The distinguishing characteristics of government must also be taken into account when evaluating proposals and fully implemented information systems. Consequently, research has focused on evaluating the effectiveness of government information systems. Evaluations are critical both before and after systems are implemented. Newcomer and Caudle (1991) stress that the key issues to be considered in the design of a government information system center on the purpose of the information system. In particular, the focus should be on the users of the system, their responsibilities, and the type of administrative or programmatic decisions that the system will support. They further indicate that once an information system has been implemented, the following characteristics can be used to assess the level of system success: usefulness, understandable output, currency or timeliness, relevant output, access, adaptability, accuracy, and ease of use.

Caudle (1994) presents the results of a US General Accounting Office (GAO) study that examined the strategic information resource management fundamentals of 19 private, state, and federal government organizations. The following practices were shown to have a direct, positive effect on the quality, quantity, cost, and timeliness of organizational products and services: top leaders recognize that change is needed and have strategies for transitioning, implementing, and reassessing new IRM processes; leading organizations develop a formal strategic management process that covers all major management decision and action points; senior managers select, control, and evaluate IRM projects as investments; organizations develop and integrate rigorous performance measures within the organization’s existing management and decision making processes; and leading organizations focus on dramatic business process innovation and change.

Northrup et al. (1990) discuss the technical or operational payoffs f rom computerization such as the increased availability of information, better information for management control, better information for city planning decision, greater efficiency of operational performance, and better interaction with the public. Based on survey data, they indicate that the respondents were experiencing the most payoffs in the areas of fiscal control, cost avoidance, and better interaction with the public while only minimal levels of payoffs were observed in non-fiscal management control and planning decisions.