Keegan McBride
ABSTRACT
To build a digital government, interoperability and data exchange are essential, this is often facilitated by a specific platform - a government interoperability and data exchange platform. However, the research into such platforms, their theorization and conceptualization, structure, and core technical makeup is scant. This paper makes initial contributions to this area of research and creates knew knowledge about these government interoperability and data exchange platforms by conducting a twenty country comparative case study. This paper makes a number of important contributions: it offers a new conceptualization of these platforms; offers new insights into their structure, form, and governance; identifies critical building blocks for the future of these platforms; and highlights a number of important areas for future research.
- Altinn. 2022. About Altinn 3 – Altinn. https://docs.altinn.studio/community/about/Google Scholar
- Baseer Ahmad Baheer, David Lamas, and Sonia Sousa. 2020. A Systematic Literature Review on Existing Digital Government Architectures: State-of-the-Art, Challenges, and Prospects. Administrative Sciences 10, 2 (2020), 25 [1–28]. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10020025Google Scholar
- Stacy A. Baird. 2009. Government Role and the Interoperability Ecosystem. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 5, 2 (oct 2009), 219. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/isjlpsoc5&id=231&div=&collection=Google Scholar
- Nitesh Bharosa, Silvia Lips, and Dirk Draheim. 2020. Making e-Government Work: Learning from the Netherlands and Estonia. In Electronic Participation: Proceedings of the 12th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2020, Sara Hofmann, Csaba Csáki, Noella Edelmann, Thomas Lampoltshammer, Ulf Melin, Peter Parycek, Gerhard Schwabe, and Efthimios Tambouris (Eds.). Vol. 12220. Springer International Publishing, Linköping, Sweden, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58141-1Google ScholarDigital Library
- Melanie Birks and Jane Mills. 2015. Grounded theory : a practical guide(2 ed.). SAGE. 208 pages.Google Scholar
- Panos Constantinides, Ola Henfridsson, and Geoffrey G. Parker. 2018. Introduction—Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age. Information Systems Research 29, 2 (may 2018), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1287/ISRE.2018.0794Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mel Conway. 1968. Conway’s Law. https://www.melconway.com/Home/Conways_Law.htmlGoogle Scholar
- CS Transform. 2011. E-government interoperability-A comparative analysis of 30 countries. (feb 2011), 14 pages.Google Scholar
- Sharon S. Dawes. 2009. Governance in the digital age: A research and action framework for an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly 26, 2 (2009), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.12.003Google ScholarCross Ref
- DIGG. 2019. Secure and Efficient Electronic Information Exchange in the Public Sector. Technical Report. DIGG. 1–92 pages. https://www.digg.se/globalassets/dokument/publicerat/publikationer/eng-slutrapport-sakert-och-effektivt-informationsutbyte-inom-den-offentliga-sektorn.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Financial Services Commission. 2021. API-based Financial MyData Service to be Piloted from December. https://www.fsc.go.kr/eng/pr010101/76977Google Scholar
- Pavlina Fragkou. 2018. The Greek Interoperability Center. JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government 10, 1 (oct 2018), 82 – 93. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v10i1.497Google ScholarCross Ref
- Government of Singapore. 2022. Singpass api. https://api.singpass.gov.sg/library/myinfo/business/implementation-myinfo-dataGoogle Scholar
- Luis Guijarro. 2007. Interoperability frameworks and enterprise architectures in e-government initiatives in Europe and the United States. Government Information Quarterly 24, 1 (2007), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.05.003Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ola Henfridsson and Bendik Bygstad. 2013. The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution. MIS Quarterly 37, 3 (sep 2013), 907–931. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.3.11Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bob Hinings, Thomas Gegenhuber, and Royston Greenwood. 2018. Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization 28, 1 (mar 2018), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFOANDORG.2018.02.004Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel Hodapp and André Hanelt. 2022. Interoperability in the era of digital innovation: An information systems research agenda:. Journal of Information Technology 2022 (feb 2022), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211064304Google Scholar
- Karen Layne and Jungwoo Lee. 2001. Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly 18, 2 (2001), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ministry of the Interior and Safety and National Information Society Agency. 2022. eGovFrame Portal - eGoverment Standard Framework. https://www.egovframe.go.kr/eng/main.doGoogle Scholar
- MyData. 2022. MyData Declaration. https://mydata.org/declaration/Google Scholar
- T Nam and T A Pardo. 2014. Understanding Municipal Service Integration: An Exploratory Study of 311 Contact Centers. Journal of Urban Technology 21, 1 (2014), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.887933Google ScholarCross Ref
- Digital Government Bureau Ministry of the Interior and Safety. 2022. (Presentation) Public Data Policies and Governance of Republic of Korea.Google Scholar
- Maria Laura Rodríguez Mendaro. 2020. The Uruguayan Digital Data Journey. Patterns 1, 3 (jun 2020), 100047. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PATTER.2020.100047Google ScholarCross Ref
- Apitep Saekow and Choompol Boonmee. 2009. Towards a practical approach for electronic government interoperability framework (e-GIF). Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2009.467Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hans J Scholl and Ralf Klischewski. 2007. E-Government Integration and Interoperability: Framing the Research Agenda. International Journal of Public Administration 30, 8(2007), 889–920.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anselm Strauss and Juliet M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2 ed.). Sage Publications. 1–336 pages.Google Scholar
- Leif Sundberg. 2018. Enablers for Interoperability in Decentralized e-Government Settings. In 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2018)(dg.o ’18). ACM, Delft, the Netherlands, [1–8]. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209303Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Tilson, Kalle Lyytinen, and Carsten Sørensen. 2010. Research Commentary—Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0318 21, 4 (nov 2010), 748–759. https://doi.org/10.1287/ISRE.1100.0318Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cathy Urquhart, Hans Lehmann, and Michael D. Myers. 2010. Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal 20, 4 (jul 2010), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2575.2009.00328.XGoogle Scholar
- Maria A Wimmer, Rositsa Boneva, and Debora di Giacomo. 2018. Interoperability governance: A definition and insights from case studies in Europe. In 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2018)(dg.o ’18), C C Hinnant and A Zuiderwijk (Eds.). ACM, Delft, the Netherlands, [1–11]. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209306Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robert K. Yin. 2018. Case Study Research and Applications Design and Methods (6 ed.). Sage Publications. 1–352 pages.Google Scholar
- Youngjin Yoo, Ola Henfridsson, and Kalle Lyytinen. 2010. Research Commentary—The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research 21, 4 (nov 2010), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1287/ISRE.1100.0322Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martin Žagar, Josip Knezović, and Branko Mihaljević. 2019. Enabling reliable, interoperable and secure e-Government services in Croatia. Central and Eastern European eDem and eGov Days 335 (mar 2019), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.24989/OCG.V335.24Google Scholar
- Jonathan Zittrain. 2006. The Generative Internet. Harvard Law Review 119(2006), 1974–2040. https://doi.org/10.1145/1435417.1435426Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Digital Government Interoperability and Data Exchange Platforms: Insights from a Twenty Country Comparative Study
Recommendations
A Historical Analysis on Interoperability in Estonian Data Exchange Architecture: Perspectives from the Past and for the Future
ICEGOV '21: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceThe importance of interoperability for enabling e-governance and e-service provision cannot be overstated. In Estonia, the interoperability data exchange platform, X-Road, has been implemented since 2001 and was integrated with the Finnish public sector ...
Enablers for interoperability in decentralized e-government settings
dg.o '18: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data AgeInteroperability is considered a success factor to effectively implement electronic government. Interoperability can conceptually be understood as properties of a system and its context. The properties of democratic systems are often ill-suited for ...
Digital Government Initiatives in Balochistan: a case study
ICTD '17: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and DevelopmentThis research study 1 aims to analyse the digital government initiatives in Balochistan. The study finds that there is a lack of e-readiness even if public sector officials are willing to use Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to enhance ...
Comments