E-Government Interoperability Framework: A Case Study in a Developing Country

  • Pavel Shvaiko
  • Adolfo Villafiorita
  • Alessandro Zorer
  • Lourino Chemane
  • Teotonio Fumo
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 25)


Harmonizing decentralized development of ICT solutions with centralized strategies, e.g., meant to favor reuse and optimization of resources, is a complex technical and organizational challenge. The problem, shared by virtually all the governments, is becoming a priority also for developing countries, such as Mozambique, that have started their ICT policy relatively recently and for which it is now evident that—if no particular attention is devoted to the interoperability of the ICT solutions being developed—the result will rapidly become a patchwork of solutions incompatible with each other. The focus of the chapter is on formulation of e-GIF4M, E-government Interoperability Framework for Mozambique. The framework is based on a holistic approach, which we believe is needed for making interoperability sustainable within those countries. It builds on top of the existing experiences in e-GIFs all over the world, but it addresses some specific needs and peculiarities of the developing countries. The result is a comprehensive framework based on (i) a reference service delivery architecture along with technical standards, (ii) a standardization life cycle, (iii) a maturity model, and (iv) some key actions meant to make the initiative sustainable in the longer term.


Land Parcel Interoperability Framework Interoperability Initiative Interoperability Platform Enterprise License 
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.



This work was funded by the Italian Cooperation. We appreciate support and useful suggestions from Fausto Giunchiglia, and the Common Communication Platform and Interoperability Framework Working Group of Mozambique on the themes of the chapter.


  1. Banerjee, P., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2004). An evaluative framework for analysing e-government convergence capability in developing countries. Journal of Electronic Government, 1(1), 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell Canada. (1994). The trillium model. Available at: Last retrieved, July 13, 2010.
  3. Bundesministerium des Innern (2003). Standards and architectures for e-government applications. KBSt Publication Series ISSN 0179-7263 Volume 59. Available at Last retrieved 13 July 2010.
  4. C4ISR Interoperability Working Group. (1998). Levels of Information Systems Interoperability (LISI). Department of Defense.Google Scholar
  5. cc:eGov (2007). A handbook for citizen-centric eGovernment. Available at Last retrieved 13 July 2010.
  6. Chemane, L., Taula, R., & Carrilho, S. (2006). MCDM framework and the selection of network topology – GovNet case study. Proceedings of IST-Africa.Google Scholar
  7. CMM. (2006). Council of Ministers. Public sector reform strategy. Council of Ministers Publication, Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
  8. CMMI (2009). Software Engineering Institute. Capability maturity model integration. Available at Last retrieved 13 July 2010.
  9. Euzenat, J., & Shvaiko, P. (2007). Ontology matching. Berlin: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Giunchiglia, F., Yatskevich, M., McNeill, F., Pane, J., Besana, P., & Shvaiko, P. (2008). Approximate structure preserving semantic matching. Proceedings of ODBASE.Google Scholar
  11. Gov3 (2006). Citizen centric government – Global best practices in delivering agile public services to citizen and business. Available at Last retrieved 13 July 2010.
  12. Government of South Africa (2007). Minimum interoperability standards (MIOS) for information systems in government. Available at Last retrieved 13 July 2010.
  13. Gottschalk, P., & Solli-Sather, H. (2008). Stages of e-government interoperability. Journal of Electronic Government, 5(3): 310–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO/IEC 15504 (1998): Information technology – software process assessment – part 7 : Guide for use in process improvement.Google Scholar
  15. Kasunic, M., & Anderson, W. (2004). Measuring systems interoperability: Challenges and opportunities. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2004-TN-003, Software Engineering Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Kuvaja, P., Simila, J., Krzanik, L., Bicego, A., Koch, G., & Saukonen S. (1994). Software process assessment and improvement: the BOOTSTRAP approach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Mapsanganhe, S., & Chemane, L. (2007). GovNet e-mail system capacity planning. In Proc. of IST-Africa.Google Scholar
  18. Marcucci, L., Kluzer, S., Nicolini, A. & Cimander R. (2006). ICAR – a system for e-enabled cooperation among regional, local and national administrations in Italy. European Commission. Available at Last retrieved 13 July 2010.
  19. Morris, E., Levine, L., Meyers, C., Plakosh, D., & Place, P. (2004). Systems of systems interoperability. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2004-TR-004, ESC-TR-2004-004, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  20. NETHA. (2007). Interoperability Maturity Model. National E-Health Transition Authority Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. NZ (2008). New Zealand e-government interoperability framework. Available at Last retrieved 13 July 2010.
  22. Shvaiko, P., Villafiorita, A., Zorer, A., Chemane, L., Fumo, T., & Hinkkanen, J. (2009). eGIF4M: eGovernment Interoperability Framework for Mozambique. In Proc. of EGOV.Google Scholar
  23. Software Engineering Institute (2009). Guide to interoperability. Available at Last retrieved 13 July 2010.
  24. Tolk, A., & Muguira, J. A. (2003). The levels of conceptual interoperability model. In Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  25. United Nations. (2008). UN e-Government Survey 2008. From e-Government to Connected Governance. Technical Report ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/112.Google Scholar
  26. UNDP. (2007a). e-Government Interoperability: A Review of government Interoperability Frameworks in Selected Countries. UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok.Google Scholar
  27. UNDP. (2007b). e-Government Interoperability: Guide. UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok.Google Scholar
  28. UNDP. (2007c). e-Government Interoperability: Overview. UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok.Google Scholar
  29. UNDP. (2008). e-Government Interoperability: e-Primers for the Information Economy, Society and Policy. UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok.Google Scholar
  30. University of Albany. (2005). Sharing justice information: A capability assessment toolkit.Google Scholar
  31. UTICT. (2000). Estrategia da politica de informatica em Mocambique. UTICT Publication, Government of Mozambique, Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
  32. Vaccari, L., Shvaiko, P., & Marchese, M. (2009). A geo-service semantic integration in spatial data infrastructures. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 4, 24–51.Google Scholar
  33. Weerakkody, V. Dwivedi, Y. K., Brooks, L., Williams, M. D., & Mwange A. (2007). E-government implementation in Zambia: Contributing factors. Journal of Electronic Government, 4(4), 484–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TasLab, Informatica Trentina S.p.A.TrentoItaly
  2. 2.Fondazione Bruno Kessler IRSTTrentoItaly
  3. 3.CREATE-NETTrentoItaly
  4. 4.UTICT—ICT Policy Implementation Technical UnitMaputoMozambique

Personalised recommendations