The current SNS society suggests the beginning of a post-information society. Although information society can make people’s lives more efficient and convenient, it may fail to address technology-driven initiatives sufficiently where government-driven ICT policies often ignore individuals’ creative and cognitive processes in response to the government’s actions.
A smart society focuses on the process of mutual communication and the incorporation of each individual’s thoughts into some social agreement. There are four major attributes of a smart society. First, mobile users deal with their mobile environments freely, facilitating environments that are “always connected” through mobile devices. Second, personalized social networks facilitate communication between individuals anytime, anywhere as a result of many smartphone users and activated social networks.
Third, ethics, trust, and fairness are some of the major values floated as new norms to dominate social activities because the public’s rights can be strengthened from large corporations to netizens, groups to individuals, and producers to consumers. Finally, a smart society can foster smart workplace environments where people can work without being limited by time or space through advanced ICT applications.
With the rise of smart society, “smart e-government” has been proposed as a new model for government in a smart society. Smart e-government is a system where cooperative governments strengthen the partnership with the private sector. Intelligent governments provide administrative services that better meet national requirements.
Transparent governments facilitate public communication, participation, and trust. People in a smart society are more active than those in an information society. As in the case of smartphones and social media, smart technologies facilitate people’s participation in their environments. In the past, it was difficult to disseminate people’s voices in spite of their ICT use. However, a smart society enables faster, real-time, and personalized communication. In particular, personalized services are one of the most representative characteristics of smart society. Not only enterprises but also governments can focus more on the provision of personalized services.
In a smart society, based on a model of future government, e-government is connected to Government 3.0 (Gov 3.0). Gov 3.0 is a national administrative system that strengthens the role of individuals by redesigning administrative methods and processes based on highly intelligent ICT applications and social connections. In Gov 3.0, the government shares information and knowledge with firms, citizens, and global communities and provides common platforms that can produce democratic value added by exchanges between members of society.
Figure 3 shows the change of e-government from Gov1.0 to Gov3.0 from the perspective of governance including the role of each actor, the goal of e-government services, and the environmental changes to ICT and demand. In the era of Gov3.0, the Internet and SNS have already established their influence as the most powerful information-sharing media in history, playing immeasurable roles in globalization, in the spread of democracy around the planet, in economic growth, and in education. Information society-style e-government systems, based on Gov2.0, constitute the phase in which the main progress consists in enabling active participation by citizens in the affairs of the government and their open communications with it. These systems are expected to upgrade gradually to Web 3.0-based Government 3.0 systems, espousing the new e-government paradigm for the next-generation society.
Figure1. E-Governance Perspectives and Changes toward E-Governance (Gov 3.0)
|
Gov1.0 (System-Government) |
Gov2.0 (E-Government) |
Gov3.0 (E-Governance) |
Goal of E-Gov. |
Efficiency of System |
Info. Sharing & Connectivity |
Open Big Data Individual-oriented Service |
E-Gov. Services |
Internal & Info. Provide |
Gov. Reform & Single Portal |
Platform Based My Gov. Services |
Ecology of ICT |
Gov. Driven & Outsourcing |
Gov. Driven & Outsourcing |
Gov.-Private-Citizen Partnership, Deregulation |
Role of CIO |
System Management |
BPR, Intergovernmental Project |
Initiator of Reform Communicator |
Decision Making Initiatives |
Political Elites & Gov. CEO |
Gov., Professional, Public Officials |
Individuals, Citizen, NGOs Governance Process |
Demand & Method for Decision Making |
Political Needs |
Policy Needs |
Participation & Communication based on Big Data |
Role of Central Government |
Initiator |
Contractor |
Mediator |
Role of Local Government |
Dependent upon Matching Funds System Building |
Matching Funds Constructing Local Gov. Portals |
Local/Community Demand-based Personalized Services |
Role of Entrepreneur |
System Provider |
New Tech. & System Application Develop |
Convergent Services Creating New Services |
Role of Citizen |
Info. Service User |
Partly Participation |
Active Participation & Voting |
Decision Maker |
Top Down Budget Allocation |
Policy/Budget Control based on Performance Evaluation |
Focusing on Problem Solving Data Analysis & Vision |
Demands by Paradigm Shift |
Gov./National Informatization |
Gov. Reform Local Autonomy |
Cooperative Partnership & E-Governance |
E-governance is Organic
The traditional bureaucratic model may not be an appropriate perspective for looking at networks. Instead an anarchist orientation may adjust the way we look at governance networks. It should include a shifting the focus from static structural elements to dynamic processes, recognition of collective action as part of human nature, moving from individual networks to social ones, viewing network stability as a function of the linkages in a network, and robust ties within a network. A network is organic rather than mechanical. E-government is already organic and bureaucratic government is only one of the entities in the governance network.
E-Governance as a ‘Science and Art’
In the era of governance, e-governance should not fall in the dichotomy between ‘science’ and ‘art’. It should entail both consensus building and effective implementation, while selecting a leader good at conducting with a good governance orchestra for good performance. The management-oriented and bureaucratic e-government models are declining in popularity because of their narrow and managerial perspectives while ignoring differences among philosophies, histories, cultures, politics, and governments among countries. Advocates of e-government in the future need the capabilities to predict and analyze in a timely manner, the abilities to dialogue with and moderate between local and global clients, and philosophies for balancing democracy and efficiency.