Government to Business E-Services – Accountability and Trust

Abstract

The authors divide their research in several phases. First, they conduct a literature review in order to identify relevant studies and theoretical papers covering the topic of governmental e-services. Then, they conduct an environmental scan in order to identify relevant governmental e-services in the EU countries. Further, the authors focus their research on eight European countries and conduct a deeper analysis of the implemented Government to Business (G2B) e-services. Research is centered on the eight G2B e-services. The identified e-services are firstly ranked according to their maturity level, and then analysed by using a developed questionnaire. The aim was to systematically collect enough information on the e-services in order to be able to conclude if the users may consider an e-service as responsible, reliable, accurate, secure, transparent and trustworthy as well as to conclude if an eservice addresses privacy issues, duties to remember, and the right to be forgotten. The comparative analysis of the identified G2B e-services in the eight European countries identifies weak spots of e-services and points them out in order for them to be improved. The identified gaps refer to the long-term service continuity plans, policies giving information on storage and preservation methods, long-term preservation of digitally signed records, use of clients' data etc. One of the by-products of this research is a check list which can be used by the users of e-services as guidance for establishing trust in an e-service they (intend to) use but it also can be used as guidelines by e-service providers. The authors conclude that not only the comparative study provides an insight into the state of development of G2B e-services in the investigated countries but it also reveals the areas of possible improvements in the context of establishing accountability and trust in governmental e-services in general.

A Framework for Public eServices Transparency

“…Instead, the authors describe their broad characteristics. These expressions include "transparency of the service" (Weerakkody et al, 2019), "procedural transparency" (Margariti et al, 2020), "transparency of actions" (Sá et al, 2016), "system operation transparency" (Stančić et al, 2017), "service level transparency" (Voss, 2000), "transparency quality" (Corradini et al, 2010) and "algorithmic transparency" (Kim & Moon, 2021).…”

“…Personal data handling: How and which data is collected, for what purpose, how is it stored and processed (Agozie & Kaya, 2021;Janic et al, 2013;Karwatzki et al, 2017;Murmann & Karegar, 2021) Personal data access: How and what personal data is accessed, shared, or disclosed by whom and to whom (including public officials, other agencies and third parties) (Agozie & Kaya, 2021;Janic et al, 2013;Lips et al, 2010;Sari et al, 2019;Stančić et al, 2017) Process progress: Tracking, status monitoring and progress of service requests (applications) (Bayona & Morales, 2017;J. Bertot et al, 2010;Ekaabi et al, 2020;European Commission, 2020;Foley & Alfonso, 2009;Gouscos et al, 2007;Karna & Gupta, 2012;Khan et al, 2020;Y.…”

“…Bertot et al, 2010;Ekaabi et al, 2020;European Commission, 2020;Foley & Alfonso, 2009;Gouscos et al, 2007;Karna & Gupta, 2012;Khan et al, 2020;Y. Li & Shang, 2020;Lips, 2010Lips, , 2012Lips et al, 2010;Ntaliani et al, 2010;Ramessur, 2009;Sabucedo et al, 2009;Safiullin et al, 2020;Stančić et al, 2017;Venkatesh et al, 2016;Voss, 2000;Weerakkody et al, 2019) (Cognini et al, 2014;Tan et al, 2013) Service completion: Notification for service completion (successful, unsuccessful, cancelled, incomplete) (Bhattacharya et al, 2012;European Commission, 2020) Activities: Which activities, tasks and administrative procedures are part of the service (already carried on and that need to be completed) (Cognini et al, 2014;Corradini et al, 2009Corradini et al, , 2010Limba & Gulevičiūtė, 2013) Public officials: Who is responsible for the service and/or for each task, activity, or procedure (Cognini et al, 2014;Corradini et al, 2009;Karna & Gupta, 2012) Decisions: Who made them, which algorithms, data and models were used, what were the premisses to reach the final decision, and how is the decision justified (Kim & Moon, 2021;M. Li, 2011;Limba & Gulevičiūtė, 2013) Complaints and inquiries: Which complaints and inquiries were made, and what is their status (answered, solved, ….)…”

The Role of E-Governance in Combating COVID-19 and Promoting Sustainable Development: A Comparative Study of China and Pakistan

“…Finally, the government-to-employee pathway supports transactions such as payroll and pension plans, the level of satisfaction of employees, and enhancing the advancement of the labor market, which can indirectly improve labor productivity via altering national standards. This advanced IT intends to restore the unrestricted formation of political communication and furnish it to a more enlightened and active citizenry (Yildiz 2007;Alshehri and Drew 2010;Albesher 2016;Stančić et al 2017).…”