To reach our aims we developed a case study in Minho autarchies, called Câmaras Municipais. Case study methodology is widely used in the IS research field, according to the Association of Information Systems (ASI), mainly due to the fact that organizational issues and research problems have evolved from being technical to being organizational [15]. It is an ideal methodology when a holistic, in-depth investigation is needed [16], and it is designed to bring out the details from the viewpoint of the participants by using multiple sources of data.

The present study is an exploratory one, according to Yin [17], with a single-case application: the Minho autarchies. The unit of analysis within this case is the perception held by significant autarchic stakeholders regarding the implementation and use of Web 2.0 tools in autarchic activity, in terms of advantages of their use, points of concern and how to guarantee their correct functioning. The sources of information in our case were four autarchies from the possible twelve that make up the Minho region which agreed to take part in the case study: Viana do Castelo, Barcelos, Caminha and Arcos de Valdevez.

Even knowing that our unit of analysis was the perceptions of stakeholders about the use of Web 2.0 tools, the question remained about who should be surveyed, as all the autarchic stakeholders are important sources of information. Effectively communicating the value of e-government initiatives to the entire organization, and to its employees, is emphasized by both [18,19]. All employees should be allowed to participate in many ways in e-government initiatives which impact on their work conditions as e-government must be perceived as a mutual project. Some authors pinpoint the importance of campaigns focusing on enhancing citizens' use of e-government services [20,21,22].

Whilst all stakeholders in autarchies constitute relevant sources of information, it would not be within the scope of this study to survey them all. On the other hand, case study research is not sampling research, and both the unit of analysis and the units of information are critical factors. It is typically a system of action rather than an individual or group of individuals. Case studies tend to be selective, focusing on one or two issues that are fundamental to understanding the system being examined [23], and on sources that represent information units. Considering this and the relevant role of all kinds of stakeholders in the transformational government process, we identified target-groups for survey, from within the case’s population, taking into account the fact that each group makes different use of the Web 2.0 tools and that the three groups cover the main activities carried out using these kinds of tools. Therefore, three target-groups were selected in each autarchy to be surveyed about their perceptions of the use of Web 2.0 tools in autarchic activity, as mentioned above: (1) Councilors (Local Politicians); (2) Information Systems (IS) technicians (Middle managers); and (3) General Staff (Top-management).

Despite the constitution of target-groups, it cannot be ignored that an individual case study consists of a “whole” study, in which facts are gathered from various sources and conclusions are drawn from those facts. Yin [24] suggested using multiple sources of evidence as a way of ensuring construct validity. Moreover, according to Yin [24], one of the main advantages of case studies is the recourse to several data sources; case studies which do this have more worth, in terms of quality, than those which are only supported by one source of information. Thus, in order to obtain information for the case study, two different techniques were used: a questionnaire and a focus-group interview. According to [25,26,27], interviews are often one of the most important sources of data in a case study. Using several sources allows, on the one hand, the different perspectives of the participants to be included and, on the other, different ”measurements” of the same phenomenon to be taken; this creates a triangulation of data during the analysis stage. Also, a triangulation of techniques allows method triangulation. For Yin [24], using different data collections tools in the construction of a case study means that a more diverse set of topics are available for analysis and that the same phenomenon can be corroborated in this way.

Exploratory interviews were held with experts on council activities and functioning, and data from the interviews were handled through the content analysis technique; the questionnaire was designed using the interview results, and applied in each autarchy to the three target-groups created for this purpose: (1) Councilors; (2) Information Systems (IS) technicians; and (3) General Staff.

All three categories of information were applied for each of the Web 2.0 tools considered: Blog (Table A1); Wiki (Table A2); RSS (Table A3); Podcast (Table A4); Social Networks (Table A5), so that the results could be considered and interpreted for each tool separately.

Information obtained for each Web 2.0 tool is presented in Table A1–Table A5, on pages X to Y, according to the survey categories:

The responses to the questionnaires were analyzed as simple percentages, and a synthesis is presented of the most relevant aspects regarding the advantages perceived by the different groups surveyed (Councilors, IS Technicians and General Staff) of the implementation of these tools in the respective autarchy, about the principles to be followed and the care to be taken, in their implementation, as well as what conditions should be in place in order to guarantee their appropriate functioning.

Taking into account Chang and Kannan’s study [12] regarding the care to be taken, we will integrate the results about constraints/care in the four types of barriers to the implementation of Web 2.0 in local government (technological, institutional, security and privacy).

Results

(1) Advantages

Generally, all the groups surveyed recognize common advantages; however, the advantages are presented according to each group of respondents.

Councilors

Staff (Top Managers)

IST (Information System Technicians)

Generally speaking, the advantages mentioned above which were perceived by the different groups surveyed corroborate the various types of benefits stressed by some of the authors discussed in this article. With regard to the advantage of accessibility to information and knowledge of the internal functioning of the autarchic entity, Noveck [8] refers to how information and its availability are key in this scenario of democratization and how relevant it is to make good information available to the general public for better governance. In addition, in terms of bringing citizens or other stakeholders closer through the various tools considered, or producing new knowledge (specifically with Wikis), we are reminded of the study carried out by Lazer [9] where these authors state that citizen-to-citizen and citizen-to-government dialogs can have many positive effects - from increasing interest in politics and citizen participation, expanding the number and types of participants generating support for a position/project, to creating identity and trust, and improvements can be made in terms of knowledge management, also previously mentioned in this paper.

(2) Principles to Follow and Care to be Taken

Councilors

Staff (Top Managers)

IST (Information System Technicians)

In general, the most important care to be taken is perceived to be that of promoting the tools and the advantages of using them to citizens.

(3) Guarantees for Appropriate Functioning of the Tools

Two types of guarantees were presented: those related to the profile of the manager of the implementation and subsequent management of the process and those related to the process itself.

A. Those related to the profile of the manager of the implementation and subsequent management of the process.

Councilors

The manager should be able to promote participation between councils and citizens, and to also moderate with regard to Blogs, Wikis, Social Networks, You Tube/Flickr, Mashups; s/he should make useful information available, in terms of RSS feeds; and be able to use technology well for Podcasts and Mashups.

Staff (Top Managers)

These collaborators consider, as did the councilors, that the manager in charge of the implementation and subsequent management of the process should be able to promote participation between councils and citizens, and to also moderate. In terms of YouTube/Flickr, s/he should be familiar with all the issues for discussion, be technically qualified regarding Podcasts, create credible and attractive dialogue regarding Social Networks, and be an intermediary between council and citizens in terms of Mashups.

IST (Information System Technicians)

Lastly, the IST believe that it is important for any of those in charge of the implementation of Blogs and Wikis to be able to promote participation between councils and citizens, be familiar with the issues for discussion on Youtube and Flickr, be technically qualified for Podcasts and knowledgeable about the aims of the implementation for Social Networks. Regarding Mashups, they should take on the roles of moderator, leader and technician.

We can see the frequency with which certain qualities/characteristics are perceived as ‘ideal or appropriate’ for the implementation/management of the process (for example, “be able to promote participation between councils and citizens”, “be able to moderate”, or be “technically qualified”). These allow a “profile” to be drawn up for the person who would ultimately be responsible for a future implementation of these tools in the councils surveyed. On the other hand, it is possible to see that these demands or guarantees imply conditions that avoid certain constraints in the process, related to those mentioned by Chang and Kannan [12]. These are mainly what the authors refer to as “technological” and “institutional” (“technically prepared”, “intermediary between council and citizens”, “credible dialogue”...). The following point (guarantee of success regarding the functioning of the process itself) reveals more concerns with possible problems in terms of “security” and “privacy”, according to same authors.

B. Regarding the process itself: Both the process and the respective tools must guarantee, from the respondents’ point of view, a series of qualities/characteristics, which we detail below:

Councilors

Staff (Top Managers)

Both councilors and IS technicians believe that the above-mentioned tools can promote closer relationships between the autarchy and local citizens, although they do not consider that all the tools would play an equally useful role in this. Blogs and social networks are seen as tools which would favor this approximation, mainly through “electronic dialogue”, development of discussion forums, and exchange of ideas on topics of interest. Wikis, RSS, Podcasts, and Youtube/Flickr were only thought to be useful in terms of narrowing the gap between local government and the public if the information produced/created/updated were of importance or interest to both parties, or if accessibility to the information was relevant. Finally, Mashups would be of use in new services created for the autarchies.

It is clear that, in practice, developing a closer relationship through producing and updating information, as referred to for the second group of tools, cannot be seen as separate from the promotion of new ways of, and spaces for, dialogue which were classified as interesting and motivating (blogs and social networks). This is because only the guarantee of adequate communication strategies can ensure the correct reception of the knowledge and information produced.

This leads us to what we consider the most interesting data analysis result: the contribution of our study to the future implementation of Web 2.0 strategy in Minho autarchic institutions.

Regardless of the fact that these tools would bring autarchies and local citizens closer together, through ways of, and spaces for, communication which would focus on producing/updating relevant information, the respondents to our questionnaire pointed out that, in order for this to happen successfully, specific issues must be dealt with:

In addition, the process must be properly managed, both in its implementation stage and functioning/continuity/maintenance, and this requires a person or a team who fulfill specific “profile requirements” as perceived by the survey sample.

The respondents’ definition of such profile is still in an early stage of investigation, of course, but up to now there is an outline for future detailed and grounded descriptions, constituting the support of further research in this field. ‘Moderating' skills seem key for whoever manages the process, to promote “healthy” interactions between autarchy and stakeholders, making them all producers and receivers of information. The skill to motivate others is also perceived as relevant as is promoting the involvement and participation of all citizens in the spaces/moments of discussion and dialogue. Other relevant profile demands are technical skills and knowledge that fit the demands of implementing, handling and maintaining the Web 2.0 tools to be used.

It seems essential to validate these profile requirements, to obtain more detailed information about the practical issues of these demands, so that the manager, or management team, can meet them.

Such information could then be made available in each autarchy and could be used for the decision process to select managers for implementing Web 2.0 in the autarchy. The idea is that a clearly defined and validated profile may guide the selection process, guaranteeing that any person or team responsible for implementing and maintaining the above-mentioned tools, has the knowledge and skills necessary to ensure that the proposed aims are achieved.