A number of studies have examined the failures of e-government efforts from various theoretical perspectives in the domains of government-to-citizen (G2C) and government-to-business (G2B). However, only a few studies have been done in government-to-government (G2G) e-government projects. This paper examines the impasse reached during the implementation of a statewide Digital Secretariat Project in India through the lens of stakeholder theory. A qualitative case study approach employing semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders was employed to explore the issue. The results reveal the importance of power dynamics, which can stall the entire project. In a G2G project, that is interactional in nature and has to be used by multiple departments, it is crucial for the implementing agency to identify dominant stakeholder departments and take them into confidence right from the beginning of the project. In such cases intervention by higher level government offices is important to impart saliency to the implementing agency and prevent any other dominant stakeholder from stalling the project. Undertaking such widespread projects without strong government support can lead to failure of implementation and waste of important public resources. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
BailurS (2007) Using stakeholder theory to analyze telecenter projects. Information Technologies & International Development3(3): 61–80.
2.
BoyneG (2002) Public and private management: What’s the difference?Journal of Management Studies39(1): 97–122.
3.
BretschneiderS (1990) Management information systems in public and private organizations: An empirical test. Public Administration Review50(5): 536–545.
4.
CallonM (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review32(S1): 196–223.
5.
CaseleyJ (2004) Public sector reform and corruption: CARD facade in Andhra Pradesh. Economic and Political Weekly39(11): 1151–1156.
6.
ChanCMLHackneyRPanSLChouTC (2011) Managing e-government system implementation: A resource enactment perspective. European Journal of Information Systems20(5): 529–541.
7.
ChanCMPanSL (2008) User engagement in e-government systems implementation: A comparative case study of two Singaporean e-government initiatives. Journal of Strategic Information Systems17(2): 124–139.
8.
ClarksonME (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review20(1): 92–117.
9.
CoeAPaquetGRoyJ (2001) E-governance and smart communities: A social learning challenge. Social Science Computer Review19(1): 80–93.
10.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields. American Sociological Review48(2): 147–160.
11.
FanJZhangPYenDC (2014) G2G information sharing among government agencies. Information & Management51(1): 120–128.
12.
FlakLSEikebrokkTRDertzW (2008) An exploratory approach for benefits management in e-government: Insights from 48 Norwegian Government funded projects. In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 7 January 2008, pp. 210–210. IEEE.
13.
FlakLSRoseJ (2005) Stakeholder governance: Adapting stakeholder theory to e-government. Communications of the Association for Information Systems16(1): 642–664.
14.
FreemanRE (2010) Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
FroomanJ (1999) Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review24(2): 191–205.
16.
GiddensA (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
GuhaJChakrabartiB (2014) Making e-government work: Adopting the network approach. Government Information Quarterly31(2): 327–336.
18.
HillCWLJonesTM (1992) Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies29(2): 131–154.
19.
HoeglerTSchusterT (2002) Quo Vadis e-government?—A trap between unsuitable technologies and deployment strategies. In: Electronic Government: Proceedings of the First International Conference, EGOV 2002, Aixen-Provence, France, 2–6 September, 2002, pp. 403–406. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
20.
HofS (2002) Arguments for a holistic and open approach to secure e-government. In: Electronic Government: Proceedings of the First International Conference, EGOV 2002, Aixen-Provence, France, 2-6 September, 2002, pp. 464–467. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
21.
HoodC (1991) A public management for all seasons. Public Administration69(1): 3–19.
22.
JawaharIMMcLaughlinGL (2001) Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review26(3): 397–414.
23.
JoiaLA (2004) Developing government-to-government enterprises in Brazil: A heuristic model drawn from multiple case studies. International Journal of Information Management24(2): 147–166.
24.
KamalMWeerakkodyVIraniZ (2011) Analyzing the role of stakeholders in the adoption of technology integration solutions in UK local government: An exploratory study. Government Information Quarterly28(2): 200–210.
25.
KaylorCDeshazoRVan EckD (2002) Gauging e-government: A report on implementing services among American cities. Government Information Quarterly18(4): 293–307.
26.
KrishnaSWalshamG (2005) Implementing public information systems in developing countries: Learning from a success story. Information Technology for Development11(2): 123–140.
27.
LatourB (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
LenkK (2002) Electronic service delivery-A driver of public sector modernisation. Information Polity7(2, 3): 87–96.
29.
MissierPLalkGVerykiosVGrilloFLorussoTAngelettiP (2003) Improving data quality in practice: a case study in the Italian public administration. Distributed and Parallel Databases13(2): 135–160.
30.
MitchellRKAgleBRWoodDJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review22(4): 853–886.
31.
PotterA (2002) Accessibility of Alabama government web sites. Journal of Government Information29(5): 303–317.
32.
PuriSK (2007) Integrating scientific with indigenous knowledge: Constructing knowledge alliances for land management in India. MIS Quarterly31(2): 355–379.
33.
ReddickCG (2004) A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for US cities. Government Information Quarterly21(1): 51–64.
34.
ReinwaldAKraemmergaardP (2012) Managing stakeholders in transformational government: A case study in a Danish local government. Government Information Quarterly29(2): 133–141.
35.
SæbøØFlakLSSeinMK (2011) Understanding the dynamics in e-participation initiatives: Looking through the genre and stakeholder lenses. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3): 416–425.
36.
SavageGTNixTWWhiteheadCJBlairJD (1991) Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. The Executive5(2): 61–75.
37.
SchollHJ (2001) Applying stakeholder theory to e-government. In: Towards the E-Society: E-Commerce, E-Business and E-Government. The First IFIP Conference on E-Commerce, E-Business, E-Government (eds. SchmidBStanoevska-SlabevaKTschammerV), Zurich, Switzerland, 3–5 October 2001, pp. 735–747, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
38.
SilvaLHirschheimR (2007) Fighting against windmills: Strategic information systems and organizational deep structures. MIS Quarterly31(2): 327–324.
39.
TanCWPanSL (2003) Managing e-transformation in the public sector: An e-government study of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). European Journal of Information Systems12(4): 269–281.
40.
Tat-Kei HoA (2002) Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review62(4): 434–444.
41.
WalshamGSahayS (1999) GIS for district-level administration in India: Problems and opportunities. MIS Quarterly234(1): 39–65.
42.
WatsonRTMundyB (2001) A strategic perspective of electronic democracy. Communications of the ACM44(1): 27–30.
43.
WimmerMAHollerU (2003) Applying a holistic approach to develop user-friendly, customer-oriented e-government portal interfaces. In: Universal Access Theoretical Perspectives, Practice, and Experience - 7th ERCIM International Workshop on User Interfaces for All (eds. CarbonellNStephanidisC), Paris, France, 24-25 October, 2002, pp. 167–178, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
44.
ZareiBGhapanchiA (2008) Guidelines for government-to-government initiative architecture in developing countries. International Journal of Information Management28(4): 277–284.
