EVALUATING THE COST-BENEFITS OF E-GOVERNMENT PROJECTS: Rationale for Going beyond Objective Financial Measures

The assertion that e-government has myriad benefits exists in the plethora of egovernment literature. However, the fact that e-government implementation is costly can not be ignored too. In order to match the two, there have been efforts to suggest models from which the costs and benefits of e-government projects could be assessed to justify their implementation. Since Project Management profession has a unique role for the successful implementation of e-government projects; models for project evaluation in Project Management are also relevant for evaluating e-government projects. Hence, financial measures of project evaluation such as Net Present Value (NPV), Payback period and Cost-Benefit ratio are normally recommended for evaluating e-government projects. We argue however that though financial models are important objective measures, they are maligned in the following grounds. Firstly, while cash flow is a requisite data input for computation of financial measures; not all e-government project benefits can be measured in monetary values. Secondly, not all e-government projects are aiming at profit maximization. Thirdly, the benefits of e-government projects can not be assessed within a single domain because of multiplier effect to other social, political and economic entities. In this paper, authors provide a framework which indicates the broad benefits of e-government in which financial models have limitations in evaluating such e-government projects. A multi-weighted score technique is recommended as a subjective measure to complement financial models in order to nurture those broad benefits of e-government projects during the early phases of selecting viable projects

Keywords:

Net Present Value, Payback Period, Multiplier Effect Egovernment, Multi-Weighted Score,

PDF

___

Akçay, S. (2006). Corruption and Human Development. CATO Journal, 26(1), 48.
Amberg, M., Markov, I. R., & Okujava, s. (2005). A Framework for Valuing the Economic Profitability of e-Government. Paper presented at the International
Conference on E-government, Ottawa, Canada. Baum, W. C., & Tolbert, S. M. (1985). Investing in Development: Lessons of
World Bank Experience. Washington: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS. Cho, Y. H. C., & Byung - Dae, C. (2004). E - government to combat corruption : the case of Seoul Metropolitan Government. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(10), 719.
Di Maio, A. (2003). Traditional ROI Measures Will Fail in Government”, Gartner
Group, Note Number AV-20-3454.
Gray, C. F., & Larson, E. W. (2008). Project Management : The managerial process Boston McGraw-Hill.
Gupta, M. P., & Jana, D. (2003). E-government evaluation: a framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 365-387.
Heeks, R. (2003). Most eGovernment- for-Development Projects Fail: How Can
Risks be Reduced? iGovernment Working Paper Series. IDPM, University of Manchester, UK. Heeks, R., & Molla, A. (2009). Impact Assessment of ICT-for-Development
Projects: A Compendium of Approaches: Development Informatics Group, Institute for Development Policy and Management, Manchester, UK. Heerkens, G. R. (2002). Project Management. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Irani, Z., Love, P. E. D., Elliman, T., Jones, S., & Themistocleous, M. (2005).
Evaluating e-government: learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities. Information Systems Journal, 15, 61–82. Kaufmann, D. (2002). Growth Without Governance: World Bank, Washington.
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2006). Governance Matters V:
Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators for 1996-2005 :World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper No. 4012.
Kertesz, S. (2003). Cost-Benefit Analysis of e-Government Investments. Harvard
University, Kennedy School of Government. Lau, E. (2007). Electronic Government and the Drive for Growth and Equity. In
D. L. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger (Ed.), Governace and Information technology: from electronic government to information government: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Markov, R. (2006). Economical Impact of IT Investments in the Public Sector:
The Case of Local Electronic Government Paper presented at the International Business Informatics Challenge, Dublin City University Ojha, A., Palvia, S., & Gupta, M. P. (2008). A Model for Impact of E
Government on Corruption: Exploring Theoretical Foundations. . In J. Bhattacharya (Ed.), Critical Thinking in E-Governance (pp. 160-170). New Delhi: Gift Publishing. Pathak, R. D., Gurmeet, S., Rakesh, B., & Smith, R. F. I. (2007). E-governance and Corruption-developments and Issues in Ethiopia. Public Organization Review, 7(3), 195.
Rajkumar, A. S., & Swaroop, V. (2008). Public spending and outcomes: Does governance matter? Journal of Development Economics, 86(1), 96-111.
Reffat, M. R. (2006). Developing a Successful e-Government. School of
Architecture, Design Science and Planning, University of Sydney, Australia. Remer, D. S., & Nieto, A. P. (1995a). A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques. Part 1: Net present value and rate of return methods. International Journal of Production Economics, 42(1), 79-96.
Remer, D. S., & Nieto, A. P. (1995b). A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques. Part 2: Ratio, payback, and accounting methods.
International Journal of Production Economics, 42(2), 101-129. Renkema, T. J. W., & Berghout, E. W. (1997). Methodologies for information systems investment evaluation at the proposal stage: a comparative review.
Information and Software Technology, 39(1), 1-13. Saidi, N., & Yared, H. (2004). ‘e-Government: Technology for Good
Governance, Development and Democracy in the MENA Countries’. Working Paper 0304, ERF Working Paper Series.
Shim, D. C., & Eom, T. H. (2008). E-Government and Anti-Corruption:
Empirical Analysis of International Data. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(3), 298-316. World-Bank. (2005). Shaping the Future of Water for Agriculture: A Sourcebook for Investment in Agricultural Water Management. Washington: World Bank.