Evolution of Government Portals in India: Mapping over Stage Models

Transcription

1 Evolution of Government Portals in India: Mapping over Stage Models Abstract Rakhi Tripathi * FORE School of Management, Delhi, India M. P. Gupta and Jaijit Bhattacharya Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi , India Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess whether the e-government stage models that have been developed in last one decade give a true indication of e-government growth in a developing country like India. Design/methodology/approach This exploratory study was conducted through a survey questionnaire from 300 portals of Government departments and public sector undertakings (PSUs) in India. Findings Results show that on e-government stage model; only 28% of the surveyed Government department have achieved the transactional stage whereas 58% have reached at least a minimum level of vertical integration. On the other hand, 74% public sector undertakings (PSU) are at transactional level and 69% have achieved at least a minimum level of vertical integration. Practical implications For achieving a one-stop government portal, integration stage can be achieved before the transaction level. Reason behind this being nature and requirement of the portal. There are fundamental differences in social and political factors of various countries that demand more customized local models. Originality/value This study is the first to examine the evolution of Government portals in India. The results lead to a number of insights such as there are few Government portals that do not follow the proposed stage models and achieve the integration level before attaining the transaction level. Keywords: Integration, Transaction, E-government, Stage Models Paper type: Research paper 1. Introduction Electronic government has been defined as the use of ICTs in government settings (Gil- Garcia & Martinez-Moyano, 2007). Governments are increasingly using information and communication technologies in their daily operations and businesses. As a consequence, the study of e-government has increased in recent years and researchers are developing * Corresponding Author, rakhi@fms.ac.in, Ph

2 theoretical and conceptual models to understand different aspects of e-government (Cresswell & Pardo, 2001; Dawes, Pardo, & Cresswell, 2004; Gupta & Jana, 2003; Moon, 2002). Mid 1990s indicated the growth of e-government phenomenon which began with developing countries like United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia implementing online government applications and leading developments in the field (Hunter & Jupp, 2001; Lee, Tan & Trimi, 2005). Since then, many developing nations have also embarked on their own e-government projects. E-government has acquired a special attention in India to facilitate organizational change programs. As per the Economist Intelligence Unit's e-readiness ranking for the year 2009 (EIU, 2009), India ranks 58 among the countries of the world. Nearly all Indian government departments have some presence on the Web, including fully fledged e-government web portals, albeit in small numbers. There has been significant research on e-governance; still there is an urgent need to study how to effectively and efficiently develop e-government systems and how to measure progress so as to establish a road map to achieve the desired service level. A number of e-government stage models have been proposed in the literature. According to Coursey and Norris (2008) these models are partly descriptive, partly predictive and partly normative. It can be asserted that some, like that published by the Gartner Group (Baum and Di Miao Group), may promote e-government service sales ( more technology is better ) rather than unbiased theory building, with a bent toward prescription over description. Overall, all purport to describe what might be considered the normal evolution of e- government from its most basic element (a rudimentary governmental presence on the World Wide Web) to fully developed e-government (Almazan & Gil-Garcia, 2012). Based on the empirical examination, it appears that, for the most part, the descriptions in these models provide a reasonably accurate portrait of e-government in its early stages, from initial Web presence to information provision to interactivity. Beyond this, however, the models become both predictive and normative and their empirical accuracy declines precipitously. With the above background in mind; this paper assesses the relevance of the proposed e- government stage models in a developing economy, India. It has been observed by Yildiz (2007) that such models may not be applicable to e-government development in developing countries. This has been witnessed in context of Indian Government organizations that it is

3 not necessary to follow the stage models for e-government growth. Conversely, the leading Public Sector Undertakings (PSU) in India to an extent follows the stage models. Hence, the research question that arises from the above discussion would be: Are the Government portals in India following the proposed (popular as well) e-government stage models or not? To find the answer to this question a survey of Government and PSU portals of India has been conducted and the results have been compared and analyzed. This article should not be read as a critique of international e-government stage models such as Layne and Lee (2001); the article is proposing to reorient e-government strategic thinking in the case of developing countries like India. The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we review few popular e-government stage models developed in last one decade. Along with reviewing these models remarks and comments from various authors and research papers have also been analyzed. Moreover, in the same section empirical test of stage models in different countries have been added. Section 3 analysis e-government stage models in Indian settings along with methodology. Results and data analysis is presented in Section 4 followed by a discussion on the results in Section 5. Implications for both practitioners and researchers are listed in section 6. Finally the paper is concluded in section A perspective of E-government Stage Models Over the years a number of e-government stage models have been suggested (Baum & Di Maio, 2000; Deloitte & Touche, 2001; Hiller & Bélanger, 2001; Layne & Lee, 2001; Moon, 2002; Ronaghan, 2001; United Nations and American Society for public administration, 2001). Few of the popular (citation wise) e-government stage models are discussed in this section and are presented in Table 1. Layne and Lee (2001) There are four stages in Layne and Lee s model: Cataloguing, transaction, vertical integration and horizontal integration. At cataloguing stage Governments are focused on establishing an on-line presence for the government and is mostly limited to on-line presentations of government information. The transaction stage empowers citizens to deal with their governments on-line anytime. The higher stages of the model concentrate on integration. Vertical integration refers to local, state and federal governments connected for different

4 functions or services of government. At stage three federal, state and local counterpart systems are expected to connect or, at least, communicate to each other. At horizontal integration stage databases across different functional areas communicate with each other and ideally share information, so that information obtained by one department will propagate throughout all government functions. Hiller and Bélanger (2001) A five stage model proposed in 2002 by Hiller is fairly similar to Layne and Lee (2001) four stage model. First stage is information i.e. the government simply posts information on websites for constituents to have a Web presence. Second stage is two-way communication at which Government sites allow constituents to communicate with the government and make simple requests and changes. At stage three is transaction where the government has sites available for actual transactions with constituents. Individuals interact with the government and conduct transactions completely online, with web-based self-services replacing public servants in these cases. Integration of all government services is at stage four. This can be accomplished with a single portal that constituents can use to access the services they need no matter which agencies or departments offer them. Finally the participation stage provides voting online, registration online or posting comments online. The UN five stage model (2001) The UN presents a five-stage model to establish an e-government, including emerging, enhanced, interactive, transactional, and networked. In the emerging stage, the country is committed to establish an e-government, and to set up an official site with a limited domain to provide users with access to political and organizational information. However, in the enhanced stage, there is an increase in the number of official web sites which consist of up-to date information, policies, databases, laws and regulations. These sites are connected to other sites in order to provide citizens the information they need. In the interactive stage, the presence of the countries on the Internet is expanded in order to have a vast collection of organizations and services online. Here, an extensive interaction takes place between the citizens and service providers, search possibilities in data-centres are enhanced, and accessibility to various forms and ability to transfer via the Internet is

5 increased. Services including the attainment of Visas, passports, driving licenses, and the payment of taxes, which demand a two-way communication via the Internet, are established in the transactional stage. These services also facilitate various activities such as buying and selling, and electronic signatures. Finally, in the networked stage, the capacity to access any kind of service, at any time, is established. Hence the physical barriers between offices, sectors, and departments, are removed (UN Global E-government Survey, 2003). Ronaghan (2001) The model offered by Ronaghan (2001) demonstrates the growth of e-government in five stages. First, a formal but limited web presence is established through a few independent government websites which provide users with static organizational or political information in Emerging Presence stage. The second stage is Enhanced Presence where a country s online presence begins to expand as its number of official websites increase. Content will consist more of dynamic and specialized information that is frequently updated. A site for the national or ruling government may also be present that links the user to ministries or departments. Third, a more sophisticated level of formal interactions between citizens and service providers is present like and post comments area in Interactive Presence stage. Transactional Presence as the fourth stage implicates complete and secure transactions permits where a user can actually pay online for a service. Secure sites and user passwords are also present. Seamless is a fully integrated stage of this model. Baum & Di Maio (2000) The stage model proposed by Gartner (2000) for the evolution of e-government has four stages. Presence stage creates a virtual environment on the Internet in order to provide the public with access to information. The second stage Interaction provides a web site with search ability, and to providing the public with access to various forms and sites. Transaction extends the capability of online execution of public services such as the payment of accounts balances and receiving licenses. Finally the Transformation stage is at the regional and national levels, consisting of integration among internal and external applications, in order to provide full communication between the governmental offices and non-governmental organizations.

6 Table 1: Steps of the Evolved Stage Models Stage Models (Year) Highlights (Stages) Remarks Layne and Lee (2001) Hiller and Bélanger (2001) Catalogue; Transaction; Vertical Integration; Horizontal Integration Information; Two-way communication; Transaction Integration; Participation Through these stages the level of portal maturity can be estimated (Shareef, 2011). The first few stages of all the stages models are relatively same. It s only the last stage that Ronaghan (2001) Emerging Presence; Enhanced Presence; Interactive Presence; Transactional Presence; Seamless differs. According to Baum & Di Maio (2000) the United Nations (2001) Emerging Presence; Enhanced Presence; Interactive Presence; Transactional Presence; Networked Presence final stage id Transformation where as Layne & Lee (20001) have divided this stage into two Baum & Di Maio parts (Vertical and horizontal integration). Presence; Interaction; Transaction; Transformation (2000) Though the stages differ at higher levels the Deloitte and Touche (2001) Information; Publishing/dissemination; "Official" two-way transactions; Multi-purpose portals; Portal personalization; Clustering of common services; Full integration and enterprise transformation objective is the same to achieve one-stop portal where all the information and services are integrated. Moon (2002) has adopted the Hiller and Simple information dissemination; Two-way Bélanger (2001) model but has divided each Moon communication; Service and financial transaction; Vertical stage into different levels. (2002) and horizontal integration; Political participation Lee (2010) has reviewed all the above models Lee Presenting; Assimilating; Reforming; Morphing; E- and have categorized into two themes: (2010) governance operation/technology and citizen/service.

7 Other Models Believing that the main e-government objectives are to serve and to build long term relationships with citizens, Deloitte & Touche (2001) proposed a six-stage model including information publishing/dissemination, official two-way transaction, multi-purpose portals, portal personalization, clustering of common services, full integration and enterprise transaction. The model is based on the customer service perspective, which emphasizes customer-centricity and defines the process as an evolution of the relationship between governments and citizens. Despite some minor differences in phrasing, Moon (2002) adapted the Hiller and Be langer model. His model consists of simple information dissemination, two-way communication, service and financial transaction, vertical and horizontal integration, and political participation. Unlike Layne and Lee s (2001) and Gartner s (2000) model, Moon (2002) highlights the political participation stage as the ultimate objective of e-government development (Siau and Long 2005). Lee (2010) Based on a systematic comparison of stage models of e-government currently available in the literature, a common frame of reference for e-government development has been developed by Lee (2010) and presented in Figure 1. This frame of reference consists of five metaphorical stages: presenting, assimilating, reforming, morphing and e-governance which can be decomposed into two themes (citizen/service and operation/technology) with nine elementary concepts (information, interaction, integration, transaction, streamlining, participation, transformation, involvement and, process management). The presenting stage metaphor does not contain separate themes as it represents a simple information presentation, but other metaphors contain two clearly differentiated themes: citizen/service and operation/technology. The assimilating metaphor embraces the concepts of interaction and integration in parallel, while the reforming metaphor the concepts of transaction and streamlining. The morphing metaphor contains the concepts of participation and transformation hand in hand, while e-governance contains the concepts of involvement and process management. The common frame of reference proposed here is simple, but at the 7

8 same time comprehensive enough to include all the features of previously proposed stage models, and furthermore, it may allow for the translation of stages and other details among these models. Figure 1: A common frame of reference for e-government stage models (Lee, 2010) Unlike other models this is not a normatively rigorous and progressive model. Not every government has to go through stage one to stage five in terms of implementing e- government related technologies or systems. For example, one government might make transition directly from providing simple information (presenting) to a complex and complete morphing stage which may include interactive and transactional services and processes. This may happen frequently as information technologies and systems are easily replicable and reproducible. With the help of other governments or consultants who have experience, a government can import an advanced e-government system hoping to jump ahead in terms of developmental stages. Analyze The e-government stage models have been analyzed by various authors over the years. All these models predict the linear, stepwise, and progressive development of e-government. 8

9 Governments begin with a fairly basic, in some cases even primitive, Web presence. They pass through predictable stages of e-government, such as interactivity, transactions, and integration, and then arrive at an e-government nirvana. This final step is described variously as either the seamless delivery of governmental information and services, e-participation, e- democracy, governmental transformation, or some combination of the above. The models do not, however, tell us how this progression or evolution will occur or how long it will take to fully unfold. In particular-and this should be quite troublesome for students of public organizations. The models do not tell us how governments will overcome the numerous and significant barriers (e.g., financial, legal, organizational, technological, political), for example, integration of governmental information and services. Lee (2010) has synthesized e-government stage models developed during the last decade and produce a common frame of reference for e-government development. A detailed semantic comparison of the stages in each models are made against each other by Lee (2010). Model by Siau and Long (2005) is based on a similar synthesis approach. They have identified fivestage models from a literature review and qualitatively synthesize these models into a fivestage model: web presence, interaction, transaction, transformation, and e-democracy. Siau and Long (2005) compared these 6 popular models in terms of complexity and time/integration and is presented in Figure 2. Figure 2: E-government stage models comparison (Siau & Long, 2005). 9

10 Ridley (2008) and Siau and Long (2005) came to a conclusion that the above models are similar in the field of development trends. In addition, some of the stages found in one model can share similar meanings when compared to the other models. This type of overlapping occurs among all the models. Five stage models including Layne and Lee s (2001) model have been reviewed by Coursey and Norris (2008) which reported that these publications largely depicted e-government as a predictable, linear development process which progressed through a series of phases. Apart from the first one or two phases which model developers could observe, until recently it has been necessary for e-government models to be largely normative, based on prediction and speculation (Coursey and Norris 2008), or rhetorical intention (Davison et al., 2005), rather than being grounded in empiricism. Pointed out by Coursey and Norris (2008), the models do not, however, tell us how this progression or evolution will occur or how long it will take to fully unfold. In particular-and this should be quite troublesome for students of public organizations-the models do not tell us how governments will overcome the numerous and significant barriers (e.g., financial, legal, organizational, technological, political), for example, the integration of governmental information and services (Coursey and Norris, 2008). Moreover, stage models are based on the idea that transformation and evolution can be classified in identifiable, discrete stages. A fundamental concept with regard to classification of these stages is discontinuity (Janssen & Van Veenstra, 2005), which is largely neglected, or at least not made explicit in e-government stage models (Klievink and Janssen 2009). Added by Klievink and Janssen (2009), existing e-government stage models focus on individual organizations as the basic unit of analysis, while none of them focus at the national level. According to Coursey and Norris (2008) these models are partly descriptive, partly predictive and partly normative. It can be asserted that some, like that published by the Gartner Group (Baum and Di Miao Group), may promote e-government service sales ( more technology is better ) rather than unbiased theory building, with a bent toward prescription over description. Overall, all purport to describe what might be considered the normal evolution of e-government from its most basic element (a rudimentary governmental presence on the World Wide Web) to fully developed e-government. Based on the empirical examination, it appears that, for the most part, the descriptions in these models provide a reasonably accurate portrait of e-government in its early stages, from initial Web presence to information 10

11 provision to interactivity. Beyond this, however, the models become both predictive and normative and their empirical accuracy declines precipitously. Analyzed by Zarei et. al., (2008) in Iran, being is a developing country; it seems these models are more appropriate for developed countries that have up-to-date technology, and more nontechnical issues such as concentration on public awareness and e-readiness. Motivations toward e-government implementation are essentially different in developing countries. There are fundamental differences in technical, social and political factors of various countries, which demands more customized local models. One can argue that international e-government growth models are oversimplified. Stated by Yildiz (2007), the stagiest approach to e-government is unsatisfactory. Stages of e- government development do not necessarily follow each other neatly in a chronological or linear order. Moreover, according to Yildiz (2007), such models may not be applicable to e- government development in developing countries, as those countries have a chance to learn from the e-government successes and failures of developed countries. It may be argued that developing countries have a much faster learning curve; they can perform the requirements of all the stages almost simultaneously. The goal of the stage model is to improve service delivery stage by stage. Higher levels of customer orientation require higher levels of flexibility because a unique business process can be required for each request, crossing many organizations and departments. Demand and customer-driven service delivery processes may be unique and hard to determine beforehand, as governments do not always know what citizens want from e-government (Bertot & Jaeger, 2006). Fulfillment requires modifications to execute these unique processes aimed at satisfying this less foreseeable demand. Table 2 presents different e-government stage models developed over the years. These stage models have been reviewed and critically analyzed by various authors and have been summarized in Table 2. After conducting a review of the proposed e-government stage models and outlook of different authors on them the following findings are have come up: 11

12 Model (Author and Year) E-government: a four stage model (Layne and Lee, 2001) Privacy Strategies for Electronic Government (Hiller and Bélanger, 2001) The stages of E- government (Ronaghan, 2001) Global survey of E-government (United Nations and American Society for Table 2: Comparison of E-government Stage Models Stages Analysis Review Remarks Catalogue; Transaction ; Vertical Integration; Horizontal Integration Information; Two-way communication; Transaction Integration; Participation Emerging Presence; Enhanced Presence; Interactive Presence; Transactional Presence; Seamless Emerging Presence; Enhanced Presence; Interactive Presence; Transactional Presence; Networked Presence Ignores the political benefits of political changes The stagiest approach to e-government is unsatisfactory May not be applicable to e-government development in developing countries Good but not concise enough Political participation used in the model The initial step in e-government is not more than a mere presence on the web Topology are oversimplification Focuses on web based public service Does consider building of back office Ignores the political benefits of political Siau & Long (2005); Yildiz (2007); Klievink & Janssen The duration (2009); Zarei et. al, of each stage is (2008) missing. Siau & Long (2005); The focus of Coursey & Norris the e- (2008) government stage models is Coursey & Norris citizens and (2008) businesses. There can be other reasons Yildiz (2007); Siau as well like & Long (2005) internal analysis etc. 12

13 public administration, changes 2001) In Indian Gartner four phases Presence; Interaction; Concise and easy to follow Coursey & Norris context only of Transaction; Transformation Ignores the political benefits of political (2008); Siau & Long the early stages e-government model changes (2009) are being (Baum & Di Maio, followed. 2000) The citizen as Information; Essentially a customer centric model Siau & Long customer (Deloitte Publishing/dissemination; Ignores re-engineering of government (2009); Zarei et. al, and Touche, 2001) "Official" two-way internal operations (2008) transactions; Multi-purpose Ignores the political benefits of political portals; Portal personalization; changes Clustering of common services; Full integration and enterprise transformation The evolution of e- Simple information Adapted the Hiller and Be langer model Siau & Long (2009); government among dissemination; Two-way Political participation used in the model Zarei et. al, (2008) municipalities: communication; Service and does not adequately capture the true rhetoric or reality? financial transaction; Vertical meaning of that stage (Moon, 2002) and horizontal integration; Political participation 13

14 The duration of each stage is missing: It has not been mentioned in any of the e- government stage models how much time it will consume to achieve one stage and to move on to another stage. Achieving one stage might take few to many years according to the infrastructure of the country. For example achieving web presence in developed country will take lesser time than in developing country due to several political, social and organizational factors. Focus of the e-government stage models is citizens and businesses: Apart from providing trouble-free access of Government services to the citizens and businesses, the target of e- government is more than to this. Achieving an integrated electronic Government will not only benefit citizens and businesses but also help in transparent internal analysis of Government services within the departments and between different departments of the Government. Empirical test of stage models Researchers have tried to empirically verify the e-government stage models by the means of content analysis and survey. Table 3 presents empirical studies on e-government evolution in different countries. Most of these studies have taken place in United States. The key findings of each study have been presented in Table 3. Table 3: Empirical studies on e-government evolution Reference Study context Key Findings Based on analysis of secondary Local e-government is mainly Coursey & Norris (2008) data from three U.S. wide a survey of local e-government in the years 2000, 2002 and informational. Although there are a few online transactions, but neither has e- government evolved and nor is it evolving at any speed towards to the higher level stages predicted by stage models. 14

15 Norris & Moon (2005) Reddick (2004) Moon & Norris (2005) West (2007) The data from surveys conducted in 2000 and 2002 about local government adoption of e- government in United states. The survey was conducted by Pew Internet and American Life Project. Based on content analysis, two survey databases were used: the 1997 Reinventing Government Survey of the ICMA and the 2000 Electronic Government Survey of the ICMA & PTI. The 1997 survey contains many questions about reinvention programs, and the 2000 survey has much information on the implementation of e-government. Two detailed content analyses were conducted in 2000 and 2001 of U.S. state and federal government websites websites were analyzed in 2000 and 1680 were evaluated in The data reveal that most American local governments have websites while there is a slow trend in the direction of adding more transactions. Moreover, the local governments Websites are expected to move towards the direction of integration. The results show that informational e-citizens are very prevalent, while transaction-based e-citizens are not common. Cities that are more innovationoriented are more likely to advance e-government. Adoption of municipal e- government is determined by managerial innovativeness orientation, government capacity and institutional characteristics such as city size and government type Most agencies have been successful at developing billboard style e- government and putting few services online but fully executable and well integrated online service was not prevalent on most government websites. 15

16 Holden et al (2003) Reddick (2004) Falk et al. (2005) Data was collected from a survey conducted in 2000 to examine local adoption of e-government among U.S. local government. Survey was held in 2003 for e- government adoption in U.S. local governments. The study of municipal e- government in the Agder region in southern Norway. Municipal E- Government Assessment Project (MeGAP) tool was applied. Majority of local governments have a presence on the Web and are at least at the beginning stages of e- government development. Few of them offer sophisticated online services involving interactive transaction. E-government at the grass roots in the United States is not a panacea. Majority of the local governments have web presence i.e. they have achieved first stage of e- government stage model. Local governments at transactional phase are more e-government enabled. Although Norway is consistently rated among the top ICT and Internet-intensive countries in the world, municipalities in Agder showed only modest degrees of implementation of the more sophisticated e-commerce and e- democracy functions. Municipal web sites emphasize information dissemination and relatively simple forms of interactivity. 16

17 Al-Nuaim (2009) Moon (2002) Huang et al. (2006) Chatzopoulos & Economides (2009) Survey was held in 2007 for municipal websites in Arab. The survey was conducted by International City/County Management Association and Public Technology Inc in It was designed to examine and assess local government activities in the area of e-government. A comprehensive analysis of U.S. counties adoption of e- Government and the functions of the websites. By using content analysis methodology, the services and functions of U.S. county e-government portals are scrutinized. Investigates the state of municipalities websites in fifty major Greek cities. Studies on worldwide e-municipal Web sites, most Arab cities have been clearly absent. The study found that these Web sites were not citizen centered, suffered from fundamental problems, lack basic requirements for any municipal Web site with some feature inoperable and limited interactive services. Municipal governments are still in either stage I or stage II of e- government, where they simply post and disseminate government information over the Web or provide online channels for two way communication, particularly for public service request. While a small percentage of e- Government websites can deliver advanced transaction and democratic functions, the majority is still at preliminary stage. Greek municipalities sites were at a satisfactory level with respect to Content and Presentation. Weak with respect to Interactivity as well E-Services & Applications. 17

18 3. Methodological Framework There may be a variety of ways to assess e-government stage models. These include statistical methods, best practices, historical analyses, and also questionnaires. In this study, the questionnaire method is used because it provides an opportunity to capture the prevailing perceptions of users-stakeholders. After reviewing the popular e-government stage models in detail, we have divided the evolution of e-government into five broad stages: Information, Interaction, Transaction, Integration and e-democracy. At Information stage the portal provides basic information about the organization (Buccoliero & Bellio, 2010). Interaction (Sandoval-Almazan et. al, 2010) stage involves online form submission, queries and correspondence etc. Services like catalogues, accept payments and supplies are provided at Transaction stage (Ntaliani et. al, 2009). Vertical integration (i.e. flow of information within the departments) to citizens falls under the Integration stage. E-democracy is the stage where portal becomes mirror of the Government (Fink, 2010; Resca, 2010). All the departments are inter-connected both vertically as well as horizontally. India is far away from the last stage (Gupta, 2010). Hence, the questionnaire comprised the first four stages only and the question on e-democracy was not included. The questionnaire was divided into three sets. The first set of questions was designed to collect the personal information about the respondent that included name, designation and experience in e-government initiatives of the respondent. The second set of questions was designed to understand organization portal s facilitation of the 3 stages of Information, Interaction and Transaction. There were sub-sections in this section and the questions of this section were asked with Yes or No answers. The third set of questions enquired about integration maturity (The higher stage of e-government growth model) of the organization s portal. A separate section was developed for integration maturity to find the current situation of the organization s portal on integration. The results of this section were authors previous study (Tripathi et. al, 2011). In this section, questions were asked on a five-point Lickert scale where 1 being not initiated and 5 fully implemented. The answers of the categories are mutually exclusive so that respondent had to select not more than one choice against an item. Apart from this, the respondents were given the opportunity to offer their comments on any issue related to e-government development. 18

19 The survey was conducted in July, The questionnaire along with a covering letter mentioning the objective of the study was sent to approximately 300 officials of government departments (Central ministry, States and Union territories) and Public Sector Undertaking (government owned and controlled corporations) portals in India. A large number of Government portals are developed and maintained by National Informatics Centre (NIC), India. Regular visits to NIC were made. Only those PSUs were selected that tend to have their corporate/head office in National Capital Region (NCR). The officials were selected on the basis of their involvement with e-government initiatives within departments in central and state governments in India. The questionnaires got hand delivered to the respondents by volunteer students and for this prior appointments were taken. 4. Results This section has been divided into three parts. First part comprises the profiles of the respondents where the experience of the respondents has been listed. Furthermore, the data has been categorized according to the profiles. Further, the results from Government departments and PSU s have been shown in separate sections. Responses were received from 201 officials in India. Break up include 111 Government organizations (including states, central ministries and their departments) and 90 Indian Public Sector Undertakings. It would be better to mention that all the portals that were studied during this survey were citizen oriented. Additionally, these portals follow the guidelines of Indian Government guidelines for websites. Profiles of Respondents Work experience of the respondents that are involved in e-government initiated is presented as frequency distribution in Table respondents refused to enclose their personal details due to security reasons. 58 respondents had experience less than 5 years. There were 42 interviewees with an experience more 15 years. These were mostly the officers at Director Level and have been working for e-government growth in India for several years. 19

20 Table 4: Experience of Respondents in E-government Experience (in Years) Number of Respondents NA 48 Up to and higher 42 Total 201 Table 5 summarizes the profiles of the usable respondents. Data was collected for all the states and union territories of India. Majority of the state portals are maintained by National Informatics Centre, India. 45 central ministry officials respondent to the questionnaire and gave information about the portal of their department. Data was also collected from 14 independent offices and 17 Departments in India. 90 usable responses were received from the Public Sector Undertakings. Table 5: Profiles of Respondents Profile Number of Respondents States 28 Union Territories 7 Central Ministries 45 Independent Offices 14 Departments 17 Public Sector Undertaking 90 Total 201 Government Portals The existing literature on e-government indicates that many of the government organizations surveyed are in the initial stages of e-government primarily the cataloguing of information. There is a more optimist view presented by Ho (2002) who believes that there is some vertical and horizontal integration occurring in larger cities with portal designed Web sites. An examination of e-government surveys in India generates a similar conclusion. 20

21 The results of the electronic government survey in government portals in India revealed that 100% of the Indian government organizations that responded have web presence. A formal but limited web presence is established which provide users with static organizational or political information. These portals may include contact information (i.e. telephone numbers and addresses of public officials). This implies that all the Government portals in India surveyed have reached the first stage of e-government growth (Table 6). Table 6: Government Portals in India Information Interaction Transaction Integration NO YES Total Significant number of these Government portals (83%) is at the second stage of e- government growth i.e. interaction. At this stage the citizens are able to contact governmental organizations and officials online through s and also post comments and feedbacks. The capacity to search specialized databases and download forms and applications or submit them is also available. The content and information is regularly updated. The study further examined that only 28% of the Government Portals are the transactional stage. The portals at this stage provide complete and secure transactions and permit user to actually pay online for a service, utility bills and taxes. It is a two-way communication. Citizens transact with government on-line by filling out forms and government responds by providing confirmations, receipts, etc. Most of the government portals i.e. 80 out of 111 (72%) have yet to achieve this stage. According to Tripathi et al. (2011), 58% (64 out of 111) of government portals in India have initiated some type of integration. The departments are either connected or, at least, communicating to each other. Table 7 further elaborates the situation of portals with regard to integration maturity. It can be observed that majority government portals in India are at lower level of integration. One clear insight from the table below is that no portal in India has achieved complete integration that forms the basis for interoperability. Hence, for an 21

22 interoperable portal all types of integration (vertical and horizontal; back office integration) have to be achieved. Table 7: Integration Maturity of Government Portals in India (Tripathi et. al, 2011) Integration Maturity (Lickert Scale) Number of Government Portals 1 (Not initiated) (Fully Implemented) None Total 111 From Table 7, top 10 government portals in India with high level of integration have been computed and the results are presented in Table 8. It has been observed that though all the 10 portals provide information and interacts with citizens (stage one and two of e-government growth) but only 7 out 10 are at the transaction level (Table 8). 3 out of 10 (Ministry of Tourism, Tender, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Indian Government portals that have high level of integration maturity do not provide any transactional services to the citizens (Tripathi et al., 2011). Table 8: Top 10 Government Portals (Integration Maturity) in India Information Interaction Transaction Integration NO YES The result for Government portals can also be illustrated through a graph which is shown in Figure 3. It can be noted that in Figure 3 majority of the Indian government portals have achieved the first two stages i.e. information and interaction. However, at higher stages the number of government portals at integration stage is more than the number of government portals at the transaction stage. This implies that there are certain government portals which have though achieved the integration level but have yet to achieve the transaction stage. 22

23 Complexity 58% 28% Integration 83% Transaction 100% Interaction Information [% of Indian Government portals at every stage] Time/Integration Figure 3: Indian Government Portals Public Sector Undertakings Portals The results of Indian PSU portals are different from that of Indian Government portals (Table 9). The surveyed portals reveal that every PSU portal has a web presence in order to provide the public with access to information. 98% of these portals interact with citizens by providing search ability and access to various forms and sites to the citizens. In contrast to the results of government portals, a high percentage of PSU portals (74%) are at the transaction level. At this level Citizens interact with the organizations and conduct transactions completely online, with web-based self-services replacing public servants in these cases. Table 9: Indian Public Sector Undertakings Portals Information Interaction Transaction Integration NO YES Total Same as above Tripathi at al. (2012) have estimated the integration maturity of the Public sector undertaking portals in India presented in Table % of the portals are performing 23

24 integration though at different level. 28 portals have not initiated integration. 59 out of 90 PSU portals have just initiated integration. Initiation of integration in these portals is mere integration of data or few processes. Integration of all data, processes and applications is not included. Moreover, comparing the results of Table 9 with Table 6 of government portals, it has been examined that only few of PSU portals have achieved higher level of integration as compared to government portals. Like Government portals, none of the PSU portals have achieved complete integration in India. Table 10: Integration Maturity of Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) Portals Integration Maturity (Lickert Scale) Number of PSU Portals 1 (Not initiated) None 5 (Fully Implemented) None Total 90 As presented in Table 11, top 10 Indian PSU portals in terms of high level of integration maturity are providing information and interaction with citizens completely. 9 out of 10 top portals of PSU have achieved the transaction stage. Only one portal out of 10 (National scheduled Castes Finance And Development Corporation, of PSU has high level of integration maturity but is not providing transactions. It was reported that transactions to the citizens were not offered due to security reasons. Table 11: Top 10 Indian PSU Portals (Integration Maturity) Information Interaction Transaction Integration NO YES Figure 4 demonstrates the percentage of the Indian PSU portals at every stage of e- government growth. Unlike Indian Government portals, the number of Indian PSU portals at higher stages (69% at stage four) is less than the number of PSU portals at initial stages 24

25 Complexity (100% at stage 1 and 98% at stage 2). This growth implies that PSU portals are able to follow the proposed stage models. 69% 74% Integration 98% Transaction 100% Interaction Information [% of Indian PSU portals at every stage] Time/Integration Figure 4: PSU Portals - Stages of Development 5. Discussion This section confers some useful insights from the above results. Comparison of Portals of Government Organizations vs. PSUs The findings of survey and analysis of the Indian government portals and the portals of Indian Public Sector Undertakings yielded certain insights. The results have been summarized in Table 12. It has been noticed that the development of e-government in India is similar to the e-government stage models at the initial stages i.e. providing information to the citizens and also interacting. Table 12: Summary of Results (Portal of Government Organizations vs. PSUs) Development Stages Government Portals PSU portals Information Interaction

26 Transaction Integration Remarks Number of portals at integration stage > Number of portals at transaction level. PSU portals are following the e- government stage models. It has been witnessed that few government portals have started working on integration before achieving transaction stage (Tripathi et.al, 2012). Furthermore, it has been observed that there are few Indian government portals that are not providing any transaction to the citizens. Indian PSUs on the other hand seem to follow the e-government stage models by achieving each stage one after another. The growth of Indian government portals and Indian PSUs has not been the same. There can be a number of reasons for this as both the organizations have different infrastructures and hence different organizational factors. Indian PSUs have better IT professionals than Government. For example, NTPC, India s thermal power generating company has gone live on SAP ERP implementation. The project is titled is Lakshya and is expected to achieve faster exchange of information, knowledge sharing and unification of planning and budgeting process. Where as one of the prime reasons of few Government portals like Ministry of Labor, Ministries of Earth Sciences and Ministry of Coal for not able to achieve higher stages of e-government is lack of IT professionals (Bhatnagar, 2002). Another key difference between the government organizations and PSUs is the level of autonomy. PSUs have higher level of autonomy, which translates to easier access to funds and quicker approvals needed for implementing e-government project. Development Pattern It has been observed that there are Government portals whose development pattern has not been similar to the e-government stage models (Gil-Garcia, 2007). According to the data that has been collected and analyzed, it has been observed that there are certain government portals that have the objective of only providing information to the citizens. Nature of such portals is not to offer transactional services to the citizens. But these portals further need to be integrated both vertically and horizontally for a larger view. Hence, the transaction level is skipped. For example, Central Vigilance Commission of India is a Government body to 26

27 address governmental corruption. It monitors all vigilance activity under central government of India and advises various authorities in Central Government organizations in planning, executing, reviewing and reforming their vigilance work. Therefore, the objective of the portal of Central Vigilance Commission is to provide all the relevant information about the vigilance activity. Interaction at lower level is also present like downloading forms etc. However, transactional services are not available. Furthermore, this portal is well integrated with other departments like Central Bureau of Investigation, India for updating the information. Another reason for not including the transaction level in the development of the Indian Government portals is security (Schuppan, 2009). Ministry of Defence, India, for instance is responsible for internal and external security of Republic of India. The purpose of its portal is to provide all the information regarding security. Due to potential threats from cyber attacks and misuse of crucial information, interaction and transactions are not included in the portal (Geoffrey, 2012). However, Ministry of Defence s portal is integrated with all its departments like the department of defence production, department of defence research etc. though at lower level. Moreover, this portal needs to be integrated horizontally with other departments of the Government such as department of finance etc. There are certain Government portals that have the aim of achieving level of integration before achieving transaction level. The reason behind this is that integration between different departments will help in performing complete transactions. A good example is of applying for passport. This falls under the Ministry of External Affairs, India. The entire process of applying and receiving passport has to undergo several processes. Download the form online, get registered and appear for an interview and submit the relevant documents. Up till this stage the portal of Ministry of External Affairs, India is providing all the information and interaction. For a complete transactional process the portal has to be integrated with other departments such as all the police departments of India. This will update the information on police verification of the applicant and the passport will be issued. Therefore, in such portals level of integration has to be achieved before the level of transaction. 6. Research Implications 27