Exploring user participation approaches in public e-service development

Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 158–168

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /gov inf

Exploring user participation approaches in public e-service development

Fredrik Karlsson a,b,⁎, Jesper Holgersson b, Eva Söderström b, Karin Hedström a,b

a MELAB, Swedish Business School, Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Swedenb Informatics Research Centre, University of Skövde, SE-541 28 Skövde, Sweden

⁎ Corresponding author at:MELAB, Swedish BusineSE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden. Fax: +46 19 33 25 46.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (F. Karlsso(J. Holgersson), [email protected] (E. Söderström),(K. Hedström).

0740-624X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.009

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Available online 15 February 2012

Keywords:E-servicesE-governmentE-service developmentUser participationMethod rationale

It has been argued that user participation is important when public authorities develop e-services. Atthe same time there is limited research on the usefulness of existing user participation approaches in publice-service development. In this paper we, therefore, analyze how the three user participation approaches –

participatory design, user-centered design, and user innovation – meet the strategic e-service goals of theEU and the US. In doing so, we identify three challenges that need to be considered when choosing amongthese approaches: 1) unclear user target segments can impede the fulfillment of usability and relevancegoals, 2) the nature of participation can impede the fulfillment of democracy goals, and 3) lack of adequateskills can impede the fulfillment of efficiency goals.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Today, it is common for public authorities to encourage citizensto carry out complex transactions using public electronic services (e-services for short). E-services are an increasingly adopted channelfor citizen–government interaction (e.g. Rowley, 2006), and e-government has advanced from the early phase of information publica-tion (Layne & Lee, 2001) to service development. When e-services areintroduced as part of e-government, they are often viewed as a way toautomate internal, and manual processes (Asgarkhani, 2005), in orderto reduce cost and time for providing public services (Anthopoulos,Siozos, & Tsoukalas, 2007). In addition to efficiency goals, the empower-ment of citizens, and their satisfaction with the services providedare also promoted in e-government policies (e.g. Altameem, Zairi &Alshawi, 2006; Commission of the European Communities, 2006). Butit is important to recognize that the goals in such policies should haveimplications not only with respect to the results of using e-services,but also in advancing how these e-services are developed.

Today, an intensified customer orientation is found in today's pub-lic management (Schedler & Summermatter, 2007). It is elementaryto have knowledge about different user groups' needs, skills, andtechnological environment. In other words, as a systems developerit is important to understand the tasks to support and the specialuser populations to make sure that users do not reject the developede-services (Verdegem & Verleye, 2009). Melin et al. (2008) have

ss School, Örebro University,

n), [email protected]@oru.se

l rights reserved.

shown that such knowledge brings positive effects when e-servicesare deployed. This confirms the extensive research on user participa-tion in, for example, the systems development field (Cavaye, 1995),where these concerns have been present and debated for several de-cades (Markus & Mao, 2004).

Given the extensive research in the field of systems developmentand human computer interaction on user participation, it is surprisinghow few influences we find in the discussion on user participationfor e-service development. So far, most e-government research onuser participation has focused on the much broader concept of e-participation (e.g. Lourenço & Costa, 2007; Macintosh, 2006; Sæbø,Rose, & Flak Skiftenes, 2008). Axelsson et al. (2010) is a notable excep-tion when they explicitly incorporate existing systems developmentwisdom into e-service development research. They pinpoint a numberof challenges with citizen participation. However, they choose not todiscuss specific user participation approaches (they use the term“school”) found in the systems development and human computerinteraction literature. Consequently, this is a limitation, since userparticipation can mean many things (Heeks, 1999), and includes amultitude of methods and techniques. Consequently, it is importantto consider which user participation approaches are available for sys-tems developers to implement the macro-level goals found in e-government policies (Colebatch, 2007). This toolbox affects howpolicies can be translated into practice (Hardy & Williams, 2008).

Moreover, existing research has shown that user participationis not a panacea and a number of challenges have been reported(see Kujala, 2003). In a critical review of participation, Heeks (1999)argues that participation shall not be used without considering thepolitical and cultural context. Consequently, it is important to consid-er why user participation is introduced into e-service developmentand what is to be achieved with e-services; these types of goalsshould guide the choice of user participation approaches.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.009

mailto:[email protected]




http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.009

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0740624X

159F. Karlsson et al. / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 158–168

It is therefore a natural step to investigate the possibilities to applydifferent user participation approaches, which originate from thefields of systems development and human computer interaction, ine-service development. In this paper we analyze how user participa-tion approaches meet the goals of public e-service development anduse. In doing so, we identify challenges with applying existing userparticipation approaches for e-service development. Awareness ofthese challenges supports practitioners on how to mitigate these con-cerns in future e-service projects. Furthermore, it advances the bodyof research knowledge and defines areas for future research.

The paper is structured as follows. In the next section we look atexisting user participation research. We take off in the existing wis-dom on user participation research as it is discussed in the systemsdevelopment and human computer interaction fields. We then turnto the rather limited influences that user participation research hashad on e-government research literature. In the third section we out-line our research design. In the fourth section we identify eight goalswith public e-service development. Section five contains a goalanalysis of the three user participation approaches, which in sectionsix is mapped to the e-service development goals. Finally, the paperends with short a conclusion.

2. User participation research

The need for user participation has long been recognized as animportant area in systems development and human computer inter-action (e.g. Baroudi, Olson, & Ives, 1986; Bødker, 1996; Floyd, Mehl,Reisin, Schmidt, & Wolf, 1989; Hirschheim, 1985; Mumford, 1981).For example, Muller et al. (1997) list 61 participatory methods, suchas Joint Application Development (Wood & Silver, 1995) and ETHICS(Mumford, 1993). Aggregated on a higher level we find a number ofwell known user participation approaches, such as participatorydesign (Schuler & Namioka, 1993), user-centered design (Norman,1986) and user innovation (Hippel, 1986).

User participation is believed to provide many benefits especiallywhen it comes to development situations where the tasks are notwell understood, or there are special user populations. In the case ofe-service development it could, for example, involve people withdisabilities, since public authorities are under legal mandate tomake sure that their information systems are usable by people withdisabilities (Lundman, 2006).

Existing research shows that user participation results in a morecomplete and accurate definition of requirements (Maiden & Rugg,1996), improvement of work organization and industrial democracy(Cherry & Macredie, 1999), improved user interfaces (Smith &Dunckley, 2002), decreased user resistance to change (Bjerknes &Bratteteig, 1995), and greater user commitment to the implementedsystem (Markus, 1983). Despite reported benefits, user participation isnot unproblematic and “qualitative evidence suggests that the state ofIS participation practice is poor” (Markus & Mao, 2004). There are situ-ations where the selected approach has been counterproductive(McKeen&Guimaraes, 1997) or characterized as demanding. For exam-ple, Wilson et al. (1996) and Heinbokel et al. (1996) report that userparticipation may have negative effects on project performance. Prob-lems arise when systems developers have to resolve conflicts betweenuser groups or when the users demand late changes. It has been notedthat user participation per se is not a solution to user–developer com-munication problems and sometimes users have to be educated inwhat systems development means (Wilson, Bekker, Johnson, &Johnson, 1996). Oostveen and van den Besselaar (2004) note that userparticipation projects are often characterized as small, stand-alone ap-plications with low organizational complexity. Furthermore, difficultiesare found in sustaining continued use of participative approaches oncethe research interventions have ended (e.g. Hirschheim, 1983).

As discussed in the Introduction there are a limited number ofstudies discussing user participation in e-government development,

both in the area of systems development and human computer inter-action, and even fewer with a focus on e-services. Consequently, it is,for example, not surprising when Benbasat (2010) concludes that e-government is one future challenge in human computer interactionresearch. Jansen (2006) argues for studying the consequences ofusing the Scandinavian school, which is one type of user participationapproach, in e-government development projects. However, Jansendoes not provide any answers, rather gives a direction. Folkerd andSpinelli (2009) add to this discussion as well, when reporting onproblems with user exclusion in the requirements engineering stageof public information system development. They state that the useof ‘non-collaborative’ systems development methods can result in“unpredictable usage of the system or partial rejection.” Tan et al.(2007) and Jones et al. (2007) are other examples of agenda settingresearch. They all acknowledge that we now target users outsidethe organization, instead of in-house users that were common whenworking with e-administration (Jansen, 2006). This elaboration ofthe user concept is not found in early research on development ofe-government (Følstad, Jørgensen, & Krogstie, 2004; Oostveen & vanden Besselaar, 2004), where users did not include citizens. Holmlidand Lantz (2006) draw the same conclusion and exemplify from ane-government project: “when users are brought up on the agendathey are regarded as internal users.”

Følstad et al. (2004) have found consensus among project leaderson the importance of user participation in e-government develop-ment. They found that many projects had good user involvement,but lacked a more explicit process. Schedler and Summermatter(2007) conclude that larger municipalities are more likely than smal-ler ones to explore citizens' needs. However, they were unable to saywhether this was caused by having the possibility to allocate moreresources or by the need for scalable requirement techniques tohandle the municipality size.

There is, however, some research on user participation and e-service development processes. The most recent is perhaps thework of Axelsson et al. (2010) on challenges with user participation:(1) that e-services should target “all of us,” (2) citizens do needincentives to participate in the development process, and (3) thatmore active forms of participation are more demanding for the orga-nization. However, they do not discuss how different approaches ofuser participation address these challenges or associate them to con-temporary goals with e-service development. In addition, Gulliksenand Eriksson (2006) report on attitudes towards user participationin a public organization. They identified problems such as unseenusers and lack of time. But they also formulated proposed solutions.One example is the “user pool” concept to facilitate the process ofacquiring users to different development projects. Oostveen and vanden Besselaar (2004) contribute on how to combine a variety ofuser participation techniques (interviews, survey, workshops, andscenario-based evaluation) in a large international e-governmentproject. However, their study has limited value when it comes to sort-ing out effective user participation approaches. The investigated tech-niques can be part of several different approaches since they exist ona lower level of granularity than the user participation approaches.

Several studies in human computer interaction (e.g. Olalere & Lazar,2011; Shi, 2007) show that existing e-government solutions are inac-cessible for disabled people, despite existing e-government policies.Similar findings are discussed by Lundman (2006) when she concludesthat the awareness of disabilities needs to be strengthened in e-servicedevelopment. She states that involving disabled users in the develop-ment process requires adapted user participation approaches.

We can conclude that existing research provides little directionregarding which user participation approach is most effective in ane-service development setting. Existing research about user participa-tion in e-services development seems to focus on setting the researchagenda. Less research can be found on assessment of user participa-tion approaches.

160 F. Karlsson et al. / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 158–168

3. Research design

In this paper we take the method designer's perspective whenaddressing what challenges we expect if systems developers wantto apply different user participation approaches to e-service develop-ment. We view each user participation approach as a specific designtheory (Gregor & Jones, 2007). This means that each approach is theresult from a goal-oriented design activity (Friedman, 2003), wherecertain goals were set out. Consequently, these goals tell us whatcan be achieved with that particular approach, which can be com-pared with the elicited e-service development goals.

3.1. Analysis framework adopted

To achieve the end of comparing goals we have chosen the meth-od rationale framework laid out in Ågerfalk and Wistrand (2003).This framework has successfully been used to analyze goals behinddifferent systems development methods (e.g. Ågerfalk & Fitzgerald,2005; Karlsson & Ågerfalk, 2009). The framework in Fig. 1 is depictedas a Unified Modelling Language-class diagram. In essence it consistsof three classes: method fragment, goal, and value, and betweenthese we find a number of named associations. The method fragmentconcept refers to a description of a systems development method,or any coherent part thereof (Harmsen, 1997). According toBrinkkemper et al. (1999), method fragments can be studied on fivedifferent levels of granularity: method, stage, model, diagram, andconcept. Method addresses a complete method for systems develop-ment, for example, the Rational Unified Process. Concept, on theother hand, is the smallest part of a method, representing a singleconstruct, for example an UML-class, in the method.

In this framework all method fragments, such as prescribed con-cepts, notations, and procedures, are part of the method for at leastone reason. This means that each method fragment is anchored ingoals and values. Goals and values are often referred to as the meth-od's perspective (Brinkkemper, 1996) or argumentative dimension(Jayratna, 1994). Goals reflect what the method user will be able toachieve when using the method, and constitute a verifiable state inthe world. For example, what is the goal of using prototypes in partic-ipatory design? Reading Sommerville (2007) we find at least twogoals: to support communication between developers and users aswell as to enable them to experiment with the requirements. Hence,anchoring the prototype method fragment in these goals is an exam-ple of goal rationale. In addition, goals are anchored in values throughthe “value rationale” association. Values are ethical principles thatmake the goals worthy of achieving. For example, behind the twogoals described above we find values that acknowledge the impor-tance of communication between developers and users and thatchanging requirements are welcome.

Method fragment

Goal Value

**

**

*

*

*

** 1..*

1..*

*

Goal Rationale

ValueRationale

Goal Achievement

ValueAchievement

ValueContradiction

GoalContradiction

Fig. 1. Method rationale framework (Ågerfalk & Wistrand, 2003).

A development approach often draws upon multiple theories. It istherefore natural to identify goals as well as values that support orcontradict each other. This is apparent when the analysis is madeon the more detailed level of method fragments, for example whencomparing a set of concepts in a method. The method rationaleframework acknowledges this fact allowing for both goals and valuesto support as well as contradict each other.

3.2. Data collection

This study is based on two main data sources, a literature reviewon user participation approaches and official government documentsabout e-government. The literature review on user participationapproaches has been carried out in two steps.

First, we made a search on user participation approaches in orderto sort existing research into user participation approaches. Weconducted a search in journals belonging to the AIS senior scholarsbasket, as these are considered the top journals in the field of ISresearch. In addition, we added Communication of the ACM andHuman–Computer Interaction to these journals. Our search includedthe following concepts: “participation,” “user participation,” “userinvolvement,” “end user development,” “end user computing,”“human–computer interaction,” together with the concept “systemsdevelopment” since we explicitly wanted to incorporate existing sys-tems development wisdom into e-service development research. Fur-thermore, we used “systems engineering” synonymously withsystems development. Based on the result from the literature reviewwe ended up with three user participation approaches: participatorydesign, user-centered design, and user innovation. The two formerare approaches frequently cited in the literature using these names,while the latter is the general principle behind end user developmentand end user computing.

Second, within each of these approaches we made a literature re-view identifying specific user participation methods, techniques, andguidelines. For each of the user participation approaches, we searchedfor core references. We identified the core literature using Web ofScience and Google scholar where we used the references cited inthe literature identified in the initial review as input. The referencesmost referred by other research papers were considered as corepapers and served as the basic foundation for describing the designapproaches. The result from this part of the literature review wasused as input for our analysis on the rationale behind the identifieduser participation approaches. The purpose was not to identify a com-plete set of references for each design approach. Instead we appliedthe empirical saturation principle (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) duringdata collection, where we added references until no additional goalswere discovered.

Example: When searching on user participation in InformationSystems Journal we found Iivari and Iivari (2011) They claim thatNorman coined user-centered design and their reference list includesNorman (1986). When searching in Google Scholars we found thatthis reference is frequently quoted.

Our second data source is official government policy and strategicsteering documents about e-government. Hence, we treat e-servicedevelopment as a sub field of e-government, where the goals of e-government apply to e-service development as well. These docu-ments express the intentions with e-government investments; inother words, they express the needs that user participation ap-proaches have to address during e-service development. We usedthe discussion of Axelsson et al. (2010) on e-government policiesand strategic steering documents as a starting point in order tobuild on existing research. Being official documents, we used Googleto collect them. As Axelsson et al. (2010) state, many of these docu-ments share the same ambitions. Hence, for practical reasons, wechose strategic documents from larger government bodies in orderto combine large coverage and to minimize the complexity of


combining a large number of documents during the analysis. Inthis case we chose the action plan from the EU (Commission of theEuropean Communities, 2006), and the e-government strategy fromthe U.S. (Office of Management and Budget, 2002).

3.3. Data analysis

Our data analysis was done in three steps, where the last two stepsform an iterative pattern. The first step, presented in Section 4, con-cerns elicitation of e-government goals from the EU action plan(Commission of the European Communities, 2006) and the U.S. e-government strategy (Office of Management and Budget, 2002). Thegoal definition from the method rationale framework was used toidentify statements about desirable states in the world. In total weidentified nineteen goals in the two documents. Similar goals werethen grouped together in order to reduce the number of goals towork with in the ongoing analysis. The final result is the eight goalsillustrated in Fig. 2.

In the second step, presented in Section 5, we reconstructed thegoals of the user participation approaches. One limitation with themethod rationale framework is the cumbersome notation. A perhapsmore illustrative notation is the use of goal graphs by Yu (1993) andMylopoulos et al. (2001). Goal graphs structure goals into networks,where associations between goals are shown as arrows. Supportivegoals are shown using plus signs, while goal contradictions are repre-sented using minus signs.

We have selected goals put forward as important in the literature.We do not question the goals and why the method designer foundthem important to fulfill, as we are interested in how these goalscan contribute to the e-government goals. Consequently, the underly-ing values are not included in the analysis. All methods consist of alarge number of goals if we choose a low granularity level and eachconcept in the method is analyzed. However, we are not interestedin the goals behind individual concepts. Instead we focus on theapproaches' overall applicability for e-service development, sincethe action plans of the EU and the U.S. are expressed as strategicgoals. Consequently, when using the method rationale frameworkwe view each user participation approach as a possible stage in a sys-tems development method, which is in line with the typologyof method fragments (Brinkkemper, Saeki & Harmsen, 1999). The

E-G1: To dee-services th

useable

E-G2: Todevelope-services that areefficient for the

government

E-G4: To dee-services th

relevant fousers

E-G5: To developthat improve respo

citizen nee

E-G6: To develop trusted e-services

E-G7: To deve-services t

support demo

+

++

+

-

AND

AND

Fig. 2. Goals with e-ser

results from this analysis are presented using goal graphs inSections 5.1 to 5.3.

The third step of our analysis, presented in Section 6, focuseson the possibilities to meet the e-government goals through each ofthe user participation approaches. We do that by mapping the designgoals of each user participation approach to the e-government goals.With this basis we have identified challenges with meeting certain e-government goals.

4. The goals of public e-services

Both the EU and the U.S. have stated principles that should guidee-government development. In total we have indentified eight high-level goals in our analysis, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The two actionplans contain both similarities and differences. Starting with the sim-ilarities we identify the following. First, both documents express goalsto reduce the number of barriers people face in their contacts withpublic authorities. In the EU-case it is expressed as “easy access forall,” while this is expressed as “make it easy for citizens to obtainservice” and “make it easier for citizens to interact with the federalgovernment” in the U.S. text. We choose to summarize this in the fol-lowing goal statement: to develop e-services that are useable (E-G1).

Second, both bodies want to improve efficiency through e-servicedevelopment. It is explicitly expressed by the U.S. government as“improve government efficiency,” “simplifying agencies' businessprocesses and reducing costs through integrating and eliminating re-dundant systems,” and “eliminating layers of government manage-ment.” In the EU document we find the same type of goal expressedas “contributing to a lighter administrative burden and efficiencygains.” We summarize this in the following two goal statements: todevelop e-services that are efficient for the government (E-G2) andto employ an efficient development process (E-G3). The U.S. docu-ment states that e-services shall “improve government effectiveness”as a complement to improve efficiency. Effectiveness relates to get-ting the right things done, while efficiency means the effort neededto accomplish a task. This goal is similar to the EU-goal, “contributingto higher user satisfaction.” Hence, we define the following goal: todevelop e-services that are relevant for the users (E-G4).

In addition to these goals, an additional set of goals is found wherethe two bodies emphasize different aspects of e-government

velop at are

E-G3: To employ an efficient development

process

velopat are r the

e-services nsiveness to ds.

elop hat cracy

E-G8: To employ a democratic

development process

+

+

-

vice development.


development. The U.S. document contains the following, “improvegovernment's responsiveness to citizens” and “streamlining govern-ment operations to guarantee rapid response to citizen needs.” Wephrase this as one goal: to develop e-services that improve respon-siveness to citizen needs (E-G5). The EU, on the other hand, stressesthat public administration shall deliver e-services that are “increas-ingly trusted by the public.” Therefore, our sixth goal is: to developtrusted e-services (E-G6).

Finally, e-government in the EU shall contribute to the democraticprocess. This is stated in the goal “strengthening participation indemocratic decision-making.” Moreover, the democratic process isalso emphasized in the following goals: “contributing to higher trans-parency” and “contributing to higher accountability.” We thereforephrase the following goal: to develop e-services that support democ-racy (E-G7). Besides, democracy should also have an impact on thedevelopment process itself; it means that the government is toemploy a democratic development process (E-G8).

5. User participation approaches

In this section we analyze the Participatory Design (PD), User-Centered Design (UCD), and User Innovation (UI). The analysismaps out, and relates, the goals of each user participation approach,which enables comparison of the three. Each goal is first given auser participation approach identifier (PD, UCD and UI respectively),and then a goal identifier (G1, etc.).

We illustrate each user participation approach through a shared e-service development example at the end of each section. This comple-ments the fairly abstract goal analysis with illustrations on the maindifferences between each approach. In order to have a unified startingpoint to describe each approach we use the case from Axlesson et al.(2009) on “an e-service for handling student anonymity when mark-ing written exams.” They describe the project origin as the “studentdemands for a higher legal security in the marking process of writtenexams. Students argued that the teachers cannot be totally fair intheir marks as long as they know who the student is.”

PD-G1: Ensure a bettetechnoloy and the ways

to) perform thei

PD-G2: People affected by a decision or change should

be able to influence it

PDknotech

PD-G6: Users as advisors

PD-G7: Users as representatives

PD-G8: Concensusamong all users

Pt

PD-G11: users must participate in decision

making

AND

OR

+

+

+ +

+

+

Fig. 3. Goal analysis for p

5.1. Participatory design

Participatory design dates back to the 1970s (Olphert &Damodaran, 2007) and it represents a rich set of theories and prac-tices (Muller & Kuhn, 1993). Different direction exists within theparticipatory design approach, but they do share the overall goal,illustrated in Fig. 3, to “ensure a better fit between technologyand the ways people (want to) perform their work” (Kensing &Blomberg, 1998) (PD-G1). In other words, participatory design isused in order to better understand the task to support and the differ-ences that exist between user groups.

Perhaps the most radical approach to participatory design is theScandinavian School, where users and systems developers are seenas equal partners (Hendry, 2008). Much of the Scandinavian workhad an explicit focus on workplace democracy and the politics ofdesign (Lawrence & Low, 1993), as illustrated in projects such asFlorence (Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1988) and Utopia (Bødker, Ehn,Kammersgaard, Kyng & Sundblad, 1987). People affected by a changeshould be able to influence it (PD-G2). This is anchored in the beliefthat “good ideas are as likely (perhaps more likely) to come fromthe bottom up as from the top down” (Miller, 1993).

The democratic principle has been emphasized differently outsideScandinavia. In the US, for example, debates about industrial democ-racy were not as prevalent and researchers pursued participatory de-sign agendas for other reasons. For example, researchers recognizedthe flawed results of existing systems development methods (seee.g. Clement, 1994). Moreover, during the 1980s “industrial democra-cy changed throughout Scandinavia and Europe, including a decreasein the bargaining power of unions” (Kensing & Blomberg, 1998) and asecond generation of participatory design emerged. Users are stillviewed as equal partners in the project, but not for political reasonsas earlier. In practice this still means an intense commitment forboth users and systems developers to cooperate (Schuler &Namioka, 1993) (PD-G3), where they acknowledge each other's com-petencies and inadequacies in order to achieve a mutual dialog(Carmel, Whitaker, & George, 1993; Olphert & Damodaran, 2007).Hence, the systems developers need “knowledge of the actual use

r fit between people (want r work

PD-G3: Commitment for both users and systems developers to cooperate

PD-G4: Systems developers need knowledge of the actual use context

-G5: Users need wledge of possible nological options

PD-G9: users must

have accesss to relevant information

D-G10: users must have he possibility to take an independent position

AND

+

+ +

+

+AND

articipatory design.


context” (Kensing & Blomberg, 1998) (PD-G4), whereas users need“knowledge of possible technological options” (Kensing & Blomberg,1998) (PD-G5).

Mumford (1983) discusses three levels of participation. The leastdemanding form is the consultative level, where users are advisorsin specific design decisions (PD-G6). The mid-range level, representa-tive, means selecting users who make design decisions (PD-G7).Finally, participation using consensus means seeking an agreementbetween all users concerning the design decisions (PD-G8). The twolatter levels require the users to be more active in the developmentprocess. Furthermore, Kensing and Blomberg (1998) state that usersmust: have access to relevant information (PD-G9); have the possibil-ity to take an independent position to the problem dealt with (PD-G10); and participate in decision making (PD-G11).

Example: The decision to develop an e-service to solve studentanonymity when marking written exams affects the work situationfor teachers and students. They are, therefore, considered importantuser groups and they should participate in defining the project goalsand in the development process. It is very important for systemsdevelopers to have a thorough understanding about the teachers'and students' actual work situation in order to be able to improvetheir situation. They need, for example, to understand how teachersmark written exams and how students want to receive informationabout their grades.

The development work can be organized in three different ways,based on participatory design. The first option is participation as advi-sors, where the system developers elicit requirements using e-serviceprototypes. The users, for example the students, assess these proto-types. The systems developers balance the assessments made bydifferent user groups and make design changes. The second option,users as representatives, means a smaller group of students andteachers would represent their particular user group. These smallergroups participate actively and elaborate on e-service prototypes to-gether with the systems developers. The design decisions are, in thiscase, joint decisions by the representatives and the systems devel-opers. The third option is that all users participate in the developmentwork. In this case it would include all the students and all the teachersat the university. All of them would participate in crafting the proto-type and design changes would only be implemented when consen-sus agreements are reached.

5.2. User-centered design

User-centered design emerged in the early 1980s, in the area ofhuman computer interaction, and its origin is often associated withNorman (1982). User-centered design implies taking “every individu-al user's capabilities into consideration and fully satisfy his or herneeds related to the system to be developed” (Iivari & Iivari, 2011)which means that information systems are to serve the user (UCD-G1) (Norman, 1986). More specifically, “the needs of the user shoulddominate the design of the interface” (Norman, 1986) (UCD-G2) andthe remaining parts of the information system should depend onthese needs (UCD-G3).

As shown in Fig. 4 users and systems developers are not viewed asequal partners. Especially early user-centered design literature em-phasizes systems developers as designers (UCD-G4): “spend ampletime with users in their milieu to appreciate their needs” (Kling,1977) (UCD-G5) and “designers must understand who the userswill be” (Gould & Lewis, 1985). This implies a need for knowledgetransfer, where systems developers shall have extensive businessknowledge (UCD-G6).

Hence, in the early days of user-centered design users were seenas advisors (UCD-G7). But more recent research is influenced by par-ticipatory design. For example, Marti and Bannon (2009) state thatusers shall be “active agents.” In both cases users participate in thedecision process (UCD-G8), but in the latter case users are more

directly involved as representatives (UCD-G9) (Gulliksen et al.,2003), although the designer responsibility still remains with thesystems developers.

Example: The project goal, to provide teachers and students with auseful e-service for guaranteeing student anonymity when writtenexams are marked, is defined by the systems developers. The systemsdevelopers are in charge of the development process, which is drivenby the user interface needs; based on these needs the systems devel-opers identify e-service functionality. The systems developers, there-fore, need knowledge about the users' operating environment, forexample how the teachers mark written exams. As an initial stepthe systems developers can choose to use, for example, ethnographic,observation, or scenario techniques to gather requirements for theinitial design. If they chose to use a scenario-based technique userscan be organized in focus groups where they act as representatives.In this case we can identify at least two user groups: teachers andstudents.

As a result of the initial requirements work, the systems devel-opers create a number of personas. A persona contains all the charac-teristics of the primary user, where a scenario describes an eventinvolving the user and the e-service. The e-service development isan iterative design process, where the teachers and students assessthe e-service and its functionality prototypes. If the systems devel-opers choose to use focus groups these can be used to gather informa-tion about users' attitudes towards the developed e-service. Thesystems developers decide which changes will be implemented.

5.3. User innovation

User innovation focuses on innovations made by users, the overallgoal being to provide innovative systems functionality (UI-G1). Con-sequently, the source for innovation and design is not the systemsdevelopers. Instead lead users, “users whose present strong needswill become general in a marketplace months or years in the future,”(von Hippel, 1986) identify the problems (UI-G2) and the designsolution (UI-G3) (Kujala & Kauppinen, 2004).

User innovation exists in several variants such as end user devel-opment, where end users construct their own information systems(Taylor, Moynihan, & Wood-Harper, 1998). These innovations havein some cases been disseminated as company-wide systems(Rittenberg & Senn, 1993) or new products. Another approach isuser-lead systems development (Dodd & Carr, 1994; Lawrence &Low, 1993), where lead users head the development team. In bothcases lead users' ideas are captured (UI-G4) and transformed intofull-blown solutions in collaboration between users and systems de-velopers (UI-G5). The design process is an intertwined part of thelead users' daily work, where they incrementally create productsand services that satisfy their needs (von Hippel, 2005). Subsequent-ly, as shown in Fig. 5, lead users are responsible for problems andsolutions (UI-G6).

The needs of lead users do not always equals the needs of the fu-ture users in general. Therefore, systems developers need to assess“how lead user data apply to the more typical user” (von Hippel,1986) (UI-G7). This means that although lead users own the problemand the initial design, systems developers build the final solution (UI-G8), whichmight differ in some aspect from the initial design in orderto make it work for the general public.

Example: A lead user leads the e-service development project. As aconsequence the project goal, to guarantee student anonymity whenwritten exams are marked, is based on their preferences and how thelead user perceives the problem. In this case, let us assume that oneteacher is the lead user and has identified the need for an e-servicethat guarantees student anonymity when written exams are marked.This teacher discusses this need with the IT-department and thenstarts to develop an e-service that satisfies his or her needs on howthe student anonymity can be guaranteed. The development work is

UCD-G1: Information systems are to serve the user

UCD-G2: The needs of the user should dominate the design of the interface

UCD-G3: The information system should depend on

interface needs

UCD-G4: System developers are

designers

UCD-G6: System developers shall have

extensive business knowledge

UCD-G7: Users as advisors

UCD-G9: Users as representatives

AND+ +

+

UCD-G5: Spend ample time with users in their

milieu to appreciate their needs

UCD-G8: users participate in the decision process

OR+ +

++ +

AND+

Fig. 4. Goal analysis for user-centered design.

UI-G1: Provide innovative systems

functionality

UI-G2: Lead users identify the

problems

UI-G3: Lead users identify the design

solutions

UI-G5: Collaboration between users and

developers

UI-G6: Lead users are responsible for

problems and solutions

UI-G8: Systems developers build the final solution

UI-G4: Capture lead users ideas

UI-G7: To assess how lead user

data apply to the more typical user

AND+ +

+

+

+

+

AND+ +

Fig. 5. Goal analysis for user innovation.



done on the teacher's own computer, based on his or her knowledgeof marking exams, IT, and e-service development. The developmentprocess is iterative, where the teacher develops and tests the e-service in his or her daily work. Hence, the e-service is tested on alimited number of students. The systems developers act as seniorsupport concerning development issues during this phase of theproject.

As a second phase of the project, the systems developers assessthe developed e-service when the teacher has finalized it. This assess-ment is done to evaluate how the e-service applies to the needs ofteachers and students in general. Consequently, the systems devel-opers may test the developed e-service on these user groups andmodify the solution before deployment.

6. Design goal challenges for user participation

In this section we have mapped the goals of e-service develop-ment to the goals of the three user participation approaches usingreferences to the goal graphs in Fig. 2 to Fig. 5. The presentation isstructured based on the three challenges we have found: disperseduser target segments, nature of participation, and lack of adequateskills.

6.1. Dispersed user target segments

Two e-service goals closely associated with each other are “to de-velop e-services that are usable” (E-G1) and “to develop e-servicesthat are relevant for the users.” (E-G4) An important aspect of boththese goals is to identify a clear user target segment to measuregoal fulfillment. All three user participation approaches advocateworking with clearly defined target groups. User innovation workswith the concept of lead users (UI-G4), while participatory designapplies three levels of participation, ranging from advising to consen-sus (PD-G6 to PD-G8). Finally, user-centered design treats users asadvisors or representatives (UCD-G7, UCD-G9). In both these lattercases the users represent a target group. Or when considering thefirst generation participatory design, all users are included to reachconsensus.

Demarcating a target group to define specific design goals is some-what at odds with the general purpose of e-services. Many e-serviceshave to be offered more or less universally to all citizens (Henriksen,2004). Targeting all users or user groups in an entire population isa daunting task, which seems very hard to accomplish. In otherwords, systems developers need to be aware of the dispersed targetsegment faced during the development of e-services. In turn thischallenge affects the possibility to create criteria for determiningthe relevance and usability of an e-service.

6.2. Nature of participation

The list of e-service goals contains two democracy goals: “to de-velop e-services that support democracy” (E-G7) and “to employ ademocratic development process” (E-G8). These goals are linked toeach other, since the e-service is the end of the development process.A democratic development process concerns how the governmentcommunicates with the users and encourages them to put their opin-ions forward, as well as how to ensure participation across citizengroups. All three user participation approaches encourage communi-cation with user, but in various ways.

User innovation contributes least to a democratic developmentprocess, through its use of lead users (UI-G2 to UI-G4). Lead usersmay not be representative for the public in general (cf. UI-G7). More-over, there is no guarantee that their solutions put democratic princi-ples, such as people with disabilities use of e-services, (Lundman,2006), before personal needs, since their solutions are primarilybased on their own preferences. User-centered design recommends

working with users as advisors or as representatives, while participa-tory design ranges from advisors to consensus decisions among allusers. Working with consensus decisions among all users fulfills thedemocratic goal best. However, the goal is impossible to achieve inpractice considering what “all” users means when developing e-services. The other extreme, “users as advisors” (PD-G6, UCD-G7)means that users have limited possibilities to affect the design. Thethird alternative, “users as representatives” (PD-G7, UCD-G9),means that users are more involved in the design process, which bet-ter satisfies the goal of democratic development process. In addition,participatory design stresses that users must have the possibility totake an independent position to the problem (PD-G10), aligningwith the democratic principle to encourage people to put their opin-ion forward. Consequently, these approaches have a broader selectionof users compared to user innovation, but compromises how muchthe users are involved in the design process.

All three approaches are anchored in the assumption that individ-ual users in a target group can be identified (cf. PD-G7, UCD-G7, UI-G4). However, as Jansen (2006) and Axelsson and Melin (2008)show, e-services mean primarily addressing external users. Hence, itbecomes more complicated to address appropriate users comparedto in-house development, although methods for user identificationdo exist (e.g. Kujala & Kauppinen, 2004). In addition, a more activeuser role is also more demanding. For example, in the case of user in-novation the lead user has ownership of the design (UI-G6). This is amajor challenge considering that participation of external users isbased on free will. Internal users can be obliged to participate andmay also see benefits with developed functionality more clearly(Albinsson & Forsgren, 2005). Accordingly, systems developers needto be aware of the incentives for participation since it could createa false user representation, a risk discussed, for example, by Stahl(2007).

In summary, systems developers need to be aware of the howtheir choice of user participation approach fit democracy goals associ-ated with e-service development, since the investigated approachesprescribe different nature of participation.

6.3. Lack of adequate skill

Two of the identified e-service goals are “to develop e-servicesthat are efficient for the government” (E-G2) and “to develop e-services that improve responsiveness to citizen needs” (E-G5).Achieving these goals is highly dependent on knowledge abouthow to streamline internal processes and use the public authorities'back-end information systems (Vassilakis, Lepouras, Rouvas, &Georgiadis, 2004). This creates complex development situations,which are often invisible to the external users. When consideringthe goals of our three approaches we see that they demand businessknowledge to different degrees.

Yet again most demanding is user innovation, since the lead useris responsible for identifying the design solution (UI-G3, IU-G6). Itcan be argued that the systems developers build the final informationsystem (UI-G8), but the challenge still remains since it is based on thelead user's solution. In the other two participation approaches thisbecomes less of a problem when the systems developers design thesolutions (PD-G3, UCD-G1), either together with the users or basedon their input. The systems developers ease the burden of the userssince the developers are to have extensive business knowledge(UCD-G6). Hence, least demanding is user-centered design and par-ticipatory design in those cases where users have a more passiverole as advisors.

Much of the same problem arises when examining the sixth goalof e-service development: “to develop trusted e-services” (E-G6).Users typically do not have extensive knowledge on how to buildtrust based on information security solutions. Subsequently, the sys-tems developers' technical competence is often needed. The goals of


participatory design and user-centered design are therefore bettersuited for this goal, since the design is either done by the systemsdeveloper or in cooperation with the systems developers.

Finally, e-service projects have to employ an efficient develop-ment process (E-G3). An efficient development process requires asuitable set of method fragments selected for the situation, which inturn requires project team members to critically review potentialmethod fragments. None, of the investigated approaches addressthis aspect per se, but user innovation is the approach that inducesmost uncertainties, since the lead users are responsible for the devel-opment process. Users are often not skilled in development processesand the resources needed are therefore difficult to estimate. In theother two approaches, systems developers are involved early in thedevelopment process and have the possibility to affect the processand make it more efficient. In summary, systems developers need tobe aware of what type of skills they demand from the users whenthey choose the user participation approach.

7. Conclusions

In this paper, we have reported on the possibility of three userparticipation approaches to support e-service development. Theintention has been to raise the awareness of these approaches'strengths and limitations, identify challenges, and see how the differ-ent approaches can meet the goals of e-service use and development,which are found in e-government policies. This study has been justi-fied by (a) recent e-government research (e.g. Axelsson & Melin,2008; Folkerd & Spinelli, 2009; Jansen, 2006) stressing the impor-tance of user participation, while (b) falling short of discussing theusefulness of specific approaches.

An approach's usefulness has to take its point of departure in whatis to be achieved. In this studywe took off in the goals expressed in theaction plans of the EU (Commission of the European Communities,2006) and the U.S. (Office ofManagement and Budget, 2002). Throughgoal analysis we have shown how participatory design, user-centereddesign, and user innovation fit the e-service development context.

The practical implications of this analysis are three identifiedchallenges for systems developers when choosing user participationapproach for e-service development:

(1) unclear user target segments can impede the fulfillment ofusability and relevance goals;

(2) the nature of participation can impede the fulfillment ofdemocracy goals, and

(3) lack of adequate skills can impede the fulfillment of efficiencygoals.

None of the user participation approaches is a silver bullet. “Early”participatory design fulfills the democratic goals advocating consen-sus decisions, but falls short when it comes to handle the actualparticipation with the immense number of users that it wouldmean. User innovation demarcates the user target segment throughthe use of lead users, and hence makes it easier to define usabilityand relevance. But, the democratic goals suffer since the lead users'preferences may not be representative for the public in general. Fur-thermore, user innovation induces uncertainties when it comesto reaching efficiency goals due to the risk of users lacking adequateskills. The compromise is perhaps a more passive form of user partic-ipation as advisors or representatives found in user-centered designand more recent participatory design literature.

Our results extend the existing e-government body of knowledge,and show challenges that future research needs to focus. This doesnot mean that e-government researchers have not undertaken perti-nent research. In fact the converse may be true. For instance, our anal-ysis confirms the challenges Axelsson et al. (2010) found: (1) that e-services target “all of us,” (2) citizens do need incentives to

participate in the development process, and (3) that more activeforms of participation are more demanding for the organization.However, we add another dimension to these challenges by associat-ing them with the goals found in the action plans for e-government.We show in what way these challenges affect goal fulfillment of e-service development and we add a new challenge to this list: theneed for adequate skills.

Our study complements Axelsson et al. (2010), who discuss userparticipation “without concentrating the discussion of a certainschool.” The presented results provide more guidance for selectingspecific participatory design approaches, or perhaps combiningthem. At the same time these results have a higher level of granularitythan the findings presented by Oostveen and van den Besselaar(2004). They discuss user participation techniques such as interviews,surveys and workshops, techniques that can be part of several differ-ent user participation approaches.

Our findings also contribute to research on understanding e-government policy implementations as success or failure from auser-centric perspective (Altameem, et al., 2006). It shows that userparticipation and citizen empowerment are not unambiguous con-cepts (Cavaye, 1995; Heeks, 1999) when implemented, and eachuser participation approach has its challenges. These challenges areimportant factors to be aware of in the negotiation process of policyimplementation that Hardy and Williams (2008) describe. It isimportant to acknowledge that the type of user participation ap-proach the systems developers chose to use, decides what user partic-ipation and citizens empowerment mean in the case of e-service, ore-government, development. To date, existing policies provide littleguidance in this area, which is echoed by Lind et al. (2009).

In addition to the results on user participation we can concludethat the goals elicited from the action plans contain contradictions.The action plans contain democratic and efficiency goals, whichcreates a tension related both to the development process itself andto the developed e-services. The most efficient development processis perhaps the process that does not involve any user. However, thatwill also be the least democratic development process.

This study has been carried out on three user participationapproaches. Of course, there is no clear-cut distinction betweenthese approaches in practice. This is evident when reading contempo-rary human computer interaction literature on, for example, partici-pator design and user-centered design (Marti & Bannon, 2009). Thisoverlap is apparent in our goal analysis where we acknowledgethat, for example, participatory design exists in different variants—incorporating slightly different goals. However, the stricter categori-zation fills the purpose of structuring the discussion.

In addition, what may have impact on our results is the choice ofe-service goals to fulfill. We have used the action plans of the EUand the U.S. as a baseline for our analysis. But we recognize thatother action plans can be promoted (e.g. Danish government, 2007;Government Offices of Sweden, 2008; Ministry of Modernisation,2009), which may result in other goals. Further research could thusbroaden the scope to investigate goals from other action plans.

References

Albinsson, L., & Forsgren, K. (2005). Co-design metaphors and scenarios — Two ele-ments in a design language for co-design. Paper presented at the LAP, Kiruna.

Altameem, T., Zairi, M., & Alshawi, S. (2006). Critical success factors of e-government:A proposed model for e-government implementation. Paper presented at the Inno-vations in Information Technology, 2006.

Anthopoulos, L. G., Siozos, P., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2007). Applying participatory designand collaboration in digital public services for discovering and re-designing e-government services. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 353–376.

Asgarkhani, M. (2005). The effectiveness of e-service in local government: A casestudy. Electric Journal of e-government, 3(4), 157–166.

Axelsson, K., & Melin, U. (2008). Citizen participation and involvement in egovernmentprojects — An emergent framework. Paper presented at the EGOV 2008.

Axelsson, K., Melin, U., & Lindgren, I. (2009, June 8-10). Developing public e-servicesfor several stakeholders — A multifaceted view of the needs for an e-service.


Paper presented at the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2009),Verona, Italy.

Axelsson, K., Melin, U., & Lindgren, I. (2010). Exploring the importance of citizen partic-ipation and involvement in e-government projects—Practice, incentives and orga-nization. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 4(4), 299–321.

Baroudi, J. J., Olson, M. H., & Ives, B. (1986). An empirical study of the impact of userinvolvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Communications ofthe ACM, 29(3), 232–238.

Benbasat, I. (2010). HCI research: Future challenges and directions. AIS Transactions onHuman–Computer Interaction, 2(2), 16–21.

Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1988). The memoirs of two survivors: Or the evaluation ofa computer system for cooperative work. In I. Greif (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1988ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 167–177). NewYork, NY, USA: ACM.

Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1995). User participation and democracy: A Discussion ofScandinavian research on system development. Scandinavian Journal of InformationSystems, 7(1), 73–98.

Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: Engineering of information systems de-velopment methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38, 275–280.

Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., & Harmsen, F. (1999). Meta-modelling based assemblytechniques for situational method engineering. Information Systems, 24, 209–228.

Bødker, S. (1996). Creating conditions for participation: Conflicts and resources insystems development. Human Computer Interaction, 11(3), 215–236.

Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Kyng, M., & Sundblad, Y. (1987). A Utopian expe-rience. In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, & M. Kyng (Eds.), Computers and democracy: AScandinavian challenge (pp. 251–278). Avebury, UK: Aldershot.

Carmel, E., Whitaker, R. D., & George, J. F. (1993). PD and joint application design: Atransatlantic comparison. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 40–49.

Cavaye, A. L. M. (1995). User participation is systems development revisited. Informa-tion Management, 28(5), 311–323.

Cherry, C., & Macredie, R. D. (1999). The importance of context in information systemdesign: An assessment of participatory design. Requirements Engineering, 4(2),103–114.

Clement, A. (1994). Computing at work: Empowering action by ‘low-level users’. Com-munications of the ACM, 37(1), 52–65.

Colebatch, H. K. (2007). The work of policy, the work of analysis. Paper presented at thePublic Policy Network Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

Commission of the European Communities (2006). i2010 eGovernment action plan:Accelerating eGovernment in Europe for the benefit of all SEC(2006) 511. Brussels:Commission of the European communities.

Danish government (2007). The Danish e-government strategy, 2007–2010: Towardsbetter digital service, increased efficiency and stronger collaboration. Copenhagen.

Dodd, J. L., & Carr, H. H. (1994). Systems development led by end-users: An assessmentof end-user involvement in information systems development. Journal of SystemsManagement, 45(8), 34–40.

Floyd, C., Mehl, W. -M., Reisin, F. -M., Schmidt, G., & Wolf, G. (1989). Out of Scandina-via: Alternative approaches to software design and system development. HumanComputer Interaction, 4, 253–350.

Folkerd, C., & Spinelli, G. (2009). User exclusion and fragmented requirements capturein publicly-funded IS projects. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy,3(1), 32–49.

Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: Criteria, approaches, andmethods. Design Studies, 24, 507–522.

Følstad, A., Jørgensen, H. D., & Krogstie, J. (2004). User involvement in e-governmentdevelopment projects. Paper presented at the third Nordic conference on Human–computer interaction, Tampere, Finland.

Gould, J. D., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and whatdesigners think. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 300–311.

Government Offices of Sweden (2008). Action plan for eGovernment—New grounds forIT-based business development in Public Administration Stockholm.

Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Associationfor Information Systems, 8, 312–335.

Gulliksen, J., & Eriksson, E. (2006, October 15). Understanding and developing userinvolvement at a public authority. Paper presented at the NordiCHI'06 Workshopon User involvement and representation in e-Government projects, Oslo.

Gulliksen, J., Göransson, B., Boivie, I., Blomkvist, S., Persson, J., & Cajander, Å. (2003).Key principles for user-centred systems design. Behaviour and Information Technol-ogy, 22(6), 397–409.

Hardy, C. A., & Williams, S. P. (2008). E-government policy and practice: A theoreticaland empirical exploration of public e-procurement. Government InformationQuarterly, 25(2), 155–180.

Harmsen, F. (1997). Situational method engineering.Heeks, R. (1999). The tyranny of participation in information systems: Learning from

development projects Working Paper Series No. 4. Manchester: Institute for Devel-opment Policy and Management, University of Manchester.

Heinbokel, T., Sonnentag, S., Frese, M., Stolte, W., & Brodbeck, F. C. (1996). Don't under-estimate the problems of user centredness in software development projects ±there are many! Behaviour & Information Technology, 15(4), 226–236.

Hendry, D. G. (2008). Public participation in proprietary software developmentthrough user roles and discourse. Information Systems Journal, 66(7), 545–557.

Henriksen, Z. H. (2004). The diffusion of e-services in Danish municipalities. Paperpresented at the EGOV 2004.

Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts.Management Science,32(7), 791–805.

Hirschheim, R. (1983). Assessing participative systems design: Some conclusions froman exploratory study. Information Management, 6(6), 317–327.

Hirschheim, R. (1985). User experience with and assessment of participative systemdesign. MIS Quarterly, 9(4), 295–304.

Holmlid, S., & Lantz, A. (2006). Developing e-services in a government authority:Different views on design in procurement and system development. Paper pre-sented at the NordiCHI'06 Workshop on User involvement and representation in e-Government projects, Olso.

Iivari, J., & Iivari, N. (2011). Varieties of user-centredness: An analysis of four systemsdevelopment methods. Information Systems Journal, 21(2), 125–153.

Jansen, A. (2006, October15). Strategies for user involvement in eGovernment projects:What can be learned from the Scandinavian IS tradition? Paper presented at theNordiCHI'06 Workshop on User involvement and representation in e-Government pro-jects, Oslo.

Jayratna, N. (1994). Understanding and evaluating methodologies. London: McGraw-Hill.Jones, S., Hackney, R., & Irani, Z. (2007). Towards e-government transformation:

Conceptualising “citizen engagement”. Transforming Government: People, Processand Policy, 1(2), 145–152.

Karlsson, F., & Ågerfalk, P. J. (2009). Exploring agile values in method configuration.European Journal of Information Systems, 18, 300–316.

Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. ComputerSupported Cooperative Work, 7(3–4), 167–185.

Kling, R. (1977). The organizational context of user-centered software designs. MISQuarterly, 41–52.

Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour& Information Technology, 22(1), 1–16.

Kujala, S., & Kauppinen, M. (2004). Identifying and selecting users for user-centereddesign. Paper presented at the Third Nordic conference on Human–computer interac-tion, Tampere, Finland.

Lawrence, M., & Low, G. (1993). Exploring individual user satisfaction within user-leddevelopment. MIS Quarterly, 17(2), 195–208.

Layne, K., & Lee, J. W. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stagemodel. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.

Lind, M., Östberg, O., & Johansson, P. (2009). Acting out the Swedish e-governmentaction plan—mind and mend the gaps. International Journal of Public InformationSystems, 2009(2), 37–60.

Lourenço, R. P., & Costa, J. P. (2007). Incorporating citizens' views in local policydecision making processes. Decision Support Systems, 43(4), 1499–1511.

Lundman, M. (2006). Involving disabled users in the development of e-services. Paperpresented at the Workshop on User involvement and representation in e-Governmentprojects, Olso, Norway.

Macintosh, A. (2006). eParticipation in policy-making: The research and the challenges. InP. Cunningham, & M. Cunningham (Eds.), Exploiting the Knowledge Economy: Issues,Applications and Case Studies (pp. 364–369). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Maiden, N. A. M., & Rugg, G. (1996). ACRE: Selecting methods for requirements acqui-sition. Software Engineering Journal, 11(3), 183–192.

Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics and MIS implementation. Communications of theACM, 26(6), 430–444.

Markus, M. L., & Mao, J. -Y. (2004). Participation in development and implementation—Updating an old, tired concept for today's IS contexts. Journal of the Association forInformation Systems, 5(11–12), 514–544.

Marti, P., & Bannon, L. J. (2009). Exploring user-centred design in practice: Somecaveats. Knowledge, technology & policy, 22(1), 7–15.

McKeen, J. D., & Guimaraes, T. (1997). Successful strategies for user participation in sys-tems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(2), 133–150.

Melin, U., Axelsson, K., & Lundsten, M. (2008). Talking to, not about, entrepreneurs —

Experiences of public e-service development in a business start up case. Paper pre-sented at the eChallanges.

Miller, S. E. (1993). From system design to democracy. Communications of the ACM,36(4), 38.

Ministry of Modernisation (2009). eNorway 2009—the digital Leap. Oslo.Muller, M. J., Hallewell Haslwanter, J., & Dayton, T. (1997). Participatory practices in the

software lifecycle. In M. Helander, T. K. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook ofHuman–Computer Interaction (pp. 255–297). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Muller, M. J., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36,24–28.

Mumford, E. (1981). Participative systems design: Structure and method. Systems,Objectives, Solutions, 1(1), 5–19.

Mumford, E. (1983). Designing participatively. Manchester: Manchester Business School.Mumford, E. (1993). The ETHICS approach. Association for Computing Machinery.

Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 82.Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Liao, S., Wang, H., & Yu, E. (2001). Exploring alternatives

during requirements analysis. IEEE Software, 18(1), 92–96.Norman, D. A. (1982). Steps toward a cognitive engineering: Design rules based on an-

alyses of human error. In J. A. Nichols, & M. L. Schneider (Eds.), Proceedings of the1982 conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 378–382). New York,NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.

Norman, D. A. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In D. A. Norman, & S. W. Draper (Eds.),User-Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human Computer Interaction(pp. 31–65). London: Lawrence Erbaum Associated.

Office of Management and Budget (2002). E-government strategy.Washingto, DC: Exec-utive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget.

Olalere, A., & Lazar, J. (2011). Accessibility of U.S. federal government home pages: Sec-tion 508 compliance and site accessibility statements. Government InformationQuarterly, 28(3), 303–309.

Olphert, W., & Damodaran, L. (2007). Citizen participation and engagement in the de-sign of e-government services: The missing link in effective ICT design and deliv-ery. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(9), 491–507.


Oostveen, A. -M., & van den Besselaar, P. (2004). From small scale to large scale userparticipation: A case study of participatory design in e-government systems.Paper presented at the Participatory Design Conference, Toronto, Canada.

Rittenberg, L. E., & Senn, A. (1993). End-user computing. The Intenal Auditor, 50(1), 35–40.Rowley, J. (2006). An analysis of the e-service literature: Towards a research

agenda. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 16(6),879–897.

Schedler, K., & Summermatter, L. (2007). Customer orientation in electronic govern-ment: Motives and effects. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 291–311.

Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design principles and practices — Pref-ace. In D. Schuler, & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory Design Principles and Practicies.London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Shi, Y. (2007). The accessibility of Chinese local government web sites: An exploratorystudy. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 377–403.

Smith, A., & Dunckley, L. (2002). Prototype evaluation and redesign: Structuring the designspace through contextual techniques. Interacting with Computers, 14(6), 821–843.

Sommerville, I. (2007). Software engineering (5th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Stahl, B. C. (2007). ETHICS, morality and critique: An essay on Enid Mumford's socio-

technical approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(9),479–490.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proce-dures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE.

Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak Skiftenes, L. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characteriz-ing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428.

Tan, C. -W., Pan, S. L., & Lim, E. T. K. (2007). Managing stakeholder interests in e-government implementation: Lessons learned from a Singapore E-governmentproject. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 3(1), 61–84.

Taylor, M. J., Moynihan, E. P., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998). End-user computing andinformation systems methodologies. Information Systems Journal, 8(1), 85–96.

Vassilakis, C., Lepouras, G., Rouvas, S., & Georgiadis, P. (2004). Integrating e-governmentpublic transactional services into public authority workflows. Electronic Government,1(1), 49–60.

Verdegem, P., & Verleye, G. (2009). User-centered e-government in practice: A com-prehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Government InformationQuarterly, 26(3), 487–497.

von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. ManagementScience, 32(7), 791–805.

von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.Wilson, S., Bekker, M., Johnson, H., & Johnson, P. (1996). Costs and benefits of user

involvement in design: Practitioners' views. In M. A. Sasse, J. Cunningham, & R. L.Winder (Eds.), Proceedings of HCI on People and Computers X (pp. 221–240).London: Springer-Verlag.

Wood, J., & Silver, D. (1995). Joint application development. New York: John Wiley &Sons Inc.

Yu, E. (1993). Modeling organizations for information systems requirements engineer-ing. Paper presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineer-ing, San Diego, USA.

Ågerfalk, P. J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2005). Methods as action knowledge: Exploring the con-cept of method rationale in method construction, tailoring and use. Paper presentedat the 10th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Anal-ysis and Design (EMMSAD'05), Porto, Portugal.

Ågerfalk, P. J., & Wistrand, K. (2003, April 23–26). Systems development method ratio-nale: A conceptual framework for analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2003), Angers,France.

Fredrik Karlsson is Associate Professor of Informatics at Örebro University and has
almsy
so currently a research position at University of Skövde. He received his PhD in Infor-ation Systems Development from Linköping University. His research on tailoring ofstems development methods, system development methods as reusable assets,

CAME-tools, and information security has appeared in a variety of IS journals andconferences. He is currently heading the research group MELAB at Örebro Universityand is Deputy Head of Swedish Business School at Örebro University.

Eva Söderström is Associate Professor at the University of Skövde. She earned her PhDin Computer and System Science from Stockholm University/Royal Institute of Tech-nology in 2004, on the subject of B2B standards implementation. Her current researchis focused on trust and standards for inter-organizational collaboration, through forexample e-services. She has led and participated in several national and internationalprojects, and has published over 60 internationally reviewed publications.

Jesper Holgersson is a PhD student and a teacher at the University of Skövde. Hereceived a master's degree from University of Skövde 2002. His research mainlyconcerns user participation in e-service development, particularly e-services used inpublic settings.

Karin Hedström is Assistant Professor of Informatics at Örebro University. She holds aPhD in Information Systems from Linköping University. Her research interests concernthe ethics of information- and communication technologies (ICT), with a focus on howdifferent interests and values influence the design of ICTs. She is interested in the socialand ethical effects of developing and using ICTs. She is especially interested in the de-velopment and use of IT in health care and Electronic Government. She has publishedseveral journal- and conference articles on the issue of values of IT in health care. She isa member of the research group MELAB.

Documents

Exploring user participation approaches in public e-service development