Legal Issues in eGovernment Services Planning



Planning activities are a relevant instrument to carry out sustainable and valuable eGovernment initiatives. The set of expertise needed for the design of eGovernment systems ranges from social to legal, economic, organizational, and technological perspectives, which have to be faced in a unique framework. The aim of the eG4M framework is to bring out these issues with an integrated approach. In this paper we focus in particular on legal issues in the strategic planning phase, aiming to show their relevance for the choice of appropriate solutions in terms of legal framework and enterprise architecture for service provision. The paper provides an example of application of the framework on experiences carried out in Italy.


Service Provision Legal Framework Public Administration Enterprise Architecture State Reconstruction 


  1. 1.
    Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D., Jones, S. (2008) Learning lessons from evaluating eGovernment: Reflective case experiences that support transformational government, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17: 155–164.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Viscusi, G., Batini, C., Mecella, M. (forthcoming 2010) Information Systems for eGovernment: a quality of service perspective, Springer, Berlin-HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    March, J.G., Olsen, J.P. (1998) The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders, International Organization, 52: 943–969Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gil-Garcia, J.R., Martinez-Moyano, I.J. (2007) Understanding the evolution of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics, Government Information Quarterly, 24: 266–290.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Checkland, P., Scholes, J. (1990) Soft systems methodology in action, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structure, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones, M.R., Karsten, H. (2008) Gidden’s Structuration Theory and Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly, 32: 127–157.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orlikowski, W. (1992) The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the concept of Technology in Organizations, Organization Science, vol. 3: pp. 398–427.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hart, H.L.A. (1961) The Concept of Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Searle, J. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    OECD (2002) Regulatory Policies in OECD Countries - From Interventionism to Regulatory Governance, OECD.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    PriceWaterHouseCoopers (2005) Regulatory Burden: Reduction and Measurement Initiatives, PriceWaterHouseCoopers for Industry Canada.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hahn, R.W., Burnett, J.K., Chan, Y.-H.I., Mader, E.A., Moyle, P.R. (2000) Assessing The Quality Of Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Failure of Agencies to Comply With Executive Order 12,866, The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 23.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Malyshev, N.A. (2006) Regulatory Policy: OECD Experience and Evidence, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22: 274–299.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodrigo, D., Andrés-Amo, P. (2008) Building an Institutional Framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) - Version 1.1, Regulatory Policy Division Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development - OECD.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evans-Pughe, C. (2006) Share and Share Alike, Engineering & Technology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Informatics, Systems and Communication (DISCo)University of Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations