Identifying the linkages between business processes and public value generators described above carries the analysis a critical step farther: from how the IT changes a business process to the impact of those changes for a particular public or stakeholders. That step is accomplished by looking to the value of the impact in terms of the interests of one or another stakeholder. So the framework includes an analysis scheme for taking into account interests that can apply to the full range of stakeholders. The framework employs these six basic kinds of interests:

• Financial — impacts on current or anticipated income, asset values, liabilities, entitlements, and other aspects of wealth or risks to any of the above
• Political — impacts on personal or corporate influence on government actions or policy, role in political affairs, or influence in political parties or prospects for current or future public office
• Social — impacts on family or community relationships, social mobility, status, and identity.
• Strategic — impacts on economic or political advantage or opportunities, goals, and resources for innovation or planning
• Ideological — impacts on beliefs, moral or ethical commitments, alignment of government actions or policies or social outcomes with beliefs, or moral or ethical positions
• Stewardship — impacts on the public's view of government officials as faithful stewards or guardians of the value of the government itself in terms of public trust, integrity, and legitimacy

This last interest—stewardship—is deliberately not included in the ideology category, though it could logically fit there. Setting it off separately emphasizes its importance in the overall public value framework. Just as corporate managers and directors are responsible for stewardship of a corporation's integrity and assets on behalf of stockholders, public managers and elected officials have a parallel responsibility for government on behalf of the public. Recent financial scandals in the US have demonstrated how lack of stewardship in major corporations (e.g., Enron, WorldCom) can destroy their financial value. The government officials in our cases expressed a similar stewardship responsibility in terms of, for example, using IT to increase transparency and accountability. Public surveys of trust in government show that citizens have similar stewardship expectations of government.(10)

Clearly this list goes well beyond the internal efficiency or service quality impacts of an IT investment. Of course, attending to this expanded concept of value raises many problems of definition and measurement. However, our case research and results from many other kinds of inquiry show the importance of this more comprehensive treatment of value and interests. Many of the measurements and data implied by these interest types are found in existing ROI methods as well. However, none of the methods we reviewed for this white paper cover the full range represented here. Working with this expanded range of value types represents one important contribution of this framework.

It is also clear from this way of describing public value that it supplements rather than replaces methods that assess the efficiency gains or savings returns captured by government agencies internally. For ex- ample, it seems safe to say that a Department of Motor Vehicle's internal cost savings from putting license renewals online are invisible and largely irrelevant to drivers. These savings would have no detectable impact on overall tax burdens or benefits resulting from a shift of government resources to some other service. The information about the savings, however, is another matter. If government officials make some political use of the cost savings information, that would represent strategic value to those officials or to their political allies. The public learning about the savings might also improve their opinion of the government's stewardship, fairness, or other ideological value.