tical resources from the elected representatives that are needed
for government activities in public safety, housing develop-
ment, and human services.
Second, the public-sector organizations can utilize public
information dissemination to demonstrate that they are
capable producers of public services. There may be a wide-
spread perception around the authorizing environment that
public agencies are inefficient, bureaucratic, and unresponsive
organizations. Leveraging their performance information,
governments can reverse such a perception by conducting
public information campaigns (Weiss and Tschirhart, 1994)
or what Moore (1995) calls ‘public sector marketing’ or
‘strategic communication’ (185). These aim at convincing the
authorizing environment of importance, legitimacy, and value
of public services and policy decisions. As in Virginia and
Oregon (Public information dissemination), by publicizing
information resources on performance and effectiveness in
administration and delivery of public services, the public-
sector organizations help taxpayers and elected politicians
understand how well they perform and why the authorizing
environment needs to support and provide resources and
legitimacy for continued, effective operations.
The resource acquisition capability fostered by public
intelligence analytics and information dissemination enables
public organizations to ease trade-offs between competing
values in several ways. This capability helps relax a conflict
between responsiveness and flexibility on one hand and trans-
parency and accountability on the other (Beck Jørgensen and
Bozeman, 2007). It is a daunting task for governments to
figure out dynamic interests and desires of many different
citizens and stakeholders and to fulfill these diverse aspirations
in a speedy, responsive manner. However, it is even more
challenging to devise and deliver public services that serve
 In public sector organisations
200
various public needs in a transparent, democratic manner.
To do so, public managers need to interact with a variety of
citizens, interest groups, and elected representatives and to
guide deliberation, negotiation, and compromise, a process
that is expensive and time consuming and undermines flex-
ibility and responsiveness. Clear, easy-to-understand informa-
tion on what a government can do, has done, and should do
can help streamline this process. Therefore, the resource
acquisition capability facilitated by public intelligence ana-
lytics and information dissemination enables public organi-
zations to quickly marshal necessary monetary, legal, and
political resources from resource holders, without losing
flexibility and transparency. Thus, we present the following
proposition.
Proposition 4: Public intelligence analytics and informa-
tion dissemination increase the resource acquisition capabi-
lity of public-sector organizations, which in turn advances
public-value frontiers.
IT resources and public-sector innovation capability
IT resources can cultivate the public-sector innovation capabi-
lity by enabling the public-sector organizations to create a
whole new sort of public services (Hartley, 2011) that they
would not have been able to offer without IT. Governments
can utilize public intelligence analytics to discover needs and
opportunities for new innovative public services. For example,
the public intelligence analytics are indispensable compo-
nents in the Illinois National Electronic Disease Surveillance
System (I-NEDSS) (NASCIO, 2005b). This system aims at
identifying and tracking outbreaks of infectious diseases that
might escalate to a statewide emergency. It connects local
health-care providers and state and federal agencies such as
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. This initiative
is a response to the continuous emergence of new types of
pandemic diseases such as H1N1 and the increasing threat of
biological terroristic attacks. This innovative public service
(the real-time detection and response system for outbreaks)
could not be operated without intelligence gathering and
analytic systems.
In addition to innovation within the public sector, govern-
ments can spark innovation in the private-sector organi-
zations with public information dissemination. As part of the
open-government project, several governments make available
to the public a variety of information on administration and
local environment that they have accumulated. Citizens or
private-sector organizations can utilize the government data
to develop innovative services or products that the govern-
ments have not been able to create (NextGov, 2013). For
example, US Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) has led the Health Data Consortium (http://www
.healthdataconsortium.org). Here, the HHS collects and
publishes a variety of healthcare-related data from the federal
government and the health-care sectors. The health-care data
disseminated by the HHS enables private-sector entrepreneurs
to develop innovative health-care products and services. The
city of San Francisco also publishes the data of its transit
systems and restaurant health inspections over its Open
Data Website (https://data.sfgov.org/), with which individual
IT professionals develop various mobile applications for
transit users and tourists. Washington DC has inspired similar
efforts in making its parking and transit information public
M-S Pang et al
(Government Technology, 2011). Thus, private-sector inno-
vation has been made possible by both the open government
data and the public’s creativity and market intelligence that
government officials may lack. In short, by opening up the
data, the public-sector organizations can tap into the ‘wisdom
of crowds’ to bolster innovation.
The literature on public-value management asserts that
innovation should not be a term that only appears in the
private sector. Public organizations also need to continuously
innovate themselves in order to navigate a turbulent envi-
ronment and to keep delivering values to the public. The
innovation capability of public organizations supported by
public intelligence analytics and information dissemination
advances public-value frontiers in a number of ways. Without
innovating itself, the public-sector organization could not
become responsive and flexible in fulfilling the dynamic
demands of the public and dealing with social and economic
environments that are increasingly more uncertain and dyna-
mic. At the same time, by utilizing IT resources, the public-
sector organizations can overcome its limitations in terms of
necessary knowledge, monetary resources, and organizational
agility, an effort that would otherwise be expensive and time
consuming to achieve without IT. This leads us to the
following proposition.
Proposition 5: Public intelligence analytics and informa-
tion dissemination increase the public-sector innovation
capability of public-sector organizations, which in turn
advances public-value frontiers.
Conclusion
In this study, we develop a theoretical model for creating
public value through IT by blending two distant research
streams – strategic IT management from the IS field and
public-value theory from the field of public administration.
We adopt the IT resources, internal organizational capabil-
ities, and organizational performance process framework
(Figure 1), and from the public-value management literature
we identify the key government organizational capabilities
that drive public-value creation (Figure 2). The proposed theo-
retical model suggests that IT resources enable public organi-
zations (i) to deliver public services with limited resources;
(ii) to draw engagement from a broad range of stakeholders;
(iii) to initiate and lead coordination and co-production across
organizational boundaries; (iv) to galvanize the necessary
resources for their strategic initiatives from resource holders;
and (v) to bolster innovation within or outside of the public-
sector organizations. We further propose that these digitized
organizational capabilities advance public-value frontiers so
that the governments can increase public values by over-
coming value-based conflicts.
This research offers IT-value researchers with ample guidance
and directions for future research in government IT value.
First, researchers can resort to our conceptual model with
the public-value management in developing their theoretical
discussions and hypotheses. As we stated above, the current
theoretical basis for IT business value, such as RBV or dyna-
mic capability, does not explicitly consider several unique
factors in the public-sector organizations. For example, the
extant literature is inadequate to explain how IT assets and
capabilities contribute to performance improvement and value
 In public sector organisations
creation in governments, which are not subject of competitive
forces and rent-seeking shareholders. Our theoretical frame-
work, based on the public-value theory, helps researchers
to understand that IT can be an enabler for public managers
who are motivated to move a public-value frontier forward.
Furthermore, the existing IS literature has not paid much
attention to the political nature of public organizations, which
are required to fulfil multiple objectives that are often con-
flicting with each other and meet diverse needs of various
stakeholders. Our conceptualization of organizational capabi-
lities and public-value frontiers will guide future researchers in
exploring more dynamic and nuanced aspects of public-sector
IT value.
Second, IS researchers can develop new measures that
operationalize our constructs of public-sector IT resources,
organizational capability and public values. By doing so, IS
researchers will be able to contribute not only to the IS
literature but also to the public management discipline, in
which the public-value theory is still an emerging and nascent
paradigm. Referring to the public-value literature, particularly
the institutional stream of public-value studies (Alford and
Hughes, 2008, Alford and O’Flynn, 2009, Davis and West,
2009, Nabatch, 2011), future studies can measure a broader
range of government performance than that of business organi-
zations and investigate the impact of IT resources on such
performance indicators. In the government setting, research-
ers may go beyond conventional economic performance mea-
sures that the literature has so far examined for IT value such
as cost efficiency or productivity and explore a more variety of
non-economic, societal values such as transparency, equality,
and trust in government (Table 3).
Further, it would be a significant contribution to the IS
literature if one can demonstrate that IT can relax a trade-off
between two or more competing value measures and thereby
push the public-value frontier forward, an approach that
to the best of our knowledge, few IS researchers have adopted
(Figure 3). IS scholars can also expand the horizon of IS
research by further studying and developing measures for
public-sector organizational capabilities that previous IS lit-
erature has paid scant attention to. For example, the resource
acquisition capability can be measured by how widely and
frequently public officials interact with the authorizing envi-
ronment to make their case for their strategic initiatives. The
co-production capability can be operalizationalized by the
variety and richness of collaboration and cooperation with
peer government agencies, not-for-profit organizations, or
business firms.
This study also provides public-sector IT managers with
meaningful implications. Public-sector IT organizations need
to develop and deploy IT assets and capabilities in a way to
cultivate the five organizational capabilities in Figure 2. It is
the job of IT managers in public organizations to make sure
that investments and utilization of public-sector IT resources
and management of IT organization are fully aligned with
organizational-wide strategic goals and efforts toward public
value. As we emphasize throughout the paper, to create greater
public value, public-sector managers, including IT managers
and professionals in governments, need to have strategic
perspectives, entrepreneurial insights, and agility and flexibil-
ity, all of which are necessary to effectively deal with mounting
challenges in the public sector. Without such abilities, bureau-
cratic, unresponsive IT organizations could play a hampering,
M-S Pang et al
201
not enabling, role in the efforts of other public managers to
advance a public-value frontier.
This research is not free from limitation. While we have
made conscious efforts to present as comprehensive a set of
IT resources and organizational capabilities in public organi-
zations as possible, there might be other key constructs of
organizational capabilities or IT resources for public-value
creation that we missed. In other words, our list of IT resou-
rces and organizational capabilities in Figure 2 is by no means
exhaustive. Building upon our framework, future research will
offer a more complete nomological network in IT and public
value and confirm the relationship between IT resources,
capabilities, and public value with empirical evidence.
The size of the public-sector organizations has been growing
significantly for the last several decades, and so has their
investment in IT. Nonetheless, it seems that the IT-value resea-
rch has ignored this important segment of the economy. We
maintain that without a sufficient body of knowledge accu-
mulated in the IS literature on the performance implications
of government IT, the IS community would not be able to
effectively inform and interact with the public-sector managers
as our audience. Recognizing the need for a new theoretical
underpinning for IT-value research in the government sector,
our research aims to offer theoretical framework that can
bolster and provide guidance for future government IT-value
research. We hope that more research efforts on IT and public
value underpinned by our theoretical foundation will have a
strong influence on other disciplines including public policy
and administration or political science, a goal that Straub
(2010) calls ‘Himalaya #3’ in his MISQ editorial comment.
Note
1 The journal was accessed on 16 October 2013, at the following
URL: http://start.aisnet.org/default.asp?page=SeniorScholarBasket.
References
Agranoff, R. (2004). Leveraging Networks: A guide for public managers working
across organizations, in J.M. Kamensky and T.J. Burlin (eds.) Collaboration:
Using Networks and Partnerships, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, pp. 61–102.
Alford, J. (2002). Defining the Client in the Public Sector, Public Administration
Review 62(3): 337–346.
Alford, J. and Hughes, O. (2008). Public Value Pragmatism as the Next Phase of
Public Management, American Review of Public Management 38(2): 130–148.
Alford, J. and O’Flynn, J. (2009). Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts,
critiques and emergent meanings, International Journal of Public Administration
32(3): 171–191.
Andersen, K.N., Henriksen, H.Z., Medaglia, R., Danziger, J.N., Sannarnes, M.K.
and Enemærke, M. (2010). Fads and Facts of E-Government: A review of
impacts of e-government (2003–2009), International Journal of Public
Administration 33(11): 564–579.
Anderson, M.C., Banker, R.D. and Ravindran, S. (2006). Value Implications of
Investments in Information Technology, Management Science 52(9): 1359–1376.
Armstrong, C.P. and Sambamurthy, V. (1999). Information Technology
Assimilation in Firms: The influence of senior leadership and IT infrastructures,
Information Systems Research 10(4): 304–327.
Banker, R.D., Bardhan, I.R., Chang, H. and Lin, S. (2006). Plant Information
Systems, Manufacturing Capabilities, and Plant Performance, MIS Quarterly
30(2): 315–337.
Bannister, F. (2001). Dismantling the Silos: Extracting new value from IT
investments in public administration, Information Systems Journal 11(1): 65–84.
Barua, A., Konana, P. and Whiston, A.B. (2004). An Empirical Investigation of
Net-Enabled Business Value, MIS Quarterly 28(4): 585–620.
 In public sector organisations
202
Beck Jørgensen, T. and Bozeman, B. (2007). Public Values: An inventory,
Administration & Society 39(3): 354–381.
Benington, J. (2011). From Private Choice to Public Value?, in J. Benington and
M.H. Moore (eds.) Public Value Theory and Practice, Houndmills, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 31–51.
Beynon-Davies, P. and Williams, M.D. (2003). Evaluating Electronic Local
Governments in the UK, Journal of Information Technology 18(2): 137–149.
Bharadwaj, A.S. (2000). A Resource-Based Perspective on Information
Technology Capability and Firm Performance: An empirical investigation,
MIS Quarterly 24(1): 169–196.
Bharadwaj, A.S., Bharadwaj, S.G. and Konsynski, B.R. (1999). Information
Technology Effects on Firm Performance as Measured by Tobin’s q,
Management Science 45(7): 1008–1024.
Bharadwaj, A.S., Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, R.W. (1998). IT Capablities:
Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Operationalization, in R. Hirchheim,
M. Newman, and J.I. DeGross (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th International
Conference on Information Systems, Association for Information Systems,
Helsinki, Finland.
Bharadwaj, S., Bharadwaj, A. and Bendoly, E. (2007). The Performance Effects of
Complementarities between Information Systems, Marketing, Manufacturing,
and Supply Chain Processes, Information Systems Research 18(4): 437–453.
Borins, S. (2002). Leadership and Innovation in the Public Sector, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal 28(8): 467–476.
Bozeman, B. and Bretschneider, S. (1986). Public Management Information
Systems: Theory and prescription, Public Administration Review 46(1): 475–487.
Bretschneider, S. (1990). Management Information Systems in Public and
Private Organizations: An empirical test, Public Administration Review 50(5):
536–545.
Broussine, M. (2003). Public Leadership, in T. Bovarid and E. Loffler (eds.) Public
Management and Governance, London, UK: Routledge, pp. 175–187.
Brynjolfsson, E. (1993). The Productivity Paradox of Information Technology,
Communication of the ACM 36(12): 67–77.
Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L. (1996). Paradox Lost? Firm-level evidence on the
returns to information systems spending, Management Science 42(4): 541–558.
Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L.M. and Yang, S. (2002). Intangible Assets: Computers
and organizational capital, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1(1): 137–181.
Caudle, S.L. (1991). Key Information Systems Management Issues for the Public
Sector, MIS Quarterly 15(2): 171–188.
Cordella, A. (2007). E-Government: Towards the e-bureaucratic form? Journal of
Information Technology 22(3): 265–274.
Cordella, A. and Bonina, C.M. (2012). A Public Value Perspective for ICT
Enabled Public Sector Reforms: A theoretical reflection, Government
Information Quarterly 29(4): 512–520.
Cordella, A. and Iannacci, F. (2010). Information Systems in the Public Sector:
The e-government enactment framework, Journal of Strategic Information
Systems 19(1): 52–66.
Cox, B. and Ghoneim, S. (1998). Strategic Use of EDI in the Public Sector: The
HMSO case study, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 7(1): 37–51.
Danziger, J.N. and Andersen, K.V. (2002). The Impact of Information
Technology on Public Administration: An analysis of empirical research from
the ‘golden age’ of transformation, International Journal of Public
Administration 25(5): 591–627.
Davis, P. and West, K. (2009). What Do Public Values Mean for Public Action?
Putting public values in their plural place, American Review of Public
Management 39(6): 602–618.
Dewan, S. and Min, C. (1997). The Substitution of Information Technology for
Other Factors of Production: A firm level analysis, Management Science 43(12):
1660–1675.
Digital Communities (2010a). Franklin County, Ohio, Uses Address Verification
Software to Collect Millions in Unpaid Taxes, http://www.digitalcommunities
.com/articles/Franklin-County-Ohio-Uses-Address-Verification.html (accessed
24 July 2013).
Digital Communities (2010b). Manor, Texas, Crowdsources Ideas for Running the
Town, http://www.digitalcommunities.com/articles/102472519.html (accessed
23 July 2013).
Donahue, J.D. and Zeckhauser, R.J. (2011). Collaborative Governance: Private
Roles for Public Goals in Turbulent Times, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. and Tinker, J. (2006). New Public
Management Is Dead – Long live digital-era governance, Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 16(3): 467–494.
M-S Pang et al
El Sawy, O.A., Malhotra, A., Park, Y. and Pavlou, P.A. (2010). Seeking the
Configurations of Digital Ecodynamics: It takes three to tango, Information
Systems Research 21(4): 835–848.
Fountain, J.E. (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and
Institutional Change. Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC.
Government Technology (2011). Apps Contest Winners Need Better Government
Data to Sustain Innovative Services, http://www.govtech.com/e-government/
Apps-Contest-Winners-Need-Better-Government-Data.htmll (accessed 23
July 2013).
Government Technology (2012a). Chicago Crowdsources Gun Violence
Solutions Via Twitter, http://www.govtech.com/e-government/Chicago-
Crowdsources-Gun-Violence-Solutions-Via-Twitter.html (accessed 23 July
2013).
Government Technology (2012b). How to Fix Voter Registration, http://www
.govtech.com/e-government/How-to-Fix-Voter-Registration.html (accessed
24 July 2013).
Government Technology (2013). Predicting Crime Using Analytics and Big Data,
http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Predicting-Crime-Using-Analytics-and-
Big-Data.html (accessed 23 July 2013).
Grimsley, M. and Meehan, A. (2007). E-Government Information Systems:
Evaluation-led design for public value and client trust, European Journal of
Information Systems 16(2): 134–148.
Hackney, R., Jones, S. and Losch, A. (2007). Towards an e-Government
Efficiency Agenda: The impact of information and communication behavior on
e-reserve auctions in public sector procurement, European Journal of
Information Systems 16(2): 178–191.
Hartley, J. (2011). Public Value through Innovation and Improvement, in
J. Benington and M.H. Moore (eds.) Public Value Theory and Practice,
Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 171–184.
Heeks, R. and Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing E-Government Research: Perspectives,
philosophies, theories, methods, and practice, Government Information
Quarterly 24(2): 243–265.
Henriksen, H.Z. and Damsgaard, J. (2007). Dawn of E-Government – An
institutional analysis of seven initiatives and their impact, Journal of Information
Technology 22(1): 13–23.
Hitt, L. and Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Productivity, Business Profitability, and
Consumer Surplus: Three different measures of information technology value,
MIS Quarterly 20(2): 121–142.
Ho, A.T.-K. (2002). Reinventing Local Governments and the E-Government
Initiatives, Public Administration Review 64(4): 434–444.
Hui, G. and Hayllar, M.R. (2010). Creating Public Value in E-Government:
A public-private-citizen collaboration framework in web 2.0, Australian Journal
of Public Management 69(S1): S120–S131.
Kelly, G., Mulgan, G. and Muers, S. (2002). Creating Public Value: An Analytic
Framework for Public Service Reform, Strategy Unit, UK Cabinet Office,
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100416132449/http://www
.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/seminars/public_value.aspx (accessed 3 September
2010).
Kim, S. and Lee, J. (2012). E-Participation, Transparency, and Trust in Local
Government, Public Administration Review 72(6): 819–828.
Klijn, E.-H. and Teisman, G.R. (2003). Institutional and Strategic Barriers to
Public–Private Partnership: An analysis of Dutch cases, Public Money &
Management 23(3): 137–146.
Klitgaard, R. and Treverton, G.F. (2004). Assessing Partnerships: New forms of
collaboration, in J.M. Kamensky and T.J. Burlin (eds.) Collaboration: Using
Networks and Partnerships, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
pp. 21–59.
Kohli, R. and Grover, V. (2008). Business Value of IT: An essay on expanding
research directions to keep up with the times, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems 9(2): 23–39.
Kraemer, K.L. and Dedrick, J. (1997). Computing and Public Organization,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(1): 89–112.
Kraemer, K. and King, J. (2003). Information Technology and Administrative
Reform: Will the Time After E-Government Be Different? Irvine, CA: Center
for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.
Lee, G. and Kwak, Y.H. (2012). An Open Government Maturity Model for
Social Media-Based Public Engagement, Government Information Quarterly
29(4): 492–503.
Lee, G. and Perry, J.L. (2002). Are Computers Boosting Productivity? A test of the
paradox in state governments, Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 12(1): 77–102.
 In public sector organisations
Lehr, W. and Lichtenberg, F.R. (1998). Computer Use and Productivity Growth in
US Federal Government Agencies, 1987–1992, Journal of Industrial Economics
46(2): 257–279.
Lim, J.H. and Tang, S.-Y. (2008). Urban E-Government Initiatives and
Environmental Decision Performance in Korea, Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 18(1): 109–138.
Lim, E.T.K., Tan, C.-W., Cyr, D., Pan, S.L. and Xiao, B. (2012). Advancing Public
Trust Relationships in Electronic Government: The Singapore e-filing journey,
Information Systems Research 23(4): 1110–1130.
Lowry, P., Romans, D. and Curtis, A. (2004). Global Journal Prestige
and Supporting Disciplines: A scientometric study of information systems
journals, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5(2):
29–75.
Luna-Reyes, L.F., Pardo, T.A., Ochoategui, F.B. and Sanabria, R.M. (2007).
Bureau of Housing Service (BHS), in B. Rocheleau (ed.) Case Studies on Digital
Government, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, pp. 247–255.
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R.E., King, N., Malhotra, A. and Ba, S. (2000). Computer-
Mediated Inter-Organizational Knowledge-Sharing: Insights from a virtual team
innovating using a collaboration tool, Information Resource Management
Journal 13(1): 44–53.
Melville, N., Kraemer, K.L. and Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Review: Information
Technology and Organizational Performance: An integrative model of it
business value, MIS Quarterly 28(2): 283–322.
Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N. and Sambamurthy, V. (2011). How Information
Management Capability Influences Firm Performance, MIS Quarterly 35(1):
237–256.
Molina, A.D. and Spicer, M.W. (2004). Aristotelian Rhetoric, Pluralism, and
Public Administration, Administration & Society 36(3): 282–305.
Moon, M.J. (2002). The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities:
Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review 62(4): 424–433.
Moon, M.J. and Norris, D.F. (2005). Does Managerial Orientation Matter?
The adoption of reinventing government and e-government at the municipal
level, Information Systems Journal 15(1): 43–60.
Moore, M.H. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moore, M.H. and Benington, J. (2011). Conclusions: Looking ahead, in
J. Benington and M.H. Moore. (eds.) Public Value Theory and Practice,
Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 256–274.
Moore, M.H. and Khagram, S. (2004). On Creating Public Value: What business
might learn from government about strategic management, Corporate Social
Responsibility Initiative Working Paper no. 3, Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University.
Morgeson, F.V., VanAmburg, D. and Mithas, S. (2011). Misplaced Trust?
Exploring the structure of the e-government-citizen trust relationship,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(2):
257–283.
Mukhopadhyay, T., Javier Lerch, F. and Mangal, V. (1997). Assessing the Impact
of Information Technology on Labor Productivity: A field study, Decision
Support Systems 19(2): 109–122.
Nabatchi, T. (2011). Exploring the Public Value Universe: Understanding values
in public administration, presented at Public Value Management Conference,
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/conferences/pmrc/Files/Nabatchi%
20_Exploring%20the%20Public%20Values%20Universe.pdf (accessed
16 September 2013).
NASCIO (2005a). NASCIO 2004–2005 Compendium of Digital Government in
the States, http://www.nascio.org/publications/compendium.cfm (accessed
20 September 2010).
NASCIO (2005b). 2005 Best Practices in the Use of Information Technology in
State Government, http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-
2005NASCIOAwards.pdf (accessed 20 September 2010).
NASCIO (2006). 2006 Best Practices in the Use of Information Technology in
State Government, http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-
2006Awards.pdf (accessed 15 March 2014).
NASCIO (2007). 2007 Best Practices in the Use of Information Technology in
State Government, http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-
2007Awards.pdf (accessed 15 March 2011).
NASCIO (2009). 2009 Best Practices in the Use of Information Technology in
State Government, http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-
2009Awards.pdf (accessed 20 September 2010).
Neo, B.S. (1992). The Implementation of an Electronic Market for Pig Trading in
Singapore, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1(5): 278–288.
M-S Pang et al
203
Newcomer, K.E. and Caudle, S.L. (1991). Evaluating Public Sector Information
Systems: More than meets the eye, Public Administration Review 51(5):
377–384.
The New York Times (2012). For Some New Yorkers, a Grand Experiment in
Participatory Budgeting, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/nyregion/for-
some-new-yorkers-a-grand-experiment-in-participatory-budgeting.html
(accessed 23 July 2013).
NextGov (2013). Open Data is Re-Defining Government in the 21st Century,
http://www.nextgov.com/big-data/2013/06/open-data-re-defining-government-
21st-century/64847/ (accessed 23 July 2013).
Norris, D.F. and Kraemer, K.L. (1996). Mainframe and PC Computing in
American Cities: Myths and realities, Public Administration Review 56(6):
568–575.
Norris, D.F. and Moon, M.J. (2005). Advancing E-Government at the Grassroots:
Tortoise or hare? Public Administration Review 65(1): 64–75.
Nunn, S. (2001). Police Information Technology: Assessing the effects of
computerization on urban police functions, Public Administration Review
61(2): 221–234.
Pavlou, P.A. and El Sawy, O.A. (2006). From IT Leveraging Competence to
Competitive Advantage in Turbulent Environments: The case of new product
development, Information Systems Research 17(3): 198–227.
Pemberton, J.D., Stonehouse, G.H. and Barber, C.E. (2001). Competing with
CRS-Generated Information in the Airline Industry, Journal of Strategic
Information Systems 20(1): 59–75.
Piccoli, G. and Ives, B. (2005). Review: IT-dependent strategic initiatives and
sustained competitive advantage: A review and synthesis of the literature, MIS
Quarterly 29(4): 747–776.
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2011). Creating Shared Value, Harvard Business
Review 89(1/2): 62–77.
Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R. and Seth, N. (2006). Firm Performance Impacts of
Digitally Enabled Supply Chain Integration Capabilities, MIS Quarterly 30(2):
225–246.
Rai, A. and Tang, X. (2010). Leveraging IT Capabilities and Competitive Process
Capabilities for the Management of Interorganizational Relationship Portfolios,
Information Systems Researcsh 21(3): 516–542.
Rainer, K. and Miller, M. (2005). Explaining Differences across Journal Rankings,
Communications of the ACM 48(2): 91–94.
Ray, G., Muhanna, W.A. and Barney, J.B. (2005). Information Technology and
the Performance of the Customer Service Process: A resource-based analysis,
MIS Quarterly 29(4): 625–652.
Rhodes, R.A.W. and Wanna, J. (2007). The Limits to Public Value, or Rescuing
Responsible Government from the Platonic Guardians, Australasian Journal of
Public Administration 66(4): 406–421.
Rhodes, R.A.W. and Wanna, J. (2009). Bringing the Politics Back in: Public
value in Westminster parliamentary government, Public Administration 87(2):
161–183.
Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P., Perez, C.C. and Hernandez, A.M.L. (2007).
E-Government and Public Financial Reporting, American Review of Public
Administration 37(2): 142–177.
Ruuska, I. and Teigland, R. (2009). Ensuring Project Success through Collective
Competence and Creative Conflict in Public-Private Partnership – A case study
of Bygga Villa, a Swedish triple helix e-government initiative, International
Journal of Public Management 27(4): 323–334.
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A. and Grover, V. (2003). Shaping Agility through
Digital Options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in
contemporary firms, MIS Quarterly 27(2): 237–263.
Schultz, J.A. and Tuma, R. (2007). A Collaborative Communications Center and
Public Safety Data Systems, in B. Rocheleau (ed.) Case Studies on Digital
Government, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, pp. 256–280.
Seltsikas, P. and O’Keefe, R.M. (2010). Expectation and Outcomes in Electronic
Identity Management: The role of trust and public value, European Journal of
Information Systems 19(1): 93–193.
Smith, M.L. (2011). Limitations to Building Institutional Trustworthiness through
E-Government: A comparative study of two e-services in Chile, Journal of
Information Technology 26(1): 78–93.
Smith, R.F.I. (2004). Focusing on Public Value: Something new and something
old, Australian Journal of Public Management 63(4): 68–79.
Stoker, G. (2006). Public Value Management: A new narrative for networked
governance? American Review of Public Administration 36(1): 47–51.
Straub, D. (2010). A Midterm MIS Quarterly Progress Report, MIS Quarterly
34(2): iii–xii.
 In public sector organisations
204
Swilling, M. (2011). Greening Public Value: The sustainability challenge, in
J. Benington and M.H. Moore (eds.) Public Value Theory and Practice,
Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89–111.
Tanriverdi, H. (2005). Information Technology Relatedness, Knowledge
Management Capability, and Performance of Multibusiness Firms, MIS
Quarterly 29(2): 311–334.
Teo, H.-H., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K.-K. (1997). Organizational Transformation
Using Electronic Data Interchange: The case of tradenet in Singapore, Journal
of Management Information Systems 13(4): 139–165.
Thomas, J.C. and Streib, G. (2005). E-Democracy, E-Commerce, and E-Research:
Examining the electronic ties between citizens and governments, Administration
& Society 37(3): 259–280.
Tolbert, C.J. and Mossberger, K. (2006). The Effects of E-Government on
Trust and Confidence in Government, Public Administration Review 66(3):
354–369.
Trkman, P., McCormack, K., de Oliveira, M.P.V. and Ladeira, M.B. (2010). The
Impact of Business Analytics on Supply Chain Performance, Decision Support
Systems 49(3): 318–327.
Tsouhlou, A. and Mylonakis, J. (2011). Public Expenditure, Public Sector Size
and Growth: The European Union marked structural differences, Review of
European Studies 3(2): 33–51.
Wade, M. and Hulland, J. (2004). Review: The resource-based view and
information systems research: Review, extension, and suggests for future
research, MIS Quarterly 28(1): 107–142.
Weiss, J.A. and Tschirhart, M. (1994). Public Information Campaigns as Policy
Instruments, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13(1): 82–119.
Welch, E.W., Hinnant, C.C. and Moon, M.J. (2004). Linking Citizen Satisfaction
with E-Government and Trust in Government, Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 15(3): 371–391.
West, D. (2004). E-Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and
Citizen Attitudes, Public Administration Review 64(1): 15–27.
Williams, I. and Shearer, H. (2011). Appraising Public Value: Past, present, and
futures, Public Administration 89(4): 1367–1384.
Williams, T.A. (1994). Government Regulation through Voluntary Cooperation:
The strategic impact of information technology, Journal of Strategic Information
Systems 3(2): 107–122.
Yes Magazine (2010). Chicago’s $1.3 Million Experiment in Democracy, http://
www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/chicagos-1.3-million-experiment-in-
democracy (accessed 23 July 2013).
Yildiz, M. (2007). E-Government Research: Reviewing the literature, limitations,
and ways forward, Government Information Quarterly 24(3): 646–665.
About the Authors
Min-Seok Pang has a Ph.D. in business administration from
the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at University of
Michigan as well as an M.S. in management and a B.S. in
industrial engineering from the Korea Advanced Institute
of Science and Technology. He is currently an Assistant
Correction
This paper has been amended, the title was incorrect in the publication of an earlier version.
M-S Pang et al
Professor of Management Information Systems at Fox School
of Business, Temple University. His research has been pub-
lished in journals such as Information Systems Research, MIS
Quarterly, Decision Support Systems, and International Journal
of Electronic Commerce. His research interests include IT
business value, IT governance, Electronic Governments, and
Online and Network Services.
Gwanhoo Lee received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in Industrial
Engineering from Seoul National University and the Ph.D.
degree in information systems from the University of Minne-
sota. He is currently an Associate Professor of Information
Technology and the Director of Center for IT and the Global
Economy in the Kogod School of Business at the American
University, Washington DC. His current research interests
include complexity and agility issues in information systems
development, global teams, complex adaptive systems, social
media, open innovation, digital government, and information
privacy. He has published his research in MIS Quarterly,
Journal of Management Information Systems, IEEE Transac-
tions on Software Engineering, Communications of the ACM,
European Journal of Information Systems, Information &
Management, and Government Information Quarterly. He
has received grants from IBM Center for the Business of
Government. He is an advisory fellow to Samsung Economic
Research Institute.
William H DeLone received the B.S. degree in mathematics
from Villanova University, the M.S. degree in industrial
administration from Carnegie-Mellon University, and the
Ph.D. degree in computer information systems from the
University of California Los Angeles. He is currently a
Professor of Information Technology and Executive Director
of the Center for IT and the Global Economy in the Kogod
School of Business at the American University, Washington
DC. His current research interests include the assessment of
information systems’ effectiveness and value, e-government,
and public value and the management of global software
development. His research has been published in Informa-
tion Systems Research, Management Information Systems
Quarterly, The Journal of Management Information Systems,
The Journal of the Association of Information Systems, The
European Journal of Information Systems, and IEEE Trans-
actions on Software Engineering.
 In public sector organisations M-S Pang et al
205

Appendix

Table A1 The Journal List in the Literature Search (Public-sector IT-value research)

Discipline Journal Number of Publication

Information Systems MIS Quarterly 9
Information Systems Research 4
Journal of Management Information Systems 8
Communication of the ACM 10
Decision Sciences
Decision Support Systems 16
IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering
Information & Management 18
Journal of Information Technology 7
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7
European Journal of Information Systems 21
Journal of Strategic Information Systems 25
Information Systems Journal 14

Public Administration Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15

Public Administration 6
Philosophy & Public Affairs
Policy Sciences
Governance 4
Journal of European Public Policy
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
Journal of European Social Policy
Climate Policy
Public Administration Review 42

Economics Journal of Economic Literature

Quarterly Journal of Economics
Journal of Political Economy
Journal of Economic Perspectives
Econometrica
Journal of Economic Growth
Journal of Economic Geography
Review of Economics and Statistics
American Economic Review
Rand Journal of Economics
Journal of Public Economic
Journal of Urban Economics
Journal of Industrial Economics 1
International Journal of Industrial Economics
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy

Political Sciences American Political Science Review

Political Analysis
American Journal of Political Science
Public Opinion Quarterly
Annual Review of Political Science
Journal of Conflict Resolution
Political Geography
European Journal of Political Research
Journal of Peace Research
International Studies Quarterly
Electronic Governments Government Information Quarterly
Information Polity

View publication stats