This is a paper I contributed to E-governance Compendium 2007, brought out by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) on the occasion of 10th National Conference on e-Governance, February 2-3, 2007, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, under the theme: avant-garde issues in e-governance. I did not attend the conference. The paper can be downloaded from the Files section of the group: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cyber_quiz/.
The paper examines the concept of e-government, highlights a levels-of-perspective definition of e-government and advocates a citizen-centric criteria-based approach to e-government operationalised by a comprehensive e-business plan as distinct from current piecemeal approaches to e-government characterised by free-standing e-government projects.
Dr D.C.Misra
February 4, 2007
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
Varney Report on Service Transformation in United Kingdom
This is a report* by Sir David Varney, who has extensive experience in private sector, on service transformation in United Kingdom. Since 1997 the Government in United Kingdom has undertaken a comprehensive programme of public service reform. Compared to 1997, notes the report, “the government is now providing more services online or through comprehensive telephone contact centres—allowing citizens and businesses improved ways to access government. Access to NHS Direct Online has grown by 74 per cent comparing this year to the last. In transport, citizens can now apply via the Internet for provisional driving licences and vehicle registration at any time. By the end of September 2006, 3.7 million motorists had renewed their car tax online.” This report “focuses on the opportunities for change in the channels through which services are delivered to citizens and businesses. Over the next ten years, there is an opportunity to provide better public services for citizens and businesses and to do so at a lower cost to the taxpayer.”
Dr D.C.Misra
January 26, 2007
_______________________________________________________________________
*Varney, Sir David (2006): Service transformation: A better service for citizens and businesses ,a better deal for the taxpayer, London, The Stationery Office (TSO), December, available: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/53D/F2/pbr06_varney_review.pdf
Dr D.C.Misra
January 26, 2007
_______________________________________________________________________
*Varney, Sir David (2006): Service transformation: A better service for citizens and businesses ,a better deal for the taxpayer, London, The Stationery Office (TSO), December, available: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/53D/F2/pbr06_varney_review.pdf
Monday, January 15, 2007
Misra, D.C. (2007): Ten Guiding Principles for Knowledge Management in E-government
This is a paper I presented on January 12, 2007 in First International Conference on Knowledge Management for Productivity and Competitiveness organised by National Productivity Council on January 11-12, 2007, New Delhi. It advocates preparation of a knowledge management (KM) sub-plan in e-government plan. It will be of interest to those who wish to introduce KnowledgeManagement (KM) in E-government. The paper is available at the link.
Dr D.C.Misra
January 15, 2007
Dr D.C.Misra
January 15, 2007
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Misra, D.C. (2006): Ten Emerging E-government Challenges Today
Misra, D.C. (2006): Ten Emerging E-government Challenges Today
This is a paper contributed by me on for the Keynote Session on December 15, 2006 in the 4th International Conference on E-Governance (ICEG), December 15-17, 2007, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. The paper overviews the e-government scenario as it obtains at the end of year 2006 and identifies ten emerging e-government challenges which can help policy makers in e- government policy formulation and implementation highlighting the central position of efficient public service delivery and certain e-government developments like global and national league tables, information explosion, technology forecasts, management information systems (MISs), e-government project monitoring, wiki technology, semantic web and artificial intelligence (AI) and concludes that the future of e-government may be quite sobering after the initial hype surrounding it settles down.Check the paper at:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cyber_quiz/message/250
Dr D.C.Misra
December 17, 2006
This is a paper contributed by me on
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cyber_quiz/message/250
Dr D.C.Misra
December 17, 2006
Saturday, July 15, 2006
E-GOVERNMENT – THE STATE OF ART TO-DAY: 1 & 2
These are two presentations I made some time back. May be of interest to members of the group. Check:
Misra, D.C. (2006a): E-government: The State of Art Today, Keynote Presentation at
Seminar on Using the Internet for Electronic Delivery of Government Services, Internet Fiesta 2006, March 20, http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/internetfiesta/file/misra.ppt#2 (accessed July 15, 2006)
Misra, D.C. (2006b): E-government: The State of Art Today-2, A Presentation at the Official Launching of the Government-to-Government System and CIO Workshop,
Thursday, May 25, 2006, Ebene Cyber Tower, Rose Hill, Mauritius, http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/ncb/file/E-government.ppt (accessed: July 15, 2006)
Dr D.C.Misra
July 15, 2006
Misra, D.C. (2006a): E-government: The State of Art Today, Keynote Presentation at
Seminar on Using the Internet for Electronic Delivery of Government Services, Internet Fiesta 2006, March 20, http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/internetfiesta/file/misra.ppt#2 (accessed July 15, 2006)
Misra, D.C. (2006b): E-government: The State of Art Today-2, A Presentation at the Official Launching of the Government-to-Government System and CIO Workshop,
Thursday, May 25, 2006, Ebene Cyber Tower, Rose Hill, Mauritius, http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/ncb/file/E-government.ppt (accessed: July 15, 2006)
Dr D.C.Misra
July 15, 2006
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
India's Knowledge Commission sans `knowledge worker' or `knowledge economy.'
India's National Knowledge Commission-2: Its Terms of Reference:
Knowledge Commission sans `knowledge worker' or `knowledge economy.'
India's National Knowledge Commission has the following terms of reference: The Commission will advise the Prime Minister on matters relating to institutions of knowledge production, knowledge use and knowledge dissemination.
The main terms of reference of the Commission, referred to as the "knowledge pentagon, include: (i) Building excellence in the educational system to meet the knowledge challenges of the 21st Century, (ii) Promote research in Science and Technology, (iii) Improve the management of institutions engaged in Intellectual
Property Rights, (iv) Promote knowledge applications in agriculture and industry, and (v) Promote the use of knowledge capabilities to make the government effective, transparent, accountable and public-oriented.
It will also explore ways in which knowledge can be made more widely accessible in India for maximum public benefit.
The danger to treat `knowledge' as a `commodity'(which it is not) to be produced (knowledge is created, not produced), used and disseminated (the natural order here is `dissemination' followed by `use' and not the other way) should be avoided by the knowledge commission. Moreover, in social and development context it is the `usable knowledge' (practical utility), which matters to the people and not the `knowledge for its own sake' (intellectual pursuit). When it has been proposed that the knowledge commission `will also explore ways in which knowledge can be made more widely accessible in India for maximum public benefit,' this term of reference presuppose existence of (usable) knowledge, which need not always be the case. The general perception is that not many 'knowledge institutions' (universities, research institutes / laboratories) have a ready storehouse of (usable) knowledge for dissemination among the people.
The main terms of reference of the knowledge commission can be grouped into five categories in brief: (i) excellence in educational system, (ii) research in science and technology, (iii) management of intellectual property rights (IPRs) institutions, (iv) knowledge applications in agriculture and industry, and (v) good governance.
These main terms of reference of the knowledge commission have two striking features. First, their inter-sectoral nature. Usually in government, such commissions or their lesser entities, (high powered) committees, are sectoral in nature, say, confined to a sector like education, agriculture, industry, etc. The multi-sectoral terms of reference of knowledge commission will require an expertise of a very high order for inter-sectoral co-ordination. The knowledge commission
as constituted at present does not have such an expertise though it does have a former member of the Indian administrative service who resigned from the service to pursue academic interests and till recently was vice chancellor, Delhi university and as such has to be treated more of a specialist rather than a generalist.
Secondly, and more importantly, India is perhaps the first and so far the only country in the world which has set up a (national) knowledge commission. This is a laudable step. The terms of reference of the knowledge commission, however, do not explicitly recognize the `knowledge worker' or `knowledge economy' or `knowledge society.' This is worrisome not only because many Indians are spearheading the
ongoing information revolution and India itself is a notable contributor to and beneficiary of the (new) `knowledge economy' but because creation of the national knowledge commission is a unique opportunity in which the knowledge commission can have a vision of Indian `knowledge society' based on `knowledge economy' and driven
by `knowledge workers' and prepare a plan of action to realize the vision in a definite time-frame. No commission, which calls itself, `knowledge' commission can afford to ignore these basic concepts, which are driving the ongoing information revolution worldwide.
Dr D.C.Misra
June 15, 2005
Knowledge Commission sans `knowledge worker' or `knowledge economy.'
India's National Knowledge Commission has the following terms of reference: The Commission will advise the Prime Minister on matters relating to institutions of knowledge production, knowledge use and knowledge dissemination.
The main terms of reference of the Commission, referred to as the "knowledge pentagon, include: (i) Building excellence in the educational system to meet the knowledge challenges of the 21st Century, (ii) Promote research in Science and Technology, (iii) Improve the management of institutions engaged in Intellectual
Property Rights, (iv) Promote knowledge applications in agriculture and industry, and (v) Promote the use of knowledge capabilities to make the government effective, transparent, accountable and public-oriented.
It will also explore ways in which knowledge can be made more widely accessible in India for maximum public benefit.
The danger to treat `knowledge' as a `commodity'(which it is not) to be produced (knowledge is created, not produced), used and disseminated (the natural order here is `dissemination' followed by `use' and not the other way) should be avoided by the knowledge commission. Moreover, in social and development context it is the `usable knowledge' (practical utility), which matters to the people and not the `knowledge for its own sake' (intellectual pursuit). When it has been proposed that the knowledge commission `will also explore ways in which knowledge can be made more widely accessible in India for maximum public benefit,' this term of reference presuppose existence of (usable) knowledge, which need not always be the case. The general perception is that not many 'knowledge institutions' (universities, research institutes / laboratories) have a ready storehouse of (usable) knowledge for dissemination among the people.
The main terms of reference of the knowledge commission can be grouped into five categories in brief: (i) excellence in educational system, (ii) research in science and technology, (iii) management of intellectual property rights (IPRs) institutions, (iv) knowledge applications in agriculture and industry, and (v) good governance.
These main terms of reference of the knowledge commission have two striking features. First, their inter-sectoral nature. Usually in government, such commissions or their lesser entities, (high powered) committees, are sectoral in nature, say, confined to a sector like education, agriculture, industry, etc. The multi-sectoral terms of reference of knowledge commission will require an expertise of a very high order for inter-sectoral co-ordination. The knowledge commission
as constituted at present does not have such an expertise though it does have a former member of the Indian administrative service who resigned from the service to pursue academic interests and till recently was vice chancellor, Delhi university and as such has to be treated more of a specialist rather than a generalist.
Secondly, and more importantly, India is perhaps the first and so far the only country in the world which has set up a (national) knowledge commission. This is a laudable step. The terms of reference of the knowledge commission, however, do not explicitly recognize the `knowledge worker' or `knowledge economy' or `knowledge society.' This is worrisome not only because many Indians are spearheading the
ongoing information revolution and India itself is a notable contributor to and beneficiary of the (new) `knowledge economy' but because creation of the national knowledge commission is a unique opportunity in which the knowledge commission can have a vision of Indian `knowledge society' based on `knowledge economy' and driven
by `knowledge workers' and prepare a plan of action to realize the vision in a definite time-frame. No commission, which calls itself, `knowledge' commission can afford to ignore these basic concepts, which are driving the ongoing information revolution worldwide.
Dr D.C.Misra
June 15, 2005
Friday, June 10, 2005
Illiterate people are using cybercafes in India, reports a research study
Illiterate people are using cybercafes in India without any special programs or applications for them, reports a research study. Haseloff,* a doctoral student at the University of Augsburg, Germany in his ongoing research study on "Cybercafes and their Potential as Community Development Tools in India" reports, among other things, that "it is a positive sign that currently some illiterate people are using cybercafes for a variety of reasons, without any special programs or applications for them being in place." His study, however, rejects the claim that cybercafes bridge the digital divide. According to him: "it appears that cybercafes according to the categories age, employment and education mostly serve the better-off groups (the young, the highly educated and the higher income groups). These findings confirm the results from the street survey, where Internet use could be measured only among the middle and upper-classes. Therefore, the theoretical assumption that cybercafes might help bridge the digital divide for the lowest SEC groups has to be rejected, at least at present." (Note: SEC= Socio-economic categories). His general finding is that "cybercafes play a significantly different role in India, compared to the role they play in the most developed countries. Whereas in developed countries, they are just an additional access point for people who already have access somewhere else, they seem to be highly important for the middle class in India, and therefore effectively help to bridge the digital divide for this group." Haseloff needs to be complimented for undertaking this policy-relevant study.Dr
D.C.Misra
June 10, 2005 _____________________________________________________________________________________
*Haseloff, Anikar M. (2005): Cybercafes and their Potential as Community Development Tools in India, The Journal of Community Informatics, Volume 1 Number 3 (2005), http://www.ci-journal.net/viewarticle.php?id=68&layout=html(accessed: June 10, 2005)
D.C.Misra
June 10, 2005 _____________________________________________________________________________________
*Haseloff, Anikar M. (2005): Cybercafes and their Potential as Community Development Tools in India, The Journal of Community Informatics, Volume 1 Number 3 (2005), http://www.ci-journal.net/viewarticle.php?id=68&layout=html(accessed: June 10, 2005)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

