In-house providing for ICT services: an analysis of critical successful factors

Journal title ARGOMENTI
Author/s Emidia Vagnoni
Publishing Year 2014 Issue 2013/39
Language Italian Pages 25 P. 113-137 File size 737 KB
DOI 10.3280/ARG2013-039005
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

ICT plays a key role to enhance public services’ efficiency and quality improvement. In the Italian context, the in-house providing model has been widely experienced by regions to manage ICT, sometimes with regard to the specific context of the healthcare sector. Considering that both national and international literature has been questioning the effectiveness of the in-house provider model to improve public services, the paper aims at analysing its key successful factors. Thus, an empirical study has been designed with regard to the experience of a region. Both interviews and document analysis have been used to collect data. Some final results are then presented.

Keywords: ICT, in-house provider, health, performance, management.

Jel codes: M 150, M 190.

  1. Arzeni A., Sotte F. (2013). Imprese e non-imprese nell’agricoltura italiana. Una analisi sui dati del Censimento dell’Agricoltura 2010. Working Paper del Gruppo 2013, n. 20, Coldiretti, Roma.
  2. Begg I. (2007). Improving the Rationale and the Political Decision Process. The 2008/9 EU Budget Review. European Institute, LSE, Lisbon 5 November.
  3. Blankart C.B. e Koester G.B. (2009). Refocusing the EU budget - An institutional view, Centre for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA). Working Paper, n. 16, Basel.
  4. Bureau J.C. e Mahé L.P. (2010). CAP payments after 2013 and rural public goods. QA - Rivista dell’Associazione Rossi-Doria, 4, pp. 29-55.
  5. De Filippis F. e Henke, R (2010). La Pac tra primo e secondo pilastro: una lettura della spesa agricola dell’UE. QA-Rivista dell’Associazione Rossi-Doria, n. 3.
  6. De Filippis F. e Sardone R. (Ed.s) (2010). Il dibattito sul bilancio UE e il ruolo della Pac. Funzionamento, evoluzione e prospettive. INEA, Osservatorio sulle politiche agricole dell’UE, Roma.
  7. European Commission (2007). Reforming the Budget, Changing Europe a Public Consultation Paper in View of the 2008/2009 Budget Review. SEC(2007) 1188 final, Brussels, 12 September.
  8. European Commission (2012). EU budget 2011. Financial Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, ISBN 978-92-79-24938-9.
  9. European Commission (2010). The EU Budget Review. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the National Parliaments, 19.10.2010 COM(2010) 700 final - Provisional, Strasbourg, 19 October.
  10. European Commission (2010). The CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee Of the Regions, COM(2010) 672/5, Brussels, 18 November.
  11. European Commission (2011). A Budget for Europe 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2011) 500 final.
  12. Eureval Rambøll Management (2008). Meta-study on lessons from existing evaluations as an input to the Review of EU spending. Final Report, Evaluation for the European Commission, Contract ABAC-101930
  13. Ecorys Nederland Bv, Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB), institute for economic research (IFO) (2008). A Study on EU Spending. Final Report, Commissioned by the European Commission, Directorate General for Budget, Contract No 30-CE-0121821/00-57
  14. Grethe H. (2006). Environmental and Agricultural Policy: What Roles for the EU and the Member States? Conference Subsidiarity and Economic Reform in Europe, organized by the European Commission, the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, November 8-9, Brussels.
  15. Mrak M., Drobnič M., Erjavec E., et al. (2007). EU Budget Review: An Opportunity for a Thorough Reform or Minor Adjustments? Final Report of the EU Budget Reform, Taskforce under the Slovenian Presidency of the European Council.
  16. Núñez Ferrer J. (2008). Is there a justified role for Rural Development in the EU budget? Paper presented in the XII congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, 26-29 August, Gent, Belgium.
  17. Pupo D’Andrea M.R. (2007). Il futuro bilancio per la Pac tra allargamento e riforma. Agriregionieuropa, n.11.
  18. Sotte F., Arzeni A. (2013), Imprese e non-imprese nell’agricoltura italiana, Agriregionieuropa, n.32, Ancona.
  19. Sotte F., Bignami F. (2007). La spesa agricola dell’UE. Agriregionieuropa, n.10.
  20. Sotte F. (2010). Il bilancio dell’Unione europea e il finanziamento della Pac. Agriregionieuropa, n. 23.

Emidia Vagnoni, Il modello in-house providing nell’ambito dei servizi ICT: un’analisi dei fattori critici di successo in "ARGOMENTI" 39/2013, pp 113-137, DOI: 10.3280/ARG2013-039005