WASEDA – IAC 10th International
E-Government Ranking 2014

Jointly Surveyed by Waseda University andInternational Academy of CIO (IAC)Tokyo
May 2014

Executive Summary
The Institute of E-Government at Waseda University (Director: Prof. Toshio Obi),
Tokyo in cooperation with the International Academy of CIO (IAC) has released theresults of its international e-government rankings survey for 2014. This researchpresents the tenth consecutive year of monitoring and surveying worldwide
e-government development by the research team of Professor Toshio OBI, Director of
the Institute of E-Government and experts with IAC member universities. The result of
the survey is that USA replaced Singapore (2nd) and tied for the first place, followed bySouth Korea in 3rd, the United Kingdom in 4th and Japan in 5th place. Canada in 6th,
Estonia in 7th, Finland in 8th, Australia in 9th and Sweden ranked 10th.
During this one year survey, the research has been conducted through theorganization of workshops and forums and the Team has arranged professional meetingsand discussions with a variety of international and national organizations to improveoversight and objectivity. These groups include the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD), Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC),
the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the World Bank (WB), United
Nations and many other government agencies, think tanks and NGO/NPOs with
e-government responsibilities in their respective countries.
The 2014 ranking, which marks the tenth anniversary of the Waseda E-Government
ranking, incorporates several changes on evaluation framework compared to theprevious years. To assess and evaluate the details of e-government preparedness andto align with new trends in e-government, two new indicators have been added to theranking: “Open Government Data” and “Cyber Security”, which makes the total
indicators to 9 items with 33 sub-indicators. Original 7 indicators are [Network][Management] [Online service] [Home page] [GCIO] [Promotion] [Digital Inclusion].
In addition and in order to obtain comprehensive findings on the e-government aroundthe world, this year, six countries are added as subjects of this research: Austria, Poland,
Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Uruguay and Kenya. This makes a total of sixty-one surveyedcountries compared to fifty-five last year.
Lastly, the official name of the [Waseda University E-Government Ranking Survey]
is changed to [Waseda University – IAC joint E-Government Ranking Survey] withprominent experts from IAC partner universities.
In order to obtain the latest and the most accurate information and to assess therelevant data, the ranking was conducted by researchers around the world in cooperation
with partner universities. Comprehensive data assessment has been conducted by expert
groups from George Mason University (USA), United Nations University (Macao),iBocconi University (Italy), Turku University (Finland), Peking University (China),
Thammasat University (Thailand), De La Salle University (Philippines), Bandung
Institute of Technology (Indonesia), National University of Singapore, Federal Academy
School of IT Management (Russia) as well as main contributor, Waseda University(Japan).
An analysis of ten years of the Waseda – IAC joint E-Government Rankings Survey
indicates the following 7 interesting aspects:(1) The delivery of contents and application via online services (G2B, G2C) is
being rapidly implemented and expanded to many fields in different level by most
governments around the world.
(2) Social media has become a new star among major trends as leading
governments continue to try the integration between social media and e-government
services as well as emerging technologies such as cloud computing.
(3) Digital gap between ICT developed and developing countries become wider interms of usability and cyber-security issues as well as emerging technologies(4) Providing open government data is fast becoming a major political objective
and commitment in many developed countries, and also Big Data processing enables
governments to encourage the choices of creating new businesses based on large-scalequantitative analysis.
(5) Cyber-security issue is a crucial factor for achieving an advanced e-government
network/infrastructure.
(6) There is urgent need in both public and private sectors to consolidate and extend
effective CIO training program as ICT capacity building scheme due to lack of ICT
professional manpower.
(7) Evaluation process and its methodology on the outcome of survey by indicators
become more sophisticated and important than in the past based on the expanded role ofe-government.

Contact: Institute of E-Government Waseda University, Japan
Email: obi.waseda@gmail.com
URL: http://e-gov.waseda.ac.jp/ranking2014.htm

ii

Acronyms
APEC

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BCP

Business Continuity Planning

C2G

Citizen-to-Government

CIO

Chief Information Officer

EA

Enterprise Architecture

ERP

Enterprise Resource Planning

EU

European Union

G2C

Government-to-Citizen

G2G

Government-to-Government

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

IAC

International Academy of CIO

ICTInformation and Communication Technology

IDC

International Data Corporation

IEEE

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

ITU

International Telecommunication Union

OECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PDCA

Plan Do Check Act

R&D

Research and Development

SNS

Social Networking Service

WB

World Bankiii

TABLE of CONTENTS
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ iii
TABLE of CONTENTS................................................................................................. iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. viii
I.

Historical Trends for 10 Years Surveys of the Rankings...................................... 1

II.

Total Ranking 2014 .............................................................................................. 2III.

E-government Ranking by Indicators ................................................................ 4

1. Network Preparedness/ Digital Infrastructure........................................................ 6
2. Management Optimization ..................................................................................... 7
3. Online Services/ Applications ................................................................................ 8
4. National Portal/ Homepage .................................................................................. 10
5. Government Chief Information Officer (GCIO) ...................................................11
6. E-government Promotion ..................................................................................... 12
7. E-participation/ Digital Inclusion......................................................................... 13
8. Open Government Data ....................................................................................... 14
9. Cyber Security...................................................................................................... 15IV.

E-Government Ranking by Organizations ...................................................... 17

1. Ranking of APEC Economies .............................................................................. 17
2. Ranking of OECD Countries ............................................................................... 18
3. Ranking of ASEAN Countries ............................................................................. 20
V. E-Government Ranking by the Size of Population and GDP............................ 21
1. Ranking in Big Population Countries (higher than 100 million) ......................... 21
2. Ranking in Small Population Countries (Less than 10 million) .......................... 23
3. E-government Ranking in Top 10 Countries with Highest GDP ......................... 24
VI.

E-Government Ranking by Regions ................................................................. 26

1. Ranking in Asia-Pacific Countries ....................................................................... 26iv

2. Ranking in Americas Countries ........................................................................... 28
3. Ranking in European Countries ........................................................................... 29
4. Ranking in Africa, Middle East and CIS Countries ............................................. 31
VII. Methodology ....................................................................................................... 33
VIII.

Findings ........................................................................................................... 35

1. One-stop Service .................................................................................................. 36
2. E-Local Government Linkage with Central Government .................................... 37
3. Social Media as an Alternative Channel for the Citizens’ Opinions .................... 38
4. E-government Development Model ..................................................................... 38
5. Open Government Data ....................................................................................... 40
6. The role of Government CIO ............................................................................... 41
7. Cyber-Security Issues........................................................................................... 41
IX.

New Trends in E-Government Development 2014: 9 Global Highlights ...... 42

1. Cloud Computing ................................................................................................. 43
2. Social Media ........................................................................................................ 44
3. Open Government Data ....................................................................................... 45
4. Big Data ............................................................................................................... 46
5. Business Continuity Planning (BCP) in Disaster Management ........................... 47
6. Digital Inclusion in an Aging Society .................................................................. 48
7. Cyber Security...................................................................................................... 49
8. One-Stop Service and Interoperability ................................................................. 50
9. E-Local Government and Smart Cities ................................................................ 52
X.

Contributors List................................................................................................ 54
1. List of Experts Group ........................................................................................... 54
2. List of Professors and Experts at Institute of e-Government, Waseda University 54
3. List of Researchers and Research Assistants at Institute of e-Government, Waseda
University ................................................................................................................... 54

APPENDIX 1: Difinitions of Indicators ..................................................................... 56
1. Network Preparedness/Infrastructure ................................................................... 56
2. Management Optimization ................................................................................... 57v

3. Online services/e-services .................................................................................... 58
4. National Portal ..................................................................................................... 59
5. Government CIO .................................................................................................. 59
6. E-Government Promotion .................................................................................... 60
7. E-Participation ..................................................................................................... 61
8. Open Government Data ....................................................................................... 62
9. Cyber Security...................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX 2: Other International Rankings ........................................................... 64
APPENDIX 3: List of National Portals ...................................................................... 66
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 68vi

List of Tables
Table 1: Historical Trends of the Ranking 2005 - 2014 ........................................... 1
Table 2: Waseda – IAC Joint E-government Ranking 2014 ..................................... 3
Table 3: The Main Indicators and Sub-Indicators .................................................... 5
Table 4: Top 13 Countries (Economies) on 9 Individual Indicators ......................... 6
Table 5: E-government Ranking in APEC Economies ........................................... 17
Table 6: E-government Ranking in OECD Countries ............................................ 18
Table 7: E-government Ranking in ASEAN Countries .......................................... 20
Table 8: E-government Ranking in Big Population Countries ............................... 22
Table 9: E-government Ranking in Small Population Countries ........................... 23
Table 10: E-government Ranking with Highest GDP Group ................................. 24
Table 11: E-government Ranking in Asia-Pacific Countries .................................. 26
Table 12: E-government Ranking in Americas Countries ...................................... 28
Table 13: E-government Ranking in European Countries ...................................... 30
Table 14: E-government Ranking in Africa, Middle East and CIS Countries ........ 31
Table 15: Weighted Scores Method ........................................................................ 35

vii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Waseda-IAC Top 10 E-Government Ranking ........................................... 4
Figure 2: Trend of Management Optimization Ranking 2010 - 2014 ...................... 8
Figure 3: Trend of Online Service Ranking 2010 - 2014 ......................................... 9
Figure 4: Trend of National Portal Ranking 2010 - 2014 ........................................11
Figure 5: Trend of Government CIO Ranking 2010 - 2014 ................................... 12
Figure 6: Trend of E-Government Promotion Ranking 2010 - 2014 ..................... 13
Figure 7: Trend of E-Participation Ranking 2011 - 2014 ....................................... 14
Figure 8: 2014 Open Government Data Scores of Top 10 Countries ..................... 15
Figure 9: 2014 Cyber Security Scores of Top 10 Countries ................................... 16
Figure 10: Top 10 APEC Economies ...................................................................... 18
Figure 11: Top 10 OECD Countries ....................................................................... 19
Figure 12: E-Government in ASEAN Countries .................................................... 21
Figure 13: Top 5 Big Population Countries in E-Government ............................... 22
Figure 14: Top 10 E-Government Ranking in Small Population Countries ........... 24
Figure 15: Top 10 E-Government Ranking in Highest GDP Countries ................. 26
Figure 16: Top 10 E-Government Ranking in Asia-Pacific Countries ................... 27
Figure 17: Top 10 E-Government Ranking in Americas Countries ....................... 29
Figure 18: Top 10 E-Government Ranking in European Countries ....................... 31
Figure 19: Top 10 E-Government Ranking in Africa, Middle-East and CIS
Countries......................................................................................................... 33
Figure 20: Processes Diagram ................................................................................ 34
Figure 21: E-Government Development Matrix .................................................... 39viii

I. Historical Trends for 10 years Surveys of the Rankings
Throughout the ten years of the ranking, USA, Canada, Singapore and Finland are the leading countries and always stand in the top
five. USA stood in first place from 2005 to 2008, but Singapore took the top spot from 2009 to 2011. For the three consecutive years, USA
and Singapore have been alternately ranked at first and second. Looking at the ranking within the ten-year period, all of the countries in the
top ten are developed countries except Malaysia in 2005 and Hong Kong in 2005 and 2008 due to their excellent infrastructure and policy
for developing ICTs and e-government. In the cases of the USA and Singapore, all ranking indicators requirement have been met, even thenewest 2014 indicators “Open Government Data” and “Cyber Security”.
The following table shows the top ten countries since the first edition of the ranking 2005 - 2014.
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

1

USA

1

USA

1

USA

1

USA

1

Singapore

1

Singapore

1

Singapore

1

USA

1

Singapore

1

USA

2

Canada2

Canada2

Singapore

2

Singapore

2

USA

2

UK

2

USA

1

Singapore

2

Finland2

Singapore

3

Singapore

3

Singapore

3

Canada3

Canada3

Sweden2

USA

3

Sweden

3

Korea

3

USA

3

Korea

4

Finland

4

Japan

4

Japan

4

Korea

4

UK

4

Canada

4

Korea

4

Finland

4

Korea

4

UK

5

Sweden

5

Korea

4

Korea

5

Japan

5

Japan

5

Australia

5

Finland5

Denmark

5

UK

5

Japan

6

Australia

6

Germany

6Australia

6

Hong Kong

5

Korea

6

Japan

6

Japan

6

Sweden

6

Japan

6

Canada

7

Japan

7

Taiwan7

Finland

7

Australia

7

Canada

7

Korea

7

Canada7

Australia

7

Sweden7

Estonia

8

Hong Kong

8

Australia

8

Taiwan8

Finland

8

Taiwan8Germany

8

Estonia

8

Japan

8

Denmark

8

Finland

9

Malaysia

9

UK

9

UK

9

Sweden9Finland9

Sweden9

Belgium

9UK

8Taiwan9Australia

10

UK

10

Finland10

Sweden9

Taiwan10

Germany
Italy

10

Taiwan,
Italy

10

UK
Denmark

10

TaiwanCanada10

Netherlands

10

SwedenTable 1: Historical Trends of the Ranking 2005 - 20141

Through this research the following seven points from lessons learnt from the analysisof ten years of the Waseda – IAC E-Government Rankings Survey:(1) The delivery of contents and application via online services (G2B, G2C) is
being rapidly implemented and expanded to many fields in different level by most
governments around the world.
(2) Social media has become a new star among major trends as leading
governments continue to try the integration between social media and e-government
services as well as emerging technologies such as cloud computing.
(3) Digital gap between ICT developed and developing countries become wider interms of usability and cyber-security issues as well as emerging technologies(4) Providing open government data is fast becoming a major political objective
and commitment in many developed countries, and also Big Data processing enables
governments to encourage the choices of creating new businesses based on large-scalequantitative analysis.
(5) Cyber-security issue is a crucial factor for achieving an advanced e-government
network/infrastructure.
(6) There is urgent need in both public and private sectors to consolidate and extend
effective CIO training program as ICT capacity building scheme due to lack of ICT
professional manpower.
(7) Evaluation process and its methodology on the outcome of survey by indicators
become more sophisticated and important than in the past based on the expanded role ofe-government.

II. Total Ranking 2014
Table 2 shows the final 2014 e-government ranking. There is no significant
structural change compared to last year, except that the United State of America
replaced Singapore and tied for first place, followed by South Korea in 3rd, the United
Kingdom in 4th, and Japan in 5th place. Korea, the UK and Japan have each advanced
one step compared to last year. Last year, Canada tied for 12th place but this year stands
in 6th. Estonia also jumped up to 7th ranking. The Netherlands and Taiwan slipped out of
top ten and are ranked at 17th and 18th, respectively. There is not much change in the
middle of ranking, except for China, which slipped down to 39th from 27th last year.
There is a limited progress in the areas of some indicators in China compared toother countries. Due to its massive population, its significant regional differences, andits status as a developing country, the lack of information technology in rural areas and anationwide qualified capacity building progressive restrict the development of
e-government. Despite several developments in China, e-participation is still lacking as2

a platform to bring Chinese citizens on board as main stakeholders in the promotion of
ICT. The government provides no forum, blog or any other means of citizen interaction;
hence there is still a long way to go for Chinese e-government to develop e-participation
so that online users have a full stake in decision-making as e-democracy at the national
level, as well as open government.
The bottom tier of this ranking still hosts familiar names from last year, such as Fiji,
Uzbekistan, Cambodia and Iran respectively at 57th, 59th, 60th and 61st. Uruguay,
Colombia and Kenya are three of the six new countries added in 2014 ranking for the
first time. Unlike the other three new countries, they stand in the lower group.

1

Final
Rankings
USA

2

Singapore

93.77

23

Thailand

68.60

44

Romania

50.66

3

Korea

92.39

24

Israel68.18

45

Nigeria

50.62

4

UK

90.40

25

Portugal

66.84

46

Kazakhstan

49.08

5

Japan

88.00

26

Hong Kong

64.83

47

Chile

46.94

6

Canada85.30

27

Malaysia

63.71

48

Argentina

46.56

7

Estonia84.41

28

Turkey62.65

49

Tunisia46.51

8

Finland

82.69

29

India

61.49

50

Venezuela

46.05

9

Australia

82.37

30

Czech Republic

61.18

51

Pakistan

45.19

10

Sweden

81.93

31

Macau

61.15

52

Georgia44.15

11

Denmark

79.06

32

Indonesia

60.98

53

Colombia

43.88

12

New Zealand

79.04

33

UAE

60.84

54

Peru

43.60

13

Norway77.97

34

Vietnam

59.93

55

Uruguay

43.52

14

Switzerland

77.30

35

Russia

59.83

56

Egypt

41.37

15

Austria

76.66

36

Mexico

59.51

57

Fiji

40.73

16

Germany

75.97

37

Saudi Arabia

56.18

58

Kenya

40.72

17

Netherlands

75.80

38

South Africa

55.22

59

Uzbekistan

32.59

18

Taiwan

74.51

39

China

54.62

60

Cambodia

32.45

19

France74.48

40

Brazil

54.40

61

Iran

29.02

20

Italy

72.80

41

Brunei

53.84

21

Belgium

69.97

42

Poland

52.06

No

Score

No

94.00

22

Final
Rankings
Spain

Score

No

69.66

43

Final
Rankings
Philippines

Table 2: Waseda – IAC Joint E-government Ranking 2014

3

Score
51.83

Figure 1: Waseda-IAC Top 10 E-Government Ranking

III.

E-government ranking by Indicators

The Waseda – IAC E-Government Ranking contains comprehensive benchmarking
indicators in order to obtain an accurate and precise assessment of the latest
development of e-government in the major countries in ICT section. In 2014, two
indicators were added to evaluate e-government in each country. Altogether, there werenine main indicators used to carry out the 2014 survey. Table 3 below shows all 9
indicators and their 33 sub-indicators.
Indicators
1.Network Preparedness/
Infrastructure
2. Management Optimization/
Efficiency

Sub-indicators
1-1 Internet Users
1-2 Broadband Subscribers
1-3 Mobile Cellular Subscribers
1-4 PC Users
2-1 Optimization Awareness
2-2 Integrated Enterprise Architecture
2-3 Administrative and Budgetary Systems

43. Online Services/Functioning
Applications

4. National Portal/Homepage

5. Government CIO

6. e-Government Promotion

7. e-Participation/Digital Inclusion
8. Open Government
9. Cyber Security

3-1 e-Procurement
3-2 e-Tax Systems
3-3 e-Custom Systems
3-4 e-Health System
3-5 One-stop service
4-1 Navigation
4-2 Interactivity
4-3 Interface
4-4 Technical Aspects
5-1 GCIO Presence
5-2 GCIO Mandate
5-3 CIO Organizations
5-4 CIO Development Programs
6-1 Legal Mechanism
6-2 Enabling Mechanism
6-3 Support Mechanism
6-4 Assessment Mechanism
7-1 e-Information Mechanisms
7-2 Consultation
7-3 Decision-Making
8-1 Legal Framework
8-2 Society
8-3 Organization
9-1 Legal Framework
9-2 Cyber Crime Countermeasure
9-3 Internet Security Organization

Table 3: The Main Indicators and Sub-Indicators
This research not only analyzes the development of websites and ICT deployment
in governments, but also looks into real operations, such as management optimization,internal processes, online services, and new trends in e-government development andthe relationship between governments and their stakeholders.
The top thirteen e-government ranking by indicators is listed in Table 4 below:
Network
Preparedness
No Country

Management
Optimization
No Country

No

CountryNo

National
PortalCountry

1

Singapore

1

USA

1

Singapore

1

Singapore

1

Denmark

1

UK

1

Korea

1

USA

1

Norway

1

Japan

1

Estonia1

Norway1

Netherlands

1

Canada4

Finland

1

France5

Sweden1Australia

5

UK

1

Hong Kong

6

Korea

1

New Zealand

6

USA

6

Japan

6

Finland

1

Switzerland

6

Canada6

Australia

6

France1Netherlands

6

Denmark

6

Sweden6

Switzerland

1

Belgium

6

Switzerland

6

Denmark

10

Belgium

10

Singapore

6

Austria

6

Russia10

Germany

11

Denmark

11

Israel11

TaiwanOnline Services

5

10

Japan

11

Estonia

11

Portugal

12

Estonia

10

UK

11

Finland

13

France12

Switzerland

No

Country

e-Government
promotion
No Country

1Singapore

1

USA

1

UK

1

USA

1

USA

1

Sweden1Australia

1

Korea

1

Korea

3

Korea

1

Spain

1

Canada

1

Japan

4

UK

4

USA

4

UK

5

Canada5

Australia

4Singapore

4

Japan

6

UK

6

Singapore

4

Korea

4

Australia

7

New Zealand

6

Japan

4

Canada4

New Zealand8

Finland

8

Taiwan4

Sweden4Germany

8

Sweden

9

Spain

4

France4Austria

8

Thailand

10

Italy

10

Japan

4

France11

Netherlands

10

Portugal

10

Estonia

11

Estonia

12

Taiwan12

Norway10

Denmark

11

Norway13Germany

13

Belgium

10

Israel11

TaiwanGCIO

e-Participation

Open Government

No

Country

No

Country

Cyber Security
No

Country

No

Country

No

Country

1

Estonia

3

Austria

11

Finland1

New Zealand

7

Singapore

11

Australia

3

USA

8

Canada11

Denmark

3

UK

8

Japan

3

Germany

8

NorwayTable 4: Top 13 Countries (Economies) on 9 Individual Indicators
1.

Network Preparedness/Digital Infrastructure

Network preparedness is the basic infrastructural foundation for effective
e-government implementation. Different stage of infrastructure has long been available
in many countries and has become an important tool to connect citizens and enterprises
to government. In developing countries, the number of internet users, broadband
subscribers and especially mobile cellular subscribers continue to rise.
Based on the new trends in ICT and e-government development, when the platformmoves to “cloud computing” and the number of “smartphones” rises daily, mobile
broadband becomes one of the key network preparedness factors. Effective broadband
access stimulates citizens to use such services and encourages the deployment of newservices.

6Building upon the transformative nature of ICT and maintaining focus on
e-government development, all countries in the top ten of the Network Preparedness
indicator are high-income developed countries. Most of the Nordic countries appear in
the top fifteen of the overall ranking. This is evidence that Network Preparedness is avery important basic indicator for e-government usability.
Singapore is an important country with small total territory. Singapore continues torank at first place, as it did last year. This year, it shares first place with three European
countries: Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands. Korea is the second country in the
Asia-Pacific region. Singapore stands in the top of this indicator ranking. There is norepresentative of the Americas in the top ten of this indicator in 2014.
2.

Management Optimization

All governments understand that ICT can help governments to improve theirinternal processes, optimize the productivity and efficiency of activities in theirministries and departments. To improve administrative systems, government services
must be available to all stakeholders and make immediate and continuous gains. In thisindicator, both PDCA cycle and EA are extremely important for effective evaluation andproblem solving. In this ranking, management optimization refers to e-government
planning strategies with linkages at the national and local levels (e-municipality). This
encompasses the entire coverage government with well-defined targets.
The Waseda – IAC E-Government Ranking considers “Management Optimization”
as a critical business function that underpins the operational, financial, accounting andstrategic planning of business, social, health and administrative affairs within the
country.
In 2014, eight countries share the first place with the United States of America,
followed by Singapore in 10th place. Asia region had two representatives in the top tenof this indicator Japan and Singapore. There is no difference in the top ten countries’scores from last year. This proves that the leading countries continue to focus oninternal processes such as the establishment optimization awareness program byintroducing PDCA, EA and ERP systems.
In case of the United States of America which ranked at the first place inmanagement optimization, e-government objectives are focused on the high-priority
areas of improving internal operations and management. These objectives are intended
to help better execute internal administrative and support functions across different
government entities. The utilization of ICT in internal processes and government
computerization efforts in the US improves every day. The level of ICT integration in2014 is high.

7Management optimization directly supports the department’s goal management
excellence, which focuses upon transforming interior into a “highly skilled, accountable,
modern, functionally integrated, citizen centered and results-oriented” organization. US
e-government strategies at the national and local levels are very well-prepared andextend across the entire central and state government with well-defined priorities.
Moreover, national e-government strategies should clearly state the organization of
agencies that supervise, coordinate, consult, and report on e-government strategy
implementation.

Figure 2: Trend of Management Optimization Ranking 2010 – 2014
3.

Online Services/ Applications

Initial strategies for electronic service delivery are guided by the functions andareas of responsibility of government agencies and are focused on online presences with
gradual enhancement in e-services. This has shifted to user-oriented strategies in service
delivery in recent years, the most visible results are come from much more diverse,
advanced and comprehensive electronic services via one-stop service.
In this survey, online services refer to the systems of e-procurement, e-tax,
e-custom, e-health and one-stop service. The most recent trends show that somegovernments in developing countries have shifted to user-oriented strategies and havedeveloped one-stop service portals. They are also planning to gradually expand andenhance a variety of integrated service delivery.
The results of Waseda – IAC survey have Singapore, Korea, and Estonia tied forthe first place. In 4th place is Finland, followed by UK in 5th. Five countries are tiedfor 6th place: USA, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland and Austria. The ranking suggeststhat e-government applications become more common. Austria, newly added to the82014 survey, tied with these top-ten countries in this indicator and in two otherindicators, and placed within the top fifteen in total ranking.
Both Singapore and Korea are special cases. They share the first place and they are
the only representatives from Asia region. This illustrates that online services are not thestrength of both European countries and the United States of America compared to theirranks over the last several years.
In Singapore, nearly 98% of public services are available online, the majority ofthem being transactional in nature. Citizens in Singapore are able to do almost
everything online, from filing and paying their taxes, to managing their pensions andmortgages, to registering their marriages, newborns or the deaths of their loved ones.
Businesses in Singapore can bid for government contracts online, apply or renew theirlicenses or permits, and even check the file their patents, trademarks and/or IP online.
The “MyeCitizen” personalization portal brings private and public sector services andcontents together. Both citizens and businesses can also personalize their experience byselecting their areas of interest to receive relevant information. The Singapore
government has also been utilizing mobile channels to deliver services to its customers.
The interface for applications in Korea e-Government is relatively solid. Under the
implementation of “Government for Citizen (G4C)” that began in 2002, the Ministry of
Public Administration and Security currently provides various online civic services
through its portal (www.egov.go.kr), with approximately 5,000 guidance, 400 certificate
applications, and 30 online certificate issuances available. The online interface provides
more than 4,000 governments and administrative services. They are divided into 12
categories including taxes and other electronic services with 135 sub-categories in orderto help the user navigate the site easily.

Figure 3: Trend of Online Service Ranking 2010 - 20149

4.

National Portal/ Homepage

The national portal is generally the most basic point-of-access interface for citizens
and other users to find e-government services. Most of the countries surveyed here havelong-established portals and have thus achieved a certain level of technicalsophistication. The national portal is the face of the government to communicate withcitizens, businesses and provide e-services, guidance information, and other utilities.
For this indicator, five countries stood in the first place, followed by another fivecountries tied for 6th place. Throughout the survey, the final result shows the continued
dominance of the USA and Singapore, which also took first place for this indicator lastyear. Both the Singapore and USA national portals continue to lead the way in terms ofdesign, navigation, innovation, and extensive use of web 2.0 technology.
The Singapore portal is well organized, and serves as a platform to assist the public
in finding any desired information. To improve the browsing experience, the portal also
allows users to create government accounts that enable each individual user tocustomize the portal to suit his or her preferences. The portal also connects users tosocial media such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Blogging sites. There is also acustomization feature to receive update email notifications. The Singapore National
Portal uses Web 2.0 technology and integrates Social Networking Service (SNS)features as well while providing a user-friendly portal electronic services andinformation.
The USA is one of the top-ranked countries for its national portal: www.usa.gov.
This is the US Government’s web portal for citizens. It presents a wide range of
informational resources and online services from various government sources,
accessible from a single point-of-entry. It is also known as the National Portal of the
USA and it is a gateway to improve the communication experience between thegovernment and the public. Moreover, it provides information that helps the public
better understand the government’s structure. The well-organized portal serves as aplatform that assists the public to find desired information. To improve the browsing
experience for users, the portal also allows them to create government accounts thatenable each individual user to customize the portal as they desire. The website contains
accessibility features including a live chat platform available Monday - Friday: 08:00
AM - 08:00 PM every day except holidays. This provides one-stop platform for all
government information and services. It comprehensively lists all public services, forms,
tools and transactions that the government provides in a user-friendly manner.

10Figure 4: Trend of National Portal Ranking 2010 - 2014
5.

Government Chief Information Officer (GCIO)The GCIO is prioritized by many governments as one of the key factors in the
success of an e-government implementation. With this in mind, the Waseda – IAC
ranking has continued to survey a set of CIO sub-indicators since the first e-government
ranking in 2005. As awareness of the essential role of the CIO has increased, mostsurveyed countries have now established CIOs (or equivalent titles) responsible for
e-government activities. They also have programs for CIO development, bodies forsupporting CIO and a framework for CIO functions.
In 2014, the final ranking for this indicator includes three countries in Asia:
Singapore, Korea and Japan (tied at first place with the USA), followed by Canada, UK
and New Zealand at 5th, 6th and 7th while Finland, Sweden and Thailand tied for 8th. In
this indicator ranking, four countries from Asia place within the top ten: Singapore,
Korea, Japan and Thailand. It is interesting to note that so many countries in Asia haveconsidered the CIO role as a key element in promoting e-government development.
In Singapore, the GCIO is working to manage the Infocomm Development
Authority of Singapore (IDA). The IDA-GCIO provides technical advice,
master-planning and project management services. IDA-GCIO also identifies andconceptualizes e-government programs and projects, and it also drives both thedevelopment and implementation of e-government programs and projects. The GCIO
champions whole-of-government ICT initiatives to maintain the Singapore
Government's leadership position as an innovative user of Infocomm technologies inorder to delight customers and connect citizens. With the changing engagement ingovernment-citizen relationships, the Citizen Engagement Division of the GCIO
11

e-government group has facilitated the adoption of social media, Web 2.0 technologies
and mobile applications in government.
In Japan, each central ministry has a CIO who is appointed from among senior staff
within the ministry (usually the director general of administration) and an assistant CIO,
an externally-recruited expert. The Federal CIO Council composed of Ministry CIOs
has the authority to decide on many rules regarding in-house ICT installation and online
services. In 2012, the percentage of CIO appointments at the prefectural level was 90%(appointments at the local level were at 80%). The government also established a GCIO
as the head of all Ministry CIOs in November 2012.

Figure 5: Trend of Government CIO Ranking 2010 – 20146.

E-government Promotion

The e-government promotion indicator is evaluated by using a comprehensive listof parameters which judge the degree of development in each sector as well as thecurrent status of each development in e-government promotion. This ranking includes
activities aimed at supporting the implementation of e-government such as legal
frameworks and mechanisms (law, legislations, plans, policies and strategies). In otherwords, these activities are carried out by the government in order to support thedevelopment of e-services and in-house operations.
Based on Table 4 (page 14), the result of this indicator ranking shows the USA and
Sweden tied for the 1st place, followed by Korea at 3rd and the UK and Australia tiedfor 4th. Last year’s leader, Singapore, dropped a few step to tie for 5th in 2014. Japan andTaiwan tied at 6th. Almost all developing countries received a low score due to lack oflaws, legislations, strategies or policies involving e-government promotion. Trainings,
conferences, advertisements and oversight committees on e-government have yet to beenacted in many of these countries.
12

This year’s leader, the United States of America, actively promotes Internet use andother information technology in order to increase opportunities for citizen participationand interagency collaboration. Electronic government services are also provided, andthese collaborations improve the services provided to citizens by integrating related
functions and the use of internal electronic government processes. The US improved theability to achieve the mission and program performance goals of their agencies. In
general, the promotion of e-government solutions within and across various government
agencies will assure citizen-centric government information and access to services.

Figure 6: Trend of E-Government Promotion Ranking 2010 – 2014
7.

E-participation/ Digital Inclusion

The use of Web 2.0 technologies in e-government applications (otherwise known as
Government 2.0) is on the rise. E-participation is a term referring to ICT-supported
participation in governance processes. The processes are often concerned withadministration, service delivery, decision-making and policy-making.
In this indicator, the United Kingdom, Australia and Spain share the first place,followed by six countries tied in 4th: USA, Korea, Singapore, Canada, Sweden andFrance. All countries in the top ten are developed countries which illustrates that ICT
has been implemented very effectively in government management and leadership indeveloped countries. Most developing countries provide e-information services.
However, with regards to e-consultation and e-decision, there is little evidence to showthat these governments collect and evaluate the opinions of citizens in all processes.
In the United Kingdom, citizens can participate in decision-making processes bothon- and off-line via forums, polls, legislative propositions, and lobbying. Citizens canlog into the website or create blogs in the national portal to voice their opinions via
13polls and engage in e-voting. Citizens can also directly contact senior government
officials by email or by simply calling.

Figure 7: Trend of E-Participation Ranking 2011 – 20148.

Open Government Data

Providing Open Government Data is fast becoming a major political objective andcommitment in many countries. Its implicit promises to support economic growth and to
improve public services, as well as to promote government transparency andaccountability make it an attractive policy objective. While many governments arerushing to launch political initiatives and online portals, the majority have yet todemonstrate the full benefits of open government data and make the necessary
preparations to realize those benefits.
In this indicator, there are three countries tied at the first place: USA, Korea andCanada, followed by seven countries standing in 4th: UK, Japan, Australia, New Zealand,
Germany, Austria, and France. This is the first year that this indicator was selected toevaluate e-government development in one country.
The United States was one of the first countries that deploy an Open Government
strategy and wield this strategy effectively. Since the first full day in office, President
Obama has prioritized government openness and accountability and has taken
substantial steps to increase citizen participation, collaboration, and transparency ingovernment. Data.gov, the central site for US Government data, is an important elementof the Administration’s effort to open government. It launched in May 2009 withnumerous datasets. As of October 2013, the US Government had published 98,852
datasets. One of the best open government practices in the US is the Climate
Corporation, which was founded in 2006 and is growing rapidly. The Climate
Corporation provides Federal crop insurance based on acreage premiums. In December14

2013, the US Government released the Second Open Government National Action Plan,
which describes how the goals of the Open Government Partnership—transparency,
participation and collaboration—will be executed and reports on the progress of various
initiatives.
The Government of Canada first launched its Open Government strategy in March
2011, and then further enhanced its commitment by announcing its intention to join theOpen Government Partnership in September 2011. Over the past two years, Canada has
welcomed feedback from its citizens on both the development of a Digital Economy
Strategy as well as Open Government initiatives. The Digital Economy consultation
sought feedback from all Canadians on how to improve innovation and creativity, inorder to achieve the shared goal of making Canada a global leader in the digital
economy. In 2011, the Canadian government launched a consultation to explore citizens'perspectives on Open Government in order to inform the development of Canada's
Action Plan on Open Government. Canada’s Action Plan on Open Government sets out
Canada commitments to its people via the Open Government Partnership, which
Canada will achieve over a three-year period through the effective and prudent use ofresources. It is designed on top of the three streams of Open Government Strategy:
Open Information, Open Data, and Open Dialogue.

Figure 8: 2014 Open Government Data Scores of Top 10 Countries
9.

Cyber Security

The Cyber-attacks are a serious threat to e-government security in any country.
Cyber security is most simply defined as the security measures applied to computersand networks to provide the desired level of protection. The security measuresassociated with individual e-government systems are relatively similar to many
e-commerce solutions. However, the span of control of e-government and its unique
impact on its user base requires a network that is greater than the sum of each individual
15system. E-government faces the same challenges that faced e-business in the private
sector, but the stakes are often higher.
Like other electronic transactions, the rise of e-government leads to unintended
security implications and increased vulnerabilities to cyber threats. To face thesechallenges, governments around the world must develop effective cyber security
strategies. One of the crucial and growing concerns on the near-horizon for
e-government is the information security in e-government applications as well as
infrastructure.
Along with Open Government Data, Cyber Security is the newest indicator in the2014 ranking. Estonia and New Zealand shared the first place this year. The USA andthe UK tied for third despite the fact that they have excellent infrastructure and policies
in place to prevent and respond to cyber-attacks. Sharing the third place with the USA
and the UK is Germany and Austria. Austria earned an excellent position not only inthis indicator, but in the overall ranking as well. Singapore tied at 7th, followed by
Canada, Japan and Norway at 8th.
Estonia’s achievements in cyber security are due to a strong ICT partnership
between the public and private sectors. The secret to Estonian cyber security lies in theinherent safety and security built into every single Estonian e-government and ICTInfrastructure system. The secure 2048-bit encryption that powers Estonia’sElectronic-ID digital signatures and X-road-enabled systems means that personal
identity and other sensitive data in Estonia is safe. Estonian citizens and businesses canoperate with confidence, knowing that their data will be safe and their transactions are
secure. Indeed, the best kind of cyber security is one that citizens do not have to think
about it every day.

Figure 9: 2014 Cyber Security Scores of Top 10 Countries

16

IV.

E-Government Ranking by Organizations

1. Ranking of APEC Economies
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

APEC Member
Economies
Score
USA
Singapore
Korea
Japan
CanadaAustralia
New Zealand

94.00
93.77
92.39
88.00
85.30
82.37
79.04

No
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

APEC Member
Economies

Score

TaiwanThailandHong Kong
Malaysia
Indonesia
Vietnam
Russia

74.51
68.60
64.83
63.71
60.98
59.93
59.83

No
15
16
17
18
19
20

APEC Member
Economies

Score

MexicoChina
Brunei
Philippines
Chile
Peru

59.51
54.62
53.84
51.83
46.94
43.60

Table 5: E-government ranking in APEC Economies
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) consists of a group of major
economies in growing region of the world. APEC includes the three largest economies
in the world: USA, China and Japan. However, APEC includes both developed anddeveloping countries, and a major gap in economic, ICT, and e-government
development would exist.
The APEC group consists of twenty-one member Economies, and this ranking
covers twenty of them. This is the third consecutive year of monitoring and surveying
the development of e-government within the APEC group. The top five ranked APEC
Economies also place in the top seven of the overall ranking.
In 2014, the USA replaced Singapore for the top spot leaving Singapore in second
place. Korea is ranked 3rd (as it was last year), followed by Japan at 4th. The middle ofthis group registered major changes as Vietnam tied at 13th, up from 16th last year. China
dropped to 16th place from 12th last year. At the last rank, there is Peru with no change
from the previous year.

17Figure 10: Top 10 APEC Economies
2. Ranking of OECD Countries
OECD MemberOECD MemberOECD Member

No

Countries name

Score

No

Countries name

Score

No

Countries name

Score

1

USA

94.00

10

Denmark

79.06

19

Belgium

69.97

2

Korea

92.39

11

New Zealand

79.04

20

Spain

69.66

3

UK

90.40

12

Norway77.97

21

Israel

68.18

4

Japan

88.00

13

Switzerland

77.30

22

Portugal

66.84

5

Canada85.30

14Austria76.66

23

Turkey62.65

6Estonia84.41

15

Germany

75.97

24

Czech Republic

61.18

7

Finland82.69

16

Netherlands

75.80

25

Mexico59.51

8Australia

82.37

17

France74.48

26

Poland52.06

9

Sweden

81.93

18

Italy

72.80

27

Chile

46.94

Table 6: E-government ranking in OECD Countries
OECD has thirty-four member countries, most of which are developed with highper-capita incomes and high Human Development Index (HDI) scores (with the
exceptions of Turkey, the Czech Republic, and two countries from the Americas: Chileand Mexico). In this survey, the Waseda – IAC ranking covers twenty-seven OECD18

countries. Many upper class OECD members are Nordic countries which are known tohave an edge in telecommunications infrastructure and e-government development.
Most of the countries in the top ten of this group are also the top countries in theoverall world ranking, with the exception of Singapore as it is not an OECD member.
The leaders of group are the USA, Korea and UK. They tied for 1st, 2nd and 3rd placerespectively, followed by Japan at 4th and Canada at 5th. Denmark also edged into the
top ten in this group ranking. As mentioned above, Nordic countries dominate in the top
ten. Korea and Japan are two Asian countries in the top ten in for the results of mostindicators and group rankings.
Compared to the last year these countries have not changed position. Poland is a
new country in the 2014 survey but compared to other Eastern European countries,
Poland’s e-government development focused on the improvement of ICT skills in thelabor market, targeting human development, and increasing ICT manpower.

Figure 11: Top 10 OECD Countries193. Ranking of ASEAN Countries
ASEAN Member

ASEAN Member

No

Countries name

Score

No

Countries name

Score

1

Singapore

93.77

5

Vietnam

59.93

2

Thailand

68.60

6

Brunei

53.84

3

Malaysia

63.71

7

Philippines

51.83

4

Indonesia

60.98

8

Cambodia

32.45

Table 7: E-government ranking in ASEAN Countries
In this group ranking, Waseda – IAC surveyed eight of ten ASEAN countries.
E-government development in this region is in its initial stages with regards to public
administration reform, infrastructure, and broadband access. Singapore is a significant
exception, as nearly all of its government services and transactions are available online.
Singapore ranked second in the overall ranking and it is naturally the leading
ASEAN country. The remaining countries are developing countries, with Cambodia inlast place. The ranking shows Singapore in the first place with very high scorecompared to Cambodia at the bottom. Thailand follows Singapore in second place but,comparing the score between the two countries, the survey shows a significant gap
between first and second place. This is the evidence that ASEAN member nations havedeveloped unevenly and are split into three separate groups: (1) high-income anddeveloped, including only Singapore; (2) developing, including Thailand, Malaysia,
Indonesia, Vietnam, Brunei and Philippines; and (3) low-income and undeveloped,
including Cambodia.

20

Figure 12: E-Government in ASEAN Countries

V. E-Government Ranking by the Size of Population and GDP
1. Ranking in Big Population Countries (higher than 100 million)
This is the third consecutive year of monitoring and surveying based on population
size. In 2014, this group consists of countries with a population greater than 100 million.
Most countries with big population often have large area as well. Therefore, thesecountries face many unique developmental challenges in e-government, such asbuilding a nationwide broadband network, and delivering e-services to all citizens.

21

Big Population Countries
No Countries Name Score
1 USA
94.00
2 Japan
88.00
3 India61.49
4 Indonesia
60.98
5 Russia
59.83
6 Mexico
59.51
6 China
54.62
8 Brazil
54.40
9 Philippines
51.83
10 Nigeria
50.62

Table 8: E-government ranking in Big Population Countries
In this group, the United States of America is positional in the 1st place, followed by
Japan in 2nd and India in 3rd. One pronounced feature of this ranking group is that all of
the countries are developing nations except for the USA and Japan. Comparing thecountries at top and bottom demonstrate a massive gap in e-government development.
The USA is probably a special case. It has a high population and a large land area, but itis the world’s leading country in e-government development. One of the main reasons isthat the USA is home to particularly effective local governments. In the USA, theGovernment-to-Government initiative is aimed towards collaboration between different
levels of government to empower state and local governments to serve citizens.

Figure 13: Top 5 Big Population Countries in E-Government22

2. Ranking in Small Population Countries (Less than 10 million)
Small Population Countries
No Countries Name Score
1 Singapore
93.77
2 Finland
82.69
3 Sweden
81.93
4 Denmark79.06
5 Norway
77.97
6 Switzerland
77.30
7 Austria
76.66
8 Israel
68.18
9 HK SAR
64.83
10 UAE
60.84

Table 9: E-government ranking in Small Population Countries
This survey defines “Small population country” as a country with fewer than 10
million citizens. All these top ten countries are developed nations with high levels ofhuman resources. In this group, Nordic countries are major players. There are nochanges in the top four from last year: Singapore remains in the 1st place, followed by
Finland, Sweden and Denmark at 2nd, 3rd and 4th, respectively. The UAE replaced Israelat the bottom of the top ten compared to the last year.
Singapore has implemented e-government successful and effectively as detailed
above. This is an excellent case study for the best practices for other countries to learn
and apply. Singapore, so called a city-state, has few local government divisions. In orderto monitor and manage its e-government development better, the Singapore government
has chosen a centralized approach. The government also owns the entire central ICT
infrastructure, and manages all services and policies affecting citizens. Thanks to thiscentralized infrastructure, all e-services provided by the government can utilize thesame security, electronic payment, and data exchange mechanisms. Therefore, many
countries with small populations can apply this “Singapore” model to implement
e-government rapidly and effectively.

23

Figure 14: Top 10 E-Government Ranking in Small Population Countries
3. E-government ranking in Top 10 Countries with Highest GDP in World
No

Highest GDP groupCountries Name Score

1

USA

94.00

2

UK

90.40

3

Japan

88.00

4

Germany

75.97

5France

74.48

6

Italy

72.80

7

India

61.49

8

Russia

59.83

9

China

54.62

10

Brazil54.40

Table 10: E-government ranking with Highest GDP Group
Annual changes in the nominal level of output or income of an economy areaffected by a combination of forces: real growth, price inflation, and exchange rates.
This year the USA, China and Japan are the biggest economic powers in the world
based on size of GDP. In terms of e-government, the US and Japan are in first and third
place, respectively, while China ranked within the top ten at 9th of scores. Following
Japan are three European countries: Germany, France and Italy. In the bottom of top tengroup are India, Russia, China and Brazil. These BRICs nations are developing24

countries, and they are also included in the big population group. While these countries
are in the high-GDP and big populations groups, they have faced lots of e-government
implementation challenges.
The Indian government has steadily evolved from the computerization of
government departments, to initiatives that encapsulate the finer points of governance,such as citizen centricity, service orientation and transparency. Lessons from previous
e-governance initiatives have played an important role in shaping the nation’s
progressive e-governance strategy. Efforts have been made to speed up e-governanceimplementation across the various arms of the government at the federal, state, and local
levels. This approach should be guided by common national vision and strategy. It has
the potential to produce huge cost savings by sharing core and support infrastructure,enabling interoperability via common standards, and presenting a seamless view ofgovernment to citizens.
The implementation of e-government in Russia from the beginning has sufferedfrom the lack of a clear state policy on ICT. Other factors include insufficientinterrelation between e-government programs with administrative, political, social andeconomic reforms, Weak collaboration mechanisms among agencies have been one of
the main reasons for e-government issue except in regions of Moscow and St.
Petersburg that demonstrated an advanced level of ICT development.
Due to the big population and significant regional differences in this developing
country, the lack of information technology infrastructure and a standardized
educational system are still the main factors that restrict e-government development.
Brazil is one of the largest nations in the group in both population and territory.
Therefore, a solid infrastructure is required to provide the e-services to all citizens.
Currently, a major barrier to the effective use of e-services is a lack of citizen awareness.
This is also an obstacle to the accurate assessment of citizen demand. One of the mostimposing challenges is that only citizens with higher levels of education and incomes
have the access and the skills to utilize new ICT tools to access e-Government services.
Education remains a fundamental requirement in order to enable net citizenship and toallow for the advancement of e-government.

25

Figure 15: Top 10 E-Government Ranking in Highest GDP Countries

VI.

E-Government Ranking by Regions

1. Ranking in Asia-Pacific Countries
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Asia-Pacific Countries
Countries name Score
Singapore
Korea
Japan
Australia
New ZealandTaiwanThailand

93.77
92.39
88.00
82.37
79.04
74.51
68.60

No
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Asia-Pacific Countries
Countries name Score
Hong Kong
Malaysia
India
Macau
Indonesia
Vietnam
China

64.83
63.71
61.49
61.15
60.98
59.93
54.62

No
15
16
17
18
19

Asia-Pacific Countries
Countries name Score
Brunei
Philippines
PakistanFiji
Cambodia

Table 11: E-government ranking in Asia-Pacific Countries
In 2014, this ranking surveyed twenty of fifty-two countries and territories in thisregion. In this group Singapore stood in the 1st place, followed by Korea in 2nd andJapan in 3rd. These countries are in top five world leader in e-government and it is

26

53.84
51.83
45.19
40.73
32.45

naturally the leading Asia-Pacific countries. The bottom of this ranking still hosts
familiar names from the overall ranking, such as Fiji, Uzbekistan and Cambodia.
In this region, where the digital divide shows clearly with some members(Singapore, Korea and Japan) in the top ten and some members (Fiji, Uzbekistan andCambodia) in the bottom of this group. This proves that, there is uneven e-government
development and ICT in this group.
Korean government achieved an additional development in terms of e-government
participation. Korean government successfully achieved a balance of digital use
between the urban and rural areas by increasing 97% of rural communities. In
December 2012, Korea presented their innovative e-government solution“E-Government Standard Framework” known as “eGovFrame.”. By introducing
standardization and flexibility, “eGovFrame” aims to increase the efficiency of
government ICT investment and improving the quality of e-government services offeredto the citizens. With this project, Korea has emerged as one of the world’s leading
providers of e-government and m-government (standing for “mobile government”)
solutions.

Figure 16: Top 10 E-Government Ranking in Asia-Pacific Countries27

2. Ranking in Americas Countries
No
1
2
3
4

America Countries
Countries name Score
USA
CanadaMexicoBrazil

94.00
85.30
59.51
54.40

No
5
6
7
8

America Countries
Countries name Score
Chile
Argentina
Venezuela
Colombia

46.94
46.56
46.05
43.88

No
9
10

America Countries
Countries name Score
Peru
Uruguay

Table 12: E-government ranking in Americas Countries
The USA in the first place of overall world ranking is also the first place of thisgroup, followed by Canada in 2nd and Mexico in 3rd. In the bottom of this group are two
new countries, Colombia and Uruguay stood in 8th and 10th respectively.
E-government implementation is rather sufficient in Canada with most of its
services being not just informational but also transactional. With the continuation of
support from the government, Canada is likely that it will continue to be one of the top
leaders on e-government in the world. Recently on October, 2012 the City of Toronto isexpanding its digital capabilities to serve citizens via e-post, The City of Toronto’s
move to e-billing underscores the importance of both adapting to and accelerating thedigital habits of citizens in an effort to offer more digital convenience at reduced costs
and with improved efficiencies.
Mexico has continued its steady growth in Information Society and e-government
but there are some issues that Mexican government has facing is digital divide and thebig population, the Mexican government has so far done a great job in conceiving
projects that considerably expand access to disadvantaged groups through e-Mexico.
Recent state and municipal statistics have highlighted the gradual progress made in
implementing e-government in Mexico at federal and state level. In 2001, thegovernment launched an e-government initiative that prioritized providing health,education, and other government services online, as well as the development of
e-commerce. Now, compared with other Latin America, Mexico had the most advanced
e-services development with a “strong national government portal” that encouraged
online consultations between government and citizens.
The Mexican government announced in 2013 that President Enrique Pena Nieto
wishes to restructure Mexico’s telecommunication regulatory frameworks, allowing
broadband to become top priority in the government`s agenda. Mexico already reachedsome of the goals defined by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development suchas affordability, where the current cost of entry-level fixed broadband subscription is2.5% of the average Mexican monthly salary, while the target was 5%. However, thegovernment wants to deliver internet access to all its populations to enable citizens tohave full access to the e-services.

28

43.60
43.52

Figure 17: Top 10 E-Government Ranking in Americas Countries
3. Ranking in European Countries
This region has been vanguard for information technology and telecommunications
infrastructure, particularly in the Nordic countries. Europe is largely made up of
developed countries with high per-capita incomes and a wealth of human resources.
With regards to e-government development, EU countries are encouraged to deploy
advanced technologies, institute better governance and e-services while simultaneously
pursuing greater transparency, efficiency and inclusion.
Waseda – IAC covered sixteen of the twenty-eight EU member nations. All
countries in the top five are in Northern Europe, except for the UK. The leader of thisgroup is the United Kingdom, followed by Estonia, Finland, Sweden and Denmark tied
at 2nd, 3rd 4th, and 5th respectively while the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania
placed at the bottom of the ranking group.

29

EU Countries

EU Countries

EU Countries

No

Countries name

Score

No

Countries name Score

No

Countries name

Score

1

UK

90.40

7

Switzerland

77.30

13

Belgium

69.97

2

Estonia

84.41

8Austria

76.66

14

Spain

69.66

3

Finland82.69

9

Germany

75.97

15

Portugal

66.84

4

Sweden81.93

10

Netherlands

75.80

16

Czech Republic

61.18

5

Denmark

79.06

11

France74.48

18

Poland52.06

6

Norway

77.97

12

Italy

72.80

19

Romania

50.66

Table 13: E-government ranking in European Countries
The UK consistently exhibits advanced development in e-government, and thegovernment is firmly committed to delivering public services online. The UK’s
objectives are to fulfill the needs of their users and to achieve maximum economic value
for the taxpayer. Recently, the focus has shifted to enhancing productivity andeffectiveness through the use of ICT. A new strategy was set up in March 2011 to
implement this idea.
E-government in Estonia is predicated on a forward-thinking ICT vision, based on
the beliefs that the country is a constantly progressing, inclusive society, striving to raise
the living standard of every citizen, and that the wide implementation of ICT services
will improve citizens’ quality of life and actively involve them in public life. Thus, thestrategy emphasizes the development of a citizen-centric and inclusive society, aknowledge-based economy, and transparent and efficient Public Administration.
Finland has been working on e-government implementation since 1994, when astrategy for information management in government was adopted by the Finnish
Government. To date, Finland has succeeded in providing proactive public e-services
and information to its citizens. Finland continues its e-government implementation
efforts by demonstrating constant improvement of interoperability, coherent enterprisearchitecture development, and increased cooperation between state and local authorities
in relation to Information Society issues.

30

Figure 18: Top 10 E-Government Ranking in European Countries
4. Ranking in Africa, Middle East and CIS Countries
Africa, Middle East & CIS

Africa, Middle East & CIS

Africa, Middle East & CIS

No

Countries
name

Score

No

Countries name

Score

No

Countries
name

Score

1

Israel68.18

6South Africa

55.22

11

Egypt

41.37

2

Turkey62.65

7

Nigeria

50.62

12

Kenya

40.72

3

UAE

60.84

8

Kazakhstan

49.08

13

Uzbekistan

32.59

4

Russia59.83

9

Tunisia

46.51

14

Iran

29.02

5

Saudi Arabia

56.18

10

Georgia

44.15

Table 14: E-government ranking in Africa, Middle East and CIS Countries
This group includes countries from Africa, Middle East and CIS, included new
country – Kenya, this group ranking has fourteen countries. In this group, Israel tied in
the 1st place, followed by Turkey in 2nd and UAE in 3rd. The leading of Africa is South
Africa, stood in 6th followed by Nigeria in 7th, Tunisia in 9th, Egypt in 11th and Kenya in
12th. In the bottom of this group is Uzbekistan and Iran. These countries are also in thebottom of the overall ranking.

31

In recent days Israel has stepped forward in e-government services and joined the
top 20 countries according to the United Nations report. The strong effort anddedication in providing its citizens all information access and transparency and citizen
participation in government has helped Israel advance to join the top leaders in
e-government. Started e-government projects as early as 1997, now Israel is a moreadvanced country in e-government development compare to others in this group region.
In the next years, the Israel government intends to focus on personalization government
portal for Israeli citizens (my.gov.il); deployment of Smart-ID card for all citizens;developing new cross-government applications; develop infrastructure for cellular
e-government; deploying digital signature in all government forms and upgrade all
government websites with web 2.0 tools.
Although Turkey has engaged in obvious intensive e-transformation, in many cases,
this has resulted in fluctuating initiatives. From the citizen point of view, despite actions
already taken, there is still a shortage of enabling services and a lack of e-inclusion
which is a barrier to achieving an information society. However, it is observed thatnational portal functionality and increased maturity of required interface services are the
top two significant changes among other indicators within a year. In terms of public
administration, there have been many collaborative actions among ministries andinstitutions, which is an essential indicator of interoperability. However, according tovarious assessment reports; human resources management, organizational culturaldifferences and regulations for clear management remains being weak points ofTurkey’s e-government transformation. Having enterprise architecture framework; andnew channels to better communication and maintain implementation knowledge amongagencies would be remaining challenges for administration (Turkey country report2014).
E-government in Iran has been well developed with five thrusts and six programs.
The five thrusts are “(1) Increasing government efficiency and effectiveness, (2)Providing convenient access for all, (3) Improving public services, (4) using ICT and
Telecommunications to build new capabilities and capacities, and (5) Promoting social
welfare, awareness and knowledge in the society.” The six programs are (1) Central
Servers; (2) Government Data Network; (3) National Data Services; (4) Business
Systems; (5) Security Strategy; and, (6) Technology Experimentation. E-Government in
Iran aims to deliver services to three main groups: (1) citizen (G2C), (2) business (G2B)
and (3) employees (G2E).

32

Figure 19: Top 10 E-Government Ranking in Africa, Middle-East and CIS
Countries

VII. Methodology
The Waseda – IAC joint E-Government Ranking survey is a measure of evaluating
the application of ICT in administration and leadership of each government. It also
provides a uniquely perspective to assess the development of e-government from asampling of countries across the globe thereby enriching the existing body of literatureon e-government studies. The objective of the ranking is (1) to share the common
benefits to the participating countries, (2) to show the progress of e-government
development in a country, (3) to describe the trend of e-government development, and(4) to be the most cited report by researchers and scholars.
The Waseda – IAC joint E-Government Ranking survey is based on analyzing thedevelopment of mainly 9 major indicators and 33 sub-indicators in the public sector, as
33

well as the relationship between governments and their stakeholders. They include: (1)Network Preparedness; (2) Management Optimization; (3) Online Service; (4) National
Portal/ Homepage; (5) Government Chief Information Officer; (6) E-Government
Promotion; (7) E-Participation/ Digital Inclusion; (8) Open Government/ Data and (9)Cyber Security. To evaluate data, this survey is based on the following flowchart:

Start

Yes

Questionnaires

Research

Search information by 9indicators and 33 sub-indicators

No

Draft scoresb
Experts group

Audit

Tabulate for all scores

Ranking

Country Report
Figure 20: Processes Diagram
In addition to the research team of Waseda Institute of e-Government. There are 11
prominent academia from 11 world class universities in 11 countries under the umbrellaof IAC who have served as global experts group for advising and monitoring the survey.
For evaluating the framework of researches, to check and review the methodology,
indicators and targeted countries as well as monitoring 61 country reports for 2014
edition, two global Experts group meetings were organized by Waseda Institute of
E-Government and IAC in Beijing in September and in Bangkok in November 2013.
34

Also, Researchers have attended many international meetings/workshop/forum in
Helsinki Seoul, Bangkok, Beijing, Geneva, New York and Paris as well as Tokyo as
home ground in 2013/14.
Mathematically, Statistics of the Waseda – IAC E-Government Ranking is aweighted average of the nine indicators scores. The scores are based on the table below:
No
1
2

Indicators
Network
Preparedness
Management
Optimization

Raw
score

Max rawscore

Max
weighted
score

A

30

5%=W1

B

15

12%=W2

3

Online Service

C40

15%=W3

4

National Portal

D

35

8%=W4

5

Government CIO

E

25

12%=W5

6

E-Government
Promotion

F

30

10%=W6

7

E-Participation

G

20

10%=W78Open Government

H

20

10%=W89Cyber Security

I

25

10%=W9

Scoring
parameters
W1/30*100= X1
W2/15*100= X2
W3/40*100= X3
W4/35*100= X4
W5/25*100= X5
W6/30*100= X6
W7/20*100= X7
W7/20*100= X8
W7/20*100= X9Total score:

Table 15: Weighted Scores Method

VIII. Findings
The Findings throughout ten years of survey are showed as follow:
1. One-stop Service
2. E-local Government linkage with
Central Government
3. Social Media as an alternative channel
for the citizens’ opinions citizens’
opinion
4. E-government development model

5. Open Government Data
6. The role of Government CIO
7. Cyber-Security issues

35

Final
score
A*X1
B*X2
C*X3
D*X4
E*X5
F*X6
G*X7
H*X8
I*X9
∑

1. One-stop Service
During ten years of Waseda-IAC E-Government Ranking, this survey ranking
found that all countries in the top ten of overall e-government ranking have very good
integrated services to citizens and businesses, that known as one-stop service or
one-door service. In public sector, this means that the government makes all services via
one portal; in e-government one-stop service is integrating all services and making themaccessible via one gateway. Originally, one-stop service denoted a physical location
where users (i.e. citizens or organizations) could settle all of their public administration
matters in one place and, preferably, with one contact.
We cannot deny the role and the convenience of one-stop service, it can offer many
benefits to users for public services—from citizens and businesses to the public
administrators themselves—including faster, cheaper and superior services. The benefitsof one-stop government service—in the form of direct cost savings, as well as improved
perceptions of government efficiency on the part of citizens—are already being reapedby governments with these systems in place. In other words, implementation of the
one-stop service model can pay instant dividends. Applying one-stop service is a
win-win for all, delivering benefits for both customers and government (One-stop shop
plan 2013-2018, Queensland Government).
The national portals of both Singapore and US are typical for one-stop service
development. Both national portals serve as a convenient gateway for citizens to findinformation about the government activities. They present a wide range of information
resources and online services from various government sources, all accessible from asingle gateway.
United States, Switzerland, and Singapore have the system that is connecting theirgovernment information system. In recent years, Thailand and Estonia have shifted theire-government development into the next stage for achieving connected government.
Estonia has X-Road project and Thailand has Government Information Network (GIN).
These projects are aimed to strengthen and improve inter-government collaboration by
centralizing the common e-government services.
X-Road project is aimed to build Estonian National database. The project includes
the software development, hardware installation, and organizations methodology. All
ministries should connect to the central database through X-Road intranet channel.
Citizens can enjoy their current data using internet connection via web portal in many
places. This project is managed by Ministry of Transportation and Communication(Estonian Information System's Authority 2013).
GIN is initiated by Electronic Government Agency (EGA), a government agency
under supervision of Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT).
The concept of GIN is to reduce process redundancy in government agencies. In order36

to do so, EGA integrates the common services which are found in different agencies
into GIN. Therefore, government agencies are not necessary to fully develop their own
information systems. Some of the functions are centralized available through GIN(Jirawannakool 2013). Based on these practices, the common style for integrating
e-government services is the centralization network.
Inter-government collaboration should be considered as the new indicator. Somecountries have shown that integrating government information system is therequirement to create one stop service in which the processes that include one or moregovernment institution are seamless. By putting this as a new indicator, it is possible toassess the level of e-government development up to the connected stage.
Centralization is the common model in countries for integrating the government
information system: Thailand and Estonia have initiated the projects that are aimed tointegrate the government service. These projects adopt the centralization model for
integrating the government services. In the model, the common services are provided by
the GIN in Thailand and X-Road in Estonia. As for the X-Road, the database is also
centralized under the X-Road Project.
2. E-Local Government Linkage with Central Government
The relationship between federal and local governments is critical for the stability
and prosperity of any country and draws a wide concern from the political and academic
spheres. The data collaboration between central governments and local governments isthe ultimate strategy to crosscutting the time of delivering services to citizens. In
addition, persistence collaboration will strengthen the monitoring process due to crossreview from peers. Overemphasis on the centralization of authority is not good for the
fully play of enthusiasm of the local government, whereas over-devolution of powers is
not favorable for the stability and prosperity of the nation.
Based on the results of ranking throughout ten years surveyed, this research
believes that the relationship between local and central government in e-government
development in each country is becoming very important indicator. All countries in the
top ten of overall ranking have an excellent connection among its governments. They
have strong local/regional governments, for example, in Europe, the role of Digital
Cities has been a broadly recognized by e-government development paradigm.
Municipalities are often the governmental level that is the closest to citizens, while still
maintaining an adequate population base to justify large investments. The reason forconcentrating on the coordination between all levels of government is that most online
public services are managed and delivered at a local level, though central coordinationand standard-setting are crucial for an effective implementation of e-government.
The linkage between local and central government in US is the typical example forthis issue, The US e-government website gives a broader deﬁnition of37

Government-to-Government, including its beneﬁts on the national security and a moretrustworthy mean that can really help PAs to be more efficient: “Many citizen services
such as Homeland Security and veriﬁcation of vital records require collaboration
between Federal, State and Local governments. The goal of the Government toGovernment (G2G) portfolio is to forge new partnerships among levels of governments.
These partnerships will facilitate collaboration between levels of government, andempower State and Local governments to deliver citizen services more effectively”.
3. Social Media as an Alternative Channel for the Citizens’ Opinions
Many countries either developed or developing countries have enriched theirnational and local portals with the feature of social media. They have their official
account on certain social media portals such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
Singapore has its own portal www.gov.sg with the link to YouTube(www.youtube.com/govsingapore) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/govsingapore).
Thailanduse
Twitters(www.twitter.com/ThaiKhuFah)
andYouTube(www.youtube.com/channel/UCbv4vCq45XZotSoWd8u485A/videos). Other countries
have the similar initiatives. The use of social media will attract the citizens to freely
express their opinions about how their government would do.
Integrate the e-government application with social media for building the
e-community: As a part of community, e-government should use social media as the
additional channel for obtaining citizens opinion and to inform the citizens about
government activities. However, due to the security and privacy issues, it is suggested
that the use of social media should be limited to non-financial transaction. It is not agood practice to use social media for delivering the services.
4. E-government Development Model
From the experiences analysis on the e-government development in many countries
for ten years, there are patterns of how the countries develop their e-government for
improving the public services. There are two priorities in country for developing
e-government. The first is the network infrastructure as the foundation for delivering thegovernment services to the public using ICT. The second is the improvement ofgovernment business process as the foundation of government service quality.
Some countries have prioritized the development of network infrastructure toincrease the internet penetration and to provide the public with the access to government
information securely using internet. In the first 3 years of developing this ranking, theconcern by most countries is the digital divide. Most countries have focused on any
initiatives to bridge the gap between the people who can take the benefit of internet andthose who cannot. Country such as Singapore, Korea, Estonia, Hong Kong and38

Netherlands with relatively small population and geographically not-scattered area tend
to be successful for doing so.
In contrast, some developing countries with high population and vast area such as
India, Indonesia, and China have difficulties to increase their internet penetration.
However, to improve the public service, those countries have emphasized on improving
government business process while gradually increase the internet penetration.
The survey in 2014, these 9 indicators can be categorized into two dimension;
Network Infrastructure and Public Service. The categorization is based oncommonalities in various definition of e-government which are the use of ICT ingovernment and the public service of government. Network Infrastructure is for
Network Preparedness and Cyber Security while Public Service is for other sevenindicators.
The following figure show the country’s positioning among them. The graph isdeveloped by accumulating the score of all indicators into respective dimension andsetting these two dimensions as the XY-Axis. By putting a vertical and horizontal lineon the middle of XY Axis, the countries can be clustered into four quadrants.

Figure 21: E-Government Development Matrix
Quadrant I shows the countries with low internet penetration and lack of
e-government application for public service. Quadrant II shows the countries that focus
on improving their public service using e-government applications despite their lack of
network infrastructure. In contrast, quadrant III shows the countries that focus on
39

increasing the internet penetration and strengthening the network infrastructure. These
countries were found lack of public service but strong in internet accessibility during thesurvey. Quadrant IV is a cluster for countries that reaches the high network
infrastructure and improves public service through e-government applications.
Using this matrix, the countries in quadrant I can choose the appropriate priority on
their e-government development process, as they will proceed to either quadrant II or
quadrant III.
Prioritization on e-government development process: No matter a country is eithera developed or developing country, the prioritization on e-government development
process is a mandatory task. There are only two domains for a country that should focus
on, i.e., Improving Network Infrastructure and Public service. E-Government
Development Matrix should be used by countries for helping them to improve theire-government development. The matrix provides them with the insight of the path togradually move to quadrant IV. For instance, countries in quadrant I can choose either
emphasizing the network infrastructure or public service. As for countries in quadrant II,
they can shift the priority to strengthen the network infrastructure. The matrix is also
useful for maintaining the quality of the ranking and continuous improvement of
e-government.
5. Open Government Data
Since US President Obama signed the Memorandum on Transparency and Open
Government and the launching of the first open data portal (data.gov) in 2009, the open
government agenda has gained momentum over the past years as a famous trend in
e-government progress. It is now widely acknowledged that there are an increasing
number of countries launching similar open data initiatives. See more lists about Open
Government Data Portal on Appendix 3.
During one year of research, this research found that most of Open Government
Data (OGD) portal use only the native language. Some portal has added the searchengine and the dataset categorizations. For the dataset, there are commonalities among
others in term of data format. Most of them use a downloadable well-known file format,
i.e., pdf, xls, csv, and xml. Some governments provide the forum to drive citizen to
request new OGD format type.
The top ranking countries on this indicator have provided the citizens with anapplication programming interface (API) that could help developers and researchers tocreate innovative citizen-centric applications. There are a number of small-scaleutilization cases and application for smartphone and tablet.
For International Corporation, Open Government Partnership (OGP) was launchedin 2011 to provide an international platform for domestic reformers commitment to40

make their governments more open, accountable, and responsive to citizens. As per
2013, there are 63 participating countries in OGP. One of the initiatives of OGP is the
G8 Open Data Charter. It was signed on June 2013 at UK as a set of principles andfoundations for access, release, and re-use of G8 government data.
6. The Role of Government CIO
During the period from 2005 – 2014, it is not difficult to recognize that top 10
countries in the total ranking table have high score in the Government CIO indicator,
due to the fact that this indicator is one of the most important factor in the ranking
system. USA, Singapore, Canada and Korea are those nations who constantly persist in
the top 3 standing of CIO through 10-year period. This is not surprise when obvious
evidences have been found about the existence of legislations, regulations or policies
which were created in order to explicitly mandate and identify the role of government
CIO as well as the utilization of CIO training programs in those countries. The CIO
Council of the United State has released the Clinger-Cohen competencies from 2004
and continuously updated which describes various qualifications of a CIO. This set ofcompetencies becomes a standard for CIO selection in other countries. In addition, thepresence of chief information officer in different levels of government, from national tolocal government is another crucial factor in e-government development of countries inthe top 10. For those countries with high level of decentralization (USA, Australia etc.),
the role of state or regional CIOs is emphasized with more duties are given fromstrategy planning, projects management to administrative reform.
The aforementioned period also witnessed the cognitive shifting in the role ofgovernment CIOs. The chief information officer’s responsibilities are no longer limited
around technical aspects but extended to handle more nontechnical tasks such as policy
planning, budget management, and IT investment in order to “achieve a balance
between the business strategy, organizational reform, and management reform”. With
the purpose of obtaining a consistent ICT policy, many countries have their CIO offices
associated with finance department such as in Australia and UK or improve the power
for the CIO Council (Japan).
7. Cyber-Security Issues
The 2014 is the first year cyber-security becomes one of the core indicators toevaluate e-government development. The emerging trends in IT and security arereflected in the ranking system since top 10 countries in cyber-security have anadequate legislation framework, effective cyber-crime countermeasure solutions andpowerful security organizations. Many countries in the middle or bottom of the ranking
table have seen implemented online service system but still lack of fundamental security
protocol (https, two-way authentication) and this could lead to the low level of trust in
using online service of citizen or business.
41Governments in the world are investing their budget in strengthening the cybersecurity defense system against the increasing of security issues as cyber-crimes,
cyber-attacks, copyright violation, and privacy penetration. The solutions include
enhancing the legal framework (personal information protection, and electronictransaction), building national strategy on cyber security, and improving security
awareness of government, business and citizen. The top missions of national security
agencies are not only identifying top cyber threats and trends and categorizing thosethreats into different warning levels but also proposing a standard procedure to
response.
The inter-cooperation between security organizations in different countries is
considering an effective way in digital defending. The European Union Agency for
Network and Information Security (ENISA) is an example of a cross-border center of
network and information security expertise, which promulgating common security as
well as supporting the collaboration in government policy and facilitating preparedness
and knowledge sharing between EU member states.
Developing a well-suited e-government program, in order to obtain the best resultin e-government development, each country should identify different success factors aswell as the barrier of e-government adoption process. The factors may come fromdifferent domains such as technological (ICT infrastructure), organizational (effective
management, leadership, and agencies linkage) or environmental (regulation framework,
political support, and national culture). By identifying the critical elements that fit into
each country scenario would help policy makers making reasonable and more effective
decisions. Furthermore, e-government development is a long term process. It therefore
requires a well-organized strategy involving in different stages with well-defined targets
for each stage. The cooperation between agencies for a common purpose is alsoessential for an effective, high return value e-government project.

IX. New Trends in E-Government Development 2014: 9
Global Highlights
There are ten global highlights as new trends in e-government development as follows:
1. Cloud Computing

6. Digital Inclusion in Aging Society

2. Social Media

7. Cyber Security

3. Open Government Data

8. One-stop service and Interoperability

4. Big Data

9. E-local Government and Smart Cities

5. Business Continuity Planning (BCP) in
Disaster Management421. Cloud Computing
The major role of cloud computing in the Information Age cannot be denied.
Recently, the critical role of cloud computing has been discussed in many conferences,
journals, and articles (both academic and non-academic). Cloud computing has many
advantages, including cost efficiency, scalability, and increased availability, which makecloud business appealing in many sectors. Due to the budget constraints of many
governments, the particular advantages of cloud computing also appeal to the public
sector. In 2010, recognizing the importance of cloud computing and its benefits to the
public sector, the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) put
cloud computing on its current and emerging research trends list and the European
Commission explicitly referred to cloud computing in its Digital Agenda for 2020.
Singapore’s Government Cloud, or G-Cloud, is a prime example of thedevelopment of cloud computing in the public sector. The G-Cloud truly represents thenext generation of online infrastructure. It leverages the many benefits of cloudcomputing to provide resilient computing resources to meet security and governancerequirements on a whole-of-government basis. Agencies can currently subscribe to a fullrange of infrastructure-as-a-service options for hosting government websites ande-services (Singapore national portal).
According to EUPractice.eu, a local government in Denmark began discussions on
using cloud computing in the public sector as early as 2009. According to KPMG,
Denmark is one of the leading countries in public-sector adoption of cloud computing.
In 2011, for example, a Danish municipality announced plans to use Google Apps
services such as Google Calendar and Gmail in their school systems. In addition, aDanish procurement organization in a Danish municipality transferred procurement
services into the cloud in 2011.
France is currently one of several countries in favor of the development andinstallation of a nation-wide cloud for governments, a so-called G-Cloud (Governmental
Cloud). France began development of its G-Cloud, “Andromeda,” in 2011. Thisparticular G-Cloud serves as an IA platform for governments. The main aims fordeveloping a G-Cloud in France are data protection and legislative issues.
In Germany, according to the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology(BMWi), cloud computing is one of the main pillars of the German Federal
Government’s ICT strategy. This strategy was created by the Federal Ministry of
Economics and Technology in 2010 and sets the course for the digital future ofGermany through 2015. The objective is to facilitate and foster the development andinstallation of cloud computing services. In particular, it encourages both small- andmedium-sized enterprises and the public sector to take advantage of cloud computing as
rapidly as possible (Digital Germany 2015).
43

In 2011, the United Kingdom Government published an ICT strategy which
prominently featured cloud computing. This strategy proposed the implementation andinstallation of a G-Cloud in the UK. The main objectives of this G-Cloud are reducing
ICT costs for governments, optimizing the use of remote data center infrastructure, andincreasing public sector agility (ICT Strategy 2013).
The next trend in cloud computing will be its convergence with mobile technology.
They are converging to create a new platform—one that has the potential to provide
unlimited computing resources. Mobile devices are constrained by their memory,
processing power, and battery life. But combined with cloud computing, data processing
and storage can occur remotely from mobile devices. What IDC calls the "Third
Platform" will allow for better synchronization of data, improved reliability andscalability, increased ease of integration, anytime-anywhere access to businessapplications and collaborative services, rich user experiences, and an explosion of newservices (IEEE, 2014).
2. Social Media
Recently, social media has become a platform that is easily accessible to anyone
with an Internet connection and has become a favorite communication channel for many
people. It also has a significant impact on the way governments are doing businessand how they perform. For transparency reasons, governments need to be moreinteractive and reach citizens where they are and where they feel most comfortable.
Also, social media represents a strategic opportunity that should be cautiously managed
to better engage individuals, businesses and public organizations.
The current trend in leading governments is integrating social media with
e-government services. Government can use social media to connect with citizens orbusinesses to exchange information. Social media has substantially changed the waythat organizations, communities, and individuals communicate (Trisa D.B, 2012). Social
media provides a powerful platform to help governments communicate directly withconstituents and increase their Web presence.
Use of social media in government agencies has facilitated direct interaction
between citizens and administrations. The transformation of government policy andbehavior is important in creating a proper information sharing hub. In the United Statesof America, the government has to plan strategic guidelines for applying social media in
the public sector. The Federal Government has become more and more involved withthe use of social media. Currently the US Government is using three social networks,
Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. There are currently over 468,000 people who have
liked and followed the US Government’s Facebook page (US National portal). This
enables the government to disseminate a large amount of information directly to citizens.

44

Useful information such as the location of Embassies or important events is one way thegovernment is informing people via social media.
3. Open Government Data
Providing open government data is fast becoming a major political objective andcommitment in many countries. Its implicit promise to support economic growth and to
improve public services, as well as to promote government transparency andaccountability make it an attractive policy objective. While many governments arerushing to launch political initiatives and online portals, the majority have yet todemonstrate the full benefits of open government data, let alone make the necessary
preparations to realize those benefits (OECD Open Government Data).
The United States was one of the earliest countries to deploy an Open Government
strategy and to wield this strategy effectively. President Obama has prioritized
government openness and accountability and has taken substantial steps to increase
citizen participation, collaboration, and transparency in government (Nick and Gayle).
Data.gov, the central site for US Government data, is an important element of the
Administration’s overall effort to open government. It launched in May 2009 withnumerous datasets, and as of October 2013, the US Government had published 98,852
datasets. One of the best open government practices in the US is the Climate
Corporation, which was founded in 2006 and is growing rapidly. The Climate
Corporation provides Federal crop insurance based on acreage premiums. In December
2013, the US Government released the Second Open Government National Action Plan,
which describes how the goals of the Open Government Partnership—transparency,
participation and collaboration—will be executed and reports on the statuses of various
initiatives.
In the United Kingdom, the government describes itself as “the most open andtransparent government in the world.” Open Government establishes a platform forindependent and collaborative action involving citizens, civil society, private companies
and public servants (UK National Action Plan 2013 to 2015). Transparency,
participation and accountability provide the essential foundation for economic, socialand political progress by increasing the openness of institutions and public processes
while maintaining and respecting the privacy of individuals. The UK is leading theworld on open data. Their web portal—data.gov.uk—is already the most comprehensive
data resource in the world with more than 10,300 data files. The government is working
closely with businesses and charities to identify new public data to release. From appsthat tell passengers when the next bus is due, to a small analytics business that has
identified hundreds of millions of pounds of potential savings in the health system,transparency is helping to improve people’s lives and boost economic growth.

45

In Japan, the Japanese Government has three open data sites: a government portalsite (data.go.jp); METI’s portal site (Open Data METI); and Shizuoka’s prefectural
portal site (Open Data Catalog Shizuoka). The best open data site in Japan is the booksearch service called “Calil.” Using this service, anyone can search through the books of
5,200 libraries in Japan and check the availability of their preferred books.
4. Big Data
The evolving ICT used in e-government services includes many components suchas network infrastructure, hardware, software and platforms. Government work
processes are now integrated into end-to-end public access and social administration
services, so e-government models must focus on the concept of Big Data. For example,
the Obama Administration recently unveiled its Big Data Research and Development
Initiative to “improve [American] capability to extract knowledge and insights fromlarge and complex collections of digital data; harness these technologies to accelerate
the pace of discovery in science and engineering; strengthen national security andtransform teaching and learning.” (Huawei, 2013) The Administration also announced$200 million in new Big Data-related R&D investments.
Big Data processing enables governments to make choices based on large-scalequantitative analysis. Goals include achieving greater policy transparency, andidentifying optimal social and economic value. More broadly, data mining aids
decision-making via the discovery of patterns in large data sets based on facts andobservations. Data mining tools can process structured numeric data in traditional
databases or extract relevance from semi-structured and unstructured data, such as text,
graphics, images, and web data. Leveraging Big Data can enable breakthroughs in
e-government management, where, like many industries, governments can use Big Data
to identify opportunities for innovation, and to act on the best information available.
In the United States, a new joint venture supported by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will advance the corescientific and technological means of managing, analyzing, visualizing, and extracting
useful information from large and diverse data sets. This will accelerate scientificdiscovery and lead to new fields of inquiry that would otherwise not be possible. NIH isparticularly interested in imaging, molecular, cellular, electrophysiological, chemical,
behavioral, epidemiological, clinical, and other data sets related to health and disease.
In Europe, the European Commission developed an open data portal site for all
types of information held by the Commission and other EU institutions and bodies(Digital Agenda for Europe 2020). The Open Data Portal—hosting data from theCommission and from the European Environment Agency—went live in December
2012. Data.gov.eu is a proposed EU portal that would aggregate various national efforts.
Data from across the EU would be catalogued and searchable using standard formats. It
46

would also host applications that could organize and arrange the data for practical
purposes. It would connect communities of developers and users, organizations andindividuals, and private and public bodies from across the EU as they employ andutilize the data as they see fit.
5. Business Continuity Planning (BCP) in Disaster Management
As e-government information systems develop, information security has become acritical issue. Information security is the issue that most consistently restricts the smooth
implementation of e-government. The goal of e-government security is to protect
e-government information resources from threats, and to minimize the risk that ownersof information assets face. BCP for e-government seeks to develop comprehensive
business continuity planning in advance, then to prevent and/or efficiently manage theconsequences of various disasters. BCP must predict the potential risks, establish
adequate plans and preparations, and implement procedures for resuming businessfollowing a disaster. These measures will ensure the continuity of e-government
functions by managing risks and establishing best practices of risk management,
preparedness, prioritization, and disaster response. In short, BCP is a process of
preparation which estimates the risk of unplanned events and ensures that core business
functions proceed without interruption even when disaster strikes.
As a central element of information system security, BCP in e-government must
concern itself with risk management. E-government based on information security risk
management must identify, control, reduce and eliminate potential information systemsecurity risks in a cost-efficient manner. Information security risk assessments must
consider the probability of various security incidents, as well as the resilience of thesystem to minimize the consequences of each incident.
BCP plays an important role not only in the public sector but also in the private andbusiness sectors. In developing countries, where many e-government projects havefailed, both risk assessment and mitigation are essential. Risk assessment can be carriedout by analyzing the gap between current reality and the design assumptions of an
e-government project. For example, in the aftermath of terrorist incidents and recent
natural disasters such as the March 11th, 2011 earthquake in Japan, or the October 2011
floods in Bangkok, both governments and businesses have become acutely aware of theneed for enhanced disaster preparedness. Companies are striving to meet the demand forcontinuous, uninterrupted services. With the growth of e-commerce, e-government andother factors, system availability expectations are driven toward 24/7/365 coverage. To
enhance the security and continuity of all online services and databases, it is necessary
to make BCP disaster management a top priority.
Risk assessment is the basis of risk management, and it entails a full,comprehensive assessment of the assets, threats, vulnerabilities and existing security
47

measures in a government information system. Risk management consists of three parts:
risk assessment, risk minimization, and risk-based decision-making.
In the private sector, business recovery involves restoring the normal operational
flow, which is extremely time-sensitive. Recovery may occur immediately after adisruption, or may follow an acceptably brief period to backup data. Data must be
assessed frequently for accuracy and availability. These proactive checks are essential
because they become impossible to perform in the midst of an emergency.
6. Digital Inclusion in an Aging Society
The e-government concept of Digital Inclusion refers to both inclusive ICT and theuse of ICT to achieve wider inclusion objectives. It focuses on the participation of all
individuals and communities in all aspects of the information society.
One of the problems that many countries are facing today is an aging
population—in other words, an increase in the proportion of older people (Japan is atypical example). This trend necessitates increased funding for social welfare programs
and support for government services. ICT can be applied to alleviate many of the issues
caused by a rapidly aging population, even in a global context. For instance, ICT canhelp to provide new and flexible learning opportunities, which connect senior citizens
with each other and offer a link to younger generations.
E-government can make considerable contributions to the independent lifestyle ofthe elderly. The physical presence and wait-times at government institutions is no longer
necessary, while opportunities for active participation in politics and other civic
activities are now easily accessible. Exploration of these opportunities for the elderly inthe public sphere receives a lot of attention in Japan. Both national and local
governments seek measures to transform e-government to meet the specific needs of a
growing number of seniors who are willing and economically able to exercise their
independence. The transition to an inclusive e-government that serves older generations
requires certain basic preconditions to be met.
First, age is a significant demographic variable that negatively correlates with theusage of online telecommunication tools. In other words, older people are less likely to
be familiar with computers and the Internet, and are significantly more comfortableusing traditional methods of communication with the government. Moreover,applications and services are often designed for a “standard” user and do not sufficiently
consider the particular requirements of senior citizens.
Throughout the ten years of Waseda - IAC E-Government Ranking surveys, wehave consistently found that ICT applications for aging populations are increasing inimportance. Governments must take every opportunity to apply ICT to establish a moredigitally inclusive society.
48

7. Cyber Security
E-government operations are faced with ever-increasing citizen demand for more
timely and cost-effective services. The security requirements associated with thesesystems are similar to many e-commerce solutions—in other words, e-government faces
the same challenges that faced e-business. Many national governments are embracing
the digital revolution to enhance electronic services for their citizens, but the prevalenceof online transactions also means that governments have to pay more attention to
information security, data protection, and cyber-attack prevention. As the number of
e-government services increases, a higher level of e-government security is required.
E-government security is one of the crucial factors for achieving an advanced
e-government infrastructure.
Cyber-attacks are a serious threat to e-government security in any country. Cyber
security is most simply defined as the security measures applied to computers to provide
the desired level of protection. The security measures associated with individual
e-government systems are similar to many e-commerce solutions. However, the span ofcontrol of e-government and its unique impact on its user base makes for a network thatis greater than the sum of each individual system. E-government faces the samechallenges that faced e-business in the private sector, but the stakes are often higher.
Like other electronic transactions, the rise of e-government leads to unintended
security implications and increased vulnerabilities to cyber threats. To face thesechallenges, governments around the world must develop effective cyber security
strategies. One of the crucial and growing concerns on the near-horizon for
e-government is information security in e-government applications and infrastructure.
To fulfill its commitment to cyber security, the Japanese Government establishedthe National Information Security Center (NISC) in April 2005 within the Cabinet
Secretariat as the command post for information security policy. The NISC is
responsible for planning, proposing, and coordinating basic information security
measures and strategies for the public and private sectors. It also identifies core andcross-cutting concerns, and promotes best information security practices throughout
Japan. In May of the same year, the Information Security Policy Council wasestablished within the Strategic Headquarters for the Promotion of an Advanced
Information and Telecommunications Network Society (IT Strategic Headquarters) for
centralized/cross-cutting promotion of information security measures in both the public
and private sectors. It also works to enhance information security and strengthen
resistance to cyber-attacks among government institutions and critical ICT infrastructure
providers. In the First National Strategy, information security was identified as anational goal and a framework was established for various stakeholders, including
government institutions, critical infrastructure providers and business operators. The
Second National Strategy set clear objectives in security and crisis management, and49

sought to achieve world-standard ICT capabilities. Specific focuses of these initiatives
included preparedness for all cyber threats, and adjustment to environmental changes.
In Korea, the “National Cyber Security Master Plan” was established in August of
2011 in order to protect cyberspace, to clarify the roles of relevant government
institutions, and to prepare a system for handling cyber threats at a national level.
These threats are becoming ever more intelligent and advanced, and present both
economic and national security risks.
In the United States, cyber-security has long been considered one of the mostserious economic and national security issues facing the country. Cyber-security threats
are treated as the most serious challenges to national security, public safety andeconomic development in the country's “National Security Strategy.” To this end, thecountry has established the “International Strategy for Cyberspace,” which presents
guidelines for international development of cyberspace that supports international trade,
strengthens international security, and promotes freedom of expression and innovation.
The United Kingdom’s 2010 National Security Strategy strongly promoted
cyber-sector growth, while recognizing its unique vulnerabilities (The Strategic Defence
and Security Review, 2010). As critical data and systems become more accessible incyberspace, threat detection and defense become more difficult. Based on this fact,cyber-attacks are recognized as a threat of the highest priority. In 2011, in order tocounter this threat, the country established "The UK Cyber Security Strategy.” The
Strategy outlines the necessity of a vibrant, resilient and secure cyberspace in order toestablish more prosperous and secure future, while also maintaining the core values ofliberty, fairness, transparency and the rule of law.
In Germany, “The Cyber Security Strategy for Germany” was established in
February of 2011 to promote economic and social prosperity by enhancing the integrity,
confidentiality, and availability of cyber services. Maintaining security in cyberspace isamong the most critical issues in the 21st century, both domestically and internationally.
8. One-Stop Service and Interoperability
A new trend in e-government is integrating all services and making them accessible
via one gateway (one-door entry). In the public sector, this means that the government
makes all services accessible to all citizens and businesses via one portal. This is often
called one-stop government service, or simply one-stop service. One-stop service is oneof the most promising concepts of service delivery in public administration. Its
implementation is included in the e-government strategies most countries. Originally,
one-stop service denoted a physical location where users (i.e. citizens or organizations)
could settle all of their public administration matters in one place and, preferably, with
one contact. Whether physical or virtual, one-stop government consists of the full
integration of public services from a user’s vantage point. Virtually, this integration50

occurs mostly in the front-end interface where public services are provided according tousers’ needs and preferences, while back-end processes are by-and-large left unchanged.
Applying one-stop service can offer many benefits to users of public
services—fromcitizens
tobusinessestothepublicadministratorsthemselves—including faster, cheaper and superior services. However, implementationof one-stop government service in its ‘true’ sense requires interoperability andintegration between back-end systems and the front-office side, as well as the full
integration of service delivery processes.
A current trend in innovative development is one-stop government service. It refers
to a single point of access to electronic services and information offered by different
public authorities. Online one-stop government service requires that all publicauthorities are interconnected and that the customer (citizen, private enterprise or otherpublic administration) (Francesco Amoretti) is able to access public services via a single
gateway even if these services are provided by different public authorities or private
service providers. A key feature of presenting information and services within aone-stop government system is that the customer does not need specific knowledge ofthe bureaucratic structure of the public sector. The benefits of one-stop government
service—in the form of direct cost savings, as well as improved perceptions ofgovernment efficiency on the part of citizens—are already being reaped by governmentswith these systems in place. In other words, implementation of the one-stop service
model can pay instant dividends.
In Netherlands, the federal government has actively supported this model since
1992, when it began funding for four pilot government service centers. In 1996, the‘Overheidsloket 2000’ (Public Counter 2000) program was launched. This initiative’s
goal was to structure the delivery of public services according to demand patterns, and it
has funded projects in the areas of citizen registration, welfare, and construction.
In Singapore, the www.gov.sg Portal is the official electronic communication
platform of the Singapore government. It is a one-stop government service center where
the Singapore government offers all services to citizens, to businesses, to public
administrators, and to non-residents. The www.gov.sg portal serves as a convenient
gateway for citizens to find information about the Singapore government, such as news
and speeches, informational resources, e-services, events calendars and contact
information for public agencies. Singapore’s well-organized portal serves as a platformthat assists the public in finding desired information. To improve users’ browsing
experiences, the portal also allows them to create government accounts that allow eachindividual user to customize the portal according to his or her preference. The portal
also connects users with social media such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and blogging
sites, and there is even a customizable feature to receive update notifications via email.
The Singapore National Portal uses Web 2.0 technology and combines SNS features51

with a user-friendly design. The portal contains many convenient electronic services andvarious services for finding information (http://www.ecitizen.gov.sg).
USA.gov is the United States Government’s one-stop service for citizens. It
presents a wide range of information resources and online services from various
government sources, all accessible from a single gateway. Also known as the US
Government’s Official Web Portal, USA.gov is a comprehensive tool aimed at
improving communication between the government and the public. Moreover, it
provides information that helps the public to better understand the government’s
structure. The well-organized portal serves as a platform that assists the public to findwhatever information they desire. To improve users’ browsing experiences, the portal
also allows them to create government accounts and to customize the portal as they see
fit. The US is one of the top-ranked countries for establishing a national web portal. The
United States’ web portal also uses Web 2.0 technology and combines SNS featureswith a user-friendly design. It puts many essential government services at users’
fingertips and offers access to a wide variety of information (http://www.usa.gov).
9. E-Local Government and Smart Cities
The relationship between federal and local governments is critical for the stability
and prosperity of any country, and draws wide concern from the political and academic
spheres. Overemphasis on a centralized authority can be corrosive to effective
cooperation with local municipalities, whereas excessive decentralization of powers cannegatively affect the stability and prosperity of a nation.
Wherever e-government is implemented, the relationship between local and central
governments plays an important role in the quality of service provided to citizens,business and organizations. As the local delivery of services becomes an ever-greater
concern of central governments, the manner in which departments and local
governments communicate with one another becomes all the more important. Bothcommunication and engagement between central and local governments are inherently
challenging, especially when differences in priorities and ways of doing business create
tension. Communication needs to be clear, timely and sensitive to these culturaldifferences. Moreover, consultations need to be conducted in a way that shows that thecentral government genuinely desires local input, with enough time for the results to bemeaningful, and for local government views to be reflected in the final projects that go
forward.
Considering the European context, the three main levels of jurisdiction that should
be considered when analyzing e-government are the central, intermediate (or regional),
and local levels. In Europe, the role of Digital Cities has been a broadly recognized
e-government development paradigm (SDA Bocconi, 2004). Municipalities are often
the governmental level that is closest to citizens, while still maintaining an adequate52population base to justify large investments. The reason for concentrating on thecoordination between all levels of government is that most online public services aremanaged and delivered at a local level, though central coordination and standard-setting
are crucial for an effective implementation of e-government. Recently, Smart Cities
have become increasingly popular because they represent a comprehensive convergenceof technological advances and sustainable development.
The relationship between central and local governments in the UK has always beenstrained. The UK is one of the most centralized democracies in Europe, and as they
have no written constitutions, local governments have no explicit right to exist or toself-govern. Every decision is subject to the approval of ministers (Gerald
Vermon-Jackson, 2013). The Cabinet Office, which heads efforts for government reform
and modernization, is responsible for e-Transformation in Government and the overall
e-government strategy. Its Strategy Unit (formerly the Performance and Innovation
Unit) has issued several reports on e-government. The Strategy Unit (SU) was created inJune 2002 as the result of a merger between the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU),
the Prime Minister's Forward Strategy Unit (PMFSU) and part of the Centre forManagement and Policy Studies (CMPS). The Office of the E-Envoy (OeE) is the bodythat directly coordinates e-government projects and policies. The OeE is part of the
Cabinet Office and provides political leadership throughout the government to drive thegovernment's objectives on e-government, e-commerce and the Information Society
forward.
The OeE is also directly in charge of the development, implementation andoperation of the main components of the national e-government infrastructure (such as
the Ukonline.gov.uk citizen portal and the Government Gateway). All central
government departments have been requested to develop and implement a web presence.
The Local Government Association (LGA) represents all local authorities in Englandand Wales—a total of just under 500 authorities. Its aim is to put local councils at theheart of the effort to improve public services and to work with the federal government
to ensure that the policy, legislative and financial context in which they operate supportsthat objective. The LGA supports local authority’s efforts to meet the challenges ofdelivering responsive services to their communities, and places significant emphasis on
the role that e-government can play in achieving this vision. In short, the UK’s national
strategy provides a clear framework and plan of action which local governments can use
to orientate their priorities. Moreover, central technical and strategic support is provided
in accordance with the national strategy. In this regard, the new concept of Smart Cities
will apply state-of-the-art digital innovations to provide local communities with brandnew tools and possibilities (https://www.wrexham.gov.uk).

53

X. Contributors List (circles ● indicate leader)
1. List of Global Experts Group

Prof. Dr. Toshio Obi, Director, Institute of e-Government, Waseda University, Japan,
President, International Academy of CIO, Director APEC e-Gov Research Center-

Prof. Dr. J.P Auffret, Chair, MOT/CIO Program of George Mason University, USA-

Prof. Dr. Lim Swee Cheang, Director, Institute of Systems Science, National
University of Singapore-

Prof. Dr. Reima Soumi, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Finland-

Prof. Dr. Luca Buccoliero, Marketing Department Bocconi University, Italy-

Dr. Elsa Estevez, Senior researcher, United National University, Macao-

Prof. Dr. Suhono Harso Supangkat, Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia-

Prof. Dr. Francisco Magno, Director, Institute of Governance De La Salle
University, Philippines-

Prof. Dr. Fang Chun Yang, Dean, Academy of e-Government, Peking University,
China

-

Associate Prof. Dr. Jirapon Sunkpon, Thammasat University, Thailand-

Prof. Dr. Alexander Ryzhov, School of
National Economy, Russia

IT management, Federal Academy of

2. List of Professor and Experts at Institute of E-Government, Waseda University-

Prof. Dr. Takashi Kobayashi, Tokai
University-

Prof. Dr. Yoshio Tozawa, University ofIndustrial and Science

Prof. Dr. Kiyoshi Nakamura-

Mr. Iwata, Manager NTT Data-

Prof. Kiyohide Higuchi-

LLC Naoko Mizukoshi, Lawyer-

Prof. Dr.
UniversityProf. Dr. Naoko Iwasaki-

Prof. Dr. Tatsuyuki Negoro-

HirokoKudo,

Chuo -Mr. Akira Watari, ex-Director of IT,
Toyota Motors

3. List of Researcher and Research Assistants at Institute of E-Government,
Waseda University


Mr. Nguyen Manh Hien-

Ms. Chen Naiwei-

Mr. Bandaxay Lovanxay-

Ms. Gu Siyu-

Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Anh-

Mr. Akinori Miyata

54

-Mr. Pingky Dezar Zulkarnain-

Mr. Burhan Yasin Seid-

55

Mr. Suezaki Hiroki

APPENDIX 1
Definition of Indicators and Sub-Indicators

1. Network Preparedness/Infrastructure
Network preparedness is the basic infrastructural foundation for an effective
e-Government implementation. Infrastructure for network has long been available inmany countries and become an important tool to connect the citizens and enterprises togovernments. It is made of four sub-indicators as follows:
1.1 Internet Users
The Internet Users Sub-Indicator shows the number of those who use Internet fromany location by any devices. The number depicts not only the internet subscriber but
also those who access the Internet via internet café or kiosk and other public places.
This parameter basically covers all means of connection types. The figure will
acknowledge the ITU Databank on “Internet Users” survey result.
1.2 Broadband Subscribers
The Broadband Subscribers Sub-Indicator shows the number of those who
subscribe broadband or high-speed internet service from Internet Service Provider.
Broadband service is one of important factors in accessing e-Government services. The
use of broadband connections can help governments in improving the efficiency of
conduct the new services such as m-Government. Since there is no internationallyagreed definition of Broadband in capacity and term of speeds, the number will take thesurvey result from ITU into account.
1.3 Mobile Subscribers
The Mobile Subscribers Sub-Indicator shows the number of those who subscribe
mobile service for any means of communication such as voice and data. We will use thedatabank from ITU research on Mobile Cellular Users.
1.4 PC Users
The PC Users Sub-Indicator shows the number of those who use PC in a respected
location such as school, office, or public place. This Sub-Indicator will use the ITU
Databank related to “PC User” survey result.

56

2. Management Optimization
The “Management Optimization” indicator reflects the utilization of ICT for
improving government business processes. The optimization should show the effort tointegrate the silo of business processes using ICT. Clear direction from the top is
required to implement such improvement and integration effectively and successful. The
roadmaps of improvement process are well defined and acknowledged by all
stakeholders. This indicator refers to the e-Government strategies at national andsub-national level, which encompassed the entire national government and well-definedtargets.
2.1 Optimization Awareness
The Optimization Awareness Sub-Indicator will use the following items as the
supporting evidence.
-

The presence of National strategy: A nation-wide policy covers the interactions
among government institutions. There is only one government institution that has amandate to release the strategy.

-

Scope of National Strategy: A national e-Government strategy can be composed a
specific sector such as a national medical records strategy. And it can also be a
general strategy, for instance, a strategy to secure electronic communications in all
national government agencies.

-

Timeliness or Time Relevance: The Strategy must be “current” in the sense that it isongoing, that is within the time period within which the country is being surveyed.
To measure the timelines, the sub-indicator requires the roadmap of the national
strategy. In other word, the national strategy should contain the roadmap of
implementation.

-

Role Definitions: A current national e-Government strategy should clearly state therole of participating agencies. As a reference, the role might be categorized into
four type of roles; Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed. Somecountry may use the different terminology although the substance is the same. The
Project Management Practices are applied.

2.2

Enterprise Architecture-

The national government has a centralized network (The centralized network here
refers to a physically wired and/or wireless network. It can also refer to a virtual
network over the Internet. Government agencies may or may not connect to thisnetwork. Such a network may or may not be open for external use).

-

There is a national metadata standard in place (It is sufficient to find evidence of a
metadata standard in one area/sector, such as Medical Health Records or Land
Management in order to mark this parameter with YES).
57

2.3 Administrative and Budgetary Systems
For this parameter, a centralized or shared administrative system can be all, some,or one of the following: an electronic financial management information system (FMIS),
a budgetary system, a human resource management system, a document management
system, a workflow system, a groupware system, or a enterprise resource planning(ERP) system.
3. Online Services/e-services
E-service is the integration of business processes, policies, procedures, tools,
technologies, and human efforts to facilitate both assisted and unassisted customer
services in using the Internet and other networks. Government provides services atdifferent levels: for various governments (government-to-government), for private
enterprise initiators(government-to-business) and for citizenry access(government-to-citizens). Government-to-citizens service involves all thecommunication or transactions between government, at various levels, and citizens.
Now governments are developing the next stage of e-government by establishing thee-service infrastructure and organizational capacity for constituents to transact official
business online.
3.1 e-Procurement
E-Procurement is the business-to-business or business-to-consumer orbusiness-to-government purchase and sale of supplies, work, and services through theInternet as well as other information and networking systems, such as electronic datainterchange and enterprise resource planning.
In public sector, e-procurement can provide a government with some benefits suchas increased transparency, efficiency, cost savings and eliminate physical interaction
between procurement committee and supplier, hence reduce corruption in a procurement
process.
3.2 e-Tax system
E-Tax is intended to radically improve tax administration efficiency in both backoffice tax record management and front-line tax consultation and to significantly reduce
the public’s tax compliance costs: the dual benefits for both internal (tax consultants)
and external stakeholders (taxpayers).
3.3 e-Custom System
E-Customs is the use of Information Technology to carry out customs complianceusing electronic communications channels replacing paper format customs procedures,
thus creating a more efficient and modern customs environment.
3.4 e-Health system58

E-health is the transfer of health resources and health care by electronic means. It
encompasses three main areas:-

The delivery of health information, for health professionals and health consumers,
through the Internet and telecommunications.

-

Using the power of ICT and e-commerce to improve public health services, e.g.
through the education and training of health workers.

-

The use of e-commerce and e-business practices in health systems management.

The World Health Organization defines eHealth as: e-Health is the cost-effective
and secure use of information and communications technologies in support of healthand health-related field, including health care services, health surveillance, healthliterature, and health education, knowledge and research.
The European Commission defines e-Health very generally as: the use of modern
information and communication technologies to meet needs of citizens, patients,
healthcare professionals, healthcare providers, as well as policy makers.
3.5 One-stop Service
A one-stop service is a service aggregator in which citizen visit only one place toobtain any kind of government services from the visited place. The term originated in
the United States in the early 1930s to describe a business model offering customers theconvenience of having multiple needs met in one location, instead of having to "drive
all over town" to attain related services at different stores. The phrase is now used asslang to describe everything from Web sites to TV shows where people can find most ofwhat they need, including information, in one place.
4. National Portal
The national portal is the foundation of e-government and a basic interface forstakeholders to access government in an electronic way. In our survey, we select four
factors affecting the portal significantly; they are “Navigation, Interactivity, Interface,
and Technical”. National portal is the face of the Government to communicate withcitizens through the provision of e-services, guidance information as well as otherutilities,
5. Government CIO
The Government CIO is the expert who has mandate to align management strategy
with ICT investment in order to achieve a balance between the business strategy,organizational reform, and management reform; hence, the Government CIO is one of
the key factors in the success of e-Government implementation.
The presence of Chief information officers (CIOs) in government play importantrole in the success of e-government. The name of GCIO might be differing among59

countries. The same position with the same capacity can be named differently. However,
the title CIO is becoming very important since there are growing international
collaboration to support CIO human resource development. In this area, the evaluatedindicators were: the introduction of CIOs, Human Resource Development for CIOs,
Supporting Body for CIO and Role and Function of CIOs.
5.1 Presence of GCIO
Presence of Government CIO means that: whether or not the CIO is appointed at
National Level, in national government agency center.
5.2 GCIO Mandate
GCIO can work effectively if there is more regulation that states the rights, mandate
and responsibility of GCIO. Therefore, such regulation should exist in national level.
5.3 CIO Organizations
A Federal CIO Council officially or CIO association or Forum in the country andalso whether Government CIO office is established at the national.
5.4 CIO Development Programs
As for capacity building, the CIO training course, CIO academy and relatedorganization refer to International standard based upon CIO core competences.
6. E-government Promotion
The “E-Government Promotion” indicator is evaluated by using a comprehensive
list of parameters, which judges the degree of development in each section and thecurrent status of each government’s e-government promotion development. In our
e-government ranking survey, it includes the activities involved in supporting theimplementation of e-government such as legal frameworks and mechanisms (laws,
legislations, plans, policies and strategies). In other words, the government carries out
these activities in order to support the development of e-Services as well as
e-government as a whole.
It looked into strategies involved in prioritizing e-government as part of a country’s
national strategy; activities pertaining to the promotion of e-government; passage ofbills or amendments of laws providing legal mandates and, the country’s assessment
efforts. Results of this research showed that the majority of the countries include
e-Government at the core of their national strategy. However, some have not yet tocreate a legal framework for e-government.
6.1 Legal Framework
This framework related to the existing laws and legislations, plan/strategy andpolicies at the national and sub-national level are concerned.
606.2 Enabling Mechanism
In our research, we determine all the government entities, private entities and thecollaborations between public and private involved at national level as well as
sub-national level such as at bureau, council, department, ministry, organization.
6.3 Support Mechanism
Related to the Waseda e-government ranking survey, in this sub-indicator we haveto find out the government activities on promoting e-government such as: Do they have
any training course on e-government for citizens? Or existence of any conference, fora
and seminars at national and sub-national level, or are there any activities of promotion
for e-public services?
6.4 Assessement Method
Assessment methodology is the procedure to oversight the development andimplementation of e-government. All information and data from any government
agencies, from the private sector, and from academia are very important to evaluate theprogress of e-government.
7. E-Participation
E-Participation is a term referring to ICT-supported participation in government andgovernance processes. Processes may be concerned administration, service delivery,
decision-making and policy-making.
Triggered by the advent of web 2.0 technologies, it is come to the era ofgovernment 2.0 powered by more convergence of e-government applications to public.
This phenomenon shows the trend of internet application to be more citizen-centric,
including e-government which introduces the e-Participation.
An e-Participation indicator is used to take into account the “demand” side of
e-government as well as to see to what degree the people are using e-government
platforms especially in the light of Gov 2.0.
7.1 E-Information
Information by ICT means in which government produces and delivers information
for use by citizens.
7.2

Interactive

A two-way relationship in which citizens provide feedback to government. It isbased on the prior definition of e-information. Governments define the issues for
consultation, set the questions and manage the process, while citizens are invited tocontribute their views and opinions.
7.3 E-Decision Making Process61

A process in which the citizens can participate in the government decision making
process using ICT, e.g., e-voting system and online polls. In addition, this sub-indicator
includes the process of how government informs its citizens about the decision they
have made, e.g., publication of online polls/e-survey results and government action.
8. Open Government Data
Open data is government data that can be freely used, reused and redistributed byanyone - subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share alike. Open data
does not mean that a government or other entity releases all of its data to the public. It
would be unconscionable for the government to give out all of citizens, personal data toanyone who asks for it. Rather, open data means that whatever data is released is done
so in a specific way to allow the public to access it without having to pay fees or be
unfairly restricted in its use. In addition, open data requires the government to provide
electronic data that has interoperability to others.
-

Availability and Access: the data must be available in the form of completeness at
no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably by downloading over theinternet. The data must also be available in an open standard.

-

Reuse and Redistribution: the data should be available under terms that permit
reuse and redistribution including the intermixing with other datasets.

-

Universal Participation: everyone must be able to use, reuse and redistribute - there
should be no discrimination against fields of endeavor or against persons or groups.
For example, ‘non-commercial’ restrictions that would prevent ‘commercial’ use,or restrictions of use for certain purposes (e.g. only in education), are not allowed.

The evidence to proof the presence of the Open Data is to review whether the
e-government application provides RSS Feed, Web API Service, or something
substantially similar to them. The total score of this indicator is the calculation of thefollowing sub-indicators.
8.1 Legal Framwork
The legal framework sub-indicator shows the presence of law or regulation that
constitutes the standardization of the Open Government. It explains the data that iseither shareable or private.
8.2 Society
This sub-indicator explains the variety of access channel provided by governmentsfor public to access their shareable data. The channel might be the porting to popularsocial media applications such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
8.3 Organization

62

Organizations in this survey refer to the presence of organization that responsible tomaintain the open data, usually the metadata, to make sure that the data is interoperable
and comply with agreed standard for Open Data initiatives.
9. Cyber Security
Cyber security is the collection of tools, policies, security concepts, security
safeguards, guidelines, risk management approaches, actions, training, best practices,
assurance and technologies that can be used to protect the cyber environment andorganization and user’s assets. Both organization and user’s assets include connectedcomputing devices, personnel, infrastructure, applications, services, telecommunications
systems, and the totality of transmitted and/or stored information in the cyberenvironment. Cyber security strives to ensure the attainment and maintenance of the
security properties of the organization and user’s assets against relevant security risks inthe cyber environment. The score of this indicator is based on the combination of thefollowing sub-indicators.
9.1 Cyber Law
Refers to any legal frameworks that protect rights of internet users and provide theinternet users with a law certainty. The Cyber law should state that there is apunishment for any misuse of the internet and Cyber Crime activities such as
distributing viruses, piracy, harming privacy, carding, cracking, and hacking. The
existence of such regulation or law will apply as the measurement.
9.2 Cyber Crime
Cybercrime is criminal activity done using computers and the Internet. This
includes anything from downloading illegal government files to stealing millions ofdollars from online bank accounts. Cybercrime also includes non-monetary offenses,
such as creating and distributing viruses on other computers or posting confidential
business information on the Internet. The score of this sub-indicator require a review ofprocedure, tools, and applications to tackle the Cyber Crime Incident.
9.3 Internet Security Organization
This sub-indicator reflects the presence of the organization unit that is responsible
for enhancing the cyber security readiness and response of both public and private
sectors entities with a commitment of collaboration. The organization should have aright to monitor internet traffic in all over the country. The presence of suchorganization is the value for this sub-indicator.

63

APPENDIX 2
Top 10 ICT and E-government ranking by other Organizations
1.

2014 IMD World Competitive Ranking
No
1
2
3
4
5

Country

No
6
7
8
9
10

USA
Switzerland
Singapore
Hong Kong
SwedenCountry
Germany
CanadaUAE
Denmark
Norway(UK 16th, Japan 21st, Korea 26th)
2.

Accenture 2014 E-Government Ranking (Only 10 countries)
No
1
2
3
4
5

3.

Country
Singapore
NorwayUAE
Korea
Saudi Arabia

No
6
7
8
9
10

Country
USA
UK
India
Germany
BrazilWEF 2013-2014 The Global Competitive Index Ranking
No
1
2
3
4
5

Country
Switzerland
Singapore
FinlandGermany
USA

No
6
7
8
9
10

Country
SwedenHong Kong
Netherlands
Japan
UK

(Korea 25th)4.

UN E-Government Survey 2012
No
1
2
3
4
5

Country
Korea
Netherlands
UK
Denmark
USA

No
6
7
8
9
10
64

Country
FranceSwedenNorwayFinlandSingapore

5.

ITU 2013 ICT Development Index
No
1
2
3
4
5

Country
Korea
SwedenIcelandDenmark
Finland

No
6
7
8
9
10

65

Country
NorwayNetherland
UK
Luxembourg
Hong Kong

APPENDIX 3
E-Government National Portal and Open Government Data Portal

Countries
Name

Government Portal
Site

Portal Site

Open Government Data
Data Data
DatasetAppType Request

Develop

Argentinaargentina.gob.ardatospublicos.gob.ar

O

O

O

Australia

australia.gov.au

data.gov.au

O

O

O

Austria

digitales.oesterreich.gv.at

data.gv.at

O

O

O

O

O

Belgium

belgium.be

data.belgium.be

O

O

O

O

O

Brazilbrazil.gov.br

dados.gov.br

O

Bruneigov.bnN/A

Cambodia

mfaic.gov.kh

N/A

Canadacanada.gc.ca

data.gc.ca

O

O

O

O

O

Chile

gob.cldatos.gob.cl

O

O

O

O

China

gov.cndata.stats.gov.cn

O

Colombia

gobiernoenlinea.gov.co

datos.gov.co

OO

Czech Republic

portal.gov.cz

opendata.cz

OO

Denmark

denmark.dk

data.digitaliser.dk

O

O

Egypt

egypt.gov.eg

N/A

Estonia

eesti.ee

pub.stat.ee

Fijifiji.gov.fj

N/A

Finlandsuomi.fi

N/AFranceservice-public.fr

data.gouv.fr

Georgia

government.gov.ge

N/A

Germany

bund.degovdata.de

HK SAR

gov.hkN/A

India

india.gov.in

Indonesia

O
O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

data.gov.in

O

O

O

indonesia.go.id

opengovindonesia.org

O

Iran

president.ir

NA

Israelgov.ildata.gov.il

O

O

Italy

italia.gov.it

dati.gov.it

O

O

O

O

Japan

e-gov.go.jp

data.go.jp

O

O

O

O

Kazakhstanegov.kz

N/A

Kenya

e-government.go.ke

opendata.go.ke

O

O

O

O

Korea

korea.go.kr

data.go.kr

O

O

O

O

O

Macau

gov.moN/A

Malaysia

malaysia.gov.my

N/A

Mexicogob.mxN/A

Netherlands

government.nl

data.overheid.nl

O

O

O

O

O

66

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

New Zealandnewzealand.govt.nz

data.govt.nz

Nigeria

nigeria.gov.ng

N/A

Norwayregjeringen.no

data.norge.no

Pakistanpakistan.gov.pk

N/A

Peru

peru.gob.pe

datosperu.org

O

Philippines

gov.phdata.gov.phO

O

Polanden.poland.gov.pl

N/A

Portugalportaldocidadao.pt

dados.gov.pt

OO

Romania

e-guvernare.ro

N/A

Russiagovernment.ru

N/A

Saudi Arabia

saudi.gov.sa

saudi.gov.sa

OOSingaporegov.sgdata.gov.sg

OSouth Africa

gov.zaN/A

Spain

060.esdatos.gob.es

OO

Swedensweden.gov.se

xn-ppnadata-m4a.se

O

O

Switzerlandch.chopendata.admin.chOO

Taiwantaiwan.gov.tw

data.gov.tw

O

O

Thailandegov.go.th

N/ATunisiatunisie.gov.tn

data.gov.tn

OO

Turkeyturkiye.gov.tr

UAE

government.ae

O

O

UK

gov.ukN/Agovernment.ae/en/
web/guest/uae-data
data.gov.uk

O

O

O

O

O

Uruguay

portal.gub.uy

datos.gub.uyOUSA

usa.gov

data.gov

O

O

O

O

O

Uzbekistan

gov.uz

N/A

Venezuela

gobiernoenlinea.gob.ve

N/A

Vietnamchinhphu.vn

N/A

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O
O

O
O

Source: Waseda Institute of e-Government
Note:
The table shows the government portal site address of our survey, and there isportal site of open government data for each. "Dataset" the portal provides searchengine and the dataset categorizations of open government data. "Data Type" shows theportal provides many data type of downloadable well-known file format. "Data
Request" shows the portal provides forum to drive citizen to request new type or format
type of open government data. "App" shows the portal has application show case andsome application list that uses open government data. "Develop" shows the portal
provides API and community forum to citizens, researchers and developer to develop
application using open government data.

67

REFERENCES
Accenture, Accenture Digital Government Ranking 2014, http://newsroom.accenture.com/news/accenture-10-country-study-finds-singapore-norway-and-uae-lead-in-digita
l-government.htm, 2014.
Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, Finnish local government,
http://www.localfinland.fi/en/association/research/newmunicipality2017/Document
s/Finnish-Local-Government.pdf, 2013.
Australian Government, ICT Strategy 2012-2015, Australia Government - Departmentof Finance, http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/ict_strategy_2012_2015/docs/
APS_ICT_Strategy.pdf, 2012.
Aves, Lynn, House Research Department, Minnesota House of Representatives,
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/sshsprog.pdf, 2012.
Banisar, David, Freedom of Information Around the World 2006: A Global Survey ofAccess to Government Information Laws, Survey report, Privacy International,
2006.
Barbara Ubaldi, Towards Empirical Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives,
OECD, 2013.
Cabinet Office, Open Government Partnership UK National Action Plan 2013 to 2015,
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/open-government-partnership-uk-nat
ional-action-plan-2013/open-government-partnership-uk-national-action-plan-2013-to-2015, 2013.
Cho, Junghun, Hee Seok Byeon, Korea's move to e-procurement. PREM Notes ; no. 90.
Public Sector, Washington, DC: World Bank, 2004.
Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, 2014 Digital 21 Strategy Smarter Hong
Kong Smarter Living, Government of Hong Kong. http://www.digital21.gov.hk/
eng/relatedDoc/download/2014D21S-booklet.pdf, 2013
Consejo Nacional para la Ética Pública, APEC Procurement Transparency Standards in
Peru - Strengthening the Culture of Integrity, Research report, Transparency
International-USA and Center for International Private Enterprise, 2011.
Department of Science and Technology, ICTO - e-Government, http://icto.dost.gov.ph/index.php/e-government/e-government-overview, 2012.
Digital Agenda for Europe 2020, Open Data Portal, http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/
en/open-data-portals, 2014.

68Dr. Pallab Saha, Understanding the Impact of Enterprise Architecture on Connected
Government A Qualitative Analysis, NUS Institute of Systems Science, Singapore,2010.
E-Customs study, private sector views on potential benefits of further electronic
customs developments in Switzerland, final report by Granqvist M., Hintsa J.,
Lazarescu M., Tsikolenko V. December, 2010.
E-Governance Academy, e-Estonia: Strategic Decisions for Success, e-GovernanceAcademy, 2012.
E-Government Factsheets, eGovernment in Austria, European Union, http://www.epra
ctice.eu/files/eGovernmentAustria.pdf, 2011.
E-Government Factsheets, eGovernment in France, European Union, http://www.epra
ctice.eu/files/eGovernmentFrance.pdf, 2011.
E-Government Factsheets, eGovernment in Italy, European Union, http://www.epra
ctice.eu/files/eGovernmentItaly.pdf, 2011.
EGovernment Factsheets, eGovernment in Portugal, European Union. http://www.epra
ctice.eu/files/eGovernmentPortugal.pdf, 2011.
ENISA, Norway Country Report, Country report, European Network and Information
Security Agency, 2010.
Estonian Information System's Authority, Data Exchange Layer -X-Road, https://www.
ria.ee/x-road/, 2013.
European Commission, e-Government in Netherland, Country Report, http://www.epra
ctice.eu/, 2011.
Federal IT Steering Unit, e-Government: Catalogue of Prioritized Projects, Program
Office e-Government Switzerland, 2013.
Federal Ministry of Interior, Cyber Security for Germany, Federal Ministry of Interior,
2011.
Francesco Amoretti, E-Government at Supranational Level in the European Union,
International E-Government, p501-506, 2008.
Gerald Vermon-Jackson, Opinion: Does the central and local government relationshipneed rewiring, 2013.
Global Information Society, Global Information Society, Global Information Society
Watch, 2007.
Heidemarie Markhardt (Translation), National ICT Security Strategy Austria. Digital
Austria, http://www.oesterreich.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=48411, 2012.
Hermanns, Heike, The Reorganization of Local Administration in South Korea: The
Debate on Democracy and Efficiency in Local Governance, Proceedings of The
69

Sixth Biennial Conference Korean Studies Association of Australasia, Sydney,p217-229, 2009.
Hilbert, Martin, Development Trends and Challenges For Local e-Governments
Evidence From Municipalities in Chile and Peru, United Nations Publication, 2005.
Homeland Security, Computer Network Security & Privacy Protection, http://www.
dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_cybersecurity_white_paper.pdf, 2010.
Huawei, Three Development Trends in e-Government: Cloud, Collaboration, and Big
Data, http://support.huawei.com/ecommunity/bbs/10164081.html?auther=1&puid=10000253, 2013.
ICT Strategy of the German Federal Government, Digital Germany 2015, Federal
Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi), http://www.bmwi.de/English/
Redaktion/Pdf/ict-strategy-digital-germany-2015, 2010.
ICT Strategy resources, Cabinet Office, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/
ict-strategy-resources, 2013.
IMD, IMD releases its 25th Anniversary World Competitiveness Rankings, 2013
http://www.imd.org/news/World-Competitiveness-2013.cfm
IT Planning Council, National e-Government Strategy, IT Planungsrat, 2010.
IT Strategic Headquarters, Declaration to be the World's Most Advanced IT Nation,
Government of Japan. http://japan.kantei.go.jp/policy/it/2013/0614_declaration.pdf,
2013.
ITU, Measuring the Information Society http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2013/MIS2013-exec-sum_E.pdf, 2013.
Info-communications Development authority of Singapore, The eGov2015 Masterplan,
Singapore's e-government Website, http://www.egov.gov.sg/c/document_library/
get_file?uuid=4f9e71be-fe35-432a-9901-ab3279b92342&groupId=10157, 2011.
Information Department of the Ministry of Finance, Local government in Sweden –organization, activities and ﬁnance, Swedish government report, 2005.
Information Security Policy Council, International Strategy on Cybersecurity
Cooperation j-initiative for Cybersecurity, National Information Security Center,
Japan, http://www.nisc.go.jp/active/kihon/pdf/InternationalStrategyonCybersecurity
Cooperation_e.pdf, 2013.
Jane Fountain, Toshio OBI and others, Connecting Governments, Global Advisory
Council on Future of Government, World Economic Forum, 2011.
Jirawannakool, Kitissak, Threat and Trend Government 2014, Electronic Government
Agency (EGA), 2013.

70

Jorge Alberto Arreaza Montserrat, Gobierno electrónico en la Administración Pública.
Ministry of Popular Power for Science, Technology and Innovation, Government ofVenezuela, https://gobiernoenlinea.gob.ve/dotAsset/172264.pdf, 2011.
KIF Weekly Financial Brief, Korea Institute of Finance, The term “Government 3.0”
has garnered much attention from the public since the 2012 presidential election in
Korea, Vol 13, No.48, 2013.
Kenji Hiramoto, e-Government and Open Government Data In Japan, Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry. http://cio.go.jp/assets/JAPN_OGD.pdf, 2013.
Khaled SELLAMI, E-Government in Tunisia Providing citizen centric services &enhance citizen empowerment, Workshop on “Leadership Capacity-Development
for Improved Delivery of Public Services in Africa using I.C.T.” 23-25 July 201,
Addis Ababa. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/
unpan049915.pdf, 2012
Kim, Soonhee, A case study of local e-government performance in South Korea: doleadership and management for results matter?, International Public Management
Review, 2009.
Korea On-line E-Procurement System, http://www.g2b.go.kr/gov/koneps/pt/intro/file/
4_KONEPS_eng.pdf, 2013.
Korean Government. Government 3.0 Plan, available from http://www.gov30.kr/, 2013.
L. S. Flak, D. H. Olsen & P. Wolcott., Local E-Government in Norway - Current Status
and Emerging Issues, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 2005.
Law Commission Unit - Ministry of Justice, Law Commission Consultation Paper No
214, UK,http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp214_data-sharing.pdf, 2013.
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Egypt’s ICT Strategy 2014 2018 Digital Socio-Economic Development The Way forward to Prosperity.
Freedom. Social Equity. Government of Egypt, http://www.mcit.gov.eg/Upcont/
Documents/MCITstrategy2013_en.pdf, 2013.
Ministry of ICT, e-Government. E-government of Indonesia, http://www.kominfo.go.id/
content/all/e_government, 2013.
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, National e-government "Twelfth Five
Year Plan, Government of China, http://www.miit.gov.cn/n11293472/n11295327/
n11297217/14562026.html, 2012
Ministry of Information, Communications and Technology, The Information And
Communication Technology Sector (Amendment) Policy Guidelines, Governmentof Kenya, http://www.cck.go.ke/regulations/downloads/ICT_policy_guidelines_
July_2013_FV3_-_5th_July_2013.pdf, 2013.

71

Monetary Authority of Singapore, Payment System In Singapore, Monetary Authorityof Singapore Website. n.d. http://www.mas.gov.sg/~/media/MAS/Singapore%20
Financial%20Centre/Why%20Singapore/Payment%20and%20Settlement%20Syste
ms%20redirect%20pages/EMEAPRedBookSingaporeChapter.pdf, 2006.
NECTEC, National IT Policy Framework 2011-2020, NECTEC, 2009.
Naoko IWASAKI, Toshio OBI, "Assessing e-Municipality Globally" Sep. 1 2007
Shanghai 7th International Entrepreneurship Forum, organized by OECD, Essex
University and Fudan University, Shanghai, 2007.
National Computer Center, Philippine Government Interoperability Framework,
National Computer Center, 2003.
New Zealand Government, New Zealand's Cyber Security Strategy, New Zealand
Government, 2011.
New Zealand Government, New Zealand ICT Strategy, http://ict.govt.nz/strategy/
introduction/, 2013.
Nick. S and Gayle. S, The United States Releases its Second Open Government
National Action Plan, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/12/06/united-statesreleases-its-second-open-government-national-action-plan, 2013.
OECD, Public sector innovation and e-government, Open Government Data,
http://www.oecd.org/gov/public-innovation/opengovernmentdata.htm, 2013.
OECD, The Call for Innovative and Open Government: An Overview of Country
Initiatives, OECD, 2011.
Panzardi, Roberto, and Carlos Calcopietro, Electronic Government and Governance:
Lessons for Argentina, World Bank, 2002.
Perrone, Graciela, and Marta Gonzales del Valle. 2011. Institutional Repository of the
Ministry of Education of Argentina: Bringing educational management closer tocitizenship. Government Information and Official Publication, 2011.
Pirker, Administration on the Net - The ABC guide of eGovernment in Austria.
MediaGuide VerlagsGesmbH, http://digital.austria.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=
44576, 2011.
Practice Across Europe Factsheets, An overview of the eGovernment and eInclusion
situation in Europe, European Union, http://www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets/, 2014.
Rahmenarchitektur IT-Steurung Bund, Das Architekturmanagement der IT-Steurung
Bund. Bundesministerium der Innern, 2011.
Rauch, Henri, The Netherland's iStrategy, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en
Koninkrijkrelaties, 201172

SDA Bocconi, Central-Local Relationship in the European Union member States in the
Field of Electronic Government, 2004.
Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defense and Security Review,
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/docu
ments/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf, 2010.
State of Queensland, One-Stop Shop Plan 2013-2018, Department of Science,
Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, 2013
Swiss Federal Authorities, e-Government Strategy Switzerland, http://www.egovernm
ent.ch/egov/00833/00834/index.html?lang=en, 2013.
TAKAGI Soichiro, Development of open data policy In Europe, Journal of Information
Processing and Management, vol.55 no 10, Japan, 2013.
Taewon Nam, Government 3.0 in Korea: Fad or Fashion? http://www.negst.com.ng/
documents/Governing_through_Networks/3-icegov2013_submission_19.pdf, 2013.
Taha, Mariah, e-Government Implementation in Brunei Darussalam, Prime Minister
Office, 2013.
Terrence Park, ITU Telecommunication Development Sector - Korean Cybersecurity
Framework, International Telecommunication Union, http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/
cyb/events/2009/hyderabad/docs/park-korean-cybersecurity-framework-sept-09.pdf,
2009.
The federal government of Mexico, Mexico’s E-Gov Strategy, Government of Mexico,
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan047378.pd
f, 2011
Top technology trends for 2014, IEEE computer society, The next trend in cloudcomputing will be its convergence with mobile technology, http://www.computer.
org/portal/web/membership/Top-10-Tech-Trends-in-2014, 2014.
Toshio OBI, "An Entrepreneurial Response to the Current Economic Crisis: Policy
Perspective" IEEE the IEF Program, OECD, Turkey, Sep18, 2009.
Toshio OBI, "CIO for Environment "APECTEL Workshop on CIO for Environment,
Keio Plaza Hotel, March 25,2008.
Toshio OBI, "CIO for Governing Innovation in Information Society-Case Study:
Educating Green ITS at University in Japan" Proceedings of 2009 IEEE
International conference on ICT and Knowledge Engineering, Siam University，
December 1-2, 2009, p38-43.
Toshio OBI, "Establishment of International CIO University and Training Center
Network" International Academy of CIO Bangkok June 29, 2009.
Toshio OBI, "Evaluating e-Government in Japan"2009 Asia-Pacific e-GovernanceInternational Conference, Taiwan e-Governance Research Center, Sep2-3, 2009.
73

Toshio OBI, "Innovation Policy and Cooperation in Asia" Asia Innovation Forum, BSA,
Seoul, April 10, 2007.
Toshio OBI, "The Activity of APEC e-Government Research Center” APECTELWorkshop, Da Nang, Vietnam April 9, 2012.
Toshio OBI, "The role of CIO for disaster management" Joint Conference by WorldBank and International Academy of CIO at George Mason University, USA
October 27, 2007.
Toshio OBI, "Waseda University International e-Government Rankings "I-WAYS-Journal of e-Government Policy and Regulation-, IOS PRESS ISSN 1084-4678,
2009.
Toshio OBI, "e-Administration for Better Accountability": APEC Economic
Committee-TEL Workshop on e-Governance, APEC, Feb 27, 2008.
Toshio OBI, "e-governance for e-government" East Asian ICT Conference, Hong Kong
University, Hong Kong, August 23,2007.
Toshio OBI, 'The networking universities in Asia Pacific for educating Green ITS
toward a ubiquitous society' ITS World Congress, Stockholm Sweden, Sep 22,
2009.
Toshio OBI, Ishmatova Diana, Naoko IWASAKI “Promoting ICT innovations for the
Ageing Population in Japan” ： International Journal of Medical Informatics
Manuscript number: IJMI-D-11-00269, 2012.
Toshio OBI, Naoko IWASAKI, "e-Government in Japan" Global e-Governance－
Advancing e-Governance Through Innovation and Leadership, IOS Press ISSN
1874-8511, p.37-52, 2009.
Toshio OBI, Naoko IWASAKI：”Disaster Management and ICT-Japanese Experience”
Disaster Prevention and Crisis Management Information System 2011
e-Governance Asian Forum Taiwan E-Governance Research Center, Research,
Development and Evaluation Commission, Executive Yuan, Taiwan, July 27-28,
2011.
Toshio OBI, The New Role of CIO, 7th Annual General Meeting and Conference“Innovations in IT: for sustainable development and information security”, Moscow,
May 17-18 2012.
Toshio OBI, “Best Practices of Market Research in the era of convergence” ASEM, ICT
workshop, Indonesia, July 15, 2010.
Toshio OBI, “Diffusion of Car Navigation System in Japan” ITS World Congress Busan,
Korea, Oct 28th 2010.
Toshio OBI, “Implementing e-Government: Experience from Japan”, VIETNAM
e-Government Symposium 2010 Ho Chi Minh, July, 15th 2010.
74

Toshio OBI, “Solutions for Japan’s aging population” OECD workshop sponsored by
the National Science Foundation Washington, DC, United States 15-16 February
2011.
Toshio OBI, “Solutions for Japan’s aging population”, OECD-NSF Workshop on
Building a Smarter Health and Wellness Future Washington on Washington,
February 15-16, 2011.
Toshio OBI, “e-Governance” International Conference on e-GOV 2010, UNU Beijing,
October 27, 2010.
Toshio OBI: “JAPANESE ICT”, The 3rd International Conference on Chief Information
Officer, e-Indonesia Initiatives Forum May 5th, 2010, Bandung.
Toshio OBI: “Raising the Status and Going up the Ranks” Future GOV Forum India,
April 7. 2010.
Toshio OBI; “Public Sector Innovations through Collaboration”, 14 June 2010, i-Gov
Global Forum, IDA Singapore.
Trisa D.B., “Effectiveness of Social Media as a tool of communication and its potential
for technology enabled connections: A micro-level study”. International Journal of
Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue 5, 2012.
UN Economic Commission, Connecting International Trade: Single Windows andSupply Chains, United Nation, 2013.
United Nations, E-Government Survey 2012, E-Government for people, Department of
Economic and Social Aﬀairs, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/
documents/un/unpan048065.pdf, 2012.
World Economic Forum, The Global Competitiveness Index 2013–2014
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2013-14/GCR_Rankings_2013-14.pdf, 2013.

75