2.7. Interoperability large-scale

A major challenge for European Governments is to improve ways of heterogeneous systems working together. Due to the growing of the European Union, existing systems have to be analyzed and evaluated properly to pave the way for a smooth cooperation and collaboration. To enable cooperation (either in terms of collaboration or coordination), two approaches can be identified: integration and interoperation. Klischewski and Scholl (2006) define integration as “the forming of a (temporary or permanent) larger unit of government entities for the purpose of merging processes [and systems,]? and/or sharing information”. The European Commission has defined interoperability as “the means by which the inter-linking of systems, information and ways of working, whether within or between administrations, nationally or across Information and Communication Technologies Europe, or with the enterprise sector, occurs” [1]?. Klischewski and Scholl further stress that systems and applications that interoperate are characterized by the following aspects: independency, heterogeneity, and control by different jurisdictions/administrations or by external actors; yet also cooperation in a predefined and agreed upon fashion. Likewise, Wimmer et al (2006) stress that interoperation can only be reached by means of open standards, whereby interoperation needs to be addressed on technical, semantic and organizational level alike. On this basis, the authors have developed an interoperability framework as shown in figure 1 detailing three dimensions of interoperability:

•  Making collaboration possible from the technical basis via the semantic interoperability up to the organizational setup.
• Seamless eGovernment and eParticipaiton: In a collaborative environment, each part of an overall electronic service or participatory process has to be smoothly integrated in the whole eParticipation or eGovernment service environment.
• Area of application of standards and interoperability: With the trend towards networked governments, agreements and policies for cross-organisational systems operation have to be achieved at distinct levels of governments. Developments towards interoperability happen currently at many levels. Being aware of who develops what and how this can be fed into an overall picture (including knowledge sharing) is of utmost urgency to guarantee future widespread networked governments and interoperation beyond certain organisational borders.

The framework shall guide system designers to develop interfaces and open standards that guarantee a smooth execution of public services in eGovernment and eParticipation covering the whole lifecycle of service execution from information provision till archiving of service products. At the same time, the framework shall support to define interfaces for global usage by applying open standard protocols, by developing common data specifications, common process models and by commonly agree on smooth cooperation and collaboration policies across distinct organizational settings.

Figure 1:    Interoperability reference framework: addressing interoperability in a comprehensive way

eGovernment Systems Engineering: From strategies to implementation to performance measurement

Implementing the holistic reference framework as introduced above requires as well a structured systems engineering approach. The concept developed by Hanl and Wimmer (2002) spans the systems engineering from setting the overall strategies and goals of systems development till evaluation, assessment and improvement of systems, and feeding back to earlier phases of systems development (see figure 2).

Figure 2:   eGovernment systems engineering: going beyond pure software engineering (Hanl & Wimmer, 2002)

Success Criteria for eGovernment Projects

Based on the eGovernment overall systems engineering concept, criteria for successful eGovernment and eParticipation projects can be derived (cf. Hanl & Wimmer, 2002; Wimmer, 2005):

• Clear strategies and visions: Clear definitions on visions and strategies for the development of eGovernment and eParticipation projects are important to lay the ground of development directions as well as to make evaluation possible. If such visions and strategies are not formulated in a proper way, there is no ground against which success can be measured at the end. Consequently, it is important that the visions and strategies can be measured with quantitative and/or qualitative quality indicators.
• Socio-technical understanding: eGovernment and eParticipation systems can be categorized as socio-technical systems. Consequently, a holistic understanding as depicted in figure 1 and figure 2 is crucial and should lead to a better understanding of the interdependencies of social, individual, process aspects, etc. in relation to ICT support.
• Structured engineering approaches: Structured approaches to systems engineering (e.g. waterfall model, German V-Model XT, ISO 9241, ISO 13407, the spiral model of Böhm, prototyping, Participatory Design, Scenario-based Design methods, etc.) are important in order to deal with the complexity of socio-technical systems and to take the various influencing aspects of people, organisations, technology, processes and content into account.
• Strong focus on the stakeholders and users: Understanding the needs and capabilities (skills, resources …) of stakeholders, the functionalities and technical facilities they will be using, and how they are going to use them, is a crucial factor for proper design of information systems. Consequently, concepts of usability engineering and of interface design are to be taken into account.
• Setting the project scope and defining the interoperation needs: This is crucial to plan the project (based on the overall goals and scope) and to know the system borders. An overall system architecture shall guide in defining the necessary interactions with external systems thereby defining the interfaces based on e.g. open standards.
• Engineering the organisational culture and the legal frame: The socio-technical nature of eGovernment and eParticipation calls also for considering legal, organizational or political scope of the system to be developed.
• Designing the information and knowledge in the properly: System design means to change the knowledge combination of people, systems and processes. Since any change of a tool impacts the content, a proper design of the information and knowledge resources at stake, as well as its flow through the processes to the stakeholders and actors is required.
• Comprehensive process management is key in any ‘e’-development: As stated before a clear definition of processes, accountability and interoperation and proper knowledge on each of the involved social and technical actors is key to functional and user-centric services. Thereby, structured approaches for a comprehensive process analysis and process redesign need to be applied.

[1]? Commission of the European Communities. Linking-up Europe: The importance of interoperability for e-government services. Staff Working Document, 2003

References

 
Hanl, S., & Wimmer M. (2002). Rahmenkonzept für e-Government Entwicklungen. In Wimmer (Eds.), Impulse für e-Government: Internationale Entwicklungen, Organisation, Recht, Technik, Best Practices (pp. 72-83). Proceedings of the first e|Gov Day of the forum e|Gov.at. Volume 158, Austrian Computer Society, Vienna.

Klischewski, R., & H. J. Scholl (2006). Information quality as a common ground for key players in e-government integration and interoperability. In Proceedings of HICSS’06.

Wimmer, M. A. (2005). Ganzheitliches Vorgehen in der Prozessgestaltung für E-Government: Erfolgsfaktoren und Leitfaden. In M. A. Wimmer, & R. Klischewski, Wissensbasiertes Prozessmanagement im E-Government (pp. 95 – 109). Münster et al: LIT Verlag.

Wimmer, M., Liehmann, M., & Martin, B. (2006). Offene Standards und abgestimmte Spezifikationen - das österreichische Interoperabilittskonzept. Proceedings MKWI.

Next: Multi-Perspective Approach to eParticipation Previous: Integration of constructive technology assessment (CTA) with the perspective of SST