Assessing Policy Making for ICT Innovation: A Decision Support Research Agenda

  • Ciara Fitzgerald
  • Frédéric Adam
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8653)


Our study explores European telecare policy and considers the different types of uncertainties for policy makers when addressing ICT innovation. We specifically examine 14 European countries in our study using document analysis, expert interviews and workshops. The findings reveal nuances in how policy makers are reacting to the uncertainty of telecare technologies as a representative of ICT innovation. Our contribution lies in exploring decision support as per Alter’s contention that to improve the quality of decision making we most focus on broadly defined avenues for decision support rather than exclusively Decicion Support Systems [1]. Following Earl and Hopwood (1980), we analyse the case of European telecare policy and outline implications to strengthen policy making for ICT innovation [2]. Our study is pertinent to policy makers as we argue that they will increasingly be challenged to consider ‘responsible innovation’ in their policy making efforts.


Decision Support ICT Innovation Policy Making Responsible Innovation Telecare Technologies 


Particular domains of study in e-government and e-governance such as emergency and disaster response management policy making law enforcement compliance and criminal justice 


  1. 1.
    Alter, S.: A work system view of DSS in its 4th decade. Decision Support Systems 38(3), 319–327 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Earl, M.J., Hopwood, A.G.: From management information to information management. In: Lucas, Land, Lincoln, Supper (eds.) The Information Systems Environment. IFIP, pp. 133–143. North-Holland (1980)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OECD, Live Longer, Work Longer. OECD. Paris (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Percival, Hanson: Big brother or brave new world? Telecare and its implications for older people’s independence and social inclusion. Critical Social Policy 26(4), 888–909 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yanga, L., Zhiyong Lan, G.: Internet’s impact on expert–citizen interactions in public policymaking—A meta analysis. Government Information Quarterly 27(4), 431–441 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., Macnaghten, P.: Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delvenne, P., Fallon, C., Brunet, S.: Parliamentary technology assessment institutions as indications of reflexive modernization. Technology in Society 33(1–2), 36–43 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    March, J., Simon, H.: Organisations. J. Wiley, New York (1958)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindblom, C.: The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review, 779–788 (1959)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wimmer, M., Scherer, S., Moss, S., Bicking, M.: Method and Tools to Support Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development: The OCOPOMO Project. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 8(3), 98 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alter, S.: Why persist with DSS when the real issue is improving decision making? In: Jelassi (ed.) Decision Support Systems: Experiences and Expectations. North Holland (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thompson, J.D., Tuden, A.: Strategies, structures, and processes of organizational decision. Bobbs-Merrill (1967)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Silver, M.S.: Decisional guidance for computer-based decision support. MIS Quarterly 15(1), 105–122 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yin, R.K.: Case study research: Design and methods, vol. 5. Sage (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Andersson, A., Gronlund, A., Astrom, J.: You can’t make this a science- Analysing decision support systems in political contexts. Government Information Quarterly 29(4), 543–552 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silverman, D.: Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. SAGE Publications Limited (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ishmatova, D., Thi Thanh Hai, N.: Towards a framework for analysing and comparing ICT policies for Aging Society Policies: A First Approximation. In: ICEGOV 2013, Seoul, Republic of Korea, October 22-25 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koivisto, R., Wessberg, N., Eerola, T., Kivisaari, S., Myllyoja, J., Halonen, M.: Integrating future-oriented technology analysis and risk assessment methodologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76, 1163–1176 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carter, L., Bélanger, F.: The utilization of E-Government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal 15(1), 5–25 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maida, M., Maier, K., Obwegeser, N., Stix, V.: Success of multi criteria decision support systems: The relevance of Trust. In: 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Systems, pp. 1530–1605 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rose, Grant: Critical Issues pertaining to the planning& implementation of e-government initiatives. Government Information Quarterly 27(1), 26–33 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bannister, F., Connolly, R.: ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly (2014) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Evans, A.M., Campos, A.: Open Government Initiatives: Challenges of Citizen Participation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32, 172–185 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ciara Fitzgerald
    • 1
  • Frédéric Adam
    • 1
  1. 1.Business Information SystemsUniversity College CorkIreland

Personalised recommendations