icegov2012 proceedings

service level agreements. The interoperating information systems
desire comprehensive, understandable, and coherent re-adaptation
of business processes.
Judicial aspects of interoperability are sparsely described by many
[3, 8, 22-23, 28, 41, 49] as an important factor affecting the
Sub-layers Description Constructs
Policy
Enterprise
Architecture
Business
Process
Judicial
Governance
Economical
This layer deals with
back-office procedures
and processes between
the interoperating
systems from policy
perspectives for clear,
transparent, and truly
interpretable exchange
of information by
sender as well as
receiver [41, 47].
Enterprise architecture
represents wide-spread
areas of public
organizations that can
be effective to resolve
interoperability
conflicts [40] as a mean
to measure the basic
information.
Business process deals
with the alignment of
business processes and
procedures, valuecreation,
monitoring,
controlling, and long
and short term
agreements.
Judicial layer reflects
the organizational laws
and regulations,
constitutional and legal
restraints, and
organizational safety
and security issues that
affect the interaction of
information systems.
Governance
mechanisms determine
how communication,
responsibilities, and
decision-making
structures are
formalized [26, p.2307].
Economic layer
concerns the issues that
limit the overarching
scope of
interoperability.
1. Context and
demarcation
s
2. Collaboratio
n
3. Policies
4. Standards
5. Formal
communicat
ion
6. Human
resource
Formal
7. Processes
and
procedures
alignment
8. Service level
agreements
9. Laws and
regulations
10. Constitution
al restrains
11. Political
commitment
12. Jurisdictiona
l regulations
13. Change
management
14. Environmen
t and ethics
15. Financial
constraints
overall maturity of interoperability. This sub-layer discusses the
219
law and regulation and constitutional restrains that affect the
maturity of interoperability. Goldkuhl [16, p-4] describes the
judicial interoperability as “congruence between different laws
and regulations”. According to Janssen and Scholl [28] the
governance in public organizations is differentiated by the wellorganized
and cogent interoperation among organizational
mechanisms, as long as these mechanisms guide in the correct
direction.
Table 1 Organizational sub-layers and measurement constructs
Janssen and Joha [26, p-2307] explain that the “governance
mechanisms determine how communication, responsibilities, and
decision-making structures are formalized”. Measures to assess
the maturity of judicial sub-layer of organizational interoperability
include political commitment, jurisdictional regulations, and
change management. Finally, we define the economical sub-layer
of interoperability, which is discussed quite often in literature but
rarely incorporated in maturity models and frameworks. This sublayer
describes the financial issues of organization interoperability
that restricts the overarching purview and affects the maturity e.g.
return on investment. Based on the literature review of
organizational interoperability and interoperability maturity
models and frameworks in Section 2 we derived the sub-layers of
organizational interoperability as discussed in Section 3. In order
to briefly understand the importance and classification of these
sub-layers of organizational interoperability, we will discuss each
measurement construct shown in Table 1 in details.
3.2 Measurement Constructs Organizational
Interoperability
In this subsection the constructs are further detailed and refined to
enable the assessment in real-life situations.
1. Context and demarcation. Interoperability requires clear and
distinctive interoperation between information systems, processes,
organizations, and employees. According to Strang, Linnhoff-
Popien et al. [44, 45], clear and distinctive contextual
interrelationship and specifics help to assess the interoperability
compatibility and substitutability. Although there is an informal
consensus about the context and demarcations of technical
interoperability, the contextual definitions, goals, objectives,
ontologies, and demarcations of organizational interoperability is
hardly discussed in literature. This measure gives a reflection of
the level of to-the-point clearness and distinctiveness of
organizational interoperability [32].
2. Collaboration. Inter and intra-organizational interactive and
willing full working relationship in public organizations [32],
where the shared goals, and roles and responsibilities are
recognized to support organizational interoperability [9].
Although the organizational framework can be distinct in nature,
the collaboration is essential for organizational interoperability.
This measure determines the level of organizational collaboration.
3. Standards. Although policies and standard are two separate
measures, their description and implications are somewhat interrelated.
Standards are necessary for organizational interoperability
as majority of maturity models and frameworks are still
conceptual. In our view, standards are essential to advance
organizational interoperability. They can describe the conceptual
settlements between the concerned interacting quarters in subtle
agreed documented format in consultation with recognized
standardization bodies [52].