An implementation framework for E-Government 2.0

In transitioning to E-Government 2.0, agencies often encounter challenges.Making progress with service innovation needs an implementation framework to assist.A novel implementation framework for E-Government 2.0 is proposed.Korea, Antigua and Barbuda, and Ecuador are used as cases to validate this framework. The E-Government standard describes how governments work, share information and deliver services to external and internal stakeholders. It harnesses information and communication technologies (ICTs) to transform relationships with citizens and businesses and between the branches of government. The benefits may include reduced corruption, increased transparency, greater convenience, higher revenues, and lower costs. The current E-Government 2.0 describes user-oriented portal services that are integrated into and provided through one portal site using Web 2.0 technologies, such as RSS, blogs, social networks, etc., and that are accessible from various channels. However, building E-Government 2.0 is difficult because the transition from E-Government to E-Government 2.0 should be an organizational integration agenda, not only a technology one. Agencies may encounter many unpredictable design challenges and tensions that must be managed. Governments are now beginning to focus on the larger and more holistic task of service innovation in order to provide more productive and better services. One of the key observations about making progress with service innovation is that agencies need a framework to help them move forward. Our objective in this study is to propose a novel implementation framework for E-Government 2.0. This framework integrates the processes, resources, back offices, and front offices of online systems to carry out the stakeholder-oriented participatory E-Government 2.0. Finally, we use Korea, Antigua and Barbuda, and Ecuador as cases to validate it.

[1]  Francesco Molinari,et al.  Participatory policy process design: lessons learned from three European regions , 2011 .

[2]  Anne Morris,et al.  E-literacy and the grey digital divide: a review with recommendations , 2007 .

[3]  Emad Abu-Shanab,et al.  Trust Dimensions and the Adoption of E-Government in Jordan , 2012, Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. Hum. Dev..

[4]  A. Chadwick Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance , 2009 .

[5]  Richard D. Waters,et al.  Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook , 2009 .

[6]  Miriam Cunningham,et al.  Collaboration and the knowledge economy : issues, applications, case studies , 2008 .

[7]  Robert Goodwin,et al.  E-Government Readiness Assessment for Government Organizations in Developing Countries , 2011, Comput. Inf. Sci..

[8]  Adeel Ghayur,et al.  The Critical Success Factors Study for e-Government Implementation , 2014 .

[9]  Victor Bekkers,et al.  Visual Culture and Electronic Government: Exploring a New Generation of E-Government , 2009, EGOV.

[10]  Russell Pipe,et al.  Korea E-government best practices , 2011 .

[11]  Shreeraj Shah,et al.  Web 2.0 Security - Defending AJAX, RIA, AND SOA , 2007 .

[12]  F. Shirazi The Contribution of ICT to Freedom and Democracy: An Empirical Analysis of Archival Data on the Middle East , 2008, Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries..

[13]  Graham Vickery,et al.  Participative Web And User-Created Content: Web 2.0 Wikis and Social Networking , 2007 .

[14]  Vipul Kashyap,et al.  Creating and sharing clinical decision support content with Web 2.0: Issues and examples , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[15]  R. Richardson,et al.  Does ICT Use Enhance Social Capital? Some Evidence from A Survey in Twelve EU Regions , 2008 .

[16]  Kei-Hoi Cheung,et al.  HCLS 2.0/3.0: Health care and life sciences data mashup using Web 2.0/3.0 , 2008, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[17]  David Osimo Benchmarking eGovernment in the Web 2.0 era: what to measure, and how , 2008 .