Denisa Popescu et al.
account social, political, and organizational factors that impact intra‐ and inter‐governmental collaboration( Pardo et al, 2004; Scholl and Klischewski, 2007; Scholl et al, 2012). However, in this paper, we take a broader definition of interoperability, which follows the European Interoperability Framework( EIF), such that we have included the organizational domain( legal, organizational, and policy elements that facilitate interactions between agencies), the semantic domain( data dictionaries, metadata repositories, and taxonomies and processes), and the technical domain( interconnection, data integration, metadata, etc)( European Commission, 2010).
2. Current realities in public sector
An interoperability framework in the public sector must take into account current realities. Some of the challenges experienced in managing and accessing information in the governmental institutions are discussed below.
Information systems in public sector have been developed over years to primarily support the mission of each ministry or agency. As such, each information technology( IT) system is optimized to support the information needs of a vertical, i. e., government ministry, with minimal consideration on the broader needs of the government as a whole. Consequently, government, ministries or agencies have a silo approach in producing information and data only for their own use.
Identity management of citizens or business is one relevant example in this regard. Citizens and business are identified by multiple definitions relevant to each silo‐based government services( civil status information, tax administration, pension, firm registration, etc), even in countries where there are single identity identifiers. The silo approach leads to the development of multiple registries and inconsistent identity verification processes. Information is scattered throughout different technology platforms and multiple systems. These in turns leads to major inconveniences to the citizens and business entities when they have to deal with multiple agencies.
Moreover, there are very poor correlations between similar information hosted in various ministries and agencies. For instance, there are discrepancies between the number of employees and the number of contributors to various insurance funds. The number of properties and the numbers of property tax payers differ. Tax systems cannot leverage court data since the personal identifier of an individual is not captured in the court system. These types of problems come from the initial definition, design and system implementation, and the lack of collaboration among different ministries or agencies.
Information, data, and systems interoperability are not a real priority for ministries or agencies. Moreover, information sharing occurs mainly within individual agencies and, on an ad hoc basis, through individual employees. Structured information exchanges beyond identified projects are very difficult to establish and sustain. When a ministry or agency wants to answer a question, it often initiates a new, specific data collection or exchange exercise.
Overall, there are no vertical or horizontal connections, and the IT resources are not applied in a synergistic way towards the fulfillment of strategic objectives of the ministry or the government as a whole. Uncoordinated information practices and supporting systems have led to very costly IT investments and delays detrimental to internal operational work. Most importantly, they have led to the limited ability to easily integrate data, which is needed in providing quality e‐government services.
3. Literature review
Implementing interoperability in government is not a simple task; it requires more than just the existence of a common technical standard to enable technical integration( Saekow and Boonmee, 2009) and economic and political factors are just as important when implementing interoperability programs in government. Over the past decade, many countries have implemented Government Interoperability Frameworks( GIFs), some with more success than others. The challenges of attaining these objectives, many of which relate to information and business process integration, technical integration, organizational interoperation, and demonstrated support from political leaders, remain significant( dos Santos and Reinhard, 2012; Guijarro, 2009; Landsbergen and Wolken, 1998; Scholl and Klischewski, 2007; Vernadat, 2010; Pardo et al. 2004, 2012). The possibility of legal and privacy restrictions on sharing information should be also addressed by ensuring that its
407