Dimitris Christodoulakis et al.
We from site we will continue to study the issue e‐Government vs. good governance. Our goal is to unfold all factors that affect e‐Government and present them in a dynamic system together with basic principles and design guidelines.
The focus for further research is to clarify the reinforcement’ s loops on system presented in figure 2 in order to expand the equations. We will try to measure the affect of Group D on the other groups and the affect of public opinion to the policy decision process and e‐Government development. Measurements need to reflect more accurately citizens’ experience and satisfaction. Since there is no international consensus on how to apply these measures, we should take into account apart from web analytics, customer views and experience replication, the valuable information and open‐data that social media may provide.
Measuring e‐Government is no doubt challenging, but also very important. After all, without a clear understanding of how to measure e‐Government procedure and development, it is difficult to measure the impact of e‐governance. Increasing efforts to simulate e‐gov development with system dynamics is a good step forward towards gauging the extent of e‐Government success and failure, and evaluating progress towards development for the people.
References
Annan Kofi( 1998), In: Rachel Gisselquist, What does“ good governance” mean? United Nations University http:// unu. edu / publications / articles / what‐does‐good‐governance‐mean. html
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & McClure, C. R.( 2008). Citizen‐Centered E‐Government Services: Benefits, Costs, and Research Needs. The Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: 137‐142. Montreal, Canada, May 18‐211, 2008.
Commission of the European Communities( 2003)“ The Role of e Government for Europe’ s Future”, { SEC( 2003) 1038 }. http:// eur‐lex. europa. eu /
Dawes Sharon S.( 2009). Governance in the digital age: a research and action framework for an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly, 26( 2): 257‐264.
Ghaffarzadegan Navid, John Lyneis, George P. Richardson( 2011), How small system dynamics models can help the public policy process, System Dynamics Review vol 27, No 1( January – March 2011): 22 – 44Published online 21 October 2010 in Wiley Online Library
Graham John, Bruce Amos and Tim Plumptre( 2003) Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century, Policy Brief No. 15.
Institute on Governance, Ottawa, Ontario Canada www. iog. ca Oxford English Dictionaries( 2012) http:// oxforddictionaries. com / definition / english / Pear Judea( 2011) The Mediation Formula: A guide to the assessment of causal pathways in nonlinear models. UCLA
TECHNICAL REPORT R‐363 October 2011 Pear Judea( 1995) Causal diagrams for empirical research, Biometrika( 1995), 82,4, pp. 669‐710 Richardson GP, Pugh AL, III.( 1981). Introduction to system dynamics modeling with dynamo. Productivity Press: Cambridge
MA. Richardson GP, Andersen DF, Luna‐Reyes LF.( 2004). Joining minds: Group modeling to link people, process, analysis, and policy design. Proceedings of Twenty‐Sixth Annual APPAM Research Conference, Atlanta, GA, October 28‐30. Sterman JD.( 2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin / McGraw‐Hill: Boston. TIME( 2012), The TIME Magazine, How to fix capitalism: A TIME debate, p. p. 30‐39, January 30, 2012 W3C( 2008) Web content Accessibility Guidelines( WCAG) 2.0 https:// www. w3. org / TR / WCAG20 / Wikipedia( 2012), System Dynamics, http:// en. wikipedia. org / wiki / System _ dynamics Zampou Eleni( 2012), Assessment of Content and Structure of E‐Government sites, Master Thesis, Computer Engineering and Informatics Dept, University of Patras, Greece, Autumn 2012.
126