Advertisement

Towards a Better Society

An Analysis of the Value Basis of the European eGovernment and Data Economy
  • Minna M. RantanenEmail author
  • Jani Koskinen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 370)

Abstract

Motivation behind electronic government (eGovernment) is generally creating of a better society. However, many eGovernment projects have failed due to the complex nature of these ecosystems. In the future eGovernment are starting to form larger data ecosystems due to initiatives such the European Single Market. The current trend of moving from national initiatives to international cooperation will make these projects even more complicated and thus, even more vulnerable to failures. Multiple large groups of stakeholders should be considered in the governance of these ecosystems, but there are little effective ways for that. It has been argued that values play an integral role in the success of eGovernment. Thus, in this paper we present a constructive analysis of values in eGovernment that aims to clarify the complexity around the matter. First, different levels and types of values affecting eGovernment are considered and then existing values guiding the governance of eGovernment are analysed. Based on these preliminary analyses it is noted, that there are some justified values, but more work is needed to create ethical governance model for eGovernment and data ecosystems that they are a part of to avoid failures and perhaps reach the goal of better society.

Keywords

eGovernment Ecosystem Single market Values Value-sensitive design 

References

  1. 1.
    Digital single market. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/. Accessed 08 Aug 2019
  2. 2.
    Al-Hujran, O., Al-Debei, M.M., Chatfield, A., Migdadi, M.: The imperative of influencing citizen attitude toward e-government adoption and use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 53, 189–203 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aristotle: The Nicomachean ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009). translated and edited by Ross, W. D., and Brown, LGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bentham, J.: An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Batoche, Kitchener (1781)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brey, P.: The strategic role of technology in a good society. Technology in Society (2017). advance online publicationGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Collins, J.C., Porras, J.I.: Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. Harper Business, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Collins, J.C., Porras, J.I.: Building your company’s vision. Harv. Bus. Rev September-October 1996, 65–77 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edwards, J.R., Cable, D.M.: The value of value congruence. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 654–677 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feldman, F.: Introductory Ethics. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River (1978)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frankena, W.K.: Ethics, 2nd edn. N.H J. Prentice Hall, Englewood (1973)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H., Borning, A., Huldtgren, A.: Value sensitive design and information systems. In: Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M.E. (eds.) Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory. PET, vol. 16, pp. 55–95. Springer, Dordrecht (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H.J., Borning, A.: Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. Technical Report, 02–12-01, UW CSE Technical Report, The address of the publisher (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Helkama, K., Myllyniemi, R., Liebkind, K.: Johdatus Sosiaalipsykologiaan. Edita Prima Oy, Helsinki (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hofstede, G.: Dimensionalizing cultures: the hofstede model in context. ORPC 2, 8 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M.: Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, 3rd edn. London McGraw-Hill, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kant, I.: Grundlegung zur Metaphysic der Sitten [main translation: Liddel B. Kant on the foundation of morality - a modern version of the Grundlegung]. Indiana University Press, Indiana (1785/1970)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kolkowska, E., Karlsson, F., Hedström, K.: Towards analysing the rationale of information security non-compliance: devising a value-based compliance analysis method. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 26, 39–57 (2017) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koskinen, J.S., Heimo, O.I., Kimppa, K.K.: A viewpoint for more ethical approach in healthcare information system development and procurement: the four principles. In: Exploring the Abyss of Inequalities: 4th International Conference on Well-Being in the Information Society, WIS (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koskinen, J., Kimppa, K.K.: An unclear question: who owns patient information? In: Kreps, D., Fletcher, G., Griffiths, M. (eds.) HCC 2016. IAICT, vol. 474, pp. 3–13. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44805-3_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lencioni, P.: Make your values mean something. Harv. Bus. Rev. 80(7), 113–117 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mill, J.S.: Utilitarianism. Green and Company, Longmans (1895)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mumford, E.: The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Inf. Syst. J. 16, 317–342 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nissenbaum, H.: Computing and accountability. Commun. ACM 37, 72–80 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Panagiotopoulos, P., Al-Debei, M.M., Fitzgerald, G., Elliman, T.: A business model perspective for icts in public engagement. Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 192–202 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Plato: Valtio [org. The Republic], 3rd edn. Otava, Keuruu (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rokeach, M.: The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rose, J., Flak, L.S., Sæ bØ, O.: Stakeholder theory for the e-government context: framing a value-oriented normative core. Gov. Inf. Q. 35, 362–374 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rose, J., Persson, J.S., Heeager, L.T., Irani, Z.: Managing e-government: value positions and relationships. Inf. Syst. J. 25, 531–571 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schwartz, S.H.: Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries, vol. 25, 3 edn., pp. 1–65. Academic Press, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schwartz, S.H.: An overview of the schwartz theory of basic values. Gov. Inf. Quart. 2, 362–374 (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Scott, M., DeLone, W., Golden, W.: Measuring egovernment success: a public value approach. Eur. J. Inf. Syst 25, 187–208 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stahl, B.C.: Morality, ethics, and reflection: a categorization of normative is research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13, 636–656 (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stahl, B.C., Eden, G., Jirotka, M., Coeckelbergh, M.: From computer ethics to responsible research and innovation in ICT: the transition of reference discourses informing ethics-related research in information systems. Inf. Manag. 51, 810–818 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sullivan, W., Sullivan, R., Buffton, B.: Aligning individual and organisational values to support change. J. Change Manag. 2, 247–254 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Talbot, C.: Measuring Public Value - A Competing Values Approach. The Work Foundation, London (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tavani, H.T.: Ethics & Technology: Ethical Issues in an Age of Information and Communication Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    The European Commission: The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011–2015 - Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable & innovative Government. Brussels: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The European Commission (2010)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    The European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016–2020, Accelerating the digital transformation of government, Brussels. The European Commission (2016)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    The European Commission: eGovernment Benchmark 2017 - Taking stock of user-centric design and delivery of digital public services in Europe. Final Background Report - volume 2, A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Net-works, Content & Technology. The European Commission (2016)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    The European Commission: Report on the public consultation and other consultation activities of the European Commission for the preparation of the EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016–2020. Public services. The European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (2016)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    The European Commission: eGovernment Benchmark 2017, Taking stock of user-centric design and delivery of digital public services in Europe, Final Insight Report - Volume 1, A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology. The European Commission (2018)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Van Der Wal, Z., De Graaf, G., Lasthuizen, K.: What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Adm. 86, 465–482 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Chan, F.K.Y., Hu, P.J.H.: Managing citizens’ uncertainty in egovernment services: the mediating and moderating roles of transparency and trust. Inf. Syst. Res 27, 87–111 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wiesing, U.: Immanuel kant, his philosophy and medicine. Med. Health Care Philos. 11(2), 221–236 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yli-Huumo, J., Päivärinta, T., Rinne, J., Smolander, K.: Suomi.fi – towards government 3.0 with a national service platform. In: Parycek, P., et al. (eds.) EGOV 2018. LNCS, vol. 11020, pp. 3–14. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98690-6_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhou, Z., Jin, X.L., Fang, Y., Vogel, D.: Toward a theory of perceived benefits, affective commitment, and continuance intention in social virtual worlds: cultural values (indulgence and individualism) matter. Eur. J. Inf. Syst 24, 247–261 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Turku School of EconomicsUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations