The Priority of Factors of Building Government as a Platform with Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis

Abstract

Nowadays, the Government as a Platform (GaaP) based on cloud computing and network, has come to be considered a new structure to manage efficiently data-driven administration in the public sector. When the GaaP concept was first introduced, the ICT infrastructures that could underpin GaaP were not sufficiently developed. However, the recent digital transformation has transformed the previous electronic government, which was system- and architecture-oriented. As part of the next generation of government models, GaaP may reinvent the government at a lower cost but with better performance, similar to the case of electronic government two decades ago. This study attempted to determine the priority of factors of GaaP by using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology. Because of the GaaP characteristics, we drew the main components for building GaaP from previous studies and a group interview with experts. The study results show that experts tend to prefer publicness in terms of building GaaP. Most of the factors that the experts weighed with the highest importance are related to the public sector, which revealed that governments should focus on their primary duty, regardless of the origin and characteristics of the platform in GaaP. However, since GaaP allows governments to be more horizontal and innovative, the platform approach can fundamentally shift the existing processes and culture of the public sector. The enhanced activity of citizens with ICT can also accelerate the introduction of GaaP. Finally, the study showed that a data-driven GaaP is necessary to efficiently handle big data, contract services, and multiple levels of on-line and off-line channels. In this public platform, government, citizens, and private sector organizations can work cooperatively as partners to seamlessly govern the hyper-connected society.

Determinant Factors for Adoption of Government as a Platform in South Korea: Mediating Effects on the Perception of Intelligent Information Technology

“…Because the term platform has been used in various fields (technology, sociology, and economics), there are various definitions and concepts that describe the word [17,18]. Generally, a platform is considered a useful tool that can reduce costs and increase value with a tangible or intangible base connecting providers and users [14]. The apparent opportunity to the public from the rise of the platform approach is the emergence of companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and so on.…”

“…Since the success of the private sector with platform strategies like Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Netflix, the GaaP literature has suggested benefits from GaaP in various fields, including public services, policy decision making, public value, and even private business [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] In terms of public reform, GaaP has been regarded as the nextgeneration government model for the paradigm shifts in the zero-growth economy, in the crisis in representative democracy, in lower trust in government, and for increases in civic engagement with smart abilities that has dramatically accelerated public transformation.…”

“…However, although the need for the introduction of GaaP has arisen, most GaaP studies have focused on concepts, frameworks, and case studies, not descriptive studies that reveal which factors affect the adoption of GaaP. Since there is some misunderstanding about GaaP being merely a sort of advanced e-Government [14], that might explain the lack of explanatory studies on GaaP owing to little recognition of the differences between e-Government and GaaP. Furthermore, GaaP is dependent on active stakeholders who can engage in the public process, and even produce public output themselves (like crowdsourcing), compared to existing e-Government, which mainly focuses on one-sided public provision [4,14].…”

“…Since there is some misunderstanding about GaaP being merely a sort of advanced e-Government [14], that might explain the lack of explanatory studies on GaaP owing to little recognition of the differences between e-Government and GaaP. Furthermore, GaaP is dependent on active stakeholders who can engage in the public process, and even produce public output themselves (like crowdsourcing), compared to existing e-Government, which mainly focuses on one-sided public provision [4,14]. This is why the concept of GaaP transcends the concept of e-Government, and researchers should adopt a more cautious approach to examining or analyzing it.…”

Digital Public Administration for Sustainable Development

“…With regard to business, service groups refer to: • Running a business (for example, developing a business); • Taxation (for example, business tax); • Selling in the EU (e.g., public contracts); • Human resources (for example, employment contracts); • Product requirements (e.g., standards); • Financing and financing (e.g., accounting); • Customer treatment (e.g., data protection) (European Commission, 2020) It is believed that since the wave of the Fourth Industrial Revolution penetrated all dimensions of our society, information technologies have led the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Information technologies such as big data, blockchain, Internet of Things (IoT), mobile and cloud technologies, artificial intelligence (AI) have tried to change the paradigms of economics, work, social culture, politics and even public services (Seo & Myeong, 2020). The aim of our research is to highlight the main features and mechanisms of the digitalization of a public administration (Burlacu et al, 2021) that would allow the promotion of a sustainable development and a more inclusive society (Profiroiu et al, 2020).…”