From E-Government to Smart Governance &

Smart City:
Speed of Consensus and Leadership

2023. August

Seunghwan Myeong (Inha University)

shmyeong@inha.ac.kr
 Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. E-governance Model
III. Building E-Government in Earlier Stage
IV. Smart City Definition and Strategies
V. Determinant Factors and Model for Smart City
VI. Smart City Cases: Implications & Future
Direction
VII.Conclusion I, II
 Contingency Models of E-Governance

● Social, political, and economic elements influence the implementation of

E-Governance greatly.
These include ① information infrastructure of a country,
② human resources,
③ leadership and vision,
④ maintenance of a legal system,
⑤ a revolutionary public administration system (UNDPEPA & ASPA,2002).

● The 2010 United Nations e-Government Survey presented various roles for e-government in
addressing the ongoing world financial and economic crisis:
(i) the public trust that is gained through transparency can be further enhanced through the
free sharing of government data based on open standards;
(ii) the ability of e-government to handle speed and complexity can also underpin regulatory
reform; and
(iii) empowering citizens to question the actions of regulators and bring systemic issues to the
fore.
 Contingency Models of E-Governance
● First, e-governance has to increase productivity and efficiency by utilizing information
technologies in public administration. However, it should improve citizens’quality of life as its
highest objective by reconsidering transparency of public administration and democracy.

● Second, e-governance should provide adequate and efficient civil services by applying
information technologies in the right places. In order to make this a reality, civil services have
to be reformed to emphasize citizen-oriented work processes

● Third, e-government must reengineer public administration processes that include a

systematic effort that challenge traditional vertical bureaucratic models.

● Fourth, e-governance should refer not only to information-oriented civil services;

it also has to be an advanced model of governance in an information society and
consider society’s equilibrium through extended civil services under democratic
ideals.
Configuration Elements for Implementing E-
Governance
Contingency Model for E-Governance
Multidimensionality of the Digital Divide

Figure 3. ICT ability and acceptability

▶ The digital divide has multiple circulating structures that repetitively influence
individuals’ IT skills and acceptance under various political, economic, and social
conditions.
Contingency of Digital Divide and an Analysis Model

Figure 4. Model of the digital divide

▶ This paper proposes a model for examining urban inequalities and the digital
divide at four levels because policy targets of a narrower digital divide are
individuals and groups, which represent elements of the digital divide.
 Korean E-government Model

Target E-Government for Whom?

Values Government/Nation Citizen

Efficiency Type I (Technocratic G) Type II(G for Efficient Service)

Productivity Enabling Government Efficient Government

(1987~1991/1992~1996) (1996~2000)

- Improve public service productivity & deliver - Innovation in civil service via IT
y method - Promote citizen’s IT usage and
E-Government - Networking government data & communicatio accessibility to government information
n via intranet - Upgrade existing system
For - ICT-driven national strategy - E-government paradigm
Transparency Type III(Monitoring G) Type IV(Visible G)
What?
Demonstrative Government

(2000~2002/2003~2007)

? - Result-oriented performance and business friendly environment

- Improve productivity & transparency of administration
- Achieve stability and reliability of information resources by Enterpris
e Architecture tools
Power Type V(Big Brother G) Type VI(Democratic G)

Open Government (E-Governance)

(2008~2012/2013~)

? - Networked government through innovation in service delivery

- More customized public services by each public organizations and lo
cal governments
- Peoples’ engagement in decision making and individual-oriented ser
vices by Government in my hand via SNS devices
- Big data open platform and governance paradigm(Gov3.0)
 E-Governance Perspectives and Changes toward E-Governance (Gov3.0)
Gov1.0 Gov2.0 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 & Outsourc Gov. Driven & Outsourcing Gov.-Private-Citizen Partnership, Deregulation
ing
Role of CIO System Management BPR, Intergovernmental Initiator of Reform
Project Communicator
Decision Making Initiatives Political Elites & Gov. C Gov., Professional, Public Offi Individuals, Citizen, NGOs
EO cials
Demand & Method for Decision Political Needs Policy Needs Participation & Communication based on Big Data
Making

Role of Central Gov. Initiator Contractor Mediator

Role of Local Gov.
Role of Entrepreneur
Role of Citizen
Dependent upon Matchi Matching Funds Local/Community Demand-based Personalized Ser
ng Funds Constructing Local Gov. Portal vices
System Building s
System Provider New Tech. & System Applicati Convergent Services
on Develop Creating New Services
Info. Service User Partly Participation Active Participation & Voting

Decision Maker Top Down Budget Alloc Policy/Budget Control based o Focusing on Problem Solving
ation n Performance Evaluation Data Analysis & Vision

Demands by Paradigm Shift Gov./National Informati Gov. Reform Cooperative Partnership & E-Governance
zation Local Autonomy
Korean Case: E-Government Strategy
and Initiatives

National Computerization Agency

 Korean Case: E-Government History & EG Stages

Korean E-Government HISTORY Completion of 11 EG “Beyond e-Government”

Projects (2002) (2002.5)

1,2 Computerization 1,2 Govt-Wide Network Informatization Promotion Cyber Korea 21 Amended Info Master Plan
(’78 –’82, 83’-’86) (87’-91’, 92’-96') Master Plan (96’. 6.) (99’-01’) (02’-06’)

Computerization Informatization Nationwide High-Speed Com. Network (95-97,98-00)

Info. Committee ( ’96) Wide use of Internet(’95~) E-Gov’t Building

Establishment of EG Research Orgs.
Special Comit. EG (2001.2)
(2002)
EG TFT in Gov’t Innov Committee
EG Act (2001)
(2003.4)

Stages of
1,2
EG Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Providing Info Interaction Transaction Transformation

Gartner’s Group . Info only . Intranet . Enterprise Portals . CRM Applications
(2002) . Go Websites . Limited Interact . E-Service . E-Governance
Initiatives Promotion Citizen-centered Quality Transform
NCA, Korea . Info. thru Web . Advance Portals . BPR/Sys. Integ. . Responsive Gov
(2001) . Service by Dept. . Gov’t Network . Single Window . E-Governance
Computerization Networking Integration E-Governance
Korean EG . Push Strategy . Push Strategy . Pull Strategy . Push-Pull Strategy
. Gov’t Driven . G2G Initiatives . EA/Info.Share . Win-Win Game
.Internal Efficiency . Digitalize (DB) . On-line Service .Power Balance
Korean Case: E-Government History & EG Stages

Korea‘s Journey to e-Gov

Phase 3
Phase 2
Phase 1
Integrating Major
Storing Government The Use of IT Government
Records into a Digital across Government Processes into a
Format Bureaus Single Service

1987 1995 2001 ~

• National Basic • Framework Act on • Electronic Promotion
Information Informatization Act (2001)
System Promotion (1995) • Special Committee
• Master Plan for for eGov (2001)
(1987~1996)
Informatization • Key 11 Initiatives
Promotion(1996) (2002)
• CIO appointed in the 2003
government (1998) • e-Gov Roadmap
• Cyber Korea 21(1999) (2003)
Korean Case: Major Projects and Effects

Nationwide Basic Information System & Network

Projects (1987 ~ 1996)

• Strategy
. Government Driven Top-down Approach
-> Gov’t as a Driving Engine (Planning)
. Investment first, paid by government after project
completed -> Money for Implementation (Budget)
. Enacted “Computer Network Proliferation &
Promotion Act” (1986. 12)
-> Law as an Enforcement Tool
. Launched “Steering Committee for Computer
Network” under the Office of President
(1987. 5) ->Organization for Coordination
Korean Case: Major Projects and Effects

Six Basic IS & Network

Target Provided Services Date Area

Task
Residence .Residence registration (Birth, Death) 1991.1 3,700 Eup-Myeon-
Registration .Document issue Dong Local Office

Real Estate .Land change 1991.2 273 City, County,

Management .Change of land property/Doc. issue District Admin. Office

Vehicle .Vehicle Registration/Doc. issue 1990.3 168 related org. (59

Registration .Vehicle maintenance, inspection Reg&Inspect Office..)

Customs .Export/Import report, inspection 1990.4 109 related org.

Logistics .Tax, Cash management (Seoul custom, 43
.Customs/Logistics Process transport,3 banks)

Employment .Employment information 1990 49 related org.

Management .Business information/Education
Statistics .Population, Inflation… 1991 36 government
.Providing access tools to statistics offices
Korean Case: e-Gov Strategy & Initiatives

Transparent and
Quality Public Service
efficient Government •Passport Issuance Service
•Immigration Information
•Resident Registration
•e-Service to Citizen(G4C)
Service
•Integrated Insurance
•Electronic Cadastral G2C Service
Service
•Home Tax Service (HTS)
•Integrated Finance G2B
•Educational Enhance Business
G2G
Administration Environment
• Information System
•Patent Online Services
•Personnel Policy Support
•Korea Customs Services
•Local Administration Infra •National e-Procurement
System •e-Documentation
System
•Digital Signature & e-Seal
•Gov’t Information Systems
Consolidation
 Key 11 e-Gov’t initiatives are underlined in red color
e-Gov Strategies and Initiatives(2003~)

National Computerization Agency

Korean Case: e-Gov Strategy & Initiatives

Direction and Goals

Work Method Reform

Paper document Electronic document

Department oriented procedures Service flow oriented

procedures
Civil Service Reform
Many contact points, Single contact point, No visit, Online
Visits, Face-to-Face
Electronic participation
Limited participation (polls) (e-election)
Information Resource Management Reform
Separate resource Government-wide management
management
Common standards
Departmental standards and convergence
Korean Case: e-Gov Strategy & Initiatives

Strategies
Stage 1 [Foundation) Stage 2 [Service Advancement]
❖ Consolidation of administrative internal ❖ Advancement of administrative
process internal process through information
❖ Selective public service reform ❖ Expansion of integrated public service

Stage 2 (2007) Level 5

Integrated
Administration
Stage1 [2005] Level 4
❖ Interdepartment
E-Commerce al and cross-
❖ Online agency Online
Level 3 service
processing of
Level 2 Interoperation
civil service
Development ❖ E-mail
Level 1 ❖ Converged
Initiation ❖ Electronic public/civil
❖ Periodic update ❖ E-payment of
❖ Provision of forms service
of information taxes and fees
limited
information
Korean Case: e-Gov Strategy & Initiatives

Agenda and Initiatives

Area Agenda
Government Internal 1 Establishing electronic procedures
Process Reform 2 Expanding common use of public info.
(G2G)
3 Service oriented BPR

4 Enhancement of the civil service

Public Service Reform 5 Enhancement of business service
(G2C, G2B)
6 Expanding electronic civil participation

Information Resource Integration/standardization of info. resource

7
Management Reform Strengthening of information protection
8 system
(Common Platform)
9 Specialization of the IT manpower and
organization

Legal System Reform 10 Consolidation of e-government related

legal system
 Smart City:
Concept and Basic Elements
2. 새로운Intelligence
환경과Information-based
행정수요의Smart 변화
Society
1) 새로운 환경 변화

Key technologies of Smart Society include ICBM (IoT,

Cloud, Big Data, Mobile), and AI

Smart Society is an intelligent society which extends

communications from human and things to things to
things. It converges ICTs and its convergence with other
related industries in which people use intelligent devices
and machines

IBM defines a smart society as “a society in which a

paradigm is reset by users’ experiences not by technology
change itself”
 2. What is a Smart City?

Smart City:
“A smart city is an intelligent governance city system with highly intelligent ICTs and Social
Social Networks in which a city government implements BPR and shares knowledge and
and information with private corporations, people, and communities. It also provides public
public platforms to make actors transact with each other as a cooperative partner for creating a
for creating a democratic and value-added products to sustain a ecology of product cycle and a
cycle and a governance system of a city”
 Basic Structure for Building Smart City
• Firstly, the main actors include central government, local
government, local community people, and local industry and
corporations.
• Secondly, the goal includes strengthening competitiveness of
local government, digital-gap reduction, win-win strategy among
local regions, enhancement of quality of life for local people
• Thirdly, innovation and reform should be arisen in the
administrative process/tasks in local governments, local
economy/service infrastructure, safety environment for local
residence, intelligent digital infra/systems
• Lastly, implement strategies need to focus on redesign of city
management processes for building integrated platform, creation
of local brand services, provision of safe and easier access
point, and intelligence digital standardization and interoperation

The Role of Local Gov. is as a Supporter, Facilitator, and Mediator !!

Determinant Factors and Model
for Smart City
Smart City Leadership
Opportunities regarding digital
information for city leaders
1) Empower government employees to use their discretion
and common sense, working toward better lives for
citizens
2) Engage with citizens in the important provision of
services
→ Thicken the bonds of democracy and vibrancy of civic
life
3) Enable citizens to work with local government on shared
solutions to the grand challenges

Predictive analytics that can take advantage

of massive amounts of new information will
produce cost effective solutions for chronic
problems
Leadership in Smart City Governance
Smart city governance requires new leadership, not the
traditional leadership.
Traditional Leadership New Leadership

Feature of the leader New Role of leader

• Concentrated Power & Position
• Hierarchical command
• Supervision , Delegation
Vs
• Traditional aims of leadership is only
Control, Production,
Organizational goal attainment
• Moving away from a reliance on power and
position
• Recognizing leadership as a process that must
occur throughout groups , organizations , and
network
• Recognizing that leadership can and will move
from individual to individual.

Traditional conceptions of leadership

Appropriately changing notions of
are inadequate to network
Leadership
governance.
The New Imperative of Leadership

Collaboration

Adaptive capacity
New
Imperative
of
Leadership
Resolving ethical concerns through
dialogue

Engaging citizens
Collaboration
Adaptive capacity & Resilience

Need to build the adaptive capacity and resilience of the

system

Technical work : Adaptive work : Issues

Vs
• •
Challenges are clearly are hard to identify , not
defined. clearly understood.
Adaptive capacity & Resilience

• Leadership is to help a group, a community in

recognizing its own vision and how to move in
direction.
• Leadership means influencing the community to
face its problems.

• Telling People what to do

Ronald • Leadership means influencing the community to
Heifetz follow the leader’s vision
Resolving ethical concerns through dialogue

Theoretical- → This includes utilitarian, contract,

Juridical model rights-based theories etc.

Expressive-
collaborative → an investigation of morality as a
Margret model socially embodied medium of mutual
Walker understanding and negotiation between
people over their responsibility for things
open to human care and response.
Resolving ethical concerns through dialogue

Leader has to do!

- Conversation never become one-sided

- All view points are fully entertained and

always remember that participants are
free to engage on their team
Engaging citizens

Fundamentally rethink the

meaning and role of citizens
in governance

Three roles of Citizen should be involved

leadership for in policy formulation,
implementation, and
engaging citizens evaluation

Leader in networked
governance bear a special
responsibility
Smart City Leadership

Leadership in network
governance Traditional
leadership

v
s
Catapult Model and Strategies
 Catapult Future Cities 3 Indicators

(1)OPENNESS :How open is the city to new ide

as and businesses?
(2)INFRASTRUCTURE :How does the city opti
mise its infrastructure for high-growth new busines
ses?
(3) LEADERSHIP :How does the city build innov
ation into its own activities?
Catapult Smart City Analysis Model
 Ranking of Smart Cities

Digital Gover Data

Cities Regulator Advocate Customer Host Investor Connector Strategist
nor vore

1 New York 30 95 80 85 75 65 100 82 79

2 London 75 95 90 80 98 65 70 50 82

3 Helsinki 50 65 73 80 80 82 80 76 93

4 Barcelona
0 89 95 88 50 92 80 90 92

5 Amsterdam 60 91 60 82 38 78 100 58 100

Seoul 35 80 80 65 80 60 100 95 80

Gimpo 35 80 80 65 80 60 100 100 82

Goyang 35 75 80 70 80 60 95 100 75
Smart City Cases: Implications & Future Direction

Smart City Cases:

Implications &

Future Directions
1-1. City of Gimpo 1. Introduction of Gimpo

Official name Gimpo

Population 334,771

Area 276.610 km2 (106.8 sq mi)

Official
Korean
language

Map

4
1-2. City Governance 1. Introduction of Gimpo

Global High-
Tech
& Safe City

Vision & Goal A sustainable and Creative City

Administrative
Genuine Service to Residents
Philosophy

Policies - Service-Oriented Communicative Administration

- Human-Oriented Happy City
- Harmony-Oriented Sharing Welfare
- Hope-Oriented Education and Culture with
Dreams
- Convenience-Oriented High-tech Transportation
- Development-Oriented Local Economy
4
2-1. Project Overview 2. Project ‘Smartopia Gimpo’

‘Smartopia Gimpo’
Intelligent city control
Citizen participatory
system for urban
New-governance
management

Smartopia Smart Town

Center Platform

Budget 44.3 million USD

Construction Period About 16 months

Main Goal Smart & Safe City

4
2-2. Smartopia Center 2. Project ‘Smartopia Gimpo’

Street Children
Protection
Security

Smartopia Center

Disaster
Monitoring Crime Watch

Traffic
Monitoring

4
2-2. Smartopia Center 2. Project ‘Smartopia Gimpo’

CCTV technologies equipped Intelligent CCTV cameras

- Object tracing function
- Roamer detection and analysis
- Violence detection and analysis
- Entry detection and analysis
- Crowd detection and analysis Old Town : 1,074 cameras
- Garbage abandonment detection and
analysis
- Collapsing detection and analysis
New Town : 749 cameras
- Vehicle collision detection and analysis
- Jaywalking detection and analysis
- Scream detection and analysis

4
2-3. Plaform City based upon ICBM 2. Project ‘Smartopia Gimpo’

4
2-4. : IOCCD(Integrated Operation & Control Center for Disaster)

4
2-5. Smart Town Platform 2. Project ‘Smartopia Gimpo’

5
2-5. Smart Town Platform 2. Project ‘Smartopia Gimpo’

Town Community
A platform for communication and interchange among the citizens
Platform
providing local news, local broadcasting, life & culture information, online
discussion place, vote & poll and supporting citizen autonomy so that
citizen can get the information and participate in local administration.

Town Sharing Service

Platform A platform for information sharing among the citizens providing sharing
talent community and local voluntary work community so that citizen can
easily share their talent and voluntary work for local society.

Town Security Service

Platform A platform for customized urban life security providing emergency
response guide service, location based disaster alert service and
children protecting service so that citizen can live a stable life in the city.

Town Economy A platform for efficient distribution of local products and sharing tourist
Vitalization Platform information providing local small business community, local food

community and local tourist information so that local economy can

be vitalized.

5
2-5. Smart Town Platform 2. Project ‘Smartopia Gimpo’

Example of Smart Town Platform Web Service

Smart phone App

5
2-5. Smart Town Platform 2. Project ‘Smartopia Gimpo’

5
2-6. Practical Effects 2. Project ‘Smartopia Gimpo’

Prevention of crime &

accidents
Robbery,
Rape, Juvenile deli Traffic acci
Total Disaster Drunkard
Theft, nquency dent
Violence

65(cases) 14 6 31 1 13

109(people) 31 21 31 2 24

Records of emergency prevention and rescue (Jan. 2014~Sep. 2014)

by real-time city monitoring of Smartopia Center

5
 Smartopia Gimpo (cont.)
• Strategies
– Clear vision and goals to the public
– The public-private partnership
– Communication and cooperation with citizens
– Opening and sharing of information
– Standardization and globalization
• Motivations
– Building the Smartopia Center, a public-private collaboration
platform
• to improve urban efficiency
• to ensure citizen safety
– focusing on crime prevention, traffic, environment, and disaster.

64
 NYJ 4.0 DASAN

• Big data analytics

– Smart cycle

– Key principles
• ways to improve citizen convenience
• ways to improve the administrative efficiency
• IOT and drones
– Key principles
• ways to protect citizens’ daily life
• ways to detect and control harmful incidents
65
 NYJ 4.0 DASAN (cont.)
• Strategies
– Strong leadership
• clear vision and enforcement of DASAN principles
– The creation of a Big Data taskforce and 30 smart city projects
– Extensive training and education for cultural change

• Motivations
– Incorporating the four smart city platforms in its operation to imp
rove its service effectiveness, impact, and responsiveness
• Big data analytics, IoT and drone, citizen participation, and integrated servi
ce

66
 Findings
Smartopia Gimpo NYJ 4.0 DASAN
Approach Top-down Top-down
Building platform Establishing institutional culture
Focus infrastructures changes
Efficiency operation in
Target functional areas
Innovative organizational culture

Operation Public-private partnership Internal process

Platform Smartopia Center DASAN
Functional ar Crime, disaster, safety mana
Broad policy areas
eas gement
Management Data-driven administration Data-driven administration

67
 Discussion

• Implications
– Push side
• Leadership
– In establishing the necessary technological and data infrastructure
and hardware
– in creating an institutional culture of innovation
– Pull side
• A culture of innovation through consistent training and
education
– Gimpo: lack of cultural change to continue smart city practices
– NamYangJu: sufficient cultural changes to continue smart city
transformation
68
 Smart City Leaders should remember!

☞ If government follow these advices, they can make better civic life fo
r their citizens.

1. Citizens should push their governments to see problems as horizontal rather than vertical is
sues. That will require not just vision of a better government, but the leadership to make vis
ion a reality.

2. Digital advocates should collaborate with ordinary citizens as much as possible.

1. The digital revolutionaries in city government should look hard for ways to free their emplo
yees to act with discretion and professionalism.
 Conclusion I: Old E-Government is Gone !

 In the era of governance, e-government study should not to be in the dicho

tomy dilemma of ‘science’ or ‘art’.

 It should entail both consensus building and effective implementation, while

selecting a good conducting leader with a good governance orchestra for a
good performance.

 NPM-oriented and bureaucratic e-government model are declining in popul

arity because of its narrow and managerial perspectives while ignoring differ
ences of philosophies, histories, cultures, politics, and governments among c
ountries.
 Conclusion II: New Smart Governance is Coming!
• Government is not the only entity to drive or lead social changes, and we
have witnessed the government failure in many occasions in the field of
public administration, economy, financial market, and global trade in the era
of governance.

• Smart City Government is now needed to seriously look at a new position in

the ground of Industry 4.0 which is more individualized and decentralized
self-service model in a tightly engaged network and platform.

• Smart City Government needs to provide more tailored services toward

each targeted individual as well as cooperatively engaging in privates and
citizens as a partner or sometimes as a referee for keeping a fair game.

• Smart Government people in the future need capabilities of prediction and

analysis in a timely manner, abilities of dialogue and moderation with local
and global clients, and philosophies of balancing democracy and efficiency.
 References
• Seunghwan Myeong, Yongmin Kwon, and Hyungjun Seo. 2014.
“Sustainable E-Governance: The Relationship among Trust, Digital Divide,
and E-Government” Sustainability 6: 6049-6069.
• Seunghwan Myeong and Hyungjun Seo. 2016.“Which Type of Social Capital
Matters for Building Trust in Government? Looking for a New Type of Social
Capital in the Governance Era.”. Sustainability 8, 322.
• Seunghwan Myeong. 2014.“Puzzling out the wisdom of e-crowds in
trustworthy e-government practices: From technological applications to
networks”. In E-government and websites: A public solutions handbook.
Ed. Aroon Manoharan. M.E. Sharpe, Inc. :135-150
• Seunghwan Myeong. 2016. “Electronic Government”” In Understanding
Korean Public Administration: Lessons Learned from Practice. Eds.
Kwang-Kook Park,Wonhee Lee, Seok-Hwan Lee. New York: Routledge:
187-208.
• Gartner.(2016) Smart Homes to Smart Cities.
• IBM. 2012. Watson goes to work.
• IBM, ‘Memphis Police Department Reduces Crime Rates with IBM
• Predictive Analytics Software’