The Design – Reality Gap ModelOne of the theoretical models which tried to analyze the reasons of success and failure of e-government projects is the design-reality or design-actuality gap model and it created by Robert Heek. According to Heek model, there is a difference between the design assumptions and the realities of the user public sector organization in all e-government projects. This design-reality gap model focuses e-government success and failure and the amount of change between these two concepts: ‘where we are now’ and ‘where the e-government project should have been’. “Where we are now” means present realities of the situation. “Where the e-government project should have been” imply to models/ concepts which added to this project. Because of these, success or failure of e-government project depends on the size of the difference between “existing facts” and “design of e-government projects”. So, if this gap increases, the risk of e-government failure increases. Equally, if this gap decreases, it means the greater the chance of success. Table 1.1Examination of e-government projects’ failure and success case studies demonstrates which these seven measurements (ITPOSMO) ensure a model that can be applied in practice to a wide range of studies. Richard Heeks claims that these 7 dimensions determine design-actuality gap. As you can see, I for information such as data store, T for technology such as hardware and software, P for processes (activities of users and others), O for objectives and values such as culture, S for staffing and skills (quantitative and qualitative aspects of competencies), M for management systems and structures and lastly, O for other resources such as time and money. First three ones are technical elements, O and S are human elements and last two ones are organizational elements of ITPOSMO model. Well, how this model helps us about understanding the project will be success or fail? First of all, risk assessment team should give a number from 1 to 10 to each dimensions in ITPOSMO elements separately in order to show the magnitude of the facts and design difference in that dimension. Rating can be a different or same number which is from 1 to 10 for each dimension and every rating have a different meaning in this processes. If rating is equal to 0, this means that there is no change between design and current reality. If rating is equal to 5, this means which there is some differences between the design proposal and the existing reality. If rating is equal to 10, this means there is a completely radical change between design and the actual reality. To put a finer point on it, for instance, according to information dimension, 0 rating score shows the information which used in “e-government project is now” the same as the information actually used in the organization itself. After this rating process, all 7 ratings are added to each other and value that revealed is interpreted according to table 1.2 which in below. For example, if e-government project’s total value is 13, this project will succeed or if the value is 48, it may well fail unless action is taken to close design-reality gap. Therefore, precautions must be taken for being success. Precautions can be taken in two ways, risk assessment team can change the e-government project and it will be more close the reality, and/or you can change reality and reality will be more close to the design of the project. In both ways, design-reality gap will decrease and chance of being success of the project will increase. In addition to these, design of the project and reality, both of them are dynamic, they can always change in any stages of the digital policy implementation. Because of this reason, design-reality gaps also change actually. For example, if money fund are withdrawn from the e-government project, other resources are affected directly. It affects e-government project in a direct way absolutely. Another example is that change in political situation in the country affects objectives and values in the ITPOSMO model and accordingly digital policy implementation absolutely. Table 1.2There is not an only one type ITPOSMO model actually. There are three common design-reality gap prototips of digital policy implementation failure and these lead to large design-reality gaps and possible failure, accordingly. First one is, hard-soft gaps. People think that ICTs are only and mostly related hard factors such as machines, the Internet. Many digital policy designed and implemented according to these hard things, however there are soft things such as politics, culture and they affects these projects mostly actually. If this situation be ignored, design-reality gap should have been increase. Second one is, private-public gaps. Most digital policy implementation projects are designed according to private sector by IT staff. However, there are some significant differences between private and public sector and these should not be ignored. If it should, large design-reality gap can be occur again. Last one is country-context gap. Though motto of “Think Global, Act Local’ seem as easy to implement and useful, countries, regions, cities are different from each other and all of them has specific features and e-government projects should be unique for each of them differently and separately. Otherwise, there should be increasing reality-design gap and fail digital policy implementation.