E-governance is the buzzword today although it made its entry into the government lexicon in the mid nineties. All governments, big or small, are embarking on very ambitious program of leveraging IT for improving governance. However, it is very difficult to estimate the amount being spent on these e-governance projects, ascertain the success of these projects-and determine its RoI. The success of these projects is often measured in abstract and vague terms.

According to an estimate, on an average, only 15% of e-governance projects are successful all over the world. And one can only imagine the figure of success in a country like India. Indeed, there are very few success stories in India. It is an open secret that even some of the successful e-governance initiatives like Gyandoot have faded into oblivion. For every successful e-governance initiative like Bhoomi there are countless failure stories.

The reason
Why did projects like Gyandoot, which created so much of expectations and hype, fail to deliver? Is it poor conceptualization or poor implementation? Or is it the problem of technology or failure of people and process? However, it is not easy to ascertain the reasons for failures of these e-governance projects and give a generic explanation; mostly, it is the combination of some or all the factors mentioned here.

Many e-governance projects fail on account of improper conceptualization ab initio and subsequently, tardy implementation. Further, even if a project is sound on paper, it meets its waterloo on account of lack of stakeholder's involvement. The vested interest amongst the stakeholders also adds to it. Further, often IT departments or user departments, to show an immediate result, do not follow the proper life cycle of a project and they jump to a live project without even successful completion of a pilot project. Conversely, some projects do not go beyond the pilot stage on account of intrinsic problems associated with conceptualization of the project. And if a pilot project is scaled up to a live one-without achieving its critical mass-it is bound to reach its grave sooner or later.

Another problem with the e-governance initiatives is that most of them are driven by individuals and these projects lose steam after the e-champion leaves the individual department. Further, at times the objectives and goals set for these projects are so ambitious and diffused that it becomes impossible to achieve them and satisfy all the stakeholders.

Gyandoot failed because the e-champion left the district. Apart from other problems like subsequent improper implementation, the successor had no positive interest in sustaining the project. In fact, the project was so much identified with the individual that the successor had no interest in ensuring its success. The success of Bhoomi, a very simple project in terms of software innovation, is only because Rajiv Chawla continues to steward it even now. And it's only the leadership, the drive, the government process reengineering (GPR) in terms of change in processes, and the change management that have insured its success.

Hence, it is important that each of these projects is process-led and not champion-led. Besides, over exposure can also play havoc on such projects. Gyandoot, in particular, was projected at a very nascent stage-when e-governance had just started evolving in the country-and though it got a lot of media bytes, the processes were not there. Besides, Gyandoot had not reached a critical mass, which is a crucial thing to achieve to make sure that the process is not reversed or rolled back. Hence, any e-governance project should have proper documentation of processes, benchmarks, deliverables etc.

Primarily, e-governance initiatives involve three components: people, process, and technology. But most of the e-governance initiatives are focused on technology-ignoring people and process at its own peril. Notwithstanding the importance of technology, the most critical element for success of any e-governance project is people followed by process, and finally technology. Technology is only a means to a larger end of good governance, and when it becomes an end in itself, the project is bound to fail.

Unlike other industries, the IT industry is completely vendor driven. And the IT industry is notorious in some cases where the vendor-by selling products and services that are not required-learns at the expenses of the government. This problem gets more compounded on account of ignorance about IT in the government sector. At times, the infrastructural and financial constraints also result in failures.

While the failure factors have been dissected in detail, it is important to understand and follow the simple precautions that can help in avoiding the pitfalls of the failures. The first and foremost effective strategy should be to avoid too ambitious and large mega projects. In fact, big projects should be divided into modules, with clearly identified goals and quantifiable benefits. It is often said that we need dolphins "not whales" in e-governance project. The projects should be benchmarked so that their progress could be measured. The e-governance initiative should be implemented in projectized mode and should follow all the principles of project management. The project should start with a pilot and subsequently, on successful completion, should be up scaled into a live project.

The project should be technically simple and it is important that we should avoid unknown and unproven technologies. The project leader should not allow the IT vendor to make the government a guinea pig for testing its products and services. Here, the change management is critical for the success of a project, and any e-governance initiatives strategy should factor it in the beginning itself. While importance of government process reengineering cannot be denied, it should be an optimum process. Too much or too less of it is equally disastrous. The government should not be obsessed with technology and should not get bogged down with the technical specifications. It should be focused on sourcing services rather than technology.

Freezing of project specifications is amongst the critical success factors; frequent changes lead to a host of problems. Further, citizen centricity should be constantly ensured although it is generally understood that e-governance revolves around citizens, but in the implementation process, at times, citizens are relegated to the background. While involving the stakeholders, the pain areas of the employees should be taken up first for automation, as these benefits help in co-opting them in the e-governance process. Further, there should be a powerful management information system to track its implementation and its success. An effective e-governance strategy should minimize the risk of disruption, demonstrate proof of concepts, answer frequently asked questions, and finally get something up and running upon which an application can be build. And, third party independent audit against measurable benchmarks is a must.

Government should invest heavily in capacity building, and prepare and generate capable project champions and CIOs with carefully drafted strategies for the future. These e-champions should be given a stable tenure to enable them to take projects to their logical ends. While e-champions can provide technical support and administrative leadership, a strong political support is essential for success of these projects. In other words, the ownership for these projects cannot come from the bottom. It should come from the top.

We have spent a considerable amount of money both at central and state level, but the returns are not commensurate with the investment. E-governance, as a concept, is almost seven to eight years old, and these failed initiatives taught us a lot of lessons-these should be leveraged to ensure that such failures are not repeated in future. While the fact of failure is important, the cause of failure is more important.

One of the biggest banes of e-governance initiative has been the lack of documentation of these projects. There are hardly any studies or reports that throw light on these projects. Accordingly, there is little horizontal and vertical sharing between governments. And capacity building continues to be one of the weakest links in the chain of e-governance implementations. The golden mantra for the success of any e-governance project: Think big, start small-and scale fast.

The opinion expressed is that of the author and does not reflect the policies or views of the Chhatisgarh government

Page(s)   1