The Entanglement of Enterprise Architecture and IT-Governance: The Cases of Norway and the Netherlands

Abstract

Governments are developing infrastructures to spur e-government development. These e-government infrastructures are based on the notion of ICT as a utility that can be (re-)used by organizations at all levels of government to create their own service provisioning and to facilitate interaction with each other. This paper investigates the development of such infrastructures by looking at regional and national aspects. A cross-country comparative framework is developed and 2 countries are analyzed. We found that infrastructure development in both countries is similar at a global level, yet the governance is different. While Norway aims to enable integration by developing a Business Process Management building block on the national level, in the Netherlands local governments compose and integrate the building blocks with implementation support from the national level. These differences between e-government infrastructure developments of the two countries can be attributed to the degree of centralization of government and the degree of active support given to e-government developments.

Organizational Requirements for Building Up National E-Government Infrastructures in Federal Settings

“…Aagesen et al have developed a framework for comparing infrastructure development across countries (cf. figure 1) that is useful for providing an overview to common interrelations in that respect [7].…”

“…The idea is that governments use available basic services or building blocks for creating their own systems and services, thus reducing the costs of development and maintenance, stimulating standardization of services and fostering interoperability [7], [6]. It depends on the country specific set-up of e-government development how national infrastructures are developed (e.g.…”

“…Thus the maturity of the infrastructure is key to future progress of egovernment. Yet, research on the guidance, design and governance of e-government infrastructures is rather scarce [7], [8].…”

The Contradictory Effects in Efficiency and Citizens’ Participation when Employing Geo-ICT Apps within Local Government

“…While there are a number of publications on the development or uptake of such cases (Manoharan and Carrizales 2011; Sarosa and Lestari 2009), we chose to evaluate a case in the Netherlands, given that in the Netherlands local governments are comparatively more autonomous than those in other similar countries in their choices of local ICT applications (Aagesen et al 2011), which would make the identification of a direct relationship between government choices and citizens' behaviour possible. Furthermore, we chose to evaluate an app with a specific geospatial functionality, which limited the choice to the apps 'Verbeterdebuurt' (www.verbeterdebuurt.nl) and 'Buitenbeter' (http://www.buitenbeter.nl/).…”

IT Governance Implementation: The Determinant Factors

“…Organizational Culture Brown and Grant, 2005;Fink and Ploder, 2008;Gerrard, 2009;Jiandong andHongjun, 2010 Maidin andArshad, 2010;Symons, 2005;Weisinger and Trauth, 2003 Organizational Structure Adams, Larson and Xia, 2008;Aagesen, van Veenstra, Janssen and Krogstie, 2011;Cochran, 2010;De Haes and Grembergen, 2008;Bernroider, 2008;Gao, Chen and Fang, 2009;Lunardi, Becker and Macada, 2009;Park, Jung, Lee and Jang, 2006;Shpilberg, Berez, Puryear and Shah, 2007;Symons, 2005;Webb, Pollard andRidley, 2006 Size Brown andGrant, 2005;Cochran, 2010;De Haes and Grembergen, 2008;Jacobson, 2009;Lunardi, Becker andMacada, 2009 Industry Brown andGrant, 2005;De Haes and Grembergen, 2008;Gerrard, 2009;Jacobson, 2009;Jiandong and Hongjun, 2010;Simonsson, Lagerström and Johnson, 2008;Tanriverdi, 2006 Regional Differences Aagesen, van Veenstra, Janssen and Krogstie, 2011;Fink and Ploder, 2008;Bernroider, 2008;Shpilberg, Berez, Puryear and Shah, 2007;Weisinger andTrauth, 2003 Maturity ...…”