Success and Failure in eGovernment Projects

In the Training section:

Training

Training Workshop Content

Part 1: Introduction

[c.10 mins]

  1. Read out workshop aim, objectives and structure. [ TRAINER ]

Other Possible Activities:

Part 2: Why Worry About eGovernment Failure?

  1. Explain that e-government failure may be a problem. This part of the workshop looks at the scale and nature of that problem in more detail. [ TRAINER ]

Part 2a: What is e-government success and failure?

[c.35 mins]

  1. Get trainees to read through the section on 'Defining eGovernment Success and Failure', and the associated examples on the Success/Failure Definition page . [ TRAINEES ]
  2. In pairs, small groups or plenary, get trainees to give examples from their own experience of e-government projects that were 'successes', 'partial failures' and 'total failures'. Get trainees to justify their success/failure categorisation. [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

Part 2b: How common is e-government failure?

[c.35 mins]

  1. Get trainees to read just the 'Overall Results' and 'Conclusions' sections of the Success/Failure Rates page . [ TRAINEES ]
  2. In small groups or plenary, discuss these findings. Do these success/failure rates match trainees' own experience? If not, why not? What are the implications of these failure rates? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

Part 2c: What is the impact of e-government failure?

[c.60 mins]

  1. In small groups or plenary session, get trainees to identify what they see as the impacts - both good and bad - of e-government project failure. [ GROUP ]
  2. Now compare the list of impacts to those presented on the Impacts of Failure page . Discuss similarities and differences between the Web list and the group-developed list. What does the group conclude? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

Part 3: What Causes eGovernment Projects To Succeed Or Fail?

  1. Review the workshop findings to date (these are likely to be: that e-government failure is quite common; and that e-government failure causes problems). The next step, then, is to find out why some e-government projects fail (and others succeed). [ TRAINER ]
  2. Explain that there is no agreement about why e-government projects succeed or fail: different people give different explanations. Here, the group will look at two possible explanations for success/failure. But these explanations might not be relevant to everyone's situation. Rather than treat them as 'the truth', better to see them as starting points for thinking and planning. [ TRAINER ]

Part 3a: Simple factor explanation for project success/failure

[c.70 mins]

  1. Get trainees to read through the Factor Model page. [ TRAINEES ]
  2. In pairs or small groups, get trainees to provide examples from their own experience so that they make up their own factor list. These examples can be: ones that match the critical success factors listed; ones that match the critical failure factors listed; other factors that do not appear on the Web page. [ GROUP ]
  3. Discuss the match or mismatch between the list of factors on the Web page and the list of factors developed by the trainees. What does the group conclude about factors present in one list but absent in the other? What does the group conclude overall about the factor model: is this a model that is relevant and useful in its current form, or one that needs to be modified to make it relevant and useful (if so, how), or is it simply not relevant or useful in any form (if the latter, then later factor model activities can be ignored)? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

Part 3b: Design-reality gap explanation for project success/failure

[c.70 mins]

  1. Get trainees to read through the Design-Reality Gap Model page . [ TRAINEES ]
  2. In pairs or small groups, get trainees to provide examples of design-reality gaps from their own experience. For experience of successful projects, do they find that there are mainly small gaps between design and reality? For experience of unsuccessful projects, do they find that are mainly large gaps between design and reality? Are there other dimensions that are missing from the ITPOSMO checklist? [ GROUP ]
  3. Discuss the match or mismatch between the ideas of the model, and the experience of the trainees. What does the group conclude about design-reality gaps: is this an idea that is relevant and useful in its current form, or one that needs to be modified to make it relevant and useful (if so, how), or is it simply not relevant or useful in any form (if the latter, then later design-reality gap activities can be ignored)? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

Part 4: What To Do About eGovernment Failure: Implemented Projects

  1. Explain that most e-government projects are failures, and that trainees need to take account of this in their e-government work. With that in mind, the workshop now moves on to look at some practical techniques trainees can use if involved with projects that have already been implemented. [ TRAINER ]

Part 4a. Was My eGovernment Project A Success Or A Failure?

[c.85 mins]

  1. Get trainees to read through all five steps on the Project Assessment page . If necessary, discuss the steps in more detail. [ TRAINEES ]
  2. Get trainees to work in pairs or small groups. Each pair/group should identify one implemented e-government project. Get them to undertake each of the five steps in turn. This often works best if one person (who has most experience of the chosen project) acts as the client, and the other group member(s) act as consultant(s) to that client. Those in the consulting role actually undertake the steps. Those in the client role answer the consultants' questions, and provide other active input as required. Each group should report back its assessment of the project - success, failure or something in-between. [ GROUP ]
  3. In small groups and/or plenary, get trainees to reflect on the assessment process. Did the five steps work? How would they do the assessment differently next time? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

Part 4b. Why Did My eGovernment Project Fail: Factor Model

[c.110 mins]

  1. Get trainees to review the Failure Evaluation page . Then get trainees to read through the Factor Model Cause Identification page . [ TRAINEES ]
  2. Get trainees to work in pairs or small groups on a real-world e-government failure case. Ideally, they should use a single real-world case with which all the group is familiar (e.g. one on which they are all currently employed). Alternatively, a text-based case must be prepared by the trainer: one of the Web site cases (found on the Cases page ) could be used as the basis for this. The trainees' task is to ask the ten factor questions in relation to the case, and give an answer rating for each factor. Either a table or diagram should be used to present the findings, like those used in the worked example on the Web page. On that basis, the group should identify what it feels are the most likely causes of failure in this case. [ GROUP ]
  3. Get the groups to reflect on the approach they have just used, and then discuss questions such as: Was this a relevant and useful approach to understanding causes of failure? What were its strong and weak points? How would we do it differently next time? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

Part 4c. Why Did My eGovernment Project Fail: Design-Reality Gaps

[c.110 mins]

  1. If they have not already done so, get trainees to review the Failure Evaluation page. Then get trainees to read through the Design-Reality Gap Cause Identification page, including at least one of the related case examples. [ TRAINEES ]
  2. Get trainees to work in pairs or small groups on a real-world e-government failure case. Ideally, they should use a single real-world case with which all the group is familiar (e.g. one on which they are all currently employed). Alternatively, a text-based case must be prepared by the trainer: one of the Web site cases (found on the Cases page) could be used as the basis for this. The trainees' task is - taking each of the ITPOSMO dimensions in turn - to identify organisational reality just prior to implementation; to identify the design assumptions/requirements; and then to give a 0-10 rating for the design-reality gap on that dimension. A table should be used to present the findings. On that basis, the group should identify what it feels are the most likely causes of failure in this case. [ GROUP ]
  3. Get the groups to reflect on the approach they have just used, and then discuss questions such as: Was this a relevant and useful approach to understanding causes of failure? What were its strong and weak points? How would we do it differently next time? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

Other Possible Activities:

If trainees need to understand and/or adopt a learning approach to e-government failure, then add an additional part:

Part 4d. How Can I Learn From My eGovernment Project's Failure?

Part 5: What To Do About eGovernment Failure: Planned/In-Progress Projects

  1. Reminder that most e-government projects are failures, and that trainees need to take account of this in their e-government work. With that in mind, the workshop now moves on to look at some practical techniques trainees can use if involved with projects that are planned or that are in the middle of being implemented. [ TRAINER ]
  2. Explain to the trainees that there are no panaceas to guard against e-government failure. If there were, then failure would have been banished long ago. Instead, there are just some ideas that some people may find feasible and effective (but some people may not). [ TRAINER ]

Part 5a. Assessing and Reducing Risks of eGovernment Failure: Design-Reality Gaps

[c.110 mins (i-ii) + 100 mins (iii-v)]

  1. Get trainees to review the Risk Assessment page . Then get trainees to read through the Design-Reality Gap Risk Assessment page , including at least one of the related case examples. [ TRAINEES ]
  2. Get trainees to work in pairs or small groups on a real-world e-government project that is planned or being implemented. Ideally, they should use a single real-world case with which all the group is familiar (e.g. one on which they are all currently employed). Alternatively, a text-based case must be prepared by the trainer: one of the Web site cases (such as those listed as "too early to evaluate" on the Cases page ) could be used as the basis for this. The trainees' task is - taking each of the ITPOSMO dimensions in turn - to identify organisational reality at present; to identify the design assumptions/requirements; and then to give a 0-10 rating for the design-reality gap on that dimension. A table or diagram, like those used in the worked example on the Web page, should be used to present the individual dimension gaps. The gaps for all the individual dimensions should be totalled, and compared to the results table on the Design-Reality Gap Risk Assessment page . On this basis, the group should draw conclusions about the likelihood of success or failure, and about the main sources of risk to the project. [ GROUP ]
  3. Get trainees to read through the Design-Reality Gap Closure page , including at least one of the related case examples. [ TRAINEES ]
  4. Assuming that the earlier group activity identified some potential sources of risk, get trainees to continue working in their existing groups on the same case. Based on their earlier identification of main sources (dimensions) of risk, the group should now make an action plan that directly addresses those dimensions through design-reality gap reduction. The plan should identify key generic and specific actions to take in order to reduce project risk and increase the likelihood of success. The group must show that any suggested actions are both desirable and feasible. [ GROUP ]
  5. Get the groups to reflect on the approach they have just used, and then discuss questions such as: Was this a relevant and useful approach to assess and then reduce the risks of failure? What were its strong and weak points? How would we do it differently next time? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

Part 5b. Assessing and Reducing Risks of eGovernment Failure: Factor Model

[c.90 mins (i-ii) + 90 mins (iii-v)]

  1. If they have not already done so, get trainees to review the Risk Assessment page. Then get trainees to read through the Factor Risk Assessment page, including the worked example. [ TRAINEES ]
  2. Get trainees to work in pairs or small groups on a real-world e-government project that is planned or being implemented. Ideally, they should use a single real-world case with which all the group is familiar (e.g. one on which they are all currently employed). Alternatively, a text-based case must be prepared by the trainer: one of the Web site cases (such as those listed as "too early to evaluate" on the Cases page) could be used as the basis for this. The trainees' task is to ask the ten factor questions in relation to the case, and give an answer rating for each factor. A table or diagram, like those used in the worked example on the Web page, should be used to present the individual factor ratings. The rating scores for all the individual questions should be totalled, and compared to the results table on the Factor Risk Assessment page . On this basis, the group should draw conclusions about the likelihood of success or failure, and about the main sources of risk to the project. [ GROUP ]
  3. Get trainees to read through the Factor Action Ideas page. They should also read all the individual factor ideas pages that relate to those factors identified as main sources of risk to the project. [ TRAINEES ]
  4. Assuming that the earlier group activity identified some potential sources of risk, get trainees to continue working in their existing groups on the same case. Based on their earlier identification of main sources (factors) of risk, the group should now make an action plan that directly addresses those factors. The plan should identify key ideas and actions to take in order to reduce project risk and increase the likelihood of success. The group must show that any suggested actions are both desirable and feasible. [ GROUP ]
  5. Get the groups to reflect on the approach they have just used, and then discuss questions such as: Was this a relevant and useful approach to assess and then reduce the risks of failure? What were its strong and weak points? How would we do it differently next time? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

Part 6: Action Plans

[c.25 mins]

  1. Get trainees to write down three key learning points from this workshop (i.e. the three most important things they feel they have learned from the workshop) and three key action points (i.e. three actions they wish to take on their return to the workplace as a result of undertaking this training). [ GROUP ]
  2. Summarise some of the overall issues that have emerged from the workshop, and identify any "next steps". [ TRAINER ]

Other Possible Activities:

Page Author: Richard Heeks. Last updated on 19 October, 2008.
Please contact richard.heeks@manchester.ac.uk with comments and suggestions.