icegov2012 proceedings

Recommendations

Info

aspects are hardly discussed as they are messy. Goldkuhl [16] describes that the interoperability is not only a technical subject, but there is a need to conceptualize the organizational aspects as well. He further explains that the interoperability is also about what people do for information systems to interoperate. Scholl and Klischewski [41] describe that the assessment of interoperability is still unclear and faces many challenges, the evaluation and measurement methods need to be investigated properly. They also identify nine major constraints that affect the interoperability: 1) constitutional, 2) jurisdictional, 3) collaborative, 4) organizational, 5) informational, 6) managerial, 7) technological, 8) cost, and 9) performance. Some of these constraints also reflect the organizational aspects of interoperability and need to be included in interoperability measurement process. Aspects of organizational Interoperability can be measured within an organization between two or more information systems as well as between different organizations with multiple information systems. This paper presents a measurement instrument and a set of measurement constructs to assess and benchmark organizational aspects of interoperability. Section 2 discusses the interoperability maturity models and frameworks to investigate the organizational aspects of interoperability. Section 3 proposes the interoperability measurement instrument and derives the measurement constructs for each sub-layer of the organizational interoperability layer. In section 4, a case study is conducted at the population welfare department government of Sindh, Pakistan using the developed organizational layer and its measurement constructs for assessing the organizational interoperability. Finally, section 5 discusses the results of the outcome of case study. 2. BACKGROUND Interoperability maturity models described in literature mostly focus on the technical aspects of public organizations [3, 9, 11, 22, 28, 34, 46]; whereas the organizational aspects are parsley discussed with little emphasis on the measuring and benchmarking perspective. Measures to assess organizational interoperability are hardly indicated in these interoperability maturity models. Maheshwari et al. [32, p-2] discuss ten different interoperability maturity models and related measurement approaches to investigate the interoperability measurement issues and challenges in public service organizations. Only a handful of maturity models [16, 22-23, 28] discuss the aspects of organizational interoperability, whereas the majority remains centrally focused on technical interoperability. Furthermore, they argue that the measuring and benchmarking the interoperability of public organizations is challenging as it encompasses a widespread array of diverse areas and dimensions. In a similar vein, Shahkooh et al. [43] investigated some generic (e.g. INTEROP NoP, NEHTA, and IDEAS) and country specific (e.g. Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, and United Kingdom) egovernment interoperability frameworks. They, after investigating different frameworks describe interoperability as: “a set of policies, strategies, standards, guidelines, and instructions to connect different governmental organizations in order to facilitate fast and easy information exchange to deliver services to the citizens, businesses, and employees” [43, p-65] Thus, the interoperability on the whole is a combination of technical as well organizational aspects that affect the information exchange and sharing between any two or more entities. Though the existing interoperability models and frameworks sparsely 217 address these issues in different layers, levels, and steps; there are hardly any guidelines to incorporate these aspects into a single measurement instrument. This paper proposes the measurement instrument that incorporates both technical and organizational aspects of interoperability. In order better understand the interoperability measurement layers, we investigate the selected interoperability maturity models and frameworks that are commonly discussed literature and utilized by national and international organizations: Levels of Information Systems Interoperability (LISI): The LISI model developed by the US Department of Defense (DoD) comprises of five levels i.e. isolated systems, connected systems, functional distributed, domain integrated, and enterprise universal. These levels of LISI are centrally focused on the technical interoperation of the systems [18, 35, 43, 46]. NC3TA Reference Model for Interoperability (NMI): The NMI model also mainly focuses on the technical aspects of interoperability while including the interoperability degrees i.e. unstructured data, structured data, seamless data sharing, and seamless information sharing to classify the content type of the exchanged data and information flows. The model aims to improve the functional efficiency by introducing the structured data interpretation and exchange [35, 46]. Organizational Interoperability Model (OIM): The IOM model is an extension of LISI model that includes the organizational aspects of interoperability. Although the model only focuses on the organizational interoperability, the levels of OIM i.e. independent, ad-hoc, collaborated, integrated, and unified are closely aligned with the environmental description of levels of the LISI model. OIM model provides some information in each level for shared value systems, shared goals, and common structures but does not provide any guideline to achieve the desired organizational interoperability [9, 18, 35]. Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model (LCIM): The LCIM model in [18, 35, 46] describes five levels of conceptual interoperability i.e. system specific data, documented data, aligned static data, aligned dynamic data, and harmonized data. The model shows that the interoperability is not only subjective to the technical capability of the systems but also the composability on the conceptual levels. The levels of LCIM conceptual model were later extended and reproduced [47, 49] as i.e. no-interoperability, technical interoperability, syntactic interoperability, pragmatic interoperability, dynamic interoperability, and conceptual interoperability. The LCIM conceptual models also centrally focus on the technical interoperability of the systems [18, 35, 46- 47]. European Interoperability Framework (EIF): The EIF 1.0 framework by Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services to public Administrations, Businesses and Citizens (IDABC) was first introduced in 2004 [23]; which was later upgraded to EIF 2.0 in 2008 [22]. The version EIF 1.0 comprised of three layers i.e. organizational, semantics, and technical; which were extended to five layers in EIF 2.0 i.e. organizational, semantics, technical, political, and legal interoperability. Unlike other models and frameworks (LISI, NMI, OIM, LCIM), the EIF focused not only on technical interoperability but also other organizational aspects of the interoperability [15-16, 22-23, 30, 43]. European Interoperability Maturity Model (EIMM): The EIMM by Advanced Technologies for interoperability of
Heterogeneous Enterprise Networks and their Applications (ATHENA) comprises of five levels i.e. performed, modeled, integrated, interoperable, and optimizing. ATHENA intended to assess the interoperability in enterprise domain using EIMM. The model specifically focuses on both organizational as well technical aspects of interoperability in enterprise domain [3, 18]. Though the maturity models are developed by different individual researchers [9, 46], national [11], and international [22, 34] organizations; none of these models or frameworks discuss measures to assess the organizational aspects of interoperability. The stages, levels, and layers are sequentially numbered without any further guideline about the measurements method or the measures themselves. Literature reviews of interoperability maturity models and frameworks suggests that the maturity of technical interoperability is somewhat achievable due the established standards and policies, but the aspects of organizational interoperability e.g. policies, business processes, financial, and governance are important and need to be addresses carefully. In other words, some of the organizational aspects are often described as the barrier of interoperability adoption and implementation [1, 12, 41]. 3. MEASUREMENT APPROACH Literature review of maturity models and frameworks discussed in Section 2 gives insight about the importance of organizational aspects of interoperability, but does not provide sufficient guideline to measure organizational interoperability. The maturity models describe interoperability levels in a linear fashion, whereas these levels are implemented on top of each other in practice. Although some authors [e.g. 50] argue that the successful implementation of technical, syntactical, and semantic interoperability is necessary for organizational interoperability, whereas others [e.g. 28, 32] suggest that both organizational as well technical interoperability can be implemented on top of each other. This paper proposes a two layered measurement instrument where each layer can be implemented on top of each other. Organization Layer • Policy • Enterprise architecture • Business process • Judicial • Governance • Economical Technical Layer • Syntactic • Semantic • Physical infrastructure Figure 1 Interoperability Measurement Instrument. Proposed measurement instrument as shown in Figure 1 is based on the methodology of architecture layers of interoperability by [28], whereas the selection of layers based on the socio-technical design approach. Bostrom and Heinen [6] argue that the success of the organizations depend socio-technical system (STS), where social system represents people and structure and technical system 218 represents technology and tasks. Measurement aspects of the technical and organizational interoperability as shown in Figure 1 are derived based on the literature review interoperability maturity models and frameworks. Janssen and Scholl [28] describe that the settlements should be reached among various involved partners to avoid unwanted situations regarding the quality, compatibility, and extent of information collaboration and interoperation. The arrows shown in the Figure 1 from top to bottom and bottom to top of each layer shows that implementation of interoperability layers is non-linear, which means that each layer can be implemented independent of each other. Hence, the interoperability measurement aspects of each layer are relative, but can be measured independently. The explanation of technical sub-layers is already clear and well defined by many organizations as well as individual authors [e.g. 22-23, 28, 32, 49], whereas the organizational interoperability and the measurement aspects of its sub-layers are hardly discussed in literature. Therefore, this paper briefly discusses the measurement aspects of organizational layer and derives the adequate measuring and benchmarking constructs for each sub-layer. 3.1 Organizational Layer Organizational factors (e.g. technology adaption, economic constraints, openness, and back-office cooperation) and organizational issues (e.g. collaboration, business process, and coordination) that impact the performance of information systems are used to describe interoperability [14, 16-17]. Organizational layer places the foundation for functional infrastructure of public organizations for collaboration, exchange, and sharing of information. Table 1 gives short description of each organizational sub-layer as depicted in Figure1. Interoperability sub-layers explained in Table 1 are sparsely described in literature, but there is hardly any discussion about the measures to assess them. Tolk, Turnitsa et al. [47] describe that the pragmatic interoperability can reflect the maximum maturity if the information sharing by the sender as well receiver is translucent, clear, and truthfully interpretable. Policy sub-layer analyzes the maturity of organizational aspects and helps to avoid the adverse effects by identify the limitations. This layer also envisages personal, environmental, standardization, and policy aspects to distinguish the types of communication, and embraces the information exchange intention of sender [28, 39]. For the public organizations aiming to facilitate citizens and businesses with seamless service delivery, the enterprise architecture can perform the essential role and provide guidance to address organizational issues [19]. Enterprise architecture of a public organization provides systematic understanding of basic elements describing existing and anticipated environment [5]. Thus, enterprise architecture is useful to measure the basic information about organizational elements. Tough enterprise architecture encapsulates majority of organizational aspects, we only focus on interoperability related measures. Thus, the sublayer enterprise architecture is used to measure the basic information about human resource and formal communication. Interoperability in public organizations aims to improve the service provision by advancing the business processes and procedures for citizens, business, employees [32]. The business process sub-layer in this context measures the processes and procedures alignment, whereas the processes and procedures for information exchange and sharing between the collaborating and interoperating information systems are often reflected by the
Page 1:
2012 ALBANY, NEW YORK UNITED STATES
Page 4 and 5:
Foreword The 6 th International Con
Page 6 and 7:
Table of Contents Forward .........
Page 8 and 9:
Session 10: ICTs & Governance Trans
Page 10 and 11:
o Revival of Farming Community with
Page 12 and 13:
International Steering Committee Jo
Page 14 and 15:
Jim DAVIES, Computing Laboratory, U
Page 16:
Session 1 Open Government Data
Page 19 and 20:
the combination of their moral sent
Page 21 and 22:
involve the creation of a Network o
Page 23 and 24:
approach [28] to expose indicators
Page 25 and 26:
4. IMPLENTING PAR In order to come
Page 27 and 28:
conclusions that might arise rom th
Page 29 and 30:
6.3 Large Scale Implementation In r
Page 31 and 32:
Implementation Framework for Open D
Page 33 and 34:
2) Usage: Assessed by quantifying t
Page 35 and 36:
Increasing Kenyan Open Data Consump
Page 37 and 38:
insight into available data resourc
Page 39 and 40:
New Perspectives for Electronic Gov
Page 41 and 42:
Not without reason therefore that t
Page 43 and 44:
Another principle adopted by this s
Page 45 and 46:
access to public information, chang
Page 47 and 48:
Open Government 2.0: Citizen Empowe
Page 49 and 50:
As a third finding, we also found a
Page 51:
Session 2 E-democracy & Participati
Page 54 and 55:
two polarized (optimistic or utopia
Page 56 and 57:
through aggregating, shaping, and c
Page 58 and 59:
in-depth expert interviews, and wer
Page 60 and 61:
government made of citizens’ cont
Page 62 and 63:
[8] Putman, R.D. 1994. Making Democ
Page 64 and 65:
The third stream of studies reviewe
Page 66 and 67:
interests, gaining access to inform
Page 68 and 69:
2. THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 2.1 The P
Page 70 and 71:
epresentatives from the three main
Page 72 and 73:
While letters to the editor could b
Page 74 and 75:
person. Table 5: Public sphere char
Page 76 and 77:
[32] Yang, S., H. Lee, and S. Kurni
Page 78 and 79:
In March 2000, just a couple of mon
Page 80 and 81:
society the gap will close [2]. The
Page 83 and 84:
A New Roadmap for Next-Generation P
Page 85 and 86:
needs and the activities of policy-
Page 87 and 88:
[18] Moss, S., (2010). Policy Model
Page 89 and 90:
2.1. National digital inclusion exp
Page 91 and 92:
advanced initiatives specifically d
Page 93 and 94:
involved later [22]. Several instit
Page 95 and 96:
among lecturers and students parall
Page 97 and 98:
2. COMPARATIVE E-GOVERNMENT IN LATI
Page 99 and 100:
governments can innovate or be disc
Page 101 and 102:
2. E-GOVERNMENT AS IS 2.1. E-Govern
Page 103 and 104:
ankings on the formation of nationa
Page 106 and 107:
Framework for Useful Transparency W
Page 108 and 109:
are doing a good job overall in reg
Page 110 and 111:
The Circular Continuum of Agencies,
Page 112 and 113:
continue to rely on dial-up Interne
Page 114 and 115:
this time the authors continue to w
Page 116 and 117:
government agencies should consider
Page 118 and 119:
The critical success factors for we
Page 120 and 121:
include customers and competitors,
Page 122 and 123:
Websites or columns for MFWs In thi
Page 124 and 125:
According to our investigation, the
Page 126 and 127:
Construction of Inter-regional Publ
Page 128 and 129:
The Development of Public Smart Pho
Page 130 and 131:
Stage Description 1 st stage (Simpl
Page 132 and 133:
Understanding Citizens’ Perceptio
Page 134 and 135:
performance compared to those provi
Page 136:
Session 5 Information Sharing, Mode
Page 139 and 140:
arising as a result of these two bi
Page 141 and 142:
forms for the system. At the same t
Page 143 and 144:
further investigation of the relati
Page 145 and 146:
5.3.10 Commitment Both personal and
Page 147 and 148:
law. Virginia Journal of Internatio
Page 149 and 150:
available to others” [5]. Informa
Page 151 and 152:
conflict around information sharing
Page 153 and 154:
for understanding information polic
Page 155 and 156:
primarily on the information flows
Page 157 and 158:
On Public Service Provision Informa
Page 159 and 160:
employs workflow management technol
Page 161 and 162:
o Information. Represents any infor
Page 163 and 164:
common documents repository at the
Page 165 and 166:
Figure 15. Full model of Passport I
Page 167 and 168:
142
Page 169 and 170:
policies to prevent government agen
Page 171 and 172:
ecause the majority of the shared i
Page 174 and 175:
A Patent System Ontology for Facili
Page 176 and 177:
uilt on top of the semantics of RDF
Page 178 and 179:
dynamically derive relevancy based
Page 180 and 181:
Figure 6. Cross-‐Reference betw
Page 182 and 183:
Category II: After identifying some
Page 184 and 185:
[8] De Nicola, A., Missikoff, M. an
Page 186 and 187:
oral option, it also allows for a m
Page 188 and 189:
mapping of citizens would ensure un
Page 190 and 191:
Here the authors wish to extend the
Page 192 and 193:
http://www.ecp.gov.pk/Reports/SPStr
Page 194 and 195:
will enable to assess and confront
Page 196 and 197:
The underlying DeLP process is as f
Page 198 and 199: Preparing for Digital Curation Gove
Page 200 and 201: semester hours. Nine of the forty-f
Page 202 and 203: REGNET: Regulatory Information Mana
Page 204 and 205: Search Terms/ Concepts References D
Page 206 and 207: 4. COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF REGULATOR
Page 208 and 209: 1105.4 [6] Content of Section 1105.
Page 210 and 211: Pollution Prevention Guide for Vehi
Page 213 and 214: From Information-Poor to Informatio
Page 215 and 216: To address the divide, specific gov
Page 217 and 218: ICT for Development and the MuNet P
Page 219 and 220: competencies and skills, contributi
Page 221 and 222: ICT Policy in Africa - A Comparativ
Page 223 and 224: essential and necessary to guide th
Page 225 and 226: Kenya it is the minister for Inform
Page 227 and 228: of existing Public Internet Access
Page 229 and 230: the policy process e.g. formulation
Page 231 and 232: Laggards or Victims of Socioeconomi
Page 233 and 234: Figure 3. Facilities & Services Enj
Page 235 and 236: Promoting user uptake of e-governme
Page 237 and 238: It was also decided that it was nec
Page 239: Session 8 Measurement 1
Page 242 and 243: technology (IT) projects by governm
Page 244 and 245: Gap = 5; The weak and unreliable In
Page 246 and 247: 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We are grateful
Page 250 and 251: service level agreements. The inter
Page 252 and 253: concensus of all participants, the
Page 254 and 255: Furthermore, it is understood from
Page 256 and 257: Mobile Technologies on the Internet
Page 258 and 259: of mothers. Based on this reason, w
Page 260 and 261: 5.1.4 Precedence Plots Based on com
Page 262 and 263: 3 indicators are similar but not th
Page 264 and 265: Latitude 10°�S 9°�S 8°�S 7
Page 266 and 267: 7. CONCLUSION According to ORDIT an
Page 268 and 269: include but not limited to: payment
Page 270 and 271: Categories Only XSS (%) Table 2: Di
Page 272 and 273: From table 3, it can be deduced tha
Page 274: Session 9 Social Media in Governmen
Page 277 and 278: 1. What kind of social media servic
Page 279 and 280: 4.2.1 Facebook Usage Figure 3. Perc
Page 281 and 282: Government Crisis Communication on
Page 283 and 284: estoration theory. He termed it as
Page 285 and 286: Table 3. Strategies for Pre-crisis
Page 287 and 288: accounts, among which seven message
Page 289 and 290: information in the crisis event sta
Page 291 and 292: Government Official Microblogs: An
Page 293 and 294: It is worth mentioning that, while
Page 295 and 296: Managing Chinese Government Microbl
Page 297 and 298: due to their tremendous influence,
Page 299 and 300:
3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This research is
Page 301 and 302:
3) Established year: to specify the
Page 303 and 304:
Figure 6. Language used in Hong Kon
Page 306 and 307:
E-Government and Transformation of
Page 308 and 309:
and domestic as well as internation
Page 310 and 311:
4.6 Computerisation of Railway Tick
Page 312 and 313:
abysmally low (2.25). In addition t
Page 314 and 315:
Evaluating and Assessing a Typology
Page 316 and 317:
Exhaustiveness indicates that all c
Page 318 and 319:
Fig. 1 Spatial Unit Fig. 3. By whom
Page 320 and 321:
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 1. RESULT OF SE
Page 322 and 323:
Explaining the eGovernment Paradox:
Page 324 and 325:
eGovernment services to a large ext
Page 326 and 327:
policy agenda, as Heeks [10] says,
Page 328 and 329:
Implementation Plan’s outcomes an
Page 330 and 331:
Conference on eGovernment (pp. 90-9
Page 332 and 333:
Investigating the Relationships bet
Page 334 and 335:
hybrid or authoritarian regime. Bov
Page 336 and 337:
Technologies, Tools and Web 2.0 in
Page 338 and 339:
with resources, peers and experts w
Page 340 and 341:
cluster were: Court Clerks; Court,
Page 342 and 343:
(8 questions) and the third subpart
Page 344 and 345:
http://ux.brookdalecc.edu/governanc
Page 346 and 347:
the examination of the 311 program
Page 348 and 349:
3. CASE STUDY METHOD This study use
Page 350 and 351:
discuss departmental performance at
Page 352 and 353:
or laptop computers. Internet conne
Page 354 and 355:
[2] Anavitarte, L. and Tratz-Ryan,
Page 357 and 358:
A Literature Review: IT Governance
Page 359 and 360:
Interviewees Useful? Table 3. Inter
Page 361 and 362:
Assessment of Success Factors of e-
Page 363 and 364:
In view of different theoretical ap
Page 365 and 366:
approximate figure of 60% of intern
Page 367 and 368:
difference between its priority and
Page 369 and 370:
Computer Supported Contractor Selec
Page 371 and 372:
(2) conduction of the public auctio
Page 373 and 374:
E-Government Success Factors in the
Page 375 and 376:
creating different incentives and p
Page 377 and 378:
American and the Caribbean Institut
Page 379 and 380:
* Note: A 7-points Likert scale was
Page 381 and 382:
showed to be useful, for collecting
Page 383 and 384:
Public CIO, Figurehead or Decision-
Page 385 and 386:
4.2 Operative CIO The Operative CIO
Page 387:
Session 12 Implementation & Impact
Page 390 and 391:
NYSED is responsible for collecting
Page 392 and 393:
considered markers that are able to
Page 394 and 395:
many of the MDGs. The direct impact
Page 396 and 397:
strongly believed that local govern
Page 398 and 399:
Goal Variables Measurements 2 3 Com
Page 400 and 401:
Hypothesis Variables Endogenous Exo
Page 402 and 403:
[16] Joreskog, K.G., and Sorbom, D.
Page 404 and 405:
GoN has addressed the challenge to
Page 406 and 407:
Figures 6 and 7. Computer classes a
Page 408 and 409:
ICT-enabled Delivery of Maternal He
Page 410 and 411:
3. E-HEALTH 3.1 ICTs and Health Com
Page 412 and 413:
Chart 1 [40] GHANA - Total Telephon
Page 414 and 415:
change their behaviour, improve the
Page 416 and 417:
activities such as the MoTeCH partn
Page 418 and 419:
If We Build it Will They Come? A Mi
Page 420 and 421:
The methodology contains inherent l
Page 422 and 423:
information about their broadband s
Page 424:
Session 13 E-democracy & Participat
Page 427 and 428:
attempt to influence future behavio
Page 429 and 430:
Evidence shows that cognitive facto
Page 431 and 432:
success factors for eParticipation[
Page 433 and 434:
structure of the forum as well as t
Page 435 and 436:
government as well as augmenting di
Page 437 and 438:
Figure 1: Message content 4.3 Messa
Page 439 and 440:
Figure 6: Associated levels 4.10 At
Page 441 and 442:
improve the government management e
Page 443:
Session 14 Information Structure
Page 446 and 447:
2. HEALTHCARE IN RURAL INDIA Health
Page 448 and 449:
Cloud Data Center Internet Service
Page 450 and 451:
Reliability of data: data collected
Page 452 and 453:
Information System (NHIS). A Nation
Page 454 and 455:
charge are either not aware of the
Page 456 and 457:
from this medium. Additional securi
Page 458 and 459:
attacks require the adversary to ma
Page 460 and 461:
actions with yet unknown recipients
Page 462:
Session 15 Measurement 2
Page 465 and 466:
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Electronic
Page 467 and 468:
Among the main limitations and chal
Page 469 and 470:
Furthermore, our study demonstrates
Page 471 and 472:
E-Government Portals in Central Ame
Page 473 and 474:
13 Guadaloupe 31.74 14.19 14 Aruba
Page 475 and 476:
Evolving e-Government Benchmarking
Page 477 and 478:
judgments are made about the qualit
Page 479 and 480:
percentage of online availability o
Page 481 and 482:
methodology, and few national gover
Page 483 and 484:
integrating them worth it? Because
Page 485 and 486:
Impacts of the Public Procurement R
Page 487 and 488:
Not all the municipalities have the
Page 489 and 490:
3. HYPHOTESIS AND RELEVANT QUESTION
Page 491 and 492:
58% of the buyers believe that the
Page 493 and 494:
A strategy of evolution of the mark
Page 495:
Posters
Page 498 and 499:
Russian Federation legislative prop
Page 500 and 501:
Figure 1. Document Flow and E-DRM P
Page 502 and 503:
We further assume that each key tar
Page 504 and 505:
egion that is more representative o
Page 506 and 507:
2.2 C-DAC C-DAC’s PARAM series of
Page 508 and 509:
The Metropolitan Area Planning Coun
Page 510 and 511:
expanded functionality in three are
Page 512 and 513:
For each case, semi-structured inte
Page 514 and 515:
Figure 1. Comparative analysis on t
Page 516 and 517:
projects and their on-site images.
Page 518 and 519:
key challenges of Enterprise System
Page 520 and 521:
5. PART THREE: E GOVERNMENT APPLICA
Page 522 and 523:
Following the research objectives,
Page 524 and 525:
From Inter-Agency Information Shari
Page 526 and 527:
479
Page 528 and 529:
more and more valuable with the gro
Page 530 and 531:
Implementation of Integrated Tax Sy
Page 532 and 533:
Information Sharing in Inter-depart
Page 534 and 535:
Interagency Collaboration in Provid
Page 536 and 537:
489
Page 538 and 539:
noted. The list of basic e-services
Page 540 and 541:
the description of procedure for mo
Page 542 and 543:
Opportunities for Improving eGovern
Page 544 and 545:
Prioritization and Geo-Spatiotempor
Page 546 and 547:
[4] R.Bruggemann and Ganapati P. Pa
Page 548 and 549:
equirements. A direct communication
Page 550 and 551:
Stage - 2: Here the actual software
Page 552 and 553:
membership associations, recreation
Page 554 and 555:
Fig 1 : Agriculture Revolution 3. P
Page 556 and 557:
sector, private sector, and civil s
Page 558 and 559:
System For Measuring e-Gov: A Multi
Page 560 and 561:
The Digital Divide’s Devaluing of
Page 562 and 563:
[3] Coursey, D., & Norris, D.F. (20
Page 564 and 565:
In Brazil, electronic accessibility
Page 566 and 567:
2) The areas to which mobile and wi
Page 568 and 569:
2. OVERVIEW OF DISTRICT MAPPING The
Page 570 and 571:
3.4 Driving License Driving License
Page 572 and 573:
and socio-economic backgrounds. The
Page 574 and 575:
Figure - 2: eGovernment Implementat
Page 577 and 578:
Tutorial: Digital Curation for Publ
Page 579 and 580:
ut also provide sufficient detail o
Page 581 and 582:
ABM is known as a bottom-up simulat
Page 583 and 584:
5.2 Relation to Empirics “Where d
Page 585 and 586:
Larson, Elizabeth .................
show all

icegov2012 proceedings

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?