Information Technology - Case Study Example

Running Head: Information Technology Name Course Lecturer Date Lack of Information Lack of information hassignificant influence on strategies for managing and governinginformation. There is lack of information in business dealings and government business particularly concerning issuing of contracts. The Cabinet Office minister was very categorical in asserting that the quality of the government department’s data is very poor. When the government is negotiating contracts and tenders, it had to rely on the biggest suppliers to provide them with information as they do not have information concerning the contracts. The government’s data were incompetentlyinadequate in negotiating and therefore they had to rely on the biggest supplier’s data and information in issuing the contracts. This indicates that the governmental departments do not have information concerning the contracts and tenders. This have profound effects on the government, first, the departments will not have sufficient sources to compare, the quality and efficiency of the suppliers as Silcock (2001) states. As such, the government departments will issue the contracts and tenders to suppliers based on the information provided by the suppliers and not the market information. They will end up issuing contracts that are very expensive even ten times more than the market price of the contracts and tenders. This lack of information therefore proves to be very expensive to the government. It uses funds and resources that it would have used to provide other essentialservices such as health care and security. Kraemer & King (2006) explain that the impact of this on the government’s strategy for Management and governance of information is that it is very expensive. Nevertheless, the government can set up its own information technology for searching information from all sources especially the market before issuing of tenders and contracts. Lack of information affects the government’s strategy of managing and governing the quality of information. Due to lack of information, West (2004) indicates that the government lacks professionals in the field of career developments who can define characteristics of quality information that are necessary, significant and critical to the government. This affects the strategy that the government put in place formanaging andgoverninginformation. The government lacks accurate information applicable to the present time. For example, when negotiating and awarding contracts, the government does not have the current information concerning the contracts and therefore have less bargaining power due to lack of information (Subramani 2004). Accurate information is very important for the government in making decisions it faces in various circumstances and situations. Quality information reduces uncertainties and helps very much in making an informed decision. Government’s lack of information affects the strategy of planning andfacilitating choice when faced with multiple situations. Lack of information affects the government’s strategy for governing and managing information in that the government does not have concrete facts as Jaeger & Thompson (2003) points. As such, it relies on general observations and hearsay information and they are inaccurate and do not contain any fact. The providers of the general information provide the government with information that will suit its interests but does not contain facts. Lack of information makes the government lack specific facts that are very essential in decision making and realistic planning as well. Due to lack of comprehensive information technology, the government does not have experts and analysts for comprehending the information on hand before using it (Tolbert & Mossberger 2006). This weakens the government in negotiations and in making decisions. As such, there is no purpose and motivation for provision and availability of information. The government does not have purpose for which available information is produced and delivered. It gets information from biased sources, the suppliers, individuals and institutions providing information to the government have vested interest in the decisions that the government will make and therefore they provide biased information (Davenport 2013). This indicates how lack of information affects the strategies that the government puts in place to manage and govern information. From the report, the minister indicates that the government departments get information from suppliers because it’s central data were woefully inadequate. This is evidence that the government lacks analysts, analysis, uniform collection, content as well as format of comparable information it can use to negotiate the contracts. As such, Landsbergen& Wolken (2001) explain that the government is not able to compare or to contrast the information provided with the market and the latest information about other providers of the service. It does not have current information on the present occurrence in subject matter. Considering that information is highly perishable, the government ought to replace the old information with current information and therefore requires a process of updating. This exposes the government to false information unverifiable and probably deceptive information by the suppliers and other providers. This, again, indicates how lack of information impacts management and governance of information by the government. According to Layne & Lee (2001), lack of information may affect accessibility and value of information. The government may not be in a position to obtain and use information when it is needed. In most cases information depend on customer and in negotiating contracts and tenders, the government may not be able to obtain the necessary information due to lack of IT. The government departments may not be able to have access to information especially depending on the type of contracts it is negotiating. The government ends up making uninformed decision to the interest of the contractors rather the benefit of the public as Legris, Ingham & Collerette (2003) underpins. The government must have timely and accessible information in order to make the right decisions, accessibility and timeliness complement each other and make quality information and therefore affects the government’s strategy of governing and managing information. This proves that lack of information is costly and expensive. The government departments have woefully insufficient central data because it does not have accessible information and when it has accessible information it is obsolete and it cannot satisfy the needs on hand as Carter & Bélanger (2005) asserts. Essentially, timeliness and accessibility of information have considerable effects on how the government manages and governs information. The government can apply information technology to serve the public and it can also use accessibility to quality information to increase its bargaining power in negotiating for contracts and tenders. In addition, the government does not understand the value of information due to inaccessibility to information. The value of information does not necessarily depend on how the government uses the information but how the information will affects the public and how it will help it in negotiating contracts. The value of information impacts on the strategies of managing and governing information by the government. Benchmarking is another issue in lack of information that impacts the government’s strategies in managing and governing information. The report in “lack of information” section indicates that the government’s expenditure on IT is less cost effective because it does not benchmark assenting Tat‐Kei (2002) assertions. This exposes the government to interested parties because they supply the government with information that suites them. They are well aware that the government do not benchmark and therefore do not compare prices and costs of IT. Benchmarking is not only essential but it is necessary for the government in improving its services to the public. Lack of information exposes the government to difficulties in obtaining comparative data for information technology performance and costs. The government lack information for comparison of performances as well. Unlike the private sector, there is a lot of bureaucracy in the government. Bureaucracy affects how it collects and obtains information for purposes of comparison. Melville, Kraemer & Gurbaxani (2004) emphasizes thatit may not know the best standards regarding the performance of various tasks, there is various industry comparative information available but the government does not use it.Therefore, the government may not be able to have viable strategies for governing and managing information. In essence, benchmarking influences governments strategies for management and governing of information. Another issue in lack of information is lack of transparency. The government does not make detailed information concerning IT expenditure publicly so that it can be scrutinized. Consequently, the public do not an opportunity to evaluate and give insights about the expenditures on IT. Transparency has been one of the key drivers in the private sector and the local governments because they make detailed information to the public for scrutiny and allow the external parties to challenge their spending decisions (Mell & Grance 2011). Although there is progress in making transparency of government information, the government can still realize more benefits by making detailed information publicly. The progress is not sufficient and therefore the government should make public more information by default. As indicated above, the government does not experts with market wide experience for evaluating the performance and costs of IT expenditure. Venkatesh et al., (2003) suggests that exposing information to the external experts would enable them to make valuable suggestions on how it can reduce expenditure on IT. Publications on the raw spending on information technology reveal very little and so it should provide detailed information on IT expenditure to the public. The strategies put in place by the government to manage and govern information depend on its preparednessto make the information public. The strategies may be fruitless if the government does not allow for scrutiny and positive criticism of the expenditure on IT as Layne & Lee (2001) states. The government should allow the external commentators including the public to suggest ways on how it should deliver services differently in a better way. The strategies may be very good according to the governmentbut may not meet standards. The external commentators have more information than the government and therefore it should allow for scrutiny. This would provide the government with an opportunity to harness independent views and suggestions on how to deliver more cost effective services. Heeks (2002) suggest that the government would realize the benefits of information technology if it can put in place the right strategies and allow for inclusion of external views. By doing such, the government will expand and grow the IT performance at a faster rate. Installation of complete IT infrastructure will enable it to search, obtain and use quality information, this would make the government immensely powerful and cost efficient as well. There is no limit to the amount of information that the government can collect and store concerning IT and ICT as the report indicates. The biggest challenge lies with itself by its failure to set up the necessary infrastructure for adequate central storage of data. This would enable it to store and retrieve information at will and it will not rely on suppliers and other parties with vested interests for information. The process of processing, managing and distributing information would be very easy and less costly with its own IT infrastructure. Chau & Hu (2001) asserts that there would be accuracy and speed in processing information, this would reduce and consequently eliminate bureaucracy in government that hinders improvement in delivery of such services. Benchmarking and transparency is the core issues indicated in the “lack of information” section and they influence how the government manage and govern information. In addition, the government needs to have accurate and current information about IT information (Brynjolfsson & Hitt 2000). These issues influence how it monitors, enforces, manages and governs information. The most significant requirement that the government needs to overcome lack of information and to enhance benchmarking and transparency is the right skills, capacity and knowledge in house, these would enable to benchmark be transparent as well as deliver changes. Particularly, it will need to engage with external IT suppliers to secure efficient deals in delivery of public services. To be able to advance effectively, the government will have to benchmark its cost reduction program; it will need to identify reliable and concrete benchmarks. Moreover, making detailed information available is a good discipline. Turban et al., (2008) specify that governing and managing information is a continual process, technologies and technology products keeps changing because information is very perishable, quality information today may be irrelevant information tomorrow. For government to put in place strategies for managing and governing information, it must have a continual focus on follow through and definition concerning information technology and its systems design as well as operational processes. The government can use it for multiple dimensions to add structure to the inherent complexity. Information can be the driving force rather than an impediment for success in government dealings if it can define asses, modify and redefine information technology within its departments. However, the big challenge to these issues is government’s lack of information. The government does neither have information nor accessibility to information that it can use when in need. To overcome this challenge, Agarwal & Karahanna (2000) recommends the government to stop contracting and tendering information technology and build its own complete IT infrastructure. As indicated in the report, the costs of contracting and tendering are more by seven to ten times than the market. The government would avoid paying excessive costs on contracts. It may be expensive in the short term but would be cost saving in the long run. The above issues challenge the government on how it uses IT. These challenges fundamentally transform how the government spends on IT and evaluate performance (Oliner & Sichel 2000).This will require the government departments to engage more directly with the external parties such as innovative companies to integrate technology in decision and policy making and consequently how they advance their systems. References Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. 2000. Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly, 24(4). Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. 2000. Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23-48. Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. 2005. The utilization of e‐government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors*. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5-25. Chau, P. Y., & Hu, P. J. H. 2001. Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparison approach*. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 699-719. Davenport, T. H. 2013. Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business Press. Heeks, R. (Ed.). 2002. reinventing government in the information age: International practice in IT-enabled public sector reform. Routledge. Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. 2003. E-government around the world: lessons, challenges, and future directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 389-394. Kraemer, K., & King, J. L. 2006. Information technology and administrative reform: will e-government be different? International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 2(1), 1-20. Landsbergen Jr, D., & Wolken Jr, G. 2001. Realizing the promise: Government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 206-220. Layne, K., & Lee, J. 2001. Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government information quarterly, 18(2), 122-136. Layne, K., & Lee, J. 2001. Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government information quarterly, 18(2), 122-136. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. 2003. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 40(3), 191-204. Mell, P., & Grance, T. 2011. The NIST definition of cloud computing (draft).NIST special publication, 800(145), 7. Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. 2004. Review: Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS quarterly, 28(2), 283-322. Oliner, S., & Sichel, D. 2000. The resurgence of growth in the late 1990s: is information technology the story? Silcock, R. 2001. What is e-government? Parliamentary affairs, 54(1), 88-101. Subramani, M. 2004. How do suppliers benefit from information technology use in supply chain relationships? Mis Quarterly, 45-73. Tat‐Kei Ho, A. 2002. Reinventing Local Governments and the E‐Government Initiative. Public administration review, 62(4), 434-444. Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. 2006. The Effects of E‐Government on Trust and Confidence in Government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354-369. Turban, E., Leidner, D., McLean, E., & Wetherbe, J. 2008. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR MANAGEMENT, (With CD).John Wiley & Sons. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 27(3). West, D. M. 2004. E‐Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes. Public administration review, 64(1), 15-27. Read More