The dimensions of knowledge in e-government adoption: a confirmatory factor analysis.
| Autor | Pur |
| Cargo | Art |
Las dimensiones del conocimiento en la adopción del e-gobierno: Un análisis factorial confirmatorio
INTRODUCTION
Wimmer and Traunmüller (2004) represent government and governance of public policies as large knowledge-intensive organizations. They indicate that "Public agencies host a particularly high percentage of professionals and special staff who command important domains of knowledge-based activities [...]. Many public organizations are chiefly 'intelligence organizations' and officials can be considered as knowledge workers per excellence. Complex decisions [in government] are particularly knowledge demanding." (Wimmer and Traunmüller, 2004, 45).
Then knowledge is placed as one of the most influential factors of e-government adoption due to its critical role in decision making and its potential as an asset for individuals, groups, organizations and networks that participate within government (Maier, 2007; Wimmer and Traunmüller, 2004). This study focuses on the dimensions of knowledge among actors inside the government who are responsible of adopting e-government initiatives in their organizational contexts.
In the literature, there are many frameworks that attempt to integrate the multiple dimensions of knowledge involved in the implementation of information systems (is) and e-government initiatives (Chang et al., 2009; Maier, 2007, 21-35; Pardo et al., 2006). These efforts have contributed to our understanding of the role of knowledge as a critical mechanism for the adoption of e-government projects. However, the focus has been on the is, information management and data management sides neglecting other interacting dimensions identified in other disciplines (Heeks, 2006; Maier, 2007; Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991; Purón-Cid, 2010; 2013; Wimmer and Traunmüller, 2004).
In order to explore the dimensions of knowledge, this study argues that it is necessary to consider the different structures and disciplinary fields enacted in practice while adopting a particular e-government initiative. The dimensions of knowledge involved in e-government projects depend on the type of the initiative and the context in which they are operating. According to Purón-Cid (2010; 2013), e-government initiatives are usually interdisciplinary in nature because of the way they are adopted among different participants from diverse professional and organizational backgrounds. For the purpose of this study, the term "interdisciplinary" means a group of people with different professional backgrounds, knowledge, and expertise who collaborate for the adoption of the e-government initiative in their organizational routines (Purón-Cid, 2010; 2013).
This paper claims that during the implementation of e-government projects, different groups of professionals, and staffs with different professional and disciplinary backgrounds and expertise usually collaborate. Depending on the type of e-government, Purón-Cid (2013) suggests that other relevant structures from other disciplines need to be included. The proposed approach here is to consider the type of e-government project to properly analyze the dimensions of knowledge elicited in the project, not only from the field of is (is), but from other relevant disciplines.
A common application of e-government occurs in the field of budgeting (Purón-Cid, 2010). Because of the intensive informational content and technological use in the budgetary process, is have become central to budgeting operations in government, and vice versa (Lee et al., 2004; Melkers and Willoughby, 2001; OECD, 2007). This study examines the multiple dimensions of knowledge by complementing the is' perspective with the budgetary view during the adoption of e-government.
This study did a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to identify the different dimensions of knowledge based on the answers of the questionnaire on the adoption of an IT-enabled budget reform in Mexico. This initiative represents a contemporary and multi-disciplinary case of e-government. Since the late 1980s, the Mexican government has reformed its budget system involving new is and budgetary techniques. The last of these reforms, known as PbR-SED for its Spanish abbreviation of "Budgeting based on Results-Performance Evaluation System", was recently designed and enacted in 2008. Its purpose is to transform the way agencies spend public resources based on results, performance information, and cost savings. The PbR-SED condenses the multiple dimensions of knowledge in the context of an ongoing and complex e-government transformation in the fields of is and budgeting.
The questionnaire was applied to federal and state government officials who participated in the initiative. The goal of the questionnaire was to evaluate a variety of structures found critical in the literature. Through a section of this questionnaire, this study examined the impact of knowledge factors on e-government adoption. The goal of this study is to improve our understanding about the dimensions of knowledge involved in the adoption of e-government. The purpose is that the e-government community of practitioners and scholars use these findings for advising knowledge management for a greater e-government adoption. A selection of some "practical advises" was also identified as useful for the adoption of e-government.
The structure of the paper is organized in eight sections including these introductory remarks. The second section reviews the literature about e-government adoption and the definitions, frameworks and the multiple dimensions of knowledge involved in e-government. The third section presents the research questions. The fourth section establishes this study's hypotheses. The fifth section details the design and methods of this research. The sixth section includes the results of the CFA. The fifth section discusses some "practical advises" resulting from the analysis which we believe are useful for the adoption of e-government. The sixth section presents the conclusions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This section reviews the various definitions and theoretical frameworks of knowledge in order to conceptualize the possible dimensions of knowledge for this study. The nature of an IT-enabled budget reform involves the review of the literature on the fields of is, and budgeting these fields, but more comprehensive searches may include other fields such as management and accounting (Purón-Cid, 2013).
Knowledge
From different viewpoints, knowledge is a highly appreciated asset that may lead to more "intelligent", "competent", "strategic", or "smarter" forms of government (Maier, 2007, 60). Knowledge derives from previous actions and from the feedback obtained through every step of the policy making cycle with the purpose of improving management actions and focalizing policy targets (Wimmer and Traunmüller, 2004). Knowledge is also an important ingredient for promoting innovation, participation, transparency and collaboration in the public sector (Arora, 2011; McNabb, 2007; Riege and Lindsay, 2006).
In spite of its undisputable importance, there is no consensus in the literature about what knowledge means (Maier, 2007). The term "knowledge" is applied widely, but vaguely within is, business organizations, organizational studies among other disciplines (Maier, 2007; McNabb, 2007). As a result there is a large number of definitions across and within disciplines that do not converge (Maier, 2007; Lehner and Maier, 1997; Riege and Lindsay, 2006). These different perspectives correspond to the diverse ways knowledge interacts within the organizational contexts, depending on how organizations handle knowledge in their routines and with their stakeholders (Maier, 2007).
Maier (2007) identified some disciplinary views in order to study knowledge these include from different philosophical areas to the fields of management, sociology, political science and economics. In the field of is literature, there are several theoretical perspectives that place knowledge in the center of the analysis. Table 1 presents a summary of these efforts along with some of their main exponents. The revision of each of these perspectives exceeds the scope of this article, but this summary states the fact that knowledge has been studied extensively across various disciplinary traditions and from different theoretical perspectives (Maier, 2007, 35).
Knowledge has different related concepts such as competence, capabilities, know-how, ability, attribution, conviction, discovery, estimation, evidence, experience, intelligence, invention, observation, proficiency, sense-making, skill, understanding, among others (Maier, 2007; McNabb, 2007; Riege and Lindsay, 2006). These diverse conceptualizations have no common meanings or cannot be conceptualized under a single term, but also such a comprehensive all-encompassing definition would be suspicious and unusable for research (Maier, 2007, 61). Maier (2007) reviewed several definitions from the fields of public administration, is and e-government (see table 2). This variety of concepts reflects the lack of agreement about the complex nature and wide range of dimensions of knowledge (Maier, 2007; McNabb, 2007; Riege and Lindsay, 2006).
As a result of this variety of definitions, the literature has contributed with a large list of dimensions and types of knowledge. Maier (2007, 66-69) categorizes a large variety of dimensions and types of knowledge. Based on the literature, Maier summarizes knowledge dimensions in the literature (See table 3). In general, these dimensions of knowledge intend to provide a comprehensive categorization from an organizational perspective (Maier, 2007).
Although, these efforts have contributed to our understanding of the role of knowledge, they are not intended to be compatible with each other. In fact they are heterogeneous and present different disciplinary views. In the field of e-government, studies on the dimensions of knowledge are rare and sparse...
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu pruebaCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
