Roadmapping Future E-Government Research

Government’s role and responsibilities in the virtual world
  • Melanie Bicking
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 252)


Global electronic markets, virtual organisations, virtual identities, virtual products and services, and Internet-related crime are growing in prominence and importance. In a world that is increasingly non-physical and borderless, what are government’s roles, responsibilities and limitations? The Internet plays a central role within the transformation process from traditional governments towards modern and innovative government that the requirements of an Information Society. Based on the findings of the eGovRTD2020 project, that aims at identifying key research challenges and at implementing a model for a holistic government with horizon 2020, this paper explains the necessity to investigate and understand the Internet and in particular government’s role and responsibilities in it. Furthermore, the paper provides a research roadmap that details how to address certain issue related research questions.


Virtual World Digital Right Management Virtual Product Virtual Identity International Legal Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Bertelsmann Stiftung (2000) Selbstregulierung von Internet-Inhalten;
  2. 2.
    M. Bicking, M.A. Wimmer, eGovernment research in Europe: findings from a recent state-of-play study. In: Grönlund, A., Scholl, H.J., Andersen, K.V., Wimmer, M.A. (eds.). EGOV 2006 communications proceedings, Schriftenreihe Informatik # 18, Trauner Verlag, Linz, 2006, pp. 1–12Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Bicking, M. Janssen, and M.A. Wimmer, eGovernment 2020: Towards a Roadmap for future eGovernment research in Europe. In: Cunningham, P., Cunningham, M. (eds.): Exploiting the knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies. Part 1, IOS Press, Amsterdam et al. (2006) 407–415Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Capgemini (2005), Online Avaliability of Public Services: How is Europe Progressing? Web Based Survey on Electronic Public Services. Report of the Fifth Measurement Otober 2004. Online in the Internet;
  5. 5.
    Capgemini (2006), Online Avaliability of Public Services: How is Europe Progressing? Web Based Survey on Electronic Public Services. Report of the 6th Measurement June 2006. Online in the Internet;
  6. 6.
    Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (2004), Self-Regulation of Digital Media Converging on the Internet: Industry Codes of Conduct in Sectoral Analysis;
  7. 7.
    CERT (2007), International Coordination for Cyber Crime and Terrorism in the 21st Century;
  8. 8.
    P. Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Computer Crime Research Center, Fraud in the Internet (2005);
  10. 10.
    K. Dahmann, Überwachung oder Selbstregulierung? (2004);,,1311400,00.html?mpb=de
  11. 11.
    eGovRTD2020 consortium, Deliverable D 3.1 — Gap Analysis Report (2006);
  12. 12.
    eGovRTD2020 consortium, Deliverable D1.1 — State of Play report, (2006);
  13. 13.
    eGovRTD2020 consortium, Deliverable D 2.1-Scenarios report (including regional workshops report), (2006);
  14. 14.
    European Commission, Better Public Services, (2003);
  15. 15.
    European Union, Treaty on European Union, (1992);
  16. 16.
    R. Heeks, Most eGovernment-for-Development Projects Fail, IDPM, (2003). International Content Rating Association (ICRA 2006);
  17. 17.
    IST, Fith Framework Programme. List of “key” actions, (2002); (9th May 2006)
  18. 18.
    IST, A thematic priority for research and development under the specific programme “Integrating and strengthening the European research area” in the Community sixth framework programme, (Commission Decision C (2005) 5588 of 14 December 2005); Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Lenart, U. Hribar,, Technology support for soft problem solving, Informatics and management, ISBN 3-631-51869-2, Florjančič, J., Pütz, K. (eds.), P. Lang, Frankfurt am Main (2004).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. K. Lottor, RFC 1296 Internet Growth (1981–1991). Menlo Park, CA, (1992); Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Možina, R. Rozman, M.I. Tavčar, D. Pučko, Š. Ivanko, B. Lipičnik, J. Gričar, M. Glas, J. Kralj, M. Tekavčič, V. Dimovski, B. Kovač, MANAGEMENT: nova znanja za uspeh, (2002).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    OECD, Glossary of e-Government Terms, (2007);$FILE/glossary.htm Definition dates back to the year 2005
  23. 23.
    S. Stecklow, Computer Users Battle High Tech Marketers Over Soul of Internet. Wall Street Journal, (16.9.1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    B. Sterling, A Short History of the Internet. THE MAGAZINE OF FANTASY AND SCIENCE FICTION, (1993); gopher:// Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Sterling, The Hacker Crackdown. Literary Freeware, (1994).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M.A. Wimmer, Approaching secure and trustful e-government applications: technology won’t make it alone! In P. Cunningham, M. Cunningham, P. Fatelnig (Eds), Building the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies. Part 1, IOS Press, Amsterdam et al, pp. 626–632 (2003).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M.A. Wimmer, “Integrated service modeling for online one-stop Government. EM — Electronic Markets”, special issue on e-Government, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 1–8 (2002).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. A. Wimmer, B. von Bredow, “Sicherheitskonzepte für e-Government. Technische versus ganzheitliche Ansätze”. In Datenschutz und Datensicherheit, Vol. 26, 9/2002, pp. 536–541, (2002).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melanie Bicking
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for IS Research, Research Group eGovernmentUniversity of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations