bag ii 05 reinventing local govt and the e govt initiative

Reinventing Local Governments and the E-Government Initiative
Author(s): Alfred Tat-Kei Ho
Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 2002), pp. 434-444
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for Public
Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3110358
Accessed: 04/05/2010 04:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

AlfredTat-Kei
Ho
IowaStateUniversity

ReinventingLocal

Governments
and

the

E-Government
Initiative
TheInternetprovidesa powerfultool for reinventinglocal governments.Itencouragestransformationfromthe traditionalbureaucraticparadigm,whichemphasizesstandardization,departmentalization,and operationalcost-efficiency,to the "e-government"
paradigm,whichemphasizes coordinatednetworkbuilding,externalcollaboration,and customerservices. Based on a
contentanalysisof city Web sites and a surveyof Web developmentofficials,thisarticleshows
thatmanycitiesare alreadymovingtowardthisnew paradigm. Thesecitieshave adopted "onestop shopping"and customer-oriented

principlesin Web design, and they emphasize external
collaborationand networkingin the developmentprocess ratherthan technocracy.Thearticle
also analyzes the socioeconomicand organizationalfactorsthatare relatedto cities'progressivenessin Webdevelopmentand highlightsfuturechallengesin reinventinggovernmentthrough
Internettechnology.

Introduction
When the Departmentof Defense inventedthe Internet
in the 1960s as a communicationnetworkfor defense researchpurposes,no one could have foreseen how it would
transformsociety three decades later.Today,the Internet
has become a part of the daily life of many Americans.
Between 1990 and 1998, the numberof computersattached
to the Interet grew exponentially,from less than 1 million to about30 million (Comer1999, 8-11). Between 1989
and 1997, the use of networkservices from eitherhome or
workincreasedfrom 6 percentof individualsto 23 percent
(Neu, Anderson,and Bikson 1999, 119-23). By 2000, the
number of Internetusers was estimated to be over 110
million (GAO 2000, 1).
Explosive growthin Internetusage and rapiddevelopment of e-commerce in the privatesector have put growing pressure on the public sector to serve citizens electronically, which is often known as the "e-government"
initiative. The initiative is to provide public services and
to empower citizens and communities throughinformation technology, especially through the Internet. In the

early 1990s, city governments began to use electronic
mail, listserv, and the WorldWide Web to deliver information and services. By the end of the 1990s, Web-based
services were alreadyan integraland significantpartof a
new "e-government."
434 PublicAdministration
Review* July/August
2002, Vol.62, No. 4

However, the Internethas brought more than a technological breakthroughin service delivery. It has stimulated a transformationin the philosophy and organization of government.This article first sets the stage for an
analysis of this trend by contrasting the traditionalbureaucraticparadigmwith the new e-governmentparadigm.
It then presents an analysis of the official city Web sites
of the 55 largest cities in the United States and the results
of a survey of city Web masters, which demonstratethat
the transformationis alreadyunderway. The article also
analyzes socioeconomic andorganizationalbarriersto the
transformation and challenges government leaders to
think differently in the twenty-first century to overcome
these barriers.

A ParadigmShiftof PublicService

Deliveryin the InternetAge
AlfredHo is an assistantprofessorin the Programof PublicPolicyand Administration
of thePoliticalScienceDepartment
at IowaStateUniversity.
His
researchfocusesprimarilyon stateand localfinanceandpoliciesand informationtechnologymanagement.His publicationshave appeared in the
AmericanReviewof PublicAdministration,
PublicAdministration
Quarterly,
and Researchin PublicAdministration.
In 1999, Ho was a memberof the
Government
Sectionof the IowaGovernor'sY2KCouncil.Email:alfredho
@iastate.edu.

Challenges to the Traditional Model of
Bureaucracy

However, a major obstacle to the reinventinggovernment reformis the burdenof transactioncosts imposed on
publicofficialsandcitizens.Governmentofficialsmay find

citizen engagementtime consumingand costly. Given the
time pressurethey alreadyface in the daily operationof
government,networkingwith citizens and proactivelysoliciting public input seem an unnecessaryand unwanted
burden.Citizens also may be reluctantto participatein the
decision-making process of the government.Attending
meetings, writingformalfeedback,andrespondingto surveys about public services may require a time commitment that many citizens are not willing to give regularly.
As Schachter(1995) suggests,"morefundamentally,many
individualsdo not understandwhy they might wantto take
the trouble to seek [out] information[about government
performance]....If we envision citizens as owners, then it
is a problem that the proprietorslack the psychological
and informationalresourcesto mind their own business"

People usually think of government as a hierarchical
bureaucracy. This model, commonly known as the
Weberianmodel of organization,focuses on internaland
managerialconcernsandemphasizesdepartmentalization,
specialization, standardization,and routinizationof the
productionprocess (Weber1947; Simon 1976; Schachter
1994). Officials who perform similar functions are

grouped and organizedinto the same administrativeunit
or department.Each unit is responsible for understanding its clients, assessing the demand for its services, delivering those services, and setting administrativegoals
for planning and evaluationpurposes. To ensure that departmentalplans are consistent with each other and fiscally feasible, the budgetoffice, city manager'sor mayor's
office, and the city council are responsible for centralized control and coordination.
One advantageof the Weberianbureaucracyis that the (535-36).
transactioncosts of official communicationand coordination are reduced through departmentalization and The Role of the Internet in Reinventing
routinization(Williamson1975; Galbraith1977). This ap- Government
It is in addressingthesechallengesthatinformationtechproach encouragesprofessional specializationand maximizes efficiency and potentialeconomies of scale (North nology has played an increasinglyimportantrole in public
1981). Furthermore,throughrules,regulations,and hierar- administration(Gore 1993; Bellamy and Taylor 1998;
chical supervision, the bureaucraticmodel reduces the Heeks 1999). Beforethe Internetemergedin the late 1980s,
chances of unintentionalerrors,fraud,negligence, and op- the governmentwas alreadyactivelypursuinginformation
portunisticbehaviorsby officials(Williamson1975;Perrow technologyto improveoperatingefficiency andto enhance
internalcommunication(Kraemerand King 1977; King
1986) andensuresthe equitabletreatmentof clients.
However,the Weberianbureaucracyis often criticized 1982; Fletcher et al. 1992; Norris and Kraemer 1996;
for its rigidity,proceduralism,inefficiency,and incapabil- Brown 1999). However,the focus of e-governmentin this
ity to serve "humanclients," who have preferences and era was primarilyinternaland managerial.
The arrivalof the Internet and the World Wide Web
feelings (Hummel 1992; Rainey, Paney, and Bozeman
1995; Bozeman 2000). A simple example of these draw- markeda watershedin informationtechnology usage by

backs is the fact thata newcomerto a city may have to fill shifting the focus of governance to its external relationout many different forms for the utility department,the ship with citizens (Scavo and Shi 1999; Seneviratne
assessor's office, and the recorder'soffice, even though 1999). Technology certainly played an importantrole in
the forms ask for similar information,such as name, ad- fostering the change. From the newsgroup and commercial email technology started in the mid-1980s, to the
dress, and householdcharacteristics.
The "reinventinggovernment"movement,which started development of the World Wide Web and Web browser
in the late 1980s, is an effort to reorientthe focus of gov- technology in the early 1990s (Zakon2000), the Internet
ernmentoperationsfrom an inward-lookingapproachto gradually has matured into a cost-effective and useran outward-lookingone by emphasizingthe concernsand friendly platform for officials to communicate directly
needs of end users.Underthe model proposedby Osborne with citizens and to deliver massive quantities of inforand Gaebler(1992), citizens are regardedas "customers" mation to the public.
who become the central focus in designing government
The rise of e-commercein the privatesector furtherreservicedelivery.1This model also emphasizesthe principles inforcedthe shift in the focus of government.The Interet
of "catalytic government"and "community-ownership." allows not only companies but also individualcitizens to
Public officials are challenged to think abouthow to em- exchange informationand conduct business transactions
power citizens to take ownershipof communityproblems. cost-efficiently.The flexibility of the Internetin providing
The approachurgesofficials to partnerwith citizen groups access to goods, services, and informationraises citizens'
and nonprofitorganizationsto identify solutions and de- expectations of customer service in a range of contexts,
liver public services effectively.
includinginteractionswith government.Manynow expect
andtheE-Government
Local
Governments

Initiative
435
Reinventing

to find what they need to know about the governmenton
the Web aroundthe clock, seven days a week.
As a resultof technologicaladvancementandeconomic
changes, policy makershave had furtherincentiveto shift
the focus of informationtechnology usage from internal
managerialneeds to externallinkages with the public.The
National Performance Review report (Gore 1993) suggests that e-government"will allow citizens broaderand
more timely access to informationand services through
efficient, customer-responsiveprocesses-thereby creating a fundamentalrevision in the relationship between
the federal governmentand everyone servedby it."These
remarksclearly reflect a new way of thinkingabout public service delivery.

The Reemergence of "One-Stop Service Centers"
The philosophical change outlined above rejuvenated
the idea of "one-stopservice centers."To be sure,the idea
of "client-based"organizationis not new. In the 1970s and

1980s, agencies involved in social services alreadywere
experimentingwith this alternativeorganizationmodel as
a way of integratinggovernmentservices and operations
(Calista 1986; Rainey and Rainey 1986). However, such
efforts often faced bureaucraticresistance and slack resourceconstraints(Rainey 1990).As a result,bureaucratic
systems based on functionaloperationspersistedin many
public services.
In the Internetage, the idea of "one-stopshopping"has
resurfacedas an alternativeto functionaldepartmentalization.As ReschenthalerandThompson(1996) suggest,computerserode economies of scale in hierarchicalorganization and offer new justification for the establishmentof
responsibilitycenters-an arrangementsimilarto the onestop service center.The state of Washington(1996), in its
strategicinformationtechnology plan notes, "In the private sector, customers expect one-stop shopping-the abil-

ity to obtain diverse services in a timely, convenient and
user-friendlymannerfroma single source.... Increasingly,

this samekindof one-stop service is demandedby citizens
seeking goverment services and information"(7).
A one-stop service center is an umbrellaorganization
thatoperateson top of existing functionaldepartmentsand
is intendedto maximize the convenience and satisfaction

of users through service integration.As the gateway for
specific client groupssuch as businesses,residents,or visitors,the centercollects informationaboutuser demandfor
inquiries and service assistance and processes the information centrally.It then coordinateswith functional departmentssuch as local police, city planning, and transportationto deliverpublic services andcarryout wholistic
planning(see figure 1).
Unlike early "client-based"reforms in social services
duringthe 1980s, the creationof one-stop service centers
today does not requirea massive reorganizationand consolidationof personnel.Withthe help of informationtechnology, such as local area networks and projectmanagementsoftware,publicmanagersat the service centereasily
can coordinatewith functionaldepartmentsto conductcentralplanningandprovideintegratedservices. By avoiding
massivereorganization,the reformis less likely to encounter bureaucraticresistancein implementation.
The emergenceof theWorldWideWebfurtherfacilitates
the growth of a one-stop service center model because a
governmentWeb site can itself serve as a convenientand
cost-effective platform for centralizedservice provision.
liaiBusinesses, residents,visitors, and intergovernmental
sons easily can access public informationand services relatedto theirspecific needs simplyby clicking on different
Web links in the city Web site. They can also contactgovernmentofficials directlythroughemail or online request
formsto give feedbackaboutspecific issues.
As a result, information technology and the Internet
are transformingpublic administrationin the digital era
(see table 1). In the traditionalbureaucraticparadigm,

public managersfocus on internalproductiveefficiency,
functionalrationalityand departmentalization,hierarchi-

Shopping"
Figure1 PublicServiceDeliveryas "One-Stop
Need
Citizens
(usersor
clients)

Need
Need

Department1

Need

2
Department

Need

3
Department

Need

4
Department

Need

Need

Stagesof
service
delivery

Demand
perception

Need
assessment
and internal
capacity
analysis

Review* July/August
436 PublicAdministration
2002, Vol.62, No. 4

Production
planningand
appropriation

Service
provision

Output,
outcome,
and impact
evaluation

cal control, andrule-basedmanagement(Kaufman1977;
Bozeman2000). In contrast,underthe e-governmentparadigm-like the paradigm of information-technologybased organizations in the business world (Applegate
1994;Wigand,Picot, andReichwald 1997)-public managers shift from emphasizing producerconcerns, such as
cost-efficiency, to focusing on user satisfaction and control, flexibility in service delivery, and networkmanagement with internal and external parties. The new paradigm stresses innovation, organizational learning, and
entrepreneurshipso that governmentcan continue to reinvent itself. In addition,public service is no longer standardizedin the new model. With the help of information
technology, e-governmentcan customize services based
on personal preferences and needs.
The new paradigmtransformsorganizationalprinciples
in government.While the bureaucraticmodel emphasizes
top-down managementand hierarchicalcommunication,
the new model emphasizes teamwork, multidirectional
network, direct communication between parties, and a
fast feedback loop (Reschenthalerand Thompson 1996;
Rosell 1999, 13-15). Citizens no longer need to know
which departmentsare responsible for what in the "network"productionof services.The functionaldepartmental
structureand production process of public services behind the operation of the "one-stop service center" becomes "invisible"to users. This is not to suggest thatcentralleadershipis unimportantin e-government.However,
leadership in the new paradigm encourages facilitation
and coordinationamong parties, ratherthan hierarchical
command and control.

in
ShiftReflected
Paradigm
Web
Sites
City

The orientationsof city Websites provideevidence that
this paradigmshift is indeed taking place in city governments. If a city adopts the traditionalbureaucraticparadigm, its Website organizationtendsto be administratively
oriented.Informationis organizedprimarilyaccordingto
the administrativestructureof the governmentand does
not reflect substantialrethinkingof the bureaucraticprocess and organizationin public service delivery.City governmentscommonly adoptedthis approachwhen they began to form their first Internetpresence in the 1990s.
Cities thathave shiftedfrom the bureaucraticparadigm
to the e-governmentparadigmdesign theirWeb sites differently.They tend to use two common approaches,commonly referredto as "portaldesigns."The first one is the
"information-oriented"
design, andthe second is the "useroriented"design.Bothrequirea breakdownof departmental
thinkingand a reorganizationof informationaccordingto
the users' perspectiveand interest.
The information-orientedapproachapplies the concept
of "one-stopshopping service"by offering a tremendous
amountof contenton the home page, such as the city budget, demographics,calendarof local activities,majortourist attractions,officialcontacts,pressreleases,andemployment opportunities.This approachemphasizes directness
and extensiveness in informationpresentation,and gives
users the greatestdiscretionin browsing without pre-categorizing the materialsby departmentsor user groups.
The user-orientedportal design goes one step further
by categorizinginformationand services on the Web accordingto the needs of differentuser groups.For
in PublicServiceDelivery
Table1 ShiftingParadigms
example,a Webpage for residentusersmay have
Bureaucratic
paradigm
E-government
paradigm informationaboutcommunityevents and develProduction
Usersatisfactionand
Orientation
cost-efficiency
opment, employment opportunities,local taxacontrol,flexibility
tion,
public services availability,andcity departFunctional
Horizontalhierarchy,
Processorganization
rationality,
mental
contacts.A separatebusiness Web page
vertical networkorganization,
departmentalization,
of
control
information
have
information about local economic
hierarchy
sharing
may
Flexiblemanagement,
Managementprinciple Managementby ruleand
structure,majoremployers, amenities, business
mandate
team
interdepartmental
taxation,developmentincentives, and licensing,
workwithcentral
coordination
while a visitor Web page may provide informaCommand
and
and
control
Facilitation coordina- tion aboutcity history,attractivetouristsites, and
Leadership
style
tion,innovativeentrepre- local festivals and culturalevents.
By integratneurship
used
information
sameWeb
on
the
Internalcommunication Top-down,hierarchical
Multidirectional
network ing commonly
the
user-oriented
withcentralcoordination, location,
design gives users
directcommunication
convenientand efficient access to needed inforExternalcommunication Centralized,formal,limited Formaland informal,
mation and services. Even though the informachannels
directand fastfeedback,
tion
on the Web site comes from different dechannels
multiple
Electronic
Modeof servicedelivery Documentary
mode,and
exchange,non partmentsor exteral sources,suchas community
interaction
face-to-faceinteraction
interpersonal
organizationsor business groups, users are un(so far)
aware of the organizationalboundaries of the
of service
Standardization,
Principles
impartiality, Usercustomization,
in the cyberworld.
providers
equity
personalization
delivery
andtheE-Government
Initiative437
LocalGovernments
Reinventing

An analysis of the Web sites of the 55 most populous
cities, conductedin the summerof 2000, shows thatmany
city governmentsalreadyhave shifted theirthinkingfrom
the traditionalbureaucraticparadigmto the e-goverment
paradigm.At thattime, only a few cities, such as New Orleans, Columbus, and Miami, still were adopting an administrativeorientationin their Web sites. Several cities,
such as Fort Worth,Minneapolis, and St. Louis, adopted
an informationalorientation.The majority,however, had
differentdegreesof userfocus. Baltimore,Cleveland,Philadelphia,Seattle, andWashington,DC, had stronguser orientation in their Web design. Other cities, such as Chicago, Denver,and New York,had a good balancebetween
the user and informationalorientations.
In additionto changes in Web design orientation,this
shift towardthe e-governmentparadigmwas also reflected
in the communicationchannelsbetween citizens and officials available on city Web sites. Only a few cities still
requiredusers to navigateto individualdepartmentalWeb
pages to get contactinformationaboutspecific public services. Many cities had already abandoneddepartmental
boundariesaltogetherand adoptedthe one-stop shopping
approachby centralizingcommunication.Some cities, such

as Omahaand Las Vegas, encouragedcitizens to communicate throughthe Webmasters.Othercities, such as Boston, Charlotte,ColoradoSprings,Indianapolis,New York,
OklahomaCity,andTulsa,used a centrallymanagedonline
service requestsystem. Charlottehas one of the most comprehensiveonlinerequestsystems:ItsWebsite offersmany
optionsfor online services, includinggettingpermitapplication forms, contactingelected officials and policy making bodies, complaining about community and environmental problems, reportingcrimes and traffic regulation
violations, submittingresumes for city job applications,
requestingvarioustypes of safety inspections,andgetting
paymentformsfor utility services.This mechanismbreaks
down the departmentalmentality and allows citizens to
communicateeasily andeffectively with differentofficials
througha "one-stopcenter."

ParadigmShiftReflectedin an Opinion
Surveyof WebMasters
The shiftawayfromthe traditionalbureaucratic
paradigm
is furtherreflectedin responsesto a surveyof cityWebmastersin the summerof 2000. BetweenAprilandJune2000, a

of CityWebSites
Figure2 Orientations

Administrative
Orientation

ew Orleans,LA
OH
Columbus,

FL
Miami,
NY
Buffalo,
TN
Memphis,
Omaha,NB

SantaAna,CA
GA
Atlanta,
OR
Portland,
MI
Detroit,
CA
Francisco,
/ San
TX
Dallas,
Wl
/Mlwaukee,
MO SanJose,CA
Kansas
City,
Oklahoma
City,OK
MA
Boston,
Lirtc
Annosc CA
LosAngeles,CA
HI
Honolulu
Houston,
Mesa,AZ
AZ
TX
Tucson,
NC
TX
Charlotte,
ElPaso,TX SanAntonio,
FL
CA
Sacramento,
Jacksonville,
IN
Indianapolis,
N
NY
NewYork,
NM
Albuquerque,
OH
Neti,
~~Cind~nnu~
OH
CA SanDiego,CA
CO Oakland,
Denver,
i/ ncinnati~
Phoenix,
AZuls,OK Philadelphia,
PANashville,
TN
TX
Fort
Worth,
Minn
i, MN
/ MinneapolisS,MN
MO
TX St.Louis,
Austin,

OK
Tulsa.

MD
Baltimore,

OH Wichita,KS
Baltmore,MD
Toledo,
IL Long
CA
Chicago,
D.C.
Beach,
Washington,
NV
VA
IdLas Vegas
Beach,
Virginia
Cleveland,OH
OH
Colorado
Springs,
WA
PA
Seattle,
Pittsburgh,

CA
Fresno,

Informational

Orientation

User
Orientation

of theirWeb sitessignificantly
Note:Theanalysiswas basedon cities'Web sitedesignin June-July2000. Citiesmayhave modifiedtheorientation
by the timethisarticleis
published.

Review* July/August
Administration
438 Public
2002,Vol.62, No.4

surveywas sentto the city Webmastersor officialsresponsible for Webdevelopmentfor the 55 most populouscities
in the United States. The survey asked officials about the
characteristicsof the Web developmentprocess and why a
city was interestedin using Web-basedservices.2
Theresultsshowthatmanycity officialshaveabandoned
a departmentalmentalityin Web management.Among the
46 cities thatrespondedto the survey,31 (67 percent)had
formalinterdepartmental
committeesconsistingof informationaltechnologystaff anduser departmentsto take charge
of Web development.Interdepartmental
collaborationwas
valued
Web
in citieswith
officials
especially
by
management
an administrativelyorientedWeb site (see table2). This result might be surprisingbutunderstandable.
Because these
officialshadto buildcity Websites followingthe traditional
departmentalstructure,they were highly dependenton departmentalinput to supply the necessary informationand
focus.Withoutinterdepartmental
collaboration,
departmental
theirjobs would be extremelydifficult.
Table 2 shows that many cities were open to external
inputand collaborationandput less emphasison technocracy in Web development.This trend was especially evident in cities that adoptedthe nonadministrativeWeb designs. Although the differences were not statistically
significant,these cities were slightly more open to external cooperationand networking,in that they emphasized
the importanceof citizen inputs and collaborationwith
nongovernmentalorganizations.Officials in these cities
were also more user-orientedand believed more strongly
thatthe Webis a tool to enhancecustomerservice for citizens. In addition, they tended to deviate more from the
traditionalthinkingof technocrats,as they weremorelikely
to disagree that informationtechnology managementis
purely a technicaljob.

WhyDidCitiesAdoptthe
ParadigmShift?

An inevitablequestion is, why were some of these cities moreprogressivein adoptingthe paradigmshift?Theories of organizationalchange and innovativenesssuggest
severalhypotheses. Several studies have found that larger
cities tend to be more innovative,possibly because they
face a more diverse environmentthat always demandsinnovative solutions, or because they have more organizational freedom to try new ideas (Mytinger 1968; Smith
andTaebel 1985; Damanpour1992). Time andexperience
may be anotherfactor.Cities may have a learningcurve in
Web developmentand need time to move graduallyfrom
the traditionalbureaucraticparadigmto the e-government
paradigm.In addition,the supportof senior officials may
play a critical role in spearheadingtechnological change
in an organization(Mechling and Fletcher 1996; Tayloret
al. 1996). Their supportfor Web-basedservices may not
only enhancethe organizationalawarenessof the new paradigm of service delivery, but also provide the necessary
resourcesto facilitate organizationalchanges.
The digital divide literaturehas found that different
socioeconomic backgroundsinfluencethe extentto which
citizens use the Internetandcomputers(NTIA 1999; Neu,
Anderson,and Bikson 1999; Riedel et al. 1998; Wilhelm
2000). Households with higher incomes are more likely
to use computers and the Internet, while poorer, often
minority households are less likely to tie to the digital
world. Based on these findings, it is hypothesized that
cities with larger minority populations and a lower per
capita income are less likely to adopt progressive Web
design because theremay be insignificantcitizen demand
for Web-basedservices.
The following analysis examines how these factors are
associated with cities with different
Table2 WebManagement
Characteristics
of Cities,by Orientations
of Web
approaches to Web design. Table 3
SiteDesign
shows the three groups of cities did
not
Nonadministrative
differ significantlyin population,
Responsesto thefollowingstatementsare measuredon a
istrative Informational User per capita income, and the ratio of
4 itrongly
five-pointscale;5 is "stron Admiagree
2 is "disagree,"and 1 is
approach
approach approach
disagree,' 3 is "neutral,"
(n= 3)
(n=20)
(n= 8) elderly population. However, cities
disagree."Standarddeviationsare in
"strongly
with an administrative-orientedWeb
parenteses.
site tended to have a higher ratio of
4.64
4.55
4.33
"Interdepartmental
cooperationis importantin the
(0.50)
processof Web designand management."
(0.94)
(1.14) minority population. This result is
"Information
3.50
3.15
2.94
technologymanagementis a technicaljob."
consistent with the digital divide lit(0.85)
(1.31)
(1.14)
erature and suggests that racial dif'Thecityadministration
3.92
4.20
4.22
regardsthe cityWeb siteas a
toolto improvecustomerserviceforcitizens."
(0.76)
(1.06)
(1.17) ferences not only influence private
"Citizenfeedbackis important
to the designof thecity
usage of computersand the Internet,
3.64
4.10
4.11
Web site."
(1.15)
(0.72)
(0.68) they may also affect the progressive"Thecollaboration
withcitizen,business,or community
3.21
3.40
3.78
ness of city governmentsin Web de(0.97)
(1.14)
organizationsis verycriticalto thedesignand mainte(1.11)
velopment.
nanceof the cityWeb site."
The resultsalso lend supportto the
Note:Six cities,namely,Chicago,Denver,Sacramento,Seattle,Toledo,and Tulsa,are in both"informational"
and
"user-oriented"
and "user"
categoriesbecausetheirWebsitedesignsareequallybalancedbetweenthe"information"
learning-curve
hypothesis.Cities with
orientations.
Local
Governments
andtheE-Government
Initiative439
Reinventing

Table3 Background
Characteristics
of Cities,by Web
SiteOrientation
Administrative
approach
(n=14)
583,857
Averagepopulationsize
(246,824)
74.9**
Averagepercentage
of whitepopulation
(10.9)
Averagepercentageof population 11.3
olderthan65 yearsold
(2.3)
income
$23,629
Averageper capita
(3,757)
of
a
4.5**
Averageyears having city
Web site (countingfromthe
(1.7)
beginningto 2001)

Nonadministrative
Informational User
approach approach
(n=24)
(n=23)
1,054,250 642,304
(1,570,774) (530,399)
82.1
81.0
(12.8)
(7.8)
10.9
11.7
(1.8)
(1.9)
$21,855
$23,105
(3,444)
(2,556)
5.4
5.9
(1.1)
(2.7)

Note:Standarddeviationsare in parentheses.
**Indicates
statistical
significanceat the5 percentlevel.

supportfromdepartmentalstaff. Insufficientdepartmental
collaborationmight be a motivating factor that explains
why cities pursue a transformationfrom the traditional
bureaucraticmodel to the e-governmentparadigm,which
emphasizes the customer-driven mentality and
interorganizationalcollaborationand coordination.
Resourceconstraintswere anotherfactorthatmay have
preventedsome cities from making progressive changes
in Webdesign. The surveyresultsshowedthatcities adopting the administrativeapproachperceived more serious
constraintsin staffing and funding prioritiesfor Web development and maintenance, compared to cities with a
nonadministrative
focus in Webdesign.The differencewas
more significantwhen comparedto cities that adoptedthe
informationalapproach.This lack of fundingandstaff was
specificallyrelatedto Webdevelopmentandmaintenance,
because cities in all threegroupshad shownmoderatesupport for general informationtechnology developmentin
the past five years.
The surveyalso asked the extent to which the rise of ecommerce in the privatesector had put pressureon cities
to develop Web-basedservices. The results show that cities with a nonadministrativedesign perceived more pressurein this areathancities with an administrativeapproach.
This was especially true among cities that used the user
approach.However,this differenceamongthe threegroups
of cities was not statisticallysignificant.

an administrativefocus in Web design, on average, only
hosted an official Web site for 4.5 years, comparedto 5.4
years among cities that used the informationalapproach,
andalmost6 yearsamongcities thatusedthe userapproach.
As a city gains more experiencein Web development,it is
more likely to adopt a sophisticateddesign that reflects
the new e-governmentparadigm.
Table 4 compares several internalorganizationalfactors of cities. Although cities that adoptednonadministrative approachestended to receive more supportfor Web
developmentfrom elected officials thancities thatadopted
the administrativeapproach,the differencewas not statistically significant. However, departmentalsupport was Conclusion
correlatedwith the progressivenessof Web development.
The new e-government paradigm, which emphasizes
Cities thatadoptedthe administrativefocus perceivedless coordinatednetworkbuilding,externalcollaboration,and
one-stop customer services, contraof
Table4 Internal
Characteristics
of Cities,by Orientations
Organizational
dictsthe traditionalbureaucraticparaWebDesign
digm, which emphasizesstandardizaanddivision
Nonadministrative tion,departmentalization,
Responsesto thefollowingstatementsare measuredon a AdministrativeInformational User
of
labor.
Based
on
a
content
4
5
is
is
analysis
"strongly
agree,"
five-pointscale;
"strongly
approach approach of
approach
2 is "disagree,"and 1 is
disagree,"3 is "neutral,"
Web
sites
and
a
surveyof Web
city
(n=20)
(n=18)
(n=13)
stronglydisagree."Standarddeviationsare in
development officials, this article
parentheses.
shows thatmany cities have startedto
"Elected
officials(citycouncilmembersand thecity
4.00
3.94
3.46
(1.21) move toward the new paradigm in
(1.20)
mayor)have been supportiveof usingtheWeb to deliver
(1.38)
and services."
publicinformation
theirWeb-basedservicesandinforma4.10
"Non-IT
3.89
3.38**
staffhave been supportiveof
departmental
tion technology management.
and
(0.91)
(0.90)
(0.96)
usingtheWeb to deliverpublicinformation
services."
However,socioeconomicandorga"Webdevelopmentin mycityis sufficiently
1.62**
staffed."
nizationalbarriersto the transforma2.06
2.65
1.11
(0.87)
(1.27)
tion remain.Insufficientstaff, lack of
"Webdevelopmentand maintenancehas highfunding
2.72
3.00
2.08**
funding, and the problem of digital
1.20
1.49
(0.86)
priorityin mycity."
divide amongracialgroupsaremajor
"Forthe pastfiveyears, thecityhas alwaysbeen
3.06
3.60
3.46
(0.88)
(1.43) hindering factors. Future efforts to
(1.31)
supportiveof information
technologydevelopment."
reinventgovernmentthroughInternet
"Thecityis underpressureto use theWeb to deliver
3.54
4.06
3.95
and servicesbecauseof the riseof e(1.27)
(1.11)
(1.00)
publicinformation
usage need to go beyondpurelytechcommercein the privatesector."
nical concernsin shapinginformation
Note:Standarddeviationsare in parentheses.
**Indicatesstatistical
technologymanagement(Dawes et al.
significanceat the5 percentlevel.
440 Public
Administration
Review* July/August
2002,Vol.62, No.4

1999). Rather, informationtechnology managementrequiresa new vision anddeterminationby governmentleaders to prioritizeresourcesfor technologicalchange, a new
approachtowardorganizingdepartmentaloperationsthat
can be more cost-effective, and a greater social concern
with the economic andracialdisparitiesin the digital society.
Finally,some envision thatInternettechnologywill enhance local democracyby allowing for moredirectcitizen
inputin policy making,expandingthe scope of policy deliberation,and reducingintermediatebarriersto information dissemination(Raabet al. 1996;Korac-Kakabadse
and
Korac-Kakabadse1999;Moore 1999). Reflectingthis perspective, Robert O'Neill, Jr., president of the National
Academy of Public Administration,recently remarked,
"The new technologies will allow the citizen new access
to the levers of power in government.As more information reaches the citizen, the greaterthe potentialfor them
to influence and make informed choices regardinghow
governmenttouches their lives. That potentialgives new
meaning to a 'governmentof the people, by the people
and for the people"' (O'Neill 2001, 6).
Unfortunately,the Website analysisin this articleshows
that many city governmentshave not yet actualizedthis
potential. So far, Internetinitiativeshave focused primarily on customer services. Although many cities actively
seek citizen inputon how they shoulddesign city Websites
(Cook 2000), only a few cities engage citizens in online
policy dialoguesor partnerwith communityorganizations
to strengthen citizen participationat the neighborhood
level.3Some basic features of public accountabilityand
citizen empowerment,such as performancemeasures of
public services, online discussion groups, or information
aboutgrassrootsorganizationactivities, are seldom found
in city Web sites. Hence, the questionof how to move beyond the focus on customer service is anotherchallenge
for cities' effort to reinventgovernmentthroughinformation technology.Officials should be conscious of the danger of focusing too much on the economic elites' interests
and convenience (Moore 1999). Instead,a broadpartnership with differentsocial interestsandcommunityorganizations is necessary to reorientInternetinitiativestoward
citizen empowerment.

Acknowledgments
The authoris gratefulto the city Webmasterswho participatedin this researchand gave the authorfeedbackon an earlier
draft of the paper.The authoralso thanks Monika Klimek for
her excellent researchassistance.This researchwas fundedby a
faculty developmentgrantfrom the College of LiberalArts and
Sciences, Iowa State University.

Notes
1. Although this model has been criticized for neglecting the
citizenry(Frederickson1994; Cox 1995; Schachter1995), it
is a powerfulconceptualizationof how to breakthe internal
bureaucraticfocus in government.
2. To ensurethe surveyreachedthe correctperson,the researcher
first made phone contacts with the cities and talked to the
Webmastersor city officials responsiblefor Web site development to make them awareof the survey.Then the survey
was sent by fax or electronicallyto these officials' email addresses. In the summerof 2000, nonrespondentswere contacted by phone and asked to do the survey over the phone.
The surveyinstrumentcan be made availableto readersupon
request.
3. Forexample,to furtherenhancedirecttwo-way communication between officials and citizens, the city of Las Vegas offers a real-time online chat service. The city Web sites of
Boston and St. Louis providetremendousinformationabout
neighborhoodevents, grassrootsactivities, and community
organizationsfor interestedcitizens.

Local
Governments
andtheE-Government
Initiative441
Reinventing

References
Applegate, Lynda M. 1994. Managing in an InformationAge:
Transformingthe Organizationfor the 1990s. In Transforming Organizationswith InformationTechnology,edited by
RichardBaskerville,Steve Smithson,OjelankiNgwenyama,
andJaniceI. DeGross, 15-94. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science.
Bellamy, Christine,and JohnA. Taylor.1998. Governingin the
InformationAge. Buckingham,UK: Open UniversityPress.
Bozeman,Barry.2000. BureaucracyandRed Tape.UpperSaddle
River,NJ: PrenticeHall.
Brown, Douglas M. 1999. InformationSystems for Improved
PerformanceManagement.DevelopmentApproachesin U.S.
PublicAgencies. In ReinventingGovernmentin the Information Age. InternationalPractice in IT-EnabledPublic Sector
Reform, edited by Richard Heeks, 113-34. London:
Routledge.
Calista,Donald J. 1986. Reorganizationas Reform:The Implementation of IntegratedHuman Services Agencies. In Bureaucratic and GovernmentalReform, edited by Donald J.
Calista, 197-214. Greenwich,CT:JAI Press.
Comer,Douglas E. 1999. ComputerNetworksandInternets.2nd
ed. Upper Saddle River,NJ: PrenticeHall.
Cook, Meghan E. 2000. What Citizens Want from E-Government. Center for Technology in Government,State University of New Yorkat Albany,OccasionalPaper.
Cox, RaymondW. 1995. GettingPast the Hype: Issues in Starting a Public Sector TQM Program.Public Administration
Quarterly19(1): 89-103.
Damanpour,F. 1992. Technology and Productivity:A Contingency Analysis of Computerin Local Governments.Administrationand Society 11(2): 144-71.
Dawes, Sharon S., Peter A. Bloniarz, Kristine L. Kelly, and
PatriciaD. Fletcher. 1999. SomeAssemblyRequired:Building a Digital Governmentfor the 21st Century.New York:
Center for Technology in Government,State University of
New Yorkat Albany.
Fletcher, Patricia T., S.I. Bretschneider, D.A. Marchand, H.
Rosenbaum, and J.C. Bertot. 1992. Managing Information
Technology:TransformingCountyGovernmentsin the 1990s.
Syracuse,NY: School of InformationStudies, SyracuseUniversity.
Frederickson,H. George. 1994. The Seven Principles of Total
QualityPolitics. PA Times 17(1): 9.
Galbraith,Jay R. 1977. OrganizationalDesign. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Gore, Albert. 1993. ReengineeringThroughInformationTechnology. AccompanyingReportof the National Performance
Review. Available at http:llgovinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/liAccessed May 15, 2001.
brarylreportslit.html.
General Accounting Office (GAO). 2000. Electronic Government.FederalInitiativesAre EvolvingRapidlybutTheyFace
Significant Challenges. Washington,DC: U.S. Government
PrintingOffice.

Review* July/August
442 Public
Administration
2002,Vol.62, No.4

Heeks, Richard.1999. ReinventingGovernmentin the InformationAge. In ReinventingGovernmentin theInformationAge.
InternationalPractice in IT-EnabledPublic Sector Reform,
edited by RichardHeeks, 9-21. London:Routledge.
Hummel,RalphP. 1992. The BureaucraticExperience.2nd ed.
New York:St. Martin'sPress.
Kaufman, Herbert. 1977. Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses, and
Abuses. Washington,DC: BrookingsInstitution.
King, John. 1982. Local GovernmentUse of InformationTechnology: The Next Decade. Public AdministrationReview
42(1): 25-36.
Korac-Kakabadse,Andrew,and Nada Korac-Kakabadse.1999.
InformationTechnology'sImpacton the Quality of Democracy. Reinventingthe "DemocraticVessel." In Reinventing
Governmentin theInformationAge, editedby RichardHeeks,
211-30. London:Routledge.
Kraemer,KennethL., and John L. King, eds. 1977. Computers
and Local Government.New York:Praeger.
Mechling, J., andT. M. Fletcher.1996. TheNeedfor New Leadership. Cambridge,MA: JohnF. KennedySchool of Government, HarvardUniversity.
Moore, Richard. 1999. Democracy and Cyberspace. Digital
Democracy:Discourse and Decision Makingin the InformationAge, editedby BarryN. Hague andBrianD. Loader,3962. London:Routledge.
Mytinger,RobertE. 1968. Innovationin Local Health Services:
A Study of the Adoption of New Programs by Local Health
Departmentswith ParticularReferenceto New Health Practices. Washington,DC: U.S. Departmentof Health Education and Welfare,Public Health Services, Division of Medical CareAdministration.
Neu, C. Richard,RobertH. Anderson,andToraK. Bikson. 1999.
Sending YourGovernmenta Message: Email Communication between Citizens and Government.Santa Monica, CA:
Rand.
Norris, Donald F., and KennethL. Kraemer.1996. Mainframe
and PC Computingin AmericanCities: Myths and Realities.
Public AdministrationReview 56(6): 568-76.
North, Douglas C. 1981. Structureand Change in Economic
History. New York:W.W.Norton.
O'Neill, RobertJ., Jr.2001. The Levers of Power.In 21st Century Governance, supplement to GovernmentTechnology,
January,6.
Osbore, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. ReinventingGovernment. How the EntrepreneurialSpirit is Transformingthe
Public Sector. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.
Perrow,Charles. 1986. ComplexOrganizations,A Critical Essay. 3rd ed. New York:RandomHouse.
Raab, Charles, Christine Bellamy, John Taylor, William H.
Dutton, and Malcolm Peltu. 1996. The InformationPolity:
Electronic Democracy, Privacy, and Surveillance.In Information and CommunicationTechnologies:Visions and Realities, edited by William H. Dutton, 283-300. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.

Rainey,GlennW., Jr. 1990. Implementingand ManagerialCreativity:A Studyof the Developmentof Client-CenteredUnits
in HumanServicePrograms.InImplementationand thePolicy
Process: Opening Up the Black Box, edited by Dennis J.
PalumboandDonaldJ. Calista,89-106. Westport,CT:Greenwood.
Rainey, Glenn W., Jr.,and Hal G. Rainey. 1986. Breachingthe
HierarchicalImperative:The Modularizationof the Social
SecurityClaimsProcess. In Bureaucraticand Governmental
Reform,editedby DonaldJ. Calista,171-96. Greenwich,CT:
JAI Press.
Rainey, Hal, Sanjay Paney, and Barry Bozeman. 1995. Public
and PrivateManagers'Perceptionsof Red Tape.Public AdministrationReview 55(6): 567-74.
Reschenthaler,G.B., and Fred Thompson. 1996. The Information Revolutionandthe New Public Management.Journalof
Public AdministrationResearchand Theory6(1): 125-43.
Riedel, Eric, Libby Dresel, Marc J. Wagoner,John L. Sullivan,
andEugeneBorgida. 1998. ElectronicCommunities:Assessing Equality of Access in a Rural Minnesota Community.
Social Science ComputerReview 16(4): 370-90.
Rosell, Steven A. 1999. Renewing Governance:Governingby
Learningin the InformationAge. New York:OxfordUniversity Press.
Scavo, Carmine,and YuhangShi. 1999. WorldWide Web Site
Design andUse in Public Management.In InformationTechnology and ComputerApplicationsin PublicAdministration:
Issues and Trends, edited by G. David Garson, 246-66.
Hershey,PA: Idea GroupPublishing.
Schachter,Hindy L. 1994. The Role of Efficiency in Bureaucratic Study. In Handbook of Bureaucracy, edited by Ali
Farazmand,227-40. New York:MarcelDekker.
. 1995. Reinventing Governmentor Reinventing Ourselves:Two Models for ImprovingGovernmentPerformance.
Public AdministrationReview 55(6): 530-37.
Seneviratne,Sonal J. 1999. InformationTechnology and OrganizationalChangein the Public Sector.In InformationTechnology and ComputerApplicationsin PublicAdministration:
Issues and Trends, edited by G. David Garson, 41-61.
Hershey,PA: Idea GroupPublishing.
Simon, Herbert. 1976. AdministrativeBehavior. 3rd ed. New
York:Free Press.
Smith,A.C., and D.A. Taebel. 1985. AdministrativeInnovation
in Municipal Government.InternationalJournal of Public
Administration7(2): 149-77.
Taylor, John, Christine Bellamy, Charles Raab, William H.
Dutton, and Malcolm Peltu. 1996. Innovationin Public Service Delivery.In Informationand CommunicationTechnologies: VisionsandRealities,editedby WilliamH. Dutton,26582. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
U.S. Departmentof Commerce.National Telecommunications
and InformationAdministration.1999. Falling Throughthe
Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington,DC: U.S. Departmentof Commerce.
WashingtonDepartmentof InformationServices. 1996. Strategic InformationTechnologyPlan. Olympia,WA:Department
of InformationServices, State of Washington.

Weber,Max. 1947. TheTheoryof Social and EconomicOrganization. Translatedand edited by A.M. HendersonandT. Parsons. New York:Oxford UniversityPress.
Wigand, Rolf, Arnold Picot, and Ralf Reichwald. 1997. Information,OrganizationandManagement.Chichester,UK: John
Wiley.
Wilhelm, Anthony G. 2000. Democracy in the Digital AgeChallenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. New York:
Routledge.
Williamson,Oliver.1975. Marketsand Hierarchy:Analysisand
AntitrustImplications.New York:Free Press.
Zakon,RobertH. 2000. Hobbes' InternetTimeline v.5.2. Available at http://www.zakon.org/robertlinternet/timelinel.
Accessed May 15, 2001.

Local
Governments
andtheE-Government
Initiative
443
Reinventing

Appendix CitiesSurveyedin theStudy
Year of

City
New York
LosAngeles
Chicago
Houston
Philadelphia
SanDiego
Phoenix
SanAntonio
Dallas
Detroit
SanJose
Indianapolis
SanFrancisco
FL
Jacksonville,
Baltimore
Columbus

Population,
1996
7,381,000
3,554,000
2,722,000
1,744,000
1,478,000
1,171,000
1,159,000
1,068,000
1,053,000
1,000,000
839,000
747,000
735,000
680,000
675,000
657,000

OfficialWeb sites
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/
http://www.ci.la.ca.us/
http://www.ci.chi.il.us/
http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/
http://www.phila.gov/
http://www.sannet.gov/
http://www.ci.phoenix.az.us/
http://www.ci.sat.tx.us/
http://www.ci.dallas.tx.us/
http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/
http://www.ci.san-jose.ca.us/
http://www.indygov.org/
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/
http://www.ci.jax.fl.us/
http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/
http://www.ci.columbus.oh.us/

firstWeb
site
1996
1994

1995
1996
1995

1994
1995
1995
1996
1998
a
1996
1995
1995
a

1993

ElPaso
600,000
597,000
Memphis
Milwaukee
591,000
Boston
558,000
DC
543,000
Washington,
Austin
541,000
Seattle
525,000
Nashville-Davidson511,000
Cleveland
498,000
Denver
498,000
Portland
481,000
FortWorth
480,000
NewOrleans
477,000

http://www.ci.el-paso.tx.us/
http://www.ci.memphis.tn.us/
http://www.ci.mil.wi.us/
http://www.ci.boston.ma.us/
http://www.washingtondc.gov/
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/
http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/
http://janis.nashville.org/
http://www.cleveland.oh.us/
http://www.denvergov.org/
http://www.ci.portland.or.us/
http://www.ci.fort-worth.tx.us/
http://www.new-orleans.la.us/

1997
1999
1996
1996
a
1995

OklahomaCity
Tucson
Charlotte
KansasCity
VirginiaBeach
Honolulu
LongBeach
Albuquerque
Atlanta
Fresno
Tulsa
LasVegas
Sacramento
Oakland
Miami
Omaha
Minneapolis
St. Louis

470,000
449,000
441,000
441,000
430,000
423,000
422,000
420,000
402,000
396,000
378,000
377,000
376,000
367,000
365,000
364,000
359,000
352,000

http://www.okc-cityhall.org/
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/
http://www.charmeck.nc.us/
http://www.kcmo.org/
http://www.virginia-beach.va.us/
http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/
http://www.ci.long-beach.ca.us/
http://www.cabq.gov/
http://www.ci.atlanta.ga.us/
http://www.fresno.gov/
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/
http://www.ci.las-vegas.nv.us/
http://www.ci.sacramento.ca.us/
http://www.oaklandnet.com/
http://www.ci.miami.fl.us/
us/
http://www.ci.omaha.ne.
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/
http://stlouis.missouri.org/

1995
1997
1996
1996
1996
1994

Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
ColoradoSprings
Mesa
Wichita
Toledo
Buffalo
SantaAna

350,000
346,000
345,000
345,000
320,000
318,000

http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/
http://www.ci.cincinnati.oh.us/
http://www.colorado-springs.com/
http://www.ci.mesa.az.us/
http://www.ci.wichita.ks.us/
http://www.ci.toledo.oh.us/
http://www.ci.buffalo.ny.us/city/
http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/

1998

311,000

302,000

a

1986
1999
1995
1995
a

1998

a

1994
1996
1998
1995
1996
a
a

1997
1996
1995
1995

a

1996
1995
1995
1997
1998
1998

Departmentresponsible
NYC.GOV
Information
Technology
Agency
and Information
Services
Business
of FinanceandAdministration
Department
Services
Mayor'sOfficeof Information
andCommunications
of Information
Technology
Department
of Information
Technology
Department
to individual
Decentralized
departments
Services
Communications
and