Devolution of e-Governance among Multilevel Government Structure v3

Views:
 
     
 

Presentation Description

Devolution is very important for the sustainability of different initiatives related to e-governance having top-down approach. Centralized verses decentralized e-government is as much debatable issue as the conventional government issue i-e centralized verses decentralized. While devolving political, administrative, and fiscal processes to the grass root level, it is important that the e-governance process model is also appropriately devolved. This paper presents a framework of devolution for e-governance by applying high level enterprise architecture principles and incorporating a decentralized business model. The proposed framework provides guidelines to prepare devolution plan for e-governance

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Devolution of e-Governance among Multilevel Government Structure:

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

Objective:

Objective This paper presents a framework of devolution for e-governance

Issues:

Issues Centralized e-government Decentralized e-government Devolution Top-down Political, administrative, fiscal

Why Devolution in e-Government?:

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?

Centralized Initiatives:

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.

Decentralized Initiatives:

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

Federated Initiatives:

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

“Core-Periphery Approach”:

“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 of Manchester, UK, 1999, Published in: “Government IT”

Proposed Framework: (1) :

Proposed Framework: (1) Devolution of e-Government Based on Core-Periphery Approach

Proposed Framework: (2) :

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

Proposed Framework (3):

Proposed Framework (3) VERTICAL AND HORIZOTAL PORTALS IN MULTILEVEL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE Federal Horizontal Portals Vertical portals (Vortal): In multilevel government structure, a centralized portal providing services to all governments that are the responsibility of lower level government may be named as vertical portal. Like one centralized G2C portal provides services to all local governments Decentralized Level 1 Horizontal Portals Horizontal portals (Hortal): Portal of a particular government agency that have not any vertical (multi level government) structure like foreign and defense office are the responsibility of Federal government, so it may be named as horizontal portal State/Province 1 to n Decentralized Level 2 Horizontal Portals Local 1 to m Vertical Portals Vertical Portals Vertical Portals Vertical Portals

Proposed Framework (4):

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

PowerPoint Presentation:

What How Where Who When Why Planner’s View Contextual Owner’s View Conceptual Designer’s View Logical Builder’s View Physical Integrator’s View Integrated User’s View Functioning Data Function Network People Time Motive Devolution Plan Vertical & Horizontal devolution of project Role of different governments and their agencies Decentralized Workflow Model Arrangements negotiations & collaborations among governments and their agencies Detail Planning Logical Representation of access privileges of agencies Infrastructure planning breakdown (by regional authorities) planning of decentralized HR Regional promotion & Outsourcing plans Decentralized Role in Development Decentralized configuration mgt for each stakeholder Role of agencies in Infrastructure establishment Capacity building Decentralized Role in Deployment Configuration, Testing, QA, Integration results Access privileges coded to control access to specific platforms and technologies Operational Devolution: Personnel and key stakeholders working within their roles and responsibilities, Execution of CRM, Feedback, Change Request, Benchmarking Mapping of Proposed Framework on Zachman Framework

Conclusion:

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.

References:

References Elizabeth Linda Yulian, “Decentralization, deconcentration and devolution: what do they mean?” Interlaken Workshop, Interlaken, Switzerland 27 – 30 April, 2004 Marijn Janssen, “Centralized or Decentralized Organization?”, ACM Proceedings of the 2005 national conference on Digital government research; Vol. 89, , Pages: 247 - 248 E. Tambouris, S. Gorilas and G. Boukis, Archetypon S.A, “Investigation of Electronic Government”., 236 Sygrou Av., 176-72 Kallithea, Athens, Greece Subhash Bhatnagar, “Egovernment: Lessons from Implementation in Developing Countries”, Indian Institute of Management, Amedabad – 380015 , Published in Regional Development Dialogue, Vol. 24, UNCRD, Autumn 2002 Issue. Richard Heeks “The Core-Periphery Approach to Management of Public Information Systems” IDPM, University of Manchester, UK, 1999, Published in: “Government IT” G. David Garson, “Handbook of Public Information Systems” ‘‘E-Government Act of 2001’’.of USA, 107th Congress 1 st Session Alfred Tat-Kei Ho, “Reinventing Local Governments and the E-Government Initiative” Lowa State University, “Public Administration Review” July/August 2002, Vol. 62, No. 4 Luis F. Luna-Reyes, Anthony M. Cresswell and George P. Richardson, “Knowledge and the Development of Interpersonal Trust: a Dynamic Model”, Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004 Paul Jen-Hwa Hu, Dai Cui and Alan Charles Sherwood, “Examining Cross-Agency Collaborations in E-Government Initiatives”, Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006 Valentina (Dardha) Ndo, “E – Government for Developing Countries: Opportunities and Challenges” Department of Business Administration, University of Shkoder, Albania, “The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries”, EJISDC (2004) 18, 1, 1-24 “eGovernment Enterprise Portal Strategy”, by Oakland County Department of Information Technology, April 2003, http://www.co.oakland.mi.us Multi-level Governance and Territorial Development:. Trends in OECD Countries and in Mexico. Washington DC, World Bank/IFC Headquarters,. March 2003, www.worldbank.org/urban/urbanruralseminar/pres/crosta.pdf David Lazer, Harvard University, Maria Christina Binz- Scharf, Harvard University, “Information Sharing in EGovernment Projects: Managing Novelty and Cross-Agency Cooperation”, Report prepared for the IBM Endowment for the Business of Government Caroline J. Tolbert, Kent State University, Karen Mossberger, University of Illinois at Chicago “The Effects of EGovernment on Trust and Confidence in Government” Public Administration Review • May | June 2006 p 354-369 "A Framework for Information Systems Architecture", John A. Zachman, IBM Systems Journal, Vol 26, No 3, 1987. IBM Publication G321-5298

PowerPoint Presentation:

Thank You

Proposed Framework (4):

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

Proposed Framework (5):

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

Proposed Framework (6):

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)