Electronic Business: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (4-Volumes) P8 potx

4
Identifying E-Business Options
stakeholders. It is relevant to distinguish between
business partners and other external stakeholders
because the communication mode between the
organization and these two kinds of stakehold-
ers groups is different (see also the paragraph on
communication modes). With business partners,
an organization has both a transactional (including
monetary) exchange relation and an informational
and communicational relation. Business partners
include customers, suppliers, banks, insurance
companies, shareholders, and governments (e.g.,
concerning taxes, licenses, and regulations).
With other external stakeholders, organiza-
tions only have an informational or communica-
tional relation. Examples are the press, special
interest groups, (e.g., environmental groups),
and the general public. The number of external
stakeholders groups is organization-dependent:
the user of our methodology has to map out and
group all external stakeholders who may be rel-
evant to the analysis.
Some relevant questions with respect to stake-
holders are:
• What are the current groups of business
partners?
• What are the current groups of other stake
-
holders?
Dimension #2: Stakeholder Statuses

We distinguish between two statuses, namely
current and new. By using the Internet, an orga-
nization can transform or extend its business with
respect to new stakeholders. New stakeholders can
be new customers, new suppliers, new banks, or
even new governments. New customers can be
reached by entering new markets (market exten-
sion) or by disintermediating current intermediar-
LHVDQGLQWKLVZD\WDUJHWLQJ¿QDOFRQVXPHUV
The same applies to suppliers. By using electronic
marketplaces, organizations can broaden their
suppliers’ base or disintermediate backward to
replace suppliers by the initial producers of the
supplies.
Some relevant questions with respect to stake-
holder statuses are:
• Could the organization reach new business
partners by using the Internet?
• Could the organization reach new other
stakeholders by using the Internet?
Dimension #3: Channel Strategies
In this article we distinguish between Internet
channels and non-Internet channels (although our
PHWKRGRORJ\ DOVR DOORZV IXUWKHU UH¿QHPHQWV
Organizations can choose to use the Internet
as an exclusive medium for communication
exchange purposes with one or more (groups
of) stakeholders. This is called a single-channel
Internet strategy. The alternative is to combine
the Internet with non-Internet channels. This is

called a multi-channel strategy.
Some relevant questions with respect to chan-
nel strategies are:
Organization
Outside world
(e.g., customers, suppliers,
labor unions, government
agencies, banks, interest
groups, general public)
Information
communication
transactions
Figure 2. Organization as an open system
5
Identifying E-Business Options
• Can the organization use the Internet as a
single-channel strategy to reach a current
group of business partners?
• Can the organization use the Internet as an
additional-channel strategy to reach a new
group of business partners?
• Can the organization use the Internet as a
single-channel strategy to reach a current
group of current other stakeholders?
Dimension #4: Communication Modes
We distinguish among informational, interac-
tional, and transactional communication modes.
Informational means a one-sided provision of
information, (e.g., by putting a product catalogue
on the Internet). Interactional means a two-sided

information exchange, (e.g., by enabling custom-
ers to ask questions). Transactional means the
e xc h a n g e o f p r o d u c t s o r s e r v i c e s o r t h e a g r e e m e n t
about such an exchange, (e.g., to order a product
and to pay over the Internet). Interactional mode
includes informational mode; transactional mode
includes interactional and, hence also informa-
tional mode (Grover & Ramanlal, 2004).
A relevant question with respect to commu-
nication modes is:
• Could the organization use the Internet to
provide information, to exchange informa-
tion or to engage in transactions?
Dimension #5: Product (and Service)
Groups
Organizations can use the Internet to buy or to
market their products and/or services. The number
of product/service groups is organization-depen-
dent: the user of our methodology has to map out
and to group all current products and services that
may be relevant to the analysis.
Some relevant questions with respect to prod-
uct/service groups are:
 :KDWDUHWKHFXUUHQWRUQHZ¿QDOSURGXFWV
and services and could the Internet be used
to facilitate the buying or selling process?
• What are the current or new inputs and could
the Internet be used to facilitate the buying
process?
Dimension #6:

Product (and Service) Statuses
We distinguish between two statuses, namely cur-
rent and new. Organizations can use the Internet
to buy or sell their current products and services,
but they can also transform or extend business by
buying or marketing new products or new services
on the Internet. Many products can be extended
or transformed by using the Internet.
A relevant question with respect to product
statuses is:
 :KDWDUHSRVVLEOHQHZ¿QDOSURGXFWVVHU
-
vices and inputs?
• Could the Internet be used to facilitate the
buying or selling process of new products
or services?
Examples of a Newspaper Publisher
A publisher of a regional newspaper has many
options with regard to using the Internet. We will
use the different dimensions of our methodology
to describe four of these options. These options
are also shown in Table 2.
•
Example 1: The publisher may choose to
put the contents of (a part of) the newspaper
on the Internet as an additional service for
his current subscribers (extension of current
product to current customers, multi-chan-
nel).
•

Example 2: The publisher may choose to
put the contents of (a part of) the newspaper
on the Internet as a service extension to his
6
Identifying E-Business Options
current products for current subscribers as
well as new clients.
•
Example 3: The publisher may choose to
develop a new single-channel Internet news-
paper, using special Internet features (e.g.,
interactivity, news on demand) to reach new
customers (new product, new customers,
single-channel Internet).
•
Example 4: The publisher may choose to
develop an Internet newspaper, based on a
current newspaper, using special Internet
features as a free new service for current
subscribers and a chargeable service for new
Internet customers (the English newspaper
The Economist makes use of this option).
To illustrate the different dimensions of an
e-business option, the e-business options in this
example are generated in an arbitrary way. Many
other options are also possible. In the next sections
we will show how options can be generated and
ordered in a systematic manner.
Generating Potential Options
In order to systematically generate potential e-

business options once the (company-dependent)
elements of all dimensions are determined, a
closer look is required at the structure of the de-
scription of the potential options. In our view, the
following general format can be used to describe
all potential options:
<communication mode> options concerning
<product status> <product group> with <stake-
holder status> <stakeholders group> using a
<channel strategy>
All possible combinations of values applied to
the six variables in the general format then make
up the complete set of potential options. If p is the
number of product/service groups and s is the num-
ber of stakeholders groups that are distinguished
by the organization concerned, this will lead to 2
* 2 * 2 * 3 * p * s (i.e., 24 * p * s) potential op-
tions. So it is obvious that these potential options
can be generated in a systematic manner, namely
by straightforwardly combining each possible
Example
nr
Stakeholders
Groups and
statuses
Dimension # 1, # 2
Channel strategies
Dimension #3
Communication
modes

Dimension #4
Product and
service groups
Dimension #5
Product and
service statuses
Dimension #6
1
Current subscribers Internet and traditional
newspaper = multichannel
Information Content of
current
newspaper
Current
2
Current subscribers
and
New clients
Internet and traditional
newspaper = multichannel
Information Content of
current
newspaper
Current
3 New customers
Internet single-channel Transaction Newspaper New
4
Current subscribers
and
New customers

Internet and traditional
newspaper =
Multichannel
Interaction for
current
subscribers,
transaction for
Internet/only
customers
Current
newspaper,
adapted
New
Table 1. Examples of some e-business options of a newspaper publisher
7
Identifying E-Business Options
element with each of the six dimensions. Each
combination results in a potential option.
Rather than writing out these 24 * p * s potential
options by hand, they can also be generated by
means of a tool. The tool can consist of a data-
base with a Dimensions table containing the six
dimensions and an Elements table containing all
(2 + 2 + 2 + 3 + p + s) elements per dimension. A
sample content of such a database will be shown
in the next section. Furthermore, the database
has to have a reporting facility which, based on
the joining of these two tables, can generate the
24 * p * s descriptions of the potential options in
our general format.

Ordering Potential Options
The potential options can be ordered by adding
the ordered dimensions to the ordered elements
within each dimension. The ordering of the di-
mensions and their elements implicitly implies
an ordering of the generated options. The next
example should make this clear.
Example
Suppose that the publisher distinguishes three
general product groups (Physical goods, Digital
SURGXFWVDQG6HUYLFHVDVZHOODV¿YHVWDNHKROG-
ers groups (Customers, Suppliers, Shareholders,
Banks, and Governments). After choosing one
particular way of ordering the dimensions and
the elements within each dimension, the contents
of our two database tables could be as shown in
Tables 2 and 3.
 7KLVPHDQVWKDWLQWKLVH[DPSOHZHZLOO¿UVW
consider:
• Informational options concerning current
digital products for current customers using
a single-channel Internet strategy
Dimension Dimension order

Stakeholders groups 6
Product groups 5

Channel strategies 1
Communication modes 4
Stakeholder statuses 2

Product statuses 3
Table 2. Dimensions of e-business options
Element Dimension Elements
order
Customers Stakeholders groups 1
Suppliers Stakeholders groups 2
Shareholders Stakeholders groups 3
Banks Stakeholders groups 4
Governments Stakeholders groups 5
Physical goods Product groups 3
Digital products Product groups 1
Services Product groups 2
Single-channel Internet
strategy
Channel strategies 1
Multi-channel strategy Channel strategies 2
Informational Communication modes 1
Interactional Communication modes 2
Transactional Communication modes 3
Current Stakeholder statuses 1
New Stakeholder statuses 2
Current Product statuses 1
New Product statuses 2
Table 3. Elements of e-business options
8
Identifying E-Business Options
• Then, similar options for the other stakehold-
ers groups (4 groups in this case),
• then, similar options for the other product

groups (2 groups in this case),
• then, similar options for the other commu
-
nication modes (2 modes in this case),
• then, similar options for the
new products,
• then, similar options for the
new stakehold-
ers, and,
 ¿QDOO\VLPLODURSWLRQVIRUWKHRWKHUFKDQQHO
strategy.
• We will obtain the descriptions of potential
options by simply placing the respective
elements into the general format that we
introduced earlier.
• In our example, this generates 360 potential
options (namely, 5 * 3 * 3 * 2 * 2 * 2).
Different criteria can be used for ordering the
different elements. One criterion may be to priori-
tize from current to new. This means that potential
options, including current stakeholders, current
products, and multi-channel strategies, appear at
a higher place on the list than potential options
including new stakeholders, new products and
single-channel strategies. This is in accordance
with Straub et al. (2001) who state that Internet
DSSOLFDWLRQV WHQG WR PRYH IURP ¿UVWRUGHU WR
second-order and then to third-order effects (see
the background section). If a company chooses
WRIROORZWKLVSDWWHUQWKHOLVWZLOO¿UVWVXJJHVW

the less risky options.
Another approach may be to look for a
VWUDWHJLF¿W,IDFRPSDQ\LQWHQGVWRUHDFKQHZ
groups of customers, it is reasonable to give new
stakeholders groups a higher ranking. The same
applies when an organization intends to use the
Internet to launch new (Internet-based) products
or services. In that case, these new products and
services should get a higher priority. If the com-
SDQ\GHSHQGHQW HOHPHQWV DUH LGHQWL¿HG LQ WKH
right way, the list will, in any case, provide all
potential options.
Once the list of potential options has been
generated and ordered, a list of valid options has
to be composed. The difference between a poten-
tial and a valid option is determined by whether
a potential option is possible. This means that
impossibilities have to be eliminated from the list.
To give an example: it is impossible to deliver a
bottle of orange juice over the Internet. So deliv-
ering orange juice over the Internet is a potential
option, but not a valid one. Ordering orange juice
over the Internet is a potential option as well as a
valid one, since it is actually possible.
However, not all (valid) options will make
sense from a business perspective. This means
that options have to be assessed, often by using a
range of criteria. So once the list of valid options
has been acquired, the next stage of assessment
can begin (see Figure 2).

Tool Support
The approach as described in this article will be
supported by a tool that enables one to easily:
• Record the product/service groups and the
stakeholders groups (organization-depen-
dent);
• Generate the potential e-business options;
and
• Order the e-business options.
The tool will consist of a database, which
contains the proper:
• Data structures (tables) already containing
all organization-independent data;
• Forms to enter and update the organization-
dependent data (i.e., the product/service
groups and the stakeholders groups); and
• Reporting facility to generate and order the
potential e-business options.
E-business consultants, managers, and busi-
ness analysts can use this tool to support the
9
Identifying E-Business Options
process of business improvement of organizations.
The methodology suggests conventional as well
as highly unconventional approaches to the use
of the Internet and helps people specify certain
directions of e-business-related change.
This approach, including this tool, can be
used in interviews and workshops to generate and
discuss directions of change that may improve

¿QDOGHFLVLRQPDNLQJ
FUTURE WORK
: KHQWKHRSW LRQ V D UHLG HQW L¿HGD QGRUGH UH GW K H\
have to be assessed on the basis of one or more
criteria (see Figure 1). These criteria are organiza-
tion-dependent. Many organizations use multi-
criteria methods (Grimbergen et al., 2001; Parker,
Benson, & Trainor, 1988) to assess IT investment
alternatives, including e-business options. We
intend to extend the methodology as described
in this article by incorporating this next step. To
support this next step, a tool will be developed.
This tool should, among other things, enable an
organization to record the results of the assessment
and selection process. So, our methodology will
WKHQDLPDWFRYHULQJDQGVXSSRUWLQJWKH¿UVWWZR
stages of the e-business decisionmaking process
as depicted in Figure 1.
A prototype of the methodology as described in
this article has been applied in two organizations.
We intend to describe these cases and extend this
FDVHEDVHZLWKWKHREMHFWLYHWRUH¿QHDQGLPSURYH
our methodology.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that there is already a con-
siderable number of models for assessing current
e-business applications and for measuring the
readiness of e-business for the future. However,
there is a lack of approaches that can help consul-
tants, managers and academics to generate new

options and new directions regarding utilizing the
Internet and other new (electronic) communication
channels. In this article, such an approach has been
offered, including a tool that supports this goal.
The approach contributes to a more creative and
systematic way of decision-making with respect
to e-business. It describes the more trivial as well
as the highly unconventional e-business options in
a global but complete and systematic way. These
descriptions lead to an extensive list of potential
options. This list can serve as the basis for further
systematic decisionmaking and may stimulate
people to make conscious and well-considered
e-business decisions. Further, the approach could
be extended so that the assessment and selection
processes are incorporated as well. Finally, these
processes could also be supported by a tool.
REFERENCES
Andal Ancion, A, Cartwright, P. A., & Yip, G.
(2003). The digital transformation of traditional
¿UPV Sloan Management Review, Summer,
34-41.
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate strategy, An ana-
lytical approach to business policy for growth and
expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Barua, A., Konana, P., Whinston, A., & Yin, F.
(2001). Driving e-business excellence. MIT Sloan
Management Review, Fall, 36-44.
Brock, B. de, Boonstra, A. (2002). Implement-
ing a methodology for generating and ordering

e-business options. SOM report, University of
Groningen.
Grimbergen, W., & Saull, R. (2001). Aligning
business and information technology through the
EDODQFHGVFRUHFDUGDWDPDMRU&DQDGLDQ¿QDQFLDO
group: Its status measured with an it BSC maturity
model. Proceedings of the 34
th
Hawaii Interna-
tionational Conference on System Sciences, Los
Alamitos (pp. 314-325). IEEE.
10
Identifying E-Business Options
Grover, V., & Ramanlal, P. (2004). Digital eco-
nomics and the e-business dilemma. Business
Horizons, 47(4), 71-80.
Lee, C S. (2001). An analytical framework for
evaluating e-commerce business models and strat-
egies. Internet Research: Electronic Networking
Applications and Policy, 11(4), 349-359.
Miller, S., Hickson, D., & Wilson, D. (1996).
Decision making in organisations. In S. R. Clegg,
C. Hardy & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of
organization studies. London: Sage.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorêt, A.
7KHVWUXFWXUHRI³XQVWUXFWXUHG´GHFLVLRQ
processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21,
246275.
Parker, M. M., Benson, R. J., & Trainor, H. E.
(1988). Information economics, linking business

performance to information technology. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,.
Pettigrew, A. (2002). Decision-making as a politi-
cal process. In G. Salaman (Ed.), Decision making
for business. London: Sage.
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of manage-
ment decision. New York: Harper & Row.
Straub, D., & Klein, R. (2001). E-competitive
Transformations. Business Horizons, 44(3), 3-
12.
KEY TERMS
E-Business Opportunity: An assessed and
selected e-business option.
E-Business Option: A possibility to use an
electronic network for a business purpose.
E-Business Value Model: A model which
conveys to management where to focus organi-
]DWLRQDOUHVRXUFHVE\KLJKOLJKWLQJVSHFL¿FDUHDV
of opportunity.
External Stakeholders: Organizations ex-
change information and communicate with all
external stakeholders, who can be divided in
business partners and other stakeholders.
Internet Option: A possibility to use the
Internet for a business purpose.
This work was previously published in Encyclopedia of E-Commerce, E-Government, and Mobile Commerce, edited by M.
Khosrow-Pour, pp. 580-586, copyright 2006 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).
11
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Chapter 1.2

E-Governance
Srinivas Bhogle
National Aerospace Laboratories, India
ABSTRACT
E-governance uses Internet and communication
technologies to automate governance in inno-
YDWLYHZD\VVR WKDW LWEHFRPHVPRUH HI¿FLHQW
more cost-effective, and empowers the human
race even more. E-governance exercises are be-
ing attempted for more than a decade now, but
have so far achieved only mixed success. The
long-term prognosis for e-governance, however,
remains extremely positive. The emergence of
Web-services technologies, the continually pro-
liferating computer networks, and the irreversible
migration towards digital information strongly
FRQ¿UP WKH YLHZ WKDW HJRYHUQDQFH LV KHUH WR
stay. The eventual success of any e-governance
project is intimately linked to the methodology
used, and to that complex mesh between men,
PDFKLQHVDQGPLQGVHWV:HH[SODLQWKH³ZKDW´
³ZK\´DQG³KRZ´RIHJRYHUQDQFH:HDOVRWDON
of e-governance concerns, and discuss a few il-
lustrative case studies.
WHAT IS E-GOVERNANCE?
'H¿QLWLRQV
The biggest problem in developing countries is
good governance, not poverty. It is, for example,
well known that only a miniscule fraction of the
money earmarked for development, relief, or

UHKDELOLWDWLRQ HYHQWXDOO\ ¿OWHUV GRZQ WR IXO¿OO
its mandated objective. There are also numerous
instances where the concern is not how to ¿QG
the money, but how to go through the maze of
complicated procedures to spend the available
PRQH\EHIRUHWKH¿QDQFLDO\HDUHQGV
Until a decade ago, the sheer logistics of ac-
counting, bookkeeping, correspondence, and ap-
provals was an onerous overhead. But the World
Wide Web completely changed things. With
e-mail, correspondence across the globe became
almost instantaneous, and richer, because mail
attachments were possible. The technologies to
make Web pages interactive, and connect them
12
E-Governance
to databases, worked wonders on the approval
processes: approvals became faster, were based
on more intelligent inputs, and could be securely
archived. It was now possible, and indeed highly
desirable, to use the Web for real governance.
Electronic governance (or e-governance) could
WKHUHIRUHEHGH¿QHGDV WKHXVH RI,QWHUQHWDQG
communication technologies to automate gover-
nance in innovative ways, so that it becomes more
HI¿FLHQWPRUHFRVWHIIHFWLYHDQGHPSRZHUVWKH
human race even more.
6LQFH ³governance” is normally associated
ZLWKD³government,” may authors choose to ex-
SOLFLWO\PHQWLRQWKHJRYHUQPHQWZKLOHGH¿QLQJ

HJRYHUQDQFH%DFNXVIRUH[DPSOHGH¿QHV
HJRYHUQDQFH DV WKH ³DSSOLFDWLRQ RI HOHFWURQLF
means in the interaction between government and
citizens and government and businesses, as well
as in internal government operations to simplify
and improve democratic, government and business
aspects of governance.” The strategic objective
of e-governance, as Backus explains, is simply
to use electronic means to support and stimulate
good governance.
Governance vs. E-Governance
Both governance and e-governance are based on
the same principles, and aim to achieve the same
end objective. But the means used are widely
different. Consider, for example, the requirement
of a publicly funded national R&D lab to recruit
scientists. A decade ago, the following procedure
was probably adopted: (a) advertise widely in na-
tional newspapers indicating the job requirement
and eligibility, (b) identify the format in which
applications must be submitted, (c) receive, sort,
and classify the applications sent, (d) shortlist the
applicants and invite them for a test or interview,
and (e) select the candidates and issue them ap-
pointment letters.
This entire process usually took almost a
year—so long that the applicants often got tired of
ZDLWLQJDQGÀHZDZD\WRVRPHRWKHURSSRUWXQLW\
The excuse offered for the delay was that pre-
scribed government procedures were too complex

and tedious. It was ironical that these classical
governance procedures were actually sending
away the best talent instead of bringing it in.
The e-governance approach would dramati-
cally change things: the job requirement and eligi-
bility would appear as hyperlinked Web pages on
the lab’s Web site. The application format would
be a Web page template, with thoughtful valida-
tions to improve data quality. Upon submission,
WKHDSSOLFDQW¶VGDWDZRXOGLQVWDQWDQHRXVO\ÀRZ
into database tables on the lab’s server. The short-
listing process would merely involve making lists
based on a wide variety of database queries and,
¿QDOO\WKHVHOHFWHGFDQGLGDWHVZRXOGEHLVVXHG
appointment letters via an e-mail attachment.
The advantages offered by this e-governance
procedure are abundantly clear, but let us list
WKHPIRUWKHUHFRUG)LUVWWKH³WLPHWRUHFUXLW´
is dramatically reduced: 12 months could be re-
duced to 1-2 months. Second, the quality of the
V HOH FW HG FD QG LG D WH VL VV L JQ L ¿F DQ WO\ EH W W H UE HF DX VH 
of timely selection and improved data quality
and search procedures. Third, the procedure is
much less expensive; there are no advertisement
or data tabulation costs. Fourth, the e-recruit-
ment procedure reaches a much larger number of
applicants right across the globe because of the
growing ubiquity of the Web, and because the ap-
plication window is open 24 u$QG¿QDOO\WKH
e-governance procedure automatically guarantees

data or content in digital form, making them more
amenable for future knowledge management or
data mining exercises.
On the down side, e-governance procedures
frequently raise security concerns, for example,
could someone access or modify information?
Electronic procedures also require widespread,
HI¿FLHQW DQG UHOLDEOH FRPSXWHU QHWZRUNV %XW
WKHELJJHVWFRQFHUQUHODWHVWRPLQGVHWVRI¿FLDOV
LQYROYHGLQJRYHUQDQFH¿HUFHO\UHVLVWFKDQJH
Table 1 summarizes the arguments for and
against e-governance. It can be seen that the ad-
YDQWDJHVVLJQL¿FDQWO\RXWZHLJKWKHFRQFHUQV
13
E-Governance
Evolution of E-Governance
E-governance became possible only after the
appearance of the World Wide Web and the
widespread use of browsers like Netscape and
Internet Explorer. In the early years (until about
EURZVHUVVLPSO\GLVSOD\HG³VWDWLF´:HE
pages. These pages were attractive, available
on different computer platforms, allowed you to
³PL[´WH[WZLWKPXOWLPHGLDFRQWHQWDQGFRXOG
be hyperlinked.
From an e-governance viewpoint, this still
was not good enough. Imagine that the task is
to secure admission in a school or college. With
Web pages, you could display all kinds of infor-
mation about the college: its history, its courses,

names of teachers on its faculty, pictures of the
college buildings and swimming pools, college
maps, and so forth. You could also post formats
of application forms that must be submitted. But
you could not DFWXDOO\¿OOXSVXFKIRUPVRQOLQH.
:LWKVWDWLF:HESDJHV\RXFRXOGRQO\³LQIRUP´
EXW\RXFRXOGQRW³LQWHUDFW´
The chief reason was that Web pages use
the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), and
HTML simply was not meant to be interactive.
It was a one-way street: the college could reach
its information to you, but you could not get back
to the college using the same browser.
One could, of course, still print the applica-
WLRQ IRUP RII WKH :HE SDJH ¿OO LW XSRIIOLQH
and then mail or fax it to the college. The college
could then, if it wished, reenter the details on an
electronic database. But this did not seem right.
,I\RXFRXOG³FRQQHFW´WRWKHFROOHJHZK\FRXOG
\RXQRW³UHDFK´LWVGDWDEDVHDVZHOO"
HTML’s inability to directly connect to a
database had to be corrected; one had to get
HTML to talk to SQL (the structured query lan-
guage that all databases use). The early efforts
(1997-99) to achieve this involved the use of a
common gateway interface (CGI) and a program-
ming language like PERL. It worked rather well,
although the programming overhead was a little
severe. Later, especially after the widespread use
of a platform-independent language like Java (by

2001), the database connectivity problem was
solved much more elegantly.
From an e-governance perspective, this
PHDQWWKDWZHKDGPRYHGIURPWKH³LQIRUP´WR
WKH³LQWHUDFW´SKDVH2XUFROOHJHDSSOLFDQWZDV
QRZRQO\UHTXLUHGWR¿OOXSDQRQOLQHIRUPDQG
³VXEPLW´7KHGDWDZRXOGVHDPOHVVO\ÀRZLQWRWKH
college’s backend database. Better still, the student
could also obtain an online or e-mail response,
for example, to say that the application has been
received or accepted.
A typical governance transaction, however,
LQYROYHVPXFKPRUHWKDQ¿OOLQJRUVXEPLWWLQJD
form. The conventional procedure is to put this
DSSOLFDWLRQ IRUP RQ D ¿OH RU GRVVLHU 7KH ¿OH
WKHQWUDYHOVIURPRQH³JRYHUQDQFHGHVN´WRWKH
next. At each desk, the concerned individual is
required to carry out a process involving either
Table 1. Advantages and concerns of e-governance
Advantages Concerns
6LJQL¿FDQWWLPHVDYLQJ³WKHUHDUHQRGHOD\V´ Mindsets of governance teams
Improved information quality
6HFXULW\FRQFHUQV³FDQLQIRUPDWLRQEHWDPSHUHGRU
delayed?”)
Less expensive (especially after e-governance
infrastructure is set up)
5HTXLUHPHQWRIZLGHVSUHDGHI¿FLHQWDQGUHOLDEOH
computer networks and software
:LGHUUHDFK³FDQUHDFKWKHZKROHZRUOG´
Digital content (data capture is digital)