icegov2012 proceedings

4. Policies. This is also a necessity of pubic organizations to
ensure the effective implementation of the organizational
interoperability as per the standards. Depending on the size,
scope, and type of organization (local, regional, or national), the
policies for organizational interoperability is required for business
process alignment among the interoperating quarters with regional
and national policies and regulations [52].
5. Formal communication. Communication of information in
public organizations using pre-defined proper channels is
important for interoperability. Weedman [51] describes the formal
communication as a core for any established field as it offers
opinions, discoveries, suggestions, improvements, experiences,
and ideas. For example regular meetings between the responsible
authorities and employees will help both to resolve issues with
mutual cooperation and understanding. The measure determines
the frequency of formal meetings and communication channels for
information exchange and sharing at the organizational
interoperability level.
6. Human resources. Unlike other layers, the interoperability at
organizational layer is also subject to the capability of the
effective human resources. Adaption of new technological
advancements, policies, agreements, procedures, and processes
not only requires willingness but also skills and knowledge. This
measure determines the maturity of human resources for
implementation of organizational interoperability.
7. Processes and procedures alignment. Interoperability is often
related to business processes and procedures, IDABC [22-23]
refer to organizational interoperability as describing business
processes and procedures. Janssen and Scholl [28] state that
business process layer derives the attention to process-driven
integration. Alignment of processes and procedures helps public
organizations with business transitions, integration, control and
monitor, value-creation, and management of interoperability
related issues.
8. Service level agreement. Interoperability at organizational
level is subject to agreements, negotiations, and compliance of
service related terms and conditions for effective information
sharing and exchange. Thus, the quality of service (QoS)
requirements is agreed between the concerned stakeholders to
ensure the minimum service delivery. Service level agreements
are strictly bound for implementation and incompliance is
rewarded with heavy penalties. European interoperability
framework [23] discusses that several service level agreements
can be made for organizational interoperability based on the
demand and business process connections [29].
9. Laws and regulations. Organizational interoperability is still at
the conceptual level [38, 41, 48]. There is a desire for new laws
and regulations for effective and efficient information sharing and
exchange at organizational level. This measure illustrates the need
for new laws and regulations for organizational interoperability on
top of the existing laws and regulations.
10. Constitutional restrains. Scholl and Klischewski [41] explain
that the interoperability objectives are not aligned with the
democratic government’s constitutional power distribution at
national, regional, and local levels etc. Though the constitutions
limit the organizational interoperability objectives to certain
boundaries, the objectives have not yet reached the desired
maturity within those boundaries. This measure determines the
maturity of organizational interoperability objectives within the
constitutional boundaries in public organizations.
220
11. Political commitment. Pardo and Burke [37] describe that
political commitment is necessary for public organizations to
continue with their objectives for implementation of long-term
projects in case of the changes in political administration. Political
commitment is a need for consistency to ensure the success of
organizational interoperability. This measure evaluates the
political commitment for organizational interoperability.
12. Jurisdictional regulations. Public organizations at different
levels (national, regional, and local) follow distinct patterns of
business processes and information handling. They operate
independent of each other [42] and have the liberty to interoperate
or share the information only if they volunteer [20]. To avoid illuse
of this liberty, jurisdictional regulations are essential to
engage public organizations for information sharing and
interoperation. This measure determines the implementation of
jurisdictional regulations for organizational interoperability.
13. Change management. Organizational leadership and
management are responsible for execution different task and
assignments. Leaders are responsible guidance, motivation,
creativity, innovation, and resource mobilization to achieve the
organizational objectives [36]. In the context of organizational
interoperability, Maheshwari, Veenstra et al. [32] describe the
leadership responsibilities as “smooth execution of tasks by
assigning right-job-for-right-person”. Hence, the organizational
interoperability requires effective change management.
14. Environment and ethics. Organizational culture and ethics
has direct influence on the interoperability. Working environment
free of rivalries and inimical behavior allows employees to
interoperate easily for information exchange and sharing among
different stakeholders. Though hardly discussed in literature, this
aspect of organizational interoperability can be useful for assess
the internal working environment.
15. Financial constraints. Financial aspects have greater
importance in practice over others concerning the quality and
maturity of interoperability. Dos Santos and Reinhard [12] infer
that financial barriers limit organizations to procure resources
based on lower price than better quality. Interoperability
initiatives by public organizations face challenges of major
resistance for change acceptance, which can also result in
financial turmoil. Therefore, the overarching return on
interoperability investments not only reflects the financial success,
but also the level of change acceptance.
4. A CASE STUDY OF POPULATION
WELFARE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF SINDH
As an illustrative case study research case, the proposed
measurement instrument and constructs were applied to assess the
organizational interoperability of Population Welfare Department
(PWD) Government of Sindh, Pakistan in January, 2012. The
research method was based on open-ended interviews with the top
management followed by a survey session with the experts from
different sub-departments to test the applicability and usefulness
of organizational measurement constructs. The purpose of
conducting the open-ended interviews with the top managmenet
was to refine the proposed measruement model before conducting
the structured survey session. Furthermore, a survey session not
only allowed selected participants to fill-in the questionnaire but
also inteactive discussions, reflections, suggestions, and feedbacks
about the survey itself and measurement instrument. With