Análisis de la entrevista

The legal and regulatory environment can be defined as the necessary framework for successful GEMSD operation. This can be split into two major areas. Firstly the internal government legal changes necessary to create a ‘whole-of-government’ approach to GEMSD, limiting the internal legal demarcation amassed from

generations of agency specific regulation and legislation and empowering the ‘one- stop-shop’ or single portal approach of GEMSD. Secondly, the amount of external adjustments to legislation required to enable working relationships with other external governments, industry and community groups as proposed by Joia (2008) in relation to G2G intellectual property and permission rights. An example of this is the

broadening of the consumer protection act in Finland as described by Rekola and Pohjanpalo (2002), to accommodate purchases of goods and service electronically and extends the warranty period to two years from the date of purchase. This legislative change not only protects the consumer but provides confidence in GEMSD and electronic commerce in Finland

Providing a successful operating environment for GEMSD poses significant design problems outside technical considerations. Issues of major concern to governments

worldwide include correct legislation to cater for the changes in service operation. GEMSD practitioners and legislators are involved in considerable conjecture over legislative inconsistencies and internal regulation demarcation.

Similar topics of design and regulation include taxation equity, copyright, compatible encryption standards, and acceptable contract laws for industry and governments. To provide a whole-of-government approach requires adjustment and well-drafted legislation to ensure success of delivery and protection for all parties concerned. Chandran (1999) highlights Singapore’s legislative approach to eCommerce by acknowledging electronic records and signatures through adequate legislation. Similarly in Canada legislators have made it possible to create financial contracts from overseas via electronic service delivery as noted by Crawford and Wiercinski (1997). However while legislation and regulation enables better GEMSD it does need to address issues of cross-jurisdictional demarcation. Onken, Fischer et al (2005) expressed this view on the impacts of government regulation in the transfer to technology-based systems and surmised regulation must be taken into account to achieve competitive advantage through better management.

Many countries and even states or provinces are confused over areas of jurisdiction. Both Greenwood and Campbell (1997) and Gottlieb (1998), argued these issues signal the need for a well-regulated legal infrastructure that supports the use of GEMSD and electronic commerce for both business and government transactions across all

geographical and demographic boundaries this theory has been supported over many years of e-government and more recently m-government development by researchers such as Rassler (2008), Joia (2008), Lenk (2006) and Sookman (1999). Riley (1999), suggested that, 80% of ESD takes place in the United States (U.S.) and that Europe is smaller in transactions’ size. Yet the European Commission has legislation to

facilitate successful ESD and GEMSD. This legislation only covers Europe and not other jurisdictions. As yet the U.S. is to legislate on electronic service delivery. Gaylord (1999) proposed that the U.S. federal government adopted a minimalist approach relying on self-regulation from service providers and users from the outset. If GEMSD is to be delivered adequately and equitably, cross-jurisdictional

In Asia the opinion differs with Hsiu-Fen and Gwo-Guang (2006), and Sani (2002) suggesting legislation is too slow in keeping pace with the demands users are placing on GEMSD. Sani quotes Professor Dr Khaw Lake Tee of Universiti Malaya's law faculty, suggesting ‘The shift to electronic (and mobile) government also requires that certain changes be made to existing laws, regulations and orders that regulate the manner in which transactions between Government departments, and between the Government and its citizens are conducted.’ He continues by elaborating, that many

statutory regulations have been drafted with physical and document or paper transactions in mind, therefore requiring considerable rethinking and drafting. 2.5.3 Single Portal

Currently one-stop government reflects a key trend within the present evolutions in GEMSD according to Pavlichev and Garson (2004) and Wimmer and Traunmüller (2002). It refers to a single point of access to public services and information. Online one-stop government requires that all public authorities be interconnected

electronically.

Government services are available to their customers (constituents, private companies or other levels of government) through a single point of access or portal. This is done regardless of origin of the service and has no reference to the different public

authorities or private service providers that may facilitate the provision and/or delivery. Similarly the services and information are presented in a well-structured, uniform and easily understood manner, which is designed to meet the customer’s needs and requires minimal knowledge about the functional fragmentation of the public sector. De Meo, Quattrone et al (2007) suggest a series of intelligent agents to facilitate a seamless single point of access for government customers thereby relieving them of cumbersome search agents and multiple questions to arrive at their service destination.

Figure 2 Single portal service delivery (source: Auditor General’s Office 2007) Existing government structures and government fragmentation have evolved out of traditional modes of information exchange. Tasks and responsibilities have been divided between agencies or departments within government, and between different levels of government, in accordance with requirements of service delivery. Single portal service delivery has challenged the traditional organization of government services around the needs of the citizens rather than the structural framework of government as seen in Figure 2.

As suggested by Traunmüller (2002) and Lenk (2002), through single access portals, constituents are becoming indifferent to existing structures, and are focused instead on efficient service fulfilment, a view further supported by Pavlichev and Garson (2004). This is most evident in the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) and their eCitizen program (2004) and Beijing’s transcending from eGovernment to mGovernment. Song (2005) would suggest this enables fragmentation free-seamless access through one point of access. However, several questions are raised with single portal access, also can these economies be realised.

i Can duplicity of agency or departmental services and media be removed? - Correspondence

- Language - Printing

- Internet

- Individualised marketing

i Can GEMSD facilities such as kiosks and on-line services reduce the need for distributed office hierarchies and duplicated staff?

i Can processes and procedures be streamlined to encourage single portal efficiencies?

● Do certain Key Public Infrastructures need to maintain individual presence?

Or do existing search engines, browsers, and access methods suffice in GEMSD and allow customers a fast path to exact requirements without the necessity and expense of single access overlays? Panopoulou, Tmabouris et al study (2008) of websites and evaluation would suggest otherwise recommending standardisation between avenues and promoting consistency not apparent in ad hoc or multiple government portals.