Around the world, failures and scandals in government have evidenced the need to improve the information and communication technology (ICT) curriculum of public administration programs. In the United States, since 1986, the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration has promoted standards of computer literacy that include ICT skills. Studies of ICT curricula in public administration education focus on the supply side (the opinions of schools and students), neglecting the demand side (the opinions of employers). Programs in Latin America have been poorly studied and there are no clear ICT standards. The present study involved interviewing chief information officers and executives (employers) in the public sector in Mexico in order to identify competencies for ICT curricula. As a result, this study identifies soft and hard competencies and subsequently examines them using an extension of the NASPAA’s Annual Data Report survey and reviewing Latin American public administration program websites. In general, this study finds that ICT-related courses in Latin America are more associated with soft competencies than hard competencies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllesM. (2003). Gestión por competencias: El diccionario. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediciones Granica S.A.
2.
Al-WohaibiM. A.MasoudF. A.EdwardsH. M. (2002). Fundamental risk factors in deploying IT/IS projects in Omani government organizations.Journal of Global Information Management, 10(4), 1–22.
3.
Araya MorenoE. (2007). Competency-based educational models for electronic governance: Implications for inclusion and responsiveness in the public service.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(1), 79–86.
4.
Australian Government. (2007). Meeting the demand for ICT skills in the Australian public service: Today and for the future (Report of the ICT Professional and Skills Development Taskforce). Sydney, Australia: Department of Finance and Administration, Australian Government Information Management Office.
5.
BakerK. G. (1997). The role of liberal arts, technology, and specialization in American public affairs education.Journal of Public Administration Education, 3(1), 105–117.
6.
BretschneiderS. (1990). Management information systems in public and private organizations: An empirical test.Public Administration Review, 50(5), 536–545.
7.
BrownM. M.BrudneyJ. L. (1998). Public sector information technology initiatives: Implications for programs of public administration.Administration and Society, 30(4), 421–442.
8.
CatsBarilW.ThompsonR. (1995). Managing information technology projects in the public sector.Public Administration Review, 55(6), 559–566.
9.
CaudleS. L. (1990). Managing information resources in state government.Public Administration Review, 50(5), 515–524.
ClarkI. D.EisenB.PalL. A.. (2015). The atlas of public policy and management: An online database of pedagogy and advice. Retrieved from http://portal.public-policy.utoronto.ca.
12.
Clinger-Cohen Act. (1996). 40 U. S.C. §11101 et seq.
13.
CoxR.GabrisG. T.LevinM. M. (2010). Educating local government managers for the twenty-first century: A preface to the symposium.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(3), 325–336.
14.
DawesS. S. (2004). Training the IT-savvy public manager: Priorities and strategies for public management education.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(1), 5–17.
15.
DawesS. S. (2010). Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency.Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 377–383.
16.
DawesS. S.HelbigN.NampoothiriS. (2014). Workshop report: Exploring the integration of dataintensive analytical skills in public affairs education. Albany: Research Foundation of the State University of New York and Center for Technology in Government.
17.
De SotoW.OpheimC.TajalliH. (1999). Apples and oranges? Comparing the attitudes of public policy versus public administration students.American Review of Public Administration, 29(1), 77–91.
18.
DugalS. (2012). Developing global “core competencies” within public administration: The convergence of program and information management.PA Times Online. Retrieved from http://patimes.org/developing-global-core-competencies-publicadministration-convergence-program-informationmanagement.
19.
ElmoreR. F. (1986). Graduate education in public management: Working the seams of government.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6(1), 69–83.
20.
European Association for Public Administration Accreditation (EAPAA). (2006). Accreditation criteria. Retrieved from http://www.eapaa.eu/process.
21.
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). (2005). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area. Helsinki, Finland: ENQA.
22.
European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD). (2006). EFMD programme accreditation system: Standards and criteria (version 7). Retrieved from http://www.efmd.org/what-is-efmd.
23.
EydeL. D.GregoryD. J.MuldrowT. W.MergenP. K. (1999). High-performance leaders: A competency model. Washington, DC: U. S. Office of Personnel Management.
24.
FeenyD. F.WillcocksL. P. (1998). Core IS capabilities for exploiting information technology.Sloan Management Review, 39(3), 9–21.
25.
Getha TaylorH.HummertR.NalbandianJ.SilviaCh. (2013). Competency model design and assessment: Findings and future directions.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(1), 141–171.
26.
Government of Canada. (2007). Key leadership competencies. Ottawa, ON: Canada Public Service Agency and the Public Service Commission.
27.
Government of the United Kingdom. (2009). The civil service. Retrieved from http://www.civilservice.gov.uk.
28.
HeeksR. (2001). Reinventing government in the information age. London, UK: Routledge.
29.
HeeksR. (2006). Implementing and managing e-government: An international text. London, UK: Sage.
30.
HortonS. (2002). The competency movement. In HortonS.HondeghemA.FarnhamD., Competency management in the public sector: European variations on a theme (pp. 3–16). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
31.
HortonS.HondeghemA.FarnhamD.. (2002). Competency management in the public sector. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
32.
HurY.HackbartM. (2015). MPA vs. MPP: A distinction without a difference?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(4), 397–424.
33.
JalochaB.Petter KraneH.EkambaramA.Prawelska-SkrzypekG. (2014). Key competencies of public sector project managers.Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119(2014), 247–256.
34.
JenningsE.Jr. (2002). E-government and public affairs education.Chinese Public Administration Review, 1 (3/4), 230–238.
35.
KimS.LayneK. (2001). Making the connection: Egovernment and public administration education.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7(4), 229–240.
36.
KleinH. K. (2000). System development in the federal government: How technology influences outcomes.Policy Studies Journal, 28(2), 313–328.
37.
KraemerK. L.KingJ. L. (1986). Computing and public organizations.Public Administration Review, 46 (Special issue), 488–496.
38.
KraemerK. L.NorthropA. (1989). Curriculum recommendations for public management education in computing: An update.Public Administration Review, 49(5), 447–453.
39.
LanZ.CayerN. J. (1994). The challenges of teaching information technology use and management in a time of information revolution.American Review of Public Administration, 24, 207–222.
40.
LoweryD.WhitakerG. P. (1994). Comparing public administration and policy analysis approaches to public service education.American Review of Public Administration, 24(1), 25–41.
41.
ManyikaJ.ChuiM.BrownB.BughinJ.DobbsR.RoxburghCh.ByersA. H. (2011). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. Washington, DC: McKinsey Global Institute.
42.
MergelI. (2012). The public manager 2.0: Preparing the social media generation for a networked workplace.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(3), 467–492.
43.
Ministry of Public Administration and Security (MOPAS). (2008). Assessment center manual. Seoul, South Korea: MOPAS.
44.
National Association of Schools of Public Policy and Administration (NASPAA). (1986). Curriculum recommendations for public management education in computing.Public Administration Review, 46 (Special issue), 595–602.
45.
National Association of Schools of Public Policy and Administration (NASPAA), Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation (COPRA). (2006). General information and standards for professional masters degree programs. Retrieved from http://chrysalisadvertising.co.za/Portals/5/Documents/Intranet/NASPAA_2006_standards_183.pdf.
46.
Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA), Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation (COPRA). (2014). NASPAA standards: Accreditation standards for master’s degree programs. Retrieved from https://naspaaaccreditation.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/naspaa-accreditation-standards.pdf.
47.
NorthropA. (1999). The challenge of teaching information technology in public administration graduate programs. In GarsonG., Information technology and computer applications in public administration: Issues and trends (pp. 1–22). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
48.
Op de BeeckS.HondeghemA. (2010). Managing competencies in government: State of the art practices and issues at stake for the future. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Public Employment and Management Working Party, Organisation for Economic Cooperation And Development (OECD), Paris.
49.
ParkH. M.ParkH. (2006). Diffusing information technology education in Korean undergraduate public affairs and administration programs: Driving forces and challenging issues.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(4), 537–555.
50.
PurónCidG.GilGarciaJ. R.LunaReyesL. F. (2012, June 4–7). IT-enabled policy analysis: New technologies, sophisticated analysis and open data for better government decisions. Paper presented at the 13th Annual International Conference on DG Research (dg.o 2012), Bridging Research and Practice, University of Maryland, College Park.
51.
RodriguezD.PatelR.BrightA.GregoryD.GowingM. K. (2002). Developing competency models to promote integrated human resource practices.Human Resource Management, 41(3), 309–324.
52.
RosenbaumA. (2007). Excellence in public administration education: Preparing the next generation of public administrators. In RosenbaumA.KauzyaJ. M., Excellence and leadership in the public sector: the role of education and training (pp. 11–24). New York, NY: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs and International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration.
53.
RosenbaumA.KauzyaJ. M. (2007). Excellence and leadership in the public sector: The role of education and training. New York, NY: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs and International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration.
54.
ScavoC.ShiY. (2000). Public administration: The role of information technology in the reinventing government paradigm; Normative predicates and practical challenges.Social Science Computer Review, 18(2) 166–178.
55.
StokesD. E. (1986). Political and organizational analysis in the policy curriculum.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6, 45–55.
56.
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (2008). Standards of excellence for public administration education and training (Final Report). New York, NY: UNDESA and International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration Task Force on Standards of Excellence for Public Administration Education and Training.
57.
United Nations (2003–2014). United Nations e-government surveys: E-government for the future we want (2014), E-government for the people (2012), Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis (2010), From e-government to connected governance (2008), From e-government to e-inclusion (2005), Towards access for opportunity (2004), World public sector report: E-government at the crossroads (2003). All retrieved from http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb.
58.
VirtanenT. (2000). Changing competences of public managers: Tensions in commitment.International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(4), 333–341.
59.
WestD. (2005). Digital government: Technology and public sector performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
