Assessing the impact of e‐government on providers and users of the IS function: A structuration perspective

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to consider empirical perspectives relative to e‐government agenda, highlighting the critical need for understanding mutual relationships between the information systems (IS) function providers (supplier of IS services) and IS function users (service departments) in UK local authorities.

Design/methodology/approach

The empirical research was guided by an extensive literature search and consisted of ten randomly‐selected case studies from the sampling frame of UK local authorities. Semi‐structured interviews were carried out with ten head of IS, ten IS project managers and with ten designated e‐government managers. Interview findings were triangulated with data collected from document analysis carried out at each site. Documents included Society of Information Technology Management reports, government reports such as UK Online, ODPM, DETR, Cabinet Office reports and various other financial reports. The overall structure for each interview was provided by a standard case study protocol derived from the “active agents” framework.

Findings

Provides information about local authorities, highlighting the changing relationship between users and providers of information services in delivering e‐government. Introduces the “active agents” framework as a tool to operationalise structuration theory.

Research limitations/implications

A useful research for policy makers and researchers that are interested in the changing patterns of public service delivery and provider‐user relations in IS.

Originality/value

The paper offers “active agents” framework, based on structuration theory, as a powerful tool for interpreting changing relations between users and providers of the IS function in local authorities.

Citation

Senyucel, Z. (2007), "Assessing the impact of e‐government on providers and users of the IS function: A structuration perspective", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 131-144. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506160710751968