1. Introduction to E- government
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 traditional information systems
Types of e-government
E-government stage models

3. Terminology E-government (electronic) Digital government3
Terminology
E-government (electronic)
Digital government
Online government
E-service
M-government (mobile) …
E-governance???

4. 4
U.S. E-Government Act of 2002

5. Definition 1 E-government Act of 2002, U.S.A.5
Definition 1
E-government Act of 2002, U.S.A.
2458/text,§3601.3
“Use by the Government of Web-based applications and other information technologies,
combined with processes that that implement these technologies, …”

6. 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 …”
“(b) bring about improvements in Government operations that may include effectiveness, efficiency, service quality, or transformation, …” (colored and underlined by the presenter)

7. 7
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)

8. 8
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)

9. 9
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)

10. 10
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.” (underlined by the presenter)

11. 11
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)

12. 12
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 citizen-centric Government information and services.” (Sec. 1 b.5)

13. 13
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)

14. 14
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)

15. 15
Purposes 4
“To transform agency operations by utilizing, where appropriate, best practices from public and private sector organizations.” (Sec. 2 b.10)
“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)

16. 16
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)

17. Integrated Service Delivery17
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)

18. Traditional Information Systems18
E-Government versus
Traditional Information Systems

19. E-Gov. vs. Traditional IS 119
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.

20. E-Gov. vs. Traditional IS 220
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

21. E-Gov. vs. Traditional IS 321
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  Web-based information systems.

22. E-Gov. vs. Traditional IS 422
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 more emphasis on interface rather than data processing.
Like kernel, data processing is the essential component in any information systems

23. E-Gov. vs. Traditional IS 523
E-Gov. vs. Traditional IS 5

24. 24
Types of E-Government

25. Types of E-government 1 According to parties involved:25
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

26. Types of E-government 2 One-way interaction vs. two-way interaction26
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 Stromer-Galley (2000)
Technical sophistication: Information provision (one-way broadcasting), interaction, transaction, integration

27. 27
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.

28. E-Government Stage or Maturity Models28
E-Government Stage or Maturity Models

29. 29
E-gov. Stage Models 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
Layne & Lee (2001): catalogue, transaction, vertical integration, horizontal integration

30. E-gov. Stage Models 2 World Bank (2002): publish, interact, transact30
E-gov. Stage Models 2
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

31. E-government Models 3 Coursey and Norris (2008).31
E-government Models 3
Coursey and Norris (2008).
Phases or stages of e-government models may be distinguishable from each other only in a conceptual or technical sense
Multiple technologies in multiple stages coexist in an e-government
A technology can be used in multiple stages

32. 32
E-government Models 4
Phases or stages are neither necessarily sequential nor linear
Normative interpretation does not make much sense.

33. E-government Models 5 Park (2015)33
E-government Models 5
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 client- centered (centric)/need driven approach.