Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 200–210

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

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

Analyzing the role of stakeholders in the adoption of technology integration solutionsin UK local government: An exploratory study

Muhammad Kamal, Vishanth Weerakkody ⁎, Zahir IraniBusiness School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: Muhammad.kamal@brunel.ac.uk (

Vishanth.weerakkody@brunel.ac.uk (V. Weerakkody), Z(Z. Irani).

0740-624X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.08.003

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 22 January 2011

Keywords:Technology Integration Solutions (TIS)Enterprise Application IntegrationLocal Government AuthoritiesStakeholdersStakeholder theorye-Government

Over the last decade many governments across the world have intensified their efforts to improve efficiency ofpublic services through Information and Communication Technology (ICT)-enabled transformation of LocalGovernment Authorities (LGAs). Many of these efforts involve implementing new Information Systems andTechnology (IS/IT) and integrating various disparate legacy systems to deliver improved services.While there is asurfeit of literature that have outlined the various organizational and technical challenges posed by TechnologyIntegration Solutions (TIS), few studieshave examined the role of stakeholders and surrounding challengeswhenimplementing TIS in LGAs. The TIS adoption process involves several stakeholders, each with specific domainknowledge and expertise that are crucial to the success of TIS projects. In thispaper, the authorsuse the concept ofstakeholder theory to analyze the role of stakeholders during the TIS adoption process with regards to theirperceptions on the factors influencing TIS adoption in LGAs and their involvement on the adoption lifecyclephases. A qualitative multiple case study approach is adopted to empirically highlight the different categories ofstakeholders involved in theTIS adoptionprocess, the dynamic nature and importanceof their role, andwhy theirdomain knowledge and expertise are vital for TIS projects.

M. Kamal),ahir.irani@brunel.ac.uk

l rights reserved.

© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

With the introduction of electronic Government (e-Government)initiatives around theworld, during the last decadepublic agencies havebeen subjected to a series of transformations that have resulted in theirbusiness processes and legacy ICT infrastructures being replaced withinternet friendly technologies. The UK is no exception,where LGAs haveundergone major transformations to keep pace with the rest of thedeveloped world. Not surprisingly, the implementation of newtechnologies requires some legacy systems in the public sector to bereplaced with new systems and others to be integrated. Thisenvironment has created a huge demand for IS/IT integration solutionsin the public sector and renewed interest in TIS among practitioner andacademic communities resembling the early 1990s electronic Business(e-Business) era when the demand for TIS was greatest. TIS haveemerged in several forms such as middleware, wrappers, and interfaceengines, which are also commonly referred to by the IT community asEnterpriseApplication Integration (EAI) (Lam, 2005b; Linthicum, 2000).The main aim of TIS is to integrate various enterprise applications suchas legacy systems, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, otherbest-of-breed business applications and internet based systems.

There are many cited substantial benefits to TIS implementationsuch as increasing operational performance, improving customersatisfaction levels, assisting with business process integration,supporting collaborative decision-making, reducing integration cost,and delivering flexible and maintainable integrated IT infrastructures(Bahli & Ji, 2007; Irani, Themistocleous, & Love, 2003). Regardlessof many TIS vendors promoting their products as ‘plug and play’(Linthicum, 2000), there are no ‘off-the-self’ TIS that offer ‘out-of-the-box’ (automated) integration (Kamal, Themistocleous, & Morabito,2009; Kamal, Weerakkody, & Jones, 2009; Zahavi, 1999). In addition,there are no single TIS efficiently supporting all integration levels(Ring & Ward-Dutton, 1999). Therefore, permutations of TIS technol-ogies are needed to overcome integration problems (Duke, Makey, &Kiras, 1999). Yet, there is much confusion regarding the combinationsof integration technologies that can be used to piece together ISbecause there are different TIS that overlap in functionality but differin quality (e.g. portability, flexibility, and scalability) and efficiency(Themistocleous, 2004). Moreover, the majority of applications thatare pieced together differ in integration requirements, which meansthat the permutations of TIS are based not only on their functionality,but also on their integration of requirements and constraints. Despiterepresenting large and comprehensive solutions, TIS is often consid-ered high-risk and complex to adopt and manage, involving severalstakeholders and resources (Chatterjee, 2008; Janssen & Cresswell,2005; Ruhe & Du, 2004; Themistocleous, Irani, & Love, 2004). Coyle(2000) argues that although TIS provide several benefits, manyorganizations hesitate to adopt these solutions. From a technical

201M. Kamal et al. / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 200–210

perspective, TIS projects have many significant differences (e.g. fromadoption to implementation and management) and present manymore challenges than other IT projects (Janssen & Cresswell, 2005;Lam, 2005b). In public sector organizations, which can be consideredless technology savvy than private sector organizations, the adoptionof TIS can be a significant challenge. These challenges are furthercompounded in an ICT-enabled transformational change environmentlike e-Government, where a great deal of technology integration isneeded.

The technical complexities of implementing TIS in the publicsector is further compounded by the number of stakeholders affectedby and involved in the decision making process. In particular, theorganizational structure in LGAs resembles the structure of traditionalbureaucracy in which many stakeholders have a role to play in newinvestments and/or technology adoption. In particular, researchstudies on stakeholders involved in TIS projects – (a) decisionmakers,such as the heads of IT departments, who take decisions to invest inEAI, (b) project managers and project champions, such as those wholead the EAI projects, (c) development support engineers and servicedelivery managers, such as those who are actively involved in theimplementation of EAI projects, and (d) system integrators, such asthose who apply their technical expertise – have been advocated inrecent local government literature (Kamal and Themistocleous, 2009;Kamal, Weerakkody, et al., 2009; Pardo & Scholl, 2002; Singletary,2002; Themistocleous et al., 2005). However, past research in this areaof study has been on a small scale with each group consideredindividually (Sathish, Pan, & Raman, 2003). Janssen and Cresswell(2005) and Schneider (2002) highlight that in reality such projectsinvolve many different stakeholders – both from inside (directly) andoutside (indirectly) the organization – who possess knowledge andexpertise, which facilitates their roles during the projects andinteractions with one another. Massey, Montoya-Weiss, and Brown(2001) also supports that the knowledge and expertise of stake-holders consists of relevant information that is actionable and basedon experience on different projects. Given their importance as sourcesof knowledge and expertise, any TIS project model in publicadministration should therefore include them so that LGAs canconsolidate and reconcile their intellectual capital or knowledgeassets during the project (Kamal & Themistocleous, 2009; Kamal,Weerakkody, et al., 2009; Themistocleous et al., 2005).

In the context of e-Government, several researchers havehighlighted the importance of involving stakeholders (Carter &Belanger, 2005; Evans & Yen, 2006). Notwithstanding the disagree-ment from eminent advocates of the stakeholder theory, Tennert andSchroeder (1999) argue that the concept has even found its way intothe scholarly discussion of the public administration literature andpublic sector practice. Scholl (2001) and Donaldson and Preston(1995) suspect the value and aptness of such an undertaking; they seethe theory as simply one of the (private-sector) firm administered byprimarily distinctive principles and repercussions than any publicsector organization. Scholl (2001) also reports here that though thestakeholder theory roots in and pertains to the private-sectororganization of the firm, there is tremendous interest in applying atleast parts of the theory's findings to managerial decision-making inpublic-sector organizations. Scholl (2001) further states that whilesome advocates of stakeholder theory are exceptionally dubiousabout this undertaking, inter- and intra-governmental decisionprocesses may nevertheless benefit from the application of stake-holder doctrines. This is particularly relevant in the e-Governmentcontext where the nature of TIS adoption required to ensure fullyintegrated electronic services is far more complex than mosttechnology adoption projects experienced by public sector organiza-tions in the past (Kamal, Themistocleous, et al., 2009; Kamal,Weerakkody, et al., 2009; Weerakkody, Janssen, & Hjort-Madsen,2007). In this respect, the decision making process to ensure that thecorrect TIS are selected becomes more challenging, particularly if the

LGAs have limited experience with ICT. Therefore, involving the rightstakeholders in the decision making process becomes imperative forLGAs if they are to enable fully integrated electronic services for theircitizens.

The above arguments are further substantiated when consideringlarge-scale investments in IT where the risk of failure is remarkably high(Bernroider & Stix, 2006; Kim& Sanders, 2002; Scholl, 2001). Themistocl-eous and Irani (2006) argue that although stakeholder studies may seemobvious, there has been little application of stakeholder analysis concepts,particularly in the context of understanding the significance of stake-holders in TIS adoption process in LGAs. It would therefore be prudent tofurther research the role of stakeholders (that may also include decisionmakers) in LGAs adoption of TIS, particularly given the recent transfor-mational activities that have surrounded LGAs. Scholl (2001) argues thatalthough many public-sector managers performing their responsibilitiesfor different motives (such as public interest) as opposed to their private-sector counterparts (such as survival, thriving, or profit making), theirdecisions have the same capacity of influencing staff members and othergroupswhile pursuing their organization's objective. Just as in the privatesector, managers in the public sector and their governmental organiza-tions can be affected as a consequence of their own decision-makingprocesses. From the abovementioned conceptions, it is obvious thatFreeman's (1984) stakeholder definition also applies to managerialdecision-making in a governmental context.

This study aims to contribute towards bridging the gap in TISadoption literature by investigating the role of stakeholders in the TISadoption process and by proposing a stakeholder perspective. Topursue this aim, we conducted in-depth multiple case studies in fourUK LGAs that are undergoing ICT enabled transformation to explorehow relevant stakeholders utilize their knowledge and expertise tomanage and contribute to the TIS adoption process. The studyproposes stakeholder theory as a conceptual lens to look at“stakeholder knowledge and expertise utilization” during the TISadoption process. Stakeholder theory is particularly appropriate as itfocuses on the people factor instead of the technical factors of TISprojects (Sharif, Elliman, & Badii, 2004). It looks at who (or what) arethe stakeholders of an organization, to whom (or what) organizationsshould pay attention (Freeman, 1984), and advocates for the study ofthe important, though as of yet under-researched, area of the role ofstakeholders in the TIS adoption process. Although there are severalinternal and external stakeholders that may directly or indirectlyinfluence the operational activities of different technological projects,this study is confined to exploring those stakeholders that are directlyinvolved in the TIS adoption process in an LGA context.

To explore the aforementioned research challenges, this paper isstructured as follows. The paper commenceswith a look at the need tofocus on the stakeholders during their TIS adoption process. It thenlooks at who the stakeholders of TIS adoption are and their dynamicrole and nature during these projects. Thereafter, the paper presentsthe research methodology and empirical data from four case studies.Based on the case organizations, the authors illustrate the lessonslearned, point out the implications to theory and practice, and finallysummarize the conclusions and future research directions.

2. The research context: stakeholders and the TIS adoption process

Due to the size, complexity, and implementation time taken by TISprojects, it has been noted that LGAs have generally focused on jointoversight and/or outsourcingof their TIS developments orprocuredpre-packaged solutions to their IS/IT integration problems (Khalifah, Lam, &Lee, 2001; Themistocleous et al., 2004). One of themotivations for usingjoint and/or outsourced approaches is the increasing shortage of in-house TIS specialists in the public sector (Brown, 2001; Themistocleouset al., 2005). Similarly, decisionmakers and topmanagement inmany ITinfrastructure integration projects in LGAs rely on joint approacheswithexternal stakeholder expertise (Themistocleous et al., 2005). Since TIS

Table 1Categories of stakeholders involved in the TIS adoption process.

Stakeholdercategories

Stakeholders Role (domain knowledgeand expertise)

Decisionmakers

Head of IT/ICT, Board of Directors,Chief Executive Officers, ChiefInformation Officers

TIS Investment DecisionMakers and Supporters

Management Top Organizational Managers,Project Managers, ProjectChampions, Web Managers

Leading TIS Projects, BusinessSystems Strategy, TISInvestment Supporters

IT/IS staff Service Delivery Managers,Development Support Engineers,System Integrators

TIS implementation,Organizational IS/IT

202 M. Kamal et al. / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 200–210

adoption (implementation) and management require a different set oftasks, skills, and expertise (Janssen & Cresswell, 2005; Lam, 2005a), thisis a way of getting the necessary knowledge from experienced experts(internal and external stakeholders) to fill this void in the public sector(Chan et al., 2003). Usually, TIS projects are the start of a long-termrelationship between LGAs and their stakeholders; LGAs need tounderstand the impact of stakeholders and the acquisitionof knowledgeand their expertise (Chan et al., 2003).

The efficient and effective integration of IS/IT has been one of thecore objectives for LGAs particularly since the introduction of e-Government to public administration (Beynon-Davies & Williams,2003). This includes the integration of disparate legacy systems acrossdifferent functional units (Weerakkody et al., 2007). TIS adoption is acomplex process (Lam, 2005a), which can influence all of theoperational activities of LGAs and even the inter-organizationalsupply chain. Since TIS can potentially affect numerous stakeholdersboth internal and external to LGAs, each with their own domainknowledge and expertise, logically, TIS adoption should involve thefull range of stakeholders and LGAs should facilitate knowledgesharing between them. The authors argue that the involvement ofstakeholders and the potential for integration emphasize the need tofocus on stakeholders with different domain knowledge and expertiseduring TIS adoption. This is particularly true since most of theknowledge required for the project that people really care about is noton computers but comes from them (Davenport, 1998). As thisknowledge is generally personalized and based on the individualexperience, before one stakeholder's knowledge can become useful toanother stakeholder, it must be communicated from where it wascreated or captured towhere it is needed, and should be used in such amanner as to be interpretable and accessible to others (Massey et al.,2001). LGAs should thus identify the stakeholders who possess therequired knowledge and expertise, prioritize their knowledge andexpertise, and decide which stakeholder is more important atdifferent phases of the TIS adoption process, (Kamal, Weerakkody,et al., 2009; Kamal, Themistocleous, et al., 2008a).

2.1. Stakeholders involved in the TIS adoption process

Early research into stakeholder identification generally centeredon dividing stakeholders into primary and secondary categories (Nutt& Backo, 1992). Primary stakeholders are those crucial for survivalwhere a failure to retain their participation would result in direconsequences (Clarkson, 1995). Reflecting the strategic significance ofprimary stakeholders, terms like ‘critical stakeholders’ and ‘strategicstakeholders’ are often used synonymously (Turnbull, 1997). On theother hand, secondary stakeholders are those who can influence oraffect, or are influenced or affected by the actions of the organization(Chan, Pan, & Tan, 2003; Freeman, 1984; Sathish, Pan and Raman,2003), which in this case is TIS adoption. However, there is an absenceof direct transactions and thus they are not essential for survival.

To further develop the concept of stakeholder identification,Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) focused on the attributes ofstakeholders and proposed a framework where the identification ofsalient stakeholders is based on facets such as (a) themoral legitimacyof a stakeholder's claim, (b) the stakeholder's power to influence theorganization, and (c) the urgency of the stakeholder's claim. Thus, anystakeholder who scores highly on all three facets possesses highersaliency than those with lower scores. In addition, Mitchell et al.(1997) also suggested that stakeholder saliency is a dynamic, time-sensitive social construct.

Conversely, Mantzana, Themistocleous, Irani, andMorabito (2007)proposed a category of public sector (i.e. healthcare) stakeholders andfocused on four categories. Their research highlighted that publicsector stakeholders involved in IS adoption are defined as anyindividual/organization that accepts, provides, supports or controlspublic sector services. Stakeholders previously identified include

customers, employees, suppliers, competitors, shareholders, govern-ment organizations (Adelakun & Jennex, 2002), board members(Scott & Lane, 2000), and top management (Clarkson, 1995;Davenport, 1998). This study focuses on three main categories of TISproject stakeholders, namely decision makers,managers, and IS/IT staffas illustrated in Table 1. These categories of stakeholders are all thosethat are specifically involved in the TIS adoption process as illustratedfrom the case studies conducted in several local authorities by Kamal,Weerakkody, et al. (2009) and Kamal et al. (2008a).

The literature highlights that the main decision makers in most TISprojects have often been the Head of IT/ICT (Kamal, Weerakkody,et al., 2009; Kamal, Themistocleous, et al., 2008), who is responsible inproviding IS/IT support and for taking investment decision regardingtechnology in the organization (Themistocleous et al., 2004; Iraniet al., 2003). The second category of management involved includestop organizational managers, TIS project managers, the projectchampion, and web managers. Their active, strong, and committedsupport is necessary for the success of the project (Themistocleous etal., 2005), which is crucial, given the complex and comprehensiveenterprise-wide nature TIS integration. They utilize their strategicknowledge to set the TIS vision, establish strategic priorities, andfacilitate a suitable culture tomove the organization in the direction ofthat vision (Khalifah et al., 2001). The third category is the internal IS/IT staff, which includes permanent and contract staff (service deliverymanagers, development support engineers, and system integrators)in the organization working on the technical implementation of thesystem.

Baskerville, Pawlowski, and McLean (2000) highlighted that theIS/IT staff require skills oriented towards combining systems, orpackages, and business knowledge. The IS/IT staff are involved ingathering knowledge about TIS from external stakeholders (such asjoint partners) and about business requirements from end-users; theyare also involved in sharing their own knowledge about internalsystems with other stakeholders. The literature also indicates that it isunlikely that a homogeneous team has all the relevant knowledge andexpertise (Newell, Huang, & Tansley, 2002), as much of theknowledge needed for integration projects is split between multiplestakeholders (Thomas-Hunt, Ogden, & Neale, 2003). Hence, the teamshould be well-balanced and involve all three categories (e.g. decisionmakers, management and IT/IS staff) to ensure a good mix ofknowledge, skills, and experience (Sathish et al., 2003). It shouldalso include both internal and external personnel to enable internalstaff to “grow” the necessary skills for future integration projects(Sumner, 2000). For these teams to reach their performance potential,the organization needs to capitalize on its member resources byaccurately discerning, weighing, and incorporating their task-relevantknowledge (Thomas-Hunt et al., 2003).

2.2. The dynamic role of stakeholders

Although the identification and management of relevant stake-holders of TIS projects and their domain knowledge and expertise

203M. Kamal et al. / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 200–210

may appear straightforward, it is quite the contrary as TIS adoption isnot a static process. Instead, it iteratively traverse several phases(Kamal et al., 2008a), each of which is characterized by its ownstakeholders, activities, and outcomes (Markus & Tanis, 1999). Inparticular, stakeholders, their roles and interactions vary according tothe phase in which they are involved (Pouloudi, 1999). A conceptualand validated TIS adoption lifecycle model that highlights this fact ispresented in Fig. 1 (Kamal, Themistocleous, et al., 2009). This modelconsists of four phases: motivation, conception, proposal, andadoption decision. However, it can be argued that there externaldrivers and or driving forces act as external pressures for bringingchange in organization – thus leading to motivation phase, whereas,prior to submission of the solution in the form of a proposal at theproposal phase, it can also be argued that a discussion or researchphase act as an additional step in which involved stakeholders acquirefurther knowledge to strengthen the proposal – this leading to theproposal phase. It should also be noted that the intensity of differentstakeholders' involvement in a particular phase may vary. Forexample, during the motivation phase, although decision makers,management, IS/IT staff are involved, management is probably a moreimportant participant as they identify potential opportunities andmake the strategic decisions to move further.

At the conception phase, it is probable that along with manage-ment, the IS/IT staff also play a significant role in further supplying thebusiness knowledge, developing an in-depth understanding of thesolution, and identifying possible action of plan to pursue the solution.In the proposal phase, the focus is on the role of management and thework carried out in the previous phase; they may come up with aformalized proposal to put forward to the decision makers. However,IS/IT staff may also be consulted to conduct research and evaluation.Finally, the adoption phase highlights the involvement of decisionmakers and management in conducting mutual discussions and someassessment of the proposed solution and thereafter, taking thedecision for investment. Table 2 summarizes the activities conductedby the stakeholders at each phase.

3. Stakeholder analysis: applying stakeholder theory to TISadoption in LGAs

To formulate the theoretical basis for this study, the authors drawfrom stakeholder theory to analyze stakeholders' involvement in theTIS adoption process (i.e. their identification of stakeholders duringTIS projects), their perception on the TIS adoption factors, and theirinvolvement in TIS adoption lifecycle phases.

3.1. Stakeholders' identification during TIS projects

In line with existing stakeholder theory models, the first step ofstakeholder analysis during the TIS adoption process is the identifi-cation of the stakeholders involved in the project (Frooman, 1999)

Fig. 1. Phases of EAI a

and their domain knowledge and expertise. All relevant stakeholdersshould be identified in order for LGAs to have a holistic picture ofdifferent participants who can contribute their knowledge andexpertise required for the TIS project. Based on this argument, theauthors present the following research proposition:

Research Proposition 1. LGA stakeholders who can contribute theirknowledge and expertise during the TIS adoption process can beidentified based on the activities during the project.

The authors assert that all relevant stakeholders (i.e. technician,programmer, designer to line managers, project manager to decisionmakers, top management officials, etc.) should be identified in order forLGAs tohave aholistic pictureof differentparticipantswhocan contributetheir knowledge and expertise required for the TIS project. TIS arecomplex solutions and require categorically pertinent individuals whocan utilize their expertise and skills in order to fulfill the requirements ofthe IT/IS project under consideration. Therefore, it is vital for anyorganization to identify and place relevant experts in relevant projects.

3.2. Stakeholders' perception on TIS adoption factors

Having identified the relevant stakeholders of TIS adoption processand their domain knowledge and expertise, the next issue is to identifythe stakeholder's perception on the TIS adoption factors. Since eachstakeholder has a different role to play in the TIS adoption process withdistinct domain knowledge and expertise to contribute (Pouloudi, 1999),each stakeholder may also have different perception regarding the TISadoption factors (Sathish, Pan, & Raman, 2003). Based on this argument,this study propounds the following second research proposition:

Research Proposition 2. LGA stakeholders who can contribute theirknowledge and expertise during TIS adoption process can have differentperceptions regarding the TIS adoption factors.

While stakeholders may pragmatically work on TIS projects, theseindividuals may have different conceptions regarding factors influ-encing TIS adoption such as benefits and cost related to TIS (Sathish,Pan, & Raman, 2003). For example, the project manager may perceivethat benefits related to TIS are more vital than costs, whereas, thedecision makers may consider costs as more vital as they are involvedin investment decisions (Kamal, Weerakkody, et al., 2009). However,in contrast to this perception, some individuals may have a collectivepositive view regarding costs and benefits. When such situations ariseit becomes important to prioritize these perceptions.

3.3. Stakeholders' involvement in adoption lifecycle phases

The emphasis of stakeholder theorists has thus far been onstakeholder identification and their perception of the TIS adoption

doption process.

Table 2Key activities by stakeholder categories in the TIS adoption lifecycle.

Phase Possible key stakeholder activities Key stakeholder categories

External driver/driving force • Members of the management team under external pressure(either central government or citizens) to enhance their service delivery

• Management• IS/IT staff

Motivation • Conduct feasibility study regarding the solution• Acquire in-depth knowledge regarding the solution• Identify and finalize the project manager• Decide on the TIS project team

• Management• IS/IT staff

Conception • Decide on the initial budget and plan of action• Involving other stakeholders to conduct initial discussions• Requirement gathering

• Management• IS/IT staff

Discussion/research • Involving TIS project key stakeholders to carry out further discussions• Acquire more knowledge regarding the technical solution

• Management• IS/IT staff

Proposal • Conducting initial research and evaluation• Organizing a formal proposal for proposed solution

• Management• IS/IT staff

Adoption decision • Formal discussions between decision makers/management• Highlighting the analysis of the proposed solution• Investment decision

• Decision makers• Management

204 M. Kamal et al. / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 200–210

factors. The authors assert that there is a need to go beyond this andidentify the involvement of stakeholders on different phases of the TISadoption lifecycle. This is crucial because it is through identifying andunderstanding their involvement on different phases that LGAs canbetter utilize their stakeholders' knowledge and expertise during TISprojects (Chan et al., 2003). Based on these perceptions, the authorspresent a third research proposition:

Research Proposition 3. LGA stakeholders who can contribute theirknowledge and expertise during the TIS adoption process can be involvedin different phases of the TIS adoption lifecycle.

From the above presented research propositions, we propose thefollowing research model in Fig. 2 that captures the stakeholderinvolvement in the TIS adoption process in an LGA.

4. Research strategy

An appropriate research methodology that acts as a blue print forthis study was thought out and applied during the research process.This research methodology is based on three phases (Jankowicz,2000) namely: (a) research design, (b) data collection and (c) dataanalysis and synthesis. These phases are highlighted in Fig. 3.

Essentially, the research begins with acquiring background knowl-edge of the area under research, reviewing the normative literature, andidentifying the problem area. As the current research work attempts toexplore the role of stakeholders in the TIS adoption process in LGAs (i.e.selected case organizations), based on the needs of the empirical study,the authors decided that the research design would utilize aninterpretive, qualitative case study approach (Saunders, Lewis, &

Fig. 2. Research model.

Thornhill, 2000; Yin, 2003). An interpretive stance was adopted, asthe aim of this paper is to explore the different categories ofstakeholders involved in the TIS adoption process, the dynamic natureand importance of their role, and why their domain knowledge andexpertise are vital for TIS projects. Our interpretive stance assumes thatthe knowledge of reality is gained only through social constructionssuch as consciousness, shared meanings, language, documents, toolsand other artifacts (Saunders et al., 2000). Therefore, the authors assertthat there is a need for a research approach that may allow LGAs to beviewed in their entirety and permits the authors to get close toparticipants (i.e. the interviewees), penetrate their realities, andinterpret their perceptions. Hence, the authors consider interpretivismas more appropriate for the research reported herein.

This study also adopted a qualitative research approach (Denzin &Lincoln, 1994) using a multiple case study approach. In doing so, theauthors selected four LGAs to study the role of stakeholders in the TISadoption process in their natural setting (Cavaye, 1996; Flick, 2006;Schutz, 1967; Yin, 2003). For confidentiality reasons the authors willuse the pseudonyms of LGA_A, LGA_B, LGA_C and LGA_D to refer tothe organizations analyzed in our case study. The four caseorganizations (LGAs) are very large London boroughs in terms oftheir geographic area and are in predominantly residential areasserving a diverse range of communities that have different needs.Furthermore, all four LGAs have set exemplary standards in adoptingTIS to provide e-services and in this respect secured a number fundingfrom central government. These specific reasons offered the rationaleand motivations for selecting the LGAs for this study.

Within a qualitative frame, interviews were used as the primarydata collection tool for the study. Key participants (stakeholders)involved in the TIS adoption process from LGA_A, LGA_B, LGA_C, andLGA_D were interviewed using structured interviews during theperiod of July to December 2008. These local authorities were initiallycontacted using personal connections. Emails and telephone con-versations were exchanged at the beginning which then led to theidentification of relevant people to interview in the LGAs. The authorsconducted interviews by visiting these LGA's premises during theaforementioned period. The authors interviewed with three staffmembers from LGA_A, LGA_B, LGA_C, and LGA_D, including decisionmakers, management, IS/IT staff. All of the interviewees (stake-holders) were collectively responsible for delivering public services.Since the focus of this research is to explore the role of stakeholders inthe TIS adoption process, the questions were fairly focused.

Notes were taken during the interviews in a logbook and latertranscribed into the computer. The participants were given a consentform to read through regarding ethical considerations and theirrights to withdraw from the study anytime without any prior notice

Fig. 3. Empirical research framework.

205M. Kamal et al. / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 200–210

or explanation. The formal interviews lasted between one and twohours, and were undertaken in various meeting rooms of the selectedLGA buildings. This allowed the authors and participants (stakeholders)to build the necessary rapport and privacy for the required questions.Data triangulationwasusedbycomparingand contrasting the interviewfindings with document reviews as it was necessary to validate andverify the findings of the primary data with secondary information(Saunders et al., 2000). This ensured that no bias emerged from eitherthe participants or the authors (Yin, 2003).

5. Case organizations

Each of the selected case organizations provides a number ofpublic services including among others: social and environmentalservices, benefits, property, housing, education, health, etc. Theanalysis of the empirical research illustrates that internal departmentswithin each case organization had developed their own IT infra-structures. As a result, they consisted of numerous heterogeneousinformation systems that were based on a diversity of platforms,operating systems, data structures, and computer languages. Most ofthese systems were legacy applications that still run on mainframeenvironments. Since there was a lack of common IS/IT infrastructureand a lack of central coordination of IS/IT, the majority of departmentswithin these case organizations adopted their own applications tosupport their business activities. Due to this, these case organizationsfaced a number of challenges in meeting their internal performancetargets whilst also addressing the UK government's modernizingagenda. The way these case organizations were conducting theirbusiness with their partners and other stakeholders was costing toomuch and productivity and performance levels were disappointinglylow. Moreover, there was no control over the systems from a datasecurity standpoint. Given these contexts, all four case organizationswere convinced that they required TIS to integrate their IS/IT in orderto achieve the major business transformation and electronic servicedelivery targets expected by the UK central government. In thisbackdrop the four case organizations adopted different TIS based ontheir requirements and nature of local projects undertaken. These fourcase organizations are described in Table 3.

5.1. Stakeholders' identification during TIS projects

For the purpose of this research only those stakeholders that weredeemed as directly involved in TIS were identified for interviews as itwas not possible to interview all the stakeholders due to time andresource constraints. These interviewees were identified by liaisingwith the head of IT/ICT in the four selected LGAs. For example, fromLGA_A, the stakeholders that were interviewed included: Head of ICT(HICT), Senior Development Engineer (SDE) and Service DeliveryManager (SDM); stakeholders from LGA_B included: Head of IT (HIT),Web Manager (WM) and the Project Manager (PM); stakeholdersfrom LGA_C included: HIT, Project Manager and Senior SystemsDeveloper (SSD), and stakeholders from LGA_D included: HICT,Development Service Manager (DSM) and Principle Systems Devel-oper (PSD). Table 4 compares the theoretical and empirical findingsi.e. on stakeholders' identification (among interviewed stakeholdersfrom the case organizations).

Based on their position in the case organization, the stakeholdershad different roles and responsibilities to perform during the TISprojects. The stakeholders involved in the aforesaid TIS adoptionprojects were selected based on the domain knowledge and expertiserequired for the TIS project implementation. For example, the heads ofdepartment exerted significant influence on the TIS projects in eachcase organization; theywere involved in the decisionmaking to investin TIS. Therefore, questions asked of the head of IT/ICT mainly focusedon questions such as: Who initiated the idea of investing in TIS? Whatwas the need to integrate their organizational IT infrastructure?Managers (i.e. the web manager and project manager) in the caseorganizations were directly involved in leading the TIS projects. Thiscategory of stakeholders was asked questions such as: What are themain motivations for TIS adoption? What factors were negatively andpositively affecting the TIS adoption process? The IS/IT staff members(i.e. the senior systems developer) who were practically involved inthe aforementioned integration projects were asked questionssuch as: What was the process towards integration? What are thelimitations in their IT infrastructure and so forth? Therefore, it wasconsidered important to select a cross-section of roles in the TISprojects to obtain the views of stakeholders at different levels in thecase organizations. The authors argue that this supported in providing

Table 3Description of the case organizations.

Local authority Description of local authority and their integration projects

LGA_A LGA_A is one of the largest London boroughs in terms of its geographic area. LGA_A receives approximately 1000–2000 citizen queries via telephone, whereas,face-to-face contacts are approximately from250 to 500on adaily basis. LGA_A is a big boroughandhas several service areas (departments). Each service areahasits own IT infrastructure. The analysis of all the interviews conducted illustrate that LGA_A consisted of numerous heterogeneous IS thatwere basedon a diversityof platforms, operating systems, data structures and computer languages. Most of these systems were legacy applications that still run today on mainframeenvironments. Since therewas a lack of common IT infrastructure, and a lack of central coordination of IT, themajority of LGA_A departments adopted their ownapplications to support their business activities. These individual applicationswerenot developed in a coordinatedwaybut instead evolved as a result of the latesttechnological innovation. This led to incompatible systems with integration problems. To overcome such integration problems, LGA_A embarked on ademonstration TIS pilot project that was based on a hub and spoke architecture, to provide multi-LGA access and sharing of information.

LGA_B LGA_B is another London borough that implemented top-level electronic Forms (e-Forms) and a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) integrationproject; the aim was to provide electronic end-to-end processes that ensure referential data integrity in the context of e-Government. For this purpose theLGA_B project team ensured that all citizens addresses entered in the system are valid and that mandatory other information is entered in the systems.Moreover, the objectives of the project were to: (a) demonstrate and deliver the benefits of integrating cash receipting (i.e. via an online payment system—

CRM system and e-Forms); (b) re-establish and re-energize development and investment in the CRM system and (c) demonstrate the benefits of businessprocess re-engineering. Prior to starting work on the top level e-Forms and the CRM system integration project, LGA_B project team was working on anElectronic Service Delivery (ESD) project. However, the ESD project was enterprise wide and in essence is the strategic view that the whole LGA isundertaking, whereas, the top level e-Forms and CRM system integration is a tactical project to achieve the purpose as aforesaid. This project also focused onre-engineering five specific business processes. These are: (a) issue and administration of green waste bins, (b) bulky item collection, (c) vehicle crossoverapplications, (d) skip license applications and (e) trade waste sack applications. In doing so, it would help LGA_B in justifying the decision to adopt TISsolution for the ESD project as well.

LGA_C LGA_C is an outer London borough and is predominantly a residential area. It covers an area of 39 km2, and has a population of approximately 227,000. Theborough is ranked as one of the most deprived of the 354 local authorities in the UK. As a metropolitan authority, LGA_C provides the full range of localgovernment services; however, LGA_C faced a number of challenges in meeting its internal performance targets whilst also addressing the modernizinggovernment agenda. The borough developed a number of different systems e.g. for finance, human resources and payroll, and purchasing, which wereprovided by different suppliers, with distinct data repositories and network infrastructures that were no longer able to meet the needs of amodern, dynamicauthority. This illustrates that LGA_C's IT infrastructure has been considered as highly fragmented and outdated, with almost 100 separate IS's in place. Toovercome their integration problems, LGA_C set out to work on Document Imaging System (DIS) and SAP integration project, to enhance their existing SAPhuman resource system and provide additional functionality for use by managers and employees by introducing the human capital management systemmodule within the SAP series of information systems.

LGA_D The project implemented in the environmental department at LGA_D was based on integrating their CRM system and their software vendor's system inorder to provide citizens with better services and faster responses to their waste collection queries. LGA_D was one of the more deprived and socially needyboroughs, yet it was regarded as an innovator and leader of local authorities in the UK, LGA_D was faced with considerable pressures to cope with theextensive social regeneration of the borough, while meeting statutory requirements for integrated service delivery targets, performance indicators,e-Government targets, and legislation changes. In addition, LGA_D faced funding pressures and challenges in terms of improved resource and assetmanagement. LGA_D was also faced with strong pressures to reduce the cost of maintaining a non-integrated IT infrastructure, provide better services,enhance IT infrastructure through integration, and support improved ways of working through collaboration and remote/home working capabilities. Indoing so, their environmental department attempted to implement a CRM based integration project. All the aforesaid projects carried out in the differentlocal authorities included a number of stakeholders that were directly involved in the integration projects who had an impact on the TIS adoption process. Inthe following, we present the empirical findings based on the stakeholder analysis i.e. stakeholder identification, stakeholders' perception on the TISadoption factors and stakeholders' involvement in the adoption lifecycle phases in the case organizations.

206 M. Kamal et al. / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 200–210

better understanding of the TIS adoption process in the caseorganizations from the stakeholders' viewpoint. The identification ofrelevant stakeholders from the case organizations fulfills the require-ments of Research Proposition 1. These stakeholders were also askedabout their perception on different TIS adoption factors.

5.2. Stakeholders' perception on TIS adoption factors

The stakeholders (i.e. the interviewees) were provided with a listof influential factors as proposed by Kamal, Themistocleous, et al.(2009). These factors are cost, benefits, barriers, internal pressures,external pressures, IT infrastructure, IT sophistication, IT support,evaluation frameworks, formalization, centralization, managerial capa-

Table 4Comparing theoretical and empirical findings on stakeholder identification.

Theoretical findings Em

Stakeholdercategories

Stakeholders Role (domain knowledge andexpertise)

Sta

Decisionmakers

Head of IT/ICT, Board of Directors,Chief Executive Officers, ChiefInformation Officers

TIS Investment Decision Makersand Supporters

HeHe

Management Top Organizational Managers,Project Managers, ProjectChampions, Web Managers

Leading TIS Projects, BusinessSystems Strategy, TISInvestment Supporters

SDLGLG

IT/IS staff Service Delivery Managers,Development Support Engineers,System Integrators

TIS implementation,Organizational IS/IT

SDat

bilities, project championship, personnel IT knowledge, technologicalrisks, data privacy and security, higher administrative authority support,return on investments, critical mass, market knowledge, citizensatisfaction, size, top management support, data consistency, projectdelivery timescale, stakeholder's pressure, competition, stakeholder'ssupport and central government grant. These factors have beencategorized as follows: Pressure Factors (PF), Technological Factors(TF), Support Factors (SF), Financial Factors (FF) and OrganizationalFactors (OF). The interviewees were asked questions related toeach factor (e.g. all questions related to these factors were phrasedsuch as — ‘in your perception, how has cost influenced your decisionto invest in TIS’). However, such questions were specifically asked ofthe head of IT/ICT in the case organizations as these were related with

pirical findings

keholders Role (domain knowledge and expertise)

ad of ICT at LGA_A and LGA_D;ad of IT at LGA_B and LGA_C

Decision makers, champions and supportedthe TIS projects

E at LGA_A; PM and WM atA_B; PM at LGA_C; and DSM atA_D

Taking the lead role on TIS projects and alsosupported and worked together where necessaryduring the project lifecycle

M at LGA_A;WMat LGA_B; SSDLGA_C and PSD at LGA_D

Stakeholders that practically worked on all aspectsof the TIS implementation projects

207M. Kamal et al. / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 200–210

investment decision for TIS. These questions were rephrased whenthey were asked frommanagers and IS/IT staff based on their position,domain knowledge and expertise. These questions provided rich dataand detailed explanation regarding the perception of each factor fromeach stakeholder in their respective TIS projects.

The interviewees were also provided with a scale of less importance(◯), medium importance (⦿) and great importance (●) (as initiallyused byMiles & Huberman, 1994) andwhere the interviewees did notrespond, the authors used “✗” symbol to illustrate as no response(Miles & Huberman, 1994). The interviewees were asked to commenton the aforesaid factors. The results as illustrated in Table 5demonstrate that each stakeholder has his/her own perceptionregarding the TIS adoption process. For example, some factors wereviewed similarly by all of the interviewees (e.g. the project championwas reported as important personnel in all case organizations fortaking the lead in their respective projects). Likewise, full support fromtop management was identified as the most important factor for TISadoption.

These stakeholder perceptions are the result of their domainknowledge and expertise with regards to the TIS projects in whichthey were involved. Given the conformity across stakeholders withregard to the aforesaid factors, with most stakeholders reporting highand moderate importance to e.g. project champion, data consistency,project delivery timescale, top management support, cost, centralgovernment grants,managerial capability and benefits, the authors assertthat this fulfills Research Proposition 2. The analysis of the interviewsession also highlight that different stakeholders are involved indifferent adoption lifecycle phases.

5.3. Stakeholders' involvement in adoption lifecycle phases

After conducting interviews with the stakeholders, the authorsspecifically asked each stakeholder for their involvement in theadoption lifecycle phases. The stakeholders' involvement in each

Table 5Stakeholders and their perception on EAI adoption factors.

Local government authority

LGA_A

EAI adoption factors HICT SDE SDM

PF Internal Project champion ● ● ●Data consistency ● ● ◉Project delivery timescale ● ● ●

External Citizen's satisfaction ● ◉ ◉Critical mass ◉ ◉ ●Market knowledge ◉ ● ◉Competition ● ● ◉Stakeholder's pressure ● ● ●

TF Evaluation frameworks ● ● ◉Technological risks ◉ ◉ ●IT infrastructure ● ◉ ●Personnel IT knowledge ● ● ●IT sophistication ◉ ● ◉Data security and privacy ● ● ●

SF Top management support ● ● ●IT support ◉ ○ ◉Higher administrative authority ● ● ●Stakeholder's support ● ● ●

FF ROI ● ◉ ◉Cost ● ● ●Central government grants ● ● ●

OF Centralization ◉ ● ◉Managerial capability ● ● ●Barriers ● ● ●Benefits ● ● ●Formalization ◉ ◉ ●Size ● ◉ ◉

phase of the adoption lifecycle is based on their domain knowledgeand utilization of their expertise; this involvement is highlighted inTable 5. The symbol ‘✓’ reflects stakeholders' involvement in thespecific phases, whereas the symbol ‘–’ indicates an absence ofstakeholder involvement in the adoption process. Taking intoconsideration and interpreting the results in the first phase, in theLGA_A case organization, SDE and SDM are involved in the motivationphase, whereas HICT is not involved. Similar results can be seen in theother three case organizationswhere the head of IT/ICT is not involvedin themotivation phase. This can be attributed to the notion that thesestakeholders (i.e., head of IT/ICT are the decision makers) anticipatethat the preliminary works related to TIS recognition and formalproposal formation ought to be performed by those stakeholders whoeither lead the TIS projects (i.e. the project managers) or those whooperate under the supervision of management level stakeholders (i.e.IS/IT staff).

Similar results can be seen at the conception phase although theinvolvement of the head of IS/IT commences during the proposal andadoption decision phases where the decision makers are acknowl-edged and formally presented with the proposal for investmentdecision. In the adoption decision phase, it is specifically the decisionmakers that have the major influence over other management levelstakeholders, merely because the decision to invest rests upon thehigher authority in these LGAs. Results highlighted in Table 6 illustratethe importance and involvement of stakeholders in different phases ofthe adoption lifecycle. However, these results cannot be generalizedas these cases are conducted in the local government domain and thissector represents significant dissimilarities not only within the samesector organizations, but also in the private sector (Ward & Mitchell,2004). Yet these results can allow others to relate their views with theones reported in Table 6 with regards to the importance of differentstakeholders on TIS adoption lifecycle phases. The analysis of differentstakeholders involved in the different adoption lifecycle phases fulfillsthe requirements of the Research Proposition 3.

stakeholders

LGA_B LGA_C LGA_D

HIT WM PM HIT PM SSD HICT DSM PSD

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ◉ ○ ○ ○ ◉ ◉ ●

◉ ◉ ● ○ ○ ◉ ● ◉ ◉◉ ◉ ◉ ● ● ● ◉ ● ◉◉ ◉ ◉ ◉ ● ● ● ● ●

◉ ◉ ● ● ● ◉ ◉ ● ●

◉ ◉ ● ◉ ◉ ◉ ◉ ◉ ●● ◉ ● ○ ○ ✗ ● ● ●● ● ○ ● ● ● ● ● ●● ◉ ◉ ● ● ● ● ● ●

◉ ● ◉ ◉ ● ● ◉ ◉ ●● ◉ ● ● ● ● ◉ ◉ ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ◉ ◉ ● ● ● ◉ ◉ ●● ● ● ● ◉ ● ● ◉ ◉● ● ● ● ◉ ◉ ◉ ● ●○ ◉ ○ ● ● ◉ ● ● ●● ◉ ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ◉ ◉● ◉ ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ◉ ● ● ◉ ◉ ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ◉ ● ● ● ◉ ◉● ● ● ● ◉ ◉ ● ◉ ◉

Table 6Involvement of stakeholders in the adoption lifecycle phases.

Local government authority stakeholders

LGA_A LGA_B LGA_C LGA_D

Adoption lifecycle phases HICT SDE SDM HIT WM PM HIT PM SSD HICT DSM PSD

External driver/driving force – ✓ ✓ – – ✓ – ✓ – – ✓ –

Motivation – ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ – ✓ –

Conception – ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓

Discussion/research – ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓

Proposal ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Adoption decision ✓ – – ✓ – ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ –

208 M. Kamal et al. / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 200–210

6. Discussion and synthesis of the research findings

The above section discussed the empirical perspective of the roleof stakeholders in the TIS adoption process in LGAs in the UK, as notedfrom the theoretical findings with reference to the first researchproposition, and three categories of stakeholders were identified in theliterature as outlined in Table 1. However, due to limitations in termsof time and resources, the authors only focused on internalstakeholders who were directly involved in TIS adoption. Yet, thestakeholders interviewed in the case study organizations corre-sponded with the actual stakeholders categories identified in thenormative literature (e.g. Kamal & Themistocleous, 2009; Kamal,Weerakkody, et al., 2009; Pardo & Scholl, 2002; Singletary, 2002;Themistocleous et al., 2005).

With regards to the second research proposition, it was noted thatdifferent stakeholders (i.e. the interviewees) have diverse views onthe importance of the TIS adoption factors. If seen individually for thetwenty seven factors (outlined in Fig. 1), all the interviewees providedrelatively different rankings. This can be attributed to their under-standing and involvement in TIS projects within all four caseorganizations. However, as an accumulative result (e.g. in thepressure factors category), project champion (known as an internalpressure factor) has been ranked with the most importance over otherfactors in the same category. We interpret this as suggesting that all ofthe interviewees recognize the inevitable significant nature of projectchampions and realize their necessity in effectively supporting andleading TIS projects. Correspondingly, project champion's importanceis also highly recognized and reported in normative literature; forexample, project champions play an imperative role in actively andvigorously promoting their personal vision for using IT, pushing theproject over or around approval and implementation hurdles (Kamaland Themistocleous, 2009; Kamal, Weerakkody, et al., 2009). Garfield(2000) reported that in inter-organizational IS implementationprojects the presence of an internal champion in each participatingorganization is very important for providing the necessary leadershipas the existence of a system-wide sponsor is not always sufficient.Norris (1999) also reported that within government organizations,the existence of a champion is one of themost important facilitators inthe adoption of technologies. The discussions reported herein,therefore, are in line with existing published literature evidences onthe importance of project champions. Similarly, in technological,support, financial, and organizational factors categories, data securityand privacy, top management support, cost and benefits, barriers andmanagerial capability respectively, have been reported with mostimportance. Relatively similar higher importance for these factors isalso reported in normative literature (e.g. Janssen & Cresswell, 2005;Pardo & Scholl, 2002; Themistocleous, Irani, & Love, 2005).

Pertaining to the third research proposition, the authors assert thatalthough the internal stakeholders have been reported as vital duringany technological project, there is less literature that specificallydiscusses the importance and involvement of stakeholders in theadoption lifecycle phases. The authors argue that the concept of

investigating the “role of stakeholders in the TIS adoption process ondifferent phases of the adoption lifecycle” presented in this paper makesa novel contribution both at the conceptual and empirical level in thecontext of LGAs adopting TIS solutions. TIS is no longer just an optionbut a necessity for most LGAs aiming for better service deliveryparticularly in the light of various e-Government initiatives that areenabling such improvement. Relevant strategies and organizational-wide policies formulated by decision makers and top managementplay the primary role in making TIS projects a success. Theidentification of different stakeholders in TIS adoption processexplained in this paper provides a direction for consideration of theevaluation of LGA strategies towards their TIS adoption practices. Thecase studies presented provides an illustrative reference for suchevaluation. Therefore, the analysis presented in this paper would bebeneficial for evaluating any other local authority TIS adoptionpractices while identifying other different stakeholder categories.

7. Conclusion, limitations, and further recommendations

In investigating the role of stakeholders in the TIS adoptionprocess, the authors study relevant literature and present threeresearch propositions, which indicate that local authorities' TISadoption practices have to comprehend and utilize the knowledgeand expertise of numerous stakeholders involved in the TIS adoptionprocess. To facilitate this, the present study argues for the use ofstakeholder theory. This study offers a brief look at this theory andhow it relates to the utilization of knowledge and expertise,particularly in the three areas of stakeholder analysis — namelystakeholders' identification, stakeholders' perception on TIS adoptionfactors, and stakeholder involvement on the adoption lifecycle phases.No claim for generalization is made for interpretive research of thistype, nor is it the intention of this paper to offer prescriptiveguidelines for investigating the role of stakeholders in TIS adoptionprocess in LGAs. Rather our intention is to describe case organizations'perspectives that allow others to relate their experiences to thosereported. Hence, this paper offers a broader understanding of thephenomenon of investigating the role and involvement of stake-holders' in the TIS adoption process in LGAs.

Although the adoption of TIS has become more widespread inmodern public administration, particularly with the evolution of e-Government, the study of normative literature indicates that there is alimited understanding of the role and impact that diverse stake-holders have on the different stages of TIS adoption. The TIS adoptionprocess involves several stakeholders, each with specific domainknowledge and expertise that are crucial to the success of TIS projects.In this paper, the authors use the concept of stakeholder theory toanalyze the role of stakeholders during the TIS adoption process withregards to their perceptions on the factors influencing TIS adoption inLGAs and their involvement on the adoption lifecycle phases. By doingso, the authors endeavor to fill the void in the literature and offera number of conceptual contributions to the area of stakeholderanalysis and technology integration in public administration. The

209M. Kamal et al. / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 200–210

research propositions that are offered based on the normativeliterature is further corroborated through the empirical findings inthe four case organizations. Therefore, this research has establishedthat stakeholders who can contribute their knowledge and expertiseduring TIS adoption projects in LGAs can not only be identified basedon the activities during the project, but also that those stakeholderscan have different perceptions regarding the TIS adoption factors andcan be involved in different phases of the TIS adoption lifecycle. In thisrespect, the specific theoretical contributions of this research can besummarized as follows:

• TIS is a critically important area within LGAs in the context ofimplementing integrated and ‘one stop’ electronic governmentservices. However, there remains an absence of theoretical models tohelp the identification of internal and external stakeholders involvedin the TIS adoption process in LGAs. This research seeks to address thisestablished void by proposing stakeholder theory for investigating therole of stakeholders in the TIS adoption process in LGAs who wereattempting to implement integrated e-Government services.

• At the conceptual level, this research proposes a systematic processof identifying the stakeholders, exploring their perceptions on theTIS adoption factors and their involvement on the adoption lifecyclephases in a public sector context.

• The conceptual researchmodel proposed in the study contributes tothe area of stakeholder analysis and fills a void in the literature thatexisted for appreciating the role of stakeholders in the TIS adoptionprocess in the context of LGAs that are undergoing ICT enabledchange to realize integrated e-Government services.

The findings of this study also offer valuable practical insights fordecision makers, project managers and IS/IT professionals involved invarious ICT enabled transformations that are taking place in publicadministration. In particular, projects that require a high level of IS/ITintegration, as in the case of e-Governmentwhere the adoption of TIS isimperative, will be better informed in terms of identifying the relevantstakeholders at different phases of technology integration. The specificpractical implications of this study can be summarized as follows:

• Using an interpretive, qualitative, multiple case study approach thisresearch considered two key dimensions i.e. factors and adoptionlifecycle phases relating to TIS adoption in an LGA context.

• At a practical level, the use of stakeholder theory contributestowards a deeper understanding of the stakeholders involved in theTIS adoption process in LGAs. The empirical research validated theresearch propositions and model proposed at a conceptual level.

• Multiple case studies in four LGAs proved that ICT enabled change torealize integrated, ‘one stop’ e-Government services introducesmajor transformations to public sector organizations that make TISan imperative for LGAs. In this context, developing a goodunderstanding of the key stakeholders and their role in the adoptionlifecycle will contribute to better decision making and a smotherimplementation and adoption of TIS in LGAs.

• This research showed that common challenges to TIS adoption werefaced by four LGAs,which strongly suggests that TIS is a critical issue formost LGAs and public agencies in the context of e-Government. Moreso, the empirical evidence insinuates that stakeholders can decide thescope of the TIS adoption process thereby influencing the ultimate shapeof the e-Government services that are implemented at local govern-ment level (i.e. the level of integrated nature of the services).

• The empirical evidence also shows that the decision making processfor TIS adoption in LGAs is strongly influenced by central governmentguidelines regarding the local government modernization agenda. Inparticular, the use of specific TIS such as service oriented architectureandWeb services is encouraged by central government and thereforeLGA decision makers are largely influenced by such guidelines whiletaking the decisions for adopting TIS.

We acknowledge that the researchwork presented in this paper is noexception and this research can be further developed. In the light of theabove reflections and the limitations of this research,we recommend thatfurther work could usefully be pursed. Despite investigating severalstakeholders that are internal, the authors assert that there are othermultiple internal and external stakeholders who indirectly or directlyinfluence the TIS adoption process in LGAs. Therefore, a recommendationfor future study may be the detailed identification and analysis of otherinternal and external stakeholders that influence TIS adoption on theadoption lifecycle phases, as this may further enhance and support thedecisionmakers in identifying diverse stakeholders and their perceptionsof the factors influencing TIS adoption in LGAs. Moreover, this research isbased on four case studies from only one region of England and as suchmore case studies can be conducted in other parts of the UK in future toharmonize the empirical results.

References

Adelakun, O., & Jennex, M. E. (2002). Stakeholder process approach to informationsystems evaluation. Proceedings of the 8th Americas Conference on InformationSystems (pp. 1186−1194).

Bahli, B., & Ji, F. (2007). An assessment of facilitators and inhibitors for the adoption ofenterprise application integration technology — An empirical study. BusinessProcess Management Journal, 13(1), 108−120.

Baskerville, R., Pawlowski, S., & McLean, E. (2000). Enterprise resource planning andorganizational knowledge: Patterns of convergence and divergence. Proceedings ofthe 21st International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 396−406).

Bernroider, E. W. N., & Stix, V. (2006). Profile distance method: A multi-attributedecision making approach for information systems investments. Decision SupportSystems, 42(2), 988−998.

Beynon-Davies, P., & Williams, M. D. (2003). Evaluating electronic local government inthe UK. Journal of Information Technology, 18, 137−149.

Brown, T. (2001). Modernisation or failure? IT development projects in the UK publicsector. Financial Accountability and Management, 17(4), 363−381.

Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-Government services: Citizen trust,innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5−25.

Cavaye, A. L. M. (1996). Case study research: A multifaceted research approach for IS.Information Systems Journal, 6(3), 227−242.

Chan, C. M. L., Pan, S. L., & Tan, C.W. (2003). Managing stakeholder relationships in an e-Government project. Proceedings of the 9th Americas Conference on InformationSystems (pp. 783−791).

Chatterjee, S. (2008). Managing EAI projects in an agile way, your road towards asuccessful EAI implementation. Retrieved on January 15, 2009 from. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.125.4658&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluatingcorporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92−117.

Coyle, F. (2000). Legacy integration — Changing perspectives. IEEE Software, 37−41.Davenport, T. H. (1998). Putting the enterprise into the enterprise systems. Harvard

Business Review, 121−131.Denzin, N. Y. K., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts,

evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 63−91.Duke, S., Makey, P., & Kiras, N. (1999). Application integration management guide:

Strategies and technologies. Hull, UK: Butler Group Limited.Evans, D., & Yen, D. C. (2006). e-Government: Evolving relationship of citizens and

government, domestic, and international development. Government InformationQuarterly, 23(2), 207−235.

Flick, U. (2006).An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review,

24(2), 191−205.Garfield,M. (2000). Critical success factors for the state telemedicine policy. Proceedings of

the 6th Americas Conference on Information Systems. Long Beach, CA (pp. 1573−1578).Irani, Z., Themistocleous, M., & Love, P. E. D. (2003). The impact of enterprise application

integration on information system lifecycles. Information & Management, 41(2),177−187.

Jankowicz, A. D. (2000). Business research project. London: Business Press.Janssen, M., & Cresswell, A. (2005). An enterprise application integration methodology

for e-Government. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 531−547.Kamal, M. M., & Themistocleous, M. (2009). Investigating EAI adoption in the local

government authorities: A case of mapping the influential factors on the adoptionlifecycle phases. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy — ICT in PublicSector, 3(2), 190−212.

Kamal, M. M., Themistocleous, M., & Elliman, T. (2008a). Extending IT infrastructures inthe local government authorities through enterprise application integration.Proceedings of the 14th Americas Conference on Information Systems — AMCIS'08,Toronto, Canada.

Kamal, M. M., Themistocleous, M., & Elliman, T. (2008b). Mapping factors influencingEAI adoption in the local government authorities on different phases of theadoption lifecycle. European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems,Dubai, UAE.

210 M. Kamal et al. / Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 200–210

Kamal, M. M., Themistocleous, M., & Morabito, V. (2009a). Justifying the decisions forEAI adoption in LGAs: A validated proposition of factors, adoption lifecycle phases,mapping and prioritisation of factors. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii InternationalConference on System Sciences, Hilton, Waikoloa Village Resort, Waikoloa, Big Island,Hawaii.

Kamal, M. M., Weerakkody, V., & Jones, S. (2009b). The case of enterprise applicationintegration in facilitating e-Government services in aWelsh authority. InternationalJournal of Information Management, 29(2), 161−165.

Khalifah, M., Lam, R., & Lee, M. (2001). An integrative framework for knowledgemanagement effectiveness. Published in Proceedings of the 22nd InternationalConference on Information Systems (pp. 135−144).

Kim, Y. J., & Sanders, G. L. (2002). Strategic actions in information technologyinvestment based on real option theory. Decision Support Systems, 33, 1−11.

Lam, W. (2005a). Barriers to e-Government integration. Journal of EnterpriseInformation Management, 18(5), 511−530.

Lam, W. (2005b). Investigating success factors in enterprise application integration: Acase driven analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), 175−187.

Linthicum, D. (2000). Enterprise application integration. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Mantzana, V. G., Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z., & Morabito, V. (2007). Identifying

healthcare actors involved in the adoption of information systems. EuropeanJournal of Information Systems, 16(1), 91−102.

Markus, M. L., & Tanis, C. (1999). The enterprise systems experience— From adoption tosuccess. In R. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domain of IT management: Glimpsing thefuture through the past (pp. 173−207). Oklahoma City, OK: Pinnaflex EducationalResources, Inc.

Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Brown, S. A. (2001). Reaping the benefits ofinnovative IT: The long and winding road. IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement, 48(3), 348−357.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholderidentification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853−886.

Newell, S., Huang, J., & Tansley, C. (2002). Social capital in ERP projects: The differentialsource and effects of bridging and bonding. Published in Proceedings of the 23rdInternational Conference on Information Systems (pp. 257−265).

Norris, D. F. (1999). Leading edge information technologies and their adoption: Lessonsfrom US cities. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Nutt, P. C., & Backo, R. W. (1992). The strategic management of public and third sectororganizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pardo, T. A., & Scholl, H. J. (2002). Walking atop the cliffs: Avoiding failure and reducingrisk in large scale e-Government projects. Published in Proceedings of the 35thHawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1−10).

Pouloudi, A. (1999). Aspects of the stakeholder concept and their implications forinformation systems development. Published in Proceedings of the 32nd HawaiiInternational Conference on System Science. (pp. 1−17).

Ring, K., & Ward-Dutton, N. (1999). Enterprise application integration: Making the rightconnections. London: Ovum Ltd.

Ruhe,G., &Du,G. (2004). Strategicplanningof enterprise application integration.Publishedin Proceedings of the Enterprise Application Integration Summit (pp. 193−203).

Sathish, S., Pan, S. L., & Raman, K. S. (2003). A stakeholder perspective of enterprisesystems. Published in Proceedings of the 7th Pacific Asia Conference on InformationSystems (pp. 669−682).

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2000). Research methods for business students.London: Pearson Education Ltd.

Schneider, M. (2002). A stakeholder model of organizational leadership. OrganizationScience, 13(2), 209−220.

Scholl, H. J. J. (2001). Applying stakeholder theory to e-government: Benefits and limits.Presented at 1st IFIP Conference on e-Commerce, e-Business, and e-Government,Zurich, Switzerland.

Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: NorthwesternUniversity Press.

Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity.Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43−62.

Sharif, A. M., Elliman, T., & Badii, A. (2004). Integrating the IS with the Enterprise: Key EAIresearch challenges. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 17(2), 164−170.

Singletary, A. L. (2002). Empirical study of stakeholders' perceived benefits ofintegration attributes for Enterprise IT applications. Published in Proceedings ofthe 8th American Conference on Information Systems (pp. 2573−2579).

Sumner, M. (2000). Risk factors in enterprise-wide ERP projects. Journal of InformationTechnology, 15(4), 317−327.

Tennert, J. R., & Schroeder, A. D. (1999). Stakeholder analysis. Paper presented at the 60thAnnual Meeting of the American Society for Public Administration, Orlando, FL.

Themistocleous, M. (2004). Justifying the decisions for EAI implementations: A validatedproposition of influential factors. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 17(2),85−104.

Themistocleous, M., & Irani, Z. (2006). Towards a methodology for the development ofintegrated IT infrastructures. Published in Proceedings of the 39th HawaiiInternational Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1−9).

Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z., & Love, P. E. D. (2004). Evaluating the integration of supplychain information systems: A case study. European Journal of Operational Research,159(2), 393−405.

Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z., & Love, P. E. D. (2005). Developing e-Governmentintegrated infrastructures: A case study. Proceedings of the 38th Annual HawaiiInternational Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1−10). Big Island, Hawaii: IEEE.

Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Ogden, T. Y., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Who's really sharing? Effects ofsocial and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. ManagementScience, 49(4), 464−477.

Turnbull, S. (1997). Stakeholder co-operation. Journal of Co-operative Studies, 29(3),18−52.

Ward, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (2004). A comparison of the strategic priorities of public andprivate sector information resource management executives. Government Infor-mation Quarterly, 21(2), 284−304.

Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M., & Hjort-Madsen, K. (2007). Realising integrated e-Government services: A European perspective. Journal of Cases in ElectronicCommerce, 3(2), 14−38.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: SagePublications.

Zahavi, R. (1999). Enterprise application integration with COBRA. New York: John Wileyand Sons Inc.

Dr Muhammad Kamal is a Research Fellow at Brunel University Business School, UK.He received his PhD from Brunel University in the area of Enterprise ApplicationIntegration (EAI) Adoption in the Local Government Authorities (LGAs). In addition, heholds two MSc's — Distributed Computing Systems (Greenwich University, London)and Computer Sciences (Punjab Institute of Computer Science, Lahore, Pakistan). Hiscurrent research interest includes investigating and evaluating factors influencing thedecision making process for technology adoption in the local government domain,electronic service delivery and transformation in the public sector and integration ofHealth and Social Care services. He specializes in the use of data analysis methods suchas Discrete Choice Analysis and Analytical Hierarchy Process. In his currentappointment, Dr. Kamal works on a number of European Commission funded researchprojects on citizen oriented e-Government and citizen participation in e-Governmentpolicy modeling. Currently, he is an active editorial review board member forInternational Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR) and he has publishedin several leading journals and international conferences.

Dr Vishanth Weerakkody is a full time faculty member in the Business School atBrunel University, UK. He holds an MSc in ‘Business Systems Analysis and Design’ fromCity University in London and a PhD in ‘Business Process and Information SystemsReengineering’ from the University of Hertfordshire. His current research interestsinclude public sector process transformation and change, innovation and knowledgemanagement in the public sector, technology adoption and diffusion in the publicsector and electronic government. He has published over 100 peer reviewed articlesand guest-edited special issues of leading journals on these themes, including a specialissues of Government Information Quarterly in 2008. He is the current Editor-in-Chiefof the International Journal of Electronic Government Research. He has edited bookson ICT enabled transformational government and digital services adoption in thepublic sector and he is currently involved in two major European Commission fundede-Government research projects. Dr Weerakkody is a Chartered IT professional and hehas held various IT positions in multinational organizations, including IBM UK, prior tohis career in academia.

Professor Zahir Irani is the Head of Business School and a member of Senate at BrunelUniversity (UK). He has co-authored a teaching text-book on information systemsevaluation, and written over 200 internationally refereed papers and received ANBARcitations of research excellence. He is on the editorial board of several journals, as wellas co-and-mini-track chair to international conferences such as AMCIS, HICSS andEMCIS. He has received numerous grants and awards from funding bodies that includeEC FP7, EPSRC, ESRC, Royal Academy of Engineering, Australian Research Council(ARC), QinetiQ, Department of Health and EU. He is the Editor-in-Chief of both theJournal of Enterprise Information Management and Transforming Government:People, Process and Policy. He has edited books on public sector service evaluationand managing projects in the public sector.