Patterns for E-Government Development
plays against citizen’s views, and we know that in
some other regions of the world less sophistica-
tion is preferred to more up to date and relevant
content in e-government portals (Bannister, 2007).
At a general level, there is concern with citizens’
participation. At a more concrete level though, it
is less clear how participation is to inform further
design of e-government projects and how dialogue
(rather than simply consultation) is to take place
with different actors to shape up e-government
services at local, regional and national level.
In relation to a possible consideration of a
power-based pattern, it can be said that within
existing policies there could be the foundations
for citizen’s own empowerment when using e-
government services. Current principles bring
possibilities for participation and engagement. For
instance the principle that e-government is more
than technology; or the principle that standardisa-
tion and quality of service will lead citizens to trust
more in their governments. If they are applied to the
notion of one-stop citizen centred e-government
shop, some possible strategies that citizens could
suggest within what currently happens are:
• Websites that help using such services
• Software facilities to encourage discussion,
sharing of information, group-based decision
making or service performance monitoring
• The extension of electronic procurement
facilities for companies so they can for
instance bid jointly for contracts or get
advice for other types of processes are ex-
amples of what could happen within exist-
ing services
Beyond existing initiatives or projects, the
potential availability of community-based portals,
blogs or wikis could offer other opportunities for
discussion or to exert accountability of services.
The Colombian government could be using these
to improve what they are doing. Citizens could use
this to exert pressure on the ‘official’ e-government
portal initiatives.
For the Colombian case in general, the in-
termixing of patterns also seems to suggest that
they could occur sequentially and that an ideal
pattern could be adopted initially. The subsequent
adoption in the sequence strategic / power-based
pattern(s), or the other way round is less clear. It
can be suggested that an ideal pattern could be
followed by a strategic pattern and a power-based
pattern simultaneously or sequentially. If simul-
taneously, it can complement formal channels of
participation. If sequentially, such channels can
be re-designed and with them new ideals, forms
of engagement and behaviour in relation to citi-
zenship can be developed.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SYSTEMS
METHODOLOGY USE
Assuming that those involved and affected by
e-governments want to pursue action under each
of the above patterns explained, with an adequate
degree of their strengths and limitations, the
concluding section of this chapter provides some
guidance on how systems methodology use can
help them. This section complements the initial
thoughts offered in the introductory chapter of
this book.
To develop an idealist pattern for e-govern-
ment, systemic thinking considers that organisa-
tions are part of a wider system (society), and that
therefore any planning about an organisation’s
future should be developed with a wider view of
how society is to be envisaged (Ackoff, 1981).
A number of methodologies including interac-
tive planning (Ackoff, 1981) and soft systems
methodology SSM (Checkland & Poulter, 2006)
can help people to envisage a new state of affairs,
and to explore the type of support required by
technology to offer services or features to indi-
viduals. Creative thinking can also be encouraged
to consider perspectives in relation to develop a
vision and providing benefits to a wider variety
of stakeholders (De Bono, 2004). Visions could
47

be validated in terms of their implications for
stakeholders, and how decisions implied in a
vision have consequences in terms of inclusion,
exclusion and marginalisation of people and issues
(Midgley, 2000; Ulrich, 1983).
To develop a strategic pattern for e-
government, systemic thinking can provide
methodological tools to explore the context of
e-government use by surfacing people’s concerns
about a current situation and express them as a
whole system of human activity (Checkland,
1981). Systemic thinking also can help people to
engage in meaningful dialogue to seek alterna-
tives for improvement. Soft systems methodolo-
gies like the above mentioned could help people
structuring debate with stakeholders concerned
about the messiness of a situation (e.g. an e-
government project). Other methodologies like
strategic assumptions surface testing (SAST)
(Mason & Mitroff, 1981) could also help people
to explore implications of options (for instance
implementing an e-government service online).
The role(s) of information systems and technolo-
gies could also be discussed as supporting the
addressing of people’s concerns,, and suggestions
for improvement of the situation as well as for
designing information systems could be elicited
(J. Córdoba & Midgley, 2008).
To develop a power-based pattern for e-gov-
ernment and in relation to systems methodology
use, a complementary approach between power-
ethics analysis needs adopted given that systems
methodologies do not explicitly address issues
of power. We have begin exploring how such a
complementary approach would sit together with
systems methodologies (J. R. Córdoba, 2006).
Our reflections from practice using the ideas
from this approach in practice (J. Córdoba &
Robson, 2008) lead us to consider the importance
of analysing power formations and reflecting on
how action (for instance developing alternative
e-government services or technologies) can be
informed by ethical reflection about who we want
to be as individuals.
48
Patterns for E-Government Development
These implications give us a sense of hope
that we can do something about e-government by
reflecting on different ways in which we believe
it has been developed, and that we can continue
using systemic thinking and systems methodol-
ogy use to engage people (including ourselves)
in improving relationships with others and our
governments. The door is now open to continue
developing ways of working for this purpose. How
to continue developing inclusive, reflective and
ultimately systemic reflection is an area that we
would like to continue taking into consideration
for further research, development and policy
making efforts on e-government.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, an attempt has been made to define
three patterns to understand e-government in the
context of the information society. These patterns
are 1) idealist; 2) strategic; and 3) power based.
Each pattern has been described with its particular
strengths and weaknesses. These patterns have
been used to analyse a particular e-government
initiative; their future use could be extended to
inform analysis and improvement of other initia-
tives. We conclude by suggesting how best to use
each of these patterns in e-government practice.
The idealist pattern can be helpful to gather
different organisations, individuals and other
stakeholders related to e-government initiatives to
define a vision, and the means (i.e. organisational,
technological) to pursue it. It can also be used
to ‘copy’ foreign visions and practices without
considering their effectiveness in the particular
context (local, regional) where e-government
initiatives are to be implemented.
The strategic pattern would enable shaping
of e-government initiatives by different groups
involved and affected by these initiatives. Ac-
commodation among different interests could
be promoted; mediation could address the gaps
between norms and practice, between technol-
Patterns for E-Government Development
ogy and law, between people and e-government
solutions. However, as it is often the case ac-
commodation can be the result of imbalances
and frailties of participation in the context where
e-government initiatives are to be implemented.
Shaping up of e-government initiatives should
also consider further analysis of the context in
which such initiatives are being developed. The
chapter of Córdoba and Orr in this book provides
an approach to help exploring such context.
A third pattern was defined to address the
shortcomings of the other two. Based on a rela-
tional view of power, this pattern would facilitate
the exploration of opportunities and constraints
for action given the old and the new in terms of
government and e-government practices. It could
also be used to empower individuals and give
them opportunities for technology use so they
can take advantages of e-government principles,
initiatives and projects according to what they
consider beneficial, right or wrong for them.
Again, exploring opportunities and constraints
for action could be enhanced by a deeper degree
of analysis of what happens in the context where
e-government initiatives are being developed.
The use of systems-based methodologies can
support the development of each of these pat-
terns and help people involved to make better
sense of what is happening with and because of
e-government initiatives. Methodologies can also
help guiding enquiry about suggestions to improve
the current situation. One area in which we would
like to use these ideas is in the evaluation of e-
government initiatives, in which different aspects
(not only financial ones) are to be considered (see
for example the chapter of Kromidha and Córdoba
in this book). In this and other areas we see great
potential to take the above conceptualisation of
e-government development to practice and to
open up new areas of enquiry in e-government
research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank Dr. Hugo Sin from the
Colombian Ministry of Communications and
technical director of the “Gobierno en Línea”
initiative for his valuable support during our visit
in March 2007.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. (1981). Creating the Corporate Fu-
ture: Plan or to be Planned for. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Banister, F. (2004). Deep E-government. Pa-
per presented at the European Group of Public
Administration (EGPA) Annual Conference,
Ljubljana.
Bannister, F. (2007). The curse of the benchmark:
an assessment of the validity and value of e-
government comparisons. International Review
of Administrative Sciences, 73(2), 171–188.
doi:10.1177/0020852307077959
Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. (2002). Information
systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly,
26(1), 1–14. doi:10.2307/4132338
Bijker, E., Hughes, T., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (1987).
The Social Construction of Technological Systems:
New Directions in the Sociology and History of
Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bloomfield, B., & Coombs, R. (1992). Informa-
tion technology, control and power: The cen-
tralization and decentralization debate revisited.
Journal of Management Studies, 29(4), 459–484.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00674.x
Brocklesby, J., & Cummings, S. (1996). Foucault
plays Habermas: An alternative philosophical
underpinning for critical systems thinking. The
Journal of the Operational Research Society,
47(6), 741–754.
49
 Patterns for E-Government Development

Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (1999). The Social Life Córdoba, J., & Robson, W. (2008). Power and
of Information. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Ethics in IS Evaluation. In D. Jemielniak & J.
Press. Kociatkiewicz (Eds.), Management Practices
in High Tech Environments (Vol. forthcoming).
Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy: Reflec-
Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
tions on Internet, Business and Society. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. Córdoba, J. R. (2002). A Critical Systems Think-
ing Approach for the Planning of Information
CEC. (1997). Green paper on the convergence
Technology in the Information Society. Unpub-
of the telecommunications, media and informa-
lished Doctoral dissertation, University of Hull,
tion technology sectors, and the implications for
Hull, UK.
regulation: Towards an information society ap-
proach. Brussels: Commission of the European Córdoba, J. R. (2005). Communities and evalua-
Communities (CEC). tion of e-government services. In S. Clarke & E.
Coakes (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Communities
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems
of Practice in Information and Knowledge Man-
Practice. London: John Wiley and Sons.
agement (pp. 32-34). Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for Publishing.
Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems
Córdoba, J. R. (2006). Using Foucault to anal-
Methodology and Its Use for Practitioners, Teach-
yse ethics in the practice of problem structuring
ers and Students. Chichester: John Wiley.
methods. The Journal of the Operational Research
Commission of the European Communities (CEC). Society, 57(9), 1027–1034. doi:10.1057/palgrave.
(2004). Framework to reinforce the exchange jors.2602080
of good practices in e-government: A contribu-
Córdoba, J. R., & Midgley, G. (2006). Broadening
tion to eEurope 2005. Retrieved April 27, 2004,
the boundaries: An application of critical systems
from http://europa.eu.int/information_society/
thinking to IS planning in Colombia. The Jour-
programmes/egov_rd/doc/good_practices_frame-
nal of the Operational Research Society, 57(9),
work_baseline.pdf
1064–1080. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602081
Contini, F. (2009). ICT, assemblages and institu-
Córdoba, J. R., & Robson, W. D. (2003). Making
tional contexts: understanding multiple develop-
the evaluation of information systems insightful:
ment paths. In F. Contini & G. F. Lanzara (Eds.),
Understanding the role of power-ethics strategies.
ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector (pp.
Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evalu-
244-271). London: Palgrave.
ation, 6(2), 55–64.
Córdoba, J., & Midgley, G. (2008). Beyond or-
Darier, E. (1999). Foucault and the environment:
ganisational agendas: Using boundary critique
An introduction. In E. Darier (Ed.), Discourses
to facilitate the inclusion of societal concerns in
of the Environment (pp. 1-33). Oxford, UK:
information systems planning. European Journal
Blackwell.
of Information Systems, 17, 125–142. doi:10.1057/
ejis.2008.4 De Bono, E. (2004). How to Have a Beautiful
Mind. London: Vermillion.

50
Patterns for E-Government Development
Doolin, B. (2004). Power and resistance in
the implementation of a medical manage-
ment information system. Information Systems
Journal, 14(4), 343–362. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2575.2004.00176.x
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler,
J. (2006). Digital Era Governance: IT Corpora-
tions, the State, and E-Government. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Dutton, W., Blumler, J., Garnham, N., Mansell,
R., Cornford, J., & Peltu, M. (1996). The politics
of information and communication policy: The
information superhighway. In W. Dutton & M.
Peltu (Eds.), Information and Communication
Technologies: Visions and Realities. (pp. 387-405).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
European Commission. (2007). Information Soci-
ety and Government: Linking European Policies.
Brussels: European Commission.
Force, D. O. T. (2000). Okinawa Charter on
Global Information Society, Declaration of the
G8. Retrieved May 2008, from http://www.mofa.
go.jp/policy/economy/summit/2000/documents/
charter.html
Foucault, M. (1977). The History of Sexuality
Volume One: The Will to Knowledge (Vol. 1).
London: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1984a). The ethics of the concern of
the self as a practice of freedom (R. e. a. Hurley,
Trans.). In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Michel Foucault:
Ethics Subjectivity and Truth: Essential Works
of Foucault 1954-1984 (pp. 281-301). London:
Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1984b). What is enlightenment? (C.
Porter, Trans.). In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault
Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought
(pp. 32-50). London: Penguin.
Gore, A. (1991, July 1991). A national vision.
Byte, 188-189.
Grimsley, M., & Meehan, A. (2007). e-Gov-
ernment information systems: evaluation led
design for public value and client trust. European
Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 134–148.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000674
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1995). Re-engineer-
ing the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Hawkins, R. (1995). Enhancing the user role
in the development of technical standards
for telecommunications. Technology Analy-
sis and Strategic Management, 1, 21–40.
doi:10.1080/09537329508524193
Heeks, R. (2005). e-government as a carrier of
context. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 51–74.
doi:10.1017/S0143814X05000206
Heeks, R. (2006). Implementing and Managing
Egovernment: An International Text. London:
Sage.
Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-
government research: perspectives, philosophies,
theories, methods and practice. Government In-
formation Quarterly, 24, 243–265. doi:10.1016/j.
giq.2006.06.005
Heeks, R., & Stanforth, C. (2007). Understanding
e-Government project trajectories from an actor-
network perspective. European Journal of Infor-
mation Systems, 16(2), 165–177. doi:10.1057/
palgrave.ejis.3000676
Heichlinger, A. (2004). eGovernment in Europe’s
Regions: Approaches and Progress in IST Strategy,
Organisation and Services, and the Role of Re-
gional Actors. Maastricht (Netherlands): European
Institute of Public Administration.
Henderson, J., & Venkatraman, N. (1999). Stra-
tegic alignment: Leveraging information technol-
ogy for transforming organisations. IBM Systems
Journal, 38(2&3), 472–484.
51

Information Society Commission. (1999). Infor-
mation society Ireland: Discussion document on
IT access for all. Dublin: Information Society
Commission.
Introna, L. D. (2003). Disciplining information
systems: Truth and its regimes. European Journal
of Information Systems, 12, 235–240. doi:10.1057/
palgrave.ejis.3000465
ISC. (1996). Information Society Ireland: Strategy
for Action. Dublin: Information Society Commis-
sion Ireland.
Japanese Government (2000). First meeting of
the digital opportunity task force (dotforce).
Okinawa: G8.
Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully
functional E-government: A four stage model.
Government Information Quarterly, 18, 122–136.
doi:10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1
Loureiro, C. (2008). A theoretical framework for
a structuration model of social issues in software
development in information systems. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 25(1), 99–109.
doi:10.1002/sres.868
Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining
information systems change: a punctuated socio-
technical change model. European Journal of In-
formation Systems, 17(6), 589–613. doi:10.1057/
ejis.2008.50
Mansell, R. (Ed.). (2002). Inside The Communi-
cation Revolution: Evolving Patterns of Social
and Technical Interaction (1st ed.). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Mansell, R., & Silverstone, R. (1997). Introduc-
tion. In R. Mansell & R. Silverstone (Eds.), Com-
munication by design. The politics of information
and communication technologies. (pp. 1-14).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
52
Patterns for E-Government Development
Mansell, R., & Steinmueller, W. (2000). Mo-
bilizing the Information Society: Strategies for
Growth and Opportunity. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Marchionini, G., Samet, H., & Brandt, L. (2004).
Digital government. Communications of the ACM,
46(1), 25–27.
Mason, R., & Mitroff, I. (1981). Challenging Stra-
tegic Planning Assumptions: Theory, Cases and
Techniques. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
McLoughlin, I., & Cornford, J. (2006). Transfor-
mational change in the local state? Enacting e-
government in English local authorities. Journal of
Management & Organization, 12(3), 195–208.
Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic Intervention: Phi-
losophy, Methodology and Practice. New York:
Kluwer Academic.
Mincomunicaciones (2007). Agenda de Conec-
tividad - Gobierno en Línea y Plan de Acción
2007 (Presentation). Bogotá: Ministerio de Co-
municaciones.
Molina, A., & Kinder, T. (2001). National
systems of innovations, industrial clusters and
constituency-building in Scotland’s electronics
industry. International Journal of Entrepreneur-
ship and Innovation Management, 1(2), 241–275.
doi:10.1504/IJEIM.2001.000456
Mumford, E. (1983). Designing Human Systems
for New Technology: The ETHICS Method. Man-
chester: Manchester Business School.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. Boston,
MA: MIT Press.
ODPM. (2003). Local e-Government. Process
Evaluation of the Implementation of Electronic
Local Government in England. London: Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).