Impatti degli strumenti di e-government sui processi di co-produzione e sui rapporti di interazione fra Enti locali e cittadinanza. Il caso della piattaforma tecnologica ePart nel Comune di Udine*

Anteprima

Negli ultimi anni Aziende Pubbliche Locali e cittadini collaborano e interagiscono sempre di più nella gestione dei servizi pubblici. L’obiettivo di questa ricerca è studiare l’impatto degli strumenti di e-government sui processi gestionali delle APL e sui rapporti di interazione Ente-cittadinanza nell’ottica della co-produzione. Attraverso un single case study sono stati analizzati gli effetti dell’implementazione del progetto ePart – piattaforma concepita per una gestione partecipativa dei servizi pubblici relativi agli ambienti urbani – sul Comune di Udine. I risultati della ricerca evidenziano impatti in termini di maggiore coinvolgimento dei cittadini, responsabilizzazione e trasparenza, intensificando al contempo i rapporti di interazione con gli attori coinvolti.

_____________________________________________
In recent years, many legislative reforms have affected local authorities. In this context, the spread of open data technologies and e-government tools seems to allow for greater involvement of citizens in the management of public services. This research aims to study the impact of these new technologies on public service management and on relationships between local authorities and citizens. Through a single case study, the effects of the ePart project (platform for the joint management of urban environments) on the Udine municipality have been analyzed. The research results show an improvement in the management of public services in terms of transparency and accountability, by intensifying the interaction with stakeholders involved.

_

 Key words: E-Government, Co-production

Bibliografia
  1. alenezi h., taRhini a., Masa’deh R. (2015), “Investigating the Strategic Relationship between Information Quality and E-Government Benefits: A Literature Review”, International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 9(1), pp. 33-50.
  2. aMatucci F. (2009), Valorizzare il patrimonio immobiliare nelle amministrazioni pubbliche, Milano: Egea.
  3. anselMi l. (1997), Le aziende degli enti locali tra indirizzo pubblico e mercato, Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli.
  4. anselMi l. (2003), Percorsi aziendali per le pubbliche amministrazioni, Torino: Giappichelli.
  5. anselMi l., nicolò d., VeRMiglio c., Valenza g. (2014), “La valorizzazione del patrimonio immobiliare quale leva strategica dei programmi Smart City”, Azienda pubblica, 27(4), pp. 396-410.
  6. aRpaia c.M., FeRRo p., giuzio W., iValdi g., Monacelli d. (2016), “L’e-Government in Italia: situazione attuale, problemi e prospettive”, Questioni di Economia e Finanza, Banca d’Italia, Occasional Paper n. 309, pp. 1-47.
  7. baRnes s.J., Vidgen R. (2004), “Interactive E-Government: Evaluating the Web Site of the UK Inland Revenue”, Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 2(1), pp. 42-63.
  8. baRzelay M. (1992), Breaking Through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing in Government, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press.
  9. baxteR p., Jack s. (2008), “Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers”, The Qualitative Report, 13(4), pp. 544-559.
  10. beaRField d.a., boWMan a.o’M. (2016), “Can You Find It on the Web? An Assessment of Municipal E-Government Transparency”, The American Review of Public Administration, 47(2), pp. 172-188.
  11. binghaM l.b., nabatchi t., o’ leaRy R. (2005), “The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government”, Public Administration Review, 65(5), pp. 528-539.
  12. bonsón e., toRRes l., Royo s., FloRes F. (2012), “Local e-government 2.0: Social Media and Corporate Transparency in Municipalities”, Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), pp. 123-132.
  13. boRgonoVi e. (2002), Principi e sistemi aziendali per le amministrazioni pubbliche, Milano: Egea.
  14. boVaiRd t. (2007), “Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Co-Production of Public Services”, Public Administration Review, 67(5), pp. 846-860.
  15. boVaiRd t., loFFleR e., doWne J. (2009), “Co-Production of Public Services and Policies: The Role of Emerging Technologies”, in gotze J., pedeRsen c.b. (a cura di), State of the eUnion. Government 2.0 and Onwards, Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, pp. 263-280.
  16. boVaiRd t., stokeR g., Jones t., loeFFleR e., pinilla Roncancio M. (2016), “Activating Collective Co-Production of Public Services: Influencing Citizens to Participate in Complex Governance Mechanisms in the UK”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), pp. 47-68.
  17. bRudney J.l., england R.e. (1983), “Toward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept”, Public Administration Review, 43(1), pp. 59-65.
  18. bRyMan a. (2004), Social research methods, New York: Oxford University Press.
  19. bRyson J., sancino a., benington J., søRensen e. (2017), “Towards a Multi-Actor Theory of Public Value Co-creation”, Public Management Review, 19(5), pp. 640-654.
  20. chen W., WellMan b. (2004), “The Global Digital Divide – Within and Between Countries”, IT & Society, 1(7), pp. 39
  21. coMune di udine (2015), Citizen Satisfaction 2014. Segnalazioni Online (e-part), Comune di Udine.
  22. coRbetta p. (2003), La ricerca sociale: metodologia e tecniche. Vol. III – Le tecniche qualitative, Bologna: Il Mulino.
  23. Cordella a., teMpini n. (2015), “E-government and Organizational Change: Reappraising the Role of ICT and Bureaucracy in Public Service Delivery”, Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), pp. 279-286.
  24. costa M. (1998), “Il caso in economia aziendale: tra logica della scoperta scientifica e logica della conferma scientifica”, in dagnino g.b., di betta p., quattRone p. (a cura di), Le metodologie della ricerca nelle discipline economico-aziendali fra tradizione e nuove tendenze, Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, pp. 421-447.
  25. dunleaVy p., MaRgetts h., bastoW s., tinkleR J. (2006), Digital Era Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. eisenhaRdt k.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, (14)4, pp. 532-550. eleFanti M. (2003), La liberalizzazione dei servizi pubblici locali, Milano: Egea.
  27. eVan W.M., FReeMan R.e., (1988), “A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism”, in beauchaMp t., boWie n. (a cura di), Ethical Theory and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 75-93.
  28. FaRneti g. (1995), Introduzione all’economia dell’azienda pubblica, Torino: Giappichelli.
  29. Fedele p., iannello M. (2012), “Il decision-making interattivo negli Enti locali: un modello per la valutazione”, Azienda Pubblica, 25(2), pp.139-158.
  30. FeRlie e., ashbuRneR l., FitzgeRlad l., pettigReW a. (1996), The New Public Management in Action, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  31. FeRRaRis FRanceschi R. (1995), “Aspetti metodologici della ricerca di economia aziendale orientata alla piccola e media dimensione”, Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria e di Economia Aziendale, 95(9-10), pp. 418-437.
  32. FReeMan R.e. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston: Pitman. FRooMan J. (1999), “Stakeholder Influence Strategies”, Academy of Management Review, 24(2), pp. 191-205.
  33. gaRlatti a. (2005), Scelte gestionali per i servizi pubblici locali: criteri aziendali e quadro normativo, Padova: Cedam.
  34. geRRing J. (2007), Case Study Research. Principles and Practices, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  35. gRandoRi a. (1996), “Disegni di ricerca in organizzazione”, in costa g., nacaMulli R. (a cura di), Manuale di organizzazione aziendale, Vol. 5, Torino: Utet, pp. 3-47.
  36. guba e.g., lincoln y.s. (1994), “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research”, in denzin n.k., lincoln y.s. (a cura di), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 105-117.
  37. gulati J., WilliaMs c., yates d. (2014), “Predictors of On-line Services and E-participation: A Cross-national Comparison”, Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), pp. 526-533.
  38. haVeRi a. (2006), “Complexity in local government change”, Public Management Review, 8(1), pp. 31-46.
  39. heeks R., bailuR s. (2007), “Analyzing E-government Research: Perspectives, Philosophies, Theories, Methods, and Practice”, Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), pp. 243-265.
  40. helbig n., gil-gaRcía J.R., FeRRo e. (2009), “Understanding the Complexity of Electronic Government: Implications from the Digital Divide Literature”, Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), pp. 89-97.
  41. hood c. (1991), “A public management for all seasons?”, Public Administration, 69(1), pp. 3-19.
  42. hoWlett M., kekez a., poochaRoen a. (2017), “Understanding Co-Production as a Policy Tool: Integrating New Public Governance and Comparative Policy Theory”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice.
  43. kohlbacheR F. (2005), “The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), Art. 21.
  44. kVale s. (1996), InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  45. lenk k. (1997), “Business Process Reengineering in the Public Sector”, in tayloR J.M., snellen th.M., zuuRMond a. (a cura di), Beyond BPR in Public Administration: Institutional Transformation in an Information Age, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 151-163.
  46. leVine c., FisheR g. (1984), “Citizenship and Service Delivery: The Promise of Coproduction”, Public Administration Review, 44, pp. 178-189.
  47. Manetti g., toccaFondi s. (2012), “Il coinvolgimento degli stakeholder nelle aziende non profit: alcune evidenze empiriche attraverso analisi di contenuto”, Azienda Pubblica, 25(4), pp. 443-466.
  48. Mann c., steWaRt F. (2000), Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online, London: Sage.
  49. MaRgetts, h. (2006), “E-Government in Britain – A Decade On”, Parliamentary Affairs, 59(2), pp. 250-265. MayRing p. (2000), “Qualitative Content Analysis”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20.
  50. Mazza g. (1971), “La ricerca scientifica e gli studi di ragioneria”, Rivista Italiana dei Dottori Commercialisti, 22(2), pp. 308-338.
  51. Meneguzzo M. (1997), “Ripensare la modernizzazione amministrativa e il New Public Management. L’esperienza italiana: innovazione dal basso e sviluppo della governance locale”, Azienda Pubblica, 10(6), pp. 587-606.
  52. Mitchell R.k., agle b.R., Wood d.J. (1997), “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts”, Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 853-886.
  53. Moon M.J. (2002), “The evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality”, Public Administration Review, 62(4), pp. 424-433.
  54. MoRgan J.s., syMon g. (2004), “Electronic Interviews in Organizational Research”, in cassell c., syMon g. (a cura di), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, London: Sage, pp. 23-33.
  55. MossbeRgeR k., tolbeRt c.J., stansbuRy M. (2003), Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  56. Mulazzani M., pozzoli s. (2005), Le aziende dei servizi pubblici locali, Rimini: Maggioli.
  57. MussaRi R. (1995), “La privatizzazione gestionale nelle amministrazioni pubbliche: fondamento etico, fini economico-aziendali”, in aa.VV., La privatizzazione nel settore pubblico, Bari: Cacucci, pp. 107-123.
  58. nalbandian J., o’ neill R., Wilkes J.M., kauFMan a. (2013), “Contemporary Challenges in Local Government: Evolving Roles and Responsibilities, Structures, and Processes”, Public Administration Review, 73(4), pp. 567-574.
  59. needhaM c. (2008), “Realising the Potential of Co-production: Negotiating Improvements in Public Services”, Social Policy and Society, 7(2), pp. 221-231.
  60. nicolò d. (1998), “Il criticismo metodologico come patrimonio genetico dell’economia aziendale”, in dagnino g.b., di betta p., quattRone p. (a cura di), Le metodologie della ricerca nelle discipline economicoaziendali fra tradizione e nuove tendenze, Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, pp. 485-507.
  61. noRMann R. (1991), Service Management: Strategy and Leadership in Service Business, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
  62. noRRis p. (2001), Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  63. noRRis d.F., Reddick g. (2012), “E-Government in the United States: Transformation or Incremental Change?”, Public Administration Review, 73(1), pp. 165-175.
  64. ongaRo e. (2002), La riforma del management pubblico, Milano: Università Bocconi Editore.
  65. ongaRo e. (2009), Public Management Reform and Modernization: Trajectories of Administrative Change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  66. osboRne s.p. (2010), “Delivering Public Services: Time for a New Theory?”, Public Management Review, 12(1), pp. 1-10.
  67. osboRne s.p. (2017), “Public Management Research over the Decades: What Are We Writing About?”, Public Management Review, 19(2), pp. 109-113.
  68. osboRne s.p., RadnoR z., nasi g. (2013), “A New Theory for Public Service Management? Toward a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach”, American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), pp. 135-158.
  69. osboRne s.p., RadnoR z., stRokosch k. (2016), “Co-Production and the CoCreation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment?”, Public Management Review, 18(5), pp. 639-653.
  70. padoVani e., (2004), Il governo dei servizi pubblici locali in outsourcing. Il controllo dell’efficacia, Milano: Franco Angeli.
  71. paluMbo R. (2015), “Una contestualizzazione del concetto di co-produzione al caso dei servizi pubblici: una rassegna critica della letteratura internazionale”, Azienda Pubblica, 27(3), pp. 137-161.
  72. pestoFF V. (2006), “Citizens and Co-Production of Welfare Services”, Public Management Review, 8(4), pp. 503-519.
  73. pestoFF V., osboRne s.p., bRandsen, t. (2006), “Patterns of Co-Production in Public Services”, Public Management Review, 8(4), pp. 591-595.
  74. pollitt c., bouckaeRt g. (2002), La riforma del management pubblico, Milano: Giuffrè.
  75. pollitt c., bouckaeRt g., loFFleR e. (2007), “Making Quality Sustainable: Co-design, Co-decide, Co-produce, and Co-evaluate”, Helsinki: Ministry of Finance.
  76. a., iocca s. (2011), “Pratiche di stakeholder management nella gestione dei rifiuti: il caso della Comunità Montana Molise Centrale”, Azienda Pubblica, 24(1), pp. 25-44.
  77. Reddick c.g. (2005), “Citizen Interaction with E-Government: From the Streets to Servers?”, Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), pp. 38-57.
  78. Rhodes R.a.W. (1996), “The New Governance: Governing without Government”, Political Studies, 44(4), pp. 652-667.
  79. sancino a. (2014), “Stakeholder management e governance locale: quale ruolo per il management pubblico?”, Azienda Pubblica, 27(3), pp. 261-279.
  80. schedleR k., schaRF M.c. (2001), “Exploring the Interrelations Between Electronic Government and the New Public Management. A Managerial Framework for Electronic Government”, in schMid b., stanoeVskaslabeVa k., tschaMMeR V. (a cura di), Towards the E-Society. E-Commerce, E-Business, and E-Government, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 775-788.
  81. shaRp e.b. (1980), “Toward a New Understanding of Urban Services and Citizen Participation: The Coproduction Concept”, The American Review of Public Administration, 14(2), pp. 105-118.
  82. sicilia M., guaRini e., sancino a., andReani M., RuFFini R. (2015), “Motivazioni, condizioni organizzative e competenze manageriali per la co-produzione dei servizi pubblici: un caso di studio”, Azienda Pubblica, 28(2), pp.163-179.
  83. stake R.e. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. stake R.e. (2006), Multiple Case Study Analysis, New York: The Guilford Press.
  84. sun p.l., ku c.y, shih d.h. (2015), “An Implementation Framework for E-Government 2.0”, Telematics and Informatics, 32(3), pp. 504-520.
  85. sVaRa J., denhaRdt J., (2010), “Connected Communities: Local Governments as a Partner in Citizen Engagement and Community Building”, White Paper, Arizona State University.
  86. thoMpson c.J., locandeR W.b., pollio h.R. (1989), “Putting Consumer Experience Back into Consumer Research: The Philosophy and Method of Existential-Phenomenology”, Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), pp. 133-146.
  87. tolbeRt c.J., MossbeRgeR k. (2006), “The Effects of E-Government on Trust and Confidence in Government”, Public Administration Review, 66(3), pp. 354-369.
  88. tuRRini a. (2002), “Lo studio dei casi come metodologia di ricerca in economia aziendale”, Azienda Pubblica, 15(1/2), pp. 67-85.
  89. VeRMiglio c. (2012), La gestione strategica del patrimonio immobiliare delle aziende pubbliche locali, Roma: RIREA.
  90. VooRbeRg W.h, bekkeRs V.J.J.M., tuMMeRs l.g. (2015), “A Systematic Review of Co-creation and Co-production. Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey”, Public Management Review, 17(9), pp. 1333–1357.
  91. Voss c., tsikRiktsis n., FRohlich M. (2002), “Case Research in Operations Management”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), pp. 195-219.
  92. Wallis J., zhao F. (2017), “E-Government Development and Government Effectiveness: A Reciprocal Relationship”, International Journal of Public Administration online, pp. 1-13.
  93. Welch e.W., hinnant c.c., Moon M.J. (2005), “Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E-Government and Trust in Government”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), pp. 371-391.
  94. West d.M. (2004), “E-Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes”, Public Administration Review, 64(1), pp. 15-27.
  95. WhitakeR g.p. (1980), “Co-Production: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery”, Public Administration Review, 40(3), pp. 240-246.
  96. WieWioRa a, keast R., bRoWn k. (2016), “Opportunities and Challenges in Engaging Citizens in the Co-Production of Infrastructure-Based Public Services in Australia”, Public Management Review, 18(4), pp. 483-507.
  97. WilliaMs b.n., kang s.c., Johnson J. (2016), “(Co)-Contamination as the Dark Side of Co-Production: Public value failures in co-production processes”, Public Management Review, 18(5), pp. 692-717.
  98. Wong W., Welch e. (2004), “Does E-Government Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Website Openness and Government Accountability”, Governance, 17(2), pp. 275-297.
  99. yildiz M. (2007), “E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward”, Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), pp. 646-665.
  100. yin R.k. (2012), Applications of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  101. yin R.k. (2013), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  102. zappa g. (1927), Tendenze nuove negli studi di Ragioneria, Milano: Istituto Editoriale Scientifico.