Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Capability maturity model for arcon implementation for e government services
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Capability maturity model for arcon implementation for e government services

1,423
views

Published on

A highly decentralized e-governance structure of a country may have nearly independent sub-nationals (provinces/states and local governments etc.). These sub-nationals may independent politically, …

A highly decentralized e-governance structure of a country may have nearly independent sub-nationals (provinces/states and local governments etc.). These sub-nationals may independent politically, financially and administratively. These liberties allow them to form an independent e-government or online services but individual efforts are costly approach and face barriers regarding integration. To avoid these issues, they may form or join collaborative network for whole e-government or for few e-services as of ARCON (A Reference model for Collaborative Networks). To join this network, sub-nationals must have some degree of readiness and maturities such as political, fiscal and administrative. In this paper, a capability maturity model has proposed to join a collaborate network for e-services.

Published in: Technology, Education, Business

1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Collaborative Network is growing approach
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,423
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Devolution of e-Governance among Multilevel Government Structure Kashif Farooq Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Pakistan Presented at IT-Innovations 2006, November 19-21, 2006, Dubai
  • 2. Objective This paper presentsa framework of devolution for e-governance
  • 3. Issues Centralized e-government Decentralized e-government Devolution  Top-down  Political, administrative, fiscal
  • 4. Why Devolution in e-Government? How should responsibilities for e-government establishment be divided among the various levels of government (national, regional, provincial, and local)? To what extent should a program be centralized (i.e.,run at a national government level) versus decentralized (i.e., run at local government level)? Which government agencies will be involved, e.g., education, health and tourism agencies will be the partner of G2C: Government to Citizen portal? Should there be individual efforts to provide an Electronic Service Delivery (ESD) or the need of collaboration of agencies? To what extent should a program make use of citizens and other non- government resources? To what extent should technical staff and consultants be integrated within a single organization and inter-organizations?
  • 5. Centralized Initiatives Typical characteristics  all IT functions centralized in one organizational unit  generally limited IT costs but less effective  impacts IT governance by providing a generally tight governance model that is easy to enforce.
  • 6. Decentralized Initiatives Typical characteristics  policy is required for  decision making, project management, portals, services, funding, revenue collection and operations  distributes IT functions between the various divisions or organizations  generally has a high coordination cost  IT governance is focused on the coordination effort between central and local activities
  • 7. Federated Initiatives Typical characteristics  usually considered the blend of centralized and decentralized approaches  key decisions are collectively made and then standardized across the enterprise  competencies are decentralized at strategic business units/levels, with knowledge sharing across the enterprise  generally, high IT costs but more responsive to business needs  governance is typically done through committees, with a large potential for sharing across different areas
  • 8. “Core-Periphery Approach”“that attempts to reconcile the ∗ push of centralization ∗ with the pull of decentralization.It does this in two ways: First, through integration ∗ drawing the centralized and decentralized approaches together into some kind of unified or compromise approach. Second, and more commonly, through division This accepts that ∗ This accepts that both centralized and decentralized approaches will be found, and ∗ then attempts to set some demarcation lines that will keep the two separate, thereby allowing both to be accommodated”Richard Heeks “The Core-Periphery Approach to Management of Public Information Systems” IDPM, University ofManchester, UK, 1999, Published in: “Government IT”
  • 9. Proposed Framework: (1) Devolution of e-Government Based on Core-Periphery Approach
  • 10. Proposed Framework: (2) Scale of devolution depends upon  the size of the country,  its resource base,  human capacity, and  governance style. There are two types of devolution  e-government devolution among multilevel government structure  portal devolution among different agencies or departments
  • 11. Proposed Framework (3) Vertical portals (Vortal): In multilevel government Federal structure, a centralized portal providing services to all governments that are the responsibility of lower level Horizontal Portals government may be named as vertical portal. Like one centralized G2C portal provides services to all local governments Horizontal portals (Hortal): Portal of Decentralized Level 1Vertical PortalsVertical Portals a particular government agency that State/Province have not any vertical (multi level 1 to n government) structure like foreign Vertical Portals Vertical Portals Horizontal Portals and defense office are the responsibility of Federal government, so it may be named as horizontal portal Decentralized Level 2 Local 1 to m Horizontal Portals VERTICAL AND HORIZOTAL PORTALS IN MULTILEVEL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
  • 12. Proposed Framework (4) Salient features  Devolution of vision, strategies, policies, standards and laws  Devolution in enterprise architecture (EA)  Benchmarking of devolving parameters at each level  Portal devolution: A vertical portal needs devolution among different levels of governments and their agencies
  • 13. Mapping of Proposed Framework on Zachman Framework What How Where Who When WhyPlanner’s Devolution Plan Vertical & Horizontal devolution of project ContextualView Role of different governments and their agenciesOwner’s Decentralized Workflow Model Conceptual Arrangements negotiations & collaborations among governmentsView and their agencies Detail Planning Logical Representation of access privileges ofDesigner’s Logical agencies Infrastructure planning breakdown (by regionalView authorities) planning of decentralized HR Regional promotion & Outsourcing plansBuilder’s Decentralized Role in Development PhysicalView Decentralized configuration mgt for each stakeholder Role of agencies in Infrastructure establishment Capacity buildingIntegrator’s Decentralized Role in Deployment IntegratedView Configuration, Testing, QA, Integration results Access privileges coded to control access to specific platforms and technologiesUser’s View Operational Devolution: Personnel and key stakeholders Functioning working within their roles and responsibilities, Execution of CRM, Feedback, Change Request, Benchmarking Data Function Network People Time Motive
  • 14. Proposed Framework (4) Federal Level  National: Vision, strategies, policies, standards and laws  Federal Enterprise Architecture  Federal Vertical Portals (Vortal)  Federal Horizontal Portals (Hortal)  Benchmarking of decentralized levels  Parameters: Implementation of all vertical portals, EA maturity, horizontal portals of decentralized levels, ICT Infrastructure and human resource development, awareness and promotional activities  ICT Infrastructure facilities  ICT skill development plans (within organization and for general public), awareness and bridging the digital divide  Outsourcing policy (ICT Infrastructure, Development and Services)  e-Governance devolution plan for lower decentralized level
  • 15. Proposed Framework (5) Decentralization Level 1 (State or province) 1 to n  Level 1: Vision, strategies, policies, standards and laws  It must be shadow vision, strategies and standards of Federal  Enterprise Architecture that must be aligned or the shadow of federal EA  Decentralized role federal vertical portal or virtual office assigned in federal devolution plan  Decentralized configuration and customization of federal vertical portal  Efforts for the promotion of services of federal portals  Horizontal portals of this level (must be distinct from federal portals means no duplication)  ICT Infrastructure facilities  ICT skill development plans (within organization and for general public), awareness and bridging the digital divide  Outsourcing policy (ICT Infrastructure, Development and Services)  e-Governance devolution plan for lower decentralized level
  • 16. Proposed Framework (6) Decentralization Level 2 (Local Level) 1-m  Level 2: Vision, strategies, policies, standards and laws  It must be shadow vision, strategies and standards of federal level and decentralized level 1  Enterprise Architecture that must be aligned or the shadow of upper level and federal EA  Decentralized role for federal & level 1 vertical portal assigned in federal & level 1 devolution plan  Decentralized configuration and customization of federal & level 1 vertical portal  Efforts for the promotion of services of federal & level 1 vertical portals  Horizontal portals of this level (must be distinct from federal & level1 portals means no duplication)  ICT Infrastructure facilities  ICT skill development plans (within organization and for general public), awareness and bridging the digital divide  Outsourcing policy (ICT Infrastructure, Development and Services)
  • 17. Conclusion In this paper we have  proposed a framework for devolution of e-governance based on “Core-Periphery” approach that defines devolution of e-governance as the  push of centralization through integration and  pull of decentralization through division of responsibilities to electronic service delivery, and  attempts to set some demarcation lines that will keep the two separate, thereby allowing both to be accommodated At the end we have mapped this framework on to the Zachman framework.
  • 18. Thank You