Elektronik Devletin Gelişim Evreleri

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 19, 2533 - 2548, 30.09.2019

Mustafa Emre Civelek

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.587424

Öz

Post-dijital
ekosistemde etkin elektronik devlet uygulamaların hayata geçirilmesi stratejik
öncelik kazanmıştır.  Kağıt belgelere
dayalı iş süreçlerinin ortadan kaldırılması ve devlet kuruluşlarının
sistemlerinin birbirleri ile entegre edilmesi devletin gücüyle doğrudan
ilgilidir. Devletin e-dönüşümü dört evrede gerçekleşmektedir. Bu evreler varlık
gösterme, birleşme, entegrasyon ve toplumsal dönüşüm evreleridir. Varlık
gösterme evresinde, her devlet kurumu birbirlerinden bağımsız olarak kurdukları
kendi siteleri aracılığıyla vatandaşlara hizmet vermektedir. Birleşme evresinde,
vatandaşlar tüm devlet kurumlarının sistemlerine tek bir kullanıcı adı ve şifre
ile tek bir web sitesi aracılığla erişebilirler.  Entegrasyon evresinde, tüm devlet
kurumlarının sistemleri ortak veritabanı, referans ve arşiv sistemine bağlananır.
En önemli evre olan toplumsal dönüşüm evresinde vatandaş ve devlet elektronik devlet
uygulamaları vasıtasıyla internette buluşur. Bu evrede toplum bilgi toplumuna
dönüşür ve bireysel seviyede verimlilik artar. Elektronik devlet projeleri devletler
açısından stratejik öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışma elektronik devlet uygulamalarına
toplumun ve vatandaşların dahil edilmesinin önemini vurgulamakta ve e-devletin
gelişim aşamaları için yeni bir sınıflandırma önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Elektronik Devlet, Dijital Ekonomi, Dijital Bölünme, Sosyal Dönüşüm

Development Phases of E-Government

Öz

In
post-digital ecosystem, the implementation of effective electronic government
systems comes to the fore as a strategic priority. Removing paper based
processes and increasing integration of the systems used by different
departments and agencies are directly related to the power of a government.
e-Transformation of the government from traditional to electronic takes place
in four stages, namely the phase of initial presence, unification, integration
and social transformation. In the initial presence phase, each government
institution separately provides services to citizens through its own site.  In the unification phase, citizens will be
able to access all government agencies' systems through a single website with a
single username and password. In the integration phase, the systems of all
government agencies will be linked to a common reference and archive system as
well as common databases. Finally, in the last phase, the most important phase
of electronic government applications, it will be ensured that citizens and the
government will meet on the internet through electronic government
applications. In this phase, the society will become an information society,
and thus increase its productivity at individual level. Therefore, e-government
projects have strategic importance for governments. In this context, the study
emphasizes the importance of the involvement of the society to electronic
government projects and suggests a new classification for the development
phases of e-government. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Electronic Government, Digital Economy, Digital Divide, Social Transformation

Kaynakça

• Adjei-Bamfa, P., Maloreh-Nyamekye, T., & Ahenkan, A. (2019). The role of e-government in sustainable public procurement in developing countries: A systematic literature review. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 142, 189-203. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.001.
• Akman, I., Ali, A., Mishra, A., and Arifoglu, A. (2005). E-government: A global view and an empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 239-257. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2004.12.001
• Alawneh, A., Al-Refai, H., and Batiha, K. (2013). Measuring user satisfaction from e-Government services: Lessons from Jordan. Government Information Quarterly, 30(3), 277-288. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.03.001
• Aldrich, J., Bertot, J., and McClure, C. (2002). E-government: Initiatives, developments, and issues. Government Information Quarterly, 19(4), 349-355.
• Andersen, K., and Henriksen, H. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 236-248. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.008
• Bennett , C. (1992). Regulating privacy: Data protection and public policy in Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Castelnovo, W. (2013). A stakeholder based approach to public value. 13th European Conference on eGovernment . 2013, Como: ECEG.
• Castelnovo, W., and Simonetta, M. (2008). A public value evaluation of e-government policies. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 11(2), 61-72.
• Chasin, F., and Scholta, H. (2015). Taking peer-to-peer sharing and collaborative consumption onto the next level: New opportunities and challenges for e-government. 23rd European Conference on Information Systems . Münster: ECIS.
• Ciborra, C., and Navarra, D. (2005). Good governance, development theory, and aid policy: Risks and challenges of e-government in Jordan. Information Technology for Development, 11(2), 141-159. doi: 10.1002/itdj.20008
• Civelek, M. (2018). Humans of machine age: Management strategies for redundancy. Journal of Industrial Policy and Technology Management, 1(2), 87-98.
• Civelek, M. E. (2009). İnternet çağı dinamikleri. İstanbul: Beta Basım.
• Civelek, M. E., and Sözer, E. G. (2003). İnternet ticareti: Yeni ekososyal Sistem ve Ticaret Noktaları. İstanbul: Beta Basım.
• Dekker, M. (1999). Information systems, politics, and government: Leading theoretical perspectives. In( G. D. Garson Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 591-605). New York: Routledge .
• Delibaş, K., and Akgül, A. (2010). Dünyada ve Türkiye'de e-devlet uygulamaları: Türkiye'de E-demokrasi ve e-katılım potansiyellerinin harekete geçirilmesi. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 101-144.
• Fang, Z. (2002). E-Government in digital era: concept, practice, and development. Int. J. Comput. Internet Manage, 10(2), 1-22.
• Farnham, D. (2000). Employee relations in context. London: Institute of Personnel and Development.
• Field, T., Muller, E., Lau, E., and Gadriot-Renard, H. (2003). The case for e-government: Excerpts from the OECD report The e-government imperative. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 3(1), 61-96.
• Gupta, M., and Jana, D. (2003). E-Government evaluation: A framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 365-387. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2003.08.002
• Jaeger, P. (2003). The endless wire: EGovernment as global phenomenon. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 323-331. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2003.08.003
• Khan, A., and Krishnan, S. (2019). Conceptualizing the impact of corruption in national institutions and national stakeholder service systems on e-government maturity. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 23-36.
• Kim, D., Donald, L., and Raghav Rao, H. (2009). Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for successful e-Commerce relationships: A longitudinal exploration. Information Systems Research, 20(2), 237-257.
• Krishnan, S., Teo, T., and Lymm, J. (2017). Determinants of electronic participation and electronic government maturity: Insights from cross-country data. International Journal of Information Management, 37(4), 297-312.
• Kurfalı, M., Arifoglu, A., Tokdemir, G., and Paçin , Y. (2017). Adoption of e-government services in Turkey. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 168-178.
• Mahmoodia, R., and Nojedeh, S. (2016). Investigating the effectiveness of e-government establishment in government organization. 3rd International Conference on New Challenges in Management and Organization: organization (s. 136-141). Dubai: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
• Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., and Stansb, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide . Washington: Georgetown University Press.
• Osei‐Kojo, A. (2017). E‐government and public service quality in Ghana. Journal of Public Affairs, 17, 1-8.
• Prattipati, S. (2003). Adoption of e-Government: Differences between countries in the use of online government service. Journal of American Academy of Business, 3(1), 386-391.
• Press, G. (2015). Forbes. 21.06.2019 tarihinden itibaren alınmıştır. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2015/12/27/a-very-short-history-of-digitization/#2ddcbf5449ac adresinden alınmıştır
• Sanchez, E., and Macias, J. A. (2019). A set of prescribed activities for enhancing requirements engineering in the development of usable e-Government applications. Requirements Engineering, 24(2), 181-203.
• Sang, L., Tang, X., and Trimi, S. (2005). Current practices of leading egovernment countries. Communications of The ACM, 48(10), 99-104.
• Santa, R., MacDonaldb, J., and Ferrer, M. (2019). The role of trust in e-Government effectiveness, operational effectiveness and user satisfaction: Lessons from Saudi Arabia in e-G2B. Government Information Quarterly, 36, 39-50. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.10.007
• Scholta, H., Mertens, W., and Kowalki, M. (2019). From one-stop shop to no-stop shop: An e-government stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 36(1), 11-26.
• Shirish, C., and Thompson, T. (2005). Citizen trust development for e-government adoption: Case of Singapore. Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems . PACIS.
• Sözer, E. G., Civelek, M. E., and Çemberci, M. (2018). Strategic excellence in post-digital ecosystems: A B2C perspective. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Lincoln-Zea Books.
• Torres, L., Pina, V., and Acerete, B. (2005). E-Government developments on delivering public services among EU. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 217-238. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2005.02.004
• Twizeyimana , J., and Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of E-Government – A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167-178. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
• Yıldız, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646-665.
• Yılmaz, A. (2007). AB’ye uyum sürecinde Türk kamu yönetiminin dönüşümü üzerine notlar. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17, 215-240.