Content uploaded by Hossana Twinomurinzi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hossana Twinomurinzi on Sep 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Elaine Marie-Therese Byrne
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elaine Marie-Therese Byrne on Feb 19, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Facilitating Administrative Decision-Making using
Decision Support Systems
Elaine Byrne
Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health Medicine
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
Dublin, Ireland
elainebyrne2@rcsi.ie
Hossana Twinomurinzi
Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria
Pretoria, South Africa
twinoh@up.ac.za
Abstract—Governments in developing countries (DC) are
constantly under pressure to achieve participatory governance
using Information and Communication Technology (ICT).
Although many articles have appeared that clearly underscore
the potential of ICT to achieve participatory governance, e-
governance, most are focused on how e-governance will lead to
democratic reforms. It is hard to find articles that consider how
e-governance makes administrative decision-making more
efficient. Administrative decision-making refers to the continual
process through which government administrators make fair,
impartial and just decisions. This paper based on interpretive
field research experiences from South Africa proposes an ICT
facilitated decision-making approach between government
administrators and DC communities for participatory e-
governance. The findings make a contribution to government
practice and to the Information Systems field of e-governance.
For government practice, the theoretically informed approach
indicates encouraging results for participatory feedback on
existing government services and for strengthening
communication channels and capabilities during the process of
reaching mutually agreeable decisions with DC communities. For
e-governance, the paper proposes an approach that considers the
greater antecedents of the occasional democratic participation,
the essential day-to-day necessity of administrative decision-
making using ICT.
Keywords- Policy implementation; administrative justice;
administrative decision making; decision support systems;
participatory e-governance
I. INTRODUCTION
DCs have to constantly deal with a number of ‘wicked’
problems such as unemployment, poverty, crime and the
emigration of the scanty skilled labour to developed countries.
A wicked problem is a type of problem that defies conventional
problem solving techniques and has the effect of getting worse
with every attempt to solve it[1]. Wicked problems are often
managed rather than solved. Managing wicked problems needs
more than conventional structured problem solving techniques.
Previous research posits that DCs would be able to deal
with their wicked problems by adopting similar approaches to
participative governance as developed countries, further
suggesting the use of ICT [2]. The emphasis has however only
been on achieving e-governance as a means for democratic
reforms and transparency in decisions. The important ability
for DC communities to continually participate with
government administrators in an effort to influence
administrative decision-making processes prior to decisions
being reached has hardly been investigated.
This paper, based on research experiences in South Africa,
sought to understand the role of ICT in facilitating participatory
administrative decision-making. Administrative decision-
making broadly falls under administrative law. Administrative
law makes provision for people to receive an opportunity to
question and review government decisions, and the processes
leading up to the decisions, for services that they are entitled to
or that they perceive they are entitled to [3].
In South Africa, administrative law is promulgated under
the Promotion of the Administrative Justice Act of 2000
(PAJA). The PAJA was enacted with the primary purpose of
promoting fair and impartial administrative decision-making.
PAJA states that everybody has the right to fair, lawful and
reasonable administrative action, and that reasons should be
given to people in cases where administrative decisions affect
them negatively. PAJA brings into effect the right enshrined in
the Constitutional Bill of Rights to ‘just’ administrative action.
The government has however struggled to implement the
PAJA, and many other policies, since inception primarily citing
human capacity problems [4-9].
One of the fundamental aspects of addressing fair and
transparent administrative decision-making is the existence of
an open forum for dialogue between people and government
administrators. Such a forum requires the collation of multiple
perspectives which perspectives can be further discussed
participatively until mutual consensus is arrived at. In South
Africa however, largely as a result of the apartheid period,
significant divisions were created within society. The divisions
continue to have a considerable impact on the functioning of
public service institutions, create tensions between different
races and ethnic groups, and lead to a low trust within society
of public institutions [10]. Thus, although the first democratic
election of 1994 and the 1996 constitution initiated a process of
decentralization and increased accountability, they brought
with them profound demands on the government as well as the
citizens for radical transformation [11].
This paper examines the creation of such an ICT facilitated
administrative decision-making forum for the exchange of
respectful dialogue between government administrators and
DC communities with the purposes of:
• increased understanding of rights and responsibilities
and hence generation of realistic expectations;
• making administrative decision-making more
reasonable, fair and impartial as required in the PAJA,
and;
• minimising the load of increased participation.
This article argues that a more theoretically informed
implementation strategy complemented by the capabilities of
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) could have
a profound effect not only regarding peoples’ awareness of
their rights and the taking of action accordingly, but also in
terms of the capacity of the administrators to act in a manner
adhering to the PAJA.
A brief discussion of PAJA follows and in Section 3
describes the conventional approach to DSS and a more
holistic approach which is needed if DSS are to be used to
assist in eliciting multiple perspectives which can inform
action. Section 4 describes the research project where such an
approach to DSS was adopted. Section 5 concludes with how
the implementation of the PAJA can benefit from taking a
broad holistic view to decision-making through using DSS.
II. THE PROMOTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE ACT
Despite heavy investments, public service delivery as a
collaborative approach still remains a significant challenge in
South Africa [8, 9, 12, 13]. In most instances, both the
government administrators and people do not know how to
operationalise public service delivery especially because they
lack the necessary skills [14] and because many people remain
suspicious of the government [15]. Public service delivery
hence remains the traditional one way communication channel
from the government. The participative paradigm sought after
by the government remains a vague philosophical ideal. The
specific case of the PAJA illustrates this.
The promulgation of the PAJA means that any person has
the opportunity for their arguments to be aired to administrators
before any decision affecting them is made. The PAJA only
relates to decisions which negatively affect people’s rights.
This can be in terms of decisions taken that affect individuals
directly, but also decisions affecting sections of the public, for
example building a road through communal land. If the
decision reached has a negative impact reasons in writing need
to be given by the administrator within 90 days if requested by
those affected. The objective is for it to be clear why the
decision was made whether or not the affected people agree
with the decision. For the administrator it implies five
important things: that the administrator must follow fair
procedures when making decisions; explain the decisions
taken; explain any internal appeal process that may exist within
the department; propose that the applicant can ask a court to
review the decision, and; lastly, that written reasons for the
decision are available if requested.
The PAJA is fundamentally about two main participatory
decision-making processes within a social environment. The
first is in terms of the affected people having the capacity to air
their own views and give reasons as to why they should be
given the requested service. The second relates to the capacity
of the administrator to give reasons for the decisions made.
In terms of the capacity of people, affected people can
challenge decisions if the correct procedure was not conducted
and as such can hold administrators accountable for decisions
which negatively affect them. However, such requests for
decisions must be in writing and within 90 days of a negative
decision. Special provision for appeals is admissible for certain
government sections for example the Department of Home
Affairs which has an Appeal Board, or for judicial review in
court. However, given the expenses of judicial requirements a
number of alternatives are suggested by the Department of
Justice: writing a letter to the relevant Minister or Director-
General, finding NGOs, CBOs and Paralegals in the area that
could assist, contacting the Public Protector in cases where
corruption is suspected, using the Human Rights Advice Line,
Legal Aid Board and Justice Centres. The alternatives assume
affected people have the capacity to develop coherent
arguments.
In terms of the administrator, there are two clear procedures
to follow: before taking a decision tell the people whose rights
are affected what they plan to do and give them time to reply,
and; after taking a decision, provide a clear statement on the
decision made, information on any internal appeal and review
process, and inform the affected people that they can request
reasons for the decision.
In the next section we outline the role that specialised ICT,
Decision Support Systems, could play in facilitating dialogue
between administrators and affected people according to the
PAJA.
III. IS SUPPORTED DECISION MAKING PARADIGMS
Decision Support Systems (DSS) offer a medium through
which communication between administrators and affected
people can be enhanced [16, 17]. Decision Support Systems
are specialised types of ICT designed to make more efficient
the decision-making abilities of organisations at the
management and operational level [18].
However, the current approach used by administrators as
shown in Section 2 follows the rather linear conventional DSS
paradigm of;
• problem recognition
• problem definition
• alternatives generation
• evaluation of alternatives
• decide on best alternative and
• implement the decision
The linear approach ignores the socially oriented contexts
in which decisions are taken. IS researchers investigating DSS
are increasingly becoming critical of the past a-contextual
stance of DSS [18, 2001, 19-22]. Mitroff and Linstone’s [23]
multiple views approach and Kaner and Lind’s [24]
participatory decision-making paradigm shed new light on
understanding how the complexity of individuals and social
issues can be addressed in a participatory manner.
The multiple views approach has been drawn on in various
disciplines including Information Systems (IS). For example to
understand social problems during efforts to address poverty in
developing country contexts [25]; to elicit multiple
perspectives during requirements gathering [26]; in bringing
out individual values attached to decisions in new business
environments [27]; to assist students to think deeper and
reflectively [28]. The multiple views approach offered the
capability for handling the complexity associated with
communication of decision-making according to the PAJA.
Courtney [1] draws from the multiple views approach to
argue for the need of a new paradigm of decision making
within DSS as contexts get more complex and ill-structured.
The complexity is largely attributable to the global nature of
business, the increasing demand for knowledge driven
decisions, and the call for more ethical/socially responsible
business practices. The implications on DSS are that data from
outside the organisation, often social data, is also required
while making decisions. Courtney [1] hence postulates that the
conventional DSS decision-making process is inadequate to
deal with complex problems as its emphasis is on model
development and the reduction of the decisions to alternative
technical/mechanistic solutions. A more holistic approach to
DSS is required where broad organisational, social and
personal perspectives and ethical and aesthetic considerations
can be included along with the traditional technical perspective
(Fig. 1):
FIG. 1 COURTNEY’S NEW DECISION-MAKING PARADIGM FOR
DSS (COURTNEY, 2001)
While the conventional approach to DSS moves from
problem recognition into problem analysis, Courtney’s [1] new
decision-making paradigm (Figure 1) moves to a process of
developing multiple perspectives on the nature of the problem.
Courtney [1] prescribes that different tools and techniques can
be used for the perspective development process but does not
specify which tools may be more adequate than others. The
mental modes determine what data and what perspectives we
examine and how. These different perspectives focus on
different essential aspects or parts of a problem: Technical-T
(the analytical aspects of a problem); Organisational and Social
- O (societal and occupational views); Personal and individual -
P (personal dispositions); ethical (morals), and; aesthetics (in
its subjectiveness as to what constitutes beauty). This
paradigm aims to:
“…recognize the connectedness of things in the universe,
especially of complex social problems. The non-separability
and irreducibility of elements in complex problems and issues
is recognized. The development of multiple perspectives is the
very core of UST [Unbounded Systems Thinking]. A critical
aspect of developing multiple perspectives is open, honest,
effective dialogue among all relevant stakeholders in the
problem involved. Managers in such an environment must be
careful to respect the rights and viewpoints of the parties
involved, and be open and honest themselves in order to gain
the trust of those who will be affected by the decision”
(Courtney, 2001 p.29).
Methodologically Courtney’s [1] approach falls short in
that it does not prescribe a method of getting the multiple
views. However, Kaner & Lind [24] offer possibilities on
getting these multiple views during decision-making:
• Allow full participation – give every member of the
group the freedom to express their views by
encouraging anonymity
• Encourage mutual understanding – urge each member
to accept and acknowledge the legitimacy of other
members contributions as expressions of their needs
and goals
• Reach inclusive solutions – involve every member in
generating solutions
• Share responsibility – assign each member a role in
implementing the solution
In the next section, we discuss how the multiple views
approach was adopted as part of a DSS that encourages
participative feedback on existing government services, and as
a means to strengthen communication channels and capabilities
for administrators with people in communities.
IV. CASE STUDY
The paper is based on the second authors experience in a
six year longitudinal interpretive research project entitled web-
based Collaboration and thinkLets. The aim of the research
project was to identify and harness opportunities for sustained
collaboration and interaction between administrators and
communities through the use of web-based Group Support
System tools in the context of South Africa. Group Support
Systems (GSS) are a specialised type of ICT designed to
facilitate groups of people working together [29]. The research
questions guiding the project concerned the features needed in
web-based collaboration tools and how interfaces can be
designed to enable citizens to interact effectively with
government and public bodies in South Africa. The research
was conducted through ICT facilitated role-playing exercises
based on case scenarios in workshop settings. The purpose of
the workshops was to raise awareness about the process
involved in the implementation of the PAJA and to
demonstrate the possibilities for the use of ICT to support the
PAJA process simulated.
Three field locations were co-opted as research sites for the
PAJA Project in 2005, and over the three years managed to
retain the same research participants (Table 2.2). Lebotloane is
in the North West Province and the research was hosted by the
Lerethlabetse Multi-Purpose Community Centre (now called
the Lerethlabetse Thusong Service Centre); Siyabuswa is in the
Mpumalanga Province and the research was hosted by the
Siyabuswa Education Improvement and Development Trust
(SEIDET). The University of Pretoria is in the Gauteng
Province and the research was hosted by the Department of
Informatics.
TABLE I. RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS AT THE RESEARCH SITES
Lebotloane Siyabuswa University of
Pretoria
Province where
Research
Participants came
from
North West Mpumalanga
Limpopo
Gauten g
Number of
Research
Participants (2005)
29 22 8
Number of
Research
Participants (2006)
24 (1 new) 12 8 (1 new)
Number of
Research
Participants
(2007/8)
16 18 4
The common denominator in selecting the research sites
was a solid institutional base and the availability of computers.
Since the PAJA Project was a longitudinal research project,
cross-institutional linkages could provide better grounds for
long term sustainability and such institutions are usually
already established within their communities. Since the limited
research funding did not include the provision of computers it
meant that the host institutions needed to have an existing
computer infrastructure.
Over the period 2005 to 2008, one workshop at each site
every year was held, making a total of nine workshops over the
three years. The workshop activities were maintained across
the three sites in each research year (Table 2). Data were
collected at every workshop activity using different data
collection instruments (Table 2).
TABLE 2: PAJA PROJECT WORKSHOP STAGES & DATA
COLLECTION INSTRUMENT
Workshop Activity Data Collection Instrument
Social interactions
• Video Coverage
A description of the PAJA Project
and its research objectives
Explanation of the PAJA Act
Practical session on PAJA Act
• Video Coverage
• Electronic logs of the sessions
when using the ICT
Formal Research feedback
• Questionnaires
• Video Coverage (Question and
Answer Session)
• PAJA Project Questionnaire
Social Interactions was where each research member and
research participant introduced himself at each workshop. The
exceptions were new people who were guests of the PAJA
Project or community members with a high social and/or
political profile. This latter people were introduced by others.
The leaders of the host sites were given the honour of chairing
all non-academic formalities which included opening and
closing the workshop and the social interactions.
The second activity was an outline of the research
objectives. The PAJA Project leader at each workshop ensured
that s/he explained the aims of the research in creating
awareness of the PAJA Act and the desire that the research
participants might be empowered to help themselves and others
when dealing with government.
The third activity in the workshops of 2005 and 2006, was
where the background of the PAJA Act was given to help
participants understand the purposes of the Act, and the
requirements and instances in which the Act can be invoked
(Table 4.3). In 2005, the training was conducted in Siyabuswa
and Lebotloane by two legal experts who had been previously
involved in PAJA training across South Africa and had
experience in the application of the Act. The Justice College
expert explained the historical roots of the PAJA, the present
implementation strategies of the PAJA, and expressed some
challenges being experienced. The Master of the High Court
illustrated the PAJA using examples that are dealt with at the
High Court. At the University of Pretoria, the experts were not
required as the research participants had already received
training on the Act. Only a recap of the PAJA was given for
the sake of those who might have forgotten what had been
explained a year earlier. In 2007/8, the PAJA Act was not
explained.
Practical Session on PAJA Act followed the brief overview
of the Act. In 2005 and 2006, real case scenarios from
previous research in this area [15] were used to simulate
interaction between a government administrator and a citizen
who had been affected by administrative action. In 2007
(2008) a pre-formatted example used by the government in
training its administrators on how to implement the PAJA was
used. The practical session followed the same pattern; the
researcher would hand out the following materials to the
research participants:
• A shortened copy of the PAJA requirements for
government administrators.
• A shortened copy of the PAJA requirements for
citizens.
• The case scenario and the rejection letter received by
Grace and Anna from the government.
The researcher would then read through the case scenario
along with the participants to ensure the case was well
understood by all the participants. If there were any questions
to clarify the case scenario, the researcher answered them.
There were rarely any questions. The researcher then would
ask the research participants to volunteer as either a
government administrator or the affected person. The
researcher then further sub-divided the administrator and
affected citizen groups into smaller groups, depending on the
number of computers available to be used. Each smaller group
would then assume a role as either an affected person or the
government administrator.
The instructions were that in each of the smaller groups
they were to discuss amongst themselves how to respond to the
other group. The smaller groups then proceeded to the
computers in the computer lab. When at the computer the
researcher would ask if there was anyone who was not able to
operate the computer on behalf of the group. In the rare event
that there was no person in the smaller group who knew how to
use the computer, a student researchers was appointed to assist
that group.
The computer simulation would then start with the
researcher asking the affected person to discuss in 10 minutes
how they should respond to the administrator. After seven
minutes the affected person had to type on the computer what
the group had decided and then submit it to the administrator.
Similarly the administrator was asked to take 10 minutes to
consider a response to the affected person, asking the
administrator to ensure that they discussed the PAJA Act
guidelines so they could give an appropriate answer to the
query they had received from the affected person. After seven
minutes the administrator was asked to type their answer and
submit it. Three sets of correspondence between the affected
person and the administrator were allowed which fitted in the
hour allowed for this activity
Activity 5 concerned the elicitation of formal research
feedback. Before the close of the workshops, there were three
research feedback sessions. The first was a discussion where
all parties came together, i.e. the researchers and the research
participants, and discussed the experiences of the PAJA Act
while using the computer. In the second feedback session the
research participants recorded their experiences of the
workshop individually on a piece of paper. Anonymity was
allowed to enable free expressions. The final feedback session
requested participants to openly offer their opinions and
observations on anything they wished to comment on. Most
people said they were beginning to understand why some of the
requests by citizens are rejected and why some administrators
are not responsive. They said they began to understand
government better and some of the government responses
which they often had taken for granted.
In the next section, we analyse the findings of the research
through the lens of Kaner and Lind’s [24] criteria for including
the social context during decision-making and gaining multiple
perspectives on the nature of the role-playing exercises.
V. DISCUSSIO N:
A. Allow full participation
The initial plan during the role-playing exercises was to
have each individual use an own computer. However, many of
the computers failed and people had to work in smaller groups
of a maximum of 5 people. People had been given the
opportunity to choose whether to play the role of an
administrator or that of an affected person. It was interesting
that people preferred to work in groups rather than
individually. Many of the individuals were unfamiliar with
using computers and preferred the safety of working with other
people. Within the groups it was noticed that people were able
to openly share their views on the decision that the
administrator had taken and then discuss it before reaching a
mutual answer. It was strange that there did not seem to be any
contentions among the small groups of people.
It was also the intention to switch on anonymity for every
individual but now that they worked in smaller groups, it was
rather not practical to have anonymity. Hence, each smaller
group knew which other group it was directly interacting with.
Anonymity did not seem to have been important.
Both the administrators and affected people groups
appreciated the capability of computer skills to primarily
facilitate communication with other community members
anonymously even though some were not familiar with
computers. ICT does not have intrinsic value in itself but it is
when it is used that it can lead to more productive efforts. The
persistence to use the ICT as a communication channel despite
the lack of exposure previously to ICT shows the determination
to achieve an end using the best available means.
B. Encourage mutual understanding
The purpose of the research was to identify ICT
opportunities for collaboration between administrators and
communities. It was clear as part of the communication that
prior to the interaction, there was a lack of clarity for the
participants (both administrators and affected people groups)
on the PAJA, what they are entitled to (affected people) or
what their responsibilities are (administrators). But after the
first set of communications between the groups, the affected
groups began to understand what was expected of them, while
the administrator groups similarly began to understand the
perspective of the affected groups. In some instances, the
groups required more than three cycles of communication to
reach mutual understanding. In other instances, despite the
affected groups understanding what was expected from them
and the administrator group understanding the perspective of
the affected groups, there was a deadlock in regards the
decision reached by the administrators. In either case there was
mutual understanding on the fundamentals of the decision.
“It has helped with the procedures of AJA. I didn’t know
about AJA until I attended the workshops. It has got good
implications for the survival of the citizens and upholding our
democracy” (need some respondent number, even if just
respondent 1 workshop 1)
“For a person in the street, it is very difficult and this
means that people can get to know the procedures and the
requirements of the AJA.”
C. Reach inclusive solutions:
As seen in the previous discussion, the solutions reached
were a better understanding of the PAJA and an understanding
of the different roles and responsibilities. Everyone was
offered the opportunity to contribute to the decision even if
there might not have been agreement on the final decision. An
important aspect of participatory decision-making, as expected
by the PAJA, is to set realistic expectations of all those
involved in the decision making exercise [24] otherwise clients
may approach for a service with unrealistic expectations and
leave disgruntled and disillusioned.
“Yes, it will reduce long queues and inconvenience for the
sick and aged. These people will get quick responses and will
know beforehand what is expected of them for making
applications to government for services.”
There was recognition of the importance of being prepared
for what to expect on the part of the citizen claiming the
service
“It makes understand better the different grants or support
we can have from the government and how we can apply them”
“Many cases, the issue is about different departments, not
all the departments have the internal appeals mechanism
especially Housing. People wait for their application for years
and still get rejected without any authentic reasons. Our
organisation is working under scarce resources and
overworked staff so we are unable to do proper follow-ups or
use PAJA effectively”.
“Yes, it was when I attempted to make a booking for a
drivers licence, I was denied the service on the pretext that the
computers were off line while they were actually processing
forms specific from driving schools. I should have been
informed on where to go and who to contact other than them.”
The quality of any decision is directly related to the clarity
and knowledge about an issue that people participating in
arriving at the decision have [30].
“It opens up our minds as far as certain Adminstrative
Acts are concern that we did not know about. It also changes
the perception of adminstrators that do not treat citizen with
respect to their rights.”
D. Share responsibility:
The process of allowing each group to express their
perspectives enabled a sharing of responsibility in reaching
decision. Understanding the roles and responsibilities meant
that every group became aware of what was expected and what
was perceived. Hence, DSS was useful in allowing a shared
responsibility amongst the administrators and affected people.
E. A model for DSS in Administrative decision-making
In summary, the potential of GSS to enable and capture
multiple perspectives during the process of decision-making is
captured in Table 3 below:
TABLE 3: MODEL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION-MAKING
DSS Facilitators DSS Potential distortions
Allow full
participation
Encourage mutual
understanding
Reach inclusive
solutions
Share responsibility
VI. CONCLUSION
We recognised the lack of capacity in DC communities to
adequately participate with government in participatory
governance, much less therefore in participatory e-governance.
Individuals in DCs are generally limited in their ability to
present their arguments with the persuasive versatility required
to influence how decisions that are made but in groups, are
better able to present their arguments.
For an inclusive and collaborative approach to service
delivery there should be mutual/shared understanding and
agreement on the solution. This goes beyond justifying a
decision. In this case communication is the means of not just
finding out what administrators have previously decided or
learned, but a process in which opinion and consensus is
created by the process of debate itself. To do this people must
have the capacity and space/place to express themselves openly
and freely and must accept the outcome of rational argument –
requiring all communication in writing in a traditional orally
based culture does not achieve this. For participatory decision
making to occur, there is the need for a common understanding
of terms, visions and cultural practices. Communication
involves much more than the language used between actors,
and incorporates a complex network of social relationships
[31]. The process of communication will not remove all the
barriers, but the attainment of critical reflection of individuals,
through which emancipation can occur.
“The underlying utopia is the emancipatory idea of a
community of free and self-responsible citizens coming
together and seeking to achieve consensus on matters of public
(non-private) concern by means of argumentative, oppression-
free will-formation and democratic majority vote. [32, p.3]”
In terms of the PAJA the conventional approach to DSS
decision-making will not be useful in that government service
delivery is complex. Decisions are being made in a complex
and changing environment which is fundamentally about social
processes and fostering cooperative environments. Thus the
implementation of PAJA must recognise that DSS can assist in
some way, but only if they form part of a broader systems
approach to its implementation. In terms of decisions
impacting on society, as Phahlamohlaka and Roode [33] note,
conventional decision theory focuses on limited cognitive
information processing capability of individual decision
makers and not on the social aspects of the decision making
process. In this sense Courtney [1] and Kaner & Lind’s [24]
participatory decision-making paradigm is a suitable paradigm
in which to view the implementation of the PAJA aided by
ICT. This also has implications on the decisions made are
justified in such an organisational context.
Courtney [1] and Kaner & Lind’s [24] participatory
decision-making paradigm can be used to explore how the
generation of multiple perspectives can foster the creation of
the inclusive e-governance or collaborative environment which
we need to achieve if PAJA in particular, and Batho Pele in
general, are to be implemented to lead to improved public
service delivery.
VII. REFERENCES:
[1] J. F. Courtney, "Decision making and knowledge management in
inquiring organizations: toward a new decision-making paradigm for
DSS," Decision Support Systems vol. 31, pp. 17-38, 2001.
[2] E.-R. Staiou and D. Gouscos, "Socializing E-governance: A Parallel
Study of Participatory E-governance and Emerging Social Media," in
Comparative E-Government. vol. 25, C. G. Reddick, Ed., ed: Springer
New York, 2010, pp. 543-559.
[3] H. Corder, et al., Global administrative law : development and
innovation. Cape Town: Juta, 2009.
[4] Republic of South Africa, "Report on the State of the Public Service -
2001," P. S. Commission, Ed., ed: South African Government
Information, 2001.
[5] Republic of South Africa, "State of the Public Service Report - 2002,"
P. S. Commission, Ed., ed: South African Government Information,
2002.
[6] Republic of South Africa, "State of the Public Service Report - 2004,"
P. S. Commission, Ed., ed: South African Government Information,
2004.
[7] Republic of South Africa, "State of the Public Service Report - 2005,"
P. S. Commission, Ed., ed: South African Government Information,
2005.
[8] Republic of South Africa, "State of Public Service Report 2006:
Assessing the Capacity of the State to Deliver," vol. 2006, Public
Service Commission, Ed., ed: South African Government Online,
2006, pp. 1-76.
[9] Republic of South Africa, "State of Public Service Report 2007:
Promoting Growth and Development through an Effective Public
Service.," P. S. Commission, Ed., ed: South African Government
Online, 2007, pp. 1-85.
[10] S. Askvik and N. Bak, Trust in public institutions in South Africa.
Aldershot, Hants, England ; Burlington, VT, USA: Ashgate, 2005.
[11] N. F. Rakate, "Transformation in the South African Public Service:
The Case of Service Delivery in the Department of Health," Magister
Administrationis Master, Faculty of Economic & Management
Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 2006.
[12] L. Harris. (2006) SITA calls on private sector for help. Computing SA
[Conference Review Report]. 10-11.
[13] N. Legoabe, "MPCCs as vehicles for service delivery and
development communication," in Service Delivery Review vol. 3,
Government Communication and Information System, Ed., ed:
Department of Public Service and Administration, 2004, pp. 90-92.
[14] Deputy President, "Joint Initiative on Priority Skills Acquisition
Report Mar - Dec 2006," Department of Labour, Ed., ed: Joint
Initiative on Priority Skills Acquisition,, 2007, pp. 1-30.
[15] H. Twinomurinzi and L. J. Phahlamohlaka, "Enhancing procedural
fairness in administrative action of the Administrative Justice Act of
South Africa using web-based Group Support Systems," in Second
Conference on Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice /
DIAC-2005, California, 2005.
[16] J. W. Dickey and I. A. Birsall, "Information, Technology, and
Decision Making," in Handbook of Decision Making, G. Morcol, Ed.,
ed Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor & Francis, 2007, p. 638 p.
[17] M. Yildiz, "Information, Technology, and Deci sion Making," in
Handbook of Decision Making, G. Morcol, Ed., ed Boca Raton:
CRC/Taylor & Francis, 2007, p. 638 p.
[18] A. Gopal and P. Prasad, "Understanding GDSS in Symbolic Context:
Shifting the focus from Technology to Interaction," MIS Quarterly,
vol. 24, pp. 509-546, 2000.
[19] N. Kock, "What is E-Collaboration?," The International Journal of E-
Collaboration, vol. 1, pp. i-vii, January-March 2005 2005.
[20] R. O. Briggs, et al., "Collaboration Engineering with ThinkLets to
Pursue Sustained Success with Group Support Systems," Journal of
Management Information Systems, vol. 19, pp. 31-64, Spring 2003
2003.
[21] A. R. Dennis, et al., "Understanding fit and appropriation effects in
Group Support Systems via Meta-Analysis," MIS Quarterly, vol. 5,
pp. 167-193, 2001.
[22] G. J. Vreede, De, "Facilitation of Electronic Collaboration with Group
Systems," D. o. I. INF 821 Class Lecture, University of Pretoria, Ed.,
ed. Pretoria, 2006.
[23] I. I. Mitroff and H. A. Linstone, The unbounded mind : breaking the
chains of traditional business thinking. New York, N.Y: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
[24] S. Kaner and L. Lind, Facilitator's guide to participatory decision-
making. Philadelphia: New Society, 1996.
[25] M. Turpin, et al., "The Multiple Perspectives Approach as a
framework to analyse social systems in a developing country context,"
in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social
Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, Dubai, United
Arab Emirates, 2009.
[26] L.-K. Soonhwa, et al., "A requirements elicitation framework and tool
for sourcing business-IT aligned e-services," presented at the
Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing,
Sierre, Switzerland, 2010.
[27] D. Hall and R. Davies, "Engaging multiple perspectives: A value-
based decision-making model " Decision Support Systems, vol. 43,
pp. 1588-1604, 2007.
[28] L. Houghton and A. Ruth, "Making Information Systems less
Scrugged: Reflecting on the Processes of Change in Teaching and
Learning," Journal of Information Technology Education, vol. 9,
2010.
[29] I. Zigurs and B. K. Buckland, "A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and
Group Support Systems Effectiveness," MIS Quarterly, vol. 22, pp.
313-334, 1998.
[30] T. L. Griffith, et al., "Facilitator influence in Group Support Systems:
Intended and Unintended Effects," Information Systems Research,
vol. 9, pp. 20-36, 1998.
[31] J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1:
Reason and the Rationalization of Society Cambridge: Polity Press,
1987.
[32] K. Ivanov, "Critical systems thinking and information technology -
some summary reflections, doubts, and hopes through critical thinking
critically considered, and through hypersystems," Journal of Applied
Systems Analysis, vol. 18, pp. 39-55, 1991.
[33] L. J. Phahlamohlaka and J. D. Roode, "Justification of Group
Decisions: A Case Study of User Training in Group Support Systems
Applications," in Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on
Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia, 2001.
