Evaluation of Project Work in Public Administrations in
E-government and Digitization Projects in Germany
Hanna Looks
1a
, Anja Gebauer
2b
, Jörg Thomaschewski
3c
, María José Escalona
1d
and Eva-Maria Schön
3e
1
Department of Computer Languages and Systems, University of Seville, Seville, Spain
2
Department of Digitization, Landwirtschaftskammer NRW, Münster, Germany
3
University of Applied Sciences Emden/Leer, Emden, Germany
Keywords: Agile, Agile Transformation, Public Administration, Project Work, E-government, Digitization.
Abstract: Particularly in times of crisis, it is apparent that the digital transformation in Germany has not yet progressed
far enough. Public administrations are confronted with legally prescribed obligations to implement e-
government and digitization projects in the near future. Project work and the involvement of users in the
implementation are increasingly coming into focus. The objective of this paper is to identify the challenges
in project work in the context of the implementation of e-government and digitalization projects in public
administration. This was done by comparing survey results from 2018 and 2021 and analyzing whether agility
can make a decisive contribution to eliminating these challenges. Moreover, it was investigated whether user
involvement in implementation is already taking place. This study was conducted for the first time in 2018
and again in 2021 using an online survey. The two samples of the questionnaire study (2018 and 2021) show,
that public administrations are increasingly coming into contact with agile methods. Furthermore, challenges
were identified that limit improved project work in public administrations and that need to be addressed.
1 INTRODUCTION
In 2013, the law for the improvement of electronic
administration (E-Government Gesetz; e-government
law) came into force in Germany, with the aim of
offering simpler, more user-friendly, and more
efficient electronic administrative services. Both the
implementation obligations of the e-government law
and the advancing digital transformation are leading
to changed processes in administrations.
Governments need to adapt to changes in both their
internal and external environments, and in response
public administrations are adopting agile approaches
as part of their process design, project management,
and software development approaches (Mergel et al.,
2018).
In a survey of public administration project work
in e-government and digitization projects conducted
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8196-9603
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0709-8149
c
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6364-5808
d
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6435-1497
e
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0410-9308
back in 2018 it was shown that project teams in
German public administrations face various
challenges (Looks et al., 2018), such as a strict
hierarchy among the employees working in the public
administration, no involvement of users in e-
government and digitization projects, as well as
insufficient communication. Based on the challenges
identified in the survey in 2018, it has already been
suggested that agility can be a suitable approach to
overcome the issues by mapping the challenges to
defined dimensions of agility (Looks et al., 2019).
Legal requirements and the prevailing Covid-19
pandemic, as well as the associated work situation,
have forced public administrations to accelerate the
implementation of their e-government and
digitization projects. The way public administration
employees work is changing and it is no longer
120
Looks, H., Gebauer, A., Thomaschewski, J., Escalona, M. and SchÃ˝un, E.
Evaluation of Project Work in Public Administrations in E-government and Digitization Projects in Germany.
DOI: 10.5220/0011526100003318
In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST 2022), pages 120-127
ISBN: 978-989-758-613-2; ISSN: 2184-3252
Copyright
c
 2022 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

limited, for example, to just processing applications,
but also involves working on digitization projects.
The objective of this paper is to obtain a
comparison of the prevailing challenges with regard
to project work in digitization projects in public
administration and to analyze, whether agile methods
have been increasingly used in public administration
in 2021 compared to 2018. Furthermore, if agile
methods are increasingly used, it will be examined
what effect they achieve.
The paper is structured as follows: In Section 2 the
research objectives and research questions are
outlined. In Section 3 the main findings of the study
are summarized, and a comparison is shown of the
results from 2018 and 2021, and thus whether an agile
way of working has entered public administrations. In
Section 4 the significance of the results and the
limitations of this study are discussed. Finally, in
Section 5 a summary of the findings and outlines for
future research based on these are presented.
2 RESEARCH METHOD
With the help of the survey results, the following
three research questions (RQ) were answered:
RQ1: “Has there been a change of the challenges
faced by project members in public administrations
with regard to implementing e-government and
digitization projects in 2021 compared to 2018?”
RQ2: “Has an agile way of working entered public
administrations?”
RQ3: “Has the pandemic situation had an influence
on the work in public administrations?”
To answer the research questions RQ1 and RQ2,
the same questionnaire as used in 2018 was reused.
Repeating the survey allows a direct comparison of
the results (RQ1). An analysis of the results in terms
of agility contributes to the answering of research
question RQ2. Due to the prevalence of the Covid-19
pandemic, a section of questions was added to the
2018 questionnaire in order to analyze the impact of
the pandemic on work within public administrations
(RQ3). These questions were also used to determine
whether only single aspects changed or whether a
shift in agile values had been perceived. In the
summer/autumn of 2021 when the survey was
conducted, the Covid-19 pandemic had been
prevalent for more than a year, so it was assumed that
a change could have already taken place.
To conduct this study, a new sample of the online
survey study from 2018 was set up (Looks et al.,
2018). The design of the questionnaire was based on
the relevant design guidelines for the construction and
evaluation of questionnaires (Kallus, 2016; Kirchhoff
et al., 2010; Porst, 1998). In 2018, 18 items were
developed as a mixture of open, semi-open and closed
questions. A total of 4 items were added for the
renewed survey in 2021. In one item it was asked in
what type of administration the participant works, to
see if the types of administrations have an influence
on the way of working. Another 3 items were added
to identify pandemic related changes. This makes a
total of 22 items for the survey in 2021. As in 2018,
employees in public administrations were defined as
the target group for the survey. In 2018, 38 employees
from different public administrations participated. In
2021, a total of 51 employees from different types of
public administrations filled out the questionnaire to
the end, so that their information was included in the
evaluation. The participants were at the time
employed in municipal, district, federal, and state
administrations. The question of the type of
administration was only added in 2021 so it is not
possible to compare the 2018 sample regarding this
aspect. In 2021, the majority of respondents had at the
time worked in a public administration for less than
three years (n = 29; 56.9 %). Accordingly, only a few
participants had worked on more than six projects (n
= 20; 38.2 %). Most survey participants worked in IT
(n = 22; 43.1 %). Compared to 2018 (n = 38), the
sample of the 2021 survey had been working in public
administration for a significantly shorter period of
time (>10 years: n= 18; 47.4 %). The level of project
experience can be classified as similar between the
surveys (>6 years: n = 15; 39.5 %), with the
proportion of those who had not yet worked on a
project dropping from 18.4 % to 7.8 %. Again, in
2018, the largest share of survey participants came
from IT (n = 20; 52.6 %).
Participants in 2021 were recruited both via
business social networks, and by contacting various
administrations in Germany directly and asking them
to take part in the survey. Due to the preservation of
anonymity, it is not possible to trace from which cities
within Germany the participants originate. The
recruitment process was similar in 2018. The survey
was conducted in the period from 2021/07/13 to
2021/11/12.
To test for significant differences between groups,
t-tests for independent samples were used.
Significance was tested on a p = 0.05 level. Though
the study was conducted in 2018 and in 2021
independent samples were assumed, since the same
groups were not addressed specifically. Pearson
correlation coefficients are reported for the relation
Evaluation of Project Work in Public Administrations in E-government and Digitization Projects in Germany
121

between the factors influenced by the Covid-19
pandemic (RQ3) to show, whether an improvement
or deterioration in one aspect is accompanied by the
same direction on another aspect.
3 RESULTS
With regard to the previously defined research
questions RQ1 and RQ2, the results of the survey will
be used to determine whether the implementation of
e-government and digitization projects in public
administrations has changed, and whether project
staff face different challenges in implementing these
projects than they did in 2018. Furthermore, the aim
is to work out whether the prevailing Covid-19
pandemic has had an impact on collaboration in
public administration (RQ3). In order to determine
whether there is a difference between groups with and
without experience of agile methods in 2021, the
participants who answered the item with “yes” or
“partly” were combined into the group “with
experience with agile methods” for the evaluations.
Participants who answered “no” to the item formed
the group “without experience with agile methods”.
Participants who did not or could not answer the
question were excluded from these evaluations.
3.1 Experience with Agile Methods in
Public Administration
In Table 1 a comparison is shown of participants’
experience with agile methods in public
administration in 2018 and 2021. 66 % of the
participants in 2021 had worked partly (n = 14) or
fully with agile methods (n = 19). In 2018, only 41 %
made this statement. The number of those who could
not or did not want to make a statement also decreased
from n = 4 to n = 1.
Table 1: Comparison of experience with agile methods
2018 and 2021.
2018 2021
100 %
(
n = 34
)
100 %
(
n = 50
)
(
100 %
)
y
es 14.7 %
(
5
)
19
(
38.0 %
)
(
19
)
p
artl
y
26.5 % (9) 14 (28.0 %) (14)
no 58.8 %
(
20
)
17
(
34.0 %
(
17
)
)
No information for 4 participants in 2018.
No information for 1 participant in 2021.
In 2021, agile methods were still primarily used in IT
in public administrations (see Table 2). Among the
respondents, 14 employees from IT stated that they
had already worked with agile methods. Survey
participants who worked in specialist
departments/offices (n = 4) had not yet worked with
agile methods at all. Among the surveyed employees
from organizational departments (n = 10), agile
methods were also used by only 3 participants.
Table 2: Comparison of experience with agile methods by
organizational unit 2021.
IT
specialist
department
/ office
Organi-
zational
de
p
artment
other
44.0 %
(
n = 22
)
8.0 %
(
n = 4
)
20 %
(
n = 10
)
28.0 %
(
n = 14
)
yes
50.0 %
(
11
)
0.0 % (0) 30.0 % (3) 35.7 % (5)
partly 36.4 % (8) 0.0 % (0) 0.0 % (0) 42.9 % (6)
no 13.6 % (3)
100.0 %
(4)
70.0 % (7) 21.4 % (3)
No information for 1 participant.
3.2 Cross-functional Collaboration
A large spectrum of competences within a team
favors a self-organized distribution of task packages
according to the pull principle (Anderson et al.,
2015). Agile process models such as Scrum rely on
the fact that teams are structured in an
interdisciplinary way. The members of a team thus
have all the skills that are required to accomplish the
work (Schwaber and Sutherland, 2020).
Figure 1: Comparison of cross-functional work 2018 and
2021 with 1 = do not agree at all and 5 = fully agree.
In Figure 1 a comparison related to the cross-
functional work is shown of the years 2018 and 2021.
There is no significant difference between 2018 and
2021 regarding the learning process in cross-
1
2
3
4
5
In teams with diverse
professional backgrounds,
team members learn more
from each other than in
those with the same
professional backgrounds.
In teams with diverse
professional backgrounds,
projects take more time.
Cross-functional collaboration
2018
n = 38
2021
n = 51
WEBIST 2022 - 18th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
122

functional teams (t(87) = 0.00; p = 0.15) nor for the
required time of a project (t(87) = 0.41; p = 0.20).
Compared to participants without experience of
agile projects, those with agile project experience rate
the learning potential of interdisciplinary teams as
higher and tend to agree less with the statement that
projects are delayed by interdisciplinary
collaboration (see Figure 2). However, these
differences are not significant (learning: t(48) = 1.20;
p = 0.24; required time: t(48) = 1.17; p = 0.27).
Figure 2: Comparison of cross-functional work between
groups with and without agile experience 2021 with 1 = do
not agree at all and 5 = fully agree.
3.3 User Involvement
The legally required implementation obligations of
digital access for citizens mean that, due to the
diversity of the target group, usability and user
experience are an important component within these
projects (Looks et al., 2019). Depending on the type
of project, the users in the context of public
administration are not only citizens, but also
employees in public administration. Digitizing public
administration means digitizing both internal and
external administrative processes. This includes, for
example, the introduction of an electronic file and
thus a document management system.
The survey in 2018 showed the readiness of
public administration employees to involve users in
the implementation of e-government and digitization
projects. As seen in Figure 3, it is the second most
important requirement following a good functioning
software. In 2021, it is rated as being even more
important than a good functioning software and as
important as an easily usable software. This makes it
one of the two most important requirements among
the examined criteria. Although user involvement
was rated as more important in 2021 compared to
2018, the increase is not significant (t(87) = 1.80; p =
0.27), neither is the increase in the importance for
usable nor good functioning software significant
(usability: t(87) = 1.94; p = 0.29; functionality: t(87)
= 1.01; p = 0.30).
Figure 3: Comparison of user involvement 2018 and 2021
with 1 = very important and 7 = not very important.
Only 5 % (n = 2) of the respondents in 2018 stated
that they actually involved users, another 24 % (n =
9) partly involved users. The reasons they gave for
not involving users were, for example, there was no
political will and that it was not considered important.
In 2021, a slight increase in user involvement was
seen (see Figure 4).
No information for 1 participant in 2018.
No information for 1 participant in 2021.
Figure 4: Comparison of user involvement 2021 and 2018.
1
2
3
4
5
In teams with diverse
professional backgrounds,
team members learn more
from each other than in
those with the same
professional backgrounds.
In teams with diverse
professional backgrounds,
projects take more time.
Cross-functional collaboration
with agile experience
n = 33
without agile experience
n = 17
1
2
3
4
5
How important is
to you user
involvement in the
project?
How important is
to you a well
usable software at
the end of a
project?
How important is
to you a good
functioning
software at the end
of a project?
User involvement
2018
n = 38
2021
n = 51
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
yes partly no no answer
When designing IT applications, do you
involve citizens in the decision-making
and selection process?
2018
n = 37
2021
n = 50
Evaluation of Project Work in Public Administrations in E-government and Digitization Projects in Germany
123

The results of the survey showed that although
only 6 % (n = 3) involved users, another 32 % (n =
16) of respondents only partly involved users.
Respondents gave various reasons for not involving
users, for example, the time factor, the unrealistic and
non-legislative wishes of users, and a lack of citizen
communication.
In 2021, project members with agile project
experience rated the involvement of users in the
project as most important (m = 1.45; sd = 1.03) (see
Table 3). For those without agile project experience,
functioning software (m = 1.29; sd = 0.59) and usable
software (m = 1.35; sd = 0.62) were rated as more
important (see Figure 4). However, neither of these
group differences are significant (user involvement:
t(48) = 0.53; p = 0.27; usability: t(48) = 0.73; p = 0.32;
functionality: t(48) = 1.01; p = 0.41).
Table 3: Comparison of user involvement between groups
with and without agile experience 2021 with 1 = very
important and 7 = not very important.
How important is to you…
with agile
experience
n = 33
without agile
experience
n = 17
m
(
sd
)
m
(
sd
)
user involvement in the
p
roject?
1.45 (1.03) 1.59 (0.62)
a well usable software at the
end of a project?
1.58 (1.25) 1.35 (0.49)
a good functioning software
at the end of a
p
ro
j
ect?
1.7 (1.40) 1.29 (0.59)
When the regularity of citizen participation in the
design of IT applications was examined (see Figure
5), it was found that participants with agile
experience, who rated this aspect as more important,
involved or partly involved citizens more often than
those without agile experience (with: 64 %; without:
40 %).
No information for 2 participants.
Figure 5: Comparison of citizen involvement between
groups with and without agile experience 2021.
3.4 Project Failure
In 2018, 65.8 % (n = 25) of participants named
“insufficient human resources”, “insufficient
communication” and “unclear goals and
requirements” as the three main reasons for project
failure. In 2021, respondents named “unclear goals
and requirements” as the most frequent reason for
project failure (n = 32; 62.7 %). With a total of 28
mentions (54.9 %), “insufficient communication”,
“insufficient human resources” and “lack of
transparency in responsibilities” were the second
most frequently given answers (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Comparison of reasons for failing projects 2021
and 2018 with 1: unclear goals and requirements; 2:
insufficient communication; 3: insufficient human
resources; 4: lack of transparency in responsibilities; 5:
poor project management; 6: lack of management support;
7: legal regulations, politics; 8: insufficient commitment; 9:
others; 10: no projects failing with us.
With regards to the groups with and without
experience with agile projects, it can be seen that
without such experience, “unclear goals and
requirements” (n = 10; 58.8 %), “lack of transparency
in responsibilities” (n = 9; 52.9 %) and “poor project
management” (n = 8; 47.1 %) were mentioned as the
most frequent reasons for project failure (see Figure
7). Respondents with agile project experience stated,
“unclear goals and requirements” and “insufficient
human resources” (n = 21; 63.6 %) as well as
“insufficient communication” (n = 20; 60.6 %) as the
most frequent reasons for project failure.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
yes partly no no answer
When designing IT applications, do you
involve citizens in the decision-making
and selection process?
with agile experience
n = 32
without agile experience
n = 17
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
12345678910
What are the main reasons for failing
projects in your administration?
2018
n = 38
2021
n = 51
WEBIST 2022 - 18th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
124

Figure 7: Comparison of the reasons for failing projects
between groups with and without agile experience 2021
with 1: unclear goals and requirements; 2: insufficient
communication; 3: insufficient human resources; 4: lack of
transparency in responsibilities; 5: poor project
management; 6: lack of management support; 7: legal
regulations, politics; 8: insufficient commitment; 9: others;
10: no projects failing with us.
3.5 Covid-19 Pandemic Influence
The results of the three items regarding the Covid-19
pandemic showed that the degree of freedom for
mobile working had at least remained the same, but
had improved substantially on average (m = 1.92; sd
= 1.10). No clear direction for a change was
determined for all other questioned aspects (see Table
4).
Table 4: Covid-19 Pandemic influence on ways of working
with -3 = strongly deteriorated and 3 = strongly improved.
n m s
d
min max
option to work from
home
49 1.92 1.096 0 3
my work efficiency 48 0.83 1.342 -2 3
acceptance of errors in
p
rojects
45 0.71 1.121 -3 3
mutual trust among
colleagues
48 0.69 1.206 -2 3
work at eye level with
my superviso
r
46 0.39 0.954 -2 2
communication with
my colleagues
48 0.29 1.271 -2 3
external influence on
my thinking
44 0.25 0.751 -1 2
extent of
documentation effort
46 0.09 0.812 -2 2
knowing what my
colleagues are working
on
48 0.00 1.272 -2 3
speed of completion of
projects in my
administration
44 -0.05 1.346 -3 3
problems due to
misunderstandings in
p
rojects
46 -0.09 0.962 -3 2
If it is considered whether an improvement or a
deterioration in one aspect of the ways of working is
accompanied by an improvement or a deterioration in
another aspect, then Table 5 shows that this is the case
for 9 out of 11 factors. Correlations can be classified
as medium (r > 0.3) to high (r > 0.5) (Cohen, 1988).
Thus, it is possible to state that public administrations
which show a development in agile values, are able to
achieve this in more than one way.
Table 5: Pearson correlation coeffients between factors of
the Covid-19 pandemic influence on working.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
2
3
0.33
**
0.46
**
4
0.45
**
0.36
*
0.48
**
5
0.36
*
0.43
**
0.58
**
6
0.33
*
0.33
*
0.51
**
0.57
**
7
0.36
*
0.42
**
8
0.48
**
0.41
**
0.34
*
0.42
**
0.36
*
9
0.35
*
0.34
*
0.45
**
10
0.37
*
0.49
**
0.39
**
0.69
**
0.46
**
0.67
**
0.40
**
0.48
**
0.45
**
11
0.31
*
0.40
**
*. correlation significant at 0.05 level.
**. correlation significant at 0.10 level.
1: acceptance of errors in projects; 2: communication with
my colleagues; 3: problems due to misunderstandings in
projects; 4: work at eye level with my supervisor; 5: speed
of completion of projects in my administration; 6: my work
efficiency; 7: extent of documentation effort; 8: knowing
what my colleagues are working on; 9: option to work from
home; 10: mutual trust among colleagues; 11: external
influence on my thinking.
4 DISCUSSION
In this section the significance of the findings will be
discussed and the previously defined research
questions answered. Furthermore, possible
limitations of this study will be considered.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
12345678910
What are the main reasons for failing
projects in your administration?
with agile experience
n = 33
without agile experience
n = 17
Evaluation of Project Work in Public Administrations in E-government and Digitization Projects in Germany
125

4.1 Meaning of Findings
The results of the repetition of the survey from 2018
in 2021 show some changes, compared to the
previous one, in project implementation in public
administrations for e-government and digitization
projects. For instance, the results show that
employees from public administrations are
increasingly coming into contact with agile methods.
In 2021, 66 % of respondents stated that they had
already come into contact with agile methods and in
2018, this was only stated by 41.2 % of the
participants in the survey. The presentation in Table
2 shows that agile methods are largely used by
respondents who work in IT. The participants from
specialist areas of public administration, on the other
hand, have not yet come into contact with agile
methods at all.
The success of digitization programs in Germany
should not only be measured by whether all
administrative services are available online, but also
by their acceptance by the users. The goal in the
implementation of the Onlinezugangsgesetz should
be a paradigm shift that brings users to the center of
attention. However, the results of the survey in 2021
do not show any increase in the involvement of users
in the implementation of e-government and
digitization projects. The reasons given by
respondents for not involving users included the time
factor, unrealistic user requests that do not comply
with the law and a lack of citizen communication.
Although the difficulties to involve users in
development processes in times of social distancing
during the Covid-19 pandemic has not explicitly been
mentioned, this factor cannot be ruled out. Overall,
however, user involvement is considered important.
A comparison of the results of the two surveys
illustrates the increase in awareness of agile methods,
but overall, no changes can be seen in the challenges
facing public administrations in e-government and
digitization projects. The will and willingness to work
in an agile manner is still evident. This suggests that
while methodological knowledge exists, a
corresponding change in values has not yet taken
place in order to overcome the challenges in project
work already identified in 2018. Agility can be a key
improvement factor for the challenges of project work
in public administrations (Looks et al., 2019), but
requires an agile value shift within the organization.
With regard to the introduction of an agile way of
working in public administration, the greatest priority
should first be placed on communicating the agile
mindset. In the past, it has already been shown that
agile process models can be successfully applied in
public administrations (Torrecilla-Salinas, 2013).
An examination of the influence of the Covid-19
pandemic on work showed that there was no uniform
development across all the administrations surveyed.
Instead, some administrations have used the situation
as an opportunity and made improvements possible
for their employees. Other administrations were
unable to use this opportunity, which in some cases
even led to a worsening of the experienced situation.
4.2 Limitations
It should be noted that the title of the survey “Agile
Administration” led to a priming effect (Palmer,
1975), so that employees who had not previously
come into contact with the term agility did not feel
addressed. Furthermore, only project-related
challenges were recorded, although the prevailing
Covid-19 situation could also have influenced
personal challenges that were not assessed. It was
attempted to counteract any possible distortion of the
results due to the influence of the Covid-19 pandemic
by adding the supplemented Covid-19 pandemic
question block.
Participants in the survey also indicated in the
comment option at the end of the questionnaire that
the wording of the item “When designing IT
applications for citizens, do you include them in the
development and selection process?” was strongly
focused on public administrations that implement e-
government and digitization projects for citizens, and
that using “users” instead of “citizens” would be
advisable. This aspect was already known in advance
as it was a finding from the first survey, and should
be investigated in future research, but was not
adjusted to maintain comparability. It is also
necessary to assume a large heterogeneity of the
groups due to the small sample (n = 51). A larger
sample would, therefore, have resulted in even
stronger test results. In particular, the test results for
group differences and correlations cannot be
interpreted as a general trend.
5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE
RESEARCH
In this paper the results of two surveys from 2018 and
2021 were compared. These surveys were used to
analyze the project work in public administrations
with regard to the implementation of e-government
and digitalization projects. The changes in working
WEBIST 2022 - 18th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
126

methods and the opportunities arising from the
digitalization of administrative processes are paving
the way for a different type of project organization.
The trend is now moving away from a pattern of pure
responsibility thinking towards the usage of
interdisciplinary teams. From the identified
challenges from the 2018 survey, it could already
deduced that the agile approach can be a suitable
method to improve project work (Looks et al., 2019).
The results of the survey conducted in 2021 show an
increase in the awareness of agile methods, but a
comparison of the survey results does not show any
distinction in terms of the challenges faced by public
administration project staff with regard to the
implementation of e-government and digitization
projects. In both surveys, respondents cited
“insufficient human resources” and “insufficient
communication” as the main reasons for project
failures. Based on the analysis of the identified
challenges during the implementation of e-
government and digitization projects in public
administration from the survey in 2018 and an
allocation of these challenges to defined dimensions
of agility, it has already been shown that agility can
contribute to overcoming these challenges (Looks et
al., 2019). However, the exclusive application of agile
methods did not lead to the desired results, as there
was still in 2021 no discernible change in values
within public administration and the same challenges
continue to be identified within the projects.
In further research projects, the questionnaire used
will be optimized in a first step in light of the findings
from the previous surveys. One future aim is to use the
questionnaire in different countries in order to be able
to derive Europe-wide comparisons with regard to the
challenges of project work in public administrations.
The next studies will be conducted in Spain and
Poland. Based on the identified challenges, an already
defined prototypical process model used for
supporting agile transformation in public
administrations (Fangmann et al., 2020; Looks et al.,
2021) will be optimized in the future. This will be
done in order to achieve both a targeted use of agile
methods in public administrations as well as a change
in values so the agile transformation can progress. It
will also be assessed whether the application of agile
methods leads to a higher project success rate.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This publication is part of the Project PID2019-
105455GB-C31, founded by MCIN/
AEI/10.13039/501100011033/ and by the “European
Union” and by the project P20_00644, founded by
Junta de Andalucía.
REFERENCES
Anderson, D. J., Roock, A., and Wolf, H. 2015. Kanban.
Evolutionäres Change Management für IT-
Organisationen. Dt. Ausg. der 1. amerikan. Aufl., 2.
Nachdruck 2015. Heidelberg: dpunkt-Verl. (it-agile).
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. (2. Aufl.). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Fangmann, J., Looks, H., Thomaschewski, J., and Schön,
E.-M. 2020. Agile transformation in e-government
projects. 15th Iberian Conference on Information
Systems and Technologies (CISTI), pp. 1-4.
Kallus, K. W. 2016. Erstellung von Fragebögen. 2. Auflage.
Wien: Facultas Verlags- und Buchhandels AG.
Kirchhoff, S., Kuhnt, S., Lipp, P., Schlawin, S. 2010. Der
Fragebogen – Datenbasis, Konstruktion und
Auswertung. 5. Auflage. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Looks, H., Schön, E.-M., and Thomaschewski, J. 2018.
Agile Projekte in öffentlichen Verwaltungen - Eine
Bestandsaufnahme. In Hess, S. & Fischer, H. (Ed.),
Mensch und Computer 2018 - Usability Professionals.
Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. Und German
UPA e.V., 415-426.
Looks, H., Fangmann, J., Thomaschewski, J., and Schön,
E.-M. 2019. Agilität und Nutzerzentrierung in der
öffentlichen Verwaltung. In Fischer, H. & Hess, S.
(Ed.), Mensch und Computer 2019 - Usability
Professionals. Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.
Und German UPA e.V., 188-195.
Looks, H., Fangmann, J., Thomaschewski, J., and Schön,
E.-M. 2021. Towards a Process Model for Agile
Transformation in E-Government Projects. Journal of
Information Systems Engineering and Management,
vol. 6.
Mergel, I., Gong, Y., and Bertot, J. 2018. Agile
government: Systematic literature review and future
research. Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 35, no. 2, 291–298.
Palmer, S. 1975. The effects of contextual scenes on the
identification of objects. In: Memory and
Cognition. Nr. 3, 519–526.
Porst, R. 1998. Im Vorfeld der Befragung: Planung,
Fragebogenentwicklung, Pretesting. Mannheim:
ZUMA-Arbeitsbericht 1998/02.
Schwaber, K., and Sutherland, J. 2020. The Scrum Guide.
Torrecilla-Salinas, C. J., Sedeño, J., and M. J. Escalona,
and Mejías, M. 2013. Agile in Public Administration:
Oxymoron or reality? An experience report.
Conference on Advanced Information Systems
Engineering (CAiSE 2013). vol. 1017, 1-8.
Evaluation of Project Work in Public Administrations in E-government and Digitization Projects in Germany
127