Igor Pihir, Katarina Tomičić‐Pupek and Darko Andročec
This service has a monopolistic owner i. e. the Croatian tax authority and many end‐users i. e. businesses that use their own applications at the client side to connect to the service. The main purpose of the service is to assure an overview of issued retail invoices in order to supervise the tax collection from trading. The service is based on exchange of e‐messages containing data about invoices to be issued delivered by applications on the client side and a certified e‐message with invoice verification code on the tax authority side. The exchange of messages is defined by business and XML protocols which have been published by the service owner. The end users must adapt their applications to the new expected feature by their own.
The procedure of evaluation is conducted via extended SWOT analysis. First we must identify SWOT elements for the fiscalization project. We will estimate the priorities of each of SWOT elements then sort them by priority( S1 to Sx, W1 to Wy, etc.) and define strategies for possible strategic benefits( which can be equalized to strategic goals). Strategies that can be identified have different signification, they can be corrective, shapeup‐the‐future strategies, and implicit strategies. Each type of strategy significance brings different resource allocation options( these resource allocation options could be explored separately with more input data).
Table 2: Strategic analysis for the fiscalization project
Strengths
S1: Available XML and other protocols and schemes for data migration, gathering and retrieval S2: Existing application infrastructure with appropriate functionalities at the tax administration bodies S3: Fiscal benefits are visible in a short time
Strategic analysis for the fiscalization project Weaknesses
W1: Perception of“ tax big brother” by fiscal obligation subjects W2: Additional operational costs for fiscal obligation subjects for end‐user infrastructure W3: Lack of readiness of other e‐services that would lean on fiscalization
Opportunities O1: Possible new e‐services upgrade( i. e. towards other e‐services in communication with governmental bodies or authorities) O2: Infrastructure at the end‐user side is developed and can be reused( fiscal obligation subjects, i. e. small businesses that otherwise would not embrace new technologies without motivation) O3: Readiness of small software companies and entrepreneurs to develop new e‐services
Threats T1: Monopolistic e‐service provider at the central point T2: No alternative infrastructure are presented( when default infrastructure i. e. internet connections are unavailable) T3: New“ business models for tax avoidance”
Corrective strategies( S, W),( O, T),( S, T),( O, W)
O3‐T1: Avoid monopolistic position of e‐service provider( central point of service) S1‐W3: Achieve higher level of interoperability by using appropriate protocols and schemes for data retrieval for other e‐services O2‐W2: Offer new services to reuse infrastructure at the end‐user side for other services to achieve cost effectiveness S3‐W1: Promote benefits in order to assure transparency and motivation
Shape‐up‐the‐future strategies( S, O)
S2‐O1: Use existing application infrastructure for possible new e‐services in communication of fiscal obligation subjects with other governmental bodies or authorities
Defensive strategies( W, T) W1‐T3: Use end‐user perception to decrease the development of new“ business models for tax avoidance” Uncovered weaknesses and threats
T2: Develop alternative infrastructure Partially T1
Corrective strategies: O3‐T1: Avoid monopolistic position of e‐service provider( central point of service), S1‐ W3: Achieve higher level of interoperability by using appropriate protocols and schemes for data retrieval for other e‐services, O2‐W2: Offer new services to reuse infrastructure at the end‐user side for other services to
403