39
Figure 3.1: Holistic Examination of m-Government Service Adoption
40
(Osborne, 2010). NPM relates public good to neo-capitalist ideologies with a focus on keeping materials progressing and allowing the population to satisfy their needs, thus a preference for decentralisation and agencies structures for service delivery (Pyun &
Gamassou, 2018). According to OECD (2015), NPM encapsulates the principles of contemporary public management theory. It is essential to acknowledge that the application of information communication technology (ICT) in public sector and thus m- government initiatives is grounded within the NPM ideology (Thomas (2012). The tenets of NPM solely rest on revamping administrative processes and intra-organisational management, for which the proponents of technology argue that ICT in the public sector facilitates achievement of this vision (Osborne, Radnor & Nasi, 2012). NPM contains indicators for incentives, systems, measurement and mechanisms for evaluation, which can be automated using ICT (Pyun & Gamassou, 2018); thus science and technology enthusiasts argue ICT can efficiently and effectively deliver the advocated managerial and market-oriented approach in public sector administration and service delivery (Osborne, 2010; Osborne, Radnor & Nasi, 2012).
Moore (1995) theorizes PVM under the belief that public managers play an important role in changing and improving public administration. Public value (PV) constitutes collective preferences formulated by the citizenry that can be analysed through the relation between government actions and the impact these have on the citizens (Pyun &
Gamassou, 2018). The impact can be either of substantial value to private interests related to financial, social, political or strategic concerns, or intrinsic value to society and democracy, that is, ideological and administrative impact (Osborne, 2018; Pyun &
Gamassou, 2018). Thus, Harrison et al. (2012) reason that collaboration, participation and transparency can yield both intrinsic and substantial values.
NPG on the other hand proposes a holistic approach to public administration and management. Important to note in NPG is Osborne's (2018) substantiation of a service- dominant perspective for public services, which is characterized by intangibility, co- produced value, and the simultaneous production and consumption of service. Likewise, Wiesel & Modell (2014) pins the logic of NPG on citizens as co-producers as opposed to consumers or customers as in NPM. In a services-dominant perspective, PV is co-created
41
on a real-time basis by both the citizens and public officers and thus cannot be stored, as opposed to a product-dominant perspective (Osborne, 2010; Osborne, 2018; Osborne, Radnor & Nasi, 2012; Grönroos & Voima, 2013). NPG emphasizes further the need for collaborative networks as opposed to competitive markets, control on inter-organisational processes as opposed to key performance based on effectiveness and the outputs, and citizen satisfaction as opposed to financial results and efficiency (Pyun & Gamassou, 2018).
Therefore, both its provisioning practice and consumption attributes influence success in the provision of public service, which further emphasizes the need for a holistic approach. According to Panagiotopoulos, Klievink & Cordella (2019), public value theory reflects the assessment of public value principles in the public sector. The public value theory provides an alternative approach to understanding government activities and public service provisions not only on cost-benefit analysis but also along with action- impact analysis (Yotawut, 2018). According to Benington (2011), public value (PV) is an improved alternative variable for explaining public welfare beyond public goods, public interest, and public choice. PV can be viewed in three different ways; as value addition through partnership actions, as a contributor to public wellbeing, or as a heuristic strategic triangulation framework that captures value propositions, operational resources, and authorizing environment (Benington, 2011). PV is a “contested democratic practice”
(Benington, 2015:29) in that it not only reflects the general public's values (public interest) but also considers what increases the value to the general public (Bryson, Crosby
& Bloomberg, 2015; Hartley et al., 2017). With Hartley et al. (2017) calling for more research in applying PV in assessing public sector performance, this research corresponds with that call by examining the construction of public value in m-government services;
that is, for what purpose and which individuals (stakeholders) are involved or excluded in the discussions around value?
3.3.2 m-Government Service Provisioning Practice
Cordella & Iannacci (2010) affirm that digital technologies as value proposition enablers form a key component in public value creation. The application of digital technologies in the public sector affects the public value that citizens expect. Reviewing literature on
42
public value theory, four themes emerge as critical in assessing public services in delivering public value: these include service legitimacy to the public; stakeholder inclusion or exclusion; as well as the reflection of public value in the process of developing and delivering public services (Benington & Moore, 2011; Bannister &
Connolly, 2014; Benington, 2015; Hartley et al., 2017; Yotawut, 2018). Applying the PV theory four variables reflecting the identified themes, which are m-government service needs establishment, service design and development, service delivery focus, and service quality appraisal, are evaluated against m-government service provisioning practices.
According to Hartley et al. (2017), for a service to gain legitimacy in the public domain, it is essential that the need and the purpose of establishing that service be derived from the public. Moreover, Hartley et al. (2017), emphasizing the necessity of involving individuals in the process of establishing public service need, argue that it creates public ownership and acceptance. Then it becomes imperative to investigate the establishment of the need for m-government services, to ascertain if the purposes for these services align with the public need and the involvement of citizens or the public in the process.
Benington (2015), on the other hand, views the derivation of public value in terms of the impact the service has on the general public, proposing the need to investigate the service provider perspective to see if it aligns well with the public expectations of the service, resulting in public satisfaction. However, as citizens' perceptions and attitudes continuously change, so does the derived public value of m-government services. In addressing this, Popova-Nowak & Cseh (2015) advocate for a mechanism that captures such changes in value and invokes a learning practice within organisational structures, systems, and culture. Thus, a service appraisal mechanism that continually captures the changing citizen's perception and attitudes, and facilitates an organisational learning opportunity to reflect the changing public values in the provided m-government services, is essential. These four variables form the basis upon which m-government service provisioning practices are assessed; that is, m-government service needs establishment, m-government service development and provision, public inclusion and exclusion in the process, and m-government service appraisal mechanisms.
43