Transcript Compartmentalization of E

Compartmentalization of
E-Governance Practices
Dr. P.V. Bokad,
Associate Professor
Department of Business Administration and Research
Shri Sant Gajanan Maharaj College of Engineering
Shegaon – 444 203, Maharashtra, INDIA
P.M. Kuchar
Assist. Professor
Department of Business Administration and Research
Shri Sant Gajanan Maharaj College of Engineering
Shegaon – 444 203, Maharashtra, INDIA
Priya V. Satpute
Assist. Professor
Saraswati College, Gaulkhed Road,
Shegaon
Structure of the Paper
1. ABSTRACT
2. INTRODUCTION
3. IMPROVEMENTS EXPECTED IN THE EXISTING SYSTEM:
4. REALITY IN E-GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
5. COMPARTMENTALIZATION
6. COMPARTMENTALIZATION OF E-GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
7. FEW INITIATIVES IN THIS DIRECTION
8. CONCLUSION
References:
1. INTRODUCTION
Meaning:
e-government is (Electronic-Government), a generic term for Webbased services from agencies of local, state and federal governments.
Compartmentalization: Compartmentalization is a principle that limits
the damage and protects other compartments. It prevents others to use
the services developed by one government. Ex.
Successful user friendly and cost effective implementation of
E-governance practices has become the need of the hour but it
becomes difficult due to compartmentalization .
To take the full use of e-governance project
and spread to all common citizen, it requires a
full fledge communication network.
India has taken this care through Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
2. STATE LEVEL INITIATIVES IN INDIA
State
Initiatives
Andhra Pradesh–
•E-Seva
•Bhu Bharati ,
•E-village
•Andhra Performance Tracking System
Karnataka –
•Bhoomi
•khajane
•Gram Swaraj
Haryana –
‘Integrated Workflow System
Mustard Procurement management
Janani Suvidha Yojana
Kerala -
•Akshaya.
•SWIFT
•PEARL
•Asraya
Maharashtra –
•
•
•
Koshvahini or e-treasury and
Warana Wired Village
Setu
e-registration package
State
Initiatives
Tamilnadu –
•
•
E- Registration
SARI.
Rajasthan –
•
•
e- mitra
SARATHI
Uttar Pradesh –
•
Lokavani
Madhya Pradesh -
•
Gyandoot
Gujarat –
• Jan Seva Kendras (One-Day Governance model)
Tripura -
• E Suvidha Kendras
Delhi -
•
West Bengal –
• Gram Panchayat Accounts and Management in 400
panchayats; GIS based
information system at GP level
Jeevan
• Only a fraction of projects are actually successful.
• Some projects are complete wasteful as in they engage Government
resources but no results on Government Optimization are achieved.
• There are other projects which are termed as pointless wherein Government
Optimization is achieved but no development takes place even after
optimization.
• A third category is of the meaningful projects wherein both the optimization
of Government projects and development takes place.
• The reasons for failure of e-Governance projects are anything but
technological. Technology solutions are available and developed for any
problem. But as they say, it is not the machine but the man behind the
machine that leads to success or failure.
• The administrative culture in India is scaling down the innovation in India. It
highlights that the administrative culture is the reason why Indians innovate
better abroad than they are able to do in India. The Indian system is such that
all officials are expected to obey rules or follow precedence. Innovation
involves changing the rules of the game and/or breaking with tradition. Both
ways, the Indian ethos rules out originality and innovation.
• preference for IT components such as the hardware
and software such as operating systems and RDBMS
change dramatically for similar projects within the
same country in the same period of time.
• Successful e governance implementation is about four
main components :
End users need identification,
Business Process Modification,
Use of Information Technology and
most importantly committed government intent.
Deficiencies in any of these would result in
e-governance projects failing to achieve their
objectives.
3. IMPROVEMENTS EXPECTED IN THE
EXISTING SYSTEM:
•The success or the failure of the project is more
concerned with the satisfaction of the citizens than
the successful installation of the project.
•Different lacunas are required to be removed.
•The Reality gaps in e-governance projects is
required to bridge.
4. REALITY IN E-GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
•35 % of e-Government projects are total failures
- Initiatives not implemented
- Initiatives abandoned immediately
•50% of e-Government projects are partial failures
- Main stated goals not achieved
- Initial success but failure after an year
- Success for one group but failure for others
•15% of e-Government projects are successes
- All stakeholders benefited
-No adverse results
Reasons behind poor performance:
-Hard-Soft Gaps:
-Private-Public Gaps:
-State Context Gaps:
Other lacunas in the system
•Lack of strategic clarity:
•Lack of sustained leadership at political and senior management level:
•Poor understanding and segmentation of user needs:
•Lack of effective engagement with stakeholders:
•Lack of skills:
•Poor supplier management: Common mistakes include:
Evaluating proposals primarily on immediate price rather than long
term value for money
Management of the supplier relationship being undertaken at too
junior a level within the organization
•“Big Bang” implementation: Seek to deliver too much technological
and organizational change at once.
5. COMPARTMENTALIZATION
•Compartmentalization is a principle that limits the damage and protects
other compartments. It prevents others to use the services developed by
one government.
•But, more compartmentalized methods / services or organizations are the
threats for flexibility, creativity and innovation.
•Successful user friendly and cost effective implementation of Egovernance practices has become the need of the hour.
•But it appears that an e-governance system functions in isolation in its
number of practices. It gives birth to the compartmentalization which
forbids others to take its use. It overburdens the nation as individual states
spending huge amount for the development of e-governance services for
the similar purpose. It is just opposite to the claim made by the
Government to provide e-governances to “anyone” and “anywhere”.
•Compartmentalization is good for the sake of security, but it should not be
at the cost of exploitation of common beneficiaries. “In today’s world
compartmentalization is not an option and we need to evolve from this
nucleus created by Indian government.
• Hardware compartmentalization
• Software compartmentalization
• State-wise compartmentalization
6. COMPARTMENTALIZATION OF
E-GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
•In the race of developing and implementing the e-governance projects for
the better government and considered the state as e-state, state
governments are spending lakhs and crores without considering its
importance of the same project for the people in other state.
•So, the intervention of the central government is required so that any egovernance developed by the governments could be used by all the
citizens in the nation.
•The state centric concept of the e-governance should now be replaced
with really citizen centric and the e-governance for everyone, everywhere
and at anytime should be proved.
•It is after all the money of the common citizen which can be saved instead
of giving it to the private businessman for developing the software. The
table below clears how different states are developing the e-governance
projects for the same service repeatedly and spending huge amount on
similar development in different states.
Parallel efforts:
All the above six states has developed their individual e-governance
projects for the benefits of the citizens of their states. Every state
has spent their individual fund for the purpose of land record
administration. The individual effort leads to two important things.
•One is the huge investment for the common purpose and
•The other is influence of local administration procedure of the state
made the facility state dependent.
Other similar compartmentalized examples:
Directorate of Technical Education is controlling the total admission procedure for
the courses like B.E. and M.B.A. The MKCL has developed e-project for this
purpose. The database developed during this process by DTE is not accessible for
the reporting purpose to the A.I.C.T.E. So, the efforts are required to be duplicated
for the similar purpose.
The Database of Universities and the DTE and AICTE have the compartments so
their usability is restricted and requires double effort.
Showing individual efforts in different states for similar need
State
e-Project
Service
Karnataka
Bhoomi
Allows computerized easy access and facilities for ‘mutations’
and updation of land records for the farmers in an efficient
and transparent way
Andhra
Pradesh
Bhu Bharati
An integrated land information system has been piloted in
Nizamabad district
Gujarat
E-Dhara
Enhances complete computerization of land records across the
state. Elimination of manual records and computer-controlled
mutation process
Madhya
Pradesh
BhuAbhilekh
It is an application software product designed and developed
by NIC for the office of the commissioner, land records and
settlement, Department of Revenue, Government of Madhya
Pradesh to deliver excellent grass-root governance within the
domain of land management. Records of 35 million khasra
(plot/ survey) numbers comprising of 10.5 million land owners
have been computerized, till date
Tamil Nadu
e-Services
Welcome to anytime/anywhere e-Services of Govt. of Tamil
Nadu. Users can view the Patta Copy (Chitta Extract) and ARegister Extract for the agriculture land
7. FEW INITIATIVES IN THIS DIRECTION
1. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI): The Indian state of Uttaranchal is
developing a central data repository and a public key infrastructure
(PKI) to make it easier for its citizens to access government eservices. The project is financed to the tune of US$ 3 million
(US$1.9 million) by the State of Uttaranchal. Uttaranchal, in north
India, is home to eight million citizens and 109 government
departments. The project will consist of three parts - a household
survey, design and implementation of the repository or Citizen Data
Vault, and the development of PKI for citizens to access government
services online or via public kiosks. "The sharing of information in
turn will enable the deep integration of government processes so
that e-services can be designed around the lives and needs of
citizens. Citizens, can enjoy reduced processing times, less
paperwork and bureaucracy, and improved standards of service.
2. Aadhaar: The Unique Identification number (Aadhaar) was
conceived by the Indian government as a means for residents to
clearly and uniquely verify their identity anywhere in the country.
The mandate for the UIDAI includes defining the usage of the
number across critical applications and services. The Public
Distribution System is one such application, and the UIDAI has
accordingly laid out the potential role Aadhaar can play within the
PDS.
The expectation from the de-compartmentalization of the egovernance projects developed for the state citizens should be
utilized for the Indian citizen. If a common man needs some financial
loan or a retired person wants to apply for pension, he/she should
be able to apply for the same through internet centre without
physically going to the required office. Going to a government office
for a small task and wait for a long time could be a tiresome job and
should be keeping away.
Lesson to be learned
It is pertinent to note that USA (ranked 2nd in the United
Nations Global E-Government Survey 2010), has spent
about 600 bn USD in the previous 10 years, only to realize
that the returns / benefits are far below the intended /
expected benefits from large scale e-Government
programmes. ! One of the major gaps identified by US
government is in the area of Monitoring & Evaluation of eGovernment projects against standard / well defined
criteria.
By bridging the gap discussed above and removing
compartmentalization between project to project may be
the way to get the success in e-governance venture.
8. CONCLUSION
•The idea mooted by the government and initiatives taken by the different state
governments in India is worth to praise.
•States are also motivated for such efforts by giving best project award by the
government. In some case the financial backing by World Bank, central
government, state government itself and somewhere thro public support.
•Idea being an innovative, eye-catching due to the use of computer technology
and rewarding effort because it is for the benefit of peoples in India, the real
problems like cost overrun, uniqueness and citizen centric is overlooked.
•All the states are putting their efforts and their all resources for developing better
and better e-governance project for their own state which is the common
problem for all the states. This becomes the reason for the failure of some
projects.
•So, to stop the mis-utilization or under-utilization of the e-governance projects it
is required to remove compartmentalization between the state to state and
e-governance project to project.
•Compartmentalization issue unknowingly wasting money, efforts and the
resources of the government. So, it is required to develop the best e-governance
project for the particular service for the peoples in all the states and then link all
such projects together to make centrally governed e-governance project.
References:
1. TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, Recommendations on National Broadband Plan,
8thDecember, 2010, http:/www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/trai/upload/
PressReleases/744/qpressrelease22jul.pdf
2. E-governance and Best practices, http://india.gov.in/govt/studies/annex/ 6.3.1.pdf
3. Ebid
4. Ebid
5. Ebid
6. Ebid
7. ebid
8. Heeks, R. (2002), “Information Systems and Developing Countries: Failure, Success, and Local
Improvisations”, The Information Society Vol. 18, pp.101–112.
9. Heeks, R. (2003), “Most eGovernment-for-Development Projects Fail: How Can Risks be Reduced?”
iGovernment Working Paper Series, Paper no. 14.
10.Gov3 analysis, drawing on research published by the UK government (“Successful
IT: Modernizing Government in Action”, Cabinet Office, 2000; ”Common Causes of
Project Failure”, OGC, 2005) and by the European Commission (through its Breaking
Barriers to e-Government research programme http://www.egovbarriers.org/ )
11. M M Chaturvedi, MP Gupta and Jaijit Bhattacharya http:/ www.csi-igegov.org/emerging_pdf/ 9_7084.pdf Cyber Security Infrastructure in India: A Study by
12. India State to Create Central Citizen
Database
http:/www.businessweek.com/print/globalbiz/content/jun2006/gb20060602_447167.htm
13. Notification – Constituting the Unique Identification Authority of India’, Part I,
Section 2, Gazette of India, 28th January 2009