Transcript E-government - International University of Japan

Introduction to Egovernment
Hun Myoung Park, Ph.D.,
Public Management and Policy Analysis Program
Graduate School of International Relations
International University of Japan
2
Outline
E-government Act of 2002
 Definition
 Findings
 purposes
E-government versus information systems
Types of e-government
E-government model
Criticism of E-government model
3
Electronic Government
E-government
Digital government
Online government
E-service
M-government (mobile)
…
E-governance???
4
U.S. E-Government Act
of 2002
5
Definition 1
E-government Act of 2002, U.S.A.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr
2458/text,§3601.3
“Use by the Government of Web-based
applications and other information
technologies,
combined with processes that that
implement these technologies, …” (colored
by the presenter)
6
Definition 2
“to (a) enhance the access to and delivery
of Government information and services to
the public, other agencies, and other
Government entities; or …” (underlined by
the presenter)
7
Definition 3
“(b) bring about improvements in
Government operations that may include
effectiveness, efficiency, service quality, or
transformation, …” (underlined by the
presenter)
8
Findings 1 (Sec. 2 a.2)
“The Federal Government has had uneven
success in applying advances in information
technology to enhance governmental
functions and services, achieve more
efficient performance, increase access to
Government information, and increase
citizen participation in Government.”
(underlined by the presenter)
9
Findings 2 (Sec. 2 a.3)
“Most Internet-based services of the Federal
Government are developed and presented
separately, according to the jurisdictional
boundaries of an individual department or
agency, rather than being integrated
cooperatively according to function or
topic.” (underlined by the presenter)
10
Findings 3 (Sec. 2 a.4)
“Internet-based Government services
involving interagency cooperation are
especially difficult to develop and promote,
in part because of a lack of sufficient funding
mechanisms to support such interagency
cooperation.” (underlined by the presenter)
11
Findings 4 (Sec. 2 a.6)
“Electronic Government is a critical element
in the management of Government, to be
implemented as part of a management
framework that also addresses finance,
procurement, human capital, and other
challenges to improve the performance of
Government.” (colored and underlined by
the presenter)
12
Findings 5 (Sec. 2 a.7)
“To take full advantage of the improved
Government performance that can be
achieved through the use of Internet-based
technology requires strong leadership, better
organization, improved interagency
collaboration, and more focused oversight of
agency compliance with statutes related to
information resource management.”
(underlined by the presenter)
13
Purposes 1
“To promote use of the Internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
participation in Government.” (Sec. 1 b.2)
“To promote the use of the Internet and
emerging technologies within and across
Government agencies to provide citizencentric Government information and
services.” (Sec. 1 b.5)
14
Purposes 2
“To promote interagency collaboration in
providing electronic Government services,
where this collaboration would improve the
service to citizens by integrating related
functions, and in the use of internal electronic
Government processes, where this
collaboration would improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of the processes” (Sec. 1
b.3)
15
Purposes 3
“To reduce costs and burdens for businesses
and other Government entities.”(Sec. 2 b.6)
“To promote better informed decisionmaking
by policy makers.” (Sec. 2 b.7)
“To promote access to high quality
Government information and services across
multiple channels.” (Sec. 2 b.8)
“To make the Federal Government more
transparent and accountable.”(Sec. 2 b.9)
16
Purposes 4
“To transform agency operations by utilizing,
where appropriate, best practices from
public and private sector organizations.”
(Sec. 2 b.10) (underlined by the presenter)
17
Purposes 5
“To provide enhanced access to
Government information and services in a
manner consistent with laws regarding
protection of personal privacy, national
security, records retention, access for persons
with disabilities, and other relevant laws.”
(Sec. 2 b.11) (underlined by the presenter)
18
Interoperability
“’interoperability’ means the ability of
different operating and software systems,
applications, and services to communicate
and exchange data in an accurate,
effective, and consistent manner;” (§3601.6)
19
Integrated Service Delivery
“‘integrated service delivery’ means the
provision of Internet-based Federal
Government information or services
integrated according to function or topic
rather than separated according to the
boundaries of agency jurisdiction;” (§3601.7)
20
E-Government versus
Information Systems
21
E-Gov. vs. Traditional IS 1
Same (not old) wine in different glasses?
World Wide Web versus internal processing
(computerization)? Like user interface vs.
kernel in operating system?
Web itself plays a role of input and output
interface rather than data process
Business process reengineering (BPR) is not
likely in Web or Internet.
22
E-Gov. vs. Traditional IS 2
Traditional information systems (or
computerization) are to process and deliver
data and information processed primarily to
government employees.
Most modern information systems combine
data processing and Web interface to
improve accessibility and interactivity
23
E-Gov. vs. Traditional IS 3
Digital convergence makes it difficult to
distinguish clearly one technology from
another
A wide concept of information systems that
combine various technologies (e.g., Web
and mobile tech.)
Classical information systems 
computerized information systems  Webbased information systems.
24
E-Gov. vs. Traditional IS 4
Traditional information systems put more
emphasis on data processing rather than
interface to various stakeholders
Modern information systems put relatively
more emphasis on interface rather than data
processing.
Like kernel, data processing is the essential
component in any information systems
25
E-Gov. vs. Traditional IS 5
Relative
Emphasis
Interface
(Web-combined &
Digital Convergence)
Data Processing
(Traditional
Information Systems)
Past
Present
26
Types of E-Government
27
Types of E-government 1
According to parties involved:
Government to government: G2G or G2E
(government to employees) within/among
government department and agencies
Government to business: G2B. E-procurement
Government to citizens: G2C or C2G to
improve citizens’ participation in government
28
Types of E-government 2
One-way interaction vs. two-way interaction
Media interaction (e.g., downloading) vs.
Compute-mediated human interaction (e.g.,
message board and chatting) by StromerGalley (2000)
Technical sophistication: Information
provision (one-way broadcasting),
interaction, transaction, integration
29
Web Site or Web Portal?
Web portal “Integrate[s] a wide variety of
information and e-commerce solutions as
well as links to other related Web sites”
(Rocheleau, 2006:162)
One-stop service no matter whether citizens
know which department or agency the need
to contact.
Web accessibility is highly needed.
30
E-Government Stage or
Maturity Models
31
E-government Model 1
Baum & Di Maio (2000): Web presence,
interaction, transaction, transformation
UN & ASPA (2001): emerging, enhanced,
interactive, transactional, and seamless and
fully integrated
Hiller &Belanger (2001): information, two-way
communication, transaction, integration, and
participation
32
E-government Model 2
Layne & Lee (2001): catalogue, transaction,
vertical integration, horizontal integration
World Bank (2002): publish, interact, transact
West (2004): billboard, partial service delivery,
portal, interactive democracy
See Lee(2010) and Siau and Long (2005) for
their meta syntheses of e-government
maturity models
33
E-government Model 3
34
E-government Model 4
Coursey and Norris (2008).
Phases or stages of e-government models
may be distinguishable from each other only
in a conceptual or technical sense
Phases or stages are neither necessarily
sequential nor linear
Normative interpretation does not make
much sense.
35
E-government Model 5
Multiple technologies in multiple stages
coexist in an e-government
A technology can be used in multiple stages
36
E-government Model 6
Park (2015)
E-government in the utilitarian model is rarely
transformational and participatory
Normative definition of e-government is just a
mirage. Positive definition
Shift from the technology-centered/service
provision-oriented approach or to clientcentered (centric)/need driven approach.
37
E-government Model 7