Digital Government Attributes and Visions Kimberly Stoltzfus,

Digital Government Attributes and Visions Kimberly Stoltzfus, Department of

digital government overview The use of Internet Communication Technology (ICT) by governmental institutions (local, state, national) to improve information sharing, dialogue, service and transactional processes with its stakeholders

digital government overview (cont.) There are four levels: G2C (Gov’t to Citizen) GTB (Gov’t to Business) GTG (Gov’t to Gov’t)

digital government overview (cont.) There are four levels (cont): IEE (Internal Efficiency and Effectiveness)

digital government overview (cont.) There are three basic phases: Publish (e.g., info – one way) Interact (e.g., comment form, online forums) Transact (e.g., online services)

digital government overview (cont.) – U.S. timeline 1970s/80s 1991 PC boom www National released by Partnership Lee for Reinventing Gopher Government created Web is Internet commercialize use by d individuals Whitehouse goes online (1993) Research by Kraemer, King and Dutton note that gov’t is unable to keep up with technology Mid 1993-1995 1996 - 2000 USNIIA Act ClingerCohen Act – changed acquisition laws and IT management (1996) E-gov as “capital investment” First.gov launched (2000) 2002 - 2004 Egovernment Act of 2002 Development of Federal Enterprise Architecture Plan EAuthentication (2004)

digital government overview (cont.) Just some examples: e-filing community collaboration crisis management e-voting customer relationship management eco-informatics e-rulemaking

U.S. federal digital government A good case study (GTC, GTB, GTG, and also transact level): Internal Revenue Service’s Business Systems Modernization http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id 98159,00.html 1999 to present Antiquated technology from Kennedy Admin Two prior failed modernization efforts New effort emphasizes partnerships Multi-billion, multi-year program affecting everyone! Info Tech and Improvement Account (ITIA) created

major federal gov’t players Congress GAO – General Accountabilit y Office OMB – Office of Management and Budget Agency leadership: CIO is tech lead; Secretary/Commission er is business lead Consulting firms: CSC, IBM, BearingPoint, Accenture, SAIC, Lockheed Martin

global examples Canada: Numerous services Italy: Encouraging citizen http://www.canada.gc.ca/ Pakistan: Report a crime discussion INDIA: Posts court http://http://www.punjab.gov.pk records, case info www.comune.bologna http:// .it indiancourts.nic.in/iti njud.htm

cited benefits For citizens: One stop shop More government transparency Easier access to information Convenience For government organizations: Cost savings Instant access to information More challenging/interesting work Congress is happy

“successful” digital government National rankings (Brown University, 2005): http://www.brown.edu/Administra tion/News Bureau/2005-06/05-02 3.html International rankings: http://www.brown.edu/Administra tion/News Bureau/2005-06/05-02 4.html Accenture 2004 rankings: Canada’s #1 No standard benchmarking for

some problems with U.S. federal digital gov’t Not knowing the difference between project and endeavor – Gartner Not getting enough middle managers involved in decision-making – GAO Not having enough staff who understands the technology – Gov’t CIOs Bad partnering - Everyone Not focusing on internal communication efforts - Kim

the future of digital gov’t M-government: Mobile Government System: Combination of portable mobile devices and wireless Internet access Devices: PDAs*, cellphones, BlackBerry, Tablet PC Wireless: Cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, Satellite, Infrared (IR)

the future of digital gov’t U.S. (G2C): Commonwealth of VA: Tracking election returns via PDA Iowa: Parking day SMS Seattle: GPS system Mobile Traffic Map (G2G): San Francisco: Wi-Fi Police Networks U.S. Navy: Field Inspections (PDA) Texas: Tax information (Tablet PC)

the technology and society perspective – some questions GLOBAL: What are the decision-making criteria for pursuing e-government? Does Internet transform gov’t (i.e., democracy) or just re-create what already exists? LOCAL/COMMUNITY/NATIONAL: So, what happens to all those emails and comments that are sent? Will control of dialogue change? Will we be more trusting of government?