This study proposes a framework for the interim evaluation of, and subsequent planning for, information systems (IS) in the public sector. We incorporate the considerations of cost efficiency and task effectiveness, which are critical for reaping a sustained benefit from IS. We recommend this double-sided analysis as the basis for interim evaluation. We also advise that this framework of evaluation can effectively indicate which subsequent course of action should be taken: maintain the status quo, upgrade functionality, redevelop, or discontinue the IS. We applied this framework to 118 ISs within the South Korean public sector with the k-means clustering method and provided both academic and practical implications.
AhmadAMaynardSBShanksG (2015) A case of analysis of information systems and security incident responses. International Journal of Information Management35(6): 717–723.
2.
BergerHLewisC (2011) Stakeholder analysis is key to client–supplier relationships of global outsourcing project success. International Journal of Information Management31(5): 480–485.
3.
CampbellJMcDonaldCSethibeT (2010) Public and private sector IT governance: identifying contextual differences. Australasian Journal of Information Systems16(2): 5–18.
4.
ChoiHParkMJRhoJJZoH (2016) Rethinking the assessment of e-government implementation in developing countries from the perspective of the design-reality gap: Applications in the Indonesian e-procurement system. Telecommunications Policy40(7): 644–660.
5.
DayEFoxRJHuszaghSM (1988) Segmenting the global market for industrial goods: Issues and implications. International Marketing Review5: 14–27.
6.
DengCPMaoJYWangGS (2013) An empirical study on the source of vendor’s relational performance in offshore information systems outsourcing. International Journal of Information Management33: 10–19.
7.
EppelELipsM (2016) Unpacking the black box of successful ICT-enabled service transformation: how to join up the vertical, the horizontal and the technical. Public Money & Management36(1): 39–46.
8.
EstevesJJosephRC (2008) A comprehensive framework for the assessment of e-Government projects. Government Information Quarterly25(1): 118–132.
9.
FabrigarLRWegenerDTMacCallumRCStrahanEJ (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychologica Methods4(3): 272–299.
10.
FoleyP (2005) The real benefits, beneficiaries and value of e-government. Public Money & Management25(1): 4–6.
11.
GoldkuhlGLagstenJ (2012) Different roles of evaluation in information systems research. Workshop on IT Artefact Design and Workpractice Intervention, 10 June 2012, Barcelona.
12.
GuptaMPJanaD (2003) E-government evaluation: a framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly20(4): 365–387.
13.
HairJFAndersonRETathamRLBlackWC (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis, 3rd ed, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.
14.
HeeksR (2002) Information systems and developing countries: failure, success, and local improvisations. The Information Society18: 101–112.
15.
HeeksRBailurS (2007) Analyzing e-government research: perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly24: 243–256.
16.
HelsenKJedidiKDeSarboWS (1993) A new approach to country multivariate data analysis segmentation utilizing multinational diffusion patterns. Journal of Marketing57: 60–71.
17.
HochstrasserB (1994) Justifying IT investments Information Management: The evaluation of information systems investments (pp. 151-169). Boston, MA: Springer US.
18.
HuGLinHPanW (2013) Conceptualizing and examining E-government service capability: a review and empirical study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology64(11): 2379–2395.
19.
IraniZLovePEDEllimanTJonesSThemistocleousM (2005) Evaluating e-government: learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities. Information Systems Journal15(1): 61–82.
20.
JiangJJKleinGRoanJLinJTM (2001) IS service performance: self-perceptions and user perceptions. Information & Management38(8): 499–506.
21.
KimSKParkMJRhoJJ (2015) Effect of the Government’s Use of Social Media on Reliability of the Government: Focus on Twitter. Public Management Review17(3): 328–355.
22.
MahmoodHJMSimsVI (2015) Information technology (IT) productivity paradox in the 21st century. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management64(4): 457 – 478.
MirchandaniDALedererAL (2014) The impact of core and infrastructure business activities on information systems planning and effectiveness. International Journal of Information Management34: 622–633.
25.
NorrisMLecavalierL (2010) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in developmental disability psychological research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders40(1): 8–20.
26.
O’NeillR (2009) The transformative impact of e-government on public governance in New Zealand. Public Management Review11(6): 751–770.
27.
RanaNPDwivediYKWilliamsMDWeerakkodyV (2015) Investigating success of an e-government initiative: Validation of an integrated IS success modelInformation Systems Frontiers17(1): 127–142.
28.
RogersEM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
29.
SchmidtCBuxmannP (2011) Outcomes and success factors of enterprise it architecture management: Empirical insight from the international financial services industry. European Journal of Information Systems20(2): 168–185.
30.
ShanSWangLWangJHaoYHuaF (2011) Research on e-Government evaluation model based on the principal component analysis. Information Technology and Management12(2): 173–185.
31.
SharmaS (1996) Applied Multivariate Techniques. New York: Wiley.
32.
SiskosEAskounisDPsarrasJ (2014) Multicriteria decision support for global e-government evaluation. Omega46: 51–63.
33.
SongXLetchN (2012) Research on IT/IS evaluation: a 25 year review. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation15(3): 276–287.
34.
SymonsJV (1991) A review of information systems evaluation: content, context and process. European Journal of Information Systems1(3): 205–212.
35.
United Nations (2012) United Nations E-government survey 2012: E-government for the people. New York: United Nations.
36.
United Nations (2014) United Nations E-government survey 2014: E-government for the people. New York: United Nations.
37.
WuCC (2016) Status quo bias in information system adoption: a meta-analytic review. Online Information Review40(7): 998–1017.
38.
ZhangNGuoXChenGChauPYK (2009) Impact of perceived fit on e-government user evaluation: a study with a Chinese cultural context. Journal of Global Information Management17(1): 49.
39.
ZhangYGregoryM (2011) Managing global network operations along the engineering value chain. International Journal of Operations and Production Management31(7): 736– 764.
