The framework is a combination of individual analysis steps combined into an overall process or plan for public ROI assessment. A summary of that overall process is shown in Figure 15. As shown there, the process follows the arrows, starting with a clear understanding of the larger context of public value generation. The investment goals that emerge from the investment plans and understanding of the context link to the business processes and public value impact mechanisms. Analysis of the impact mechanisms and public return types leads to specific impacts listed in the stakeholder interest analysis. Identifying the interests and impacts will then guide choosing public value variables, analysis methods, risk analysis, and ultimately, reporting tools and techniques.

For simplicity, this process diagram is somewhat idealized. It shows only the basic linear path through the various steps. In practice, the actual path is rather more likely to have backtracking and loops. Learning at one step can easily lead to revisions in conclusions or data collected at preceding steps. This is particularly so for the risk analysis steps in the process. It is not feasible to complete the risk analysis for achieving any particular public value return until the details about that return and how to assess it are known. Loops can occur in the process when a step produces unexpected or challenging results. For example, identifying all related business processes for a large, complex project may produce too many results to carry forward in the analysis. That would require looping back to reduce the scope. So the potential user should view this process summary as a rough guide rather than a lock-step procedure.

The process also represents a comprehensive approach to public value assessment. We argue that all the steps are needed to ensure that the full range of public value returns will be included in any assessment and report. Some small or very narrow projects, of course, may have limited public value potential and not require such an extensive review. But the research and analysis leading to this framework have clearly demonstrated that the scope of public value possible from government IT investments can far exceed what an internally focused, financial assessment will reveal. Unless assessments use a much broader view, as represented in this framework and other models cited above, the full value of government IT investments will not come to light. It also seems likely that this same kind of analytical framework would be useful for other forms of government investments. We did not, however, explore that possibility for this report.