Cited by 283E-Government and Public ServicesInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationInformation Technology Governance and Strategy

Pessimism, computer failure, and information systems development in the public sector

Goldfinch, Shaun·2007·Public Administration Review

Abstract

The majority of information systems developments are unsuccessful. The larger the development, the more likely it will be unsuccessful. Despite the persistence of this problem for decades and the expenditure of vast sums of money, computer failure has received surprisingly little attention in the public administration literature. This article outlines the problems of enthusiasm and the problems of control, as well as the overwhelming complexity, that make the failure of large developments almost inevitable. Rather than the positive view found in much of the public administration literature, the author suggests a pessimism when it comes to information systems development. Aims for information technology should be modest ones, and in many cases, the risks, uncertainties, and probability of failure mean that new investments in technology are not justified. The author argues for a public official as a recalcitrant, suspicious, and skeptical adopter of IT.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00778.x

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Since the issues were not products of tool design, timeliness, nor budget, but with end users' reluctance to use it, the process can be labeled a clear instance of 'user failure'.

    “Since these issues were not products of tool design, timeliness, nor budget, but with end users' reluctance to use it, we can -with termi­ nology borrowed from the study of information system implementation -label the process a clear instance of ' user failure ' (Goldfinch, 2007).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goldfinch, S.
Affiliations
University of Otago (NZ)
Corresponding author
Goldfinch, Shaun
Venue
Public Administration Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-09
Volume
67
Issue
5
Pages
917-929
ISSN
  • 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-6210
OpenAlex
W1966931213
Cited by
283
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 20
FWCI
49.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Public Administration Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
Keywords
information system development, public sector IT, project failure, computer system failures, pessimism, enthusiasm, control, complexity, risk and uncertainty, IT investment, public officials, technology adoption, information technology in public administration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review