Advertisement

Exploring e-Services Development in Local Government Authorities by Means of Electronic Document Management Systems

  • Ingrid Pappel
  • Valentyna TsapEmail author
  • Ingmar Pappel
  • Dirk Draheim
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 947)

Abstract

Estonia is a well-known example of a tech-savvy nation, especially when it comes to e-governance. Here, the government provides its citizens with public services online. Within a decade, the level of pervasiveness and technology acceptance reached a point where interaction between government and citizens is perceived to be a given. An integral part of the e-state is the digitalization of the public sector and, in particular, its basic routines that involve processing of documentation with an enormous amount of data. In this paper, we examine aspects, activities and outcomes of the development of e-services in local governments based on the use of electronic document and records management systems and their further co-existence. We provide an example of one of the Estonian local governments where the implemented conceptual interoperable framework has been validated. Moreover, we elaborate on interoperability solutions.

Keywords

e-services EDRMS Local government e-government Interoperability 

References

  1. 1.
    Ngoepe, M.S.: An exploration of records management trends in the South African Public Sector: a case study of the Department of Provincial and Local Government (2008). http://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/2705. Accessed 15 Oct 2012
  2. 2.
    Hung, S.Y., Tang, K.Z., Chang, C.M., Ke, C.D.: User acceptance of intergovernmental services: An example of electronic document management system. Gov. Inf. Q. 26(2), 387–397 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yaacob, R.A., Sabai, R.M.: Electronic records management in Malaysia: a case study in one government agency. In: Asia-Pacific Conference On Library & Information Education & Practice 2011 (A-LIEP2011): Issues, Challenges and Opportunities, 22–24 June 2011, Pullman Putrajaya Lakeside, Malaysia (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Draheim, D., Koosapoeg, K., Lauk, M., Pappel, I., Pappel, I., Tepandi, J.: The design of the Estonian governmental document exchange classification framework. In: Kő, A., Francesconi, E. (eds.) EGOVIS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9831, pp. 33–47. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44159-7_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deloitte. Document Management in Local Government: Finding the real savings (Report) (2011). http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedKingdom/Local%20Assets/Documents/Industries/GPS/UK_GPS_DocumentManagementinLocalGovernment.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2013
  6. 6.
    Sar, H.K., Wong, T.Y.C.: Web-based document management systems in the construction industry. In: Construction Economics and Managements I, Working Paper, Rome, Italy, 6–10 May 2012 (2012). http://www.fig.net/pub/fig2012/papers/ts01c/TS01C_wong_5393.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2013
  7. 7.
    Government Office. Requirements for electronic document management systems’ functionality. Available online in Estonian: Nõuded elektrooniliste dokumendihaldussüstemide funktsionaalsusele (2002). http://valitsus.ee/UserFiles/valitsus/et/riigikantselei/dokumendihaldus/dokumendihaldusest/noudedelektrooniliseledokumendihaldusele/FNoue_rk1.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2013
  8. 8.
    DLM Forum Foundation. Modular Requirements for Records Systems – MoReq2010 (2011). http://moreq.info/index.php?option=com_jotloader&view=categories&cid=40_4e47a2abad7422897e078fd469dd9933&Itemid=129&lang=en. Accessed 17 Nov 2013
  9. 9.
    International Organization for Standardization – ISO. Information and documentation – Records management, ISO 15489–1:2001 (2001). http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=31908. Accessed 15 Oct 2012
  10. 10.
    Riigi Teataja. Public Information Act. Available online in Estonian: Avaliku teabe seadus (2001a). https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/12766090. Accessed 11 Nov 2013
  11. 11.
    Riigi Teataja. General Procedural Actions Act. Available in Estonian: Asjaajamiskorra ühtsed alused (2001b). https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/840660. Accessed 11 Nov 2013
  12. 12.
    Riigi Teataja. Administration Procedure Act. Available online in Estonian (2002). https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/686696?leiaKehtiv. Accessed 11 Nov 2013)
  13. 13.
    Riigi Teataja. Personal Data Production Act. Available online in Estonian (2003). https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/748829. Accessed 11 Nov 2013
  14. 14.
    Pappel, I., Pappel, I.: Methodology for measuring the digital capability of local governments. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Tallinn, Estonia, 26–28 Sept 2011, pp 357–358. ACM, Tallinn (2011c)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shankar, V., Smith, A.K., Rangaswamy, A.: Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline environments. Int. J. Res. Mark. 20(2), 153–175 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bhatt, G.D., Troutt, M.D.: Examining the relationship between business process improvement initiatives, information systems integration and customer focus: an empirical study. Bus. Process Manage. J. 11(5), 532–558 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gulledge Jr., T.R., Sommer, R.A.: Business process management: public sector implications. Bus. Process Manage. J. 8(4), 364–376 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jain, A.K., Jeppe Jeppesen, H.: Knowledge management practices in a public sector organisation: the role of leaders’ cognitive styles. J. Knowl. Manage. 17(3), 347–362 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pappel, I., Pappel, I.: Implementation of service-based e-government and establishment of state IT components interoperability at local authorities. In: The Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Computer Control (ICACC 2011), Harbin, Hiina, 18–20 Jan 2011, pp 371–378. Institute of Electronics and Computer Science, Singapore (2011a)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scholl, H.J., Kubicek, H., Cimander, R., Klischewski, R.: Process integration, information sharing, and system interoperation in government: a comparative case analysis. Gov. Inf. Q. 29(3), 313–323 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iyer, L.S., Singh, R., Salam, A.F., D’Aubeterre, F.: Knowledge management for Government-to-Government (G2G) process coordination. Electron. Gov. Int. J. (EG) 3(1), 18–35 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Accenture. E-Government Leadership Report: Engaging the Customer (2003). http://nstore.accenture.com/acn_com/PDF/Engaging_the_Customer.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2012
  23. 23.
    Bannister, F., Connolly, R.: Trust and transformational government: a proposed framework for research. Gov. Inf. Q. 28(2), 137–147 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsap, V., Pappel, I., Draheim, D.: Key success factors in introducing national e-identification systems. In: Dang, T.K., Wagner, R., Küng, J., Thoai, N., Takizawa, M., Neuhold, E. (eds.) FDSE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10646, pp. 455–471. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70004-5_33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingrid Pappel
    • 1
  • Valentyna Tsap
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ingmar Pappel
    • 2
  • Dirk Draheim
    • 1
  1. 1.Tallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.Interinx Ltd.TallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations