E-government Interoperability Research Articles

A Practical Method of Reducing the Gaps in e-Government Interoperability Implementation: Case of Patient Referral Information Exchange

In recent years, e-government interoperability frameworks (e-GIFs) and enterprise architectures (EAs) have been extensively developed as mechanism tools for achieving the interoperability. However, several researches indicate that only adopting both e-GIFs and EAs may not be inadequate. There have been numerous obstacles and barriers such as bureaucracy, compliances, capacity and enforcement that can produce the gaps in progress towards realizing the achievements of eGovernment interoperability. This paper defines two main existing gaps arisen between concepts and practices as well as among three dimensions (organizational, semantic and technical) of interoperability. The paper proposes a pragmatic approach to bridging them by adopting repository services, support tools and collaborative activities. The paper also illustrates an approach architecture, design methodology and system design based on UN/CEFACT standards. At last, it significantly describes how the approach can reduce the gaps with the application of patient referral information exchanges.

Towards eGovernment Interoperability: Lithuania Case

The interoperability problems have been faced by many countries governmental institutions at international, national and local levels. eGovernment Interoperability Frameworks act as the mechanisms that prescribe the prerequisites for one-stop, web-enabled e-Government Services and support their deployment in the vast number of public administration information systems. The current paper analyzes eGovernment interoperability framework development preconditions in Lithuania, good practice experience in developing eGovernment interoperability frameworks at EU level (European Interoperability Framework) and national levels – UK, Germany and Greece. Comparing these frameworks by different criteria the key principles of Lithuanian eGovernment interoperability framework are indentified. The project for Lithuania eGovernment Interoperability framework development is supported by Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Lithuania and Lithuania State Science and Studies Foundation.

A review of electronic government interoperability frameworks: patterns and challenges

e-Government Interoperability Frameworks (e-GIFs) outline the essential prerequisites for joined-up and web-enabled e-government, providing the basic standards that every public authority must adopt. Today, their scope has been extended to facilitate the seamless exchange of information and the deployment of interoperable systems in Central and Municipal Government. In the scope of this paper, the interoperability frameworks released by eight countries are presented, and a comparative analysis among their findings is conducted to indicate the similarities and differences in their philosophy and implementation, resulting in a set of recommendations for any interested party willing to create or update an Interoperability Framework.

Requirements Based Evaluation of eGovernment in the Large

An increasing level of cooperation between public administrations nowadays on national, regional and local level requires methods to develop interoperable eGovernment solutions and leads to the necessity of an efficient evaluation and requirements engineering process that guides the establishment of systems and services used by public administrations in the European Union. In this article, the authors propose a framework to systematically gather and evaluate requirements for eGovernment in the large. The evaluation framework is designed to support requirements engineers to develop a suitable evaluation and requirements engineering process with respect to interoperable eGovernment solutions. The methodology is motivated and explained on the basis of a European research project.

정보화 생명주기 및 전사적아키텍처(EA) 기반의 전자정부 상호운용성 프레임워크 연구

전자정부는 기관 및 업무의 경계 없이 정부를 하나로 연결하고, 국민에게 최상의 정부서비스를 제공하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 해외 전자정부 선진 국가들은 명확한 상호운용성 프레임워크를 수립 및 운영함으로써 전자정부의 목적을 달성하고자 노력하고 있다. 그러나, 우리나라는 정보화 관련 법제도 내에 상호운용성과 관련된 사항들이 명시적 또는 묵시적으로 정의되어 있을 뿐, 체계화된 전자정부 상호운용성 프레임워크가 부재하여 전자정부 상호운용성을 확보하는데 한계를 보이고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 EU, 영국, 미국 등 주요 해외국가들과 우리나라 간의 전자정부 상호운용성 프레임워크를 분석하고 정보화 생명주기 전체에 걸쳐 상호운용성을 관리하고 업무에서 정보기술까지를 상호운용성 범위로 포괄하는 EA기반의 한국형 전자정부 상호운용성 프레임워크(K-GIF)를 제안한다. The purposes of e-Government are to connect government agencies without boundary, and to deliver better quality e-services to citizens. The frontier countries try to reach the e-Government goals using Government Interoperability Framework(GIF). Even though Korea also has interoperability regulations, that is obscure. So we have some limitations to take the e-Government interoperability advantages. This study analyzes the cases of advanced countries (EU, U.S., U.K., and Australia), and reviews Korea's regulations. After that, we suggest EA based Korean e-Government Interoperability Framework(K-GIF), that is to manage the interoperability from business to information technology over the whole IT life cycle.

Lithuanian eGovernment Interoperability Model

Interoperability issues are widely discussed not only within business community, but more constantly between public administration representatives. An eGovernment Interoperability Framework (eGIF) is one way to achieve eGovernment interoperability. An eGIF is a set of standards and guidelines that a government uses to specify the preferred way that its agencies, citizens and partners interact with each other. eGIF includes: “... the basic technical specifications that all agencies relevant to the eGovernment strategy implementation should adopt”. eGovernment Interoperability Frameworks appear as the governmental policy cornerstones for deploying joined-up information systems and providing one-stop services to citizens and businesses.

ICT standardisation and public procurement in the United States and in the European Union: Influence on egovernment deployment

Most governments have regarded interoperability as one of the key enablers of egovernment. If interoperability was achieved, the vision of an integrated provision of public services to both citizens and businesses by means of the information and communications technologies (ICT) regardless of the number and type of departments involved in the provision could be realized. This paper analyses two factors that may influence egovernment interoperability: standardisation and public procurement. The paper analyses the policy and legal framework setup by these factors and checks whether egovernment deployment have been influenced by them or not. The analysis is focused on the cases of the United States federal government and of the European Union institutions and Member States administrations.

Running ahead toward interoperable e-government: The government of Canada metadata framework

The Government of Canada (GoC) has implemented several standardization initiatives toward establishing e-government in order to systematize the capture, description, organization and dissemination of data and information. This study examines the GoC's metadata strategy through the adoption of a Dublin Core (DC)-based metadata scheme toward establishing one unified metadata framework. The study examines the credibility of DC in relation to interoperability, application profiles, and controlled vocabularies and further provides a discussion on the current problems associated with metadata and possible improvements across government agencies in the GoC.

Stages of e-government interoperability

Improved interoperability between public organisations as well as between public and private organisations is of critical importance to make electronic government more successful. In this paper, stages of e-government interoperability is identified and discussed. Four stages are presented: work process stage; knowledge sharing stage; value creation stage; strategy alignment stage.

IS Success and Failure—The Problem of Scale

In the midst of Implementing Electronic Government (IEG), the almost knee‐jerk reaction of our political elite seems to be to embrace hugely ambitious Information Systems (IS) solutions to public‐sector operations. Problem after problem has been viewed as solvable by throwing some big IT at it. However hindsight and a wealth of evidence and examples shows that overly large‐scale public‐sector IT projects do not work and persistently end in failure and costly waste. In this article we consider IT projects ‘failures’ and the combination of social and technical factors that contribute. We illustrate our argument with more detailed reference to the Connecting for Health agenda, part of the NHS National Programme for IT. We suggest ‘think local, think modular’ to build on good practice and advocate use of the government's own 2004 eGovernment Interoperability Framework (eGIF) to learn lessons from past IT project catastrophes.

E-identification technologies for e-government interoperability in the EU

The EU commission has set the Pan-European Interoperability of secure authentication and authorisation systems for access to e-government services as a priority target for 2010. To this effect a large number of EU member states have implemented e-identification schemes. These are at varying stages of completion and use a range of technologies. All of them though aim at meeting the above target for interoperability while at the same time securing their home e-government services thus making them more attractive to their citizens. The number of states reviewed here and the state of the technologies used is not exhaustive but provides a good representation across the EU. This work is ongoing as are the initiatives and pilot schemes studied here.

Standards and interoperability

When you travel abroad it is very likely the electrical appliances used at home will not work when you get to your destination. The standard plugs you use at home are not the standard used at the location you are visiting. Standards, although important, do not assure interoperability. More to the point of interest to the scientific, technical, and medical information community interoperability does not assure access to sources of knowledge. “In paper-based publication of scientific and technical reports, interoperability, except for language differences and visual challenges, is achieved through a single publication medium. In the digital environment with its multiple types of media, even defining the concept of publishing is a challenge” [1]. User behavior is changing with a growing requirement to link text and data resources. Sometimes, in the rush to do things, we simply forget the obvious. This particularly is true when a large cultural change is upon us. During the 5000 years since the development of writing, humankind continually has improved ways to store, organize and transfer our knowledge in physical containers such as tablets, books, newspapers, and journals. Ten years ago, when an easy to use Web browser became available on the Internet, the world suddenly began a massive change. A change lacking many of the library and other information discovery standards developed and instituted over centuries. A change, however, that would not have occurred without technology standards. Historically, the range of hardware, software, and platform products from different vendors made it difficult or impossible for to share data and information effectively because, by and large, they were (and still are) designed to permit interoperability among computer hardware and software components. Information technology standards are critical components to make seamless access a reality. However, all elements of the information continuum must allow universal interoperability. The value of knowledge can be realized only when it is disseminated and shared – and used – throughout the information continuum. Generally the term information continuum is used to describe the whole set of all needed information, from origin through archival access. Currently, and in the foreseeable future there is no set of standards that can apply throughout the continuum. Recognizing the need many governments, often under the rubric of e-Government, are publishing interoperability frameworks with accompanying standards. The basic intent for these and other governmental efforts is to allow information to flow seamlessly across the public sector and provide citizens and business with better access to government services. To name a few, in the United States it is the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Denmark and others it is the Egovernment Interoperability Framework (e-GIF), and in France it is the French ‘common interoperability framework’ (CCI). The European Interoperability Framework document “provides recommendations

An XML alternative for performance and security: ASN.1

The UK government, for example, is firmly committed to making XML the basis for electronic transactions through their e-Government Interoperability Framework, e-Government Metadata Framework, and GovTalk program. Indeed, many UK government agencies are investigating the adoption of XML as the protocol for e-services, such as prescriptions, contracts, and personal health records. But although many have touted XML as a true e-business enabler, rarely does a technology suit in every IT scenario. In XML's case, the drawback is performance. XML is an uncompressed textual syntax that remains in human-readable form from creation to deletion. This characteristic can degrade performance because it takes time to construct and deconstruct the syntax, and the translation increases data-stream size, which in turn increases data transfer time. Motivated by this concern, we devised a series of tests to compare XML messages with equivalent messages written in Abstract Syntax Notation One with Basic Encoding Rules (ASN.1/BER). ASN.1 is a protocol specification language, first standardized in 1984. The encoding rules, of which BER is only one variety, are used to condense the ASN.1 textual representation into a binary data stream. The goal of our test was to gather data to inform the UK Department of Health, which has requested the use of XML for encoding electronic prescriptions. In short, we wanted to see if XML or ASN.1 was the more efficient mechanism. Our tests cover the creation, transmission, and retrieval performances of the two languages. The test bed was a trial electronic prescription system already in place that uses an application certificate to transmit a prescription.