Mauricio Solar
email: mauricio.solar@usm.cl

Gastón Concha
email: gaston.concha@gmail.com

Luis Meijueiro
email: luis.meijueiro@fundacionctic.org

A Model to Assess Open Government Data in Public Agencies

In this article a maturity model is proposed, named OD-MM (Open Data Maturity Model) to assess the commitment and capabilities of public agencies in pursuing the principles and practices of open data. The OD-MM model has a three level hierarchical structure, called domains, sub-domains and critical variables. Four capacity levels are defined for each of the 33 critical variables distributed in nine sub-domains in order to determine the organization maturity level. The model is a very valuable diagnosis tool for public services, given it shows all weaknesses and the way (a roadmap) to progress in the implementation of open data.

Introduction

The Electronic Government (e-Gov) development has been implemented from its beginnings with a model focused on services that the government provides. In recent years a change of model has been defined towards one focused on the citizen. This citizen-centric model is a new way of governing, and generates two implications in terms of public policies design and development of the digital strategy of the governments [START_REF] Barros | Open Data: new paradigm in data management[END_REF]:

• New services model: the services offered by the government must be designed and implemented focused on citizens (individuals or legal entities) as recipients of services rather than the government as a producer, who must incorporate essential attributes in the design with this new approach, such as: single window, multiple service channels, high usability standards, interoperability, and service levels defined as ex ante. • Open Government: this concept includes participation, transparency and cooperation of citizens in public policies. In this area, Open Government Data (OGD) plays a significant role and has become a way to operationalize this approach.

The OGD concept is a work philosophy to empower citizens and provide them access and license to use the data generated by public entities, so that they can use, store, redistribute and integrate them with other data sources. This data opening is justified both by encouraging citizen participation, strengthening democracy, as for being an innovation driving force by enabling the creation of new companies with these data.

The OGD concept is intertwined with the Open Data concept and Linked Data (linkeddata.org): Linked Data is a way of publishing data in such a way that it can facilitate the interaction between different data sources, while the concept of Open Data is oriented to a freely accessible data and without any restrictions at all to the people [START_REF] Sifaqui | On the road to the Semantic Web: experiences in the Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile (BCN)[END_REF].

The Open Data approach attemps to put data at the disposal of all citizens, which has proven to generate an important public value. The authors of Open Government book [START_REF] Lathrup | Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice[END_REF] bring up three fundamental concepts for a better understanding of the Open Data impact:

• Public information is a kind of infrastructure, with the same importance level as other infrastructures (water, electricity, roads). • Public value must be maximized as of existing data held by government.

• The open data magic is that it enables transparency and innovation. Some countries have progressed beyond the mere access to data, where the Open Data Model has shown that it not only produces significant changes in the public sector, but it generates synergies in innovation and entrepreneurship. This is the case of the United Kingdom (UK) that through the organization The National Archives [4] has defined a data licenses model that allows the use and reuse of the information that is under the granted license. Citizens can access to public data, and can use it in commercial terms; this model allows the generation of entrepreneur in relation to these data.

Public Services (PS) of the government collect and produce large data volumes involving data as climatological, energy, economic, health, environment, agriculture, defense, public safety, social, cultural, budgets, among many others [START_REF]The Future of the Government[END_REF]. Unfortunately, these data may have restricted accesses, perhaps its existence is unknown, or can be in standardized or private formats, which brings into question some aspects like, why should I identify me to get public data? Why should the request for public data be justified? Why is it that a software sometimes expensive to be processed (such as SPSS), or private as Excel must be bought? How to make citizens and civil society to taking full advantage of this data? What kind of services should governments provide so as to increase citizen's participation in OGD initiatives?

Considering the importance and relevance of implementing Open Data in PS, a proposal of the model for diagnosing PS capabilities is presented in this paper to develop Open Data. The model, called Open Data Maturity Model (OD-MM) is based on the principal elements found in literature, described in next section. The elements of the model are described in section 3, and development methodology and validation in conceptual terms is presented in section 4. Conclusions can be found in last section.

2

Alternatives for diagnosing Open Data Implementation

Although it was not dully made official, a classification proposal exists about how open and usable are the data that a public agency can provide. Sir Tim Berners-Lee or TimBL (www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html) proposed the well known "five stars" test for the data publication.

In December 2007 a group of researchers in Sebastopol, California, developed the 8 principles for OGD's, designed for a better understanding of these concepts and to define why OGD is essential for democracy. One of the key concepts for the development of these principles was to establish that the information becomes more appreciated if shared, because it not only benefits the end user which is civil society, but it also makes more efficient the use of public resources. The 8 principles established for considering government data as open are found in www.opengovdata.org/home/ 8principles.

Reggy in [START_REF] Reggy | Benchmarking Open Data Availability across Europe: The Case of EU Structural Funds[END_REF] defines a model with 4 levels for each of the 8 principles above mentioned, based principally on the W3C guidelines and the COI of the UK. For each principle a score is assigned according to the following: Level 0 = 0%; Level 1 = 33%; Level 2 = 66%; and Level 3 = 100%. A compounded indicator allows measuring the overall quality of each program evaluated by simply calculating the media of the score associated to the 8 principles.

MELODA (MEthodology for reLeasing Open Data) is a tool to accelerate releasing of information to society. It was not designed exclusively for public agencies, but it also included the private sphere, weakening its proposal as a tool of diagnosis for the public sector (gobernamos.com). MELODA evaluates available information from a data source (the same information that anyone could reach, including commercial uses mixed with private sources). This requirement restricts the number of analysis dimensions, which currently covers three dimensions: Legal Frame, Technical Standards for data releasing, and Accessibility to information. Five maturity levels are considered for each dimension. Levels from 1 through 5 for each dimension are marked as 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%. Each dimension is weighted the same as the others, so the global assessment for a single data source is composed by one third of each assessment. The global assessment of a PS that releases data is the average of each data source assessment released by the institution.

The Carter Center (www.cartercenter.org/documents/2012.pdf), in its 2008 Action Plan, provides policies focused on access to information as a human right in all cultures and government systems. It recommends that governments and international organizations must ensure this right by providing: fair exercise of the access rights, training of public officials in the practice and application of access rights, public education to empower such a use of the law, among others.

The stage model for OGD proposed in [START_REF] Kalampokis | Open Government Data: A Stage Model[END_REF] has two main dimensions, namely organizational and technological complexity and added value for data consumers.

According to literature, OGD presents challenges in several fronts, the most relevant are:

• Experience in different countries shows that it is necessary to train those who will be responsible for OGD in each public agency, which takes time.

• Not all data have the same quality; how reliable they are, how they are represented, and so on. It is necessary to establish a set of metrics that could help consumers of these data. • It requires a strong political support and to considering an OGD as a fundamental policy to improve the government transparency. Without an appraisal from the political world, every effort will remain in good intentions. Moreover, this support should be reflected in a resources allocation, since as any other public policy, implementing OGD requires time and money in order to make it possible to managers to carry it out (as described in [START_REF] Mcdermott | Building open government[END_REF]).

Important elements that can be identified in literature and that should be considered when diagnosing the implementation of Open Data at PS level are those that stand out in successful cases described in literature. Among these perspectives the following are important to be considered:

• The establishment of a PS, given that the importance of leadership and strategy in OGD initiatives is highlighted in literature. • The legal aspect, allows to having a legal frame when implementing Open Data.

• The technological perspective as for the accomplishment of Open Data principles, such as access to data, data quality and its availability. • The citizen perspective as from participation and collaboration point of view.

• And developers and entrepreneurs in the reuse of data.

All these elements are considered in the maturity model proposal to assess the capabilities and maturity of public institutions in the Open Data implementation. We merge the first two perspectives (establishment and legal aspects) into a single domain, as well as the last two above mentioned (citizen and developers perspective), so that the proposed model has three perspectives that are detailed in next section.

Basis of the OD-MM Model

It is important to clarify that the proposed model is intended to be a reference to diagnose the capacity to face the OGD in Public Services (PS). It does not intend to be a model to establish specific processes required for better services delivery but a reference for the design, management, monitoring and performance control of these processes adapted to the reality of each organization and the particularities of the public administration.

The model is based on the definition of a set of 3 elements organized in a hierarchical structure. Their key elements are the "Domains", "Sub-domains" (SD) and "Critical Variables", which can be evaluated with respect to OGD. The "domains" are SDs logical associations which in practice have to mature and therefore, are subject to evaluation. Domains are the heart of the model because they are set on different Capacity Levels (CL's) that contrast with those available in a specific organization. Three domains and 9 SDs were defined in total (3 per domain). In total there are 33 critical variables distributed in the 9 SDs. They are hereunder listed.

ELP Domain: Establishment and Legal Perspective

This domain determines the organization's ability to articulate a consistent vision of OGD. That is, the existence of an IT strategy aligned with a business strategy and that explicitly considers a decision and vision of the organization to be incorporated to open government. It involves high-level activities that allow to managing all resources according to the business vision and strategy and its priorities, including alignment with the guidelines of the national e-Gov, in particular OGD; includes the level of existence and confrmation of internal laws and regulations that facilitate the implementation of OGD policies and activities, and the ability of an entity to accurately perform organization, management and training activities as planned. Its SDs are hereunder described.

Subdomain ELP-1: Strategy, Leadership and Establishment

Includes high-level activities that allow managing all resources according to the business vision and strategy, and its priorities; it includes the alignment with the OGD guidelines at a national level. Its CL is determined by the following variables:

• Strategy: There is an OGD strategy aligned with the central level strategy.

• Leadership: Capabilities are available to successfully lead an OGD process.

• Establishment: Ability to have an organization to properly managing OGD programs with all necessary coordinations with other agencies.

Subdomain ELP-2: Laws and Regulations

It comprises the existence and verification level of internal laws and regulations that facilitate the implementation of the OGD policies and activities. Its CL is determined by the variables:

• External Regulations: Ability to comply with external regulations.

• Internal Regulations: Ability to comply with internal regulations.

• Licenses: Ability to accomplish the general regulation on licensings and generate eventual specific licensings of data sets generated by the entity without breaking with open data principles.

Subdomain ELP-3: Management

This subdomain includes the ability of an entity to appropriately perform organization, training and management activities as planned. Its CL is determined by the following variables:

• Training: Ability to provide staff trained in OGD suitable skills.

• Project Management: Ability to managing OGD projects, according to standard procedures and incorporate Open Data principles on related projects.

• Performance Assessment: Includes the development of metrics and measurement of periodical results about the initiatives and programs associated to OGD and ensure an appropriate internal and external coordination.

TPE Domain: Technological Perspective

This domain establishes the technological capacity of the organization to articulate a consistent vision of open government. That is, the existence of a technological strategy aligned with the strategy that explicitly considers the OGD best practices in the organization to be incorporated to the open government. Its SDs are hereunder described.

Subdomain TPE-1: Safety and Availability

Involves those activities related to ensuring the existence of protocols and mechanisms to protect data infrastructure from external and internal attacks; the idea is to ensure the availability of data at all times. Its CL is determined by the variables:

• Safety Systems: The organization has safety systems that protect data integrity in the context of a systematic implementation plan. • Data Availability: Data should be available in time where their access can provide them an added value, i.e., in a timely manner. • Data Updating: Updating protocols, manual or automatic.

• Tools for Measuring the Level of Use: Control of the data use level, i.e., the existence of data collecting mechanisms of data use level.

Subdomain TPE-2: Access

Involves the activities related to the portals enabling, the existence of Data Sets, etc. Its CL is determined by the following variables:

• Automated Data Reading: Information is accessible through database language or other ways of access. • Metadata: Existence of metadata and a type of them.

• Categorization and Discovery Facilities: Easiness for search, creation, and maintenance in the Web portal of taxonomies. • Use of Semantic Technologies: The Web portal provides support for the semantic enrichment of data sets.

Subdomain TPE-3: Data Quality

Involves the activities related to maintaining and managing the organization's data quality, in terms of Open Data existing definitions and level of interoperability of the organization's data. Its CL is determined by the following variables:

• Data Format: Use of non-proprietary formats that facilitate interoperability.

• Free Data: The data are not restricted by copyright or other legal restrictions that could limit their reuse. • Primary Data: It should be primary data, avoiding secondary processed data.

• Data Completeness: Data must be complete (all the aspects are given).

CEP Domain: Citizen and Entrepreneurial Perspective

This domain establishes the organization's ability to listen to public opinion, to involve citizens and collaborate with developers of applications that improve the transparency of the organization. Its SDs are hereunder described.

Subdomain CEP-1: Data Re-use

Open data publication status. Its CL is determined by means of variables:

•

Subdomain CEP-2: Developers

Degree of involvement in the encouragement and assistance to the work of reusers agents (RISP: Reusers of public information). Its CL is determined by the variables:

• Data Gratuitousness: Free data access and/or data downloading.

• Reuse Encouragement: Existence of aid resources (documents and material published or promoted by the institution) as well as promoting, formative and networing activities, conducted or promoted by the entity. • Complains and Conflicts Resolution: Reception, recording and resolution of complains and conflicts in re-using matters. • RISP Project Financing: Use of available fundings for the development of reusing applications, whether it is financing offered or promoted by the entity itself or others, but advertised/processed by it.

Subdomain CEP-3: Participation and Collaboration

It includes a certain level of listening-in and adaptation to citizen's demands, as well as to dialogue. Its CL is determined by the following variables:

• Participation and Collaboration Means: Communication channels exist between citizens and the entity about RISP matters, and type of collaboration developed. • Participative Transparency: Management and advertising of citizen's participation. • Active Listening: Implication's degree of entities in public participation and reaction when facing the improvement to data publication and reuse. • Data Use Measurement: Presence and management of indicators of use and/or applications' demand based on RISP.

Capacity and Maturity Model

Capacity is a property of each SD. The ability of a SD is determined based on the Capacity Level (CL) of its Critical Variables, i.e. what is actually measured is the ability of Critical Variables to meet certain requirements, then these capacities are weighted according to their importance and the result of this weighting is the final CL of the SD. The Maturity Level (ML) instead, is a property of the organization as a whole. Each ML will correspond to a SD default setting in predefined CL. The ML prescribes a "roadmap" or path of improvement for the organization.

One of the important objectives of the developed model is that it can produce progressive evolution alternatives of capabilities and maturity. In order to achieve this, the generic model to be used to define the CL characteristics for each model variable is here described. Then, the relationship between the variables' capacities and their respective SD is as well described, and finally how to determine the maturity of the organization once their SD capacity is known.

For each SD an incremental measurement scale exists based on a score from 1 to 4. This scale is associated with a generic qualitative capacity model described below.

Level 1: Inexistent Capacities

• Capabilities do not exist or the SD is approached in an ad-hoc and reactive manner, tends to be applied on an individual case by case way. • There is evidence that the SD's were recognized and need to be approached.

Level 2: Emerging Capacities (unformal)

• An intuitive regular pattern to approach the SD's is followed. Different people follow similar procedures to approach the same task. • There is no formal training or divulgation of procedures, and responsibility to follow them up rests on each individual.

Level 3: Existent Capacities

• The procedures related to the SD's were defined, documented and communicated.

• There is a formal training to support specific initiatives related to SD.

• Procedures are not sophisticated; they rather are the formalization of existing practices. • Monitoring and measuring of compliance with procedures is possible, as well as taking actions when the apparent SD's do not effectively work. • Standards and guidelines established apply throughout the whole organization.

Level 4: Advanced Capacities

• Procedures have reached the level of best practices and continuous improvement is applied. • The use of market standard or world-class tools helps to optimizing the SD's.

Relation of Variables, Capacities and SD

Capacity is a property of each SD and is obtained by measuring the CL of its critical Variables (V i ). Whereas there should be a direct relationship between both capacities it has been chosen as a calculating mechanism the arithmetic average of the SD constituent variables capacities. However, considering that for a given Open Data strategy or that for a level of development for a given country there are more relevant variables than others, a set of ponderers for each group of variables has been defined. Thus the CL of a SD turns out to be a weighted sum (w i ) of their constituent CL variables (Eq. 1). Table 1 show weighting values initially defined to be used in the pilot stage of the model.

(Eq. 1) The ML is determined by a set of values for the SD model, as shown in Table 2. The advantage of this scheme is its flexibility since it only establishes a minimum set of SDs, important in a given ML. The remaining SDs are left to the PS criterion.

OD-MM Model Development and Validation Methodology

The design methodology included to studying papers and published articles, study committee reports, evaluations and gray literature (see references), as well as telephone interviews, skype meetings and teleconferences. The work team contacted various groups of principal stakeholders in Open Data for interviewing and using them as primary sources of information.

Interviews were conducted in two rounds. The first round was focused on 9 experts that had been directly or indirectly involved in the development of the Open Data projects, in the Government of Chile, Colombia and in the state of NSW in Australia. Information collected in this process was gathered, and from literature review, questions were structured for the second round of interviews. The second round of interviews was focused on 4 experts with a more extensive domain and including people with experience in the region, Latin American governments and representatives of foundations and civil society defenders of the Open Data movement.

Determination of the Weight of Variables by SD

Determination of the weight of variables must follow a methodology in which at least three experts should be involved: a government representative, a citizen representative and/or Open Data applications developers, and at least one Open Data expert independent of the first ones. The methodology used in this study consisted of 3 rounds:

• First round: Each expert assigns independently a weight to the variables according to their criterion within the SD. In each SD the 100% is distributed among the variables that comprise the SD. • Second round: the weight of each variable proposed given by each expert in all three domains is compared. To those variables proposed by the experts with equal weight, that weight is assigned. • Third round: in cases where any difference exists between proposed weights, a negotiation starts, and is repeated for each SD. For weights with no big difference between the proposed ones, the intention is to come to a consensus value. If there is no consensus, each expert justifies his proposal and relative importance in SD. Finally, if no consensus is reached, it is submitted to the opinion of an external expert whose last word will be accepted without discussion.

Validation of OD-MM Model

To validate the OD-MM model, this was sent to various experts related with the OGD topic in Latin America. Representatives of the Government of Chile and Colombia, civil society and developers of Open Data applications made their comments which after being analyzed lead to modifying those that allowed to improving the proposal of model design to validate it. With the validated model, in conceptual terms, a Web tool was implemented which allowed the data colletion required by the model for its validation by means of a pilot in-situ. For this reason, a methodology was established to apply this pilot. The URL of the Web tool is http://odmm.inf.santiago.usm.cl/ (interface in Spanish).

For application of the pilot, experts from Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic and El Salvador were contacted. In these countries a sample of 10 public institutions were selected, based on previously defined criteria. Results of the pilot will be reported in a future publication, which for space availability reasons are not possible to describe in this article.

Conclusions

A model was designed to properly meet specificities of the public sector at a regional level, being a frame of reference to identify the areas that support the OGD strategy, based on OGD international best practices. The resulting model incorporates a hierarchical structure according to the relevance of the analyzed domain. The structure includes 3 domains, 9 sub-domains and 33 variables. This structure helps to a better adjusting to the diverse reality of PS in their preparation for joining the Open Government.

This model distinguishes between capacity, as a characteristic of a SD, and maturity as the organization's property as a whole. The capacities of variables contribute in a weighted manner to the SD capacity generating another adaptability element.

Domains on which the ML of capabilities in each PS is established, enables a continuous improvement and, therefore, a continuous progress towards higher levels of maturity of each organization. For space limitations, it was not possible to show the roadmap generation in this article.

Consequently, given the adjustability attributes and incorporation of a cycle of continuous improvement to which the grounds of the model are closely related to elements considered as the best international practices, we believe that the implementation of the model at a regional level will be a powerful diagnosis tool for Open Data.

  Open Data Developed Initiatives: Number of Open Data projects completed or in progress, and status of them. • Number of Open Data Available: Volume (ratio) of OD data sets published by the entity in relation to the global information provided by various means. • Single Access Point: Availability of access catalogs to data sets. • Data Access Measurement: Existence and management of access indicators and/or downloading of data sets, analysis of results and proposal of improvement measures (selection criteria, promotion, etc.).

Table 1 .

 1 SD set of variables on each domain

	Domain	Subdomain	Variables	Weight
	Establishment	Strategy, Leadership	Strategy	30%
	and Legal	and Establishment	Leadership	40%
	Perspective		Establishment	30%
		Laws and	External Regulations	20%
		Regulations	Internal Regulations	40%
			Licenses	40%
		Management	Training	30%
			Project Management	30%
			Performance Assessment	40%
	Technological	Safety and	Safety Systems	20%
	Perspective	Availability	Data Availability	30%
			Data Updating	30%
			Tools for Measuring the Level of Use	20%
		Access	Automated Data Reading	30%
			Metadata	30%
			Categorization and Discovery Facilities	20%
			Use of Semantic Technologies	20%
		Data Quality	Data Format	30%
			Free Data	25%
			Primary Data	25%
			Data Completeness	20%
	Citizen and	Data Reuse	Open Data Developed Initiatives	30%
	Entrepreneurial		Number of Open Data Available	30%
	Perspective		Single Access Point	20%
			Data Access Measurement	20%
		Developers	Data Gratuitousness	20%
			Reuse Encouragement	40%
			Complains and Conflicts Resolution	20%
			RISP Project Financing	20%
		Participation and	Participation and Collaboration Means	30%
		Collaboration	Participative Transparency	20%
			Active Listening	30%
			Data Use Measurement (Applications)	20%

Table 2 .

 2 Template of organizational maturity based on a set of priority SDs

	Domain		SD	ML 1	ML 2	ML 3	ML 4
	Establishment	Strategy, Leadership and Establishment			2	3
	and	Legal	Laws and Regulations			3	4
	Perspective	Management		2	3	4
	Technological	Safety and Availability			2	3
	Perspective	Access		2	3	4
			Data Quality			2	3
	Citizen	and	Data Reuse		2	3	4
	Entrepreneurial	Developers		2	3	4
	Perspective	Participation and Collaboration		2	3	4

Acknowledgement. The authors would like to thank Cristian Torres and Gonzalo Valdés for their work in the project. This work was partially supported by the grants DGIP 241142, International Development Research Center (IRDC/CDRI) with the collaboration of Inter-american Organization for Higher Education (OUI).


Anne Veenstra

Marijn Janssen

Anne Fleur Van Veenstra
email: a.f.e.vanveenstra@tudelft.nl

Investigating Outcomes of T-Government Using a Public Value Management Approach

Keywords: Transformational government, T-Government, E-Government, Public Value Management, New Public Management, Public Sector Reform

des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Transformational government (t-government) efforts aim to move beyond the egovernment efforts of creating better service delivery for citizens and businesses, and realize public sector reform [START_REF] Chatfield | Public Service Reform through e-Government: a Case Study of 'e-tax' in Japan[END_REF][START_REF] Dawes | The Evolution and Continuing Challenges of E-Governance[END_REF][START_REF] Cordella | Information systems in the public sector: The e-Government enactment framework[END_REF]. The link between e-government and public sector change was first made in the mid-1990's, when "ICTs began to be viewed as strategic assets for government with the potential to help policy makers and program managers redesign and integrate services to support critical stakeholder relationships and overarching policy goals" [2, p. S89]. More specifically, "e-Government is very often conceived as a powerful instrument to achieve the objectives envisaged by the new public management (NPM) ideology" [3, p. 53]. The NPM paradigm aimed to introduce private sector practices in the public sector to make government operations more cost-effective and customer-centered [START_REF] Bourgon | Responsive, responsible and respected government: towards a New Public Administration theory[END_REF][START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Osborne | Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector[END_REF][START_REF] Goldfinch | Two Myths of Convergence in Public Management Reform[END_REF]. T-government efforts employ IT to radically change the public sector [START_REF] Irani | Electronic transformation of government in the UK: a research agenda[END_REF] and aim to make governments more effective.

Both e-government and NPM are criticized for their failure to achieve many of the desired outcomes [START_REF] Bourgon | Responsive, responsible and respected government: towards a New Public Administration theory[END_REF][START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Goldfinch | Two Myths of Convergence in Public Management Reform[END_REF][START_REF] Irani | Electronic transformation of government in the UK: a research agenda[END_REF][START_REF] Fountain | Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service[END_REF][START_REF] Dunleavy | New Public Management Is Dead -Long Live Digital-Era Governance[END_REF]. Rather than transforming public administration, egovernment efforts were found to reinforce the existing structure within government [START_REF] Fountain | Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service[END_REF]. Many barriers still exist that inhibit the changes that are considered necessary to realize transformation [START_REF] Veenstra | Barriers and impediments to transformational government: insights from literature and practice[END_REF]. As a response t-government was introduced concerning the use of IT to transform governments [START_REF] Irani | Electronic transformation of government in the UK: a research agenda[END_REF] and to capture a broader range of pubic values like accountability and transparency. A new approach to public sector reform emerged aiming to achieve more responsive and effective public administrations [START_REF] Bourgon | Responsive, responsible and respected government: towards a New Public Administration theory[END_REF][START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Dunleavy | New Public Management Is Dead -Long Live Digital-Era Governance[END_REF][START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF][START_REF] Denhardt | The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering[END_REF][START_REF] O'flynn | From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and Managerial Implications[END_REF]. This reform approach is commonly referred to as Public Value Management (PVM) [START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF]. PVM refers to the continuous assessment of the actions that the public sector undertakes to ensure that public value is created [START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF]. Central to the paradigm is the use of IT to create public value for the customers of the government as well as to strengthen the role of government itself [START_REF] Cresswell | Advancing Return on Investment Analysis for Government IT. A Public Value Framework[END_REF], through collaboration in networks [START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF].

The objective of this paper is to see whether t-government efforts realize the outcomes envisioned by PVM. By looking at an effort of t-government in the Netherlands, the outcomes are investigated to see whether they are in line with the objectives of PVM. T-government efforts aim for a process orientation, breaking down the barriers of the vertical bureaucracies [START_REF] Bannister | Dismantling the silos: extracting new value from IT investments in public administration[END_REF]. Leveraging information technology (IT), they aim to make governments more effective and realize an overhaul of the public sector [START_REF] Irani | Electronic transformation of government in the UK: a research agenda[END_REF]. In this paper, t-government is investigated by looking at a case study in the Netherlands using a PVM approach. The next section introduces PVM and its objectives. In the third section the case methodology is presented, followed by the case study description. Subsequently, the findings from the case study are presented and discussed. Finally, the last section presents conclusions and recommendations for further research.

Theoretic background on Public Value Management (PVM)

PVM aims to realize public sector reform [START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF]. Public sector reform "is usually thought of as a means to an end, not to an end in itself. […] [Its objectives] include making savings (economies) in public expenditure, improving the quality of public services, making the operation of government more efficient, and increasing the chances that the policies which are chosen and implemented will be effective" [17, p. 6; emphases in original]. The objectives that are referred to, thus, span the width of governments' activities and purposes; including cost savings, outcomes that are to be achieved by the government and the values that are considered. Such change, however, is expected to take a long time: "The full benefits of major changes in the processes and structures of public agencies normally cannot be harvested until three, four, five, or even more years after a reform program has been launched" [17, p. 7].

PVM emerged as a reaction to its predecessor paradigm NPM as well as to the traditional Weberian bureaucracy to overcome the negative effects of both, such as the inefficiency and red-tape of bureaucracy and the fragmentation of government [START_REF] Bourgon | Responsive, responsible and respected government: towards a New Public Administration theory[END_REF][START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Goldfinch | Two Myths of Convergence in Public Management Reform[END_REF][START_REF] Dunleavy | New Public Management Is Dead -Long Live Digital-Era Governance[END_REF]. Traditionally, public administrations are characterized as hierarchical organizations with public officials carrying out predefined tasks: bureaucracies [START_REF] Weber | Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Grundriss der Verstehende Soziologie[END_REF].

To understand the central notions of PVM, it is thus useful to compare it to both bureaucracy and NPM. The agendas of public sector reform can be seen to differ in a number of dimensions (see Table 1). Although these reform agendas clearly have a normative character [START_REF] Alford | Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts, Critiques and Emergent Meanings[END_REF], the purpose of this section is to describe their ideal type. An ideal type is a description of a specific phenomenon, not referring to an ideal situation seen from a normative standpoint. Traces of the ideal types of public organizations presented in this section are still found in today's public administrations [START_REF] Bourgon | Responsive, responsible and respected government: towards a New Public Administration theory[END_REF]. The three reform agendas differ on a range of characteristics. A first group of characteristics is concerned with the fundamentals of public administration: the purpose, role, and ethos of the public sector, and the way in which public value is formulated. In the bureaucratic ideal type public administrations have a monopoly on realizing political goals by policy-making and implementation [START_REF] Bourgon | Responsive, responsible and respected government: towards a New Public Administration theory[END_REF][START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Denhardt | The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering[END_REF][START_REF] Sager | and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy[END_REF]. Public value is thus formulated by politicians in consultation with experts [START_REF] Sager | and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy[END_REF]. Within NPM the purpose of the public sector is to mitigate market failure by coordinating the actions of private parties in order to satisfy the customers of the public sector [START_REF] Bourgon | Responsive, responsible and respected government: towards a New Public Administration theory[END_REF][START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Osborne | Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector[END_REF][START_REF] Goldfinch | Two Myths of Convergence in Public Management Reform[END_REF][START_REF] Denhardt | The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering[END_REF][START_REF] O'flynn | From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and Managerial Implications[END_REF]. Public sector is defined using economic theory to aggregate the individual wishes of these customers [START_REF] O'flynn | From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and Managerial Implications[END_REF]. In the PVM approach, public administrations aim for creating public value directly for citizens or by strengthening the role of the government [START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF][START_REF] Cresswell | Advancing Return on Investment Analysis for Government IT. A Public Value Framework[END_REF], thereby shifting their role to serving and empowering citizens and business to create public value [START_REF] Denhardt | The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering[END_REF]. Governments operating according to the PVM agenda thus focus on collaborating and creating a dialogue with citizens in order to determine what constitutes public value [START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF].

A second group of characteristics is related to the role of the public and public officials. While the public used to be seen by public administrations as having a passive role (clients, electorate) in a bureaucracy [START_REF] Alford | Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts, Critiques and Emergent Meanings[END_REF], their role was redefined as customers under the NPM paradigm [START_REF] Osborne | Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector[END_REF][START_REF] Fountain | Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service[END_REF]. Under the PVM paradigm they get the status of citizens that can also participate in government action [START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF]. This requires, in turn, a different role of public officials. Rather than professional bureaucrats executing predefined tasks and procedures, public officials under the NPM paradigm were expected to become entrepreneurial and more customer-friendly by achieving predefined output targets [START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Goldfinch | Two Myths of Convergence in Public Management Reform[END_REF][START_REF] Dunleavy | New Public Management Is Dead -Long Live Digital-Era Governance[END_REF]. Within PVM, public value is realized when an adaptable, learning-based approach is taken on by public managers [START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF]. In order to realize public value, they coordinate the actions of both public and private parties within networks [START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF]. This can only be achieved when public officials have sufficient discretion to carry out their tasks [START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF].

The last group of characteristics is the organizational structure and the way in which the objectives of the public sector are realized. In the bureaucracy, actions are performed by a top-down division and aggregation of predefined tasks [START_REF] Weber | Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Grundriss der Verstehende Soziologie[END_REF]. Subsequently, accountability is organized by administrators reporting to elected leaders, while the administrators themselves are expected to remain impartial [START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF]. This form of accountability is often called 'procedure accountability', in which administrators are mainly responsible for following the right procedures [START_REF] Poulsen | Competing Traditions of Governance and Dilemmas of Administrative Accountability: the Case of Denmark[END_REF]. Accountability shifted from procedure accountability towards clearly defined goals to assure their delivery in the NPM paradigm [START_REF] Poulsen | Competing Traditions of Governance and Dilemmas of Administrative Accountability: the Case of Denmark[END_REF]. Public officials now were not only responsible for following the right procedure, but they also had to ensure a favorable outcome of their actions [START_REF] Poulsen | Competing Traditions of Governance and Dilemmas of Administrative Accountability: the Case of Denmark[END_REF] as well as attaining specific performance incentives [START_REF] Goldfinch | Two Myths of Convergence in Public Management Reform[END_REF][START_REF] Dunleavy | New Public Management Is Dead -Long Live Digital-Era Governance[END_REF]. Within PVM public value is realized through collaboration in networks of public and private parties [START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Castells | The Rise of The Network Society, Second Edition[END_REF]. Public accountability is thus pluriform: public officials need to perform according to the law, societal values, political norms, professional standards, and citizens' wishes -requiring a new way of working [START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF]. Hence, the emphasis on transparency of public processes within PVM [START_REF] Bertot | Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corrupution tools for societies[END_REF][START_REF] Mcdermott | Building open government[END_REF].

PVM has a different view on what constitutes governments and how public value is formulated compared to the bureaucratic and NPM paradigms. It emphasizes that public value creation happens as a process of continuous assessment determining whether the actions of public officials will lead to public value -either directly to citizens or by strengthening the role of the public sector [START_REF] Cresswell | Advancing Return on Investment Analysis for Government IT. A Public Value Framework[END_REF]. PVM is thus an attempt of creating an integrated and holistic vision on value for society by collaboration of public and private parties in networks [START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF]. Hence, IT is considered central to PVM in order to coordinate these actions [START_REF] Dunleavy | New Public Management Is Dead -Long Live Digital-Era Governance[END_REF]. It is, therefore, often emphasized that within the public value framework, outcome, rather than output is realized [START_REF] Alford | Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts, Critiques and Emergent Meanings[END_REF][START_REF] Karunasena | Measuring the public value of e-government: a case study from Sri Lanka[END_REF]. Three characteristics of PVM can thus be distinguished: the definition of public value by through dialogue, the continuous assessment of their actions by public officials determining whether public value is attained, and the coordination of actions within networks of public and private parties supported by the use of IT.

Research method

To investigate t-government efforts to find whether they lead to the outcomes of transformation outlined in the PVM paradigm, a case study from the Netherland is examined. This case study concerns the adoption of the international financial reporting standard XBRL (acronym of eXtensible Business Reporting Language) for financial reporting, based on a uniform taxonomy NT (Dutch taxonomy) and a process infrastructure that can be used to exchange information between businesses and the government. Financial reporting comprises all legally required information provisioning of businesses to the government. It is considered an appropriate case for investigating t-government, as it captures the use of information technology to realize public sector transformation. Furthermore, it is a very long-term project, as it started in 2004 and it is expected to continue at least into 2013, when the use of the XBRL standard for specific reporting processes will become obligatory.

A retrospective view on the case was created by carrying out fifteen semistructured interviews over the course of January and February 2010, which were complemented by three interviews in September 2011 to update the case study. The group of fifteen interviewees comprised three project managers of government organizations involved in implementing and maintaining the government infrastructure and systems for XBRL, five representatives of businesses from different sectors and varying size for understanding the user perspective, three accountants of various intermediaries, two representatives of software companies developing software packages for financial reporting, and two bank managers that are currently implementing XBRL in their organizations. The validating interviews were held with a project manager responsible for XBRL implementation and two researchers that have been involved in disseminating knowledge about XBRL. All interviews lasted between one hour and an hour and half. Most interviews were conducted by two researchers comparing results afterwards; some were conducted by one interviewer.

The interviewees were asked questions on the changes that were made in all aspects of government -and on the side of businesses and intermediaries. To determine in which ways transformation takes place, inquiries were made into all aspects of the PVM paradigm. Firstly, the objectives of the case study were determined, followed by the outcomes that were achieved. Secondly, the operational changes in the processes within government and the private sector were looked at to see whether any major changes or transformations could be observed. Thirdly, the organizational structure was looked at to find out how actions are coordinated and how accountability is organized. The purpose of these inquiries is to find out to what extent the objectives of PVM are achieved by this t-government effort.

The introduction of the Dutch Taxonomy (NT) based on the international XBRL standard set out to standardize the process of legally required financial reporting by businesses in 2004. Instead of all government agencies defining their own requirements for financial reports, a taxonomy was created to harmonize definitions used by the Dutch government in the financial domain. Furthermore, a common process infrastructure is developed that is to be used for submitting all financial reports. Although the XBRL standard can be used for financial reporting across many sectors, the current project set-up includes a few specific reports: (profit) tax filing at the Inland Revenue Service (IRS), the submission of financial year reports at the Chamber of Commerce and the submission of data to the national bureau for statistics (CBS). In the private sector, a consortium of banks is developing a Banking Taxonomy (BT) to allow for automatic handling of credit applications using XBRL.

The process infrastructure developed to facilitate data exchange consists of a unified gateway for bulk data to government information systems. While the current structure of organizations concerned with financial reporting can be defined as a hierarchical command-and-control situation in which the government agencies enforce their standards onto the market, XBRL implementation is expected to allow for the creation of value chains across a network of organizations. As generating financial reports will be done using an open standard, organizations are able to innovate and new applications may emerge as well as new organizations developing new services. This likely results in a new situation in which government agencies remain in control of the interpretation of financial data and the decision-making process, but the process of creating reports will take place within a networked structure that enables innovation.

In 2006, to support the development of the NT a generic infrastructure project was started drawing up requirements for the functionalities necessary for a new process infrastructure for financial reporting based on XBRL. When the first version of the NT was ready and the plans for the process infrastructure were published, the three public agencies (IRS, Chambers of Commerce and CBS) signed an agreement to implement XBRL. This agreement was also signed by representatives of businesses, accountants and software vendors to stimulate the use of XBRL for financial reporting. Simultaneously, in line with political priorities at that time, the project was appointed to contribute to the central government agenda to achieve an administrative burden reduction of businesses. In 2007, the central government estimates that around 350 million euro's worth of administrative tasks of businesses can be cut and around a million tax filings using XBRL will be achieved yearly by 2008.

However, the agreements of 2006 were not achieved. Therefore, in 2010 changes were made in the governance structure of the implementation program. A strong focus on the implementation was adopted by the organization guiding the changes, which also involved private parties. The process infrastructure developed for exchanging data based on XBRL was to be developed and maintained by the central government IT maintenance agency (Logius). Furthermore, the IRS decided to use the program to implement system-based control to improve compliance management. System-based control allows for checking the physical processes of organizations. By tapping into process information of companies it automatically checking whether these processes comply with regulations. Furthermore, to increase the quality of the financial reporting processes, the IRS started to phase out its old reporting processes. To spur developments, the use of the XBRL standard will become obligatory for specific streams of financial reporting in 2013.

Findings

The SBR case was investigated to determine whether any transformation is taking place by looking at the characteristics of PVM. The case study findings are summarized in table 2.

Main purpose of the government

The improvement of financial reporting can be seen as creating public value. Role of the government XBRL set out to steer private parties to carry out public goals in NPM style by creating output targets. After Logius took over, the role of the government turned into serving and empowering, ensuring that the parties involved will benefit from the implementation.

Public sector ethos

Rather than creating a law upfront that businesses will have to follow by implementing XBRL, a joint agreement was made that allows for collaboration between the public and the private sector. Formulation of public value XBRL implementation set out as a project to create value for all parties involved: administrative burden reduction for businesses and by advancing compliance controls for government organizations.

Role of the public

Businesses are involved in policy formulation and implementation.

Role of public officials

While public officials keep having to follow procedures, and deliver cost-effective services, they will also have to attune their actions with those performed by officials in other organizations to create value.

Discretion and motivation of administrators

Both NPM and PVM characteristics can be observed: the creation of innovative services can be considered entrepreneurial, and by implementing horizontal control public officials will have more discretionary room to attain their objectives.

Mechanisms for achieving policy objectives

The XBRL standard is not implemented hierarchically, although it is spurred by making it obligatory by 2013. Until then, implementation depends on public and private parties implementing XBRL to serve their own needs, through governance performed by Logius.

Accountability

Public officials remain accountable to elected politicians, but at the same time a pluriform form of accountability emerges, in which they are accountable not only to the law, but also to the political norms of administrative burden reduction, professional standards of compliance control, and business interests of making compliance easier. Organizational structure; service delivery What remains hierarchical is the relation between government and businesses: businesses will have to comply with government regulations. At the same time, through the horizontal control, a networked structure will emerge in which businesses become partners of the government to comply with reporting regulations.

Regarding the first characteristic of PVM -the definition of public value through dialogue -the implementation of XBRL aims to create value by introducing a standardized process for reporting. Rather than being a political objective, the implementation of XBRL, the NT and the process infrastructure are meant to be beneficial for both the public and the private organizations involved. Through the common agreement in 2006 the government set out to empower businesses and government organizations rather than being only involved in policy-making and implementation. Furthermore, Logius aimed to achieve implementation by involving private parties rather than by enforcing implementation. Thus, public value was defined and created in a collaborative manner rather than that it was enforced by the government.

The second characteristic is the introduction of the continuous assessment of whether public value is attained for citizens directly or by strengthening the public sector by public officials. XBRL implementation aims to do both. On the side of the government, system-based control will lead to a continuous assessment of whether businesses are compliant. At the same time delivering public value directly to businesses by realizing administrative burden reduction through standardized reporting also strengthens the role of the government in the network. While businesses are no longer merely customers, they also influence the governance process. Furthermore, system-based control requires more room for discretionary power for public officials that, instead of following fixed procedures use IT to tap into process information of businesses and perform compliance control based on risk profiles. Among the factors that determine the risk profile is the trust generated by the businesses by complying with the regulations. If they comply for a longer period of time, their risk profile will be given a status in which fewer checks are performed by the IRS.

The coordination of actions within networks of public and private parties is the third characteristic of PVM. It includes the shift from hierarchically oriented public administrations to a networked structure in which public and private parties collaborate. While policy formulation indeed takes place through a process of governance, the other two characteristics cannot be seen to in place. Firstly, the nature of the relation between the government and businesses regarding financial reporting does not lead to a fully networked structure as governments remain in control of checking compliance of businesses. Secondly, regarding accountability, this still takes place large in the bureaucratic style of following procedures. Although public officials are responsive to more than just the procedures when performing horizontal control, it remains important. An important reason is that procedure accountability is a means to ensure equity. Thus, while the first and the second set of characteristics of PVM are in place in the case study, this is not the case for the third set of characteristics related to the organizational structure and accountability.

Discussion

From the case study it becomes clear that many characteristics of PVM are likely to be achieved by t-government. However, it cannot be concluded that a transformed organization will now be in place as a fully developed networked structure is not in place, nor is accountability transformed. Instead, it is still mainly vertically oriented and focused on following procedures. Thus, t-government in this case is not seen to be the realization of a fully transformed organizational structure (as government and businesses essentially keep the same roles as before), but rather to a process of governance by Logius, ensuring that the desired quality of the processes within the network is realized. This governance focuses on involving different -also privateparties in order to implement the desired changes.

Furthermore, realizing accountability in the way it is defined by PVM is expected to lead to problems for three reasons. Firstly, it will become much more difficult for public officials to be accountable if they have to adhere to multiple procedures, demands, and standards. Secondly, as the new forms of compliance control by the IRS (horizontal control) are expected to lead to the continuous assessment of whether public value is created, it requires that public officials are much better trained than before to be able to make decisions within this complex set of requirements. One of the interviewees already indicated that this represents a challenge for the IRS as they expect that will have to hire more highly educated officials performing the compliance controls. Thirdly, an issue that may become problematic is the realization of equity. The main reason for bureaucracies to use procedure accountability is to ensure that public officials remain neutral (as they are able to do their work in different political realities), but also to not be able to favor individual citizens. Creating more discretionary room thus enables public value creation, but it also requires additional actions to ensure equity.

A main limitation of this study is that this case study is an innovative example of t-government. Other examples may give very different results. Therefore, to be able to generalize these findings, other cases in and outside of the Netherlands may need to be looked into. Especially as the XBRL implementation is considered an innovative case in the Netherlands, it is important to see whether the objectives of PVM are also observed in other cases of t-government.

Conclusion

T-government has the purpose of transforming the public sector. While e-government mainly focused on realizing the objectives of New Public Management (NPM), tgovernment aims to achieve the objectives of Public Value Management (PVM). PVM is concerned with the formulation of public value through a dialogue between public organizations as well as citizens and businesses. Furthermore, it aims to create public value through a continuous assessment of which value is being created either for citizens directly or to strengthen the role of the government. Finally, it aims to create public value by coordinating actions within networks of public and private organizations, supported by IT. This paper set out to find whether t-government achieves the objectives of PVM by looking at a case study from the Netherlands: the implementation of the XBRL standard for financial reporting.

The case study shows that public value is being created both by creating value for businesses as well as to strengthen the role of the government. Furthermore, public officials will get more discretionary room to assess whether businesses are compliant. However, a networked structure and a pluriform form of accountability are not observed. Rather than being a mechanism for creating transformed organizations, tgovernment is thus an instrument for setting up governance in networks in order to realize the desired changes. To fully realize PVM professionalization of public officials is necessary as well as to make public processes more transparent. Further research should focus on whether professionalization and transparency contribute to realizing the objectives of PVM through t-government. Furthermore, other cases of tgovernment should be investigated to find whether PVM is also observed in less innovative cases.

Table 1 :

 1 Comparison of the three public sector reform agendas [based on[START_REF] Bourgon | Responsive, responsible and respected government: towards a New Public Administration theory[END_REF][START_REF] Stoker | Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Dunleavy | New Public Management Is Dead -Long Live Digital-Era Governance[END_REF][START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF][START_REF] Denhardt | The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering[END_REF][START_REF] O'flynn | From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and Managerial Implications[END_REF]

		Bureaucracy	NPM	PVM
	Main purpose of	Realizing political	Mitigating market	Creating public
	public sector	goals	failure	value
	Role of the	Policy-making and	Catalyst for actions	Serving and
	government	implementation	of private parties	empowering
	Public sector ethos	Public sector	Customer	Dialogue and
		monopoly	satisfaction	collaboration
	Formulation of	Politicians formulate	Aggregation of	Complex process of
	public value	laws, consult experts	individual	interactions; result of
			preferences	dialogue
	Role of the public	Clients and	Customers	Citizens
		electorate
	Role of public	Following	Attaining output	Coordinating
	officials	procedures	targets	networks
	Discretion of	Limited;	Room for attaining	Discretion necessary;
	administrators	standardization of	entrepreneurial goals	limited by political
		tasks		accountability
	Motivation of	Wages and status;	Entrepreneurial	Public service;
	administrators	protected and	spirit; ideal of	contributing to
		privileged profession	smaller government	society
	Mechanisms for	Implementing	Realizing policy	Networks of public
	achieving policy	government	objectives by private	and private
	objectives	programs	parties	organizations
	Accountability	Hierarchical:	Market-driven:	Pluriform:
		administrators are	aggregation of	administrators have
		accountable to	preferences leads to	to follow the law,
		elected politicians	desired output for	societal values,
			large groups of	political norms,
			customers, via	professional
			public-private	standards and
			contacts	citizens' interests
	Organizational	Hierarchical	Private sector /	Networks / pluriform
	structure; service		public agencies put
	delivery		at a distance

Table 2 :

 2 Characteristics of PVM identified in the case study


Bernd Zwattendorfer
email: bernd.zwattendorfer@egiz.gv.at

Arne Tauber
email: arne.tauber@egiz.gv.at

Klaus Stranacher
email: klaus.stranacher@egiz.gv.at

Peter Reichstädter
email: peter.reichstaedter@bka.gv.at

Cross-Border Legal Identity Management

Keywords: Electronic Identity, eID, Identity Management, Legal Identities, Legal Persons, Empowerment, Electronic Mandates, STORK, Interoperability

ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Identity Management (IdM) related to secure identification and authentication of citizens defines one of the major challenges in the past years and will last a few more years. A lot of European countries have already rolled-out different kinds of electronic identity (eID) solutions to enable secure identification and authentication of citizens in online processes. Especially in the area of e-Government transactions, IdM is of major interest because in many cases sensitive personal data are processed. Due to a higher mobility of citizens and businesses within Europe, secure crossborder identification and authentication has gained high importance. However, most European countries rely on their own national approach for IdM, which burdens the economic growth and competitiveness within the European Union. This also makes citizens' mobility within the EU difficult and hinders cross-border transactions. To fill this gap, the European Commission has launched the large scale pilot (LSP) STORK 1(Secure Identity Across Borders Linked) in the year 2008. The STORK vision was "to establish a European eID Interoperability Platform that will allow citizens to establish new e-relations across borders, just by presenting their national eID" [START_REF] Leitold | STORK: Architecture, Implementation and Pilots[END_REF]. STORK has built an eID framework on top of various national heterogeneous solutions to make them interoperable. The main focus of STORK lay on secure crossborder identification and authentication of natural persons only.

However, many e-Government transactions are conducted by legal persons or professional representatives. Electronic mandates for the expression of proxyship 2 are one solution for that. Other approaches are the usage of attribute certificates or the assignment of appropriate credentials to the representing natural person. Some EU countries have such an e-Mandate solution in place or are planning to establish one. Similar to the situation of natural persons before STORK, the identification and authentication of legal persons is unresolved in a cross-border context. Hence, the present paper proposes and discusses an eID interoperability framework for the crossborder identification and authentication of legal persons using electronic mandates.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe related work with regard to mandate management and the Austrian and Dutch mandate systems as examples. Section 3 gives a brief introduction to the findings of the large scale pilot STORK and explains its interoperability models. The subsequent Section 4 describes the extended STORK architecture enabling cross-border authentication of legal persons or professional representatives for a chosen scenario. Finally, we draw conclusions summarizing the main facts and open issues.

Related Work

While IdM for natural persons in the EU has been widely achieved with the roll-out of national eIDs, there is a green-field situation in many Member States (MS) regarding legal IdM. The IDABC Study for eID Interoperability for PEGS [START_REF]Study on eID Interoperability for PEGS: Update of Country Profiles[END_REF] reports for representation and mandate management "[…] that a systematic approach to mandate management and authorization functionality -i.e. the ability to allocate, retract or verify specific permissions of a specific entity -in the examined eIDM systems was still altogether rare. 22 countries out of 32 (69%) have no form of mandate/authorisation management, other than the allocation of certificates or credentials to the representatives of a specific legal entity."

and "[…] only two countries have implemented systems of mandate/authorisation management which can be characterised as systematic."

Besides Belgium, Austria is the second country mentioned by the 2009 IDABC study. Since then, also the Netherlands have introduced a systematic approach to legal IdM called eRecognition [START_REF] Herkenning | Scheme for eRecognition -General Introduction[END_REF]. The following subsections give a brief overview of the Austrian and Dutch systems to demonstrate how legal IdM is realized on a national scale using systematic approaches by accessing central registers.

The Austrian Mandate System

Authentication and identification in Austrian e-Government is based on the so-called citizen card, the Austrian national eID. The citizen card is a secure signature creation device (SSCD) that can be used to create qualified electronic signatures (QES) compliant to the EU Signature Directive [4]. The identification data (name, date of birth and unique national identification number) of the citizen are stored in a special XMLbased data structure on the citizen card. The legal basis for the citizen card is laid down by the Austrian e-Government Act [START_REF]The Austrian E-Government Act -Federal Act on Provisions Facilitating Electronic Communications with Public Bodies[END_REF], which came into effect in 2004. Representation of legal persons has been considered by the Austrian e-Government strategy from the beginning and is thus also an integral part of the Austrian e-Government Act. On this basis, Austria has built an infrastructure for legal IdM using the concept of socalled "electronic mandates" [START_REF] Rössler | Empowerment through Electronic Mandate -Best Practice Austria[END_REF]. Electronic mandates are security tokens asserting that a person is empowered to act on behalf of another natural or legal person. The asserting authority is the Austrian SourcePIN Register Authority, a sub-organization of the Austrian Data Protection Commission. From a technical point of view, electronic mandates are well-defined XML structures holding the following information:  Electronic identity of the representative including name, date of birth and unique national identification number  Electronic identity of the mandator including name, date of birth and unique national identification number  Date and place of mandate issuance  Content and scope of empowerment  Unique mandate ID  Any restrictions (financial, timely, etc.)

The Austrian mandate management infrastructure fits seamlessly into the IdM system for natural persons and is based on a just in time (JIT) generation of electronic mandates [START_REF] Leitold | A Systematic Approach to Legal Identity Management -Best Practice Austria[END_REF]. This means that the SourcePIN Register Authority acts as an Attribute Provider (AP) by fetching the information for the power of representation, i.e. the mapping between legal and representing natural persons, from constitutive registers, for example the Company Register or the Central Register of Associations. Based on this information, an electronic mandate is created on-the-fly, asserted by the SourcePIN Register Authority through an electronic signature and provided to the identity provider and subsequently to the service provider. Details of this process are discussed in more detail in Section 4 because the Austrian concept is used as sample national legal person management system for demonstrating our cross-border solution.

The Dutch eRecognition System

Parallel to DigiD3 , the national IdM system for natural persons, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs has provided a systematic approach for legal IdM called eRecognition [START_REF] Herkenning | Scheme for eRecognition -General Introduction[END_REF]. This approach is quite similar to the Austrian solution and relies on the so-called eRecognition network to authenticate and identify legal persons. This network consists of the following entities:

 A service catalogue where service providers can manage their services.  An authentication service to identify and authenticate the representative (natural person).  A mandate registry containing the information for the power of representation. It establishes the link between a legal person and the representing natural person, e.g. the company manager.  A recognition broker creating and asserting the authentication information for a legal person (represented by a natural person) and providing this information to service providers.

STORK

Many European Union countries have already rolled-out national eID solutions or are planning to do so. Those solutions are usually issued by national or regional governments and aim for more secure identification and authentication processes in online transactions. Secure identification and authentication defines a major requirement especially in the fields of e-Government or e-Business where sensitive personal data needs to be processed. Currently, most Member States rely on smart card-based approaches supporting two-factor authentication. However, in addition e.g. Austria and Estonia offer their citizen its eID solution based on mobile phones. Although the first national eID solutions have approximately been existing since 1999 (e.g. Finland [START_REF] Modinis | The Status of Identity Management in European eGovernment initiatives[END_REF]), most solutions are tailored to support domestic and national requirements only and lack in crossborder applicability. Hence, citizens from one European Union country are not able to use their national eID for online services of other European Union countries. This fundamental gap has been taken up by the European Commission in 2008 which introduced the 3-years lasting European large scale pilot project (LSP) STORK [START_REF] Leitold | STORK: Architecture, Implementation and Pilots[END_REF].

This co-funded project by the EC aimed on implementing and piloting a technical interoperability layer to achieve cross-border acceptance of various national eID solutions within the EU. Hence, the main objective of STORK was not to develop and introduce a new eID concept for all EU Member States but instead taking the heterogeneous existing solutions as a basis and set up a framework on top of it to make them interoperable. However, the focus of STORK was to achieve eID interoperability of natural persons only.

In general, the STORK architecture sets up on two different basic models, the socalled PEPS (Pan-European Proxy Service) and MW (Middleware) model. The first model follows a proxy-based approach where a single gateway is installed and deployed in each Member State. Those individual gateways build a kind of trusted federation network which enables cross-border authentication. On the one side, the aim of these gateways is to hide complexity of national eID solutions from the interoperability layer. The other side is to implement the transport protocol for cross-border identification and authentication data transfer. For taking part within the STORK interoperability layer and depending on their home country, service providers (e.g. public authorities or private sector enterprises) offering online applications connect electronically to their adequate gateway (PEPS). Within the second model (MW model) no central instance exists and the service provider itself needs to support several eID tokens using a common middleware. In contrast to the PEPS model the middleware is directly installed in the service provider domain. Comparing both models, the PEPS model hides all specifics of national eID infrastructures whereas in the MW model the service provider needs to maintain all different eID tokens that are supported. However, in terms of liability and privacy the MW model has its main advantage as a direct communication channel between the service provider and the end user is possible. In contrast to that, the PEPS acts as trusted intermediary between the service provider and the end user.

Based on these two different basic models, four interoperability models can be distinguished within STORK: Step 2. The S-PEPS presents the citizen a country selection page where she can select the country she is originally from. Based on this information, in Step 3 the S-PEPS redirects the user to the PEPS of the citizen's home country (Citizen Country-PEPS or C-PEPS). Authentication and identification fully takes place at the C-PEPS involving one or more identity or attribute providers4 using the citizen's national eID token (Step 4). If authentication was successful the C-PEPS transmits the citizen's identification and authentication data back to the requesting S-PEPS (Step 5). In turn, these data are forwarded to the authentication requesting service provider (Step 6). Based on these transferred data the service provider can either grant or deny access to the requested services. The protocol for structuring the identification and authentication data and its transfer is based on the well-known standard Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) [START_REF] Lockhart | Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0 Technical Overview[END_REF]. Details on this common protocol can be found in the common STORK interface specification [START_REF] Alcalde-Morano | 8.3b Interface Specification[END_REF].

 PEPS -PEPS interoperability model  MW -MW interoperability model  MW -PEPS interoperability model  PEPS -MW interoperability model
Fig. 2 shows the MW-MW interoperability model on an abstract level. In this use case, both the citizen and service provider country follow the middleware approach. In this approach, no intermediary between the user and the service provider exists. The handling middleware is directly installed and maintained in the service provider's domain. It is assumed that a citizen originating from MS A wants to access a certain service in MS B (Step 1). For authentication, the citizen is forwarded by the service provider to the deployed middleware which integrates all desired national eID tokens (Step 2). In the MW model, in most cases identity information is directly stored on the citizen's eID token and does not need to be fetched from other identity or attribute providers. The middleware extracts the desired identity information from the eID token (Step 3) and forwards these data to the authentication requesting service provider (Step 4). The first interoperability model combining both STORK basic models is shown in Fig. 3. A citizen originating from a country that follows the PEPS approach (MS A) wants to use a service at a service provider whose country relies on the MW approach (MS B), cf. Step 1. After requesting authentication, the middleware deployed in the SP domain does not directly access the citizen's eID token but forwards the authentication request to the corresponding C-PEPS of the citizen's home country (Step 2 and 3). Similar to the PEPS-PEPS scenario in Fig. 1, the citizen identifies and authenticates at the national C-PEPS in his home country (Step 4). The retrieved identity and authentication information is returned to the middleware in country B (Step 5) and further transferred to the service provider who regulates access control (Step 6).

The second STORK interoperability model combining both basic models is shown in Fig. 4. In this case, a citizen originating from a MW country (MS A) wants to access services at a service provider located in a PEPS country (MS B), cf. Step 1. Since the service provider does not support the MW model, similar to the normal PEPS-PEPS model the service provider forwards the authentication request to its corresponding national S-PEPS (Step 2). In this case, the S-PEPS has the middleware installed in its domain where the request is forwarded to (Step 3). Hence, as in the MW-MW model, the middleware directly communicates with the citizen's eID token (Step 4). The middleware installed in the PEPS domain supports all desired eID tokens and manages the MW authentication for the PEPS. Having the citizen successfully authenticated, the identification and authentication information is transmitted to the S-PEPS (Step 5) which in turn these data to the requesting service provider (Step 6). Again, the S-PEPS asserts the SP that the citizen has been successfully authenticated.

Extended Architecture

The STORK interoperability framework has been developed to enable secure crossborder identification and authentication in a European context. The main objective of STORK was to develop an interoperability framework by taking existing national eID infrastructures as a basis. The applicability of this framework for cross-border eID authentication has been demonstrated amongst six pilot applications. Details e.g. on the "e-Delivery Pilot" or on the "Safer Chat Pilot" can be found in [START_REF] Tauber | STORK: Pilot 4 Towards Cross-border Electronic Delivery[END_REF] and [START_REF] Knall | Secure and Privacy-preserving Cross-border Authentication: the STORK Pilot 'SaferChat[END_REF]. However, the main objective of STORK was to demonstrate cross-border authentication of natural persons only. Nevertheless, besides unique identification and authentication of natural persons also legal persons play a major role in e-Government or e-Business processes. Unfortunately, legal IdM in electronic processes does not define a trivial task. Across Europe, only a low number of countries have introduced or deployed a legal IdM system within their domain. Examples for such systems have been described in Section 2.

Since delegation and representation of legal persons are valid processes in traditional or paper-based applications, their electronic pendants define also important processes in e-Government or e-Business. However, most electronic representation systems are usually tailored to satisfy domestic and national requirements only. Thus similar to STORK, currently there also exists a gap of cross-border applicability of various heterogeneous legal person or representation systems. To bypass this gap, in our proposed work we took up the STORK interoperability framework to also demonstrate cross-border identification and authentication of legal persons since issues for transferring data of natural or legal persons across borders are similar. By using our proposed solution, cross-border identification and authentication becomes possible on technical level. To show the feasibility of our solution, we selected one out of the four STORK interoperability scenarios to demonstrate the cross-border transfer of legal person attributes. Therefore, we have set up the STORK infrastructure and connected it to the Austrian national mandate management system (as additional attribute provider) within a laboratory environment. For our demonstration, we took the PEPS-MW model as a basis and coupled the Middleware with this additional attribute provider responsible for national legal person identification. In our extended scenario, legal person identification is based on the name of the legal person and its register number, e.g. the company name and company number. Fig. 5 illustrates the rough and extended architecture of our set up. In this proposed scenario, a citizen originating from the middleware MS A wants to access a service provider of the PEPS MS B (Step 1). In contrast to the normal STORK scenario shown and described in Fig. 4, in this case the citizen wants to authenticate and act on behalf of a legal person, e.g. a company, at the service provider. Equally to the normal use case for natural person authentication, after accessing the service provider, the citizen is forwarded to the national S-PEPS (Step 2). However, before being redirected to the S-PEPS the citizen needs to state that she wants to be authenticated as representative for a legal person. This statement can be easily achieved by a simple check box or selection box. By selecting represented authentication, additional attributes are requested from the S-PEPS. Since the citizen originates from a country that relies on the MW approach, the authentication request (including additional requested attributes for legal person representation) is forwarded to the MW component hosted in the PEPS domain (Step 3). In a first step, identification and authentication of the citizen is required (Step 4). Again, this is achieved by direct communication between the MW component and the citizen's eID token. Because the citizen wants to act on behalf of a legal person, after successful citizen authentication a separate and additional attribute provider needs to be invoked 5 (Step 5). This attribute provider is responsible for trustworthily managing the relationship between the citizen and the represented legal person (Step 6). Moreover, this attribute provider asserts the MW that the citizen is allowed to represent the desired legal person and transmits the corresponding legal persons' name and number (e.g. company name and company's commercial register number) as evidence (Step 7). This information combined with the citizen's identification data is assembled to an authentication token by the MW to be returned to the S-PEPS (Step 8). According to the normal authentication scenario, the identification and authentication data is transferred back to the requesting service provider (Step 9). In addition to the citizen's personal identification data the service provider receives information on the legal person the citizen wants and is allowed to represent within the online service.

Fig. 5 illustrated the cross-border identification and authentication of legal persons using STORK on an abstract level. Fig. 6 digs a little bit deeper into detail and shows all components involved in this scenario using the authentication example of an Austrian citizen representing a legal person. The basic concepts of the Austrian IdM system for legal persons have been introduced in Section 2.1. This section continues and explains the integration of the Austrian legal IdM system into the STORK framework. Going back to the process flow step where the MW has successfully authenticated the citizen (representative) (Step 4 6 ), the MW starts the process to get an electronic mandate for representation. In a first step, the MW submits the representative's identification data to the SourcePIN Register acting as attribute provider (Step 5). This includes the representative's XML identification record (name, date of birth and unique national identification number) as well as the representative's signing certificate. The latter is necessary to identify professional representatives like lawyers, notaries or tax consultants representing a particular client. The Austrian IdM system for legal persons provides a particular Object Identifier (OID) in the qualified signature certificate of the citizen card to identify such kind of occupational groups.

The SourcePIN Register uses the representative's identification data to search for all available empowerment information in constitutive registers. This is achieved by querying the so-called Business Service Portal (BSP), which acts as a hub to underlying constitutive registers. Examples of constitutive registers are:

 The Company Register  The Central Register of Associations  The Supplementary Register (where e.g. public agencies are registered)

After having retrieved all available empowerment information, the representative is redirected by the MW to the web portal of the SourcePIN Register Authority where all available electronic mandates are presented for selection. The representative now can choose the legal person she wants to represent from a list (Step 6). In case of professional representatives an additional Graphical User Interface (GUI) mask is available where the empowerment data like name and register number of the legal person can be manually entered. This is legally regulated due to their affiliation to a particular occupation group.

Based on the data of the selected mandate the SourcePIN Register creates an XML representation of the mandate, electronically signs it and provides it to the MW (Step 7). The MW can now extract name and register number of the legal person from the XML mandate, create the according STORK attributes and provide them to the S-PEPS (Step 8) and subsequently the SP (Step 9).

The following figures illustrate the single steps of a cross-border authentication process when acting on behalf of a legal person. Fig. 7 illustrates the country selection page of the S-PEPS where the citizen can choose her home country. In addition, a checkbox is shown where the citizen can choose to act as a representative on behalf of a legal person. In a next step, the representative is redirected to the MW for authentication. This is shown in Fig. 8 where the representative accesses her eID by entering the signature PIN. After successful authentication, the representative is redirected to the Austrian SourcePIN register to select the legal person she wants to represent (see Fig. 9).

Conclusions and Open Issues

The present paper has discussed an interoperability framework for the cross-border identification and authentication of legal persons or professional representatives. The proposed solution bases on the findings of the large scale pilot STORK and has been successfully tested within a simulated real life scenario. Nevertheless there exist a few open issues.

Similar to the authentication of citizens, the cross-border authentication framework for legal persons deals with issues such as a missing legal framework, liability, responsibility and accountability. At the moment, there does not exist a similar framework to deal with the new change of handling electronic legal IdM in cross-border scenarios. Other open issues are the evaluation of the necessity of authentication levels for legal identities and a person to person representation, e.g. a natural person is empowered to act in the name of another natural person.

In addition we already presented our solution to the new large scale pilot STORK 2.07 , which is the follow-up project of STORK. Here, besides enhanced piloting of STORK in various areas (banking, health, etc.) STORK 2.0 will also deal with the identification and authentication of legal persons in a cross-border context.

Fig. 1 . 2 .

 12 Fig. 1. PEPS -PEPS Model Fig. 2. MW -MW Model

Fig. 3 . 4 .

 34 Fig. 3. MW -PEPS Model Fig. 4. PEPS -MW Model

Fig. 5 .

 5 Fig. 5. PEPS -MW Model including legal identity representation

Fig. 6 .

 6 Fig. 6. Cross-border authentication model of an Austrian citizen representing a legal person

Fig. 7 .

 7 Fig. 7. Country selection and commitment to act on behalf of a legal person

Fig. 8 .

 8 Fig. 8. Authentication dialog of the Middleware to access the representative's eID

Fig. 9 .

 9 Fig. 9. Selection of the legal person to represent

https://www.eid-stork.eu/

E.g. a natural person is empowered to act on behalf of another person.

http://www.digid.nl/

Identity or attribute providers are not especially illustrated in Fig.1. They are assumed to be part of the C-PEPS in this picture.

In this scenario it is assumed that no representation information is stored on the citizen's eID token.

The numbers of the individual process flow steps are equal in both figures, Fig.5and Fig.6.

http://www.eid-stork2.eu/