VALUE ASSESSMENT IN E-BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION

92

Synopsis

Public administration in the 21st century is often characterised by provision of government programs to

business and citizens using a federated service delivery model across multiple levels of government and

the non-government sector in a multi-channel environment. Increasingly e-business and e-government

approaches are being used to maximise program reach to users and the financial, economic and social

impact of programs and to reduce service delivery and access costs. Hence, business cases for

e-government programs delivered through multi-channel environments need rigorous demand and

value assessments to ensure program improvements are at reduced costs.

The need to examine the demand for, and value of, a program is heightened when customer information

is being made available, and services are being delivered, across organisational boundaries, including

government portfolio boundaries and various levels of government. The benefits accrue to a variety

of stakeholders in this ‘eco-system’. Robust demand and value assessments are key to creating value

networks linking government, community and business sectors.

Demand and value assessments undertaken for e-government business cases identify cost and benefit

streams for various stakeholders. They provide input to subsequent consideration of preferred and

appropriate service delivery channels, latent demand planning, appropriate accountability, streamlining

and re-engineering the service, governance arrangements and funding options. Where services and their

supporting delivery channels are well designed and scalable, e-government potentially becomes the

pathway for agencies to address latent demand for government programs and services. Value accrues to

both agencies and society more generally from successful implementation of e-government programs.

In this paper, measurement of the return on investment from e-government programs has been

considered in terms of agency financial value, social value and risk.

VALUE ASSESSMENT IN E-BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION

Peter King*, Andrew McWilliam#, Paula Flynn** and Jane Treadwell##

* Consulting Principal and leader of the Fujitsu Canberra Management Consulting Practice providing ongoing benefits realisation assistance across Centrelink National Office.

# Associate Director and a leading Fujitsu e-government practitioner. Lead consultant and project manager of the NOIE E-government Benefits Study (2003), the project manager of the Commonwealth’s Electronic Commerce Strategy (2000) and Business Entry Point (1998) consultancies.

** Organisational Change, Business Transformation Team, Centrelink. Author of Centrelink’s eBusiness Strategy and the Centrelink Case Study for the Computerworld Honours Program 2004. Graduate Certificate of Management, Deakin University; Bachelor Arts (Journalism & Literature), Deakin University.

## Deputy Chief Executive Officer Business Transformation and Chief Information Officer, Centrelink.

Dis

cuss

ion

pape

r no

.17

93

Introduction

In April 2003 the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator the Hon.

Richard Alston, launched the E-government Benefits Study for the National Office for the Information

Technology (NOIE 2003b).

This paper builds upon material developed for The Information Paradox (Thorp 2003); the proceedings

and findings of the National Office for the Information Technology E-government Benefits Study,

the E-government Benefits Case Studies (of which Centrelink was one); and the demand and value

assessment methodologies developed during the study (NOIE 2003c). This best practice body of knowledge

is being applied to various innovative e-government initiatives now being progressed in Centrelink.

Centrelink’s experience with e-government and e-business initiatives illustrate the need for agencies to

consider and plan customer demand and take-up across existing and proposed service delivery channels

and assess value to the customer, agency and agency business partners. Centrelink has learnt that this

type of planning becomes more important as e-government evolves to the networked organisation and

whole of government arena. Centrelink is an example of an Australian Government agency delivering

a range of services to the Australian community and is one of the pioneers of customer self-service and

Business to Government (B2G) services.

Centrelink delivers more than $55 billion in payments and services across multiple service delivery

channels on behalf of over 20 client departments (see Figure 1). It has over 1000 points of presence

Australia wide and over 26 000 staff. Centrelink is a service provider to 6.3 million customers

(approximately one-third of the Australian population), who include retired people, families, sole parents,

people looking for work, people with a short-term incapacity, people with disabilities, carers, students,

young people, Indigenous people and people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Centrelink

supported approximately 14 million customer records and 12 million electronic customer transactions on

an average day in 2002–03 (Centrelink 2003, p. v).

Figure 1: Centrelink attributes and e-business volumes

F u t u r e C h a l l e n g e s f o r E - g o v e r n m e n t — V a l u e a n d E v a l u a t i o n

94

Centrelink is committed to offering customers a wider range of options for accessing services, with

extended contact hours and help to access options most appropriate to their needs (NOIE 2003c, p. 14).

It provides services within a multi-channel environment encompassing, the Centrelink Network of face-to-

face Customer Service Centres, Call Centres and associated technology.1

Centrelink focuses on creating a customer-centric performance-based culture and has become an integral

part of a growing network of service providers at all levels of government, including many non-government

sector service providers. Centrelink is an example of an Australian Government agency operating at the

forefront of e-government. Accenture has cited Centrelink as a leading example of integrated service

provision through its online service program (Accenture 2003). It also recognised the service depth for

online welfare services as an area of strength for Australia.2

E-government environment

The Australian Government recognises the potential of information and communications technology to

help foster community capacity building, as well as enhancing the capacity of individuals and families to

improve their financial status and social wellbeing. High levels of connectivity can generate a wide variety

of economic and social benefits for all sections of the community. Connectivity can reduce the cost

of transactions and help make services more efficient. Highly networked communities are finding that

generating local social capital3 and economic development work in tandem (Rimmer 2003).

E-government initiatives are integral to this process.

The Gartner Framework for E-Government Strategy Assessment defines e-government as ‘the

transformation of public sector internal and external relationships through Internet-enabled operations

and information and communication technologies to optimise government services delivery, constituency

participation and internal government processes’ (Di Maio et al. 2002). Centrelink extends all traditional

e-government and e-business definitions to include other technologies (such as telephony). This is

because Centrelink often develops e-government services for delivery on various technologies and thus

multiple channels.

It is not uncommon for individuals or businesses to carry out several separate transactions with

government to achieve a single outcome. Implementation of e-government enables development of new,

common information technology infrastructures across agencies so related services can be ‘bundled’ and

presented as a single service at the point of delivery, even though several agencies might be involved in

the background (NOIE 2002). This then begins the creation of e-government value networks.

Figure 2 shows Centrelink’s crucial position in a federated multi-agency accountability framework

delivering services to citizens, customers and businesses across levels of government using the business

community and the non-government sector.

95

Channel consistency facilitates e-government take up

Experience suggests that when agencies deliver services across multiple channels they need to be

mindful of channel substitution and cross-channel consistency in provision of information to citizens and

customers. Consistency and integration of information across channels facilitates channel substitution

by customers where a single, consistent answer to an enquiry can be obtained because all channels

draw upon a single data source. Trends in channel usage and e-government program take up can be

monitored over time – assuming facilities for monitoring are in place.

In addition, if there is a lack of consistency in making information available across channels when

implementing a new service (an e-government solution), agencies run the risk of increasing the potential

for system failure. This may include eroding the administrative law principle of ‘procedural fairness’

afforded customers.4 This, in turn, can create negative cross-channel impacts on demand patterns and

may undermine the realisation of planned efficiency dividends.

Centrelink has constructed designs on one channel of service delivery (such as the Internet) to enable

easy use on another (such as the telephone). That is, ‘build once: use many’ so a slight modification of

software means more choice for the customer and ultimately a lower unit development cost. Whilst the

look might be different, the feel and experience is the same for each channel accessed

This ‘cross-channel consistency principle’ also recognises that not all services are appropriate on all channels

and that cost-effective service delivery is a key criteria for successful e-government service delivery.

Centrelink’s e-business principles grew out of a series of inter-related (and not always optimal)

experiences as it began e-government in the late 1990s. Centrelink built upon this knowledge and

experience by providing service delivery across channels while protecting from view its extremely complex

and diverse environment policy and technology.

Centrelink’s investment in the Centrelink Online Framework (purpose built middleware) provided the

valuable ‘brokerage’ platform linking any device to any data-base. Coupled with experience in proof of

Figure 2: Citizen-centric multi-channel portfolio outcome accountability model

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


96

concept and pilot projects, such as Call Centre Automation, Web Post Office, and first steps in the Online

Services for Customers projects, Centrelink over a period of six years became an ‘overnight sensation’.

Design principles like ‘cross-channel consistency’ and requirements for value and benefits realisation

provides Centrelink with a solid starting point for analysing potential e-business developments and

retirement of old processes, practices and code.

Centrelink’s eBusiness Strategy (Centrelink 2003–07) and its underlying ‘no wrong door principle’ (Vardon

2001; OECD 2003) promotes consistency in the integration and accelerated take-up of e-business

investment opportunities in a secure environment using appropriate access and authentication.

It establishes a framework for creating effective business policies, practices, procedures, and workflows.

NO WRONG DOOR

In its checklist for successful e-government the OECD (2003) advocated a ‘no wrong door’ principle

for accessing government administration.

In delivering its customer service charter, Centrelink has, since 2001, progressed a ‘no wrong door’

approach to make citizen access to services and support (to which they are entitled) as simple, quick

and convenient as possible.

Under this approach it does not matter where people start, they are quickly and seamlessly able to

find their way to the right support, information, and the correct payment regime if they are eligible.

According to the Centrelink e-business strategy, the no wrong door principle means the citizen, wherever

they are – at home, at a refuge, over the telephone, at a Centrelink or agent site – can access all of

government in response to particular life events.

The direction set by Centrelink’s eBusiness Strategy is supported by a detailed implementation plan and

operational readiness assessment for new services including demand and value assessments.

The Refresh Program, funded by the Australian Government, will further develop Centrelink’s information

and technology systems to create greater capability to meet clients’ current and future business needs

for the benefit of customers, stakeholders and staff. One element of the Refresh Program is enabling

expansion of Centrelink’s eBusiness, particularly self-service and real-time information exchange for

straight-through processing. The elements within the eBusiness Strategy have been tightly aligned with

the Refresh Program (Centrelink 2004).

Centrelink believes the key to e-business is finding the balance between flexibility (how easily and quickly

people can adapt to meet the business need), speed to market (how quickly business practices and

technology solutions can change) and positively adjusting the customer service experience (integrating

the service delivery channels to create a better service experience).5

Establishment of a sound e-business capability is considered to be a core business enabler, which will

allow Centrelink to:

• deliver better social outcomes

• provide integrated services

• respond to customers’ individual needs and circumstances when they need assistance

• meet customer demand and offer service choices

• improve business practices

97

• streamline processes

• empower and inform staff and customers

• create new business opportunities

• increase productivity and internal efficiencies.

Centrelink’s commitment to an e-business strategy is driven by a number of factors, including government online

requirements, customer expectations of increasing channel choices as a result of their experiences with other

government and non-government organisations, and the potential efficiency gains to be made if customers and

businesses are given opportunities to conduct business on more effective channels (Centrelink 2004).

Demand and value assessment methodologies

Assessing the demand for and value of a citizen-centric e-government and e-business programs is greatly

facilitated by applying the Australian Government Information Management Office’s Demand and Value

Assessment Methodologies (NOIE 2003a). These methodologies provide the approaches necessary for

business managers to initially determine, and then assess on an ongoing basis, the intrinsic worth of

e-government programs provided as integral components of their overall service delivery strategies.

With the application of more consistent assessment frameworks and tools, agencies are better equipped

to identify and quantify demand, value and benefits accruing to citizens, business, the agency itself, and

the wider economy. As e-government evolves with time the methodology will need to be expanded and

applied to assessing value network based e-government opportunities.

The benefits of using the Demand and Value Assessment Methodologies include:

• gaining a better understanding of the drivers of benefits and costs

• providing a basis for comparison of programs within and between agencies

• articulation of auditable figures for transparency

• quantifying channel volumes (demand and take up), value and risk including all subjective data for

establishing a business case

• promoting best practice in e-government service delivery

• identifying the benefits to individual agencies

• identifying accountabilities for individual components of cross agency e-government service delivery projects

• making a positive contribution to the evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of e-government programs.

In Centrelink, managers have found that by rigorously assessing demand for, and value of multi-channel

strategies business analysts have readily gained an appreciation of the various facets and complexities of

e-government.

Demand assessment

The key driver for investment in e-government programs as part of an agency’s service delivery strategy is

customer demand. Demand triggers may come from sources external or internal to the agency including:

• citizens, customers, business and community triggers

• internal agency triggers

• across agency business line


98

• across portfolio agencies

• among agencies within the same and in other levels of government and in the private sector.

Centrelink is an agency that estimates demand (including latent demand) across multiple service delivery

channels and builds flexible scaleable systems that can accommodate changes in consumer preference.6

Customers register once having fulfilled authentication requirements separately but gain access to many

services relevant to their circumstances. As new services become available they are automatically granted

access to the service in accordance with their profile. Proof of identity requirements differ for various services.

Centrelink promotes the release of the particular e-government initiative as a value adding service to

ensure take up is achieved to realise benefits to both consumers and the agency itself. This is in line with

Centrelink’s market positioning, and slogan of ‘giving you options.’

Self-service is beginning to change the types of enquiries Centrelink staff receive. Centrelink staff are

beginning to move towards helping customers with more complex issues rather than the simpler things

(Centrelink 2004). In the longer term this will result in staff being able to spend more time with the

customer who needs additional assistance to prevent repeat visits or contacts thereby altering patterns of

demand for services. Centrelink has demonstrated that agency business managers across the Australian

Public Service need a greater understanding of multi-channel service delivery dynamics and patterns of

demand both at the planning stage and during operations.

MEASURING DEMAND AND TAKE UP

Working Credit self-service is a Centrelink example of multi-channel service delivery that makes it

easier for customers to meet their participation requirements.

As part of its e-business strategy, Centrelink Working Credit customers are given the option to take

up reporting their employment earnings using self-service on the Internet or over the phone (using

Natural Language Speech Recognition) as an alternative to reporting to a Customer Service Officer in

Centrelink Call Centres, on paper forms or at a Customer Service Centre. This has helped to free up

Customer Service Officers to add value to the more complex customer contacts.

Centrelink estimated 15 per cent of the market target group would be using self service to report

their employment income within 10 months. At December 2003, the current market target group

percentage was near 30 per cent and climbing (after two months).

As of 28 February 2004, 125 420 Centrelink customers had registered to use self service (including

the Working Credit customers) on the Internet. Registrations are growing at 700 to 800 per day.

Internet self service users currently undertake approximately 60 000 transactions through the

Centrelink web site per fortnight.

Over 500 000 customers had registered for telephone self service (including Working Credit

customers) by the end of January 2004. Telephone self service users currently undertake

approximately 100 000 transactions per fortnight.

Soft marketing approaches were used to ensure high volumes didn’t ‘break’ capacity (both

technology and staff) to support these services.

99

Value assessment

In traditional value measurement of business investments, the ‘goodness’ of a piece of information

and communications technology work is derived directly from the financial contribution it makes.

Contributions to other elements of value, such as fitting with organisation priorities, delivering benefits

to customers and preparing for future business environments, are addressed, at best, through conversion

to second- or third-order effects measured in financial terms. Often these are not dealt with numerically

but are identified simply as ‘intangible benefits’.

The traditional approach to value identification works well where the benefits are financial and can

easily be identified, estimated and counted. A strict financial basis also operates well where a program is

delivered within the context of a single entity and where capital spend, expenses and resulting financial or

benefit flows return to that entity and fall within the sphere of its accounting and management reporting.

E-government programs, however, have a breadth of impact that extends far beyond the agency concerned

and where benefits often flow out of sight of the agency owning and delivering the program. This is

particularly so with the advent of cross-agency e-government programs and services.

When attempting to measure return on investment (ROI) in government, it must be recognised that,

unlike the private sector, governments must serve all constituents and cannot necessarily take a market-

driven approach to service delivery where services are delivered only to those sectors or market niches

that are cost effective.

MEASURING RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Outcomes and benefits from e-government programs are not always measured in financial terms.

Indeed, the majority of e-government programs are primarily focused on social outcomes. E-

government programs are often intended to:

• improve access to service delivery and the quality of information

• enhance the experience of interacting with government

• reduce waiting times

• assist consumers and business.

In these circumstances, the benefits flow to constituents rather than to the government and it may

not be appropriate to expect a financial return to government.

Even where an e-government program is intended to produce cost efficiencies, those efficiencies may

not occur in the agency that sponsors and finances the particular initiative. The financial benefits

may be across a government, non-government organisation and private sector value network.

In a multi-channel environment the value/ROI from e-government programs is defined as:

e-government ROI = agency value + social value – adjustment for risk

The approach proposes that no single measure can adequately provide a measure of ROI for e-government,

but rather, each e-government program is assessed across a range of criteria covering agency value,

a number of measures of social value and risk.


100

Agency value return on investment

This element of value identifies the net benefit to the agency. It encompasses the variety of costs,

cost reductions and potential revenue increases and productivity gains associated with the program.

Agency benefits, usually represented with a strong financial perspective, include:

• increased agency productivity gains from:

− reduced redundancy in authoring and data-capture

− enhanced access to information by the agency staff and the customer

− automation, and often re-engineering and streamlining, of previously manual functions

− increased online self-service within government (for example, payroll, travel claims etc.),

initial streamlining of processes

− reduced error handling (due to increased point-of-service data capture).

• efficient and effective payments to entitled and eligible beneficiaries through increased reach of

programs to customers

• decreased direct and indirect avoidable costs associated with service delivery due to:

− reduced throughput through non-online channels (mail, telephone, face-to-face)

− increased quality of documentation received by agency leading to reduced rework

− reduced agency administration overheads associated with enforcing compliance due to increased

visibility of obligations to audiences and speed/ease of communication between the agency and its

programme audiences

− reduced levels of maintenance derived from reduced duplication of information technology

infrastructure assets between agencies and jurisdictions.

Using this information, the first measure of agency ROI is:

agency ROI = agency financial benefits %

government program costs

This measure of ROI excludes benefits flowing to society as well as ignoring the risk component.

Expressed as a percentage – 100 per cent indicates that benefits exactly match costs.

While commercially this measurement technique may support sound business decisions in identifying the

expected profit, in the public sector a broader return on investment is sought. For example, part of the

Centrelink Refresh Program is focused upon returning to government the monetary investment through

a series of ‘savings projects’. However this program is further committed to providing wider benefit to

government and citizens. This requirement for a social return on investment (that is, the ‘equivalent

commercial profit’ of the program) is discussed later.

In assessing and measuring the benefits accruing to an agency, customers, citizens and business partners

a broad spectrum approach is needed.

In 2002–03 Centrelink undertook a study, within a particular definable business sector, into the potential

for conducting business with providers more efficiently and effectively through technology.

The study and the ensuing business case were undertaken on the basis that benefits could be expected

to flow to business providers as well as to those customers receiving related benefits by replacing the

traditional, time consuming business processes with an e-government solution.

101

EXAMPLE OF BENEFITS OF A CENTRELINK E-GOVERNMENT BUSINESS INITIATIVE

The expected outcomes from implementation of this e-government business initiative include:

• increase in strategic alignment of Centrelink business

• increase in consistency and value of advice

• increase in efficiency of processing

• increase in Centrelink’s capability to deliver consistent services

• increase in effectiveness of Centrelink staff

• increase in Centrelink’s ability to educate and train third parties

• increase in Centrelink’s capability to predetermine industry changes and trends

• increase in Centrelink’s ability to align its service delivery with business cycles of third parties.

Elements of the Australian Government Information Management Office Demand and Value Assessment

Methodologies were used to underpin the business case.

This Centrelink e-government initiative is an example of a government agency expanding its service

delivery channels in response to demand from its constituents for greater effectiveness of program

administration and efficiency in business interaction and transactions with an additional result of better

customer service for the mutual customer.

To obtain the benefits from its e-government initiatives, Centrelink has recognised the need to promote

the initiative and to encourage and assist provider take-up and migration to more cost effective and

efficient channels.

The projected levels of demand and take up for this business initiative indicates the substitution of

manual and paper based provider transactions by the Internet over a three year period.

Social value

Social benefits include the range of financial and social benefits that flow directly to users of e-government

services. The debate about ‘consumer’ worth versus ‘customer’ worth is interesting. Consumer worth,

in the broader sense, includes second-order effects, such as economic benefit that flows to consumers and

businesses downstream of the initial benefit, as well as the intangible benefits associated with being part

of open government. For this reason we use the term ‘consumer’ rather than ‘customer’. These items are

reflected in the formula:

social value = consumer financial value + social economic value + social worth + governance worth

Consumer financial value

Consumer financial value is the financial benefit that flows directly to users of e-government services.

Typically, these benefits will consist of cost savings and productivity improvements where these translate

directly into a dollar benefit to users.

Time savings that cannot be translated into real dollar savings should be treated in terms of their

downstream impacts either in generating social economic value, or, if simply adding to quality of life,

then as social worth.


102

It is proposed that a realistic first measure of consumer financial value is the use of a net user benefit-to-

cost ratio, viz:

consumer financial value ROI = consumer benefits %

consumer costs

Consumer financial value needs to be seen against the cost to government as expressed below.

consumer value to agency cost ROI = consumer benefits – consumer costs %

agency costs

Consumer financial value examples from a Centrelink initiative include:

• decreases in payment variance

• increased integrity of business

• decreases in administrative overheads for third parties

• providing the ability to lodge claims direct to the Centrelink system

• eliminating errors and rework by confirming customer entitlement prior to claims lodgement

• providing real time notification of customer data

• providing timely and accurate financial information to third parties.

Social economic value

Social economic value includes the flow-on economic effects from an e-government program. These fall

into the domain of increased economic participation and include the flow-on effects to government in

terms of taxation or changes in government payments.

For example, a program supporting distance learning may not generate any immediate consumer

financial value, but may equip an individual to later re-enter the workforce, generate income and

increase government taxation flows. While it is not an adequate measure, in the first instance a more

available measure of this item is a measure of net government benefit.

social economic value ROI = change in government inflows* %

change in government outflows**

* Taxes plus government charges less subsidies on production and imports

** Social assistance benefits in cash to residents

Social economic value flows to Centrelink’s customers includes increased opportunities for greater

participation in the community and workforce.

Social worth and governance worth

Social worth relates to quality of life and quality of community values that have no direct economic

impact. For example, services to inform citizens may allow better choices and deliver value in the form of

better disability management or enhanced care of individuals in need.

103

To be of value in selecting e-government programs, measures of social value are needed before an

e-government program is approved rather than through surveys after the costs have been incurred.

These items are much harder to measure in a manner that permits value assessment and comparison.

Centrelink looks to its Value Creation Workshop and its User Centred Design Principles to gather some of

this information. To overcome this issue the study proposes using measures relating to the reach of programs

and the impact or consequence of programs. Agencies would readily understand that this approach has been

adapted from the Australian Risk Management Standard7 with which most business managers are familiar.

The approach proposed in the value assessment method is that reach be measured relative to the size of

the social segments targeted by the program.

Governance worth is assessed in the Australian Government Information Management Office demand

and value assessment methodologies in relation to the levels of increased transparency and accountability

of government, and increased participation of citizens in the democratic process. As agencies progress

towards creation of e-government value networks there is a greater need for increased transparency and

accountability.

Social and governance worth is generated from:

• increased potential for sharing information with business and consumers

• increased capability for consumers to make better life choices

• creation of social capital.

Conclusion

Agencies delivering program services electronically in a multi-channel environment are increasingly recognising

that information, and hence benefits, flow to stakeholders beyond the program, organisational boundaries,

government portfolios and across all levels of government, business partners and customers. E-government

initiatives, such as those now being implemented by Centrelink, will contribute to generation of benefits,

including social capital, in the community. Assessment of the value arising from implementation of

e-government initiatives is an immature science and an ongoing task for Australian Public Service managers.

Some of the main things to consider with implementation of multi-channel service delivery include

understanding customer preference, customer experience across the offered channel, and how consistency

of service is to be achieved. These things create intangible benefits and add value. They will become more

important as e-government begins to increasingly participate in value networks for customers, business

partners, and the organisation.

Agencies such as Centrelink recognise that e-government will constantly evolve and customers and staff

will themselves change as new technologies create new opportunities for better ways of doing business.

Centrelink is continuing to develop e-government opportunities by creating services for customers,

organisations (government and non-government) and business.

The measurement of value from a number of different perspectives becomes paramount as demand and

value assessments are key inputs into development of business cases for service delivery deployed across

multiple channels.


104

References

Accenture 2003, eGovernment Leadership Realizing the Vision, Accenture, Canberra,

<http://www.accenture.com/xdoc/en/industries/government/egov_april2002_3.pdf>.

Centrelink 2003, Centrelink Annual Report 2002–03, Centrelink, Canberra.

Centrelink 2004, Computer World Honours Program 2004, Centrelink Case Study, Centrelink, Canberra.

Centrelink eBusiness Strategy 2003–2007.

Di Maio A, Baum C, Keller B, Kreizman G, Pretali M & Seabrook D 2002, Framework for E-government

Strategy Assessment, Gartner, Stamford, Connecticut, USA.

National Office for the Information Economy 2003a, ‘Measuring E-Government Benefits,’

resentation at the Key Issues in E-Government seminar, Sydney, 26 September 2003

<http://www.agimo.gov.au/resources/ppt/2003/030926jb>.

National Office for the Information Economy 2003b, E-Government Benefits Study, NOIE, Canberra,

<http://www.agimo.gov.au/government/benefits_study>.

National Office for the Information Economy 2003c, E-Government Benefits Study – Case Studies, NOIE,

Canberra, <http://www.agimo.gov.au/publications/2003/05/e-govt_case_studies>.

National Office for the Information Economy 2002, Better Services Better Government,

The Federal Government’s E-government Strategy, NOIE, Canberra,

<http://www.agimo.gov.au/publications/2002/11/bsbg>.

OECD 2003, The E-Government Imperative, OECD E-Government Studies, OECD, Paris,

<http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/4203071E.PDF>.

Productivity Commission 2003, Social Capital: Reviewing the Concept and its Policy Implications,

Productivity Commission, Canberra.

Rimmer, J 2003, Australian Country Statement to the World Summit on the Information Society, Geneva,

Switzerland, <http://www2.dcita.gov.au/_data/assets/file/12267/Australian_Country_Statement_WSIS.pdf>.

Thorp, J 2003, The Information Paradox, Realizing the Business Benefits for Strategic Leadership,

Fujitsu Consulting Centre for Strategic Leadership, McGraw-Hill Ryerson,

<http://www.dmr.com.au/user/content/view/full/210/>.

Vardon, S 2001, ‘Corporate Governance – Building Trust and Credibility: Trust us – We’re from

Centrelink,’ speech given to the Institute of Public Administration, Brisbane 24 August 2001

<http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/news_room/vardon01corpgov.htm>.

105

Notes1 Associated technology includes Natural Language Speech Recognition, Secure Internet Messaging, fixed and mobile

telephones, Short Message Services and customer driven transaction processing via the Centrelink website and the telephone infrastructure (including Natural Language Speech Recognition), as well as straight-through transaction processing and On-Paper (Secure Internet Messaging, forms, letters, and statements).

2 In late 2003 Centrelink won the Gold Australian Government Technology Productivity Award for its e-business and the international ‘Best Innovative Speech Recognition Solution’ award (ScanSoft Fourth Annual Best Practice Competition) for its Report Employment Income Natural Language Speech Recognition product. Computer World Honours Program 2004.

3 Social capital is an evolving concept. It relates to the social norms, networks and trust that facilitate cooperation within or between groups. Social capital can generate benefits to society by reducing transaction costs, promoting cooperative behaviour, diffusing knowledge and innovations, and through enhancements to personal wellbeing and associated spill-overs. See also Productivity Commission 2003.

4 Muin v Refugee Tribunal, High Court of Australia, HCA 30, August 2002.

5 Centrelink’s eBusiness Strategy can be viewed on the Centrelink web site at <www.centrelink.gov.au> under Online Services.

6 Latent demand is the potential demand realised if an e-government channel was made available to customers and business.

7 Australian Risk Management Standard AS/NZS 4360, <http://www.standards.org.au/>.


107

ORGANISATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES

F u t u r e C h a l l e n g e s f o r E - g o v e r n m e n t — O r g a n i s a t i o n a l a n d M a n a g e m e n t I s s u e s

VALUE ASSESSMENT IN E-BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION

Documents

Transcript of VALUE ASSESSMENT IN E-BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION