Entradas

Nueva Normalidad: Concepto y características.

Vídeo de Presentación del i-LAB

Emisión de Licencias Digitales del Estado de Oaxaca.

El primer sistema de licencias 100% digitales en México.

 

¿Qué es la licencia digital?

La licencia digital, es el documento que acredita a un conductor para la operación de vehículos automotores en sus diferentes modalidades en el Estado conforme los artículos 3 fracción X, y 33 fracción I de la Ley de Tránsito y Vialidad para el Estado de Oaxaca, en representación digital, es decir un archivo electrónico que podrá ser descargado desde el dispositivo móvil del titular a través de una aplicación.

El portal de Solicitud de Trámite de Licencia Digital es el esfuerzo de la Secretaría de Movilidad por facilitar y acercar este trámite a la ciudadanía, el cual le permitirá desde la comodidad de su hogar solicitar la reposición o renovación de su licencia de conducir desde internet.

Con los servicios digitales:

Podrás realizar:

  • Renovación de tipos de licencia A (Motociclista) y B (Automovilista).
  • Cambios de tipo de licencia C destinada únicamente a vehículos de servicio público de transporte de pasajeros, a tipo de licencia B de automovilista destinada únicamente para conducción de autos particulares, con base en el Artículo 384, Fracción III del Reglamento de la Ley de Movilidad para el estado de Oaxaca.
  • Reposición de todos los tipos de licencia de conducir.
  • Activación de tu licencia de conducir actual como licencia digital sin costo descargando la aplicación SEMOVI OAXACA – Emisión de Licencias Digital desde Google Play.

 

¿Aún no sabes qué concepto pagar?

Podrás revisar la guía “¿cómo pagar mi línea de captura?” donde te mostramos paso a paso cómo tendrías que realizar el pago en el portal de la Secretaría de Finanzas, ya sea para tu trámite de renovación, o tu trámite de reposición.

¿Necesitas ayuda acerca de cómo usar el portal?

Podrá comunicarse a nuestra mesa de ayuda donde con gusto podremos apoyarlo en todas las dudas referentes a realizar el trámite correspondiente de su licencia de conducir digital, o bien, si usted ya cuenta con su licencia de conducir plástica o digital, a activar en la aplicación que podrá descargar desde Google Play.

 

Artículo Tomado De: https://licdigitales.oaxaca.gob.mx/Tramites/default.aspx

Sentiment Analysis of Facebook Users Reacting to Political Campaign Posts

Abstract

A recent trend in political campaign studies is the use of sentiment analysis to understand users’ decisions. The scandal of Facebook and Cambridge Analytics is an example of efforts to use social media platforms to impact citizens’ will. This research aims to answer the question: Did the Facebook reactions of users in Mexico reflect the outcomes of the elections and possibly also the users’ emotions toward the political candidates of the State of Mexico in 2017? To answer the research question, we analyzed data collected from 4,128 Facebook posts and their reactions. The available reactions for Facebook users are: like, love, haha, wow, sad, and angry. Doing so revealed some kind of mood from the users in the Facebook comments section and opinions of the local government campaign in the central State of Mexico. The elections studied took place in June 2017. Our findings show that the winning political party had more negative sentiment and fewer posts and users’ discussions of the candidates in Facebook comments sections than the political party with the largest positive sentiment. This party was unsuccessful in winning the elections.

 

References

  1. Kim Normann Andersen and Rony Medaglia. 2009. The use of Facebook in national election campaigns: Politics as usual? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Participation. Springer, Berlin, 101–111.Google Scholar
  2. Cenay Babaoglu and Elvettin Akman. 2018. Participation with social media: The case of Turkish metropolitan municipalities in Facebook. In Optimizing E-Participation Initiatives through Social Media. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 77–102.Google Scholar
  3. Lázaro M Bacallao-Pino. 2016. Redes sociales, acción colectiva y elecciones: Los usos de Facebook por el movimiento estudiantil chileno durante la campaña electoral de 2013. Palab. Clave 19, 3 (2016), 810–837.Google Scholar
  4. Francis P. Barclay, Pichandy Chinnasamy, and Priyadarshni Pichandy. 2014. Political opinion expressed in social media and election outcomes—US presidential elections 2012. J. Media Commun. 1, 2 (2014), 15–22.Google Scholar
  5. Márton Bene. 2017. Go viral on the Facebook! Interactions between candidates and followers on Facebook during the Hungarian general election campaign of 2014. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20, 4 (2017), 513–529.Google Scholar
  6. Bruce Bimber. 1998. The internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity 31, 1 (1998), 133–160.Google ScholarCross Ref
  7. Bruce Bimber and Lauren Copeland. 2013. Digital media and traditional political participation over time in the US. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 10, 2 (2013), 125–137.Google ScholarCross Ref
  8. Leticia Bode. 2012. Facebooking it to the polls: A study in online social networking and political behavior. J. Inf. Techno. Polit. 9, 4 (2012), 352–369.Google ScholarCross Ref
  9. Porismita Borah. 2016. Political Facebook use: Campaign strategies used in 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 13, 4 (2016), 326–338.Google ScholarCross Ref
  10. Michael Bossetta, Anamaria Dutceac Segesten, and Hans-Jörg Trenz. 2018. Political participation on Facebook during Brexit. J. Lang. Polit. 17, 2 (2018), 173–194.Google Scholar
  11. Eva Campos-Domínguez and Política Neamp. 2017. Twitter and political communication. Prof. Inf. 26, 5 (2017), 785–794. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2017.sep.01Google Scholar
  12. Juliet E. Carlisle and Robert C. Patton. 2013. Is social media changing how we understand political engagement? An analysis of Facebook and the 2008 presidential election. Polit. Res. Q. 66, 4 (2013), 883–895. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913482758Google ScholarCross Ref
  13. Andrea Ceron, Luigi Curini, Stefano M. Iacus, and Giuseppe Porro. 2014. Every tweet counts? How sentiment analysis of social media can improve our knowledge of citizens’ political preferences with an application to Italy and France. New Media Soc. 16, 2 (2014), 340–358.Google ScholarCross Ref
  14. Amanda Chen Yuet Wei. 2012. Emoticons and the Non-verbal Communication: With Reference to Facebook. Ph.D. Dissertation. Christ University.Google Scholar
  15. Meredith Conroy, Jessica T. Feezell, and Mario Guerrero. 2012. Facebook and political engagement: A study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 5 (2012), 1535–1546.Google ScholarDigital Library
  16. Catherine Corrigall-Brown and Rima Wilkes. 2014. Media exposure and the engaged citizen: How the media shape political participation. Soc. Sci. J. 51, 3 (2014), 408–421. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2014.03.009Google ScholarCross Ref
  17. Daniela V. Dimitrova and Dianne Bystrom. 2013. The effects of social media on political participation and candidate image evaluations in the 2012 Iowa Caucuses. Amer. Behav. Sci. 57, 11 (2013), 1568–1583.Google ScholarCross Ref
  18. Daniela V. Dimitrova, Adam Shehata, Jesper Strömbäck, and Lars W. Nord. 2014. The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Commun. Res. 41, 1 (2014), 95–118.Google ScholarCross Ref
  19. Robin Effing, Jos van Hillegersberg, and Theo Huibers. 2016. Social media indicator and local elections in the Netherlands: Towards a framework for evaluating the influence of Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. In Social Media and Local Governments. Springer, Cham, 281–298.Google Scholar
  20. Paul Ekman. 1993. Facial expression and emotion. Amer. Psychol. 48, 4 (1993), 384.Google ScholarCross Ref
  21. Sandra González-Bailón, Rafael E. Banchs, and Andreas Kaltenbrunner. 2011. Emotions, public opinion and U.S. presidential approval rates: A 5 year analysis of online political discussions. Hum. Commun. Res. 38, 2 (2011), 121–143. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1964623 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract{_}id=1964623.Google Scholar
  22. Sandra González-Bailón, Javier Borge-Holthoefer, Alejandro Rivero, and Yamir Moreno. 2011. The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Sci. Rep. 1 (2011), 197.Google Scholar
  23. Jacob Groshek and Karolina Koc-Michalska. 2017. Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20, 9 (2017), 1389–1407.Google ScholarCross Ref
  24. Stevan Harnad. 2011. Politician 2.0 on Facebook: Information behavior and dissemination on social networking sites—Gaps and best-practice. Evaluation results of a novel eParticipation toolbox to let politicians engage with citizens online. JeDEM eJourn. eDemoc. Open Gov. 3 (2011), 33–41. Retrieved from http://www.jedem.org/article/view/78.Google ScholarCross Ref
  25. Raffael Heiss, Desiree Schmuck, and Jörg Matthes. 2019. What drives interaction in political actors’ Facebook posts? Profile and content predictors of user engagement and political actors’ reactions. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22, 10 (2019), 1497–1513.Google Scholar
  26. Carolyn M. Hendriks, Sonya Duus, and Selen A. Ercan. 2016. Performing politics on social media: The dramaturgy of an environmental controversy on Facebook. Envir. Polit. 25, 6 (2016), 1102–1125.Google Scholar
  27. Sounman Hong and Daniel Nadler. 2012. Which candidates do the public discuss online in an election campaign?: The use of social media by 2012 presidential candidates and its impact on candidate salience. Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 4 (2012), 455–461. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X12000895.Google ScholarCross Ref
  28. Michael B. Hudson, Sylis C. Nicolas, Molly E. Howser, Kristen E. Lipsett, Ian W. Robinson, Laura J. Pope, Abigail F. Hobby, and Denise R. Friedman. 2015. Examining how gender and emoticons influence Facebook jealousy. Cyberpsych. Behav. Soc. Netw. 18, 2 (2015), 87–92.Google ScholarCross Ref
  29. José María Infante. 2005. Elecciones en México: Restricciones, fraudes y conflictos. Confin. Relac. Int. y Cienc. Polít. 1, 2 (2005), 65–78. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=63310205.Google Scholar
  30. Benjamin Krämer. 2017. Populist online practices: The function of the Internet in right-wing populism. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20, 9 (2017), 1293–1309.Google ScholarCross Ref
  31. Nina Lakhani. 2017. Mexico State Election Heads to Court amid Alleged Intimidation and Vote-buying. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/05/mexico-state-election-court-alfredo-del-mazo-maza-delfina-gomez.Google Scholar
  32. Shao-Kang Lo. 2008. The nonverbal communication functions of emoticons in computer-mediated communication. CyberPsych. Behav. 11, 5 (2008), 595–597.Google ScholarCross Ref
  33. Chong Oh and Savan Kumar. 2017. How Trump won: The role of social media sentiment in political elections. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS’17). 48.Google Scholar
  34. Robert Plutchik. 1965. What is an emotion? J. Psych. 61, 2 (1965), 295–303.Google Scholar
  35. Iván Puentes-Rivera, José Rúas-Araújo, and Borja Dapena-González. 2017. Candidatos en Facebook: Del texto a la imagen. Anál. Activ. Aten. Vis. Rev. Díg. 1, 3 (2017), 51–94.Google Scholar
  36. Scott P. Robertson, Ravi K. Vatrapu, and Richard Medina. 2009. The social life of social networks: Facebook linkage patterns in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. On 10th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Social Networks: Making Connections between Citizens, Data 8 Government. Digital Government Society of North America, 6–15.Google Scholar
  37. Agnese Sampietro and Lidia Valera Ordaz. 2015. Emotional politics on Facebook. An exploratory study of Podemos’ discourse during the European election campaign 2014. RECERCA. Rev. Pensa. Anàl. 17 (2015), 61–83.Google Scholar
  38. Tal Samuel-Azran, Moran Yarchi, and Gadi Wolfsfeld. 2017. Engagement and likeability of negative messages on Facebook during Israel’s 2013 elections. J. Soc. Media Soc. 6, 1 (2017), 42–68. Retrieved from http://thejsms.org/index.php/TSMRI/article/view/231.Google Scholar
  39. Barbara Schroter. 2010. Clientelismo politico: Existe el fantasma y como se viste? Rev. Mex. Sociol. 72, 1 (2010), 141–175.Google Scholar
  40. Michele Settanni and Davide Marengo. 2015. Sharing feelings online: Studying emotional well-being via automated text analysis of Facebook posts. Front. Psych. 6 (2015), 1045.Google Scholar
  41. Sebastian Stier, Lisa Posch, Arnim Bleier, and Markus Strohmaier. 2017. When populists become popular: Comparing Facebook use by the right-wing movement Pegida and German political parties. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20, 9 (2017), 1365–1388.Google Scholar
  42. Gary Tang and Francis L. F. Lee. 2013. Facebook use and political participation: The impact of exposure to shared political information, connections with public political actors, and network structural heterogeneity. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 31, 6 (2013), 763–773.Google ScholarDigital Library
  43. Ye Tian, Thiago Galery, Giulio Dulcinati, Emilia Molimpakis, and Chao Sun. 2017. Facebook sentiment: Reactions and emojis. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Social Media. Association for Computational Linguistics, 11–16.Google Scholar
  44. Terri L. Towner. 2012. Campaigns and elections in a web 2.0 world: Uses, effects, and implications for democracy. In Web 2.0 Technologies and Democratic Governance. Springer, New York, NY, 185–199.Google Scholar
  45. Andranik Tumasjan, To Sprenger, Pg Sandner, and Im Welpe. 2010. Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs Social Media. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC, 178–185. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M501708200Google Scholar
  46. Andranik Tumasjan, Timm Oliver Sprenger, Philipp G. Sandner, and Isabell M. Welpe. 2010. Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media 10, 1 (2010), 178–185.Google Scholar
  47. Geetika Vashisht and Sangharsh Thakur. 2014. Facebook as a corpus for emoticons-based sentiment analysis. Int. J. Emerg. Tech. Adv. Eng. 4 (2014), 904–908.Google Scholar
  48. Tapio Vepsäläinen, Hongxiu Li, and Reima Suomi. 2017. Facebook likes and public opinion: Predicting the 2015 Finnish parliamentary elections. Gov. Inf. Quart. 34, 3 (2017), 524–532.Google ScholarCross Ref
  49. Jessica Vitak, Paul Zube, Andrew Smock, Caleb T. Carr, Nicole Ellison, and Cliff Lampe. 2011. It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. CyberPsych. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14, 3 (2011), 107–114.

 

Artículo Tomado De: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3382735

El reto de innovar en el sector público

Sheppard decía en 1967, “cuando una organización aprende a hacer algo que no sabía cómo hacerlo antes, y procede a realizarlo en forma sostenida, entonces un proceso de innovación ha ocurrido”. El gran reto de la innovación pública es que debe ser un cambio trascendental que rompa los moldes tradicionales de la Administración Pública y genere un beneficio social.

En otros países, cuya cultura burocrática está diseñada desde la infancia a buscar la eficiencia, el orden, la organización de las actividades y procesos, es más difícil impulsar ideas que se “salgan de la caja” y que permitan ser más creativos en las soluciones a problemas cotidianos.

Por otro lado, en países como México la creatividad parece saltar a la vista. Nuestros servidores públicos pueden arreglar casi cualquier cosa: desde un trámite hasta componer una máquina con tal de conseguir su objetivo.

Sin embargo, en años recientes, los problemas de la Administración Pública son cada vez más complejos porque tienen un conjunto de intereses y relaciones involucradas que los han hecho más difíciles de resolver y que sólo administramos para que no crezcan. Estos llamados problemas complejos son los que requieren innovación pública.

Hoy son muchos los administradores públicos con grandes ideas para solucionar estas problemáticas, aunque claramente se enfrentan a resistencias contra la innovación pública. Por ello, ofrezco cinco ideas que pueden explicar estas resistencias para que las evitemos o generemos las condiciones adecuadas para que la innovación ocurra y tengamos mejores resultados:

1. El temor y la pereza al cambio

Las ideas de los innovadores públicos deben pasar por el primer filtro de su jefe inmediato y la mayor resistencia que enfrentan es el temor al cambio. “¿Por qué lo quieres hacer diferente? ¿Va a ser más trabajo cambiar los procedimientos?”, son las preguntas que se escuchan a diario en los pasillos gubernamentales.

La razón es muy clara. Nuestra cultura organizacional no está acostumbrada al cambio, a buscar nuevos procedimientos, lograr que los trámites se hagan cada vez mejor. Dicen los administradores, “si funciona de esta forma, mejor lo dejamos y no lo movemos”, ya sea por pereza o por miedo a equivocarnos con el jefe.

2. El poder de la ignorancia

Muchas veces el temor al cambio se encuentra fundado en la ignorancia. Ha pasado que jóvenes funcionarios gubernamentales, recién graduados o quienes llegan a una posición, tienen nuevas ideas basadas en las tecnologías, en los nuevos teóricos de la Administración Pública o simplemente han leído un poco más.

Ante dicha situación, muchos jefes se sienten amenazados con esa nueva información. Su ignorancia o falta de actualización en nuevos temas hacen que eviten las nuevas ideas, aplasten propuestas innovadoras o esquiven las nuevas formas de hacer las cosas. Su propia falta de conocimientos sobre el tema los detiene y, por ello, obstaculizan a cualquiera que busque hacer innovación pública.

3. La ley, el gran obstáculo

El primer argumento que usa un jefe (por pereza o ignorancia) para evitar la innovación es “no está contemplado en la ley que nos rige. No podemos cambiar la ley para hacer lo que dices”, de tal forma que el marco legal es el primero en secuestrar las ideas originales, la creatividad y, por tanto, la innovación.

Las leyes siempre han quedado rebasadas por la realidad. De hecho, los problemas complejos avanzan más rápido que las leyes porque impiden la implementación de nuevas ideas. Por otro lado, los vacíos legales permiten generar algunas innovaciones que superan a los marcos legales para lograr su implementación.

4. La barrera del presupuesto

La mayor limitación para la innovación gubernamental tiene que ver con los recursos públicos. El gasto para la innovación y desarrollo en las organizaciones públicas mexicanas es prácticamente inexistente, salvo contadas excepciones. Por el contrario, lo que se busca es destinar los recursos para obra pública, pago de sueldos y eventos de capacitación, pero no hay dinero para mejorar la eficiencia y productividad de los servidores públicos.

Algún jefe complaciente podrá decir “hazlo, pero no gastes dinero”, o bien, “hazlo con tu propio dinero y ya veremos”, impulsado las ideas de innovación, pero sin invertir en ellas. Esta es la excusa perfecta y una limitante más que debería atenderse para impulsar la innovación de forma institucional.

5. El ego gubernamental 

Finalmente, la innovación pública golpea el ego de algunos administraciones públicos: “Nadie puede hacer las cosas mejor que yo” y por eso impiden cualquier desarrollo o innovación que atente contra su soberbia. Son los que no adoptan las resistencias anteriores, simplemente no dejan pasar ninguna innovación que ponga en riesgo su prestigio o que exponga su ignorancia ante las tecnologías o dichas soluciones.

En suma, la mayoría de las innovaciones de procesos y trámites ocurren a escondidas en las oficinas o departamentos que han descubierto alguna manera de hacer mejor su trabajo, evadiendo los canales legales tradicionales y dando resultados “sorprendentes” a sus jefes usando su ingenio.

Es una pena que la innovación gubernamental tenga que ocurrir así y que la que se genera en la actualidad se pierda cada sexenio o se deje de implementar en las oficinas donde cambian funcionarios. Espero que estas ideas sirvan para impulsar las condiciones idóneas donde ocurra la innovación pública que necesitamos urgentemente y ayuden a promover la investigación en el tema.

 

Artículo Tomado De: https://u-gob.com/el-reto-de-innovar-en-el-sector-publico/

Public value of e-government services through emerging technologies

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to identify the factors that generate public value in e-government services through emerging technologies and to answer the following question: Which are the factors that generate public value, in the e-government services, through emerging technologies?

Design/methodology/approach

Based on a multivariate linear regression model, the author tests the public value of e-government services through emerging technologies in the metropolitan area of the Toluca Valley. Five factors are evaluated to understand public value: anti-corruption strategies, access to public information, transparency platforms, social media and service kiosks.

Findings

Smart strategies and technologies must be guided by the generation of public value through anti-corruption strategies, open data, access to information and data privacy. The efforts of governments should focus on avoiding corruption, making government transparent, opening data and correct handling of information privacy. Technology is an important mechanism to boost public value generation.

Research limitations/implications

Mexico is a developing country, and there are very few emerging technologies implemented in e-Government.

Practical implications

The results are important to identify good practices for the generation of public value in the e-Government area.

Originality/value

The study of emerging technologies is a new area in government, and this paper studies the generation of public value through emerging technologies in a developing country.

 

Artículo Tomado De: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2018-0072/full/html

Diffusion of Innovations Among Mexico: The Technology Adoption of State Governments

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the technological adoption by state governments, based on a longitudinal study of technology in Mexico for which the authors analyzed data from all the local governments from 2010 to 2018. With this data, they proposed a ranking to classify adoption technology, using the diffusion of the innovation theory. They included in the analysis other variables such as the percentage of households with a computer, internet, and other communication technology equipment. The results show that Mexico City is the innovator; Baja California, Sonora, and Nuevo Leon are early adopters, while Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Guerrero are laggards. The most influential variable in the adoption of information technologies is illiteracy, and there is an inverse relationship between technology and illiteracy. Future research will open several paths to understand different adoption behaviors between specific technologies in each state, such as big data, artificial intelligence, internet of things, and smart cities.

 

Introduction

The adoption of emerging technologies by Mexican state governments is in its earliest stages. Some emerging technologies such as cloud computing, big data, Internet of things, and artificial intelligence are starting to be implemented by governments (Valle-Cruz, 2019). Most of the states in Mexico have a very small advance in the implementation and use of technologies, only making use of static web pages (portals) and social media, even some regions in Mexico do not have Internet services or electricity (SENER, 2017). Despite this, most Mexican state governments are trying to develop and improve portals for service delivery, information dissemination, and implementation of different mechanisms to interact with citizens. The digital divide is a challenge for developing countries (Lu, 2001), because in some regions there a lack of basic technologies like electricity and telephone that avoid the implementation of advanced and emerging technologies. Particularly the Mexican digital divide is a problem of inequality that also reflects the poverty of certain areas in Mexico (Mecinas, 2016).

Regarding social media, it is used by all Mexican state governments to improve interaction with citizens, but the use and adoption of these kinds of technologies have different behaviors for each government (Sandoval-Almazán, Valle-Cruz, & Armas, 2015; Sandoval-Almazán & Valle-Cruz, 2016; Sandoval-Almazán, Valle-Cruz, & Kavanaugh, 2018), because some citizens do not have access to essential technologies and even some people do not even know about them.

However, one of the most important technology uses by state governments to interact with citizens is social media, representing a way to improve government-citizen interaction (G2C); it is a mechanism for dissemination of government activities and information, and it represents an efficient communication channel between government and citizens. Social media is also a tool for citizens to make complaints or petitions to their governments, and it is useful for governments to understand citizens’ perception (Valle-Cruz, Sandoval-Almazán, & Gil-García, 2016: p. 1).

In general, there are few empirical studies related to the diffusion of technological innovations in governments (Anderson, Lewis, & Dedehayir, 2015; Chatfield & Reddick, 2018; Wu, J., & Zhang, 2018), and, in a previous research, an explanation was provided to understand, only, the behavior of social media adoptions by governments through the theory of Diffusion of Innovations (Roger, 2003).

Studies related to the diffusion of innovations in government are scarce and this chapter aims to continue with the work done in the article “The Diffusion of Social Media among State Governments in Mexico” published in 2018, where only social media was studied in local governments (Sandoval-Almazán, Valle-Cruz, and Kavanaugh), but analyzing the existing technology data of the Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (INEGI) of the Mexican Government from 2010 to 2018 in order to classify state governments in Mexico based on the Rogers’ Theory of Diffusion of Innovations.

The purpose of this paper is to report the technological adoption by Mexican state governments as an starting point for future research in this field. For this reason, the paper focuses on state governments’ classification based on the design of a ranking of the Mexican state governments and the diffusion of the innovation theory (Rogers, 2003). This way, we interpreted the technology adoption by Mexican state governments. The contribution of this paper is to classify governments’ adoption of technologies in order to design a proper public policy to improve the use of this technology in Mexico.

This paper has been organized into five sections, including this introduction. The second section presents the theoretical framework and review of prior research related to technological factors by state governments and different studies related to the diffusion of innovations. The third section describes the methods we used to collect and analyze technological data from all 32 Mexican state governments. In the fourth section, we present our findings and practical ideas. Finally, in the fifth section, we show conclusions and limitations of the study.

 

Artículo Tomado De: https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/diffusion-of-innovations-among-mexico/255855

Items de portfolio