Best Practices and Methodologies to Promote the Digitization of Public Services Citizen-Driven: A Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Pressure to deliver for more consumer-like citizen services;
- Need to refocus resources in areas that boost government program delivery and make it visible to citizens;
- Drive to improve citizen outcomes and install a government culture of service excellence and accountability;
- Necessity to diversify the economy, attract and nurture new businesses utilizing new business models under the umbrella of government as a facilitator.
- Strengthening of public-private partnerships as a way of increasing access to digitized services.
2. Research Methodology
2.1. Systematic Literature Review
- It has a review protocol that is defined at the start of the research. This protocol defines the research questions to be approached, and which methods will be used during the research;
- It proposes the creation of a well-documented research strategy. This strategy needs to be good enough to get the highest amount of primary studies in literature relevant to the topic;
- It uses inclusion and exclusion criteria to evaluate the primary studies found.
- Planning: The planning phase aims to identify the real need, namely the motivation to execute a SLR [11]. It is composed of the main activities of defining the objective and preparation of the protocol that will guide the SLR in order to minimize biases that can be committed by the researcher [12]. As well as the evaluation of this protocol, which in this work was carried out with the protocol test in one of the databases chosen for performing the automatic search.
- Conduction: During this phase of the SLR, the studies are identified through the application of the search strategy and selected according to the protocol defined in the planning phase. For the set of selected works, data are collected and synthesized in order to answer the research questions and thus facilitate analysis and synthesis for the creation of results [11].
- Reporting Results: The last phase of the SLR is related to the documentation of the SLR, where the description of the results must be executed, the answers to the research questions prepared and the results disseminated to the potential interested parties [12].
2.1.1. Research Questions
2.1.2. Search Strategy
2.1.3. Search String
- Population: The defined population was the automation or digitization of services. To search the population, the keywords digitization, automation, delivery and service were used.
- Intervention: The intervention aimed to identify and present the most relevant methods, technologies and mechanisms to promote the automation and digitization of services. For this, the following keywords were used: methods, technology and mechanism.
- Comparation: The focus of the study did not cover comparative studies, so this technique was not used in the search strategy and in the formation of the search string.
- Result: Work was done on services provided by governments, as well as on participation or participation by citizens. Thus, papers that included key words: citizen, e-participation and e-government were evaluated.
2.1.4. Selection Criteria (Inclusion and Exclusion)
- The paper must be available in the previously defined digital databases.
- The year of publication of the studies should be between 2007 and 2018. However, classical sources with definitions (books with classical concepts or pioneering articles) were also considered. The defined period of 10 years was identified as suitable for work selection, according to important research guides in the area of software engineering [11,13,15,16,17,18,19,20].
- The study must have been written in English or Portuguese.
- The study should propose or evaluate methods, technologies or mechanisms of digitization or automation of services.
- The work must relate to both services provided by governments, as well as to participation or realization by citizens.
- The work is classified as gray literature, that is, it is technical reports, preliminary studies, technical specifications, official documents of specific organs [11].
- In the case of incomplete works - published as Short Paper.
- Do not present sufficient information to extract the expected data, thus impairing the quality or relevance of the work [16].
2.1.5. Quality Criteria
- Execution of search strategy involving automatic and manual searches. Thereby, a preliminary list of studies is generated, with the help of the StArt tool, it was possible to discard the duplicate works.
- Identification of potentially relevant studies, based on reading the title and abstract. In this stage it is possible to discard studies that are clearly irrelevant to the research. In case of doubt about the permanence of any study in the SLR, the next stage assists in this definition.
- Reading of the introduction, methodology and conclusion of the pre-selected works, again applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
2.1.6. Evaluation of the Adopted Research Protocol
2.1.7. Selection of Primary Studies
2.2. Data Extraction
3. Results
3.1. RQ.1. How to Promote the Automation and Digitization of Federal Public Services in Brazil?
- All citizens should be taken into account by promoting reliable, innovative and easily accessible services for all;
- Efficiency and effectiveness must be a reality in the services provided, contributing to the high satisfaction, transparency and responsibility of users, relieving management and providing quality gains and resource savings;
- The services implemented must start with the essential and high impact for citizens and companies. In order to identify such services, citizens and society must be included in the process of definition of scope and design;
- Enabling elements should be added to services, enabling citizens and businesses to benefit from convenient, secure and interoperable forms of access;
- Participation in developing ideas and choosing priorities should be democratic, using tools for effective public debate and empowering citizens and society in decision-making.
- Analysis, measurement and quality assurance of the ways of making these services available. For this, the user’s perceptions about technology, satisfaction and trust must be taken into account [26];
- Providing services tailored to the needs of each citizen, respecting their profile (which may be related to age group, educational level, economic situation and others) and from this determine the amount of information and the level of detail to be provided [37].
- Access by the agencies of requests for information or needs of registered services;
- Requests for real estate or automobile registrations;
- Certificates and school records;
- Real-time monitoring by different bodies of citizen complaints (for example damaged roads, reports of violent crime or reports of missing children);
- Intelligent monitoring of natural disasters such as floods and landslides.
- Mobile devices to access portals or service applications [27];
- Self-service kiosks that have the option of delivering official documents [25];
- SMS (Short Messaging Service) for the delivery of public services, mainly warnings and information, in order to maintain proximity, connectivity, interactivity and continuous communication with all citizens [23];
- Social Networks that has a fast and wide reach of the population when it is necessary to disclose urgent information. This channel can also be used to identify citizens’ needs not formally expressed [24];
- Chat used as a way of asking the citizen’s doubts about various issues [24].
3.2. RQ.2. How to Include in the Automation Process and the Digitization of Public Services the Citizens and Agencies That Provide the Services?
- In addition to the application of technologies, it should be taken into account in the provision of digitized services 3 main categories: (1) the ability of decision-makers to communicate constantly with implementers in order to deliver as well as obtain the right information when needed; (2) competence of decision-makers to assign responsibilities to implementers in order to reduce bureaucracy and allow greater agility between processes; and (3) the ability to define clear rules in the provision and use of services, which should be widely disseminated to all stakeholders [32];
- The use of open data may be conducive to increasing the transparency of processes and can also be used to identify new demands for services to be made available. Some examples to achieve this increase in value for citizens can be: 1. Through the analysis of the questions answered by the citizens during the use of the services [33]; 2. Identification of the most accessed information [33]; 3. The mining of data to identify information expressed by citizens in non-official media, such as the use of social networks [28,33];
- The gamification techniques can be used to involve citizens in the process of ideas of new types of services, helping in the elaboration of new concepts of digital services or improvement of existing services [35].
- Keep the information and forms of access centralized in a single point, in addition to automating and simplifying the processes in order to make the citizen more independent to meet their needs [2];
- Information portals, booklets or other means of disseminating knowledge should not be static, rather, they should be able to deliver personalized information to citizens with the volume of data and details appropriate to each profile [37];
- Realization of more investments in marketing, advertising and promotion of services, being through different channels and with various forms of access. This seeks to raise the level of awareness and knowledge of citizens regarding the services provided by the Government [28];
- Demographic and socioeconomic conditions such as gender, age, formal education, economic income and political attitudes are factors that must be raised and understood so that the services are adequate to the different profiles existing for citizens [31]. Systems and services should be prepared to have user-friendly interfaces, adapting whenever possible to the profiles that have been identified [28];
- Providing public infrastructures, accessible and prepared to support the services offered, in order to guarantee availability and avoid access problems [28];
- Provide complete and high quality systems and processes, solving the needs of citizens in their entirety [28];
- Provide security and privacy of individuals and their data that must be kept intact and confidential [28];
- Gamification parts of the systems and services to thus involve and motivate the users to adopt the new processes with greater interest [34].
3.3. RQ.3. Which Are the Best Practices Adopted for the Automation Process and Digitization of Public Services?
- Infrastructure: Digital infrastructure is a necessary prerequisite, including robust digital technology infrastructure within governments, between citizens and industry. Without connectivity, access to systems and service applications is not possible;
- Capacity: Different capacities, including organizational, human, regulatory, collaborative and other, must be present in all governments, industry, communities and citizens. These capabilities are needed to leverage the digital technology infrastructure and broadcast digital innovations;
- Ecosystems: Innovative services, empowered by governments, should be part of a broader social innovation ecosystem, facilitating cultural change to adopt a positive attitude towards risk and product acceptance;
- Partnerships: While governments may face challenges with their ability to innovate, they can take advantage of the innovative capabilities and resources of partners. Developing the capacity to partner with the private and non-profit sectors and engaging citizens in defining new services are important mechanisms for delivering innovative public services;
- Inclusion: If innovative services must be ubiquitous and benefit all, they need to be available and usable by everyone. Implemented innovations should ensure that all actors have the ability to use and benefit from these services;
- Value: Innovations must offer public value and be valued;
- Delivery Channels: Many factors, including age, preferences, digital literacy, infrastructure, among others, affect the acceptance of digital services and opportunities for citizens to get involved. Therefore, several service delivery channels are required for engagement as well as multichannel delivery strategies to decide the most appropriate channels for each service;
- Security: Digital service innovations can not be deployed without ensuring the security of interactions and stored content;
- Privacy: Security focuses on content protection, while privacy belongs to citizens’ ability to opt out of digital public services. Innovations can not be mandatory, but citizens must retain the right to select the services they wish to receive, use or wish to engage with. For this to happen, privacy must be ensured;
- Authentication: Secure and verifiable authentication is required, but we also need appropriate authentication measures to ensure that the recipients of the service are indeed recipients. This requires layers of security and authentication across all services.
- Factors that may justify the low use of digitized services are the way services are delivered, trying to simulate processes that are already available, typically derived and conceived from human interaction, where citizen trust is generated from direct interactions with public officials. When developing services using ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies), it is important to keep in mind that access to a website or portal does not provide the same level of trust as personal services, so mechanisms that can help increase citizens’ trust should be introduced into digitized services [38].It is not enough to implement a large set of services, it is necessary to monitor the use of these services, measuring citizen satisfaction and identifying improvements to be implemented in order to increase the engagement and use of services [38].
- Environments for the provision of digitized services must be formed by 3 layers, being: 1a—Web portal through which the citizen will interact, including flexible and adaptable tools; 2a—Electronic protocol system, which is an intermediate layer responsible for security mechanisms and infrastructure for the provision of services and 3a—System itself, where the functionalities to be made available are developed, tested and put into production [1].Organizations, including public and private, must create, maintain and follow strategic ICT planning to guide their processes, avoid unrealistic strategies with poorly designed action plans or lack of internal alignment [39].
3.4. RQ.4. What Technological Solutions Are Adopted in the Automation Processes and Digitization of Public Services?
- SecureGov is a mechanism that has been implemented in Korea’s Public Information Sharing Center (PISC). This system uses a layered security structure with combined technologies, including a usage control scheme called Enterprise Digital Right Management (E-DRM) to prevent the illegal use and leaking of data, a counterfeit prevention technology using a 2-D bar code to prevent illegal data modification and a Public Key (PKI) scheme to ensure the authenticity of the data [27].
- A prototype is being tested by the government of India in that the proposal is an integrated digital signature approach based on cloud computing to enable electronic authentication and data security in the transaction phase of digitized services [42].
- The Government of India also uses another mechanism involving the digital signature to perform authentication of the data through the temporary proxy signature, where the owner of the signature transfers the power of its use to a signatory authority during a specific period of time and any misuse of the resources is prevented through the signature key generation procedure [41].
- The government of Georgia has an exclusive department to deal with the cyber security of its digitized services, among its practices is the monitoring of the use of services and the volume of transactions carried out.
- The government of Greece uses an online system for requesting services by citizens where the processing of the orders made takes place almost completely in an automated way, to reduce response time and minimize the need for human intervention, with the aim of avoiding fraud at any stage of the request process [1].
- The use of SmartGates, which are kiosks for citizens’ recognition through the evaluation of biometric data and even the face [25] which are common at airports and customs for validation of documents such as passports, is already being tested by several governments, such as Russia, which in self-service kiosks allows the citizen to make requests for documents and makes their delivery using this technology [25].
- The use of social robots to complement government communication channels with citizens is the option that brings together artificial intelligence techniques allowing richer service experiences that increasingly resemble human experiences. The use of these technologies lowers the burden on the organization and its human agents [44].
- The use of geo-visualization to aid in the understanding of data that has a spatial reference to them associated with technology that has been used to help citizens and rulers to more effectively understand information in a geographic environment and thus facilitate communication between these stakeholders for better decision-making. A simple example of the use of such technology is the decision to be made on a new cycleway to be deployed in a given city, with the use of geo-visualization citizens can suggest routes to be constructed [43].
3.5. Threats to Validity
- Research questions: the defined questions might not have covered the whole digital government and digitization services area. Thus, one may not find answers to the questions that concern him/her. As we considered this a feasible threat, several discussion meetings with the research team were held to calibrate the systematic literature review questions;
- Subjectivity in the study selection: we cannot guarantee that all relevant primary studies were selected. It is possible that relevant papers were not chosen. In order to mitigate it, we performed the automatic search, and complemented it by performing manual search to try to collect all primary studies in this field;
- Subjectivity in the data extraction: during the data extraction process, the primary studies were classified based on our judgment. In order to mitigate this threat, the classification process was performed using peer review;
- Repeatability of the systematic process: there is a risk involving the ability to replicate or extend this systematic literature review. This threat is mitigated through a detailed description of the systematic process in this work, since all details of the systematic literature review protocol were described. Moreover, we published the data extraction results on the Web as an additional source of information.
4. Proposed Model
- Map the stakeholders: Map the general outline and description of the different individuals, groups and organizations that interrelate, directly or indirectly, with each other.
- Identify the possible stakeholders: Conducting a survey or interviewing citizens in a busy location.
- Identify communication channels: Verify which communication channels will be used, and can be structured: surveys, interviews; formal unstructured: e-mail, chat; and informal: social networks.
- Identify needs: Map and classify quantitatively the priorities of services and/or functionalities to be implemented.
- Apply techniques to identify the profiles of citizens: Profiles related to age group, educational level, economic situation, among others, must be identified for delivery of the adequate volume of information. Profiles related to difficulty of access or deficiency (auditory or visual) should be identified to suit the way the service is delivered.
- Provide a tool to evaluate the services provided: Services must be continuously evaluated to identify changes or improvements to be developed, access below expected, as well as to perceive infrastructure or security problems.
- Apply improvements in services provided: Improvements or changes must be implemented to fit the perceptions of citizens.
- Implement mechanisms to maintain and/or encourage the use of services: The citizen should be encouraged to use the services as if they were part of their daily life.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Drigas, A.; Koukianakis, L. Government Online: An E-Government Platform to Improve Public Administration Operations and Services Delivery to the Citizen. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2009, 5736, 523–532. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
- Cordella, A.; Tempini, N. E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Gov. Inf. Q. 2015, 32, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roy, J. Open data and open governance in Canada: A critical examination of new opportunities and old tensions. Future Internet 2014, 6, 414–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Committee, P.G. OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies; OECD: Paris, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Patón-Romero, J.D.; Baldassarre, M.T.; Piattini, M.; García Rodríguez de Guzmán, I. A Governance and Management Framework for Green IT. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moura, M.A. Política de Governança Digital Brasileira: Em pauta a participação social e a transparência ativa. Revista Ágora Políticas Públicas Comunicação e Governança Informacional 2016, 1, 121–125. [Google Scholar]
- Da Republica do Brasil, P. Plataforma de Cidadania Digital—Decreto N. 8.936 de 19 de Dezembro de; Platform for Digital Citizenship: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerio do Planejamento, G.E.D. Estrategia de Governanca Digital; MP: Lisbon, Portugal, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Musafir, V.E.N. Brazilian e-Government policy and implementation. In International E-Government Development; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 155–186. [Google Scholar]
- Kitchenham, B. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele UK Keele Univ. 2004, 33, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Felizardo, K.R.; Nakagawa, E.Y.; Fabbri, S.C.P.F.; Ferrari, F.C. Revisão Sistemática da Literatura em Engenharia de Software: Teoria e Prática; Elsevier: New York City, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Brereton, P.; Kitchenham, B.A.; Budgen, D.; Turner, M.; Khalil, M. Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. J. Syst. Softw. 2007, 80, 571–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biolchini, J.; Mian, P.G.; Natali, A.C.C.; Travassos, G.H. Systematic review in software engineering. Syst. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2005, 679, 45. [Google Scholar]
- Silva, F.S.; Soares, F.S.F.; Peres, A.L.; de Azevedo, I.M.; Vasconcelos, A.P.L.; Kamei, F.K.; de Lemos Meira, S.R. Using CMMI together with agile software development: A systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2015, 58, 20–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pai, M.; McCulloch, M.; Gorman, J.D.; Pai, N.; Enanoria, W.; Kennedy, G.; Tharyan, P.; Colford, J.J. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: An illustrated, step-by-step guide. Natl. Med. J. India 2004, 17, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Petersen, K.; Vakkalanka, S.; Kuzniarz, L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2015, 64, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerchione, S.; Cerchione, R.; Singh, R.; Centobelli, P.; Shabani, A. Food cold chain management: From a structured literature review to a conceptual framework and research agenda. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitchenham, B.; Pretorius, R.; Budgen, D.; Brereton, O.P.; Turner, M.; Niazi, M.; Linkman, S. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering—A tertiary study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2010, 52, 792–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Babar, M.A. Systematic reviews in software engineering: An empirical investigation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2013, 55, 1341–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wohlin, C.; Prikladniki, R. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2013, 55, 919–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaezi, S.K. Measurement and Evaluating Frameworks in Electronic Government Quality Management. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Cairo, Egypt, 1–4 December 2008; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 160–165. [Google Scholar]
- Qian, H. Global perspectives on e-governance: From government-driven to citizen-centric public service delivery. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Beijing, China, 25–28 October 2010; ACM: New York City, NY, USA, 2010; Volume 444, pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Shareef, M.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, U. Reformation of public service to meet citizens’ needs as customers: Evaluating SMS as an alternative service delivery channel. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 255–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valle-Cruz, D. Dynamic Interaction Between Emerging Technologies and Organizational Factors in Government Agencies. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Hammamet, Tunisia, 1–3 March 2016; pp. 428–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aleksandrov, O.; Dobrolyubova, E. Public Service Delivery Through Automated Self-Service Kiosks: International Experience and Prospects for Implementation in Russia. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 24–25 November 2015; pp. 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akram, M.S.; Malik, A. Evaluating Citizens’ Readiness to Embrace e-Government Services. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011; pp. 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, J.J.U.; Ae Chun, S.; Kim, D.H.; Keromytis, A. SecureGov: Secure Data Sharing for Government Services. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 17–20 June 2013; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boudjelida, A.; Mellouli, S. A Multidimensional Analysis Approach For Electronic Citizens Participation. In Proceedings of the 17th International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government Research, Shanghai, China, 8–10 June 2016; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lagzian, M.; Pourbagheri, M. An investigation into affecting factors on acceptance of e-government service counters as a service delivery channel: A case of developing country. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Guimarães, Portugal, 27–30 October 2014; ACM: New York City, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 11–19. [Google Scholar]
- Linders, D. We-Government: An Anatomy of Citizen Coproduction in the Information Age. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011; pp. 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, L.; Zheng, Y. Good Wine Needs Bush: A Multilevel Analysis of National E-Government Performance and Citizen Use Across European Countries. In Proceedings of the 17th International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government Research, Shanghai, China, 8–10 June 2016; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omar, A.; Weerakkody, V.; Millard, J. Digital-enabled Service Transformation in Public Sector: Institutionalization As a Product of Interplay Between Actors and Structures During Organisational Change. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Hammamet, Tunisia, 1–3 March 2016; pp. 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, G.V.; Macadar, M.A.; Luciano, E.M.; Testa, M.G. Delivering public value through open government data initiatives in a Smart City context. Inf. Syst. Front. 2017, 19, 213–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alloghani, M.; Hussain, A.; Al-Jumeily, D.; Aljaaf, A.J.; Mustafina, J. Gamification in e-Governance: Development of an Online Gamified System to Enhance Government Entities Services Delivery and Promote Public’s Awareness. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information and Education Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 10–12 Janurary 2017; pp. 176–181. [Google Scholar]
- Kauppinen, S.; Luojus, S.; Lahti, J. Involving Citizens in Open Innovation Process by Means of Gamification: The Case of WeLive. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Gothenburg, Sweden, 23–27 October 2016; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 23:1–23:4. [Google Scholar]
- Bertot, J.C.; Jaeger, P.T.; Gorham, U.; Greene, N.N.; Lincoln, R. Delivering e-government services through innovative partnerships: Public libraries, government agencies, and community organizations. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, College Park, MD, USA, 4–7 June 2012; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 126–134. [Google Scholar]
- Colineau, N.; Paris, C.; Linden, K.V. Automatically generating citizen-focused brochures for public administration. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 10–19. [Google Scholar]
- Corradini, F.; Polini, A.; Polzonetti, A.; Re, B. Business Processes Verification for e-Government Service Delivery. IS Manag. 2010, 27, 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Almeida Teixeira Filho, J.G.; de Moura, H.P. MMPE-SI/TI (Gov)—Model to assess the maturity level of the IS/IT strategic planning of Brazilian governmental organizations. In Proceedings of the PICMET ’11: Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET), Portland, OR, USA, 31 July–4 August 2011; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Nielsen, M.M. eGovernance and Online Service Delivery in Estonia. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Staten Island, NY, USA, 7–9 June 2017; pp. 300–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bannore, A.; Devane, S.R. Use of Proxy Signature in e-Governance. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies, Udaipur, India, 4–5 March 2016; pp. 82:1–82:6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, V.; Kumar, R.; Saquib, Z. An Approach Towards Digital Signatures for e-Governance in India. In Proceedings of the 2015 2nd International Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia, St. Petersburg, Russia, 24–25 November 2015; pp. 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marzouki, A.; Lafrance, F.; Daniel, S.; Mellouli, S. The Relevance of Geovisualization in Citizen Participation Processes. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, New York, NY, USA, 7–9 June 2017; pp. 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pieterson, W.; Ebbers, W.; Madsen, C.Ø. New Channels, New Possibilities: A Typology and Classification of Social Robots and Their Role in Multi-channel Public Service Delivery. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2017, 10428, 47–59. [Google Scholar]
- Canedo, E.D.; da Costa, R.P.; de Sousa Junior, R.T.; Amvame Nze, G.D. Best Practices Kits for the ICT Governance Process within the Secretariat of State-Owned Companies of Brazil and Regarding these Public Companies. Information 2018, 9, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
RQ | Description |
---|---|
RQ.1. | How to promote the automation and digitization of federal public services in Brazil? |
RQ.2. | How to include in the automation process and the digitization of public services the citizens and agencies that provide the services? |
RQ.3. | Which are the best practices adopted for the automation process and digitization of public services? |
RQ.4. | What technological solutions are adopted in the automation processes and digitization of public services? |
Initials | Conference/Journal |
---|---|
ICIS | International Conference on Information Systems |
AMCIS | Americas Conference on Information Systems |
ECIS | European Conference on Information Systems |
JSIS | The Journal of Strategic Information Systems |
DG.O | International Conference on Digital Government Research |
EGOV | International Conference on Electronic Government |
IJEGR | International Journal of Electronic Government Research |
Digital Library | Publications | Percentage |
---|---|---|
ACM | 354 | 49% |
IEEE Xplore | 255 | 35% |
DBLP | 118 | 16% |
Adopted Strategy | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | Stage 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Automatic Search | 727 | 118 | 65 | 19 |
Manual Search | 56 | 40 | 31 | 7 |
Total Selected Primary Studies | 783 | 158 | 96 | 26 |
ID | Reference | Description | Research Questions |
---|---|---|---|
S1 | [21] | Analysis of factors affecting the implementation of e-government to obtain quality services through the use of evaluation and measurement methods. | RQ.1 |
S2 | [22] | Strategies for integrating E-government and E-governance. | RQ.1 |
S3 | [23] | It seeks to understand citizens’ satisfaction with the quality of services provided by SMS. | RQ.1 |
S4 | [24] | Identifies and describes new channels for communication with citizens. | RQ.1 |
S5 | [25] | Analyzes the implementation of service kiosks for the provision of federal and municipal public administrative services. | RQ.1 and RQ.4 |
S6 | [26] | Evaluates the factors needed to attract citizens to use digitized services. | RQ.1, RQ.2 and RQ.3 |
S7 | [27] | It presents a system concerned with security and secure data sharing, using a 3 layer structure and making use of combined technologies. | RQ.1, RQ.2, RQ.3 and RQ.4 |
S8 | [28] | It presents ways of mining social media texts to broaden citizen participation in the development of better digitized services. | RQ.2 |
S9 | [29] | Identifies factors that encourage citizens to use digitized services. | RQ.2 |
S10 | [30] | It indicates how to include the citizen as a partner of government activities, contributing with time, experience and effort to reach positive results. | RQ.2 |
S11 | [31] | Relates important factors to increase citizen participation in the development and use of digitized services. | RQ.2 |
S12 | [32] | Does the analysis of how the citizen can be included in the process of transformation of public services. | RQ.2 |
S13 | [33] | Proposes the use of open data to influence service delivery, increase stakeholder feedback, and analyze the impact of the use of such services. | RQ.2 |
S14 | [34] | Demonstrates the application of gamification techniques to broaden citizen engagement. | RQ.2 |
S15 | [35] | It suggests how to introduce gamification to involve citizens in the process of ideas of new types of services to assist in the elaboration of new concepts of digital services. | RQ.2 |
S16 | [2] | It demonstrates the importance of reducing the bureaucracy of processes and automating them even before the application of technologies to provide services. | RQ.2 and RQ.3 |
S17 | [36] | It proposes an innovation structure for the digital public service. | RQ.3 |
S18 | [37] | It presents a way to produce information according to the profile of the reading public. | RQ.3 |
S19 | [38] | It proposes to carry out the evaluation of the satisfaction degree of the citizens with regard to the digitized services. | RQ.3 |
S20 | [39] | It guides strategic planning in order to meet the demands and implementation of services. | RQ.3 |
S21 | [40] | It presents good practices used by the Georgian government in providing digitized services. | RQ.3 and RQ.4 |
S22 | [41] | It proposes proxy authentication over time to increase the security of online transactions. | RQ.4 |
S23 | [1] | Provides general guidelines for the provision of digitized services. | RQ.4 |
S24 | [42] | Addresses the use of digital signature based on cloud for digitized services. | RQ.4 |
S25 | [43] | Uses geo-visualization of information to increase citizen participation in digitized services. | RQ.4 |
S26 | [44] | Describes the use of intelligent or multi-channel channels for citizen service. | RQ.4 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Acco Tives Leão, H.; Canedo, E.D. Best Practices and Methodologies to Promote the Digitization of Public Services Citizen-Driven: A Systematic Literature Review. Information 2018, 9, 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9080197
Acco Tives Leão H, Canedo ED. Best Practices and Methodologies to Promote the Digitization of Public Services Citizen-Driven: A Systematic Literature Review. Information. 2018; 9(8):197. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9080197
Chicago/Turabian StyleAcco Tives Leão, Heloise, and Edna Dias Canedo. 2018. "Best Practices and Methodologies to Promote the Digitization of Public Services Citizen-Driven: A Systematic Literature Review" Information 9, no. 8: 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9080197
APA StyleAcco Tives Leão, H., & Canedo, E. D. (2018). Best Practices and Methodologies to Promote the Digitization of Public Services Citizen-Driven: A Systematic Literature Review. Information, 9(8), 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9080197