a framework for e-government

7/31/2019 A Framework for E-government

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-framework-for-e-government 1/13

A framework for e-government:privacy implications

France BelangerCenter for Global Electronic Commerce, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, and

Janine S. Hiller Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The paper proposes a conceptual framework of the stages of electronic government thatdescribes and integrates the unique relationship between the government and its varied constituents,

and identifies and applies the global constraints that affect the implementation of e-government ateach stage.

Design/methodology/approach – Building on and expanding stages of e-government suggested inprior literature, a framework is designed to recognize that the five stages of e-government will havediffering impacts when considering six different categories of constituents. In addition, the frameworkconsiders three global constraints superimposed on these stages and relationship; laws andregulations, technical feasibility, and user feasibility. The paper then provides an example of implementation of the framework by exploring the issue of privacy in electronic government.

Findings – The relationships mapped the stages of e-government, affected by global motivators andconstraints, are unique and complex. Policy and implementation of e-government should take accountof these complexities. Privacy in e-government issues differs significantly when global motivators andconstraints are viewed across the complex framework of government stages by constituency.

Research limitations/implications – The relationships between constituents and stages of

e-government, together with the global constraints, should be incorporated into the process of decision-making when government is considering the movement from one stage of e-government toanother. The framework provides new lenses through which e-government implementation can bestudied by researchers.

Practical implications – The framework can be used to guide planning and decision-making forelectronic government and aid in the identification of issues unique to each stage and constituency.

Originality/value – The use of framework allows researchers and practitioners to identify issuesthat may not be highlighted in a general discussion of e-government that does not take into account thecomplexities of the e-government environment.

Keywords Electronics industry, Design, Privacy

Paper type Conceptual paper

1. IntroductionWorldwide, local and national government agencies are facing the challengingera of electronic government. Forrester Research predicts that more than$600 billion of government fees and taxes will be processed through the web by

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm

Portions of this paper build on previous research partially funded by thePriceWaterhouseCoopers Endowment for The Business of Government and published as their“Privacy Strategies for Electronic Government” report.

BPMJ12,1

48

Business Process ManagementJournalVol. 12 No. 1, 2006pp. 48-60q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1463-7154DOI 10.1108/14637150610643751



2006 (James, 2000). United States Federal Government spending alone is predicted toreach $2.33 billion by 2005 (Gartner Group, 2000a, b, c). This is more than theexpected spending by consumers from retail businesses ($ 2.24 billion). A survey of government finance officers reveals that e-government is one of their top concerns

(Bornstein, 2000).While there seems to be substantial growth in the development of e-government

initiatives (Bednarz, 2002; Friel, 2002), it is not clear that citizens will embrace theuse of such services. Some key concerns can limit this growth, including privacy(Thibodeau, 2000). Citizens may be skeptical and mistrust e-government initiatives,believing that these initiatives result in invasion of citizen privacy by government(James, 2000). This paper proposes an e-government framework and discussesprivacy and the complex social questions that it presents for the successfulutilization of e-government. The framework can be utilized to process and analyseother complex issues. A total of 26 e-government categories are identified. Thecategories take into account the complexity of e-governments by recognizing thevarious constituents and the different stages of implementation of e-government,incorporating both electronic government and electronic governance relationships.The framework can be used to facilitate decision-making unique to each stage andconstituency of e-government. Three global motivators and constraints complementthe framework in identifying factors for successful e-government implementation.This process is useful because it operationalizes the inherent differences in thecomplex functions of government.

2. E-government frameworkWatson and Mundy (2001) propose a model for e-government comprising initiation,infusion, and customization. Symonds (2000) discusses four stages to e-government:

one-way communications, two-way communications, exchanges, and portals. It could bethought of as a more granular approach to stages of e-government than Watson andMundy’s model. Both of these frameworks focus on the evolution of e-governmentsystems through their respective stages. However, these models do not include thecomplex governmental relationships with a variety of constituents. Other models focuson the relationships rather than the stages. The US General Accounting Officecategorizes e-government using the typology of government-to-citizen (G2C),government-to-employee (G2E), government-to-government (G2G), andgovernment-to-business (G2B). The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB)categorizes e-government as G2C, G2B, G2G, and internal efficiency and effectiveness(IEE). IEE initiatives “bring commercial best practices to key government operations,particularly supply chain management, human capital management, financial

management and document workflow” (OMB, 2002). We propose an e-governmentframework that builds on Symonds’ stages, adding a fifth stage to represent electronicpolitical participation by citizens. Our framework also takes into account thecomplexities of government relationships by mapping the stages to varied constituentrelationships both identified above as well as newly proposed ones. We also consider inthe development of our model a set of additional constraints on governmental actions.This allows us to capture the different requirements and design elements that arenecessary to initiate e-government with each of the constituents.

A framework ofe-government

49



In addition, we deviate from the traditional classification of the one-way inferredfrom the use of “to” in the categorization. For example, B2C generally means businessto consumer, a connotation that businesses are marketing products, and creatingdemand for those products (e.g. B! C). Instead, we use the conjunction with that more

accurately reflects the essence of the governmental relationship with its constituencies,and the fact that these relationships are fundamentally different than those of business(e.g. Government with Citizens ¼ G $ IC). This approach is supported by the findingsof Steyaert (2000) in the study of government use of the internet in Flanders, Belgium.Electronic government will reach its full potential by focusing on the citizen not only asa consumer, but also as a participant in governance (Mintrom, 2003; Thomas andStreib, 2003).

Our proposed categorization of e-government types includes:. Government with individuals – delivering services (GwIS). The government

establishes or maintains a direct relationship with citizens to deliver a service orbenefit. An example is the US’ Social Security Administration in its delivery of

benefits. This can involve two-way communications as individuals requestinformation about benefits, and government may need information in order toprocess benefits.

. Government with individuals – political process (GwIP). This is the relationshipbetween the government and its citizens as part of the democratic process. It isperhaps the most essential relationship between a government and any entity.Examples include voting online, and participating in requests for commentsonline during the regulatory process.

. Government with business as a citizen (GwBC). Although businesses will notvote, and thus the relationship between businesses and the government will notlook exactly like the GwIP, there are still opportunities for business to relate tothe government in a citizen-like capacity. Providing securities exchangecommission filings online in the US, and paying taxes online in several countriesworldwide would be examples of the relationship between government andbusinesses in this category.

. Government with business in the marketplace (GwBMKT). While businesses canreceive many online services from government, a major portion of onlinetransactions between governments and businesses involve procurement, or thehiring of contractors or acquisition of goods and services by the government.E-procurement “is one of the fastest growing areas of e-business because it cansave time and money” (Symonds, 2000). Some savings reported include 70percent more efficiency at Australia’s Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment’s purchasing department by deploying a paperless system

(Symonds, 2000).. Government with employees (GwE). Online relationships between government

agencies and their employees face the same requirements as that of therelationships between businesses and their employees. For example, an intranetcan be used to provide information to employees, or online transactions withtheir employees can be performed if agencies have the proper technologicalarchitectures. This relationship should be distinguished from the sameindividual’s relationship under GwIP and GwIS.

BPMJ12,1

50



. Government with government (GwG). Government agencies must oftencollaborate and/or provide services to one another. There are substantial gainsfrom conducting some of these transactions online, between federal, state andlocal agencies. An example of an inter-governmental level e-government

application is the US National Science Foundation’s online funding requestsystem called FastLane (www.nsf.gov). The potential for GwG to benefitagencies involved is tremendous – there are over 20,000 web sites for the USFederal Government alone (Thibodeau, 2000).

2.1 Stages of electronic government The stages in our proposed framework are presented below, beginning with the leastand moving to the most advanced stage of e-government implementation.

2.1.1 Information. Information dissemination is the simplest form of e-governmentwhere governments post information on web sites for constituents. Thousands of suchsites exist. The biggest challenge with these sites, however, is to ensure that theinformation is available, accurate and timely (Gartner Group, 2000a, b, c). Examples

include the US White House informational web page (www.whitehouse.gov/) or theEuropean Union central page (www.europa.eu.int/).

2.1.2 Two-way communication. In this stage, government sites allow constituents tocommunicate with the government and make simple requests and changes. Several of these sites are based on e-mail exchanges, and there are thousand of those as well.Agencies allowing online requests provide sites with fill-in forms but the information isnot returned immediately online. It is sent by regular mail or e-mail. An example of thisis the US’ Social Security Administration web site where constituents can apply fornew medicare cards or request benefit statements (www.ssa.gov/).

2.1.3 Transaction. At this stage, governments have sites available for actualtransactions with constituents. Individuals interact and conduct transactions with thegovernment completely online, whereas these web-based self-services used to beperformed by public servants. Actual online transacting is the most sophisticated levelof e-government currently widely available. There are several hundreds of these sites.Examples include renewing licenses, paying fines, and applying for financial aid.Benefits of such sites can be very large. For example, the State of Arizona’s system torenew vehicle registration online has dramatically reduced waiting lines at departmentof motor vehicle offices (Thibodeau, 2000).

2.1.4 Integration. In this stage, all government services are integrated. This can beaccomplished with a single portal that constituents can use to access services they needno matter which agencies or departments offer them. One of the biggest obstacles tomore online transactions between the government and its constituents is the lack of integration of all online and back-office systems. Government agencies spend

expensive and time-consuming resources to have face-to-face interactions withindividuals. For example, in the Kentucky Governor’s office up to 90 percent of customer interactions are face-to-face (Thibodeau, 2000). Integrating online systemsand back-end systems to support these customer requests could save time and moneyfor the agencies involved, as well as improve customer service. Examples of nationalportals include the US’ FirstGov (http://firstgov.gov/), Australia’s State of Victoria’sMAXI system (www.maxi.com.au/), and Singapore’s eCitizen Centre (www.ecitizen.gov.sg/index_low.html).


51



2.1.5 Participation. These are government sites that provide voting online,registration online, or posting comments online. Although this could be seen as asubset of the two-way communication stage, it is so significant as to warrant a separatecategory. It is helpful to view this as distinct because of the unique sensitivity of

providing this online feature. There are few government sites that provide for this levelof electronic sophistication. One of the most prominent future uses of e-governmentwith the federal government may be for individuals to vote over the internet. ACalifornia Internet Voting Task Force reported in 2000 that this must use a phased inapproach with great care for authentication and security. Online voting will requiretechnologies to support the privacy of individual voters while allowing re-counts andauthentification of identity (Figure 1).

Figure 1.Electronic governmentframework with examples

Stages of e-government

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Type of

government Information

Two-way

communication Transaction Integration

Political

participation

Government

with

Individual-

Services

Description

of medical

benefits

Request &

receive

individual

benefit

information

Pay taxes

online

All services

and

entitlements

N/A

Government

with

Individual-

Political

Process

Dates of

elections

Receive election

forms

Receive

election

funds &

disbursement

Register to

vote --

federal, state

& local (file)

Voting online

Government

with

Business-

Citizen

Regulations

online

SEC filings Pay taxes

online

Apply for

and receive

program

funds

Agricultural

allotments

All

regulatory

information

on one site

Filing

comments

online

Government

with Business

–

Marketplace

Posting RFPs Request

clarifications or

specs

Online

vouchers &

payments

Marketplace

for vendors

N/A

Government

with

Employees

Pay dates

and holiday

information

Requests for

employment

benefit

statements

Electronic

paychecks

One stop

shop for info

on job,

retirement,

vacation, etc.

N/A

Government

with

Government

Agency

filing

requirements

Requests from

local

governments

Electronic

funds

transfers

N/A

BPMJ12,1

52



3. Global e-government constraintsSuperimposed upon the framework are global constraints that apply in everydecision-making and planning process, affecting how the government will accomplishits objectives. These include laws, regulations and policies; technical capabilities; and

user feasibility. These are not proposed as the only items that would constrain theimplementation of e-government, but are three that are supported in the literature,described briefly below and more fully in the sections following.

The law and policy constraint asks whether the action comports with relevant laws,regulations, and policies, and whether it is within the power of government.Regulations may limit government powers to institute and complete e-governmentprojects (Chen and Perry, 2003). For example, the US federal government is limited tointerstate commerce or other powers granted in the US Constitution.

Technical capability asks whether the hardware, software, and expertise exist toimplement the project. E-government initiatives require appropriate investments inhardware, software, and expertise. Insufficient funds or a shortage of personnel mayhinder e-government implementation. As initiatives move towards integration andpolitical participation, they become increasingly more technologically complex. In arecent study of municipal e-government initiatives, Moon (2002) finds that few localgovernments conduct online transactions with citizens (stage three), and even fewer, if any, have integration. Municipalities perceive the lack of technical, personnel, andfinancial capabilities as major barriers to the development of e-government. His overallevaluation (from a survey of 1,471 municipalities) is that the state of e-government atthe municipal level is primitive.

The third constraint is the capability and willingness of the intended user to use theelectronic government project (user feasibility). For example, the digital divide that hasbeen described so capably by others has been found to affect user willingness to usee-government web sites (Thomas and Streib, 2003). Trust is also an important factor in

determining in general whether an individual chooses to, or chooses not to, acquiregoods or services via the web (Belanger et al., 2002; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Hoffmanet al., 1999; Quelch and Klein, 1996). The information systems literature abounds withstudies describing how the resistance of users to a new system because of trust or otherfactors invariably hinders its implementation. (Adams et al., 2004; Aladwani, 2001;Setzekorn et al., 2002). Citizens’ willingness and capability to use the system will,therefore, affect the implementation of e-government.

3.1 Privacy and laws, regulations, and policiesThe intersection of privacy interests and the implementation of information technologyand e-government to enhance the efficiency and ease of use for citizens is dynamic andmultifaceted. Paradoxically, but understandably, laws and executive orders both

mandate action and restrict the government in its pursuit of these goals.In June 2000, US federal agencies were directed to limit the use of cookies on their

sites, with the statement: “Because of the unique laws and traditions aboutgovernment access to citizens’ personal information, the presumption should be that‘cookies’ would not be used at Federal Websites”. Only when there is a compellingreason, approval from the agency head, and the web site uses clear and conspicuouslanguage to give notice of the practice may an agency use cookies. In 2002, PresidentBush’s Technology Agenda included within its goals the expansion of electronic


53



found that consumers were more likely to trust business to secure their privateinformation, and had concerns about the misuse of information in governments’ hands(ITAA, 2000).

3.2.1 Faster and easier data collection. Current technology allows easy loading of

data forms on web sites directly into databases. For companies this is a majoradvantage since the data are loaded immediately (faster) and accurately (notranscribing errors and no problems dealing with unreadable writing). Data are alsoeasier to collect since tools have been developed, such as cookies, for collectinginformation from users, even information the average user does not know (such as anIP address). Contrary to businesses, though, government agencies must report theirdata collection practices and/or must notify individuals that data are collected anddescribe how the data will be used.

3.2.2 Cross-referencing (aggregation). One of the biggest public outcries concerningonline privacy happened following the merger of two companies, DoubleClick andAbacus Direct Corp, in November 1999. The first company provides internet networkadvertising and collects anonymous online purchasing data and browsing habitsthrough cookies (Anstead, 2000). The second company provides specialized consumerdata and analysis for direct marketing and has a database of 88 million buyer profilescollected by 1,500 direct marketers and online retailers (Punch, 2000). After the mergerthe companies announced the decision to merge the two databases. Cross referencingreal offline consumer data with their online purchasing habits (collected with orwithout their knowledge) led to privacy advocates raising serious privacy issues.DoubleClick temporarily stopped their plans to merge the two databases after thepublic uproar. Potential for cross-referencing online data with other online data(between several web entrepreneurs, for example) is also a concern of privacyadvocates (Melillo, 1999). In 1999, US Bancorp rented customer information, in conflictwith the company’s privacy statement. Bancorp ultimately settled a case brought by

the Minnesota Attorney General, but in doing so stated that it was following “industrywide practice[s]” ( Money, 2000).

Cross-referencing of data contained in computer records of federal agencies is notnew either, but it is the amount of data collected that is now the issue. Agenciesshare information with other agencies for various purposes, such as debt collection(for example, the Department of Education matches data with the Postal Service toidentify postal employees delinquent on student loans), eligibility verification (e.g.the Department of Education matches data with the Social Security Administrationto verify social security numbers and citizenship of student aid applicants), fraudand/or ineligibility detection (for example, the Department of Education matchesdata with the Internal Revenue Service to locate taxpayers who have defaulted onstudent loans), and data reconciliation (e.g. two agencies share data to update

records). A recent report from a privacy public-policy group reveals that the USGovernment announces new information-sharing programs more than once everytwo weeks.

3.2.3 Hidden data collection. Besides the issue of cross-referencing data betweenonline and offline databases, collection of data without consent is the biggest issueprivacy advocates are raising with online web sites. As users customize their webbrowsers with personal information, they do not always realize that this informationcan be accessed by web sites they are visiting and then stored in the web site’s


55



databases. Usually this is accomplished by means of “cookies”. US governmentagencies were directed not to use cookies without prior approval and clear andconspicuous notice.

3.3 Privacy and user feasibilityAs the technical capabilities of governments to collect such data increases, andtherefore, the level of data being collected increases, privacy concerns become a keyissue that must be addressed. Few studies, however, have focused on the privacyconcerns of the constituencies of e-government. However, there are many studies of consumer online privacy concerns and privacy practices of businesses. These studiesshed light on the overall concern of individuals about sharing informationelectronically.

A Business Week/Harris poll of 999 consumers in 1998 revealed that privacy wasthe biggest obstacle preventing them from using web sites; above the issues of cost,ease of use, and unsolicited marketing (Green et al., 1998). A later study by ForresterResearch shows that two-thirds of consumers are worried about protecting personalinformation online (Branscum, 2000). In a 2000 National Consumers League survey,respondents ranked personal privacy above health care, education, crime and taxes asconcerns (Paul, 2001). A 2001 survey by Harris Interactive found that individuals whohave not bought over the internet list security of information storage, and transmissionand use of personal information as the top reasons why they have not purchased(Harris, 2001). Fears of privacy violations were also documented in 2001 by anAmerican Demographics survey, which listed children’s privacy breaches as the mostfeared, followed by misuse of private information, financial theft, and identity theft(Paul, 2001).

Lastly, another survey showed that 65 percent of people support deliberativeelectronic government development. When asked to rate the reasons for implementing

electronic government, greater accountability to the citizens outranked better deliveryof government services by almost triple (NUA Internet Surveys, 2000). Yet, a survey of federal and state web sites shows that privacy and security statements are lacking onthose sites (West, 2000).

4. Framework and privacy: an exampleThe policy of a consumer-centric e-government focuses on citizen opinion. Consideringthe general concerns of citizens with online privacy, then e-government initiatives mustspecifically analyse e-government decisions with regards to privacy of information.For example, consider the e-government question: should public records be postedonline?

When government web sites first began, hours of operation, phone numbers, and a

listing of events highlighted their pages. Today, local governments are posting realestate records, property valuations, and court documents online. The technical abilityto efficiently process and express the information (such as new and better techniquesfor mapping) increases the government’s ability to put this information on the web.The increase in the availability of this information, however, has led one constituency,citizens, to complain that the information is readily available to anyone around theworld, including those who would use social security numbers, addresses and maidennames to perpetrate identity theft. What has always been publicly available becomes

BPMJ12,1

56



publicly accessible once posted on the web, and citizen complaints have affected thiseffort of e-government. As a result of citizen outcry, several states have passedlegislation that limits the posting of individually identifiable information on theinternet by state or local governments. Virginia is the most recent state, in 2003, to limit

the disclosure of personally identifiable records, the same ones that are available inperson at the courthouse, on a government web site.

The simplified example of how the framework will aid in the analysis of thecomplex issue of privacy and e-government begins with the first stage: the posting of information. It is not enough to ask what stage of government is involved, it is alsonecessary to identify the unique constituency interests within the global motivatorsand constraints. Businesses will not have the same interests in limiting the individualinformation available online at government web sites; in fact, they will likely supportthe posting of information in an electronic form that they can use to contact and courtcustomers. However, business interests in proprietary information weigh against theposting of certain information relating to government contracts. And, in the effort to

track and deter terrorism, government exhortations for businesses to shareinformation through online reporting mechanisms create concerns about competitivedisadvantages of doing so.

Therefore, to use the framework for privacy decisions in e-government, the processwould first identify the constituency affected, the stage of government, and then mapthe global constraints to each of these (Figure 2 shows privacy issues for GwIS). Thisprocess will ensure that the unique concerns of each of the constituencies areconsidered in the decision-making of instituting e-government at each step.

As illustrated in the above example and discussion, privacy in e-government issuesdiffer significantly when global motivators and constraints are viewed across thecomplex framework of government stages by constituency. The relationships andstages of e-government are complex. These relationships and the global motivators of

policy/law, technical capability, and user feasibility, should be incorporated into theprocess of decision-making when government is considering the movement from onestage of e-government to another. The use of the framework also allows us to identifyprivacy issues that may not have been highlighted in a general discussion of e-government.

5. ConclusionLocal and national governments worldwide are investigating and implementinge-government initiatives. In this paper we proposed a framework that explores thecomplexities of e-government by recognizing the various constituents and the

different stages of implementation of e-government, incorporating both electronicgovernment and electronic governance relationships. The framework highlights thecomplex relationships that exist in e-government between the constituents andthe government as various stages of e-government are implemented. We illustratedthe use of the framework to identify issues of privacy in e-government, analyse theeffect of global motivators and constraints, and facilitate decision-making. Thisprocess is important to evaluate in depth complex issues, such as privacy,in electronic government.


57



Figure 2.Mapping of privacy issuesto government withindividual services

S t a g e s

C o n s t r a i n t

1 - I n f o r m a t i o n

2 - T w o - w a y

c o m m u n i c a t i o n

3 - T r a n s a c t i o n

4 – I n t e g r a t i o n

P o l i c y

A g a i n s t “ s u r r e p t i t i o u s

u s e o f c o o k i e s ” m e m o ;

p o l i c y f a v o r s p r i v a c y ;

h o w e v e r p o l i c y m u s t b e

p o s t e d

F o c u s o n c r e a t i n g

“ c u s t o m e r c e n t r i c ”

W e b s i t e s

L a w a n d

R e g u l a t i o n s

I f n o r e c o r d c r e a t e d ,

P r i v a c y A c t d o e s n o t

a p p l y

R e c o r d m a y o r m a y n o t b e

n e c e

s s a r y ; P r i v a c y A c t m a y

o r m

a y n o t a p p l y

R e c o r d w i l l b e

c r e a t e d ;

P r i v a c y A c t a p

p l i e s .

S h a r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n

b e t w e e n a g e n c i e s ;

C o m p u t e r M a t c h i n g A c t

a p p l i e s

T e c h n i c a l

F e a s i b i l i t y

L i m i t i n g u s e o f c o o k i e s

a n d p o s t i n g p r i v a c y

p o l i c i e s e a s i l y

i m p l e m e n t e d

M u s

t p r o v i d e s e c u r i t y f o r

i d e n

t i f i a b l e d a t a ; m o r e

c o m

p l e x t e c h n o l o g y

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ; c a n

t e c h n o l o g y a l l o w

a n o n y m i t y i n

c o m

m u n i c a t i o n ?

M o r e c o m p l e x

c h o i c e s

f o r t e c h n o l o g y

p l a t f o r m s ; s e c u r i t y i s

c r u c i a l a n d e n c r y p t i o n i s

r e q u i r e d

M o r e d i f f i c u l t

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ; p r o v i d i n g

a c c e s s t o d i f f e r e n t

p l a t f o r m s m a y r e s u l t i n

p r i v a c y a n d s e c u r i t y b e i n g

m o r e d i f f i c u l t t o e n s u r e

U s e r f e a s i b i

l i t y

P o s t e d p r i v a c y p o l i c y

n o t i c e m a y i n c r e a s e t r u s t

T y p e o f i n f o r m a t i o n ( s u c h

a s n a t i o n a l I D ) m a y

i n c r e a s e p r i v a c y c o n c e r n s

U s e r s a r e r e l u c

t a n t t o

c o n d u c t t r a n s a c t i o n s ;

c o n c e r n e d a b o u t

p a y m e n t s e c u r i t y

U s e r s m a y n o t u n d e r s t a n d

h o w i n t e g r a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n

a n d c u s t o m i z a t i o n i m p a c t s

t h e i r p r i v a c y

BPMJ12,1

58



References

Aladwani, A. (2001), “Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation”, Business Process Management Journal., Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 266-76.

Anstead, M. (2000), “Taking a tough line on privacy”, Marketing , 13 April, p. 31.

Adams B., Berner, E.S., Wyatt, J.R. (2004), “Applying strategies to overcome user resistance in agroup of clinical managers to a business software application: a case study”, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing , Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 55-64.

Bednarz, A. (2002), “Getting plugged in to e-government”, Network World , Vol. 19 No. 27, pp. 36-9.

Belanger, F., Hiller, J. and Smith, W.J. (2002), “Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security, and site attributes”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 11Nos 3/4, pp. 245-70.

Bevier, L.R. (1995), “Information about individuals in the hands of government: some reflectionson mechanisms for privacy protection”, William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal , Vol. 4,pp. 455-504.

Bornstein, I.W. (2000), “Keeping our sights on the horizon: GFOA’s survey on emerging issues”,Government Finance Review, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 40-3.

Branscum, D. (2000), “Guarding on-line privacy”, Newsweek, Vol. 135 No. 23, pp. 77-8.

Chen, Y. and Perry, J. (2003), “Outsourcing for e-government”, Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 404-21.

Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-sellerrelationships”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 61, pp. 35-51.

Friel, B. (2002), “GovBenefits.gov”, Government Executive, Vol. 34 No. 15, p. 38.

Gartner Group (2000a), “E-government security: voting on the internet”, Research Notes,Strategic Planning Assumption, 18 January.

Gartner Group (2000b), “E-government strategy: cubing the circle”, Research Notes, Strategic

Planning Assumption, 20 April.Gartner Group (2000c), “Key Issues in e-government strategy and management”, Research Notes,

Key Issues, 23 May.

George, W. Bush (2000), “Protecting your financial privacy: your finances are less secure thanyou think. But the web can help you fight back”, Money, 1 June, p. 161.

Green, H., Yang, C. and Judge, P.C. (1998), “A little privacy, please”, Business Week, Vol. 3569,pp. 98-9.

Harris Interactive (a) (2001), “Consumer privacy attitudes and behaviors survey wave II”, ThePrivacy Leadership Initiative, available at: www.understandingprivacy.org/content/library/harris2-execsum.pdf(accessed July 2001).

Hoffman, D., Novak, T.P. and Peralta, M. (1999), “Building consumer trust online”,

Communications of the ACM , Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 80-5.ITAA (2000), “Keeping the faith: government information security in the internet age”, available

at: www.itaa.org/infosec/faith.pdf

James, G. (2000), “Empowering bureaucrats”, MC Technology Marketing Intelligence, Vol. 20No. 12, pp. 62-8.

Melillo, W. (1999), “Private lives?”, Adweek, Vol. 40 No. 45, pp. IQ22-8.

Mintrom, M. (2003), “Market organizations and deliberative democracy; choice and voice inpublic service delivery”, Administration and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 52-81.


59



Moon, J. (2002), “The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality?”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 424-33.

NUA Internet Surveys (2000), “Electronic government wins public confidence”, available at:www.nua.ie/surveys (accessed 2 October 2000).

OMB, Office of Management and Budget (2002), “E-government strategy”, 27 February.

Paul, P. (2001), “Mixed signals”, American Demographics, Vol. 23, pp. 44-9.

Punch, L. (2000), “Big brother goes on-line”, Credit Card Management , Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 22-32.

Quelch, J.A. and Klein, L.K. (1996), “The internet and international marketing”, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 60-75.

Setzekorn, K., Sugumaran, V. and Patnayakuni, P. (2002), “A comparison of implementationresistance factors for DMSS versus other information systems”, Information Resources

Management Journal , Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 48-54.

Steyaert, J. (2000), “Local government online and the role of the resident-government shop versuselectronic community”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3-16.

Sweat, J. (2000), “Privacy paradox: customers want control – and coupons”, Information Week,

Vol. 781, pp. 52-3.Symonds, M. (2000), “Government and the internet: no gain without pain”, The Economist ,

Vol. 355, pp. S9-S14.

Thomas, J. and Streib, G. (2003), “The new face of government: citizen-initiated contacts in theera of e-government”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 13 No. 1,pp. 82-102.

Thibodeau, P. (2000), “E-government spending to soar through 2005”, Computerworld , Vol. 34No. 17, p. 12.

Watson, R.T. and Mundy, B. (2001), “A strategic perspective of electronic democracy”,Communications of the ACM , Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 27-30.

West, D.M. (2000), “Assessing e-government: the internet, democracy, and service delivery”,

available at: www.insidepolitics.org/egovreport00.html (accessed September 2000).

Further reading

Anonymous (n.d.), “President Bush’s technology agenda: promoting innovation andcompetitiveness”, available at: www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/technology/tech4.html

Fox, S. (2001), “Trust and privacy online: why Americans want to rewrite the rules”, Pew Internet& American Life Project.

Corresponding authorFrance Belanger can be contacted at: [email protected]

BPMJ12,1

60

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

a framework for e-government

Documents