This is the expected partiality from accountability holders used to concentrating their efforts and resources on building ICT infrastructure for monitoring finance and fairness, thus giving much less attention to performance. Codifying accountability for finance or fairness in explicit rules is normally easier than codifying accountability for performance in government.
Published in Chapter:
Performance and Accountability in E-Budgeting Projects
Gabriel Puron-Cid (Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, SUNY, USA) and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, Mexico)
Copyright: © 2008
|Pages: 13
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59904-857-4.ch065
Abstract
An influential theoretical tradition in information systems research suggests that information and communication technology has the power to transform organizational structures and individual behaviors. This approach has been called “technological determinism.” In contrast, recent studies have found evidence of more complex relationships between information technologies and the organizational and institutional contexts in which those technologies are embedded (Fountain, 2001; Kling & Lamb, 2000; Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991). The theories that Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) have categorized as the “ensemble view” explain that information technologies should not be conceptualized as physical artifacts only, but that the social relations around those artifacts should also be considered. In addition, the relationship between information technologies and social structures is at least bidirectional, and therefore organizational characteristics and institutional arrangements also have an impact on government ICT projects (Fountain; García, 2005; Kraemer, King, Dunkle, & Lane, 1989). As a result of this embedment of ICT in government settings, certain characteristics of the information technologies are expected to reflect important aspects of the institutional and organizational environment and, therefore, help preserve the status quo instead of promoting change (Fountain; Kraemer et al.).