Devolution in a Virtual Enterprise

E-Government as a virtual enterprise, having many vertical portals, works in collaborative network to deliver e-services. The decentralization in egovernance depends on how much a governance structure decentralizes its political, fiscal and administrative powers. E-governance devolution areas may be planning, business process re-engineering, change management, enterprise architecture, networks, portals, back-offices, e-services, etc. Improper devolution in e-governance may affect cost, implementation, manageability, trust, outsourcing and localization. In this paper, we analyze a centralized web portal with its outcomes and derive a framework for devolution in e-governance. We propose an extension in the Souffle theory of decentralization to calibrate suitable degree of devolution in e-governance. At the end we explain our approach by applying it to a real scenario.

[1]  Vincent Homburg,et al.  E-government and NPM: a perfect marriage? , 2004, ICEC '04.

[2]  Caroline J. Tolbert,et al.  The Effects of E-Government on Trust and Confidence in Government , 2003, DG.O.

[3]  David Lazer,et al.  Managing Novelty and Cross-Agency Cooperation in Digital Government , 2004, DG.O.

[4]  P.J. Hu,et al.  Examining Cross-Agency Collaborations in E-Government Initiatives , 2006, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06).

[5]  A. Ho.  Reinventing Local Governments and the E‐Government Initiative , 2002 .

[6]  George K. Kostopoulos.  E-government in the Arabian Gulf: a vision toward reality , 2004, Electron. Gov. an Int. J..

[7]  E. L. Yuliani.  Decentralization, deconcentration and devolution: what do they mean? , 2004 .

[8]  Victor Bekkers,et al.  The back-office of e-government (managing information domains as political economies) , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[9]  Vijayalakshmi Atluri,et al.  Technology transfer of inter-agency government services and their transnational feasibility studies , 2005, DG.O.

[10]  Subhash Bhatnagar,et al.  Egovernment: Lessons from Implementation in Developing Countries , 2010 .

[11]  Sang M. Lee,et al.  Current practices of leading e-government countries , 2005, Commun. ACM.

[12]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  Organic development: a top-down and bottom-up approach to design of public sector information systems , 2006, DG.O.

[13]  Li Yan,et al.  Integration and Innovation Orient to E-Society, Volume 1, Seventh IFIP International Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society (I3E2007), October 10-12, Wuhan, China , 2007, I3E.

[14]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  A survey of e-government business models in the Netherlands , 2005, ICEC '05.

[15]  A. Parker.  Decentralization: The Way Forward for Rural Development? , 1995 .

[16]  Ailsa Kolsaker.  Third Way e-Government: The Case for Local Devolution , 2005, TCGOV.

[17]  Anthony M. Cresswell,et al.  Knowledge and the development of interpersonal trust: a dynamic model , 2004, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.

[18]  Marijn Janssen.  Centralized or decentralized organization? , 2005, DG.O.

[19]  Emilio Paolucci,et al.  Urban Versus Regional Divide: Comparing and Classifying Digital Divide , 2005, TCGOV.

[20]  K. Annan,et al.  Overview of Decentralisation Worldwide: A Stepping Stone to Improved Governance and Human Development , 2002 .

[21]  Vijayalakshmi Atluri,et al.  Dynamic Composition of Workflows for Customized eGovernment Service Delivery , 2002, DG.O.