The document discusses electronic government (e-government). It defines e-government as using information technologies and new business processes to transform how governments interact with citizens, businesses, and other government agencies. The document outlines several models for stages of e-government development, including Layne and Lee's four stage model and the UN's five stage model. It also discusses types of e-government services, modes of delivery, advantages like transparency and convenience, and disadvantages like reliability and privacy issues. The document describes ways to measure e-government readiness and participation. Finally, it discusses collaborative e-government research and the issue of the digital divide.

1. E-government
Guest Lecture
Khan, G. F., PhD
Dept. of Media & Communication,YeungNam
University
gohar.feroz@gmail.com

2. Table of contents
 Trends for better e-society
 Electronic Government
Stages of e-government
Types & Modes of service delivery
Advantages and disadvantages
How to measure?
Collaborative e-government research
 Issues
Digital divide
 Technological issues
 Social issues
 How to overcome it?

5. What is e-government?

6. What is E-government
 Several definitions
 Electronic government or e-government (from consumer’s
point of view) is defined as the practice of public service
provisioning to citizens, businesses, and other government
agencies where government services can be accessed
through:
 The internet
 Mobile
 Fax
 Mail
 Telephone and
 Personal
Khan et al., (2011)

7. E-government defined (2)
 Use of information technologies and new business
processes to transform how Governments interact with
citizens, businesses, and other government agencies.
 Transformation of..
 Information about services
 Access channels
 Levels of service
 Business processes (front and back
 office)
 Organizational structures

8. E-govt. V.S traditional governance

9. End Goals

10. How does e-government develop over
time?
Is it one step implementation project or
process?

11. E-government models
To understand E-government
developmental process different models
are proposed

12. Layne and Lee (2001) Four stage Model
<Figure 1> Dimensions and stages of e-government development (Layne and Lee, 2001)

13. Six stage model by Silcock (2001)
Stage 1: Information publishing and
dissemination,
Stage 2: Official two-way transaction,
Stage 3: Multi-purpose portals,
Stage 4: Portal personalization,
Stage 5: Clustering of common services,
Stage 6: Finally full integration and
enterprise transformation

14. UN (2002) five stage model
Emerging
Enhancing
Interactive
Transactional, and
Full integration

15. Example of one stop service

16. Types of Services
 Deshazo et al. (2001) identified 51 different e-
governments’ services and organized them into 12
categories:
 online payments, registration and permits, customer
service, communication, license, images, audio/video,
documents, applications, and procurement, among
others.
 These services are mainly provided to the users in the
G2C, G2B, G2E, and G2G e-government relationships

17. Modes of Services
Government to Citizens (G2C)
e.g. Birth certificates, Passports, home tax, etc
Government to Business (G2B)
E.g. E-customs, paperless trade
Government to Employees (G2E)
E.g. Payroll, paying tax, and e-learning
Government to Government (G2G)
E.g. information sharing

18. Can you name some of the advantages of
E-government?

19. Advantages
 Transparency:
 what the government is working on as well as the policies they are trying to
implement
 Due to governments web presence citizens can easily know about projects,
plans, and outcomes.
 Democratization
 Greater citizen participation in governments policy and decision making
 E.g. through e-voting, blogging, chat rooms, emails etc
 Convenience
 Any where any time services
 Reduction in physical contacts no need to travel to govt. office
 Speed and efficiency
 Improved accounting and record keeping through computerization, and
information and forms can be easily accessed, updated, and modified resulting
greater speed and efficiency.

20. Disadvantages?

21. Disadvantages
Reliability & Trust
 Reliability of information on the
web, and
Hidden agendas of government
that could influence and bias public
opinions.

22. Disadvantages (2)
 Surveillance & Privacy
More and more information with governments about
citizens
When the government has easy access to countless
information on its citizens, personal privacy is lost
 False sense of transparency and accountability
E-government system maintained by the governments
themselves.
 Information can be added or removed from the public eye
Very few organizations monitor and provide accountability
for these modifications

23. Can we measure e-government?
How?

24. E-government readiness index
Measures the status of e-governments
around the world
Several International rankings of e-
government maturity are available.
UN e-Government Readiness Index are
among the most frequently cited

25. What they measure?
 E-government readiness index
Web measure index
Infrastructure index
Human capital index
 Internet and PCs index
 Telephone and cellular index
 TV and online population index
 Education index
 Service deliver per stages
 E-participation index

26. E-government development index UN
2010

27. UN E-participation Index
 A country’s strength in e-participation is
measured against three benchmarks:
Does the national government publish information on
items under consideration?
Are there ways for the public to engage in consultations
with policy makers, government officials and one
another?
Can citizens directly influence decisions, for example by
voting online or using a mobile telephone?

28. Digital Participation
Increasing the reach, breadth and depth
of digital technology use across all
sections of society, to maximize digital
participation and the economic and
social benefits it can bring. (The Digital Britain
report of June 2009 )
 www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/digitalbritain-finalreport-jun09.pdf

29. How can digital participation be
measured?
1) Reach
Access: number of households
online, and numbers using the
Internet outside the home;
2) Breadth of engagement
Modes of usage and consumption
(communication, retail, content
consumed, public services used);

30. How can digital participation be
measured?
 3) Depth of engagement: user contributions,
comments, joining networks, user generated
content, self publishing, content creation, photos
uploaded and shared, etc; and
 4) Social and economic impact: particularly the
impact on economic recovery and benefits for
disadvantaged groups and communities

31. Collaborative research within EG domain
source: Khan et al. 2011

32. Collaborative research within EG domain
Country level Collaboration
Figure 2: The co-authorship network of countries source: Khan et al. 2011

33. Collaborative research within EG domain
Country level Collaboration
Table 1 Key players (countries) in terms of network centrality
Country Degree Betweenness Eigenvector
The U.S. 20 279.45 0.432
Germany 15 161.679 0.318
The UK 14 87.312 0.356
Canada 12 51.25 0.333
Australia 9 55.381 0.249
Singapore 8 18.868 0.253
France 6 42.809 0.146
Greece 6 25.024 0.201
Spain 6 13.263 0.174
Norway 6 3.555 0.216
Figure 3: The co-authorship network of countries: Centrality

34. Collaborative research within EG domain
Country level Collaboration
Table 2 Network-level characteristics of the co-authorship network at the country level
No. of Links Density Average Degree Clustering Coefficient
170 0.055 3.036 0.498

35. Collaborative research within EG domain
Institution Level Collaboration
Figure 4 Institution-level network in the EG research domain (only those institutions with at least three links are shown)

36. Collaborative research within EG domain
Institution Level Collaboration
University Degree Betweenness Local Eigenvector
The University of Maryland 14 2766.167 52
The National University of Singapore 14 4876.334 63
The University of Illinois 12 2521.900 49
The National Technical University of Athens 12 223.000 42
The University of Macedonia 11 146.000 50
Korea University 10 3853.732 58
The University of Arizona 10 2351.500 47
The University of Manchester 9 4221.000 48
The University of Georgia 9 6224.296 69
The State University of New York (Albany) 9 2807.500 23
The Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 9 71.000 36
Table 3 Network characteristics of the institution-level network
Number of Links Density Average Degree Clustering Coefficient
1,142 0.002 1.462 0.712

37. Collaborative research in EG domain
Regional Level Collaboration
Figure 5 The EG research domain: The regional collaboration
network

38. Issues
Digital Divide

39. What is Digital Divide?

40. “Haves" and "Have-Nots"
V.S

42. Digital Divide
 Digital divide can be classified as access divide and
social digital divide.
 Access digital divide is the gap between people who have access to
digital infrastructure and information and those who have no or
limited access.
 Social digital divide exist due to perception, culture, and
interpersonal relationships

43. Digital Divide (2)
 Access Divide:
 E-service access
 Resource availability and convenience of access to service
 E-service access quality
 Timeliness (speed), Trust, and Stability of the service
 E-service access Skills
 Technical and applied e-skills for using the service
 Social Divide:
 E-service Awareness
 Knowledge of the services availability
 E-service Social Support
 Technical assistance and emotional reinforcement from friends and family
 E-service Culturability
 National colors, pictures, and local language
Source: Khan et al., 2010

44. Why we have DD?

45. Digital Divide: Problems
 Irrelevance of the Internet
• To expensive, no electricity, no skills, etc
• Better things to spend money on:
• Health, water, food, roads, education
• Problem of government control and corruption

46. Problems
 Access & Resources
 No internet, time, money, experience, etc
 Literacy and Skills
• Basic literacy
• Information age literacy
 Motivation
• Social and individual issues
• Life-stage
• We can remove barriers, but not create motivations

47. Result-> ‘Digital’ exclusion
Poor Jobs
Limited Government services (e-government)
Limited Information (jobs, consumer, politics)
Few Consumer benefits (cost of not shopping online)
Isolation from new culture
 New excluded groups - older men
Digital exclusion intensifies as society and
the economy become increasingly based
on the Internet

48. Never Catch up
 Many interlocking issues.
 Always new technologies
 Increased commercialisation
 Are the forerunner opening up the gap?

49. Global Digital Divide May be due to..
Economic division,
Geographical Division, or
Social division
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjfAFsET28c&NR=1

50. Second level DD
E.g. Inequality in the Internet use (Hargittai, 2002)

51. How can we over come DD?

52. We need…
Economic incentives
e.g. to buy computers (laptops)
To have internet connection at home
Public access to computers
User friendly spaces - cybercafes, telecentres,
E.g. public libraries, free internet access points

53. We need…
 Provide skills (Technical & Applied)
 e.g. The European Computer Driving License (ECDL)
 Free computers+ for whole
communities
 Government-industry partnerships
 E.g. One laptop per child project

54. We need..
 Donors
• Provide Education, tele-centres, etc.
• Donate old computers to less developed countries
 Liberalization
• Foreign investment
• Infrastructure - Mobile phones
• New markets
• Industry (outsourcing)

55. References
 Khan, G. F., Moon, J., Rhee, C., and Rho, J.J. (2010). E-government skills Identification and Development: Toward a
Staged-Based User-Centric Approach for Developing Countries, Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, Vol.20,
No.1, March 2010.
http://apjis.or.kr/issue/Past_sub.asp?uid=3493
 -Khan, G. F., Moon, J., Park, H. W., Swar, B., and Rho, J.J.(2011). A Socio-Technical Perspective on E-government Issues
in Developing Countries: A Scientometrics Approach, Scientometrics, Vol. 87, Issue 2, p-267–286.
DOI:10.1007/s11192-010-0322-5
 Khan, G. F. & Park, H. W.(2011). International collaboration within e-government domain: A scientometrics analysis,
presented at 2011 KAPA-ASPA International Conference, October 28-29, 2011, Seoul Korea.
 http://www.kapa21.or.kr/english/2011conference.htm
 www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/digitalbritain-finalreport-jun09.pdf
 Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully function e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly,
18(1), 122-136.
 Deshazo, R.C. Kaylor, and D.V. Eck, Gauging e-government: A report on implementing services among small American
cities, Foundations of Electronic Government in America’s Cities: A Multi-Disciplinary Workshop, Chicago, IL, 2001
 Silcock, R., "What is e-Government?," Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 54, 2001, pp. 88-101.
 UN, E-government index: http://unpan1.un.org/in tradoc/groups/public/documents/un/ unpan021888.pdf, 2005.
 UN 2008, e-Government Survey: From e Government to Connected Governance, New York, ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/112, URL:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan028607.pdf
 http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/942/864


56. Thank You
Questions & Comments