Towards a Conceptual Model for an e-Government Interoperability
Framework for South Africa
Paula Kotzé
1,2
and Ronell Alberts
1
1
CSIR Meraka Institute, Pretoria, South Africa
2
Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
Keywords: e-Government, e-GIF, Interoperability.
Abstract: In September 2016, the South African Government published a White Paper on the National Integrated ICT
Policy highlighting some principles for e-Government and the development of a detailed integrated national
e-Government strategy and roadmap. This paper focuses on one of the elements of such a strategy, namely
the delivery infrastructure principles identified, and addresses the identified need for centralised
coordination to ensure interoperability. The paper proposes a baseline conceptual model for an e-
Government interoperability framework (e-GIF) for South Africa. The development of the model
considered best practices and lessons learnt from previous national and international attempts to design and
develop national and regional e-GIFs, with cognisance of the South African legislation and technical, social
and political environments. The conceptual model is an enterprise model on an abstraction level suitable for
strategic planning.
1 INTRODUCTION
Implementing a citizen-centric approach, digitising
processes and making organisational changes to
delivering government services are widely posited as
a way to enhance services, save money and improve
citizens’ quality of life (Corydon et al., 2016). The
term electronic government (e-Government) is
commonly used to represent the use of digital tools
and systems, combined with organisational change
and new skills, to provide better public services to
citizens and business, better democratic processes
and to strengthen support to public policies
(European Commission, 2017). To gain full benefit
of digitisation and data, governments need to deliver
on four key imperatives: gaining the confidence and
buy-in of citizens, business and public leaders;
conducting a skills and competencies revolution;
redesign the way in which government operate; and
deploy enabling technologies that ensure
interoperability and the ability to handle massive
data flows (Tadjeddine and Lundqvist, 2016).
Although all of these aspects are important and
should be addressed, this paper primarily focuses on
the interoperability aspect.
e-Government interoperability is broadly defined
as “the ability of constituencies to work together”
(Lallana, 2008: p.1) and is becoming an increasingly
crucial issue, also for developing countries (United
Nations Development Programme, 2007). Many
governments have finalised the design of national e-
Government strategies and are implementing priority
programmes. However, many of these interventions
have not led to more effective public e-services,
simply because they have ended up reinforcing the
old barriers that made public access cumbersome.
The e-Government promise of more efficient and
effective government are not being met mainly due
to the ad hoc deployment of information and
communication technology (ICT) systems.
Governments should rather strive towards
interoperable deployments that share and exchange
data and aggregate public services into a single
service window, allowing for seamless flow of
information across government and between
government and citizens (United Nations
Development Programme, 2007).
Interoperability in the context of e-Government
addresses the need for cooperation; exchanging
information and reusing information among public
administrations, in order to improve public service
delivery to citizen and businesses at a lower cost,
improve decision making and enable better
governance (European Union, 2011, Lallana, 2008).
Kotzé, P. and Alberts, R.
Towards a Conceptual Model for an e-Government Interoperability Framework for South Africa.
DOI: 10.5220/0006384304930506
In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2017) - Volume 3, pages 493-506
ISBN: 978-989-758-249-3
Copyright © 2017 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
493
On a technical level, interoperability refers to
two or more ICT systems, or components, to transfer
and exchange information in a uniform and efficient
manner across multiple organisations, and to use the
information exchanged (IDABC, 2004, Department
of Finance and Administration, 2006, Lallana,
2008). The European Union defines interoperability
in the context of public service delivery as “the
ability of disparate and diverse organisations to
interact towards mutually beneficial and agreed
common goals, involving the sharing of information
and knowledge between organisations, through the
business processes they support, by means of the
exchange of data between their respective ICT
systems” (European Union, 2011: p.2).
Interoperability therefore refers to more than just the
technical or the ICT system level, and affects an
extended enterprise across diverse organisations.
Enterprise modelling aims to offer different, but
complementing, views on an enterprise to encourage
dialogues between various stakeholders (Frank,
2009). Enterprise models can include abstractions
suitable for strategic planning, organisational design
or redesign, and software engineering. Enterprise
models can be regarded as the conceptual
infrastructure to support a high level of integration
of various software or enterprise components, and
reuse of models, concepts, or code.
An e-Government interoperability framework (e-
GIF) is a document (or set of documents) that
specifies a set of common elements for an extended
enterprise of authorities, agencies or organisations
that wish to work together towards the joint delivery
of public services (Lisboa and Soares, 2014,
European Commission, 2010b). As such, an e-GIF is
regarded a special kind of enterprise model aimed at
providing conceptual guidance towards developing
an e-Government eco-system of enterprises.
Common elements of an e-GIF include policies,
guidelines, principles, standards, vocabularies,
concepts, recommendations and practices (European
Union, 2011, European Commission, 2010b).
A 2014 study to determine the number of
countries with e-GIFs, identified at least 46 national
e-GIFs (Lisboa and Soares, 2014). The United
Kingdom (UK) e-GIF of 2000 is generally regarded
the first e-GIF published. The current Version 6.1
(e-Government Unit, 2006) covers the exchange of
information between the UK Government and
citizens, government organisations, intermediaries,
businesses (worldwide), etc. Even though e-GIFs are
considered important instruments to facilitate
interoperability of public systems, many national e-
GIFs was developed due to political pressures from
the European Commission, the United Nations and
the World Bank (IDABC, 2004, European Union,
2011, European Commission, 2010b, European
Commission, 2010a, United Nations Development
Programme, 2007, Lallana, 2008, The World Bank,
2012).
In September 2016, the South African
Government published a White Paper on the
National Integrated ICT Policy for the country
(Department of Telecommunications and Postal
Services, 2016). Amongst others, the White Paper
highlights some principles for e-Government. A
Digital Transformation Committee will oversee the
development of a detailed integrated national e-
Government strategy and roadmap.
To address part of the delivery infrastructure
principles identified in the White Paper, this paper
addresses one of the elements of such a strategy, by
proposing a baseline conceptual model for an e-GIF
for South Africa. We argue that best practices and
lessons learnt from previous attempts to the design
and development national and regional e-GIFs and
interoperable systems, combined with South African
legislation and past initiatives, could form a solid
grounding for the design of such a model.
Section 2 of this paper provides background by
describing the South African context in relation to
the use of ICT in government, and examples of
existing interoperability frameworks (national and
international) that can be used as guidance. Section 3
presents the proposed baseline conceptual model
derived for an e-Government interoperability
framework, including aims, principles, levels of
interoperability, a proposed conceptual framework
for e-GIF implementation and interoperability
governance. Section 4 concludes.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 The South African Context
The Public Administration and Management Act of
2014 (Republic of South Africa, 2014) provides for
the use of ICTs in the public administration,
including the requirement to ensure interoperability
of information systems across government. The
Electronic Communications Transactions Act of
2002 (Republic of South Africa, 2002a) sets out
provisions to enable and facilitate electronic
communications and transactions in the public
interest. The Act stipulates that the Department of
Telecommunications and Postal Services should
finalise an e-strategy. As a step in the process to
develop such a strategy, the South African
Government published a White Paper on the
AEM 2017 - 1st International Workshop on Advanced Enterprise Modelling
494
National Integrated ICT Policy for the country
(Department of Telecommunications and Postal
Services, 2016) in September 2016. ICT is
considered as a means to facilitate inclusive socio-
economic transformation for South Africa. The
document highlights the uneven and often poor
quality of public services, as identified in the
National Development Plan (NDP) (National
Planning Commission, 2012). The White Paper
argues that digital transformation of government can
assist in transforming the public sector, increase
service delivery and ensure equitable access to all
public services. Making the most of the potential
role ICT can play in supporting radical
transformation, as envisaged in the NDP, will
require complex coordination and leadership across
government. Digital services is to be provided over
open access networks and a net neutrality regime to
protect and uphold open, inhibited access to legal
online content.
The White Paper defines e-Government as the
innovative use of ICTs (including mobile devices,
websites and other ICT applications and services) to
link citizens and the public sector, with the aim to
facilitate collaborative and efficient governance,
improve the efficiency of government processes,
strengthen public service delivery and enhance
participation of citizens in governance. The White
Paper also highlights some principles for e-
Government (see section 3). In addition, it highlights
the fact that the South African Government currently
has different information management initiatives in
place, which are not effectively connected to each
other and not necessarily interoperable. The need for
centralised coordination to ensure interoperability is
identified. A Digital Transformation Committee is to
oversee the development of a detailed integrated
national e-Government strategy and roadmap. The
roll-out plan is to include government-to-citizen,
citizen-to-government, government-to-government
and government-to-business programmes
(Department of Telecommunications and Postal
Services, 2016).
2.2 Interoperability Frameworks
As mentioned in section 1, a substantial number of
e-GIFs exist internationally. Examples include
Europe (European Commission, 2010b), Australia
(Department of Finance and Administration, 2006),
United Kingdom (e-Government Unit, 2006), New
Zealand (E-Government Unit, 2002), Philippines
(iGov Philippines, 2016b), and Ghana (National
Information Technology Agency, 2010).
The conceptual model for the interoperability
framework for South Africa proposed in this paper,
in the main, took guidance from the European
Interoperability Framework (European Commission,
2010b), the Philippine Electronic Government
Interoperability Framework (iGov Philippines,
2016b), the Australian Interoperability Frameworks
(Australian Government, 2005, Australian
Government, 2006, Australian Government, 2007),
and two South African interoperability frameworks,
namely the Minimum Interoperability Standards
(MIOS) for Government Information Systems
(Department of Public Services and Administration,
2011) and the National Health Normative Standards
Framework for Interoperability in eHealth (HNSF)
(National Department of Health, 2014). These
frameworks are briefly discussed below.
2.2.1 European Interoperability Framework
The European Commission has set out a common
coherent approach to interoperability for the EU and
Member States through the European
Interoperability Strategy (EIS) and the European
Interoperability Framework (EIF) (European
Commission, 2010a, European Commission, 2010c,
European Commission, 2010b).
The EIF aims to promote and support the
delivery of European public services by fostering
cross-sectoral and cross-border interoperability,
guide public administrations to provide European
public services to businesses and citizens, and tie
together and complement national interoperability
frameworks at European level. To achieve these
aims, the EIF sets out guidelines, including
underlying principles, a conceptual model for public
services, different levels of interoperability, the
concept of interoperability agreements, and the
governance of interoperability (European Union,
2011).
The EIF conceptual model consists of three
layers: the aggregate services layer, the secure data
exchange layer and the basic public services layer.
The practical implementation of the conceptual
model for cross border/sectorial services requires
considering the political context and four levels of
interoperability, as illustrated in Figure 1: legal,
organisational, semantic and technical
interoperability (European Union, 2011).
Some of our earlier work (Kotzé and Neaga,
2010, Kotzé, 2012) considered an early version of
the EIF and identified socio-technical aspects (e.g.
human and cultural barriers, management of external
relationships, privacy and security, and external
applications and real-world use) that might impact
Towards a Conceptual Model for an e-Government Interoperability Framework for South Africa
495
Figure 1: Levels of Interoperability (figure adapted from
European Commission (2010b)).
all of the interoperability layers identified in the EIF,
as illustrated in
Figure 2
.
2.2.2 Philippine Electronic Government
Interoperability Framework
The Philippine Electronic Government
Interoperability Framework (PeGIF) addresses the
technical issues in using and operating resources,
issues related to the interaction of organisations, the
means of data exchange, rules and agreements for
sharing information and knowledge, and policies
related to the interaction among government
agencies, citizens and businesses. The PeGIF
addresses three domains (technical, information and
business process) and two crosscutting aspects
(security and best practice) (iGov Philippines,
2016b).
2.2.3 Australian Government
Interoperability Framework
The Australian Government Interoperability
Framework addresses the information, business
process and technical dimensions of interoperability
by setting the principles, standards and
methodologies that support the delivery of integrated
and seamless services, whole-of-government
collaboration and maximise opportunities for
exchange and reuse of information (Australian
Government, 2008). The Framework consists of
three layers, each with their own sub-framework:
The business layer (Business Process
Interoperability Framework) comprises legal,
commercial, business and political concerns
(Australian Government, 2007).
The information layer (Information
Interoperability Framework) comprises
information and process elements that convey
business meaning (Australian Government,
2006).
Figure 2: Socio-technical aspects impacting an
interoperability framework (adapted from (European
Commission, 2010b, Kotzé and Neaga, 2010, Kotzé,
2012)).
The technical layer (Technical Interoperability
Framework) comprises technology standards
such as transport protocols, messaging
protocols, security standards, registry and
discovery standards, XML syntax libraries and
service and process description languages
(Australian Government, 2005).
2.2.4 South African Interoperability
Frameworks
2.2.4.1 Generic Framework - Mios
The State Information Technology Agency (SITA)
Act of 1998, amended in 2002 (Republic of South
Africa, 2002b), mandated SITA to set standards for
interoperability between information systems in
government and to certify information technology
goods and services for compliance against such
standards. Therefore, prior to the publication of the
White Paper on the National Integrated ICT Policy
for the country (Department of Telecommunications
and Postal Services, 2016), the Minimum
Interoperability Standards (MIOS) for Government
Information Systems document (Department of
Public Services and Administration, 2011),
developed by SITA, prescribed the open system
standards to be followed to ensure a minimum level
of interoperability within and between information
systems utilised in government, industry, citizens
and the international community in support of the
South African e-Government objectives.
2.2.4.2 Specialised Framework – HNSF
The National Health Normative Standards
Framework for Interoperability in eHealth (HNSF)
(National Department of Health, 2014) was
AEM 2017 - 1st International Workshop on Advanced Enterprise Modelling
496
promulgated in 2014 as an extension to the National
Health Act of 2004 (Republic of South Africa,
2004). The HNSF sets the framework for eHealth
interoperability, and specify a standards-based
health information exchange and an enterprise
architecture as central to the implementation of
interoperability going forward for the healthcare in
the public sector. It also creates an obligation for the
National Department of Health to create a National
Health Standards Authority, which would set the
different interoperability and content standards for
eHealth in South Africa. The HNSF specifies
implementation guidelines to ensure interoperability
based on Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE)
Profiles (IHE International, 2015).
3 PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL
e-GIF MODEL
In the White Paper on the National Integrated ICT
Policy, the following principles are envisaged for all
digital government solutions (Department of
Telecommunications and Postal Services, 2016):
Services:
Services must be designed for users / citizens,
including those with limited digital skills or
access to devices.
Mechanisms for monitoring of delivery of
services should be incorporated.
Online end-to-end public sector services
should be made available.
Cost-effective solutions for both users and
government should be explored.
Delivery infrastructure:
Services should be offered in both an online
and offline mode.
Digital services should be based on open
standards and accessible on all devices and
platforms.
Personal information should be protected.
Citizens must all be provided with digital
addresses / identities to allow government to
engage with them directly.
Centralised coordination to ensure
interoperability is required.
Based on the South African context, the
principles envisaged in the White Paper and the
existing international and national e-GIFs, we
propose a conceptual model that could be considered
as baseline for the development of a South African
e-GIF. Such an e-GIF should be aimed at data and
information exchange between government sectors,
government and citizen, and government and
businesses. The proposed e-GIF conceptual model is
an enterprise model on an abstraction level suitable
for strategic planning.
The model is complementary to the MIOS
(Department of Public Services and Administration,
2011) in that it provides for an ‘environment’ or
‘enterprise context’ in which the MIOS can be
applied. The e-GIF could be enhanced with sectoral
e-GIFs (e.g. for health, finance, social services, etc.)
to address specific needs of a sector, but such
sectoral e-GIFs should adhere to the baseline
provisions and principles of the overarching e-GIF
accepted. The National Health Normative Standards
Framework for Interoperability in eHealth (HNSF)
(National Department of Health, 2014) is an
example of such an sectoral e-GIF, and also address
interaction with non-governmental institutions.
3.1 Aims of the Proposed e-GIF Model
The proposed e-GIF conceptual model is aimed at
achieving (iGov Philippines, 2016c, Department of
Public Services and Administration, 2011):
Seamless flow of information across
government.
Increased productivity of government
service delivery operations.
Increased efficiency of government
services.
Improved decision-making in
government.
Reduced cost and increased savings for
government.
Digital inclusion.
Increased citizen satisfaction in
transacting with government.
Enhanced ability to interoperate with
other countries across national
boundaries.
Better informed and active citizenry.
Improved ecosystem for competition and
innovation among ICT service providers.
3.2 Principles for e-GIF Development
The following generic principles / drivers are
proposed to guide the development of the e-GIF
(United Nations Development Programme, 2007,
European Commission, 2010b, European Union,
2011, iGov Philippines, 2016b, Lallana, 2008, e-
Government Unit, 2006, Jaeger, 2003, German
Federal Ministry of the Interior, 2008):
Towards a Conceptual Model for an e-Government Interoperability Framework for South Africa
497
User-centricity: Supporting the needs of
citizens and businesses in a secure and
flexible manner.
Administrative simplification: Alleviating
the burden on businesses and citizens for
compliance to legal obligations by
providing integrated services.
Inclusion and accessibility: Equal
opportunities should be created for access
to public services through open and
inclusive services, on all devices and
platforms, to all citizens without
discrimination, including persons with a
disability and the elderly.
Multilingualism: Information systems for
the public service should support
multilingualism in support of the National
Language Policy Framework as it applies
to all government structures (Department
of Arts and Culture, 2003).
Interoperability: Guaranteeing a media-
consistent flow of information between
citizens, business and government.
Scalability: Ensuring the adaptability,
usability and responsiveness of
applications and requirements as change
and demands fluctuate.
Reusability: Solutions should be
developed to facilitate sharing and re-use.
This include defining data structures,
establishing processes and standards for
similar procedures for providing services,
considering the solutions of exchange
partners, etc.
Openness: Focus on using open-standards
that are vendor and product neutral and
based on the principle of shared
knowledge.
Market support: Drawing on established
standards already widely used and
recognised in industry.
Neutrality and adaptability: Specific or
restricted technology should not be
imposed on citizens, businesses or other
administrations.
Security: Ensuring a reliable exchange of
information conforming to an established
security policy.
Privacy: Guaranteeing the privacy and
confidentiality of information related to
citizens, businesses and government
organisations and ensuring personal data
protection.
Transparency: Citizens and businesses
should be able understand and respond to
the administrative processes that affect
them and make suggestions for
improvement.
Effectiveness: Solutions should be aimed
at serving citizens and business and make
the best use of taxpayers money.
Forward-looking: The wider-
encompassing national e-Government
strategy or vision, values, principles and
policy directions of government should be
supported.
Open standards: Preference should be
given to the use of open international and
national standards with the broadest
remit.
Technology neutrality: Services should be
provided through interfaces that are
technology and vendor agnostic.
3.3 Levels of Interoperability
Interoperability is often thought of in terms of ICT
systems exchanging information. e-Government
interoperability is, however, much more than just
smart middleware (enabling interoperability on a
technical level) (Scholl, 2005). Political, legal,
organisational and social aspects are fundamental to
e-Government success and therefore requires careful
consideration in any e-GIF. Efforts to practice
effective information sharing have to be aware of
intentionally imposed (constitutional and legal)
barriers, organisational impediments, technology
obstacles and a wide variety of stakeholder concerns
about policies, the processes, the procedures and the
extent of sharing information between government
entities and other agencies (Scholl, 2005). To
support this notion, levels of interoperability
consisting of political, legal, organisational,
semantic, syntactic and technical interoperability, as
proposed by the European Interoperability
Framework (European Commission, 2010b) and
illustrated in Figure 1, are used and applied to the
South Africa context.
3.3.1 Political Context
Shared information would allow for better
coordination of government entity programmes and
services, as well as improved accountability (Scholl,
2005), but this may require the buy-in of various
political entities that do not necessary share the same
vision, values or underlying doctrine. Government
AEM 2017 - 1st International Workshop on Advanced Enterprise Modelling
498
entities may have entrenched cultures that do not
value openness and cooperation with other entities,
and which may make it hard for them to trust and
share information.
The federated nature of the South African
political and legislative context should be taken into
consideration. Although legislation is often
promulgated at national level, implementation takes
place at national, provincial and local government
level (South African Government, 2016).
Information about / for citizens is often gathered at
local government level, which may be governed by a
different political party than that of provincial or
national government. Specific provincial and local
government policies and regulations also exist and
may apply. Although many government entities
prefer (or is forced by legislation) to operate
independently, cooperation between all three spheres
of government is required for successful e-
Government programmes. Cross-functional
collaboration is key to e-Government projects
(Corydon et al., 2016). A lack of coordination and
cooperation between different levels of government
can have a significant impact on the success of e-
Government efforts (Kuk, 2003, Jaeger and
Thompson, 2003).
For example, on national level, the Department
of Home Affairs (DHA) is the custodian of the
national identification system, but sharing of the
information captured in the system with other
national departments (for example the National
Department of Health), or provincial or local
government systems (for example for the issuing of
drivers licences), would be required. If this is not
possible, or is not allowed by DHA or the legal or
constitutional barriers it is bound by, it may lead to
the development of parallel identity management
systems that may be inconsistent, not compatible
and not interoperable. For example, the Health
Population Registration Systems (HPRS) is currently
under development by the National Department of
Health (Wolmarans et al., 2015), but is implemented
at provincial and local government level. Although
the system makes use of the national identity
number for identification, it is not able to link
directly to the DHA system yet, but will be able to
do so in future. HPRS generates a unique patient
record number that can be used by various electronic
medical record (EMR) systems already
implemented. HPRS can also record the patient
record numbers used by these EMR systems, but
legacy inconsistencies in patient demographics may
still be encountered across EMRs.
A policy review process has identified the need
for the finalisation of a national framework for
digital verification that will ensure that Government
adopts at least one system to ensure integrity and the
ease of use of identity verification mechanisms
(Department of Telecommunications and Postal
Services, 2016). For e-Government to be successful
and of value to both government and citizens, the
same kind of review process may be required for the
many other aspects that may impede on political
interoperability.
3.3.2 Legal Interoperability
As mentioned above, each government
administration, whether national, provincial or local,
contributing to digital government solutions may
work within its own legal framework or jurisdiction.
Sometimes incompatibilities between these different
spheres of government may make the sharing of
information complex or even impossible. New legal
initiatives may be required to overcome such a
situation. Public administrations should therefore
carefully consider all the relevant legislation related
to data exchange, data protection, privacy, etc. when
planning to establish e-Government solutions
(European Commission, 2010b).
Legal interoperability has to do with addressing
aspects related to defining, achieving and
maintaining authenticity, integrity, confidentiality,
accountability, availability, non-repudiation and
reliability (iGov Philippines, 2016a).
For example, a range of laws and policies have
already been promulgated to protect South African
citizens both online and offline. In the context of the
proposed e-GIF model, examples include:
The Protection of Personal Information
Act of 2013 (Republic of South Africa,
2013) that sets out provisions to protect
personal data and requirements on how
such data is exchanged, stored and
collected.
The Electronic Communications
Transactions Act of 2002 (Republic of
South Africa, 2002a) that sets out
provisions to enable and facilitate
electronic communications and
transactions in the public interest, and
also the framework for electronic
signature verification and the
accreditation of electronic signature
providers.
The Consumer Protection Act of 2008
(Republic of South Africa, 2008),
Towards a Conceptual Model for an e-Government Interoperability Framework for South Africa
499
especially in the case where payment has
to be made to obtain a document or for
services provided.
The National Cybersecurity Policy
Framework (State Security Agency,
2015) that is intended to promote and
ensure a comprehensive legal framework
governing the cyberspace, and aims to
implement an all-encompassing approach
pertaining to all the role players
(government, public, private sector, civil
society and special interest groups) in
relation to cybersecurity.
The draft Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity
Bill (Department of Justice and
Constitutional Development, 2015) that
aims to put in place measures to
effectively deal with cybercrimes, e.g.
identity theft and other online crime, and
address aspects relating to cybersecurity
that may adversely affect individuals,
businesses and government alike.
The Film and Publications Board Act of
2014 (Film and Publication Boad, 2014)
setting out provisions for the
classification of content and the
protection of children.
Some of this legislation may be contradictory
and even prohibit or limit government entities from
exchanging information, and consequently restrict
interoperability and participation in cooperative
activities. Such legislation may require alignment.
3.3.3 Organisational Interoperability
Organisational interoperability (also called business-
process interoperability in some e-GIFs) is about
addressing the common methods, processes, and
shared services for collaboration, including
workflow, business transactions and decision-
making (iGov Philippines, 2016a, Australian
Government, 2005, Australian Government, 2007).
In e-Government this aspect has to do with how
government organisations cooperate amongst
themselves and with citizens and civil society to
achieve mutually agreed goals. Organisational
interoperability in the context of e-Government
therefore has to do with the coordination and
alignment of business processes and information
architectures, spanning both intra and inter-
government organisational boundaries, with the aim
to exchange information (United Nations
Development Programme, 2007).
As stated in section 3.3.1, a lack of coordination
and cooperation between different levels of
government, or different government entities on the
same level of government, can have a significant
impact on the success of e-Government efforts (Kuk,
2003, Jaeger and Thompson, 2003). To overcome /
prevent this problem may require the integration or
alignment of business processes to be able to work
together efficiently and effectively, or even to define
and establish new business processes made possible
by an interoperable e-Government infrastructure
(European Commission, 2010b). It will also require
the clear structuring of relationship between service
providers (government organisations) and service
consumers (citizens, businesses and other
government organisations) and other stakeholders.
The basic principle is that those who can affect or
will be affected by e-Government initiatives should
be accounted for (Jaeger, 2003).
In a democratic system of government based on a
division of power and distributed control, such as
South Africa, inter-organisational collaboration rests
on the own interest of the parties involved and their
willingness to collaborate, the resources at their
disposal and the expected benefits / outcomes of e-
Government initiatives (Scholl, 2005). Change
management processes will therefore be critical in
order to ensure continuity of services, reliability and
the buy-in of all parties involved.
3.3.4 Semantic and Syntactic
Interoperability
Semantic and syntactic interoperability, also referred
to as information interoperability in some existing e-
GIFs, refer to the ability to transfer and use
information in a uniform and efficient manner across
multiple government entities and ICT systems
(Australian Government, 2006). Semantic
interoperability is about addressing a common
methodology, definition and structure of
information, along with shared services for its
retrieval (iGov Philippines, 2016a). It addresses the
meaning of data elements and the relationship
between them. Syntactic interoperability is about
describing the exact format of the information
(European Commission, 2010b). Semantic
interoperability enables participants in e-
Government initiatives to process information from
other resources in a meaningful manner and ensures
that the precise meaning of exchanged information is
understood and preserved throughout. Sector-
specific and cross-sectoral data structures and data
element sets with agreed meaning, commonly
AEM 2017 - 1st International Workshop on Advanced Enterprise Modelling
500
referred to as semantic interoperability assets, should
be created and shared for use by cooperating
organisations.
Multilingualism should also be addressed at this
level (European Commission, 2010b). The multi-
cultural and multi-lingual context in South Africa
with its 11 official languages (South African
Government, 2016), requires a careful consideration
at semantic and syntactic interoperability level.
3.3.5 Technical Interoperability
Technical interoperability is about addressing the
linking of ICT systems and services, including
interfaces, interconnection, data integration, data
exchange, security and presentation (iGov
Philippines, 2016c, Australian Government, 2005).
Technical interoperability requires formalised
standards-based specifications for interfaces,
interconnection services, data integration services,
content management and metadata, information
access and presentation, information exchange,
security, web-based services, etc. While different
government organisations might have specific
characteristics at political, legal, organisational and,
to some extent, semantic level, it is not the case at
technical level where formalised specifications must
be adhered to (European Commission, 2010b,
United Nations Development Programme, 2007).
The selection of specific standards to be included
should be based on the following principles
(Department of Public Services and Administration,
2011, iGov Philippines, 2016b, United Nations
Development Programme, 2007):
Standards that enhance data / information
exchange: Standards that are relevant to
systems’ interconnectivity, data
integration, presentation and interface, e-
services access, and content management
metadata.
Promote openness: The use of open
standards, as opposed to proprietary
standards, and specifications that
contribute to open systems is encouraged.
This is in line with the ethos of the MIOS
(Department of Public Services and
Administration, 2011).
Conform to international best practices:
Preference should be given to established
standards with the widest applicability.
Widely adopted international standards
localised to fit the South African context
should be the preferred option. Regional
and national standards should only be
developed if no appropriate international
standards exist.
Scalability: The standards should be able
to satisfy increased demands on capacity,
such as changes in data volumes, number
of transactions or number of users.
Have existing market base: The standards
selected should be widely supported by
the industry, to ensure a reduction in cost
and risk for the e-Government systems.
Overall it is about best practice: Addressing
aspects related to demonstrating the best uses of
standards in the public and private sectors to achieve
technical, semantic, syntactic, organisational, legal
and political interoperability (iGov Philippines,
2016c, United Nations Development Programme,
2007).
3.4 Conceptual Framework for e-GIF
Implementation
Based on the various aims, principles and levels of
interoperability required, a conceptual framework
for the implementation of an e-GIF to support
interoperable e-Government in South Africa is
proposed. Each of the key components of the
framework, as illustrated in Figure 3, is briefly
introduced in the sections below.
3.4.1.1 Basic e-Government Services
The top layer refers to the basic government services
and registries. Delivering services to citizens is at
the core of what most government entities do, or is
supposed to do, and is critical in shaping trust in and
perceptions of the public sector. Tasks like paying
taxes, renewing drivers licenses, and applying for
social benefits are often the most tangible
interactions citizens have with their government
(Dudley et al., 2016). Following a citizen-centric
approach to services design and delivery is at the
centre of successful e-Government. This is in
contrast to the development of services based on the
government entity’s own requirements and processes
(Dudley et al., 2016).
As a minimum, base registries are required to
uniquely identify individuals and organisations (e.g.
government departments, businesses, etc.) (National
Department of Health, 2014, European Commission,
2010b). Base registries are under the legal control of
public administrations and maintained by them.
The digital identity registry may, for example, be
owned and controlled by DHA, but shared with
other services providers, enabling unique and
Towards a Conceptual Model for an e-Government Interoperability Framework for South Africa
501
consistent identification of individuals across all e-
Government services. The digital identity registry
may contain identity numbers (or passport numbers),
digital addresses, names, surnames and other
demographic information related to individuals. The
same type of information will be required for
organisations. An example of other possible
registries is the vehicle registry containing vehicle
register numbers, vehicle identification numbers and
other identifying information for a particular vehicle
(for example, an interoperable implementation of the
identification register for eNaTiS (2011)).
The data repositories contain the repositories of
services and data offered by various agencies and
government departments (National Department of
Health, 2014). These services and data can only be
accessed and updated by accredited consumer
applications through the secure data exchange layer.
Figure 3: Conceptual e-GIF implementation framework for South Africa.
Data services may also include services provided by
external parties, for example payment services
provided by financial institutions and connectivity
services provided by telecommunication providers.
Designing basic e-Government services,
however, involves considerably more than merely
designing the technical / ICT systems to offer the
services. Each service will have to consider, and
take cognisance of, the various political, legal and
organisational aspects that might affect the design
and delivery of a service across various government
entities and within the boundaries of relevant
legislation that applies, as indicated in section 3.3.
3.4.1.2 Secure Data Exchange and Security
Layer
The secure data exchange layer is central to the e-
Government conceptual model and implementation
framework since all access to e-Government
services passes through it. It allows for a secure
exchange of certified messages, records, forms and
other kinds of information between different
systems. This layer also handles specific security
requirements such as electronic signatures,
certification, encryption and time stamping. The
security and audit services cut across all technical
interoperability layers. The secure data exchange
layer should therefore be a secure, managed,
harmonised and controlled layer, allowing data
exchanges between government administrations,
citizen and business that are (United Nations
Development Programme, 2007, European
Commission, 2010b, Department of Public Services
and Administration, 2011):
Signed and certified: Both the sender and
receiver must be identified and
authenticated through agreed
mechanisms.
Encrypted: The confidentiality of the data
exchanged must be ensured.
Logged: All electronic transactions are
logged and archived to ensure a legal
audit trial.
AEM 2017 - 1st International Workshop on Advanced Enterprise Modelling
502
Some of the technical elements incorporated in
this layer are (United Nations Development
Programme, 2007, European Commission, 2010b,
National Department of Health, 2014, German
Federal Ministry of the Interior, 2008):
Interoperability facilitators: Providing
services such as translation of protocols,
formats and languages and acting as
information brokers. Effective e-
Government in a multi-lingual society
requires standardization of spellings,
word use, and support for languages in
which citizens are comfortable
communicating.
Content management services: Pertaining
to (open) standards for retrieving and
managing government information.
Data integration services: Containing
(open) standards for the description of
data that enable data exchange between
disparate systems.
Standards based interfaces or
interconnection: Enabling the
communication between systems through
consistent interfaces.
Orchestration: The process that involves
the invocation of the appropriate services
and the manipulation of data according to
agreed workflows and supporting
organisational (business) processes.
Consumer applications usually access the data
exchange and security layer through middleware
services, for example replication, distributed
transaction management, personalization,
internationalization, messaging, etc. (German
Federal Ministry of the Interior, 2008).
3.4.1.3 Consumer Applications
Consumer applications refer to the various e-
Government applications used to access the services
and data through the secure data exchange layer. The
key to good e-Government services is understanding
the user’s perspective. The applications can be
unique to a specific government department, or
aggregated. Aggregated applications appears to a
user as a single service, but are constructed by
grouping a number of public services according to
certain specific business requirements.
The German SAGA document (German Federal
Ministry of the Interior, 2008), as example, provides
guidelines for client applications, which make use of
a service offered by middleware, barrier-free
presentation, etc.
3.4.1.4 End-user Devices
End-user devices refer to the various electronic
channels that can be used by citizens, business and
government employees to access the e-Government
services or data, or provide data towards the
repositories. The White Paper on the National
Integrated ICT Policy, applicable to all digital
government solutions (Department of
Telecommunications and Postal Services, 2016),
calls for both online and offline access to
government services, and access to services desks
for human-human interaction should therefore also
be catered for.
In alignment with citizen’s digital preferences
and behaviours, there is currently a worldwide move
to providing services on mobile platforms and
through the use of smart devices (Corydon et al.,
2016, Thomas and Rosewell, 2016). With the
proliferation of mobile and smart device use in
South Africa, opportunities provided by all-round
mobility and internet of things (IoT) devices /
applications should be seized, but without
marginalising citizens that do not have access to
such technology.
3.5 Interoperability Governance
The final element required in any e-GIF model is
governance. The implementation of any e-GIF
requires proper governance and continuous
interoperability maintenance to keep the e-GIF up to
date and relevant. Interoperability governance is also
about ensuring the e-GIFs proper implementation
(United Nations Development Programme, 2007),
and would require the establishment of one or more
agencies to specifically deal with certain aspects of
the implementation of the e-GIF across
administrative levels. Such an agency should be
(United Nations Development Programme, 2007,
Lallana, 2008, European Commission, 2010b,
National Department of Health, 2014, German
Federal Ministry of the Interior, 2008):
Primarily focus on standardising and
ensuring interoperability on a national,
provincial and/or local government level,
as appropriate.
Separate from the sectoral domains to
ensure independence and impartiality.
Capable of working as a collaboration
partner with the sectors.
Seen as experts in the field of
interoperability and government services
to engender trust.
Towards a Conceptual Model for an e-Government Interoperability Framework for South Africa
503
Capable in the selection of appropriate
standards.
Capable of guiding the development of
implementation guidelines based on the
selected standards to ensure
interoperability.
Pro-active in the proclamation and
promotion of standards and their use.
Responsible for monitoring the use of
standards and the adherence to standards,
policies and guidelines.
Acting as an advisory body in developing
strategies and implementing solutions,
coordinating cross-agency aggregated
services, and to community of practice in
setting and publishing standards.
Acting as accreditation authority for
certifying consumer applications that
access and update the data repositories in
order to provide e-Government services.
The German SAGA document (German Federal
Ministry of the Interior, 2008), as example, provides
an in-depth overview of how interoperability
governance can be approached.
4 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
WORK
Enterprise modelling, in general, provides a
structured and diagrammatic “framework for
depicting the myriad interconnected and changing
components addressed in large scale change
(Whitman and Gibson, 1996: 64). This paper
proposed a conceptual model for the development of
an e-GIF for South Africa that can serve as guideline
in drafting enterprise models for enterprises
involved in, and moving towards, e-Government
activities. The model suggests what enterprise
models have to deal with to ensure enterprise
interoperability in e-Government. To implement the
proposed conceptual model, the various components
must be modelled and populated by defining or
developing policies, guidelines, principles,
standards, vocabularies, concepts, recommendations,
etc. To ensure interoperability and consistency, it is
also recommended that implementation guidelines
be developed, similar in nature to the IHE profiles
(IHE International, 2015) used in e-Health. It is also
recommended that an agency be established to guide
and govern the implementation of an e-GIF across
various regional, provincial and national contexts,
and coordinate the integration of information
required on national (or provincial or local level).
REFERENCES
Australian Government. (2005). Australian Government
Technical Interoperability Framework. Australian
Government Information Management Office.
Australian Government. (2006). The Australian
Government Information Interoperability Framework.
Australian Government Information Management
Office.
Australian Government. (2007). The Australian
Government Business Process Interoperability
Framework. Australian Government Information
Management Office.
Australian Government. (2008). Interoperability
Frameworks. Department of Finance. Available:
http://www.finance.gov.au/archive/policy-guides-
procurement/interoperability-frameworks/ [Accessed
24 January 2016].
Corydon, B., Ganesan, V. & Lundqvist, M. (2016).
Transforming Government Through Digitization.
Public Sector. McKinsey & Company.
Department of Arts and Culture. (2003). National
Language Policy Framework. South Africa.
Department of Finance and Administration. (2006).
Delivering Australian Government Services: Access
and Distribution Strategy, Canberra, Australian
Government.
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.
(2015). Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill. South
Africa.
Department of Public Services and Administration.
(2011). Minimum Interoperability Standards (MIOS)
for Government Information Systems Revision 5.0.
Pretoria: State Information Technology A and gency:
Standards and Certification Unit Government
Information Technology Officer Council.
Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services.
(2016). National Integrated ICT Policy White Paper.
South Africa.
Department of Transport. (2011). eNaTiS. Available:
http://www.enatis.com/ [Accessed 3 February 2017].
Dudley, E., Lin, D.-Y., Mancini, M. & Ng, J. (2016).
Implementing a Citizen-centric Approach to
Delivering Government Services. Public Sector.
McKinsey & Company.
E-Government Unit. (2002). A New Zealand
e_Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF).
The New Zealand Government State Services
Commission.
e-Government Unit. (2006). e-Government
Interoperability Framework Vesion 6.1, London,
Cabinet Office.
European Commission. (2010a). Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the
AEM 2017 - 1st International Workshop on Advanced Enterprise Modelling
504
Commttee of the Regions: Towards interoperability
for European public services. Brussels.
European Commission. (2010b). European Interoperability
Framework (EIF) for European public services.
Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Commttee of the Regions:
Towards interoperability for European public services
- Annex 2. Brussels.
European Commission. (2010c). European Interoperability
Strategy (EIS) for European public services.
Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Commttee of the Regions:
Towards interoperability for European public services
- Annex 1. Brussels.
European Commission. (2017). eGovernment & Digital
Public Services Available: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-
single-market/en/public-services-egovernment
[Accessed 17 January 2017].
European Union. (2011). European Interoperability
Framework (EIF): Towards Interoperability for
European Public Services, Luxembourg, Publications
Office of the European Union.
Film and Publication Boad. (2014). Classification
Guidelines for the Classification of Films, Interactive
Computer Games and Certain Publications. South
Africa.
Frank, U. (2009). Enterprise Modelling. Universität
Duisburg-Essen - Information Systems and Enterprise
Modelling Available: https://www.wi-inf.uni-
due.de/FGFrank/index.php?lang=en&&groupId=1&&
contentType=ResearchInterest&&topicId=14
[Accessed 3 March 2017].
German Federal Ministry of the Interior. (2008). SAGA:
Standards and Architectures for eGovernment
Applications Version 4.0.
IDABC. (2004). Europen Interoperability Framework for
Pan-European eGovernment Services Version 1.0,
luxemborg, European Commission.
iGov Philippines. (2016a). Information Interoperability
Framework (PeGIF Part 2). Available:
http://i.gov.ph/policies/information-interoperability-
framework/ [Accessed 19 December 2016].
iGov Philippines. (2016b). Philippine eGovernment
Interoperability Framework (PeGIF). Available:
http://i.gov.ph/pegif/ [Accessed 19 December 2016].
iGov Philippines. (2016c). Technical Interoperability
Framework. Available:
http://i.gov.ph/policies/technical-interoperability-
framework/ [Accessed 19 December 2016].
IHE International. (2015). IHE Profiles. Integrating the
Healthcare Enterprise. Available:
http://www.ihe.net/profiles/index.cfm [Accessed 25
May 2016].
Jaeger, P. (2003). The endless wire: E-government as
global phenomenon. Government Information
Quaterly, 20, 323 - 331.
Jaeger, P. & Thompson, K. (2003). E-government around
the world: lessons, challenges, and future directions.
Government Information Quaterly, 20, 389 -394.
Kotzé, P. (2012). Keynote Address: Technical and Socio-
technical Approaches to Health Informatics in Africa.
IASTED Health Informatics 2012 Conference.
Gaborone, Botswana.
Kotzé, P. & Neaga, I. (2010). Towards an Enterprise
Interoperability Framework. In: Ly, L., Thom, L.,
Rindele-Ma, S., Gerber, A., Hinkelman, K., Kotzé, P.,
Reimer, U., Van Der Merwe, A., Mansoor, W.,
Elnaffar, S. & Monfort, V. (eds.) Proceedings of the
International Joint Workshop on Technologies for
Context-Aware Business Process Management,
Advanced Enterprise Architecture and Repositories
and Recent Trends in SOA Based Information Systems.
Portugal: SciTe Press.
Kuk, G. (2003). The digital divide and the quality of
electronic service delivery in local government in the
United Kingdom. Government Information Quaterly,
20, 353 - 363.
Lallana, E. (2008). e-Government Interoperability: Guide,
Bangkok, United Nations Development Programme.
Lisboa, A. & Soares, D. (2014). e-Government
interoperability frameworks: a worldwide inventory.
Procedia Technology, 16 (2014), 638 -648.
National Department of Health. (2014). National Health
Normative Standards Framework for Interoperability
in eHealth in South Africa, Version 2.0. Pretoria:
CSIR and NDoH.
National Information Technology Agency. (2010). Ghana
e-Government Interoperability Framework. Ghana.
Available:
http://www.nita.gov.gh/sites/default/files/resources/E
A%20&%20eGIF%20Main%20Doc/eGovernment%2
0Interoperability%20Framework.pdf [Accessed 19
December 2016].
National Planning Commission. (2012). National
Development Plan 2030: Our Future - Make it Work.
Pretoria: The Presidency, Republic of South Africa.
Available:
http://www.poa.gov.za/news/Documents/NPC%20Nat
ional%20Development%20Plan%20Vision%202030%
20-lo-res.pdf [Accessed].
Republic of South Africa. (2002a). Electronic
Communications and Transactions Act. Government
Gazette Vol. 446, No. 23707, 2 August 2002.
Republic of South Africa. (2002b). State Information
Technology Agency Amendment Act, 2002.:
Government Gazette Vol. 449, No.24029, 7 November
2002.
Republic of South Africa. (2004). The National Health
Act, 2004. Government Gazette Vol.469, No. 26595,
23 July 2004.
Republic of South Africa. (2008). Consumer Protection
Act. Government Gazette Vol. 526, No. 321867, 29
April 2009.
Republic of South Africa. (2013). Protection of Personal
Information Act. Government Gazette Vol.581, No.
37067, 26 November 2013.
Towards a Conceptual Model for an e-Government Interoperability Framework for South Africa
505
Republic of South Africa. (2014). Public Administration
Management Act. Government Gazette Vol. 594, No.
38374, 22 december 2014.
Scholl, H. (2005). Interoperability in e-Government: More
than Just Smart Middleware. Proceedings of the 38th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences -
2005. IEEE.
South African Government. (2016). About SA. Available:
http://www.gov.za/about-sa [Accessed 23 January
2017].
State Security Agency. (2015). The National
Cybersecurity Policy Framework (NCPF). South
Africa.
Tadjeddine, K. & Lundqvist, M. (2016). Policy in the Data
Age: Data Enablement for the Common Good. Digital
McKinsey. McKinsey & Company.
The World Bank. (2012). Innovations in Retail Payments
Worldwide – A Snapshot. In: Payment Systems and
Policy Research (ed.) Financial Infrastructure Series.
Thomas, I. & Rosewell, D. (2016). The Four Essential
Pillars of Digital Transformation. RunMyProcess.
United Nations Development Programme. (2007). e-
Government Interoperability: Guide, Bangkok, United
Nations Development Programme.
Whitman, M. & Gibson, M. (1996). Enterprise modelling
for strategic support. Information Systems
Management, 13, 64-72.
Wolmarans, M., Tanna, G., Dombo, M., Prasons, A.,
Solomon, W., Chetty, M. & Venter, J. (2015). eHealth
Programme reference implementation in primary
health care facilities. South African Health Review,
2014/15, 35 - 43.
AEM 2017 - 1st International Workshop on Advanced Enterprise Modelling
506