4 Identifying E-Business Options stakeholders. It is relevant to distinguish between business partners and other external stakeholders because the communication mode between the organization and these two kinds of stakehold- ers groups is different (see also the paragraph on communication modes). With business partners, an organization has both a transactional (including monetary) exchange relation and an informational and communicational relation. Business partners include customers, suppliers, banks, insurance companies, shareholders, and governments (e.g., concerning taxes, licenses, and regulations). With other external stakeholders, organiza- tions only have an informational or communica- tional relation. Examples are the press, special interest groups, (e.g., environmental groups), and the general public. The number of external stakeholders groups is organization-dependent: the user of our methodology has to map out and group all external stakeholders who may be rel- evant to the analysis. Some relevant questions with respect to stake- holders are: • What are the current groups of business partners? • What are the current groups of other stake - holders? Dimension #2: Stakeholder Statuses We distinguish between two statuses, namely current and new. By using the Internet, an orga- nization can transform or extend its business with respect to new stakeholders. New stakeholders can be new customers, new suppliers, new banks, or even new governments. New customers can be reached by entering new markets (market exten- sion) or by disintermediating current intermediar- LHVDQGLQWKLVZD\WDUJHWLQJ¿QDOFRQVXPHUV The same applies to suppliers. By using electronic marketplaces, organizations can broaden their suppliers’ base or disintermediate backward to replace suppliers by the initial producers of the supplies. Some relevant questions with respect to stake- holder statuses are: • Could the organization reach new business partners by using the Internet? • Could the organization reach new other stakeholders by using the Internet? Dimension #3: Channel Strategies In this article we distinguish between Internet channels and non-Internet channels (although our PHWKRGRORJ\ DOVR DOORZV IXUWKHU UH¿QHPHQWV Organizations can choose to use the Internet as an exclusive medium for communication exchange purposes with one or more (groups of) stakeholders. This is called a single-channel Internet strategy. The alternative is to combine the Internet with non-Internet channels. This is called a multi-channel strategy. Some relevant questions with respect to chan- nel strategies are: Organization Outside world (e.g., customers, suppliers, labor unions, government agencies, banks, interest groups, general public) Information communication transactions Figure 2. Organization as an open system 5 Identifying E-Business Options • Can the organization use the Internet as a single-channel strategy to reach a current group of business partners? • Can the organization use the Internet as an additional-channel strategy to reach a new group of business partners? • Can the organization use the Internet as a single-channel strategy to reach a current group of current other stakeholders? Dimension #4: Communication Modes We distinguish among informational, interac- tional, and transactional communication modes. Informational means a one-sided provision of information, (e.g., by putting a product catalogue on the Internet). Interactional means a two-sided information exchange, (e.g., by enabling custom- ers to ask questions). Transactional means the e xc h a n g e o f p r o d u c t s o r s e r v i c e s o r t h e a g r e e m e n t about such an exchange, (e.g., to order a product and to pay over the Internet). Interactional mode includes informational mode; transactional mode includes interactional and, hence also informa- tional mode (Grover & Ramanlal, 2004). A relevant question with respect to commu- nication modes is: • Could the organization use the Internet to provide information, to exchange informa- tion or to engage in transactions? Dimension #5: Product (and Service) Groups Organizations can use the Internet to buy or to market their products and/or services. The number of product/service groups is organization-depen- dent: the user of our methodology has to map out and to group all current products and services that may be relevant to the analysis. Some relevant questions with respect to prod- uct/service groups are:  :KDWDUHWKHFXUUHQWRUQHZ¿QDOSURGXFWV and services and could the Internet be used to facilitate the buying or selling process? • What are the current or new inputs and could the Internet be used to facilitate the buying process? Dimension #6: Product (and Service) Statuses We distinguish between two statuses, namely cur- rent and new. Organizations can use the Internet to buy or sell their current products and services, but they can also transform or extend business by buying or marketing new products or new services on the Internet. Many products can be extended or transformed by using the Internet. A relevant question with respect to product statuses is:  :KDWDUHSRVVLEOHQHZ¿QDOSURGXFWVVHU - vices and inputs? • Could the Internet be used to facilitate the buying or selling process of new products or services? Examples of a Newspaper Publisher A publisher of a regional newspaper has many options with regard to using the Internet. We will use the different dimensions of our methodology to describe four of these options. These options are also shown in Table 2. • Example 1: The publisher may choose to put the contents of (a part of) the newspaper on the Internet as an additional service for his current subscribers (extension of current product to current customers, multi-chan- nel). • Example 2: The publisher may choose to put the contents of (a part of) the newspaper on the Internet as a service extension to his 6 Identifying E-Business Options current products for current subscribers as well as new clients. • Example 3: The publisher may choose to develop a new single-channel Internet news- paper, using special Internet features (e.g., interactivity, news on demand) to reach new customers (new product, new customers, single-channel Internet). • Example 4: The publisher may choose to develop an Internet newspaper, based on a current newspaper, using special Internet features as a free new service for current subscribers and a chargeable service for new Internet customers (the English newspaper The Economist makes use of this option). To illustrate the different dimensions of an e-business option, the e-business options in this example are generated in an arbitrary way. Many other options are also possible. In the next sections we will show how options can be generated and ordered in a systematic manner. Generating Potential Options In order to systematically generate potential e- business options once the (company-dependent) elements of all dimensions are determined, a closer look is required at the structure of the de- scription of the potential options. In our view, the following general format can be used to describe all potential options: <communication mode> options concerning <product status> <product group> with <stake- holder status> <stakeholders group> using a <channel strategy> All possible combinations of values applied to the six variables in the general format then make up the complete set of potential options. If p is the number of product/service groups and s is the num- ber of stakeholders groups that are distinguished by the organization concerned, this will lead to 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 * p * s (i.e., 24 * p * s) potential op- tions. So it is obvious that these potential options can be generated in a systematic manner, namely by straightforwardly combining each possible Example nr Stakeholders Groups and statuses Dimension # 1, # 2 Channel strategies Dimension #3 Communication modes Dimension #4 Product and service groups Dimension #5 Product and service statuses Dimension #6 1 Current subscribers Internet and traditional newspaper = multichannel Information Content of current newspaper Current 2 Current subscribers and New clients Internet and traditional newspaper = multichannel Information Content of current newspaper Current 3 New customers Internet single-channel Transaction Newspaper New 4 Current subscribers and New customers Internet and traditional newspaper = Multichannel Interaction for current subscribers, transaction for Internet/only customers Current newspaper, adapted New Table 1. Examples of some e-business options of a newspaper publisher 7 Identifying E-Business Options element with each of the six dimensions. Each combination results in a potential option. Rather than writing out these 24 * p * s potential options by hand, they can also be generated by means of a tool. The tool can consist of a data- base with a Dimensions table containing the six dimensions and an Elements table containing all (2 + 2 + 2 + 3 + p + s) elements per dimension. A sample content of such a database will be shown in the next section. Furthermore, the database has to have a reporting facility which, based on the joining of these two tables, can generate the 24 * p * s descriptions of the potential options in our general format. Ordering Potential Options The potential options can be ordered by adding the ordered dimensions to the ordered elements within each dimension. The ordering of the di- mensions and their elements implicitly implies an ordering of the generated options. The next example should make this clear. Example Suppose that the publisher distinguishes three general product groups (Physical goods, Digital SURGXFWVDQG6HUYLFHVDVZHOODV¿YHVWDNHKROG- ers groups (Customers, Suppliers, Shareholders, Banks, and Governments). After choosing one particular way of ordering the dimensions and the elements within each dimension, the contents of our two database tables could be as shown in Tables 2 and 3.  7KLVPHDQVWKDWLQWKLVH[DPSOHZHZLOO¿UVW consider: • Informational options concerning current digital products for current customers using a single-channel Internet strategy Dimension Dimension order Stakeholders groups 6 Product groups 5 Channel strategies 1 Communication modes 4 Stakeholder statuses 2 Product statuses 3 Table 2. Dimensions of e-business options Element Dimension Elements order Customers Stakeholders groups 1 Suppliers Stakeholders groups 2 Shareholders Stakeholders groups 3 Banks Stakeholders groups 4 Governments Stakeholders groups 5 Physical goods Product groups 3 Digital products Product groups 1 Services Product groups 2 Single-channel Internet strategy Channel strategies 1 Multi-channel strategy Channel strategies 2 Informational Communication modes 1 Interactional Communication modes 2 Transactional Communication modes 3 Current Stakeholder statuses 1 New Stakeholder statuses 2 Current Product statuses 1 New Product statuses 2 Table 3. Elements of e-business options 8 Identifying E-Business Options • Then, similar options for the other stakehold- ers groups (4 groups in this case), • then, similar options for the other product groups (2 groups in this case), • then, similar options for the other commu - nication modes (2 modes in this case), • then, similar options for the new products, • then, similar options for the new stakehold- ers, and,  ¿QDOO\VLPLODURSWLRQVIRUWKHRWKHUFKDQQHO strategy. • We will obtain the descriptions of potential options by simply placing the respective elements into the general format that we introduced earlier. • In our example, this generates 360 potential options (namely, 5 * 3 * 3 * 2 * 2 * 2). Different criteria can be used for ordering the different elements. One criterion may be to priori- tize from current to new. This means that potential options, including current stakeholders, current products, and multi-channel strategies, appear at a higher place on the list than potential options including new stakeholders, new products and single-channel strategies. This is in accordance with Straub et al. (2001) who state that Internet DSSOLFDWLRQV WHQG WR PRYH IURP ¿UVWRUGHU WR second-order and then to third-order effects (see the background section). If a company chooses WRIROORZWKLVSDWWHUQWKHOLVWZLOO¿UVWVXJJHVW the less risky options. Another approach may be to look for a VWUDWHJLF¿W,IDFRPSDQ\LQWHQGVWRUHDFKQHZ groups of customers, it is reasonable to give new stakeholders groups a higher ranking. The same applies when an organization intends to use the Internet to launch new (Internet-based) products or services. In that case, these new products and services should get a higher priority. If the com- SDQ\GHSHQGHQW HOHPHQWV DUH LGHQWL¿HG LQ WKH right way, the list will, in any case, provide all potential options. Once the list of potential options has been generated and ordered, a list of valid options has to be composed. The difference between a poten- tial and a valid option is determined by whether a potential option is possible. This means that impossibilities have to be eliminated from the list. To give an example: it is impossible to deliver a bottle of orange juice over the Internet. So deliv- ering orange juice over the Internet is a potential option, but not a valid one. Ordering orange juice over the Internet is a potential option as well as a valid one, since it is actually possible. However, not all (valid) options will make sense from a business perspective. This means that options have to be assessed, often by using a range of criteria. So once the list of valid options has been acquired, the next stage of assessment can begin (see Figure 2). Tool Support The approach as described in this article will be supported by a tool that enables one to easily: • Record the product/service groups and the stakeholders groups (organization-depen- dent); • Generate the potential e-business options; and • Order the e-business options. The tool will consist of a database, which contains the proper: • Data structures (tables) already containing all organization-independent data; • Forms to enter and update the organization- dependent data (i.e., the product/service groups and the stakeholders groups); and • Reporting facility to generate and order the potential e-business options. E-business consultants, managers, and busi- ness analysts can use this tool to support the 9 Identifying E-Business Options process of business improvement of organizations. The methodology suggests conventional as well as highly unconventional approaches to the use of the Internet and helps people specify certain directions of e-business-related change. This approach, including this tool, can be used in interviews and workshops to generate and discuss directions of change that may improve ¿QDOGHFLVLRQPDNLQJ FUTURE WORK : KHQWKHRSW LRQ V D UHLG HQW L¿HGD QGRUGH UH GW K H\ have to be assessed on the basis of one or more criteria (see Figure 1). These criteria are organiza- tion-dependent. Many organizations use multi- criteria methods (Grimbergen et al., 2001; Parker, Benson, & Trainor, 1988) to assess IT investment alternatives, including e-business options. We intend to extend the methodology as described in this article by incorporating this next step. To support this next step, a tool will be developed. This tool should, among other things, enable an organization to record the results of the assessment and selection process. So, our methodology will WKHQDLPDWFRYHULQJDQGVXSSRUWLQJWKH¿UVWWZR stages of the e-business decisionmaking process as depicted in Figure 1. A prototype of the methodology as described in this article has been applied in two organizations. We intend to describe these cases and extend this FDVHEDVHZLWKWKHREMHFWLYHWRUH¿QHDQGLPSURYH our methodology. CONCLUSION It can be concluded that there is already a con- siderable number of models for assessing current e-business applications and for measuring the readiness of e-business for the future. However, there is a lack of approaches that can help consul- tants, managers and academics to generate new options and new directions regarding utilizing the Internet and other new (electronic) communication channels. In this article, such an approach has been offered, including a tool that supports this goal. The approach contributes to a more creative and systematic way of decision-making with respect to e-business. It describes the more trivial as well as the highly unconventional e-business options in a global but complete and systematic way. These descriptions lead to an extensive list of potential options. This list can serve as the basis for further systematic decisionmaking and may stimulate people to make conscious and well-considered e-business decisions. Further, the approach could be extended so that the assessment and selection processes are incorporated as well. Finally, these processes could also be supported by a tool. REFERENCES Andal Ancion, A, Cartwright, P. A., & Yip, G. (2003). The digital transformation of traditional ¿UPV Sloan Management Review, Summer, 34-41. Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate strategy, An ana- lytical approach to business policy for growth and expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill. Barua, A., Konana, P., Whinston, A., & Yin, F. (2001). Driving e-business excellence. MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall, 36-44. Brock, B. de, Boonstra, A. (2002). Implement- ing a methodology for generating and ordering e-business options. SOM report, University of Groningen. Grimbergen, W., & Saull, R. (2001). Aligning business and information technology through the EDODQFHGVFRUHFDUGDWDPDMRU&DQDGLDQ¿QDQFLDO group: Its status measured with an it BSC maturity model. Proceedings of the 34 th Hawaii Interna- tionational Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamitos (pp. 314-325). IEEE. 10 Identifying E-Business Options Grover, V., & Ramanlal, P. (2004). Digital eco- nomics and the e-business dilemma. Business Horizons, 47(4), 71-80. Lee, C S. (2001). An analytical framework for evaluating e-commerce business models and strat- egies. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 11(4), 349-359. Miller, S., Hickson, D., & Wilson, D. (1996). Decision making in organisations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies. London: Sage. Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorêt, A. 7KHVWUXFWXUHRI³XQVWUXFWXUHG´GHFLVLRQ processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 246275. Parker, M. M., Benson, R. J., & Trainor, H. E. (1988). Information economics, linking business performance to information technology. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,. Pettigrew, A. (2002). Decision-making as a politi- cal process. In G. Salaman (Ed.), Decision making for business. London: Sage. Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of manage- ment decision. New York: Harper & Row. Straub, D., & Klein, R. (2001). E-competitive Transformations. Business Horizons, 44(3), 3- 12. KEY TERMS E-Business Opportunity: An assessed and selected e-business option. E-Business Option: A possibility to use an electronic network for a business purpose. E-Business Value Model: A model which conveys to management where to focus organi- ]DWLRQDOUHVRXUFHVE\KLJKOLJKWLQJVSHFL¿FDUHDV of opportunity. External Stakeholders: Organizations ex- change information and communicate with all external stakeholders, who can be divided in business partners and other stakeholders. Internet Option: A possibility to use the Internet for a business purpose. This work was previously published in Encyclopedia of E-Commerce, E-Government, and Mobile Commerce, edited by M. Khosrow-Pour, pp. 580-586, copyright 2006 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global). 11 Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Chapter 1.2 E-Governance Srinivas Bhogle National Aerospace Laboratories, India ABSTRACT E-governance uses Internet and communication technologies to automate governance in inno- YDWLYHZD\VVR WKDW LWEHFRPHVPRUH HI¿FLHQW more cost-effective, and empowers the human race even more. E-governance exercises are be- ing attempted for more than a decade now, but have so far achieved only mixed success. The long-term prognosis for e-governance, however, remains extremely positive. The emergence of Web-services technologies, the continually pro- liferating computer networks, and the irreversible migration towards digital information strongly FRQ¿UP WKH YLHZ WKDW HJRYHUQDQFH LV KHUH WR stay. The eventual success of any e-governance project is intimately linked to the methodology used, and to that complex mesh between men, PDFKLQHVDQGPLQGVHWV:HH[SODLQWKH³ZKDW´ ³ZK\´DQG³KRZ´RIHJRYHUQDQFH:HDOVRWDON of e-governance concerns, and discuss a few il- lustrative case studies. WHAT IS E-GOVERNANCE? 'H¿QLWLRQV The biggest problem in developing countries is good governance, not poverty. It is, for example, well known that only a miniscule fraction of the money earmarked for development, relief, or UHKDELOLWDWLRQ HYHQWXDOO\ ¿OWHUV GRZQ WR IXO¿OO its mandated objective. There are also numerous instances where the concern is not how to ¿QG the money, but how to go through the maze of complicated procedures to spend the available PRQH\EHIRUHWKH¿QDQFLDO\HDUHQGV Until a decade ago, the sheer logistics of ac- counting, bookkeeping, correspondence, and ap- provals was an onerous overhead. But the World Wide Web completely changed things. With e-mail, correspondence across the globe became almost instantaneous, and richer, because mail attachments were possible. The technologies to make Web pages interactive, and connect them 12 E-Governance to databases, worked wonders on the approval processes: approvals became faster, were based on more intelligent inputs, and could be securely archived. It was now possible, and indeed highly desirable, to use the Web for real governance. Electronic governance (or e-governance) could WKHUHIRUHEHGH¿QHGDV WKHXVH RI,QWHUQHWDQG communication technologies to automate gover- nance in innovative ways, so that it becomes more HI¿FLHQWPRUHFRVWHIIHFWLYHDQGHPSRZHUVWKH human race even more. 6LQFH ³governance” is normally associated ZLWKD³government,” may authors choose to ex- SOLFLWO\PHQWLRQWKHJRYHUQPHQWZKLOHGH¿QLQJ HJRYHUQDQFH%DFNXVIRUH[DPSOHGH¿QHV HJRYHUQDQFH DV WKH ³DSSOLFDWLRQ RI HOHFWURQLF means in the interaction between government and citizens and government and businesses, as well as in internal government operations to simplify and improve democratic, government and business aspects of governance.” The strategic objective of e-governance, as Backus explains, is simply to use electronic means to support and stimulate good governance. Governance vs. E-Governance Both governance and e-governance are based on the same principles, and aim to achieve the same end objective. But the means used are widely different. Consider, for example, the requirement of a publicly funded national R&D lab to recruit scientists. A decade ago, the following procedure was probably adopted: (a) advertise widely in na- tional newspapers indicating the job requirement and eligibility, (b) identify the format in which applications must be submitted, (c) receive, sort, and classify the applications sent, (d) shortlist the applicants and invite them for a test or interview, and (e) select the candidates and issue them ap- pointment letters. This entire process usually took almost a year—so long that the applicants often got tired of ZDLWLQJDQGÀHZDZD\WRVRPHRWKHURSSRUWXQLW\ The excuse offered for the delay was that pre- scribed government procedures were too complex and tedious. It was ironical that these classical governance procedures were actually sending away the best talent instead of bringing it in. The e-governance approach would dramati- cally change things: the job requirement and eligi- bility would appear as hyperlinked Web pages on the lab’s Web site. The application format would be a Web page template, with thoughtful valida- tions to improve data quality. Upon submission, WKHDSSOLFDQW¶VGDWDZRXOGLQVWDQWDQHRXVO\ÀRZ into database tables on the lab’s server. The short- listing process would merely involve making lists based on a wide variety of database queries and, ¿QDOO\WKHVHOHFWHGFDQGLGDWHVZRXOGEHLVVXHG appointment letters via an e-mail attachment. The advantages offered by this e-governance procedure are abundantly clear, but let us list WKHPIRUWKHUHFRUG)LUVWWKH³WLPHWRUHFUXLW´ is dramatically reduced: 12 months could be re- duced to 1-2 months. Second, the quality of the V HOH FW HG FD QG LG D WH VL VV L JQ L ¿F DQ WO\ EH W W H UE HF DX VH  of timely selection and improved data quality and search procedures. Third, the procedure is much less expensive; there are no advertisement or data tabulation costs. Fourth, the e-recruit- ment procedure reaches a much larger number of applicants right across the globe because of the growing ubiquity of the Web, and because the ap- plication window is open 24 u$QG¿QDOO\WKH e-governance procedure automatically guarantees data or content in digital form, making them more amenable for future knowledge management or data mining exercises. On the down side, e-governance procedures frequently raise security concerns, for example, could someone access or modify information? Electronic procedures also require widespread, HI¿FLHQW DQG UHOLDEOH FRPSXWHU QHWZRUNV %XW WKHELJJHVWFRQFHUQUHODWHVWRPLQGVHWVRI¿FLDOV LQYROYHGLQJRYHUQDQFH¿HUFHO\UHVLVWFKDQJH Table 1 summarizes the arguments for and against e-governance. It can be seen that the ad- YDQWDJHVVLJQL¿FDQWO\RXWZHLJKWKHFRQFHUQV 13 E-Governance Evolution of E-Governance E-governance became possible only after the appearance of the World Wide Web and the widespread use of browsers like Netscape and Internet Explorer. In the early years (until about EURZVHUVVLPSO\GLVSOD\HG³VWDWLF´:HE pages. These pages were attractive, available on different computer platforms, allowed you to ³PL[´WH[WZLWKPXOWLPHGLDFRQWHQWDQGFRXOG be hyperlinked. From an e-governance viewpoint, this still was not good enough. Imagine that the task is to secure admission in a school or college. With Web pages, you could display all kinds of infor- mation about the college: its history, its courses, names of teachers on its faculty, pictures of the college buildings and swimming pools, college maps, and so forth. You could also post formats of application forms that must be submitted. But you could not DFWXDOO\¿OOXSVXFKIRUPVRQOLQH. :LWKVWDWLF:HESDJHV\RXFRXOGRQO\³LQIRUP´ EXW\RXFRXOGQRW³LQWHUDFW´ The chief reason was that Web pages use the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), and HTML simply was not meant to be interactive. It was a one-way street: the college could reach its information to you, but you could not get back to the college using the same browser. One could, of course, still print the applica- WLRQ IRUP RII WKH :HE SDJH ¿OO LW XSRIIOLQH and then mail or fax it to the college. The college could then, if it wished, reenter the details on an electronic database. But this did not seem right. ,I\RXFRXOG³FRQQHFW´WRWKHFROOHJHZK\FRXOG \RXQRW³UHDFK´LWVGDWDEDVHDVZHOO" HTML’s inability to directly connect to a database had to be corrected; one had to get HTML to talk to SQL (the structured query lan- guage that all databases use). The early efforts (1997-99) to achieve this involved the use of a common gateway interface (CGI) and a program- ming language like PERL. It worked rather well, although the programming overhead was a little severe. Later, especially after the widespread use of a platform-independent language like Java (by 2001), the database connectivity problem was solved much more elegantly. From an e-governance perspective, this PHDQWWKDWZHKDGPRYHGIURPWKH³LQIRUP´WR WKH³LQWHUDFW´SKDVH2XUFROOHJHDSSOLFDQWZDV QRZRQO\UHTXLUHGWR¿OOXSDQRQOLQHIRUPDQG ³VXEPLW´7KHGDWDZRXOGVHDPOHVVO\ÀRZLQWRWKH college’s backend database. Better still, the student could also obtain an online or e-mail response, for example, to say that the application has been received or accepted. A typical governance transaction, however, LQYROYHVPXFKPRUHWKDQ¿OOLQJRUVXEPLWWLQJD form. The conventional procedure is to put this DSSOLFDWLRQ IRUP RQ D ¿OH RU GRVVLHU 7KH ¿OH WKHQWUDYHOVIURPRQH³JRYHUQDQFHGHVN´WRWKH next. At each desk, the concerned individual is required to carry out a process involving either Table 1. Advantages and concerns of e-governance Advantages Concerns 6LJQL¿FDQWWLPHVDYLQJ³WKHUHDUHQRGHOD\V´ Mindsets of governance teams Improved information quality 6HFXULW\FRQFHUQV³FDQLQIRUPDWLRQEHWDPSHUHGRU delayed?”) Less expensive (especially after e-governance infrastructure is set up) 5HTXLUHPHQWRIZLGHVSUHDGHI¿FLHQWDQGUHOLDEOH computer networks and software :LGHUUHDFK³FDQUHDFKWKHZKROHZRUOG´ Digital content (data capture is digital) . interaction between government and citizens and government and businesses, as well as in internal government operations to simplify and improve democratic, government and business aspects of governance.”. requirement and eligibility, (b) identify the format in which applications must be submitted, (c) receive, sort, and classify the applications sent, (d) shortlist the applicants and invite. is simply to use electronic means to support and stimulate good governance. Governance vs. E-Governance Both governance and e-governance are based on the same principles, and aim to achieve