Nof S.Y. Springer Handbook of Automation

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

e-Government 92.3 Proceeding from Strategy to Roll-Out: Four Dimensions of Action 1635

Fig. 92.6 Transaction site for registering cars in the state of California (USA) (courtesy of State of California,

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/online/onlinesvcs.htm)

basis of industry sector (e.g., automotive versus chem-

ical), company size (large corporations versus small and

medium enterprises), or signiﬁcance for the regional

economy.

Technical Infrastructure

and Technological Requirements

In most cases, the existing heterogeneous technical in-

frastructures provide the framework within which new

developments have to be initiated. Therefore, IT in-

frastructures and technologiesrelevant to e-Government

have to be surveyed and evaluated, and then political

decisions regarding the further development of tech-

nologies in use have to be made. In particular, this

concerns the decision in favor of commercial or open-

source technologies, thedecision betweencustom-made

solutions versus adapting and reusing solutions origi-

nating from other governments, or the decision between

running your own infrastructure versus outsourcing

ICT. In addition, the standards to be followed have to

be speciﬁed. This concerns both technological issues,

e.g., system architecture or usability, as well as the

development process itself. An example of a standard

regarding system architecture is the SAGA (Standards

und Architekturen für e-Government-Anwendungen –

standards and architectures for e-Government applica-

tions) standards framework published by the German

federal government. SAGA pursues the following

aims [92.11]:

•

Interoperability – ensuring a media-consistent ﬂow

of information between citizens, business, the fed-

eral government, and its partners

•

Reusability – establishing process and data models

for similar procedures when providing services and

deﬁning data structures

•

Openness – integrating open standards into applica-

tions

•

Reduction of costs and risks – considering invest-

ment-safe developments on the market and in the

ﬁeld of standardization

•

Scalability – ensuring the usability of applications

as requirements change in terms of volume and

transaction frequency.

Part I 92.3

1636 Part I Home, Ofﬁce, and Enterprise Automation

Fig. 92.7 UK e-Government site for a number of different services in the UK (with permission of Crown,

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm)

SAGA is meant as a guideline for the design

of e-Government architectures, addressing decision-

makers in public IT management as well as developers

of e-Government solutions.

An example of a standard focusing on the develop-

ment process itself is the lifecycle model V-Modell XT,

which is the recommended standard for the federal

German administration and for defense projects. V-

Modell XT provides a reference process describing

the activities and results that have to be produced

during software development projects. It aims at im-

proving project transparency, project management, and

the probability of project success [92.12].

Focal Application Areas

Prioritization of application areas is essential for the

success of an e-Government project; for example, if the

political objectiveis to make government more efﬁcient,

a decision has to be made concerning which govern-

ment processes will beneﬁt most, e.g., procurement,

skill development or management of geographic data.

Depending on the focal application areas, the neces-

sary base technologies can be identiﬁed (e.g., workﬂow

applications, geographic information systems, portal

technology).

Roadmap

Based on the focal application areas, highly visible

key projects are identiﬁed which promise immediate

beneﬁts and can therefore help in securing further

political support. For further implementation of the

strategy, key projects and the planned enhancements of

infrastructure and of base technologies are plotted on

a roadmap. A roadmap shows the main steps of how to

set these projects on track by deﬁning a schedule, al-

locating ﬁnancial resources, assigning responsibilities,

and deﬁning critical success factors [92.13]. Roadmaps

are mid- to long-term compared with the short- to mid-

term electoral cycles of politicians; thus, success will

most probably not be reaped by those who initiated the

developments.

Wherever possible, the decisions to be taken on the

dimension of strategy should be based on empirical ev-

idence. This evidence may, for example, come from

Part I 92.3

e-Government 92.3 Proceeding from Strategy to Roll-Out: Four Dimensions of Action 1637

surveys among stakeholders, such as those conducted

by the Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Soft-

ware Engineering (IESE) or the Technical University

of Munich amongst industrial companies to iden-

tify G2B processes and determine their e-Government

potential [92.14, 15], return on investment analyses

(ROI) [92.16] or quantitative evaluation of technology

acceptance [92.17].

92.3.2 Processes and Organization

Frequently, IT solutions are used to support existing

workﬂows andtheir correspondingorganizationalstruc-

tures. This may lead to some gains in efﬁciency and

quality, but does not lead to the large-scale beneﬁts that

could be achieved if work processes and complex pro-

cess chains involving different organizational units were

truly optimized and reengineered. Take, for example,

procurement processes in a distributed public admin-

istration. As long as IT is only used to support each

agency in their traditional procurement processes, the

economies of scale to be realized from bundling de-

mands cannot be realized. Bundling of demands across

agencies, on the other hand, requires a new setup of

workﬂows and responsibilities: new units have to be es-

tablished that are responsible for determining demands,

negotiating contracts, and maintaining catalogues.

The identiﬁcation of process chains which would

yield high beneﬁts for all stakeholders if transformed

into an e-Government solution is done on the basis of

potential analyses and is part of strategy building. Once

process chains have been identiﬁed, ranked, and reengi-

neered, they are scrutinized for commonbuildingblocks

which require the same functionality. Lately, method-

ological frameworks for process modeling have been

developed, which offer public-sector-speciﬁc process

building blocks [92.18].

The challenge of process reengineeringin the public

sector is to overcome the boundaries between differ-

ent organizational and functional units and between

government and its clients. This may imply a shift

of responsibilities, the adoption of common technical

platforms and exchange formats, as well as cultural as-

similation. Facing these challenges requires a high level

of motivation and will only succeed if it ﬁnds a promi-

nent place on the political agenda.

92.3.3 Technology

At present, IT systems in the public sector (like years

ago in the business sector) are still characterized by het-

erogeneous IT infrastructures, a multitude of different

applications, incompatible data formats, and human–

computer interfaces which are difﬁcult to use. However,

for the realization of process-oriented e-Government it

is essential that data and information can be exchanged

smoothly and securely among agencies and between

government and citizensas well as between government

and businesses. In addition, for economical reasons,

it has to be ensured that software architecture allows

for reuse of legacy applications and promotes reuse of

newly developed components and data.

It is mainly the disciplines of IT architecture, IT se-

curity, and usability which address these technological

challenges. In theremainder of thissection, wewill look

at recent developments in each of these ﬁelds.

Many of the challenges concerning heterogeneous

IT landscapes and redundant services and data are

addressed by the service-oriented approach to IT ar-

chitectures [92.19,20]. On the level of technology, this

approach can be seen as a counterpart to the process-

oriented approach described in the previous section.

Service-oriented architectures (SOA) stand for a man-

agement concept as well as a comprehensive design

principle for IT infrastructures. They lead to IT infras-

tructures which are able to adapt themselves easily to

the changing requirements of the application domain.

The salient feature of service-oriented architectures

are software building blocks (services) which can be

recombined relatively easily into new or more compre-

hensive solutions in support of new or more complex

business processes. Services communicate via stan-

dardized exchange formats and interfaces. Conformity

with standards ensures that different business processes

which include identical activities can make use of the

same basic building blocks. Thus, redundant develop-

ment efforts can be avoided and the implementation of

modiﬁed processes can be accelerated.

Facing an unprecedented ability of modern ICT

to collect, track, and analyze personal data (e.g.,

telecommunication records, ﬂight records, credit-card

payments, or e-Mail communication), many citizens

and companies hesitate to contribute further to their

data trail and therefore avoid e-Government services.

A means to counteract such fears and build trust is pri-

vacy policies for the protection of personal data and

privacy. Examples are the recommendations of the Or-

ganization for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD),whichcoveralargenumberoforganiza-

tional and technical issues, spanning data transparency

to data parsimony [92.21]. Especially in the context of

e-Government, where trust is of utmost importance, in-

Part I 92.3

1638 Part I Home, Ofﬁce, and Enterprise Automation

struments are employed which help to ascertain users’

identity (authentication) and to protect private data.

Common instruments used for authentication are

digital signatures and digital certiﬁcates [92.22]. In

some countries, including the USA and countries of

the European Union, these provide a legally binding

authentication method for the seamless electronic ex-

ecution of administrative transactions. Usually, they

require special hardware devices (card readers) as well

as a public-key infrastructure (PKI), which comprises

organizational and technical elements to certify the

owner’s identity [92.22]. Despite their technical ma-

turity, digital signatures still lack wide acceptance,

because users shun the necessary organizational and

technical efforts.

Alternative signature mechanisms have therefore

been proposed that do not require a PKI infrastructure.

An example is Pretty Good Privacy’s (PGP) web-of-

trust approach [92.23], which is based on mutual trust

in a community of peers. However, this approach lacks

central control, which is the main reason why govern-

ments are reluctant to adopt it. To facilitate the use

of digital signatures, the integration of common chip

card applications, such as credit cards and health in-

surance cards, with citizen cards is currently pursued.

A positive example for enhancing commonly used chip

cards into devices for personal authentication is the

Austrian citizen card (Fig. 92.8). However, wide accep-

tance of citizen cards will ultimately depend on striking

a balance between costs, efﬁciency, dependability, and

convenience.

Adequate usability is a minimal requirement for

achieving convenience. Whereas e-Business solutions

usually target speciﬁc user groups, most e-Government

solutions, especially those for citizens, must be usable

Fig. 92.8 Austrian e-Card, usable as health insurance and

citizen card

for everyone. Generally, no speciﬁc training can be pro-

vided. In fact, governments are often obliged by law

to provide services without discrimination to the pop-

ulation at large and to counteract the danger of digital

divide [92.24, 25]. In particular, accessibility for users

with special needs has become a major requirement of

many national e-Government projects [92.26].

In formulating e-Government policies,master plans,

and project objectives, IT security and accessibil-

ity issues have moved center-stage over the last few

years. However, it is often overlooked that these re-

quirements represent conﬂicting goals, which have to

be reconciled on the level of software architecture.

A method especially developed to help in this endeavor

is thearchitecture tradeoff analysis method developedat

Carnegie Mellon University. It has been designed espe-

cially to identify and mitigate potential risks emerging

from conﬂicting interests with regard to the characteris-

tics of an IT system [92.27].

92.3.4 Project and Change Management

Several project lifecycle models and project man-

agement methods have been proposed, which have

a special focus on the requirements of public-sector

IT projects [92.12, 28]. It is not our intention to pro-

vide a comprehensive account of project management

or software engineering issues here. However, there

are certain aspects of project management which seem

crucial for the success of e-Government projects, for

example achieving consensus among stakeholders and

delivering measurable results at different milestones of

a project. The following aspects of project management

address these issues.

Project Design

Project design refers to the high-level structuring of

a project into phases, milestones, and additional con-

trol points. Splitting a project into phases, e.g., design,

implementation, and testing, belongs to the standard

tasks of a project manager. What is not state-of-the-

practice yet is to perform measuring activities which

assess critical success factors in these phases. Success

criteria can refer to technical requirements such as sys-

tem performance or interoperability, to usage criteria

such as user acceptance, but also to economical aspects

such as ﬁnancial savings or shortening of processing

time. Success criteria need to be set up consensually

at the beginning of a project and have to be monitored

throughout system operation. Project design ensures

that these critical factors can be validated early enough

Part I 92.3

e-Government 92.4 Future Challenges in e-Government Automation 1639

in the project so that adjustments to software design

can also be made early. Depending on the degree of in-

novation, the degree of precision and concreteness of

project objectives, and the degree of user interaction,

phases should be devoted to proof of concept, prototype

building, different ﬁeld tests with representative users

and stakeholders, and ﬁnally a staged roll-out.

Communication Management

The electronic support of complex administrative pro-

cesses usually involves a large number of stakeholders

and users. Often, these groups have divergent inter-

ests, which can lead to considerable friction and project

delays. Managing communication proactively is of

paramount importance to facilitate consensus build-

ing. It is needed (a) to obtain a transparent picture

of stakeholder interests, (b) to establish clear commu-

nication and decision procedures, and (c) to plan for

appropriate actions. Apart from detecting and resolving

potential conﬂicts, communication management also

aims at ensuring project support by proactively inform-

ing stakeholders, politicians, and the public on project

status and plans. It thus plays a vital role in the process

of creating technology acceptance.

Change Management

Process orientation, which is at the core of many of

today’s e-Government efforts, is often opposed to the

traditional principle of vertical line organization of ad-

ministration. Only if processes, structures, and attitudes

change can the beneﬁts of automating process chains

materialize. Therefore, project management has to put

special emphasis on preparing the ground for change

and on implementing change in a transparent and co-

operative way. There are two instruments which seem

to be key in change management processes: guiding

coalitions and user participation.

Guiding coalitions are groups which are able to di-

rect a change effort. For public-sector projects, guiding

coalitions should be composed of the following individ-

uals.

Political Sponsors. Securing broad support among po-

litical leadersis crucialto ensure ﬁnancial continuity for

a program, as transformation processes often span elec-

toral cycles. Political support will also be essential if

legislation or regulatory changes are needed.

Line Managers. Line managers are responsible for cor-

rect execution of administrative processes. They have

the power to deﬁne how an administrative procedure is

implemented on the operational level. Often they also

have budget responsibility. Usually, they survive elec-

toral cycles and can thus facilitate continuity.

Employee Champions. Employee champions are usu-

ally senior ofﬁcials with long-standing expertise, who

lend credibility to the cause. They act as early adopters

and thus help to motivate others and reduce fears and

objections. They are least exposed to the changing

winds of electoral cycles.

Independent Advisors. To support complex decision

processes and conﬂict resolution, independent advisors,

for example, from national research institutions, are an

indispensable part of the coalition. They bring exper-

tise on the levelsof strategy, technology(state-of-the-art

and future),legislation, organizational and process anal-

ysis, and redesign. Moreover, externals are open to

promising options that threaten current structures.

In implementing change, theguiding coalition relies

upon a project team which combines technical, organi-

zational, methodical, and legal expertise.

Besides setting up guiding coalitions, users should

be given the opportunity to take part in the change

process; for example, users can be included in project

teams as on-site customers or can contribute to design-

ing and optimizing a solution by piloting it at different

stages in a project. In general, those who are affected by

the change need to be informed on a regular basis and

should be given a chance to express their opinion and

concerns, for example, in web blogs, at regular informa-

tion events or through one-on-one counseling [92.29].

92.4 Future Challenges in e-Government Automation

In the previous sections, we gave an overview of

the evolution of e-Government and explained the ac-

tions necessary to leap forward from political vision

and strategy to practical solutions. However, despite

many inspiring examples and promising approaches,

e-Government development still lags behind the devel-

opment of ICT in business. This is due to the speciﬁc

characteristics of the public sector and partly, but to

a minor extent, to technological issues.

In the following, we will look at some of the

issues, which we consider crucial for the transition

from an insular and function-oriented government with

Part I 92.4

1640 Part I Home, Ofﬁce, and Enterprise Automation

a high degree of data and systems redundancy to an

ICT-empowered, process-oriented, and cohesive type

of e-Government. We will distinguish two types of

challenges which e-Government initiativesand the tech-

nology sector have to face: political challenges, which

require action on the level of policy and politics, and

engineering challenges, which require the development

of new methods or the adaptation of known approaches.

In the remainder of this section, we will look at each

of these issues in turn. However, we will not look at the

management challengesof applying and enforcingwell-

established software engineering practices (see, e.g., the

e-Government manual of the German Federal Ofﬁce for

Information Security [92.30]).

92.4.1 Political Challenges

In many countries, the landscape of e-Government

solutions is characterized by heterogeneous and in-

compatible approaches and technical solutions. This is

mostly due to the fact that administrative units often act

independently from each other and pursue their own po-

litical agendas. In order to overcome the situation, it is

necessary both to establish standards of technical inter-

operability and to install e-Government representatives,

e.g., national chief information ofﬁcers (CIOs), who are

equipped with enough political clout and resources to

make these standards mandatory across departmental

boundaries and across different levels of administration

(e.g., community, state, and federal). A country which

has successfully implemented the concept of a national

CIO in charge of e-Government is Austria, which as

early as 2001 installed a national CIO directly reporting

to the chancellor of the federal republic [92.31].

In many cases, e-Government projects span a large

number of years, which may surpass the time during

which a political party is in power. For the realization

of long-term e-Government programs, changes of the

power structure can have a negative impact on current

developments. To ensure continuity, act independently

of interdepartmental power plays, and voice the need

for legislative action, those representing e-Government

should be independent of politicalagendas and electoral

cycles.

To support complex decision processes and help re-

solve conﬂicts, independent advisors belonging to the

research community should become an integral part of

the decision-making process. Their task is primarily to

bring in neutral expertise at the levels of strategy, leg-

islation, technology, and organization. Moreover, they

should develop visions and future scenarios that go be-

yond current structures.

Current e-Government efforts address the typical

middle-class family of the Western hemisphere, which

is well-educated, computer-literate, nonhandicapped,

and equipped with the technical means to take ad-

vantage of electronic governmental services. While

computer ownership is relatively common in the de-

veloped countries of the West and Asia, it is less

widespread in the Middle East, and comparatively rare

throughout much of Latin America and Africa. For ex-

ample, while 82% of the Swedish use computers at

work, home or anywhere else, at least occasionally,

only 9% of the Bangladesh population do so [92.32].

The reasons for this are manifold, including wealth,

infrastructure, education, language, age, cultural back-

ground, and political conditions, to name but a few. The

challenge is to overcome these barriers, which cause

the often quoted digital divide [92.24]. A particularly

promising line of action to overcome the digital divide

is totake advantage of the widedistributionand highus-

ability of mobile communication devices, which allow

persons who are illiterate but numerate to use electronic

government services [92.33]. Other promising initia-

tives are underway in different parts of the world (see,

for example, the case studies provided by the World

Bank [92.34]), often promoted by transnational insti-

tutions such as the United Nations (UN)ortheWorld

Bank. As promising as these examples are, systematic

and comparative analysis of the effects of such pro-

grams and of the transferability of the applied approach

is still needed.

92.4.2 Engineering Challenges

In order to secure continuous support and funding for

complex e-Government projects, it is important to pro-

duce visible results and tangible beneﬁts early on. This

can be achieved by breaking up complex projects into

smaller tasks, focusing on quick wins. The concept of

a quick win refers to a change management strategy

which aims to realize projects that have the potential

to yield improvements within a short time. Quick-win

projects can thus help to build acceptance for further

innovation. The key in this endeavor is the business pro-

cess to be supported by IT. Besides serving as the basis

for deriving functional and nonfunctional requirements

for e-Government solutions, it supplies the framework

for establishing an evolution plan for incremental de-

velopment.

Part I 92.4

e-Government References 1641

Gradually increasing the complexity of e-Govern-

ment solutions has several advantages: ﬁrstly, imple-

menting G2B processeswhich span anentire end-to-end

process chain requires substantial ﬁnancial investment;

secondly, by selecting those process steps for which IT

solutions can be provided that do not make heavy re-

quirements on users’ IT skills nor on their technological

equipment, chances are good that users will accept the

new technology; thirdly, through incremental develop-

ment, lessons learned while deployingnew technologies

can befed back into development and providebeneﬁcial

input to more comprehensive solutions. The challenges

here are to identify the right starting point and plan for

the right increments.

In the SOA world, this issue is also discussed under

the concept of focus holistically, act locally. Accord-

ing to this paradigm, it is essential to identify projects

that are small enough to avoid failure, but signiﬁcant

enough to attract attention from decision-makers. The

software engineering discipline of requirements engi-

neering with its methods for prioritizing requirements

can provide guidance here [92.35]. However, an open

issue is to (a) establish public-sector-speciﬁc prioritiza-

tion criteria, (b)providea comprehensiveframeworkfor

applying them to individual process steps or to a com-

bination of process steps, and (c) provide empirical

validation for the criteria.

Besides the question of how to arrive at a pri-

oritization of process steps and at politically and

technologically valid roadmaps for solution develop-

ment, another engineering challenge is to determine the

level of component granularity, which allows one to

maximize reuse potential. While one of the foremost

concerns of the SOA approach is to maximize reuse of

components, most public-sector experiences have been

in small-scale project contexts; little knowledge exists

concerning SOA design on a large scale, spanning dif-

ferent organizational units. In particular, no empirically

validated ﬁndings with regard to the right level of com-

ponent granularity are available for the public sector.

Future research is needed here, looking at a variety of

G2B processes, and analyzing them with regard to the

optimal level of reusability.

The SOA approach depends on technical interoper-

ability on one hand, and on semantic interoperability,

on the other. The latter is key to the reuse of com-

ponents across organizational units: there needs to be

a shared terminology for exchanging information and

a standardized way of interpreting it [92.36]. The chal-

lenge here is to deﬁne and agree on data exchange

standards and underlying ontologies that allow for

a uniform interpretation. The federal government of

Germany has responded to this challenge and set up

the so-called XöV initiative (meaning XML for public

administration) responsible for developing extensible

markup language (XML)-based technical standards for

electronic data exchange. The initiative aims at facili-

tating the seamless exchange of data between agencies

on the federal, state, and municipal level as well as be-

tween government agencies and their external clients.

So far, XML-based standards have, for example, been

developed for data exchange between welfare and em-

ployment ofﬁces(XSozial), andbetween registry ofﬁces

(XMeld) (for an overview of current XöV projects

see [92.37]).

Despite such promising initiatives, considerable

efforts – both in the research community and on

the political level – are still needed to achieve se-

mantic interoperability on national and international

levels.

References

92.1 R. Büllesbach: Branchen- und nutzengetriebenes

eGovernment, Presentation at the Conference Ver-

waltungsinformatik (Brühl, 2006), in German,

http://www.uni-koblenz.de/˜fvi/ftvi2006/dateien/

Buellesbach_Branchen-+nutzengetriebenes_E-

Gov_FTVI2006.pdf (last accessed April 07, 2008)

92.2 J. Fenn, M. Raskino: Mastering the Hype Cycle: How

to Choose the Right Innovation at the Right Time

(Harvard Business School Press, Boston 2008)

92.3 European Commission: An overview of the e-

Government situation in Europe (2008),

http://www.epractice.eu/factsheets (last accessed

April 07, 2008)

92.4 D.J. Hoch, M. Klimmer, P. Leukert: Erfolgreiches

IT-Management im öffentlichen Sektor: Managen

statt verwalten (Gabler, Wiesbaden 2005), in Ger-

man

92.5 German Federal Ministry of Finance: Entwick-

lung bundeseinheitlicher Software für das Be-

steuerungsverfahren (Vorhaben KONSENS),Monats-

bericht des BMF 55–64 (October 2006) (in German),

http://www.bundesﬁnanzministerium.de/

nn_17844/DE/BMF__Startseite/Aktuelles/

Monatsbericht __des__BMF/2006/10/

061019agmb006,templateId=raw,property=

publicationFile.pdf (last accessed April 07, 2008)

Part I 92

1642 Part I Home, Ofﬁce, and Enterprise Automation

92.6 R. Büllesbach: Die e-Government-Initiative “Rhein-

land-Pfalz 24” – e-Business und e-Government

aus einem Guss, Der Landkreis 75, 132–133 (2005),

in German, http://www.kreisnavigator.de/

landkreistag/zeitschrift/rueckblick/auswahl_2005-

03.pdf (last accessed April 07, 2008)

92.7 C. Baum, A. Di Maio: Gartner’s Four Phases of e-

Government Model (Gartner Group Inc., Stamford

2000)

92.8 P. Steffens, G. Geissner: FLOrlp - Land par-

cel information online for the german state

of Rheinland-Pfalz: web-based GIS for farm-

ers. In: e-Government Guide Germany. Strategies,

Solutions and Efﬁciency, ed. by A. Zechner

(Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart 2007) pp. 309–

317

92.9 Beschaffungsamt des Bundes: e-Vergabe – Ver-

gabeplattform des Bundes (2008),

http://www.evergabe-online.de/ (last accessed

April 07, 2008)

92.10 Directorate-General for Internal Market and Ser-

vices of the European Commission: Handbook on

Implementation of the Services Directive (EC, Lux-

embourg 2007), http://ec.europa.eu/

internal_market/services/docs/services-dir/guides/

handbook_en.pdf (last accessed April 07, 2008)

92.11 German Federal Interior Ministry together with

]init[ AG, Fraunhofer ISST: Standards und Architek-

turen für e-Government-Anwendungen (Berlin,

2008), in German, http://gsb.download.bva.bund.

de/KBSt/SAGA/SAGA_v4.0.pdf (last accessed April 07,

2008)

92.12 V-MODELL XT Project: Part 1: Fundamentals of

the V-Modell (2006), ftp://ftp.tu-clausthal.de/pub/

institute/informatik/v-modell-xt/Releases/1.2.1/

Documentation/V-Modell-XT-Complete.pdf (Last

access: April 07, 2008)

92.13 T. Altameem, M. Zairi, S. Alshawi: Critical suc-

cess factors of e-Government: A proposed model

for e-Government implementation, Innovations

in Information Technology 2006 (2006) pp. 1–5,

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?

arnumber=4085489 (last accessed April 07, 2008)

92.14 I. Grützner, P. Steffens: Wem nutzt e-Government?,

move – Moderne Verwaltung 5, 16–17 (2007), in

German

92.15 P. Wolf, H. Krcmar: Collaborative e-Government

– Neue Ansätze für durchgängige B2G-Prozesse,

1st edn. (Technische Universität München/Institut

für Informatik/Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftinformatik,

Garching 2007), in German,

http://www.winfobase.de/ lehrstuhl/publikat.nsf/

intern01/9B3A9FA1765DAE59C125729E00488B41/

$FILE/07-02.pdf (last accessed April 07, 2008)

92.16 A.M. Cresswell, G.B. Burke, T.A. Pardo: Advancing

Return on Investment, Analysis for Govern-

ment IT – A Public Value Framework (Center

for Technology in Government, Albany 2006),

http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/

advancing_roi/advancing_roi.pdf

(last accessed

April 07, 2008)

92.17 L. Carter, F. Bélanger: The utilization of e-

Government services: Citizen trust, innovation

and acceptance factors, Inf. Syst. J. 15,5–25

(2005)

92.18 J. Becker, L. Algermissen, T. Falk: Prozessorientierte

Verwaltungsmodernisierung. Prozessmanagement

im Zeitalter von e-Government und New Public

Management (Springer, Berlin 2007), in Ger-

man

92.19 D. Krafzig, K. Banke, D. Slama: Enterprise SOA –

Service-Oriented Architecture and Best Practices

(Prentice Hall, Indianapolis 2005)

92.20 T. Erl: Service-Oriented Architecture – Concepts,

Technology, and Design (Prentice Hall, Upper Sad-

dle River 2005)

92.21 OECD: OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy

and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (Organisa-

tion for Economic Co-operation and Development,

Paris 1980), http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,

3343,en_2649_34487_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html (last

accessed April 07, 2008)

92.22 K.N. Gupta, K.N. Agarwala, P.A. Agarwala: Digital

Signature: Network Security Practices (Prentice Hall

of India, New Delhi 2005)

92.23 S. Garﬁnkel: PGP: Pretty Good Privacy (O’Reilly,

Sebastopol 1995)

92.24 Center for Democracy and Technology: The e-

Government Handbook for Developing Countries

(CDT, Washington 2002), http://www.cdt.org/egov/

handbook/2002-11-14egovhandbook.pdf (last ac-

cessed April 07, 2008)

92.25 Illinois General Assembly: Article 5: Elimi-

nate Digital Divide Law (IGA, Springﬁeld 2000),

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?

DocName=003007800HArt%2E+5&ActID=574&

ChapAct=30%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B780%

2F&ChapterID=7&ChapterName=FINANCE&

SectionID=8192&SeqStart=2100&SeqEnd=5400&

ActName=Eliminate+the+Digital+Divide+Law%2E

(last accessed April 07, 2008)

92.26 Zugang für Alle (Schweizerische Stiftung zur behin-

dertengerechten Technologienutzung): Schweizer

Accessibility-Studie 2007: Bestandsaufnahme der

Zugänglichkeit von Schweizer Websites des

Gemeinwesens für Menschen mit Behinderungen

(Zugang für Alle (Schweizerische Stiftung zur be-

hindertengerechten Technologienutzung), Zürich

2007), in German, http://www.label4all.ch/studie/

Accessibility_Studie_2007.pdf (last accessed April

07, 2008)

92.27 R.Kazman,M.Klein,P.Clements:ATAM: Method for

Architecture Evaluation, Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-2000-

TR-004 ESC-TR-2000-004 (Carnegie Mellon Univer-

sity and Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh

2000), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/

Part I 92

e-Government References 1643

00.reports/pdf/00tr004.pdf (last accessed April 07,

2008)

92.28 Great Britain Ofﬁce of Government Commerce:

Managing Successful Projects with Prince 2 (Sta-

tionary Ofﬁce, London 2002)

92.29 H. Duivenboden: Citizen participation in public ad-

ministration: The impact of citizen oriented public

services on government and citizens. In: Prac-

ticing e-Government: A Global Perspective,ed.

by M. Khosrow-Pour (Idea Group, Hershey 2005)

pp. 415–445

92.30 Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstech-

nik: e-Government-Handbuch (Bundesanzeiger

Verlag, Köln 2006), in German, also available

in English from http://www.bsi.de/fachthem/egov/

3a.htm (last accessed April 07, 2008)

92.31 European Commission: e-Government Factsheet –

Austria – Actors (EC, Luxembourg 2008),

http://www.epractice.eu/document/3276 (last ac-

cessed April 07, 2008)

92.32 PEW Research Centre: World Publics Welcome

Global Trade – But not Immigration, 47-Nation

Pew Global Attitudes Survey (Pew Research Cen-

ter, Washington 2007) p. 74, http://pewglobal.org/

reports/pdf/258.pdf (last accessed April 07, 2008)

92.33 I. Kushchu: Mobile Government: An Emerging Di-

rection in e-Government (Idea Group, Hershey

2007)

92.34 The World Bank: e-Government Case Studies

(2008), http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/

EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATIONAND

COMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/

EXTEGOVERNMENT/0,,contentMDK:20798277 isCURL:Y

menuPK:1767179 pagePK:148956 piPK:216618 the-

SitePK:702586,00.html (last accessed April 07,

2008)

92.35 K. Pohl: Requirements Engineering. Grundlagen,

Prinzipien, Techniken (Dpunkt, Heidelberg 2007),

in German

92.36 G. Vetere, M. Lenzerini: Models for semantic inter-

operability in service oriented architectures, IBM

Syst. J. 44, 887–903 (2005)

92.37 Deutschland Online: XÖV-Projekte (2008),

http://www.deutschland-online.de/DOL_Internet/

broker.jsp?uMen=b1f32acc-9224-114f-bf1b-

1ac0c2f214a8 (last accessed April 07, 2008)

Part I 92

“This page left intentionally blank.”