Advertisement – Towards Government 3.0 with a National Service Platform

  • Jesse Yli-HuumoEmail author
  • Tero Päivärinta
  • Juho Rinne
  • Kari Smolander
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11020)


The KaPa (Kansallinen Palveluarkkitehtuuri, in Finnish) program establishes the national e-government service platform in Finland. The platform,, provides a one-stop portal for citizens and organizations to access both public and related private sector services. This research reports a case study of the platform by analyzing it in light of recent characteristics identified with the emerging concept of Government 3.0: openness and transparency, sharing, increased communication and collaboration, government re-organization through integration and interoperability, and use of new technologies. Our results contribute by concretizing the hitherto abstract and loosely defined concept of Government 3.0 by describing a timely and complex national e-government implementation in detail in light of such characteristics. Our study also suggests three emergent themes in relation to contemporary Government 3.0 characteristics: opening up technologies and solutions in addition to open data, cross-border integration and development, and the enhanced role of the private sector in both development activities and merging into the portfolios of one-stop services.


E-government Government 3.0 Platform 


  1. 1.
    Layne, K., Lee, J.: Developing fully functional E-government: a four stage model. Gov. Inf. Q. 18(2), 122–136 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tat-Kei Ho, A.: Reinventing local governments and the E-Government initiative. Public Adm. Rev. 62(4), 434–444 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gouscos, D., Kalikakis, M., Legal, M., Papadopoulou, S.: A general model of performance and quality for one-stop e-Government service offerings. Gov. Inf. Q. 24(4), 860–885 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Signore, O., Franco, C., Maurizio, P.: E-government: challenges and opportunities. In: Proceedings of the CMG Italy XIX Annual Conference, pp. 1–16 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schuppan, T., Koehl, S.: One stop government: stalled vision or a matter of design? – empirical findings from social services in Germany (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yannis, C.: Interoperability in Digital Public Services and Administration: Bridging E-Government and E-Business. IGI Global, Hershey (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andersen, K.V., Henriksen, H.Z.: E-government maturity models: extension of the layne and lee model. Gov. Inf. Q. 23(2), 236–248 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, J.: 10year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Gov. Inf. Q. 27(3), 220–230 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nam, T.: Government 3.0 in Korea: fad or fashion?. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, New York, NY, USA, pp. 46–55 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sun, P.-L., Ku, C.-Y., Shih, D.-H.: An implementation framework for E-Government 2.0. Telemat. Inform. 32(3), 504–520 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Charalabidis, Y.: What is government 3.0?. In: Charalabidis, Y. (ed.) Governance and Transformation. Yannis Charalabidis, Athens (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ministry of Interior Korea: Government 3.0. Ministry of Interior Korea, Seoul (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meyerhoff Nielsen, M.: Governance failure in light of Government 3.0: foundations for building next generation eGovernment maturity models. In: Ojo, A., Millard, J. (eds.) Government 30 - Next Generation Government Technology Infrastructure and Services. PAIT, vol. 32, pp. 63–109. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Commission: eGovernment in Finland, February 2016, Ed. 18.0 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verohallinto: Verotuksen historiaa Suomessa. Verohallinnon Julk. 38109 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hassan, I.A., Adegboyega, O.: Enabling gov 3.0 through semantic web, natural language processing and text analytics. In: T-Gov Workshop 2014, 12–13 June 2014, vol. 14, pp. 64–81. Brunel University, London (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anthes, G.: Estonia: a model for e-Government. Commun. ACM 58(6), 18–20 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Aagesen, G., van Veenstra, A.F., Janssen, M., Krogstie, J.: The entanglement of enterprise architecture and IT-governance: the cases of Norway and the Netherlands. In: 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesse Yli-Huumo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tero Päivärinta
    • 2
    • 3
  • Juho Rinne
    • 1
  • Kari Smolander
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Information SystemsLuleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden
  3. 3.Department Applied Information TechnologyUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  4. 4.School of Business and ManagementLappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland

Personalised recommendations