Igor Pihir, Katarina Tomičić‐Pupek and Darko Andročec
achieve cost effectiveness and S3‐W1: Promote benefits in order to assure transparency and motivation could have impact on creating or increasing trust in applying contemporary technologies for good practice as well as on creating demand for new e‐services at the end‐user side in order to trigger of offers by small software companies and entrepreneurs.
Shape‐up‐the‐future strategy S2‐O1: Use existing application infrastructure for possible new e‐services in communication of fiscal obligation subjects with other governmental bodies or authorities impacts the enhancement of the readiness of end‐users to shift towards other e‐services in communication with governmental bodies or authorities and increasing the number of end‐users with IT usage knowledge and competencies.
Defensive strategy W1‐T3: Use end‐user perception to decrease the development of new“ business models for tax avoidance” should result in assuring expected level of trust in functionality and non‐selective control.
Finally, efforts in resolving remaining uncovered threats T2 and partially T1 should contribute to dealing with this threat has impact on the quality of IT infrastructure in terms of reliability and availability.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we have analysed state of growth and reasons for the growth of e‐services usage and examined the case of Croatia by focusing on recent legislation changes and mandatory usage of e‐services in taxation. We collected data about the current state in Croatia from FINA. We also have strategically analysed the impact of fiscalization on readiness of end users to use other governmental e‐services. The analysis shows how the first implementation of e‐service that has been implemented mandatory by the government, can have a positive impact like increase of awareness, readiness and knowledge in enterprises of any size to the level at which the company could implement another e‐services faster.
A similar model of strategic options could stimulate usage of e‐Government services in other countries, because the knowledge and awareness as the potential for adaptation of e‐services / e‐Government is the most important driver of its spreading at large magnitude. In order to evaluate the impact that this project has on small software companies and entrepreneurs at all levels especially and particularly for small businesses, the extended strategic SWOT analysis illustrated possible benefits. Our proposed strategy is to use existing application infrastructure for possible new e‐services in communication of fiscal obligation subjects with other governmental bodies or authorities and it impacts the enhancement of the readiness of end‐users to shift towards other e‐services in communication with governmental bodies or authorities and increasing the number of end‐users with IT usage knowledge and competencies.
We would like to see new research in the near future that will show real benefits of this new legislation changes. We are sure that the new knowledge and current investment in the small companies will push the usage of other e‐services and by that ensure better efficiency of their current investment in new mandatory technology and certificates. This area will be a relevant issue for our future research.
References
AlAwadhi S. and Morris A.( 2009)“ Factors Influencing the Adoption of E‐Government Services”, Journal of Software, Vol 4,
No. 6, pp 584‐590. Biznet( 2013) Croatian chamber of economy [ online ], http:// www. biznet. hr / Carter L. and Weerakkody V.( 2008)“ E‐Government adoption: A cultural comparison”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol
10, No. 4, pp 473‐482. Chan M. L. C., Lau Y., and Pan S. L.( 2008)“ E‐Government implementation: A macro analysis of Singapore ' s e‐Government initiatives”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol 25, No. 2, pp 239‐255. EC( 1999)“ eEurope ‐ An Information Society for All” ‐ COM( 1999 / 687) European Commission, Bruxelles, 1999. EC( 2000)“ Presidency Conclusions of the Lisbon European Council”. European Council, Lisbon, 23. ‐24. 3. 2000. EC( 2005)“ i2010 ‐ A European Information Society for growth and employment” COM( 2005 / 229 Final), Bruxelles, 2005. EC( 2010)“ A Digital Agenda for Europe”, COM( 2010 / 245), European Commission, Bruxelles 2010. EC( 2010b)“ Digitizing Public Services in Europe: Putting ambition into action ‐ 9th Benchmark Measurement”, Capgemini,
IDC, Rand Europe, Sogeti and DTi. EFZG( 2008)“ Poslovna vizija baze znanja za elektroničko poslovanje” Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Ekonomski fakultet u Zagrebu,
Zagreb, 2008. FER( 2009)“ Studija normizacije u e‐Poslovanju”. Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Fakultet elektrotehnike i računarstva, Zagreb, 2009.
404