electronic government - concepts, tools, methodologies, and applications - introductory chapter

8/10/2019 Electronic Government - Concepts, Tools, Methodologies, And Applications - Introductory Chapter

1/35

xli

Introductory ChapterA Brief Introduction to the Field of E-Government

Ari-Veikko Annttiroiko

University of Tampere, Finland

Electronic government or e-government is one of the most important elements on the current public sec-tor reform agenda. It is a global phenomenon (Jaeger, 2003; Jaeger & Thompson, 2003; Panagopoulos,2004). It reects the public sector organizations need to nd ways to meet the challenges of moderniza-tion, globalization, and information society development (Centeno, van Bavel, & Burgelman, 2005).E-government no longer appears to be a matter of choice, but a necessity for any country wishing to enterthe 21st century as a competitive nation in the world arena (Kumar, Mukerji, Butt, & Persaud, 2007).

E-government refers to those political-administrative structures and processes in which ICTs areutilized. The transformative power of e-enabled practices is not only in that it streamlines existing

processes, but rather is about rethinking and reengineering all aspects of government and public gover-nance. In this way it helps to tackle novel problems and improve organizational capacity, performance,and innovativeness (see Felbinger & Holzer, 1999). If the transformation of governments operationsand interactive relations with stakeholders is not kept in mind, e-government remains a mere add-onto conventional government structures and processes, and is therefore likely to provide only modestreturns on ICT investments. Thus, e-government is a tool to transform government, but to realize this

potential requires that public organizations redesign their structures and administrative processes andalso strengthen their stakeholders capacity to utilize e-government services (Song, 2004; Peristeras,Tsekos, & Trabanis, 2002). At the same time widely applied aspects of e-government, such as Websites and e-mails, have gradually become government as usual, at least in the developed world, whichdiminishes the novelty of this phenomenon.

Western societies have a strong belief in technology-enabled progress. The vision of a knowledge-based society and economy is appealing, but low take-up rates mean that, despite huge investment, a gapis emerging between vision and reality (Kolsaker & Lee-Kelley, 2007). This same tension is visible inthe e-government eld. Thus, if e-government no longer appears to be a matter of choice, the question

is how to make the best use of it in different contexts.The aim of this chapter is to give an overview of e-government as a public sector reform agenda. The

discussion starts with an introduction to the core concepts and theories of e-government. The next topicis at the very heart of e-government as it presents the e-government development policy framework withspecial reference to key assessments and analyses as e-government policy tools, such as e-maturity models.This section is followed by a brief discussion about e-government tools and technologies. The next threesections briey discuss utilization, organizational and social implications, and the managerial impact of

e-government. The last two sections address critical issues and emerging trends in e-government.


2/35

xlii

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS AND THEORIES IN E-GOVERNMENT

Denitions of E-Government

Electronic government refers to all political-administrative structures and processes of government inwhich information and communication technologies (ICTs) are utilized. Even if the early discussions onIT in public sector provided fairly sophisticated views of this then novel trend (e.g. Schumacher, 1967;Lamb, 1973), the Internet Revolution of the rst half of the 1990s fundamentally changed the condi -tions and conceptions of e-government. The concept of electronic government seemed to rst achieve

prominence around 1993 in the US and in abbreviated form (e-government) later around 1997 (Heeks& Bailur, 2006). This new turn is visible in the literature published since the mid-1990s (e.g. Loader,1997; Bellamy & Taylor, 1998; Tsagarousianou, Tambini, & Bryan, 1998; Snellen & van de Donk, 1998;Woolpert, Slaton, & Schwerin, 1998). The most widely adopted denitions of e-government emerged

around the same time as a result of active global and national development work by governments, thinktanks and development organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank, and the United Nations.

Among the most widely used denitions of e-government is the relational-functional one by the

OECD (2002): E-government provides an opportunity to develop a new relationship between govern-ments, citizens, service users and businesses, by using new ICTs which enable the dissemination and

collection of information and services both within and outside of government (government to citizen;

government to business; government to government) for the purposes of service delivery, decision mak-

ing and accountability.Fairly comprehensive denitions combining a technological view with the

operational aims and functions of e-government are provided by Fang (2002), Brown (2003) and manyother academics, who conceptualize e-government as a way for governments to exploit ICTs to providecitizens, businesses and other stakeholders with more convenient access to government information andservices and more direct involvement in governance and democratic processes. E-government has con-nections to virtually all aspects of governmentadministration, participation, services, inclusion etc.

but, at least on the basis of the current literature, the core of this concept revolves around e-governmentservices and service delivery (Stahl, 2005b). Another important point is that e-government is neither ahomogeneous nor a static phenomenon, which renders its conceptualization challenging (Gil-Garcia &Martinez-Moyano, 2007).

Usually the denitions of e-government include one or more of the following four elements: how,

why, for whom and in what application areas:

a. Technological means:The rst and fundamental element of all denitions of e-government isthe reference to the adoption and utilization of ICTs, which highlights the necessary technologicaldimension of this concept. It refers to that small e in the term e-government.

b. Aims and active role of government:The second element is the aim of adoption and utilizationof ICTs by government, usually associated with the broad goals of public sector transformation or

reforms, or with more precise objectives such as increased efciency, better service, and enhancedcitizen participation.c. Citizens, customers and stakeholders:Most of the denitions in the contemporary discussion

emphasize the key stakeholders affected by e-government adoption, most notably citizens andbusinesses. This reects the relational approach to e-government and is closely associated with

the idea of public governance.d. Application areas:E-government can be dened by referring to the application or functional areas,

including administrative functions, nancial management, service provision (e-health, e-education

etc.), policy making, political leadership, public governance, and democratic practices.


3/35

xliii

To sum up, e-government refers generally to those political-administrative structures and processesin which ICTs are utilized. A more detailed denition of e-government applied here is the following:

e-government is governments use of information and communication technologies, particularly Web-

based applications, to support responsive and cost-effective government by facilitating administrative

and managerial functions, providing citizens and stakeholders with convenient access to government

information and services, facilitating interaction and transactions with stakeholders, and providing

better opportunities to participate in democratic institutions and processes.

There are many more or less similar denitions available in the current literature. What is essential

in all conceptualizations is that they look at the relevant e-government activities and processes from thepoint of view of government, emphasizing the role of government as initiator, enabler, coordinator andkey player in administrative, service, democratic and governance processes. In other words, e-governmentemphasizes governments active rolein improving its performance, in providing services, in creatingnew forms of citizen participation, and in managing public governance relations.

E-government is not the only concept that has been used to refer ICT-assisted or knowledge-basedgovernment. In fact, there is a range of concepts intended to depict the very same or slightly similar trans-formation as e-government, some focusing on technology and some more on the social or governmentalaspects of e-transformation. For example, digital governmentand online governmentare synonymouswith e-government. Examples of widely used novel terms are m-government, which utilizes mobiletechnologies and u-government, which is used to describe a next-generation e-government utilizingubiquitous technologies (see e.g. Grnlund, 2007; Grabow, 2007; 6, 2004; Anttiroiko, 2005). There is arisk that the current enthusiastic renaming of government will lead to conceptual confusion.

Key Dimensions of Electronic Government

E-government is a socio-technical system composed of people, technologies, and social and organiza-tional structures and processes. In this the whole idea of e-government is a result of the co-evolutionof technological and organizational arrangements. What this open system creates is government thatcombines organizational innovations with new ICTs to perform basic governmental functions in a con-stantly changing environment.

As e-government is more about government than about technology or electronic media, the basicdimensions ofe-government can be derived from the functions of government. Government is exerciseof authority in a polity. Government is needed to maintain law and order, to provide citizens with publicservices, and to safeguard civic rights and democracy. In addition, it must take care of both the manage-ment of its internal organization and of its multiple relationships with stakeholders in an increasinglycomplex environment. These functions of government can be used to conceptualize the basic dimensionsof e-government, which are here divided into four areas (cf. Michel, 2005):

E-administrationrefers basically to all those administrative and operational processes of government

in which ICTs are utilized, including both mundane ofce tasks and basic managerial functionsof public organizations, such as planning, organizing, stafng, directing, and controlling (see e.g.

Klamo, Huang, Wang, & Le, 2006, p. 160). It is closely related to e-management, which refers tothe use of information technology to improve the management of government, from streamlin-ing business processes to maintaining electronic records, to improving the ow and integration of

information (Gil-Garcia & Helbig, 2007, p. 811). E-servicesor electronic public services refers to public service provision aimed at citizens and

other target groups using ICTs. E-services may include information, communication, and transac-


4/35


5/35

xlv

Government-to-Government (G2G) Government-to-Business (G2B) Business-to-Government (B2G)

In addition to these, there are the internal e-governance relations of public organizations, such asgovernment-to-employees (G2E) and employees-to-government (E2G) relations. There are also otherrelations, such as government-to-NGOs (G2N), government-to-market (G2M) etc., but the above men-tioned relations between three basic actor groups are the fundamental ones. These relations are illustratedin Figure 2.

Functional Model of E-Government

The point of departure of the general functional e-government model is the communityor polity and,within it, individual citizens, so that whatever applications, e-services, and communication tools areintroduced, they should match the features of a territorial community in question and, when applicable,

be based as much as possible on citizens needs and their patterns of behavior. In a democratic systemthe focus is on citizens, which in different rolesas constituents, taxpayers, political activists, work-force, inhabitants, and service usersform the most important stakeholder group for e-government (cf.Michel, 2005). In a wider governance perspective institutional stakeholders also form important targetand resource groups for e-government (see Figure 2).

As a precondition of functioning e-government system, citizens need accessto information networks

and to the Internet in particular. Thus, access needs to be incorporated into the e-government model asone of its vital elements. Access has two basic dimensions, (a)physical access to usage environments,such as home-based access and networked computers in a workplace, Internet caf, shared service centeror public access point, and (b) virtual access solutions, interfaces, and portalsto online informationand services (see Lucke, 2007). Access is one of the most critical issues of e-government in developingcountries in which most of the people lack access to the networked world.

The decision making on public policies and resource allocation in most democracies is formally basedon a representative system of government, emphasizing the role of the parliament at national level and

Figure 2. Basic e-government relations

Government

BusinessCitizens

G2G

G2E

Government

Internale-government

Inter-

governmental

e-government

External

e-government

relations

B2G

G2B

C2G

G2C

E2G


6/35

xlvi

local and regional councils at lower levels. Yet, when other forms of democracy gradually develop torevitalize democratic practices, citizens may gain more direct political control and power over policy-making issues and governance processes. Beside the genuine demand for more direct citizen control,this transformation is generally expected to strengthen citizens commitment to their communities, theircompliance with social and legal norms, and the utilization of local potentials and know-how in com-munity development.

Requirements of e-government services based on citizens and other stakeholders needs and sup-ported by functioning access solutions need to be met by public organization and personnel. With this inmind, an authoritys administrative and service organizations should be capable of utilizing ICTs in their

operations and interactions, which requires the development of new ways of organizing governmentalfunctions and taking care of the managerial aspects of governance. This requires change management andbusiness process management, for the transformation towards e-organization does not take place auto-matically. Thus, the utilization of ICTs in any organization requires change management in which work

procedures, information ows, service systems and governance practices are properly redesigned.

These aspects form the core of the model for e-government, as presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Basic functional model for e-government

E-organ ization / E-m anagement- Change management

- Reengineering

- Knowledge management

E-democracy- Representative democracy

- Participatory democracy

- Direct democracy

E-governance

- Cooperation

- Networks

- Partnerships

E-administration

- Internal

administrative

processes- Inter-

governmental

processes

Customers

E-services

- Information

- Communication

- Interaction- Transaction

Electronic service delivery

Electronic democratic practices

Electronic governance processes

Electronic

administrative

processes

Web site/portalAccess

Access Web site/portal

Citizens

NGOs

Business

Public

agencies

Citizens

Access

Primary targetand resource

groups within a

polity

Web sitePortal

GOVERNMENT


7/35

xlvii

Generic Theories of E-Government

Theorizing e-government is essentially about determining the formation of governments strategies andpolicies to apply ICTs for the purpose of performing their functions and achieving collectively set goals.Garson (1999) divides the theoretical frameworks for e-government into four main areas: decentraliza-tion/democratization, normative/dysutopian, socio-technical systems, and global integration theories. Themajor tension appears between the rst two, as the rst one is more optimistic and consensual approach

while the second is more like a critical or conict theory applied to e-government (Schelin, 2003).

Another way of theorizing the paradigmatic tension is to contrast the Weberian model of bureau-cracy with the reinventing government movement. The tension is between traditional and new publicmanagement paradigms. In this picture e-government itself is seen to represent a new paradigm thatencourages transformation from the traditional bureaucracy to the new e-government paradigm, whichemphasizes coordinated network building, external collaboration, and customer orientation (Ho, 2002;Schelin, 2003).

Another important tension is the degree of democratic control and the role of the state in building andmaintaining e-government systems. In the current discussion it is attached to two conceptions: the DigitalState Paradigm (DSP) and digital NPM doctrine. They can be supplemented by a third approach, digitalcommunitarianism (DC), as a more or less theoretical alternative to these two dominating paradigms (cf.Song, 2007). These approaches emphasize respectively the role of the state, markets or communities asa source of power and legitimation in e-government.

The Digital State Paradigmfavors strong state thinking and developmentalism in its orientation. Itspoint of departure is proactive government, quality service, and balanced societal development. Thisis an integrative and holistic approach which attempts to maintain governments strong hold on public

policy and governance, why it characteristically favors incremental reforms, promotes public-public col-laboration, and integrates market-based solutions into the wider public service palette (Song, 2007).

Digital NPM doctrineor e-NPM applies the principles of New Public Management (NPM) to e-government. In a slightly narrow sense we could call it an e-Commerce Paradigm for Government. Ithas been claimed that it is the success in e-commerce and e-business that increased the expectations ofcitizens that public sector organizations should provide services similar to those in the commercial sec-tor and with the same efciency and user-friendly solutions (Ebrahim & Irani, 2005; Alpar & Olbrich,

2005; Stahl, 2005a; Stahl, 2005b; Eddowes, 2004; McGregor & Holman, 2001). The NPM paradigmfavors e-commerce models with a strong emphasis on business-minded solutions applied to the publicsector (cf. Song, 2007). It aims ultimately at substantial cost reductions in public service provision, cut-

backs in public personnel, the utilization of consumer choice, and market-based mechanisms in serviceprovision. It has some common elements with discussions about reengineering government (Osborne& Gaebler, 1993). The Digital NPM paradigm leads to a fairly fragmentary system, which seeks costreductions and efciency through competition, outsourcing, Public-Private Partnership (PPP) models,

and commercialization.

Digital communitarianismis a theoretical concept in the sense that these features have only gradu-ally found their way onto the e-government development agenda. This discussion is based on ideas ofstrong democracy and participatory democracy, and thus on the conceptions of genuine citizenship andthe sense of community (Barber. 1984). This approach favors small-scale community-based e-govern-ment applications.

Another way of approaching the general nature of e-government is to create typologies on the basisof state intervention and governance style, likewise governments approach to information and networkarchitecture (open vs. closed). On this basis Amoretti (2007) presents a four-fold typology of e-govern-


8/35

xlviii

ment regimes: reform-oriented e-government, authoritarian e-government, managerial e-government,and open e-government. The previously mentioned three-fold typology is similar to Amorettis scheme,for reform-oriented e-government is associated with digital state paradigm (e.g. many EU countries, such

as Germany and France), managerial e-government is based to a large extent on NPM doctrine (e.g. UKand New Zealand), and open government is in some respects close to digital communitarianism (e.g.some aspects of e-government in Sweden and Denmark). Authoritarian e-government, of which a cur-rently much discussed case is China, is an important addition to the bigger picture of e-government, asit reects the fact that many governments, especially in the developing world, tend to control Internet

use and access, possibly even extending this to Internet censorship.If we take the theorization of e-government further, we nd an array of theories and models describ-

ing specic aspects of e-government. General theorizing of e-transformation in government and politics

especially is thematically very close to the abovementioned general theories of e-government (Woolpertet al., 1998; Mlki, Anttiroiko, & Savolainen, 2004). Similarly, theories that are used to frame the ITadoption in governments can also be seen to theorise important aspects of e-government. Examples ofsuch theorization are a level-based e-government model depicting the impact of technological tools on

public management and services (Markellou, Panayiotaki, & Tsakalidis, 2007) as well as theories andmodels of business process redesign and IT-enabled service transformation (e.g. Venkatraman, 1994).IT in the public sector has usually been approached on the basis of existing theories applied to e-govern-ment context, including institutional theory, stakeholder theory, network theory, diffusion-of-innovationstheory, the technology acceptance model (TAM), and the Web trust model (WTM) (Orgeron, 2007). Thereis also a range of specic theories and applied models of e-government development and technological

and organizational design, such as maturity and e-readiness models. Most of these theories and modelswill be discussed in detail in this book series.

E-Government Development and Design Methodologies

The e-government development agendatook shape as a part of the Internet revolution-inspired infor-mation society development since the early 1990s. Fresh views on how government should adopt ICTswere raised even earlierin fact, as early as in the late 1960sat a high political level in countries likeJapan and France, but globally e-government policy attained new prominence after the mid-1990s. It

became a widely used development concept as a part of the agenda for public sector reform.It is important to note that e-government development is a broad strategic issue based on a holistic

and integrative approach (Eddowes, 2004). This connects e-government to strategic planning, organiza-tion structures, e-skilling, IT project management, technological design issues, and broader governanceissues. In this chapter we draw a broad picture of e-government development policy and discuss some

prevalent e-government development models.There is need to point out that the perspective on development and design methodologies is broader

within e-government framework than in systems development. Methodology is a documented approach

for performing activities in a coherent, consistent, accountable, and repeatable manner. In e-governmentit is not only about managing IT projects or setting up information systems, but a strategic issue of e-transformation in government with special reference to governments role in society, citizen involvement,governance relations, and so forth.

E-Government Strategy and Policies

E-government strategy and development policy form a fundamental element in modernizing the pub-lic sector. Strategies are systematic approaches needed to ensure an organizations long-term success.


9/35

xlix

Governments at different institutional levels are investing in the development of strategies to guaranteeoptimal utilization of ICTs in terms of broader strategic goals. (Gil-Garca & Pardo, 2005; Ebrahim &Irani, 2005). General e-government strategy may accompany a strategic IT plan, a document in which

a public organization collects its IT-related strategies, principles and key measures. It is a way to com-municate the IT vision for the entire organization and to give some guidance to departments regardingtheir IT actions (Freeman, 2007). There are also various specic areas requiring special consideration

under the umbrella of e-government strategy, which may thus be presented in separate policy documents.For example, issues such as access, security, and privacy, are vital for the adoption and functionality ofan e-government system.

The e-government strategy process starts from dening the vision and guidelines for strategic action

(for an example of such a strategy, see GovHK, 2007). A view to long term transformation is of utmostimportance here. It is also worth emphasizing that e-government must always be based onnon-technologi-cal aims and objectives, which serve as the true rationale behind the introduction of new infrastructures,generic services, and applications.

At a more concrete level there is a need to consider the social problems which government must tryto solve, thus increasing our understanding of what e-government might contribute to. E-governmentreforms are expected to bring benets that can be divided into three main categories: (a) improveddelivery of public services, in terms of availability, ease of use, and cost savings to the government,to businesses, and to individuals, (b) improved transparency, accountability, democracy, and reducedopportunities for corruption, and (c) broader economic and societal gains (infoDev, 2007; cf. Hughes,Scott, & Golden, 2007; Gil-Garcia & Helbig, 2007).

Achieving such benets entails certainpreconditions. At the operational level, e-government projectsmust be carefully identied, planned, and implemented. Even more importantly, the realization of the

potential of e-government requires a certain level of maturity in the stakeholders involved. This meansthat, for example, citizens abilities to use computers, their access to Internet, and their motivation oropportunities to utilize information and service systems affect the overall preconditions of e-government.The same goes for businesses and their ability to utilize ICTs in B2B, B2C and B2G transactions and innetworking. Thus the exhaustive utilization of e-government is conditioned by the overall e-maturity ofsociety. This is usually assessed using e-readiness assessment tools.

In retrospect, the emerging e-government development strategies and policies of the early 1990s putspecial emphasis on infrastructure and technological developments. Yet soon the overall picture of the

preconditions of successful e-government policy and its connections to other aspects of informationsociety became clearer, therefore more balanced and user-centric views began to prevail. Since then oneof the burning issues has been how to balance between the demand and supply side aspects of e-govern-ment development and, more precisely, what demand and supply side elements should be strengthenedin order to make cost-effective strategic choices and to create a critical mass of users in a given context(cf. Song, 2004, p. 54).

Another policy choice is the nature of government intervention, the masterminded comprehensiveapproach and the incremental approach being the two extreme options. This choice reects the overall

role of government in society.The third important policy decision is the nancial dimension of government intervention and policy

preferences. The funding of strategic e-government projects may be based on public funding, partner-ship, sponsorship, or a purely commercial nancial scheme.

Key aspects of e-government strategy and policy process are illustrated in Figure 4.E-government policy is extremely sensitive to the context of government. Contextual factors that

have been widely discussed in the communities of practitioners and academics are differences between


10/35

l

developed vs. developing countries; rural vs. urban communities; and levels of government: national,regional and local governments.

Key Assessments and Analyses as E-Government Policy Tools

There is a wide range of planning, diagnosis and assessment tools for use in e-government policy process.These tools include the following:

Figure 4. E-government development policy framework.

Demand side

Networks,platforms,

devices,

interfacesand utilization

infrastructure

Citizens andcustomers values,

needs, motivation,

access, skills andpatterns of

behavior

Public networks, platforms,

e-services and applications

User-friendliness, incentives

and added value

Vision and strategies

Business Process Redesign

Implementation

Contribution to society

E-government policy

Better public service

Increased competitiveness

Better quality of life, welfare, and sustainability

o

Nature of government intervention

o

Supply vs. demand oriented strategies

o

Rational comprehensive planning vs.

incrementalismo

Funding: public, PPP, private

o

Formulation of e-government vision and

development strategy

Key assessmentsSupply side

E-readiness assessment

Evaluation F eedback

E-government development stage model

Benchmarking, SWOT analysis, Cost-Benefit

Analysis, value-added assessment, etc.


11/35

li

1. Strategic planning and decision support SWOT analysis Environmental scanning and PEST analysis

Balanced Scorecard (BSC) Scenario building

2. Preconditions for e-government E-readiness assessment scheme Gap analysis and barrier analyses

3. General e-government assessments and comparisons Critical Success Factor (CSF), Best Practice, and roadmap approach to e-government E-government development stage model or e-maturity model Benchmarking

4. Value and demand assessments Added value assessment Demand and Value Assessment Methodology (DVAM)

5. Cost and resource analyses Return On Investment (ROI) assessment, Cost-Benet Analysis (CBA), and Total Cost Own-

ership (TCO) assessment Human resource (HR) and training needs assessments (TNA)

6. E-government evaluations Government Web site evaluation Performance measurement (PM), performance scorecards, e-government services reviews,

and other e-government evaluations (from both demand and supply perspectives)7. Impact and risk analyses

Risk assessment Human, health, socio-economic, and environmental impact assessments

The rst set of tools on the list provides concrete support for the strategy and policy making process,

including various conventional strategic planning tools and techniques, such as environmental scan-ning, scenarios, Balanced Scorecard (BSC), SWOT analysis (of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportuni-ties, Threats), and PEST analysis (of the Political, Economic, Social, and Technological factors of themacro-environment).

Second, there are strategic tools that can be used to identify and assess the preconditions for e-gov-ernment, such as an e-readiness assessment scheme. Transition towards a higher level of e-governmentmaturity has its preconditions, ranging from technological, to political-administrative, to socio-cultural,constituting the basic elements of e-readiness (Im & Seo, 2005. On e-readiness see also As-Saber, Hos-sain, & Srivastava, 2007; World Economic Forum, 2002; Ciborra, 2005; Davidrajuh, 2004; bridges.org, 2007.) A more specic e-readiness scheme has been developed by the Computer Systems Policy

Project (CSPP), which identies ve categories that need to be measured in the assessment of the e-

readiness of a community: infrastructure; access; applications and services; economy; and basic enablers(policy, privacy, security, ubiquity). Another model is provided by Information Technologies Group atthe Center for International Development at Harvard University. They dene readiness as the degree

to which a community is prepared to participate in the networked world. The categories they use inassessing e-readiness fall into ve thematic groups: network access, networked learning, networked

society, networked economy, and network policy (see bridges.org, 2007). We may also include gap andbarrier analyses in this set of policy tools, as they have a close connection to e-readiness assessment.


12/35

lii

It is particularly important to pay attention to barriers to e-government, which include such factors aslack of political commitment, administrative inertia and fragmentation, inadequacy of regulation, andlack of skilled personnel.

Third, there are tools that policy-makers can use to identify and contextualize the strategic aspects ofe-government development, such as CSF, best practice, roadmap, maturity, and benchmarking methods.Many of these are based on measurement that in turn allows comparisons between governments and alsolearning from innovative cases. The most widely applied generic model that helps in dening appropriate

e-government development measures and in assessing e-government maturity is the e-government devel-opment stage model. As this is the most widely discussed model in e-government literature, we describeit briey in the next section. This model is usually also applied to another popular method, benchmark-ing.E-government benchmarkingrefers to the measurement of e-government-related conditions and/ora governments performance according to specied standards in order to compare them and to provide

tools for improvement. It can be applied to e-government at all institutional levels. Most benchmarkingstudies have been based on some modications of an e-government maturity or development stage model

(see e.g. UNDPEPA & ASPA, 2002). The rst e-government benchmarking studies were published in

the late 1990s. It is important to note that most of the reports suffer from methodological problems, fore-government is either measured by narrow Web site evaluation criteria or the emphasis is one-sidedlyon indicators of infrastructure or the supply-side elements of e-government. In spite of such problems,e-government benchmarkings yield interesting information for politicians, administrators, and developerson the progress of their e-government compared with that of their peers in other countries and on areasof potentially signicant improvements (Forlano, 2004, p. 35; Ostermann & Staudinger, 2007).

Fourth, in e-government policy process there is a need to consider the anticipated value of e-govern-ment to citizens, the community, the government, and to society as a whole. This is referred to as addedvalue assessment. An example of a tool that can be used in this part of the e-government policy processis the Demand and Value Assessment Methodology (DVAM), developed by the Australian GovernmentInformation Management Ofce (AGIMO). It provides a model to forecast and measure the demand

for and value of e-government services (Australian Government, 2004).The goal of all e-government services is to contribute to the overall improvement in the quality of

human and social life, which should be used as the ultimate evaluation criterion in the assessment ofthe outcomes of e-government development policy, as illustrated in Figure 4 (Anttiroiko, 2005). Indeed,added value merits a vital role in the e-government policy framework. This has sometimes beentranslated in the e-government context into a public value, which as a broad concept encompasses thevarious administrative, democratic, social, economic, and environmental roles of governments (Centenoet al., 2005). In the United Nations (2003) the notion of public value is rooted in peoples preferences,as only the public can ultimately determine what is truly of value to its members, or to a society. It alsorelates to governments capability, for the outcomes of the development process that improve peoplesquality of life, laws that are necessary and just, services that meet the peoples needs, fairness, equity,due process, trust and condence in government that stems from perception of its overall performance,

are all things that people want and value.The fth group of techniques includes cost and resource assessments. ROI is a simple way of assessing

IT investment from an economic point of view and CBA relates costs to the valuation of benets using a

common or equal unit of measurement. TCO assessment is performed for the purpose of understandingthe costs of maintaining existing IT systems. In the area of human resources HR assessment is neededto evaluate organizations human resources capability and capacity, including such special assessmentsas TNA.

Sixth, there are various evaluation methods that can be applied to Web sites, service delivery, andthe performance or effectiveness of e-government. An example of such efforts is conventional Web site


13/35

liii

evaluation in which such aspects of government Web sites are assessed as interface, navigation, content,reliability, and technical solutions (e.g. Peters, Janssen, & van Engers, 2004; Henriksson, Yi, Frost, &Middleton, 2007; de Jong & Lentz, 2006). Web site evaluation is an incomplete picture of e-govern-

ment evaluation, though. Broader evaluations are needed to describe e-service delivery, functioning ofe-government systems, and e-government development.

So far there is only a little research available on e-government evaluation. The limitations of the cur-rently used measurement instruments are obvious. In addition, there is a tendency to follow the traditionalICT evaluation process dominated by economic factors. It is worth remembering that the evaluation of

public administration is always challenging due to its fragmented nature (Stowers, 2004, p. 174; Peterset al., 2004). A general e-government evaluation challenge is to give a broader view of the benets and

performance of e-government. Factual evaluation schemes and frameworks vary case by case depend-ing on the nature and aims of the evaluation (Peters et al., 2004). For example, Gupta and Jana (2003)developed a exible framework to measure the tangible and intangible benets of e-government. Yet, one

of their conclusions on the basis of an Indian case study of the NDMC (New Delhi Municipal Corpora-tion) was that to have a proper evaluation of the tangible and intangible benets of e-government, the

projects should be in a mature stage with proper information systems in place. Many of the e-govern-ment projects in developing countries are still in a nascent stage, thus complete and proper informationfor evaluation cannot be obtained.

Lastly, there are various kinds of impact and risk analyses answering questions about the risks ofe-government investments, their impact on humans and their health, on socio-economic conditions,or on the environment. Risk analysis is a technique to identify and assess factors that may jeopardizethe success of a project or achieving a goal. This technique also helps to dene preventive measures to

reduce the likelihood of these factors occurring and identify countermeasures to successfully deal withthese constraints as they emerge (ICH, 2007).

Development Stages of E-Government

One way to systematize the use and development of ICTs in the public sector is to apply the model ofdevelopment phases of e-government, which highlights the steps and the order of actions to be takenwhen proceeding from the present situation towards the e-government vision. A conventional develop-ment stage model of e-government, sometimes referred to as an evolution model, a maturity model or astage model, describes a transition from a simple Web presence via interactive and transactional phasesto a totally transformed system of government (see e.g. UNDPEPA & ASPA, 2002; Im & Seo, 2005, pp.190-191; Al-Sebie, Irani, & Eldabi, 2005; Siau & Long, 2005; Janssen & van Veenstra, 2005).

This model is needed in designing e-government initiatives and assessing whether a community ismature enough to move to the next stage in service provision in terms of both supply and demand side

perspectives. The general rule is that the service at the lower level should have high maturity or take-uplevels or penetration records before entering a higher level, in order to ensure cost-effectiveness and fea-

sibility. It should be borne in mind that this model is not strictly sequential, even if in reality it expressesa logical development order within an individual e-government application area. The development stagemodel and e-readiness scheme are illustrated in Figure 5.

As to the various maturity or development stage models, the simplest is a two-stage model of e-gov-ernment growth, with categories of cataloguing of information online and transactions being completedonline (Reddick, 2004). Watson and Mundy (2001) classify e-government development into three stra-tegic phases: initiation, infusion, and customization. Another three-fold typology is the Publish-Interact-Transact model developed by Howard (2001) and applied by many development organizations, such


14/35

liv

as infoDev (2002). Layne and Lee (2001) proposed a four-stage model for classifying e-governmentinitiatives or programs: catalog, transaction, vertical integration, and horizontal integration. Anothertypology is presented by Elmagarmid and McIver Jr. (2001) who classify e-government services usingfour consecutive levels, each of which is built upon the capability of the level beneath it. These levelsare: displaying information, collecting uncomplicated data, facilitating complex transactions, and inte-grating services across the entire government administration. Of the typologies with ve categories we

may mention three well-known models: UNDPEPA and ASPA (2002) scheme of emerging, enhanced,

interactive, transactional and seamless e-government, Moons (2002) model with information dissemina-tion, two-way communication, service and nancial transactions, vertical and horizontal integration and

political participation; and Accentures scheme, which categorizes e-government developments as onlinepresence, basic capability, service availability, mature delivery, and service transformation (Al-Sebie etal., 2005; Hu, Cui, & Sherwood, 2006; Im & Seo, 2005; Eddowes, 2004; Forlano, 2004; Janssen & vanVeenstra, 2005; Andersen & Henriksen, 2006).

Remarks on Design Methodologies

E-government is essentially composed of information and service systems. The analysis and design ofsuch systems is an organizational process used by a team of government ofcials and IT professionals

to develop and maintain computer-based information systems. As such a design must be driven froman organizational perspective, the special nature of public organizations must be taken into account,including dependence on political supervision and democratic control, particular legal and administra-tive systems, and bureaucratic organization (Rondeaux, 2007, p. 1489; cf. Raymond, Uwizeyemungu,& Bergeron, 2006; Frye, Goulledge, Leary, Sommer, & Vincent, 2007).

In recent decades systems analysis and design were more of an art, but due to the exponential increasein the need for information systems, people in industry and academia have developed work methodsthat make it a disciplined process. There are many methodologies for the development of information

Figure 5. E-government development stage model

E-GOVERNMENT

VISION

Enhanced

Emerging

Interactive

Seamless

E-readiness assessment in each stage:Technological, behavioral and institutional readiness

Maturity

Preconditions

Transactional

GovernmentWebpresence established

GovernmentWeb sitesincrease; informationbecomes more dynamic

Users can downloadforms, e-mail officials andinteract through theWeb

Users can payforservices and othertransactions online

Full integration ofe-services acrossadministrativeboundaries


15/35

lv

systems, such as the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC), Data Structure-Oriented Design, Ob-ject-Oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD), prototyping, and Joint Application Design (JAD) (Hoffer,George, & Valacich, 2002).

The system development life cycle (SDLC) or the waterfall model is a common methodology forsystems development in many organizations, featuring several steps taken in the development of informa-tion systems, as illustrated in Figure 6. It should be noted that there are various kinds of modications

and also special applications of this model (Hoffer et al., 2002).Systems development environments change over time. Nowadays systems for the Internet and for an

organizations intranet and extranets have become increasingly important (Hoffer et al., 2002).

E-GOVERNMENT TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES

Technological Paradigm Shift

The technological paradigm in public administration focused primarily on processing existing data.Electronic systems started to replace old manual systems, the watchword being automation. In thiscontext automation was actually perceived as one phase in the life cycle of scientic management (see

e.g. Schumacher, 1967). It is also worth emphasizing that at that time the use of computers in public

administration was globally rather rare.Electronic communication via an existing telephone network emerged in the 1960s followed by elec-tronic mail and File Transfer Protocol (FTP) in the early 1970s. A few years later Transmission ControlProtocol (TCP) was developed, to which Internet Protocol (IP) was subsequently added, allowing theinterconnection of multiple networks. The use of networks started to spread to civic and university us-age in 1979. This expanded exponentially in the early 1990s, largely due to the creation of the WorldWide Web (WWW), which together with the graphical Web browser marked the nal breakthrough. The

core Web technologies comprise HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP), HyperText Markup Language(HTML), Web servers, and Web browsers.

Figure 6. Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) (Hoffer et al., 2002)

Project identification

and selection

Project initiation and

planning

Maintenance

Implementation

Logical and physicaldesign

Analysis


16/35

lvi

The Great Internet Explosion took place around 1993-1994 and paved the way for the informationsociety and e-government enthusiasm, which was in full swing in the latter half of the 1990s. This recenthistory is well documented. (e.g. Relyea &Hogue, 2004; Seneviratne, 1999, pp. 44-45.) E-government

enthusiasm marked the incorporation of ICTs into public sector reform. As summarized by Hinnant andSawyer (2007), the increased use of ICTs by governments was in response not only to the increased useof ICTs by government stakeholders, such as citizens or businesses, but also in response to a growingdemand for governmental reform. Just as the decision to adopt a technological innovation by a rm is

based not only on the technology, but is also dependent on the organizational and environmental contexts,much the same can be anticipated with government agencies (Srivastava & Teo, 2007).

E-Government Technologies

The small e in e-government refers to those methodologies and tools and underlying technologies thatmake it possible for public entities to solve collective problems, to implement public policies, to performtheir basic organizational functions, and to interact with various stakeholders. E-government technologiesrefers to the information and communication technologies (ICTs) applied by governments. Even if ICTincludes everything from calculators, videos and CD ROMs to telephones, in practical terms e-govern-ment technologiesrefers to computer hardware and computer software and the related computer-basedsystems and applications designed for information handling and communication.

An integrated framework for acquiring and evolving IT to achieve the strategic goals of the orga-nization is called information technology architecture. It has both logical and technical components.Logical components include mission, functional and information requirements, system congurations,

and information ows, whereas technical components include IT standards and rules used to implement

the logical architecture (ICH, 2007).These tools and technologies include both proprietary and opensource platforms and applications.

Descriptions of e-government technologies can be loosely connected to e-government maturity model,as illustrated in Figure 7 (Schelin, 2003; Ho, 2002).

TheInternethas been and continues to be at the heart of e-government technologies. Governmentsconnect to the Internet by establishing services with an Internet Service Provider (ISP), which then can

Figure 7. E-government maturity and technologies

Enhanced Webpresence

Emerging Webpresence

Interactive Web

presence

Transactional

Web presence

Maturity level

Technological sophistication

Web, e-mail

Web

Web, e-mail, portal

Web, e-mail, portals, digital signature, PKI,

SSL, ubiquitous technologies etc.

Seamless Web

presence

Web, e-mail, portals, digital signature, PublicKey

Infrastructure (PKI), Secure Socket Layer(SSL)


17/35

lvii

be accessed by citizens and stakeholders via their ISP subscription. Single entry to these public servicesis called a portal. As to software applications, a standard design includes a rewall server, a web server,

a transaction server, and a database server. Internet-based solutions are built on the client-server concept,

which incorporates a number of computer devices that host or serve the software application installed.These applications and solutions are part of the global network of networks, the Internet, which carryvarious services from e-mail to le transfer to the resources of WWW (Brown, 2003).

Beside the Web, many other technologies can be and have increasingly been adopted by governmentsin various applications (PDA, SMS, MMS, RFID, biometric identication, smart cards, GIS, interactive

TV, etc.). In this eld the Internet remains an essential component in the technological convergenceinwhich previously separate technologies can interact and share resources, possibly paving the way to anarticial intelligence network on the Internet or an ubiquitous network environment. Ubiquitous tech-nologiesincluding mobile, wireless, pervasive, and ambient technologieshave been claimed to bethe next big step in the development and adoption of new technologies by governments.

E-Government Architecture, Systems, and Tools

In a technological context architectureis the design for the arrangement and interoperation of technicalcomponents describing in general how IT is utilized by the organization. Functionally such an architecturedescribes systems and their functions and interconnections.Systemsin turn are collections of componentsorganized to accomplish a specic function or set of functions within an organization, such as a payroll

system or an information management system (ICH, 2007). Lastly, toolsrefers loosely to technology-assisted functional solutions, services or components designed for and utilized by the organization. Thissection briey describes the architecture, systems, and tools associated with e-government.

Enterprise architecture (EA) or e-government architecture is a generic tool to manage IT in a publicorganization (Ebrahim & Irani, 2005). It is the description of the main processes and structures that theorganization aims to create and maintain through its IT solutions. It enables a multi-level perspective onIT management with a special view to the strategies, structures and processes of public organizations,centering around business process management (BPM) or business process change (BPC) (Scholl, 2005).Understanding e-government architecture framework among public sector organizations is a signicant

strategic step towards reliable and effective e-government adoption, as concluded by Ebrahim and Irani(2005). Another related idea of EA is to see government as a whole, which tends to favor top-downe-government design (cf. Grnlund, 2007). A simple reason for the need to integrate architecture is thefragmentation of e-government systems that have often been organized vertically around departments. Thisincreases the need for vertically and horizontally integrated architectures addressing the communication

between systems within and between departments and organizations (Janssen & van Veenstra, 2005).The organizations ability to successfully adopt, implement and use technological innovations, such

as new ICTs, seems to be an interactive outcome of various socio-technical factors arising from thetechnology, resources, organizational structure, and ties to the external environment. However, occa-

sionally implementations of e-government have experienced signicant difculties becauseEnterpriseResource Planning(ERP) and similar systems are often departures from existing systems and may thusbe difcult to integrate into existing governmental procedures and norms (Hinnant & Sawyer, 2007).

IT management and planning is basically fairly similar in public and private sectors. Yet public orga-nizations face special challenges deriving from their nature as public entities. Their decision-makingenvironments and systems are fairly complex and the characteristic features of the public domain leavea mark on all activities, IT management included. ERP systems belong to this framework as the basictechnological infrastructure for e-government aiming at providing seamless business process integration,


18/35

lviii

standardized business practices, better interoperability, improved order management and workows,

and improved customer service. ERP systems were, in fact, among the largest IT investments in publicsector organizations in the 1990s (cf. Raymond et al., 2006). What is essential in ERP systems is their

business process-based design, i.e. that they integrate individual organizational functions into a seriesof modules so that a single transaction occurs seamlessly within the given information system (Hofferet al., 2002, p. 710; Ebrahim & Irani, 2005). Even if such thinking originated in the business sector, itcan be applied mutatis mutandisto public sector organizations too (see Ross & Vitale, 2000; Raymondet al., 2006, p. 229; Frye et al., 2007).

Current trends as well as the efforts of ERP vendors indicate that the adoption of these systems inpublic organizations will increase, as has been in the case in the private sector. As the issue of e-govern-ment becomes more critical for public administration and governance, integrated systems are requiredto improve the public organizations ability to manage government processes and to guarantee the qual-ity of service to citizens. Yet, even if ERP systems may provide benets, their realization is far from

automatic, and undoubtedly the risk of partial or total failure is still very high. Thus, ERP adoption,implementation, usage, and evaluation issues must be better understood in the light of varying contextsand types of public organizations (Raymond et al., 2006, p. 237).

E-government systems and tools include a range of management tools designed to serve specic

functions, such as enterprise records management system (ERMS),knowledge management (KM) tools,customer relationship management (CRM) software, decision support system (DSS), data managementsystem (DMS), content management system (CMS), workow management system (WMS), and iden-tity management system (IMS). Such systems are typically set up by larger public organizations thatneed to nd solutions to critical problems in their information and knowledge processes and customer

relations.

UTILIZATION AND APPLICATION OF E-GOVERNMENT

Utilization of ICTs in Major Application Areas

The utilization of e-government describes governments ability to use ICTs in managing its internalprocesses and external relations for the benet of the organization, the customers, the wider community,

and society as a whole. This ability is a context-dependent matter in the sense that it depends in part onthe e-maturity of the society. Full utilization requires that government agencies understand more thananything the factors with bearing on citizen adoption of e-government. This again leads us to such fac-tors as perceived ease of use, compatibility and trustworthiness, which are among the most signicant

predictors of citizens intention to use e-government services (Carter & Blanger, 2005).Utilization of ICTs in the public sector can be systematized on the basis of the basic functions of

governments, the tasks or activities of public organizations, or e-government applications and technolo-

gies. A simple way to point out how governments utilize ICTs is to refer to the four building blocks ofe-government: e-administration, e-service management, e-democracy, and e-governance.In the eld ofpublic management and administrationICTs are used to facilitate public organiza-

tions general managerial and internal administrative functions (accounting, payroll systems, documentmanagement systems, etc.), ofce work, and knowledge and information management processes. Another

application area in this eld is G2G collaboration.

The most diverse set of e-government applications falls into the category ofpublic e-services. Thisincludes the adoption and utilization of ICTs in specic service sectors, such as general administration,


19/35

lix

nancial management, healthcare, social services, education, cultural services, libraries, environmental

protection, waste management, public utilities, public transportation, public development policy, judicialsystem, police, national security, etc.

E-democracyis another area with a wide range of applications. E-democracy combines two funda-mental elements: (a) technological mediation tools and (b) democratic institutional arrangements. Allthis can be potentially achieved by utilizing various forms of e-democracy, from information sharingto discussion forums to citizen consultation to e-voting (e.g. Becker & Slaton, 2000; Keskinen, 2003).The basic requirements of e-democracy are summarized by Gross (2002) as follows: citizens need to

be able to access information and to discuss political issues, and to vote electronically. (p. 250) Thisleads us to three paradigmatic application areas of e-democracy: e-information, e-participation, andICT-assisted decision making (e.g. e-voting).

Managerially oriented e-governanceprocesses are facilitated through such generic technologiesand applications as groupware, intranet and extranet solutions, databases, e-mail, www sites, and otherservices of the Internet. Ultimately e-governance is a constellation of social processes, which means thate-enabled practices bear fruit only if social actors, networks and larger social settings can be restructuredso that the potential of ICTs are fully utilized. In this eld there is a range of supply-side e-commerce

applications (e.g. e-procurement and e-auction) and demand-side arrangements (e.g. e-vouchers), on theone hand, and e-networking, e-contracting and similar tools of e-governance on the other.

E-Service Applications

ICTs in services affect not only service delivery, but also the service concept, strategies, quality, cost,and production. The potential of ICTs in service provision includes cost rationalization (as a substitutefor manpower), more effective quality control, and closer link-up with the customer. Moreover, it has

potential in creating the desired human behavior and interaction.The form-content distinction is useful in conceptualizing e-services. The most commonly used typol-

ogy of e-government services divides these services into four basicforms or types of e-services: infor-

Figure 8. Flowchart of the core e-government process (Mllner & Grimm, 2007; cf. Vassilakis, Lepouras,

Rouvas, & Georgiadis, 2004.)

Back office

Public administration

Front officeCitizens and companies

Completing

the application Processing of

the application

E-governmentsystems and tools

Settling of

issuesDelivery

InternalExternal


20/35

lx

mation services, communication services, interactive services, and transaction services (see EuropeanCommission, 1999; Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, 2004; Stowers, 2004, p. 172). Most of the e-govern-ment maturity models are based on this or similar kind of typology of public e-services (see the sectionDevelopment Stages of E-Government).

A paradigmatic interactive service process is one in which a customer completes an electronic form,sends it to the government, which, after internal processing, delivers the service to the customer elec-tronically. A owchart of such a paradigmatic e-government process is presented in Figure 8.

The content of public e-services is commonly referred to as e-service applications, which belong

to the functional core of e-government. They are usually understood as a use of IT for a certain denedfunction, such as payroll or billing or, as typically in public administration, for some policy elds or

service areas, such as e-health, e-social service, virtual libraries, e-education, e-enabled public utilityservices, e-courts, etc. Most of these areas are in a premature phase and also fairly new as research elds.

Examples of three e-service applications in welfare services are presented in Table 1.Typically the emphasis on application areas varies from one institutional level to another and is de-

pendent on the political-administrative system of the country. At the local level the emphasis is on localgovernance and local welfare services healthcare, social services, and education under an e-munici-

pality or e-city umbrella. At the regional level the focus is on special services requiring a larger popula-tion base (e.g. regional hospitals and universities) as well as applications serving regional developmentand governance, such as regional information systems. At the national level the emphasis is on nationalsystems and portals and key institutions and services, including national universities and information

and service systems of state agencies. National governments have a special responsibility to provide anational vision and guidelines for e-government development, in developing e-government infrastructure,and in supporting regional and local governments efforts to build their e-service palettes.

As to the international level, sufce it to say that regional institutions, such as the EU and ASEAN,

use ICTs to facilitate their macro-regional cooperation (e.g. Dai, 2007; Centeno et al., 2005), whereasinternational organizations focus on e-governance and e-development issues by utilizing developmentgateways and portals, e-toolkits, and various means for e-inclusion and empowerment.

Table 1. Examples of e-service delivery applications (cf. Melville, 2007, p. 729)

Policy feld Tools and applications ICT used by consumers

of services

E-health Medical/clinical informatics, incl. electronic medical records (EMR) andpatient records; Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS); virtual hospitaland consumer informatics (incl. health portals and health information onthe Internet); remote patient monitoring; teleradiology, teledermatology,telepsychiatry, and similar applications; bioinformatics

Information available onthe Internet, chat rooms,e-mail discussion lists,Weblogs, news groups,electronic bulletin boards,narratives on personal Websites, self-help and supportgroup resources

E-social service Web sites for information on social welfare; child care Web sites;Electronic Benets Transfer (EBT) systems; electronic claim forms and

payments; e-social services for senior citizens; pension portals; expertsystems; telemonitoring and electronic home care; helper PDAs

E-education E-school (school management software), online enrollment; onlinepayments for school meals and other school fees; online degree programsand courses; post-secondary and tertiary certicates, diplomas, and

degrees obtained online; e-portfolio tools; electronic student assessment;e-learning applications, such as Computer-Based Training (CBT), Web-

Based Training (WBT), and virtual seminar rooms.


21/35

lxi

Organizational and Social Implications of E-Government

E-government adoption has a profound impact on public organizations internal structures and processesand external relations. They change power in organizations, organization culture, management practices,human resource management, and many other aspects of public administration. Most of these changesare a result of informatization, i.e. changes in the capacity to collect, process and transfer knowledgeand related new forms of communication and interaction. E-government has an inherent tendency toincrease plurality within the public domain through more direct communication between governmentand its customers and stakeholders. The implications of e-government adoption also include improved

preconditions for good governance.At a concrete level e-government has already proved to be a good way of helping to rethink the role

of government and to reduce the amount of red tape. It is a means to increase exibility and efciency

and to shift the focus onto customers. These aspects bring us to the drivers and the very rationale ofe-government.

As to public organizations, the potential of e-government cannot be realized unless the rigid structuresof the contemporary bureaucratic system change with the times. The ultimate challenge in e-govern-ment is not to achieve a technical capability, create Web sites or establish information systems, but toovercome the entrenched organizational and political division within the government (Fountain, 2001).This is gradually taking place in most of the developed countries, enabling a shift towards joint-up orcollaborative government.

An important organizational implication of e-government is visible in the management of the or-ganization and administrative and ofce work. Bradley (2006) notes accelerated changes at work in

the Net era by identifying such changes as more exible work processes, stakeholder role integration,

the disappearing of repetitive work, the attening of organizations, and the convergence of work tasks

from an international perspective. One of the most important changes is the increase of network-likeorganization structures in the public sector indicating a transition from hierarchies to networks and fromcommand-and-control to initiate-and-coordinate type of public governance.

The realization of the potential of e-government is tied to the redesign of governments organizationstructures and processes, usually discussed under labels like Business Process Management (BPM) orBusiness Process Redesign or in a more radical form Business Process Reengineering (BPR) (Hugheset al., 2007). In e-government radical redesign is not always possible, because of the immaturity of itsservice environment, the protection of the rights of customers, regulatory reasons, political priorities, orinternal inertia in public organizations. Anyway, it is worth recalling Venkatramans (1994) argument thatonly marginal benets will accrue from superimposing IT on existing organizational conditions. The more

signicant gains a public organization intends to achieve, the more radical organizational transformation

is required. Thus, redesign of organizational processes may start from automating existing processes,but more signicant gains can be expected if the processes are transformed and ultimately when there

is end-to-end transformation of the entire service value chain. Business Process Reengineering is the

concept that is expressly associated with the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of businessprocesses to bring about dramatic improvements in performance (Hammer & Champy, 1993).This challenge translates into a simple organizational rule: in order to move from an evolutionary

to a revolutionary organizational transformation, a requirement to abandon existing systems in favor ofthe new system has been identied. Related to this, there is some evidence to claim that greater sophis-tication in IT systems and management may produce greater payoffs from use (Norris, 2003, p. 141).Venkatraman (1994) identies ve levels of IT-enabled business transformation, as illustrated in Figure

9 (see also Hughes et al., 2007; Peristeras, Tsekos, & Trabanis, 2002).


22/35

lxii

In spite of this potential, the evidenceat least what was collected before the turn of the millen-niumsuggests that very little has changed in the structures and processes of public organizations dueto the exploitation of ICTs. This is in line with the general fact that planned organizational changeshave been difcult to achieve. (Seneviratne, 1999, pp. 49-50; cf. Norris, 2003, p. 141). There are signs,

however, of improved IT adoption and managerial efciency and productivity gains.

Managerial Impact of E-Government

As e-government in its current form is a fairly recent and rapidly developing phenomenon, its full impacton public management remains to be seen. This is why the body of knowledge regarding e-governmentis also lacking in substance regarding the impact of e-government on public organization and manage-ment (Orgeron, 2007, p. 1536).

If some decades ago IT adoption in government used to be focused on operational systems, it hasnow reached the point where the emphasis is on interaction and transaction processes, the challenge

being more and more to adopt a strategic view of IT adoption and utilization (cf. Andersen, 2006).This reects the overall shift in the managerial impact of e-government. Yet, even if IT has certainly

changed management practices as reected by the move from closed in-house systems towards open

e-governance and e-networking systems, there is a counterargument that IT has largely reinforced theexisting behavior and practices of administrators and public managers (cf. Andersen, 2006). Fountain

(2001) notes how e-government changes public management but also calls for government agencies toabandon bureaucratic tendencies in favor of a less centralized approach to service provision. They needa completely new framework in which to consider their role and tasks in the service of government. Thismanagerial transformation is still in its infancy.

Public management has long been dominated by the philosophy of efciency. This picture may ac-quire new aspects due to e-government. Public managers have been disposed to raise the productivitywithin their organizations and reduce the costs of operation, which has compelled them to seek newtechnologies to help them increase managerial control and the productivity of individual employees.

Figure 9. Approaches to government process redesign (applied from Venkatraman, 1994; cf. Peristeras

et al., 2002)

High

Low

Low

High

Localized exploitation

Internal integration

Government process redesign

Governance network redesign

Paradigm shift in government

Evolutionary

levels

Revolutionary

levels

Range of potential benefits and risks

Degreeof trans-

form-

ation


23/35

lxiii

This is how computers inltrate into every area of government operation, i.e. computers and information

networks have become indispensable to any public agency seeking a high level of efciency. The advent

of the Web brought a new important element to public management. Namely, it provided new tools forreengineering and even for a shift in overall management philosophy from efciency to service quality,thus connecting e-transformation in the public sector with total quality management (TQM), customer-driven government, and similar concepts (Scavo, 2003, p. 303; cf. Swiss, 2003).

Swiss (2003) provides an excellent account of IT as a management facilitator in government:

Results-based management aspires to be proactive, agile, and results-oriented. IT in the form of

data mining helps agencies proactively scan the environment; IT in the form of hand-held computers

and exible databases helps the agency agilely monitor and act; IT in the form of GIS and integrated

information systems helps the agency focus on the overall results. At every step, IT provides capabilities

that are crucial to results-based management. (p. 180)

In their study of the impact of e-government on city managers managerial effectiveness, Reddickand Frank (2007) concluded that the primary determinant of e-government and managerial effective-ness was demand from city council, residents, and businesses. Other factors leading to a greater useof e-government for management purposes included external pressures from other governments andcollaboration among different governments as well as such sophisticated services as online payments.This implies that e-government adoption and related managerial effectiveness are conditioned by vari-ous internal and external factors.

E-enabled practices require expertise that can be based on a single source of expertise or a combina-tion of in-house expertise, outsourced services, publicly owned company, or joint venture or some otherPPP-based arrangement. The latest sourcing literature in this context emphasizes a portfolio approachcombining homegrown, hybrid, and outsourced systems. E-governmentrelated sourcing mixes areusually indispensable for any larger public organization, but they also potentially create high switchingcosts and path dependency (Scholl, 2006). As noted, governments may and actually often do contractwith private consulting companies and vendors to design and implement e-government applications,

platforms, and infrastructure.IT outsourcingis the utilization of external organizations for the produc-tion and/or provision of information technology services. It poses new challenges to e-government andIT managers, who must monitor the rising trend in best sourcing and address increases in managementand regulatory complexity. One of the key tasks appears to be to nd the best combination of onshore

and offshore alternatives that provide the best quality services at the most affordable costs in the contextof sustainable and inclusive public governance (Chen & Perry, 2004).

Critical Issues in E-Government

Many factors are critical to the future of e-government. These can be grouped into three broad areas of

the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework (cf. Panagopoulos, 2004; Srivastava &Teo, 2007; Swiss, 2003):

a. Technology. A wide range of critical technological issues have been addressed in the e-governmentdiscourse. These include such topics as interoperability, system integration, usability, reliability,survivability, data protection, security, IT adoption, digital rights management (DRM), and privacy.The importance of such topics is that most of these issues deal with fundamental elements of thee-government system, and may impede the development if not properly addressed. For example,


24/35

lxiv

information sharing, interoperability and systems integration are critical factors for the functionalityof e-government (cf. dos Santos & Reinhard, 2007). Reliability, survivability, security, usability,and privacy are crucial not only to functionality but also to our basic trust in technological solu-

tions, thus affecting the attainment of the critical mass of users of e-government services.b. Organization. The other set of issues relates to public organizations. One of the most fundamental

issues is how governments succeed in reengineering their structures and processes with the helpof ICTs. This, in turn leads to a question of barriers to e-government adoption and problems inimplementation. Another organizational issue is how to encourage personnel to adopt the mostinnovative tools and how to take care of the training challenge in a transformative phase. Finan-cial resources and investments also constitute a set of challenges that are critical to e-governmentdevelopment.

c. Social environment. In addition to technological and organizational issues, the success of e-gov-ernment initiatives depends on a range of social issues and contextual relations. Of these, e-readi-ness has been one of the major issues, especially when e-government is applied to developingcountries, as also have been issues of access, e-inclusion, e-literacy, and digital divide. The digitaldivide represents a gap existing between info-rich and info-poor, i.e. a gap in terms of access op-

portunities to the networked world essentially in access to information and telecommunicationtechnologies and Internet utilizationcaused by diverse social and economic situations amongindividuals, families, corporations, and territorial communities (Baker & Panagopoulos, 2004,

p. 101). Building capacity to narrow the digital divide is among the most important issues raisedin global e-government discourse. At a more general level, one of the strategic challenges to allgovernments is to consider how to guarantee a critical mass for e-government services in a givencontext within a planned time frame, in order to keep the value promise of e-government cost-effectively. This relates closely to economic, political and cultural differences between countriesand regions, which have inherent connections to their ability to utilize e-government tools and tocreate genuine added value from them.

As stated earlier, e-government development is highly sensitive to the context in which it is to bedesigned and implemented. The most pressing global question is how developing countries are able toutilize it and thus be capable of increasing productivity, improving public services, increasing trust ingovernment, and creating connections to the global economy. According to several global benchmark-ings e-government leaders include the Anglo-American trio of USA, Canada and Australia, the Nordiccountries from Europe, and Singapore from Asia. From the perspective of their current challenges thenature of the critical issues in e-government is completely different from those in most other coun-tries, such as newly industrialized countries, including China, India and Malaysia, and especially a largenumber of developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

As-Saber and others (2007) claim that e-government is not a viable option for most of the develop-ing countries. Yet this issue is far from black and white. Developing countries have for long soughttools to develop e-government with their limited resources. Many countries have achieved at least

partial success in specic areas, such as e-government development in the states of Andhra Pradesh and

Kerala in India, the Bhoomi land registry system of Karnataka in India, the Village Phone and AgriNetin Bangladesh, the InfoDes Project in Cajamarca in Peru, the e-procurement system in Chile, CitizenAssistance Service Centers in the Brazilian state of Bahia, and many other cases (As-Saber et al., 2007,

p. 170; Wagner, Cheung, Lee, & Ip, 2003; Forlano, 2004; infoDev, 2002). When e-government leadersare puzzled by interoperability, seamless service systems, authentication, and increased ubiquity, mostcountries in the world see access to information networks and the establishment of Web sites and basic


25/35

lxv

information systems as the major challenges. Similarly, the added value of e-government applicationsdiffers considerably due to peoples ability to utilize e-government services or chances for wider par-ticipation in the networked world.

Emerging Trends in E-Government

The megatrends that continue to condition the development of e-government include globalization,information society development, new forms of social organization, and postmodern cultural trends.Such contextual trends change both the political and the administrative dimension of government (Fig-ure 10).

As to the trends in the public sector, there is a continuous tendency towards streamlining administra-tive machinery. Public organizations are becoming nodal points and coordinators in the multi-sectoralgovernance eld. ICTs can be used in making the transition towards more competitive and contractual

models of public governance and service delivery. Yet at the same time there is constant pressure to increasetransparency, inclusiveness and responsiveness in government, which, together with civic movementsand community-oriented governance strategies, constitute a counterforce to neo-liberal or NPM-orientede-government trend (see e.g. Felbinger & Holzer, 1999; Mlki et al., 2004; Argyriades, 2002).

Trends apparently affecting e-government include the increased importance of knowledge sharingand interoperability, service transformation and integration, exible organization, and ubiquity. If these

are applied to the four e-government content categories, we get the following picture of the emergingtrends (cf. Centeno et al., 2005):

E-administration. IT is becoming a strategic issue for public sector organizations. E-administra-tion will be based increasingly on integrated systems with higher interoperability and exibility.

Integration and the large-scale adoption of service-oriented architectures (SOAs) are generally

Figure 10. Contextual factors shaping e-government

GLOBALIZATION ANDNETWORK SOCIETY

PARTNERSHIP

GOVERNANCE

KNOWLEDGE-

BASED

SOCIETY

INDIVIDUALIZATION ANDPOSTMODERN CULTURE

E-GOVERN-

MENT

Seeking value for money and

sensitivity to individual preferences

and lifestyles

Networking,

partner-ships and

contractingout

Techno-

logical

mediation

andknowledge

intensitivity

Global interdependency and

global and multi-level governance


26/35

lxvi

among the most signicant technological trends on the horizon, implying simpler systems, reli-ability, exibility, and maintainability (Accenture, 2007). Knowledge management is becoming

an increasingly important function in the constantly changing environment with the sheer growthin the volume of information. Organization structures will be made more exible and business

process redesign will become a common practice in public organizations. Work methods seem tobe developing towards exible work, which, together with e-work, will affect work practices in

public organizations. E-service. There is a need to incorporate in the delivery chain a growing number of intermediary

private, social and public partners, which play an increasing role in the delivery of public services.The involvement of stakeholders as well as increased fragmentation of e-services will increaseneeds to integrate or reintegrate e-services. Another trend is increased user-centricity: the needsof citizens and businesses will have a greater and more direct impact on e-government services. Itgoes without saying that emerging trends also include seamless and ubiquitous service systems.

E-democracy.New participatory, deliberative and direct forms of democracy are slowly advanc-ing as elements of the democratic system. New forms of network democracy may appear in duecourse. Democracy may develop towards hybrid democracy, in which the role of e-democracy isto serve as a kind of integrative form of democracy that helps to facilitate and integrate differentforms and mechanisms of democratic governance.

E-governance. The overall signicance of e-governance will increase in the years to come. Knowl-edge management (KM) and governments capability to take care of networking, coordination andcollaboration are crucial for successful public governance. This will be supported by a virtualiza-tion trend as business and governance processes are dynamically provisioned or outsourced withthe help of networks and collaboration technologies (Accenture, 2007). The need for e-commercecompetence is likely to become crucial in public organizations that outsource a large proportionof their public ser

electronic government - concepts, tools, methodologies, and applications - introductory chapter

Documents