Interoperability and Public Value Creation in Digital Government: Rethinking Institutional Design for Integrated Service Delivery
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70062/icsshi.v2i2.74Keywords:
Data Governance, Digital Government, Integrated Service Delivery, Interoperability, Public ValueAbstract
Interoperability has become a critical enabler of integrated service delivery in contemporary digital government. However, despite significant technological investments, many governments continue to experience fragmented service systems and limited public value outcomes. This study examines how institutional design shapes interoperability capacity and how interoperability contributes to public value creation within digital government frameworks. Employing a qualitative explanatory case study approach, data were collected through semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and institutional observations. The findings reveal that interoperability is not solely a technical function but an institutional capability embedded in governance structures, regulatory frameworks, data standards, and coordination mechanisms. While technical data exchange mechanisms exist, institutional fragmentation, regulatory ambiguity, and limited cross-agency collaboration constrain seamless integration. The study demonstrates that institutional design mediates the relationship between interoperability and public value creation by influencing the effectiveness of integrated service delivery. Public value gains are evident in operational efficiency and accessibility; however, improvements in legitimacy, trust, and service coherence remain incremental where institutional alignment is weak. The research contributes to digital governance literature by conceptualizing interoperability as an institutional construct and highlighting the necessity of governance reform for sustainable public value generation. The findings suggest that governments must prioritize institutional coherence, standardized data governance, and collaborative coordination frameworks to fully realize the transformative potential of digital government.
Downloads
References
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00797.x
Cordella, A., & Tempini, N. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
European Commission. (2017). European interoperability framework: Implementation strategy. Publications Office of the European Union.
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Zhang, J., & Puron-Cid, G. (2016). Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 524–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.03.002
Heeks, R. (2003). Most e-government-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced? iGovernment Working Paper Series. University of Manchester.
Janssen, M., & Estevez, E. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance—Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30(Suppl. 1), S1–S8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.003
Janssen, M., & van der Voort, H. (2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable, and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.02.003
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2014). Digital government transformation and internet portals: The co-evolution of technology, organizations, and institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.001
Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 371(1987). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
OECD. (2020). Digital government index: 2019 results. OECD Publishing.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400831739
Pollitt, C. (2010). Technological change: A central yet neglected feature of public administration. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 629–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02196.x
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
