E-Government and Knowledge Management
MIS
580
副标题样式
Noyan Ilk
Shaokun Fan
Xiao (Erin) Yao
Agenda
Overview:
- E-Government
- KM for E-Government
- Some Issues with KM in E-Government
Technology:
- Gov 2.0
- Ontologies
Case Studies:
- The MEDW Project
- The InfoCitizen Project
- KM System
- ADVISE Program
References
E-Government: An Overview
• The use of information technology to provide
access to government information and delivery
of public services to;
–
–
–
–
Citizens: government-to-citizens (G2C)
Businesses: government-to-business (G2B)
Government: government-to-government (G2G)
Employees: government-to-employees (G2E)
E-Government: A Changing Service
Model
Citizen
Government
Technology
E-Government: A Changing Service
Model
Citizen
Citizen
Government
Technology
Technology
Government
Recreation One Stop
Timeline: US Government Goes Electronic [1]
1996
Information Technology Management Reform Act
establishing the CIO position to manage IT resources
1986
Brooks Act amended
1998
WebGov Portal
reducing government costs through volume
buying, including IT purchases
replaced by FirstGov Portal
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2001
National Security Telecommunications and
Information Systems Security Policy No. 11
1986
2000
Federal Rehabilitation
Act
requiring all IT products
be accessible to disabled
White House 2.0 & E-Gov Video
2002
NSA approval
2000
FirstGov Portal
2001
2000
2002
2001
HIPPA
2002
2002
2002
E-Government Act
Funding additional e-government initiatives and
creating Office of Electronic Government
Benefits of E-Government
• Improved government
accountability to citizens
• Greater public access to
information
• More efficient/effective
government services
• More convenience of
governmental services
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Gov.
Accounti
bility
Public
Access
Most
Important
Benefits*
More
Efficient
Gov.
Conveni
ence
* Study by The Council for Excellence in Government, August 2000
Knowledge Management for E-Government
• At the level of a government, knowledge management (KM) for
government can be defined as leveraging knowledge for improving
internal processes, for formulation of sound government policies and
programs and for efficient public service delivery for increased
productivity [2].
• In 2002, print, film, magnetic, and optical storage media produced about 5
exabytes of new information (1 exabyte= 1018 bytes) [3].
• 92% of the new information was stored on magnetic media, mostly in
hard disks. Film represents 7% of the total, paper 0.01%, and optical
media 0.002%. Almost 800 MB of recorded information is produced per
person each year [2].
• Governments, therefore, face information explosion and KM can help
governments in coping with information explosion leading to better policy
formulation, better program implementation and need-based skill
formation for increased productivity.
The Need for Knowledge Integration in E-Government
Program Admin
Services to Citizens
Public Asset Management
Marketable Asset Management
Defense & Nat’l Security Ops
Diplomacy & Foreign Relations
Disaster Management
Domestic Economy
Education
Energy Management
Insurance
Public Health
Recreation & National Resources
Social Services
R&D & Science
Compliance
Regulated Activity Approval
Consumer Safety
Environmental Management
Law Enforcement
Legal
Revenue Collection
Trade (Import/Export)
Transportation
Workforce Management
Document
Library
File
Shares
Support Delivery of Services
Legislative Management
Business Management of Information
IT Management
Planning and Resource Allocation
Regulatory Management
Inter-Agency
Controls and Oversight
Public Affairs
Internal Risk Management and Mitigation
Federal Financial Assistance
Internal Operations/Infrastructure
Human Resources Financial Management
Admin
Supply Chain Management
Intra-Agency
Human Resources Financial Management
Admin
Supply Chain Management
Record
DBs
Government
Services
KM for E-Government: Challenges /
Controversies [1, 2]
• Disparate and out-dated information infrastructure
and systems
• Lack of IT funding and personnel
• Security and privacy issues
• Organizational and cultural inertia
• Government laws and legal regulations
Technical Trends for E-Government
• Government 2.0: apply the technology of
Web 2.0 to the practice of e government.
• Ontology: a formal explicit specification of a
shared body of concepts
What is missing in E-Government 1.0?
The Boom of Web 2.0
Government 2.0 Technologies
• Government 2.0 [4] is to provide more effective
processes for government service delivery to
individuals and businesses. Integration of tools
such as
–
–
–
–
–
wikis
government-specific social networking sites
blogs
RSS feeds
Google Maps
Advantages of Government 2.0
• Provides new drivers and incentives for
change towards better e-government:
– Simple and user-oriented
– Interactive
– Collaborative
– Innovative
Technical Challenges for KM in EGovernment
• Interoperability Challenge [5]
– Environment is heterogeneous
– Systems are widely distributed
– The use of one fixed vocabulary is not possible
• Search Challenge
– Resources are growing at exponential rates
– Users want more than “exact keyword search”,
they are demanding both accuracy and
completeness
The Ontology-based Solution
An Ontology Example
Why Build Ontologies?
• To share common understanding of
information among people or software agents
• To enable reuse of domain knowledge
• To analyze domain knowledge
• Some Issues / Controversies:
– Who should build/maintain the ontology?
– What if ontology needs to be changed?
– Be aware of “Human Flesh Search”
Case Studies
The MEDW Project
The InfoCitizen Project
KM system
ADVISE program
About & Motivations
MEDW
[6]
Supported by the Beijing Statistics Bureau: 2006 - 2010
Relating to the national and government agencies’ statistics and survey
system, and other non-government investigations
Providing all kinds of information on various aspects of Beijing’s macroeconomy and social development
InfoCitizen
[7]
Piloted by eleven organization s within 5 different EU-countries : 2001, €3.3m
Promoting pan-European interoperability
Transparent public service provision to the European citizen
Reducing costs of administrative processes
KM System
[8]
Designed for the Italian Department of Technology and Innovation: 2002
Promoting the realization of e-government projects on a local basis
Helping Local Authorities in the implementation phase and to guarantee
integration between different projects carried out in different areas of the
Country.
ADVISE
[9, 10]
Developed by Department of Homeland Security: 2003 – 2007, $42m
Identifying actionable and credible knowledge for the prevention of,
response to, and recovery from incidents
Allowing threat and vulnerability assessment
Uncovering potential threats to effectively respond to an event
Approaches
MEDW
Beijing, China
Data Warehouse
InfoCitizen
5 European countries
Distributed Knowledge Repository
Infocitizen European Architecture
Interoperable Agent
KM System
Italy
2 Dimensions
The KM Map
ADVISE
DHS, the United
States
Enhanced Semantic Graph: An ontology-based semantic matching
and filtering technique
Data Mining
Discussion
MEDW
Beijing, China
Stress the cooperation between different departments and staff’s
awareness of cooperation.
Achieve standardization of service experience and chief process; Increase
government office efficiency and the quality of services; support for
decision making.
InfoCitizen
5 European
countries
No central database required: individual databases integration through
interoperable agent.
Help to make cross-border mobility easier; help to reduce the costs of PA
processes.
KM System
Italy
Emphasize communities and the actors: Knowledge grows with the actors’
actively participation.
Maintain consistence among Local Authorities without restricting their
freedom; support actors in keeping in contact, sharing resources,
approaches, solutions and problems, re-using experiences and knowledge.
ADVISE
DHS, the United
States
The domain ontology and data mining: finding patterns and relationships
within data that can possibly result in new knowledge.
Mine and identify meaningful potential threats, and minimize false alerts,
inferring threats coming from several independent seemingly benign
activities
Trends and Controversies
• Cooperation is important: G2G – MEDW, Infocitizen,
KM system – different departments, different regions,
different countries
• Participation is still a challenge: G2G – Infocitizen,
KM system
• Privacy is a big concern: G2C, G2G – Infocitizen, KM
system, ADVISE[11]
• Centralization and Local Autonomy is also an issue:
G2G – Infocitizen, KM system
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Chen, H., “Achieving Information Resources Empowerment: A Digital Library and
Knowledge Management Perspective”. MIS 580 AI Lab Presentation.
Misra, D.C., 2007. “Ten guiding principles for knowledge management in eGovernment in developing countries.” In: Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Knowledge Management for Productivity and Competitiveness,
January 11-12, 2007.
SIMS (School of Information Management and System), University of California
(UC), Berkeley (2003): How much information? 2003 Executive Summary,
October 27.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_2.0
Wimmer, M. A. 2006. Implementing a Knowledge Portal for e-Government
Based on Semantic Modeling: The e-Government Intelligent Portal (eip.at). In
Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii international Conference on System
Sciences - Volume 04 (January 04 - 07, 2006). HICSS.
Xing, C., Yang, J., He, W., Zhang, Y., and Chen, C., “Research and Development of
Key Technologies for E-government: Case Studies in China”, in: Chen, H, and et
al. (ed.), Digital Government - E-Government Research, Case Studies, and
Implementation, 2007, pp. 615-645.
References (Cont.)
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Adam, O., Werth, D., and Zangl, F., “Distributed Knowledge Repositories for PanEuropean Public Services”, Wimmer, M. (ed.), Knowledge Management in eGovernment, 2003, pp. 1-12.
Morici ,R., Nunziata, E., and Sciarra, G., “A Knowledge Manage System for Egovernment Projects and Actors”, in: Chen, H, and et al. (ed.), Knowledge
Management in Electronic Government, 2003, pp. 304-309.
Adam, N., Janeja, V., Paliwal, A., Atluri, V., Chun, S., Cooper, J., Paczkowski, J.,
Bornhovd, C., and Schaper, J., “Semantics-based threat structure mining for
homeland security”, in: Chen, H, and et al. (ed.), Digital Government - EGovernment Research, Case Studies, and Implementation, 2007, pp. 308-327.
SourceWatch entry on ADVISE:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ADVISE
DHS Privacy Office Review of the Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight
and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE) Program, Privacy Office, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, 2007:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_rpt_advise.pdf
Project Consortium
•
Scientific Partners
Saarland University – Institute of Information Systems (IWi) Germany
University of Minho
Center for Research and Technology Hellas/
Informatics and Telematics Institute (CERTH/ITI)
•
Italy
Greece
User Partners
Municipality of Colleferro
Municipality of Tres Cantos
Prefecture of Thessaloniki
Municipality of Schmelz
•
Greece
Industrial Partners
Engineering
Ibermatica
Spain
ALTE C
•
Portugal
Italy
Spain
Greece
Germany
Dissemination Partner
UNTC
Greece
Integration
Integration of authority distributed
organisations
European level
National level
Integration of geographically
Regional level
Local level
distributed locations
Infocitizen European Architecture
KM system – Approach
Dimensions
Content
management
issues: the
creation of a
knowledge map
Community
building issues:
definition of
actors and their
roles in the KM
system
The Knowledge Map
• Codification, searching and Management of all document, resources and
information about e-government
Actors
All Internet Users
Local Governments
Regional Competence
Centers and Staff
• Supporting and activating communities of users involved in e-government
projects.