Leif Sundberg
email: leif.sundberg@miun.se2katarina.l.gidlund@miun.se

Katarina L Gidlund

Value-based decision making: Decision theory meets e-Government

Keywords: Public values, decision theory, decision making, e-Government

Electronic government, or e-Government, is the use of information and communication technology in the public sector. As a research field, it is characterized as multi-disciplinary with heritage from both the information systems and public administration fields. This diverse background may be beneficial, but it may also result in a fragmented theoretical base and conceptual vagueness. This paper applies decision theory to e-Government to tie a number of theoretical and practical concepts together. In particular, five concepts from decision theory (i.e. objectives, stakeholder inclusion, weighting and resource allocation, risk analysis, and outcomes assessment) are compared with counterparts in e-Government. The findings have both theoretical and practical implications. First, they add to and unite e-Government theory. Second, practical methods for operationalizing the theoretical concepts are proposed. This operationalization includes using a holistic approach to e-participation throughout decision processes.

Introduction

Electronic government, or e-Government, is the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in the public sector to create better government [START_REF] Oecd | The E-Government Imperative[END_REF]. As a research field, e-Government is studied by multiple disciplines utilizing a variety of theories and methods. Some scholars define the field as theoretically weak and assert that much of the research lacks practical implications. They also express concerns about conceptual and definitional vagueness [START_REF] Heeks | Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods and practice[END_REF][START_REF] Yildiz | E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward[END_REF]. However, others have a more optimistic view; for instance, Bannister and Connolly [START_REF] Bannister | The great theory hunt: Does e-government really have a problem?[END_REF] argue that a great deal of valuable theory exists in the e-Government field. E-Government is often mentioned in relation to a paradigm shift in which a full range of democratic and institutional values are relevant. To realize these values, government agencies are supposed to collaborate and include citizens in their processes. The citizen becomes a problem solver who is actively engaged in producing values [START_REF] Bryson | Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management[END_REF]. Dunleavy et al. [START_REF] Dunleavy | New Public Management Is Dead -Long Live Digital-Era Governance[END_REF] use the term "digital era governance" to describe these changes in government. They identify three characteristic themes: reintegration (as opposed to fragmentation), needs-based holism (i.e. reorganization to create seamless, non-stop solutions) and digitization processes (electronic service delivery).

Nonetheless, the outcomes of the above-described change have many uncertainties and alternate possibilities. For instance, Budzier and Flyvbjerg [START_REF] Budzier | Overspend? Late? Failure? What the data say about IT project risk in the public sector[END_REF] have examined highrisk e-Government projects, which they refer to as "black swans." As a counter-measure against black swans, they suggest establishing efficient decision making to enable the early detection of anomalies. Pardo and Burke [START_REF] Pardo | Government Worth Having: A Briefing on Interoperability for Government Leaders[END_REF] argue that unstructured and nontransparent decision processes hinder the realization of public values and citizen trust. A longitudinal field study of the private sector reveals that managers who apply a high degree of procedural rationality in strategic decision making generally take better decisions [START_REF] Dean | Does Decision Process Matter? A Study of Strategic Decision-Making Effectiveness[END_REF]; unfortunately, few such studies have been conducted in relation to the public sector. Andersson et al. [START_REF] Andersson | You can't make this a science! Analyzing decision support systems in political contexts[END_REF] investigate the challenges of implementing decision support systems (DSS) in a political context and conclude that a number of issues affect the outcomes, including a lack of impact on final decisions: the attitude among some of the decision makers in the study was that the political decision process could not be reduced to science, which meant they did not consider the DSS results when taking their final decisions.

Against this backdrop, the purpose of this paper is to apply decision theory to e-Government. The aim of doing so is to contribute to the theoretical base of the e-Government field and to tie several research issues within this field together by merging them with concepts in decision theory. The results should also offer practical benefits, by inspiring public managers to adapt more holistic and structured decision making.

This paper proceeds as follow. The method used is described in section 2. Section 3 then presents a literature study, which is the main part of this paper. The results are then summarized in section 4, which also contains suggestions for further research.

Method

The underlying method used in this paper is concept analysis, as visualized in Figure 1. Concept analysis can be described as clarifying and describing the characteristics and relations that concepts have within a system.

Figure 1.

Concept analysis [START_REF] Nuopponen | Methods of concept analysis -Towards systematic concept analysis. LSP (Language for special purposes, professional communication, knowledge management and cognition[END_REF] Concept analysis is applied as follows in the current study. The goal (1.1 in the figure) is stated in the above introduction and the domains (1.2 in the figure) are the research fields of decision theory and e-Government. The premise is that the domains have concepts (1.3 in the figure) that overlap or are close. Decision theory can be used to gather the fragmented concepts from e-Government into one system. Concept analysis has been operationalized by identifying five concepts that represent a structured decision-making procedure, namely:  Objectives  Stakeholder inclusion  Weighting and resource allocation  Risk analysis  Outcomes assessment These concepts are described using decision theory literature and then compared with their counterparts from the e-Government literature.

Applying Decision Theory to e-Government

This section starts with a general description of decision theory, which is followed by an introduction to the concepts explored in the study (namely objectives, stakeholder inclusion, weighting and resource allocation, risk analysis, and outcomes assessment). In addition, each concept is matched to an e-Government counterpart. Where applicable, a practical method for operationalizing it is also suggested.

Overview of decision theory

Humans make a number of decisions every day. The science of decision theory aims to understand the reasoning behind an agent's choices as well as to improve decision making. Descriptive decision theory is concerned with how people actually make decisions, whereas prescriptive decision theory is devoted to providing assistance that improves decision making [START_REF] Keeney | On the foundations of prescriptive decision analysis[END_REF]. The underlying goal of the decision analysis field is to contribute to rational decision making, and thus to increase the likelihood of fulfilling the decision maker's objectives and acting in accordance with his or her desires and values. However, no clear definition of rationality exists and a successful decision might not always be based on rational grounds.

In situations with high uncertainty, it might be nearly impossible for a decision maker to know which path to choose [START_REF] Eisenführ | Rational Decision Making[END_REF]. To reduce uncertainty in decision making and thereby improve outcomes, decision theory provides several structured proceedings to aid decision makers. However, decision problems are often complex and not ideally framed and humans are driven by a broad spectrum of values; as such, what is rational is also contested (see e.g. [START_REF] Webler | The Rational Actor Paradigm in Risk Theories: Analysis and Critique[END_REF]).

Objectives

Every decision-making situation is dependent on a set of context-specific objectives [START_REF] Eisenführ | Rational Decision Making[END_REF]. According to Keeney [START_REF] Keeney | Value Focused Thinking: a Path to Creative Decisionmaking[END_REF], values are fundamental to everything we do and should be the primary driving force for decision making. By adopting a decision-making method known as value-focused thinking (VFT), better alternatives and decision situations can be generated by focusing on values: Some values are more important than others in a particular context, and they should serve as the foundation for all decision making. Values and objectives can conflict, but they can also be constructed in hierarchies of and ends. According to VFT, end values can be identified by asking "Why is this objective important?" If the objective is important because if promotes another objective, it is a means objective; if it is important for its own sake, it is an end objective that should guide all decisions. In the public sector, a specific classification range of public values is frequently mentioned [START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF]. Bannister and Connolly [START_REF] Bannister | ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research[END_REF] define public values as a mode of behavior that is held to be right. According to Bozeman [START_REF] Bozeman | Public Values Theory: Three Big Questions[END_REF], public values can be described as a normative consensus about rights, obligations and principles between citizens and the government. Values in e-Government can be classified in different ways depending on their properties in relation both to each other and to governmental paradigms [START_REF] Rose | Competing Value Paradigms of e-Government Managers: the Efficiency Imperative[END_REF][START_REF] Jørgensen | Public Values: An Inventory[END_REF].

Stakeholder inclusion

Values are subjective by nature, which means they can be ascribed to individuals or groups. To incorporate public value thinking into decision-making practices, public managers need to rigorously identify stakeholders [START_REF] Cook | Using Public Value Thinking for Government IT Planning and Decision Making[END_REF]. Involving important stakeholders throughout a decision process enables both a better decision-making situation and the construction of additional alternatives [START_REF] Keeney | Value Focused Thinking: a Path to Creative Decisionmaking[END_REF]. Zhu and Kindarto [START_REF] Zhu | A garbage can model of government IT project failures in developing countries: The effects of leadership, decision structure and team competence[END_REF] observe that participative decision structures are associated with IT project success in developing countries while more hierarchical structures hurt performance. The link between stakeholders and success is especially important in the public sector, since a system's user group may be both extensive and varying. A large stream in the e-Government literature is devoted to issues concerning e-participation and citizen empowerment. While participative governance is often treated as a success factor, concerns about how to extract a representative number of values from a limited pool of stakeholders also exist [START_REF] Gidlund | Designing for All and No one -Practitioners Understandings of Citizen Driven Development of Public e-Services[END_REF].

Weighting and resource allocation

Strategic decision making includes allocating limited resources in a way that achieves objectives [START_REF] Kleinmuntz | Resource allocation decisions[END_REF][START_REF] Phillips | Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing[END_REF]. Fiscal funds are a democratic government's basic resource. As Moore [START_REF] Moore | Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government[END_REF] points out, public managers cannot produce desirable results without utilizing limited resources that have value for multiple uses. When conflicting objectives exist, they must be properly weighted as part of resource allocation and activity planning. Tools such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) can be used to quantify independent criteria in order to associate them with different weights. Riabacke et al. [START_REF] Riabacke | Eparticipation Galore? -Extending Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to the Public[END_REF] suggest utilizing MCDA to improve decision quality in large-scale participatory processes.

In the e-Government context, the difficulty becomes prioritizing a broad range of public values; some services might target most of a country's population. As Bannister and Connolly [START_REF] Bannister | ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research[END_REF] point out, implementing ICT:s is not value free but requires decisions aboutand sometimes trade-offs betweenvalues. Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Competing Value Paradigms of e-Government Managers: the Efficiency Imperative[END_REF] describe how public managers in a case study tended to prioritize administrative efficiency values while neglecting citizen engagement values. The findings of these studies illustrate that rationality is thus both contested and context-dependent. However, some researchers are attempting to identifying ways to make value prioritization more inclusive; for instance Robbins et al. [START_REF] Robbins | Citizens and Resource Allocation: Improving Decision Making with Interactive Web-Based Citizen Participation[END_REF] introduce resource allocation to eParticipation by using a web-based survey tool that enables respondents to take the fiscal impacts of their choices into consideration.

Risk analysis

The definition of risk varies to some extent [START_REF] Hansson | The Epistemology of Technological Risk[END_REF], with the common denominators being a) uncertainty concerning future events and b) the potential loss of something of value to humans. Epistemologically, risk is often divided into two categories: objective and subjective. Objective risk is based on statistics and earlier experiences, from which the probability that events will occur in the future can be extracted. Aven and Renn [START_REF] Aven | On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain[END_REF] argue that uncertainties are not objective parts of the world, but rather human constructs that an individual needs to assess. Subjective risk is dependent on personal beliefs. In the heart of subjectivist theory lies Bayes' theorem, which tells us that we can largely create any probability statement based on current information. New information makes it possible to revise earlier statements. Bayesian risk analysis has been adapted to e-Government in a handful of cases [START_REF] Vrček | Methodology for Risk Assessment and Costs Associated with Risk Occurrence in E-Government Projects[END_REF][START_REF] Xia | Research of E-Government Security Risk Assessment Method Using Bayesian Network[END_REF]. The word "risk" came to the English language in the 1660s through a French adoption of the Italian word "riscare," which means to navigate among dangerous rocks (as mentioned by Rosa [START_REF] Rosa | Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk[END_REF]). An early paper on risk in relation to e-Government (with the suitable title of "Walking atop the cliffs") states that the causes of failures in this context are intertwined with technical, social and behavioral factors [START_REF] Pardo | Walking atop the cliffs: avoiding failure and reducing risk in large scale e-government projects[END_REF]. Røberg et al. [START_REF] Røberg | Unveiling Barriers and Enablers of Risk Management in Interoperability Efforts[END_REF] mention that research on risk and risk management in relation to e-Government is sparse. However, "challenges," "barriers" and similar terms are used as opposites to success factors in both information systems and e-Government literature. Sundberg [START_REF] Sundberg | Risk and decision in collaborative e-Government: an objectives-oriented approach[END_REF] suggests defining risk in e-Government as potential threats to public values.

Outcomes assessment

The final concept is a highly debated topic in the information systems literature: How do we assess the outcomes of implementing technology in a specific context? The main challenge is putting hard numbers on soft values. Traditional assessment methods such as cost-benefit analysis might fail to reflect the true costs and benefits of e-Government [START_REF] Heeks | Implementing and Managing EGovernment: An International Text[END_REF]. As such, frameworks that consider dimensions beyond monetary/efficiency values are needed [START_REF] Chircu | E-government evaluation: towards a multidimensional framework[END_REF][START_REF] Luna-Reyes | Towards a multidimensional model for evaluating electronic government: Proposing a more comprehensive and integrative perspective[END_REF]. Scott et al. [START_REF] Scott | Measuring eGovernment success: a public value approach[END_REF] suggest applying public value theory in order to evaluate e-Government success. Their approach consists of considering three categories of net benefits that comprise several public values, namely efficiency (cost, time, communication), effectiveness (avoid personal interaction, control, convenience, personalization, ease of information retrieval) and improved democracy (trust, well-informedness and participation in decision making).

Conclusions and future research

This paper has compared five concepts of decision theory to their theoretical counterparts in e-Government. The results reveal that a number of theoretical concepts of e-Government fit well within decision theory, as shown in Table 1 where each concept is also accompanied by an example of a practical method. Stakeholder inclusion and eParticipation are placed on the sides of the table since they are frequently mentioned as success factors in the concepts, with the exception of risk analysis. Risk in e-Government still lacks clear conceptualization, even though implementing ICTs in the public sector is often seen as high-risk initiatives. This paper suggests using a risk analysis method that is based on subjective Bayesian probabilities which could enable future research to base risk assessment on participatory processes (through stakeholder-based probabilities).

The practical output of this paper is a holistic approach to (e-)participation in which different methods are used to include stakeholders throughout the decision process and participation is actually assessed as an outcome. The authors believe that this approach would benefit public managers by helping them to navigate an uncertain reality. Decision theory is not suggested as a universal solution to complex problems such as participative government and outcomes assessment; however, it does both improve structuring and help to fit these problems into a holistic theoretical and practical context. At the same time, decision theory could benefit from the e-Government field by addressing the challenges of a complex socio-technical field in which rationality is contested through paradigms, politics and organizational and stakeholder diversity.

This paper is based on a small sample of studies from two diverse research fields. Future research could add more to the topic by taking a more systematic approach to the literature, as well as by considering cases in which practical methods have been successfully applied.

Table 1 .

 1 Concept system: Decision theory meets e-Government

	Decision theory	e-Government	Examples of
	concept	concept	methods
	Objectives	Public values	Value-focused
			thinking
	Weighting and re-	Prioritizing between values	Multi-criteria de-
	source allocation	and allocating public funds	cision analysis;
			web-based sur-
	Stakeholder inclusion		veys (with fiscal implications)	eParticipation
	Risk	Barriers and challenges that	Bayesian risk
		prevent value realization	analysis
	Quantitative outcomes	Multi-dimensional evalua-	Public value net
	assessment	tion	benefits


Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

Georgia on my mind: a study of the role of governance and cooperation in online service delivery in the Caucasus

Keywords: eGovernance, eGovernment, eService, use, inter-governmental corporation, analysis, Georgia

Georgia's achievements in public sector modernisation have been lauded, since 2004, for their ability to increase transparency, fight corruption, ease the way of doing business and improve public service delivery to citizens. Information Communication Technology (ICT) played an important role as an enabler of public sector reform. Despite this, research into the Georgian model of governance and inter-governmental cooperation is extremely limited. Similarly, literature reviews have, in recent years, pointed out limitations in the understanding of technology use in public service delivery and, particularly, the role governance, cross-governmental decision making, and cooperation play when introducing ICT solutions and online services to citizens. As part of a larger qualitative, multi-country comparison, this article analyses the Georgian approach to electronic governance (eGovernance). The analysis highlights the influence of politically motivated and driven public sector reforms underpinned by ICT use for better service delivery, transparency and a fight against corruption in the period 2004-2012. Despite early success in relation to ICT infrastructure, standards and roll-out to key enablers, the article finds that the electronic government (eGovernment) eco-system is fragmented and that the use of public and private online service (eService) is limited, despite high internet penetration and usage. The key barrier found is the lack of an effective governance and inter-governmental cooperation model to improve cooperation between government actors (e.g. data collection, quality and reuse, shared infrastructure, systems and service), build on existing infrastructure and enablers to optimize the value-added of earlier investments -particularly in relation to electronic identity management (eID), digital signatures (eSignature) and eServices. Georgia would benefit from a more formalized approach to ICT related programmes and projects by considering an IT-implementation model to effectively manage risk, improve benefit realization and link individual key performance measurements (KPI) to those of the eGovernment strategy and action plan..

Introduction

Googling Georgia two things are guaranteed: first, confusion between the European Republic of Georgia or the southern US state of Georgia, and second, the post-Rose Revolution wave of successful public sector improving transparency, fighting corruption and providing a more effective service delivery. The question remains: what has allowed a small, low income country in the Caucasus region to seemingly succeed where others have not and is the answer to the apparent success found in the governance model and level of inter-governmental corporation?

Multiple research disciplines have analysed the public sectors IT and technology use. Academics in public administration (PA) [START_REF] Bannister | Transformation and Public Sector Values[END_REF][START_REF] Brown | Alignment of the IS functions with the enterprise: toward a model of antecedents[END_REF][START_REF] Brown | Framing the frameworks: A review of IT governance research[END_REF][START_REF] Cordella | A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection[END_REF][START_REF] Heeks | Implementing and managing eGovernment: an international text[END_REF][START_REF] Pollitt | Public Management Reform: A comparative analysis-new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state[END_REF], information systems (IS) management [START_REF] Brown | Alignment of the IS functions with the enterprise: toward a model of antecedents[END_REF][START_REF] Brown | Framing the frameworks: A review of IT governance research[END_REF][START_REF] Klischewski | Information quality as capstone in negotiating egovernment integration, interoperation and information sharing[END_REF][START_REF] Iribarren | Capability maturity framework for eGovernment: A multi-dimensional model and assessing tool[END_REF][START_REF] Ross | Enterprise architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for business execution[END_REF][START_REF] Poeppelbuss | Maturity models in information systems research: literature search and analysis[END_REF], or electronic government and governance (eGovernment and eGovernance) [START_REF] Heeks | Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice[END_REF][START_REF] Huijboom | Public Services 2.0: the impact of social computing on public services[END_REF][START_REF] Traunmüller | E-government at a decisive moment: sketching a roadmap to excellence[END_REF][START_REF] Millard | European eGovernment 2005-2007: Taking stock of good practice and progress towards implementation of the i[END_REF][START_REF] Leitner | eGovernment in Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Bannister | Dismantling the silos: extracting new value from IT investments in public administration[END_REF], have all highlight the failures of the public sector to apply Information Communication Technology (ICT) with real success. Often cited mistakes include blindly digitising current processes [START_REF] Traunmüller | E-government at a decisive moment: sketching a roadmap to excellence[END_REF][START_REF] Bannister | Dismantling the silos: extracting new value from IT investments in public administration[END_REF][START_REF] De Bri | Whole-of-government: The continuing problem of eliminating silos[END_REF] and focusing on technology and supply [START_REF] Janssen | Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government[END_REF][START_REF] Lips | E-government is dead: Long live public administration 2.0[END_REF][START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | Supply and use of citizen eServices: An analysis of selected national experiences in relation to existing governance and cooperation models[END_REF] rather than value-adding outcome and impact of IT and technology [START_REF] Cordella | A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection[END_REF][START_REF] Bannister | The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of egovernment comparisons[END_REF][START_REF] Andersen | E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model[END_REF] -not only in relation to ICT use in public administration but in particular when it comes to the provision of online services (eService) for citizens [START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | Supply and use of citizen eServices: An analysis of selected national experiences in relation to existing governance and cooperation models[END_REF][START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | The Role of Governance, Cooperation, and eService Use in Current eGovernment Stage Models[END_REF].

To address multiple models for assessment have been proposed. The so-called stage and maturity models have been a key tool of academics, consultants and international organisations in assessing the relatively success of eGovernment across countries since the 1990s. A major flaw of the models is non-the-less their focus on supply, technology and organisational issues but with a rather limited understanding of public service delivery, especially if enabled by ICT [START_REF] Iribarren | Capability maturity framework for eGovernment: A multi-dimensional model and assessing tool[END_REF][START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | Supply and use of citizen eServices: An analysis of selected national experiences in relation to existing governance and cooperation models[END_REF][START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | The Role of Governance, Cooperation, and eService Use in Current eGovernment Stage Models[END_REF][START_REF] Pöppelbuß | What makes a useful maturity model? a framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management[END_REF]. In addition, multiple authors -including the 2016 review of maturity models, public sector reform, IT governance, eGovernment literature by Meyerhoff Nielsen [START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | The Role of Governance, Cooperation, and eService Use in Current eGovernment Stage Models[END_REF] -finds that current research does not adequately addresses the role of governance and cooperation in ensuring the successful supply and use of online eService's. In fact, front-office service provision and back-office integration are mixed-up in the majority of maturity models. For example, one-stop shop portals do not constitute a form of transaction, but are rather an indicator of the degree with which authorities cooperate and integration in the production and provision of services via a joint portal [START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | Supply and use of citizen eServices: An analysis of selected national experiences in relation to existing governance and cooperation models[END_REF][START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | The Role of Governance, Cooperation, and eService Use in Current eGovernment Stage Models[END_REF]. While Heeks tries to address this by proposing a two-dimensional matrix model distinguishing between the front-and the back-office [START_REF] Heeks | A better eGovernment maturity model[END_REF], the proposed model does not account for eGovernance or take-up [START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | Governance failure in light of Government 3.0: Foundations for building next generation eGovernment maturity models[END_REF].

Similarly, none of the analysed maturity models addresses governance directly [START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | The Role of Governance, Cooperation, and eService Use in Current eGovernment Stage Models[END_REF][START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | Governance failure in light of Government 3.0: Foundations for building next generation eGovernment maturity models[END_REF]. Davison [27], Iribarren et. al. [START_REF] Iribarren | Capability maturity framework for eGovernment: A multi-dimensional model and assessing tool[END_REF], Janowski [START_REF] Janowski | Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization[END_REF], Kalambokis et. al. [START_REF] Kalampokis | Open government data: a stage model[END_REF], Shareef et. al. [START_REF] Shareef | e-Government Adoption Model (GAM): Differing service maturity levels[END_REF] and Waseda [31] models highlight management and coordination issues, such as the existence of chief information officers (CIO). Cooperation, on the other hand, is indirectly addressed in most models. This is expressed in terms of vertical and horizontal integration, the sharing of information and data between public authorities (even the private and third sector), and the existence of one-stop shops [START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | Governance failure in light of Government 3.0: Foundations for building next generation eGovernment maturity models[END_REF][START_REF] Lee | An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement[END_REF][START_REF] Chen | A Three-Dimensional Model for E-Government Development with Cases in China's Regional E-Government Practice and Experience[END_REF], but again there is limited focus on the role of governance in proposing a national vision and strategy, let alone in ensuring the required cooperation between actors or ensuring the realization of the envisioned effects.

To investigate the role of governance and inter-governmental cooperation in the successful supply and citizen use of eService's, this article analyses the Georgian use of ICT in public administration and eGovernment. The aim is two-fold: to identify the Georgian features and lessons learned in relation to the role of eGovernance and inter-governmental cooperation and to add the Georgian lessons to a future crosscountry comparison.

To address the stated aim, this article starts by outlining the methodology used (section 2). The Georgian experience is presented using the conceptual framework, including background indictors and preconditions (section 3), before the national approach to governance, cooperation model and eGovernment is outlined (section 4) . Key enablers and services supplied and their use (section 5) is presented before observations and conclusions are presented (section 6).

Methods

As part of a larger study address the research gaps in relation to eGovernment governance and cross-governmental cooperation identified by Meyerhoff Nielsen [START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | The Role of Governance, Cooperation, and eService Use in Current eGovernment Stage Models[END_REF], a classical exploratory, qualitative, case study methodology framework [START_REF] Benbasat | The case research strategy in studies of information systems[END_REF][START_REF] Rohlfing | Case Studies and Causal Inference: an integrative framework[END_REF][START_REF] Yin | Case study research: Design and methods[END_REF] is applied to enable a with-in case analysis. An adapted version of Krimmer's context, content, process model (CCP model) [START_REF] Janowski | Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization[END_REF] as used by Meyerhoff Nielsen for the Estonian [START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | eGovernance and Online Service Delivery in Estonia[END_REF], Faroese [START_REF] Nielsen | Digitising a small island state: A lesson in Faroese[END_REF] and Danish cases [START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | Governance and Online Service Delivery: The Danish Case[END_REF], a Danish-Japanese [START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | eGovernment and Governance: The Danish-Japanese timelines and models compared[END_REF] plus a Estonian-Georgian comparison [START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | Citizen use of government eServices: Comparing use, governance and cooperation models in Estonia and Georgia[END_REF] is chosen to allow for future cross-country comparison. The conceptual model consists of four macro-dimensions: Background indictors; national governance and cooperation model; national approach to eGovernment; and effect measurements and preconditions. Each dimension explains a key area that influences processes, choices and outcomes in relation to eService supply and take-up. Using the framework for the with-in case analysis to identify the governance mechanisms in play will allow the author to make a cross-case comparison to determine the correlation (i.e., the more of Y, the more X) between a strong cooperative governance model (cause) and the introduction of online services (effect 1) and subsequent citizen use of the online service delivery channel (effect 2).

Using the framework, this article identifies Georgia's respective strengths and weaknesses in relation to the country's respective governance models and eGovernment experiences since 1991, but with a particular focus on the period since 2010. Georgia has been chosen for two main reasons: it is a rarely studied but potentially interesting case representing a small, low income, centralised country [START_REF] Benbasat | The case research strategy in studies of information systems[END_REF][START_REF] Yin | Case study research: Design and methods[END_REF][START_REF] Collier | Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research[END_REF]. This allows the author to later compare Georgia to a high-income centralised microstate like the Faroe Islands, a medium-income and centralized country of similar size like Estonia, a more populated, high-income, decentralised country like Denmark and a large, highly decentralized, high-income country such as Japan. Georgia, similarly, offers a chance to look at the role of governance and intergovernmental cooperation in a different socio-economic context and helps the author isolate the role they play in the supply and take-up of citizen online services.

Primary sources used include relevant academic literature, relevant policy documents, national and international statistical sources e.g. International Telecommunications Union (ITU) [43] and UNDESA's eGovernment Readiness Index [START_REF]Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis[END_REF][START_REF]E-Government for the people[END_REF][START_REF]E-Government for the future we want[END_REF]. The written sources are complimented with a small number of interviews carried out in May 2015 and February 2017.

Results

As a result of history and culture, countries operate in different contexts and offer different perspectives and experience when it comes to eGovernment and online service provision for citizens. Similarly, population size, income levels, administrative systems, and complexity vary. It is therefore important to put things in context.

Socio-economic background

Georgia is, in socio-economic terms, a small but relatively populated country. Georgia is a small economy with a large trade deficit, but good GDP growth following a period of stagnation from 2008 until about 2014. The country is considered a nation state but with strong regional identities. The country, despite immigration, experiences population growth due to increased birth-rates [47,[START_REF]Key indicators[END_REF]. For details see key statistics in Table 1.

Internet access and use

For online service delivery to succeed, internet access and a minimum level of digital literacy and competences are essential pre-conditions. As an indicator of digital literacy levels individuals actual use of the internet, online banking and shopping sites are used (eBanking and eCommerce respectively). To put Georgia in context, Table 2 includes the average for the EUs 28 member states. While data is available from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), other and more recent and seemingly reliable (see discussion by Meyerhoff Nielsen [START_REF] Nielsen | E-governance and stage models: analysis of identified models and selected Eurasian experiences in digitising citizen service delivery[END_REF]) data is available from other sources. Generally, the ITU data shows a more bleak picture of internet access and use in Georgia compared to e.g. the US Aid financed survey of 1,500 Georgians in 2016. While both sources show growth in household internet access, it is particularly impressive the fact that 90% of households in a low-income country like Georgia choose to pay for internet access. Combined with the high level of actual internet use, this confirms that the pre-conditions for introduction online government services and citizens actual use of them exist in Georgia.

eGovernment and governance

Georgia has, since the November 2003 Rose Revolution, actively pursued public sector reform. In particular, the period of 2004 to 2014 saw a massive change. Political initiative and a willingness to transform the public sector had wide spread public support and has created a solid ICT and legal foundation. The strategic focus was on transparency, accountability, efficient and effective public service delivery [START_REF]Interview 1 -Key staff at DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Governance and online service delivery and use in Georgia[END_REF][55][56].

The role of ICT in underpinning the strategic objectives is therefore helpful for understanding the Georgian context and eGovernment outcomes.

Strategic focus since 1991

The Georgian eGovernment focus can be divided in two main periods: fragmented and uncoordinated use of ICT in the period 2004-2014, followed by attempts to introduce a more formalized approach and coordinated approach from 2014, as outlined in Table 3.

Table 3. eGovernment in Georgia, 2004-2018 [START_REF]Interview 1 -Key staff at DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Governance and online service delivery and use in Georgia[END_REF][55][56][START_REF] Krabina | A Digital Georgia: e-Georgia strategy and action plan 2014-2018[END_REF] 2004-2014 ICT use in the public section While no national eGovernment strategy or action plan in the period was active, individual initiatives in line ministries were implemented. As part of a general drive for public sector reform, increased access to public services, transparency and an anti-corruption drive, ICT use was initially focused on the creation of basic information systems, digitalizing internal information resources, automating information flows, creating data centres, and connecting national authorities with their regional offices.

2014-2018 Digital Georgia -eGovernment strategy and action plan

The first formal eGovernment strategy and action plan was approved in 2014 with the aim of making Georgia's public sector more efficient and effective, offering integrated, secure, and high quality eServices, improve usage and participation, and enabling ICT-driven sustainable economic growth. Strategy focuses on 11 thematic directions (i.e. eService's, eParticipation and Open Government, eHealth, Public Finance Management System, eBusiness, making Georgia a regional ICT-Hub Georgia, infrastructure, cyber security; skills development and e Inclusion) grouped into service areas, future excellence, ICT enablers as well as horizontal measures such as enabling frameworks, governance and awareness. The strategy has success criteria and is underpinned by an action plan with associated KPIs. The eGeorgia strategy is part of the Public Administration Reform Roadmap 2020 [58], which is an "umbrella" framework also including the Open Government Partnership, Anticorruption, Public Finance Management System Reform, Regional Development, Civil Service Reform and eGovernment directions and action plans.

While the first decade of eGovernment and ICT use was uncoordinated and without a comprehensive "whole-of-government" vision, the use of ICT in the political drive for the transformation of the public administration have reflected similar patterns seen in Europe, the former Soviet Union and beyond (albeit at different pace), that is: infrastructure roll-out, backend systems, launch of key enablers like eID and core registers, increased access to public sector services, digital literacy and, subsequently on governance structures, standards , eService supply and use [40, 44-46, 53, 57, 59-62].

The introduction of the first actual eGovernment strategy and action plan has to date born little fruit. Despite extensive consultation of government stakeholders in 2012-2013, political approval and subsequent incorporation into the Public Administration Reform Roadmap 2020, funding has been limited and delayed [54-56, 63, 64]. A mid-term review consisting of three-days of stakeholder workshops facilitated by a team of international experts aimed to re-ignite the strategy and action plan. The result is a prioritisation of a number of building blocks in 2017-2018, in particular the reinforcement of effective enabling frameworks, such as the governance structure, enforcing eID management, increase back-office digitisation and the provision of more user-friendly eServices and ensure their actual use [START_REF]Interview 1 -Key staff at DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Governance and online service delivery and use in Georgia[END_REF][START_REF] Krabina | A Digital Georgia: e-Georgia strategy and action plan 2014-2018[END_REF][START_REF] Gvenetadze | Georgia's Successful Journey to E-Government[END_REF][START_REF] Millard | Update on e-Georgia Strategy 2014-2018: Implementation and Prioritization roadmap 2017-2018[END_REF][START_REF] Turashvili | Georgia in UN E-Government Survey -Results and Recommendations[END_REF].

Governance model and institutional framework

Georgia is in many ways a small and highly centralized country. The central government institutions are few and provide most public services for citizens. Nine regions exist but have limited public service responsibility. Of the 74 municipalities, only the four main urban centres Batumi, Kutaisi, Telavi and the capital, Tbilisi, have the financial and human resources to provide citizen orientated services in larger numbers. The government and public authorities are actively trying to change this through the Public Service Hall and Community Center concepts -providing back-end systems, access to relevant registers and skills development [START_REF]Interview 1 -Key staff at DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Governance and online service delivery and use in Georgia[END_REF][START_REF] Krabina | A Digital Georgia: e-Georgia strategy and action plan 2014-2018[END_REF][START_REF] Gvenetadze | Georgia's Successful Journey to E-Government[END_REF][START_REF]Community Centre[END_REF][START_REF] %&% | [END_REF]. Table 4 summarizes the general approach to public service delivery in Georgia. Like governance in general, Georgia's approach to ICT reflects the country's context, experience and public sector capacities, including decision making processes, the degree of cooperation between authorities and different levels of government, the private sector, civil society, and the research community.

Politically, Georgia has seen three distinct political periods since gaining independence in the wake of the Soviet Union collapse. From 1991 to 2003 the newly independent Georgia was dominated by the former elite, economic contraction and social upheaval, the Rose-Revolution 2003 against rampant corruption and inefficiency lead to a center-right reformist government lead by United National Movement (UNM), economic growth and a professionalization of the public administration. In the aftermath of the 2008 war, economic stagnation and increased dissatisfaction with the UNM government led the newly formed Georgian Dream party to win the 2012 Parliament elections and the 2013 Presidential elections. Since 2012, the economy has been slow to recover and at time showed a fragmented political focus. The post-2012 result has been a relatively small and professional public sector, but also resulted in deterioration of Georgia's positions government and eParticipation international rankings [44-46, 60, 72].

Historically, policies, strategies, action plans and institutionalized processes have often been fragmented or lacking. Focus has been on implementation of overall policy objectives rather than on formal processes, coherence of the overall ICT framework for the public sector or system documentations [START_REF]Interview 1 -Key staff at DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Governance and online service delivery and use in Georgia[END_REF][START_REF] Gvenetadze | Georgian e-Government Model in the Reform of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF]#3#7#$ 1%+0+'/#$ $#$30'#$ ,09),'#$ $,%30+#%[END_REF]. Georgian successes has initially been based on the political vision and willingness to reform the public sector, scrap old processes and legislation in favour of ICT systems, a more professional civil service -even firing 60,000 police officers to achieve the political vision of more efficient, effective, transparent and accountable government and service delivery [58,[START_REF]Administration of Government, Social-economic Development Strategy of Georgia: GEORGIA 2020[END_REF].

In relation to the eGovernance model, Georgia initially did not have a formalised structure focusing on ICT use in the public sector. The first attempt to formalise the institutional framework for eGovernment and ICT related intergovernmental cooperation emerged in 2007. The CIO Council was established and chaired by Prime Minister, the deputy chair was the MoJ and secretarial support by DEA -the mandated and regulatory authority for eGovernment. All relevant line-ministries and ICT related agencies were members of the CIO Council, as were key national ICT experts (incl. from the private sector and NGOs -and interestingly also from of US Aid). The CIO Council was responsible for the strategic direction and horizontal coordination, initiation and approving the eGovernment strategy, budgetary support, allocation of interagency support if required. The aim was to ensured cooperation and collaboration among key stakeholders. The MoJ constituted the mandated authority for eGovernment issues, with the actual implementation delegated to DEA. Authorities were gen-erally responsible for ICT initiatives for their respective areas and service portfolios [START_REF]Interview 1 -Key staff at DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Governance and online service delivery and use in Georgia[END_REF]55,[START_REF] Krabina | A Digital Georgia: e-Georgia strategy and action plan 2014-2018[END_REF].

To increase the efficiency of inter-governmental cooperation in relation to ICT, CIO Council was replaced in 2014 with an eGovernment Unit based in the cabinet office [75]. In practice the change was never effectuated as the Unit had either limited or no staff. The subsequent vacuum has in effect allowed authorities to peruse their own agendas, set their own priorities and hampered the effective coordination of ICT in Georgia. This lack of inter-governmental coordination is a real barrier for enforcement of national standards for e.g. interoperability (IOP), reuse of data, usability requirements in eService's etc. It has also lead to lack of transparency of ICT project plans, objectives, budgets and activities. Ineffective, overlapping and redundant ICT investments is the result of the weakened governance model, as is unclear mandates, responsibilities and general lack of knowledge sharing and low exploitation of available skills [START_REF]Interview 1 -Key staff at DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Governance and online service delivery and use in Georgia[END_REF][START_REF] Millard | Update on e-Georgia Strategy 2014-2018: Implementation and Prioritization roadmap 2017-2018[END_REF].

As a result, the 2016 mid-term of the 201-2018 eGovernment strategy have recommended a new governance structure which is summarised in Table 5.

Table 5. eGovernment governance and cooperation actors and responsibilities [START_REF]Interview 1 -Key staff at DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Governance and online service delivery and use in Georgia[END_REF][START_REF] Millard | Update on e-Georgia Strategy 2014-2018: Implementation and Prioritization roadmap 2017-2018[END_REF]75,[START_REF]On the Creation of the Legal Entity of Public Law (LEPL) -Data Exchange Agency[END_REF].

Responsible authority for eGovernment strategy

The eGovernment Development Unit (eGDU) within the Department of Political Analysis (DPA) of the Administration of Government (i.e. the cabinet office) is responsible for strategic planning, planning, horizontal and vertical coordination eGovernment. When drafting strategies, stakeholders are consulted through both informal meetings, public hearings and debates. Georgia tends to use international experts or international organizations (e.g. EU, OECD, UN) for expert opinions on the draft strategy documents. On both strategic and operational levels, the Legal Entity of Public Law in the MoJs DEA is a key supporting authority for the cabinet office and leads and organizes the strategy drafting and consultative process. In practice, the DEA is the liaison body for public and private organization, collects input, organizes stakeholder meetings, workshops with external partners (including international organizations and foreign experts), draft position papers and preparing briefs.

Responsible authority for action plan

On the strategic and operational levels, the DEA is responsible for the oversight, coordination and monitoring of all eGovernment initiatives in the national action plan. The DEA provides the status updates and associated recommendations to the eGDU and the cabinet office, while the cabinet office has the final say in any decisions, including in cases of diverting opinions, disagreements or a lack of compliance with the eGovernment strategy and action plan objectives. The DEA is supported by thematic work groups of line ministries and stakeholder forums. The thematic work groups are formed to coordinate individual action plan initiatives and meet almost monthly.

Responsible authority for initiating and coordinating new eGovernment strategies and action plans

The DEA is responsible and mandated to initiate and coordinate eGovernment strategies and action plans with active involvement of all stakeholders. The DEA is guided by the cabinet office and eGDU vision and input from relevant authorities.

Chairperson organization

The Prime Minister chairs both the cabinet and the eGDU.

Hosting organization and secretariat

eGDU is part of the cabinet office but supported by the mandated MoJ and the specialized agency DEA.

Member organizations

Members of the eGDU are the DPA (housing the eGDU), DEA, ministry and agency CIOs, different eGovernment Legal Entities of Public Law, the National Regulatory Authority, the Georgian IT Innovation Center, NGOs and other civil society watchdogs like Transparency International and sometimes donor organizations (US AID, UNDP, EU, etc.).

National governance and cooperation model

The national coordination and collaboration mechanism is not fully implemented and therefore not reinforced. Many aspects of eGDU and DEA are currently duplicated. Process of eGovernment strategy and action plan development and approval (from idea to approval by government)

Centralized, initiated and coordinated by the DEA, but hybrid as MoJ/DEA is responsible to the cabinet office and DPA which provides the vision and strategic direction, and to which issues can also be escalated. eGovernment strategies are initiated and drafted by the DEA, based on the direction given by the DPA, and in consultation with relevant stakeholders. Prior to finalization, the DPA ensures that strategy, action plan and their success criteria and KPIs reflects a "whole-ofgovernment" approach, that all relevant stakeholders were consulted and is aligned with the general national strategic development framework, vision and strategic objectives. The DPA may solicit additional external experts or organizations (domestic and international) for input and adjust the DEA provided draft. The aim is to ensure ownership domestically, limit resistance to the strategic direction and initiatives as well as align the eGovernment strategy with international best practice and development in EU member states. The DPA is responsible for submitting the final strategy and action plan to the cabinet office for government approval and executing the strategy through decree. eGovernment strategy legality Yes, the eGovernment strategy is an integral part of Public Administration Strategy and Roadmap of Georgia which is approved by Prime Minister decree and is thus legally enforceable. Action plan (i.e. is the strategy underpinned by an action plan)

The process and responsibilities are the same as for the eGovernment strategy.

Action plan legally binding

Yes, as part of the eGovenrnment strategy, the action plan is legally enforceable.

As outlined in Table 5, the Georgian eGovernment model has a high level of complexity. It can nonetheless be boiled down to three layers: the strategic level, the operational level, and the daily implementation level.

At the strategic level, the eGDU ensures that all governance processes, strategic visions and long-term decisions are in line with the political agenda of the country and, at the same time, that high political will is properly translated into executive action plans. All horizontal eGovernment and ICT projects, new initiatives and new authorities are discussed, evaluated and approved by strategic level. The eGDU carries out its work based on input from the MoJs specialised agency DEA, which is the mandated body for ICT and eGovernment.

At the operational level, the execution and management of the eGovernment decisions made at strategic level is carried out by the mandated body DEA. The DEA provides support to the strategic level in the planning and implementation of the strategic priorities, monitors eGovernment activities and implements a number of key initiatives as well -in short, the DEA ensures the strategic alignment and coordination of eGovernment activities in the short, medium and long term.

Daily implementation has always been decentralized to responsible line-ministries and authorities, but from 2016 onwards a co-ordination mechanism in the form of thematic work groups has been introduced. Each thematic work group is responsible for the implementation of their respective action plan initiatives and report to DEA on progress, risks and for potential conflict resolution. The DEA, in turn, presents regular management overviews to the eGDU and the cabinet office, including the escalation of issues to be solved at cabinet level. The model is illustrated in Figure 1 and further summarised in Table 6 below -where the strategic and tactical level is merged to allow for easier comparison with other case studies.

Legend:

Artefacts scoping this governance model

Key enablers, citizen eServices, their use and impact

Having confirmed that the required infrastructure and digital literacy exist (section 3), outlined the strategic eGovernment focus over time and described the governance and cooperation model (section 4), what has Georgia achieved in terms of the roll-out (supply) of key enablers and citizen eservices and impact (i.e. demand and use)? Due to the fragmented eco-system for ICT and public sector services online, it is not easy to get a full picture. Key enablers, such as electronic identities (eIDs), digital signatures (eSignatures), core government registries (e.g. cadastral, property, population, business, vehicle registries), most national authorities have websites with information, a national Government Gateway is in place for data distribution and re-use, as is the www.opendata.ge portal, the statistical services www.geostat.ge and a national one-stop-portal www.my.gov.ge [56,[START_REF] Gvenetadze | Georgian e-Government Model in the Reform of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Obi | WASEDA -IAC International[END_REF].

That said, the impact and value-added of the individual initiatives are hard to assess. The GovernmentGateway has seen a steady increase in the number of public and private authorities integrate to the centralized service bus -almost 70% from 23 organizations in 2014, 26 in 2015, to 39 in 2016 -but the value of annual transactions have fallen 20% from approximately 55 million in 2015 to circa 44 million in 2016 [START_REF]DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Various use statistics for key infrastructure[END_REF]. The number of datasets available on the open data portal have increased 82.5% from 263 datasets in 2015 and 480 in 2016 [START_REF]DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Various use statistics for key infrastructure[END_REF]. By comparison, www.my.gov.ge only has 56 eServices available and the number of users is low, as highlighted in Table 7, and most users looked for information rather than transactional eServices. For instance, in 2016, 35% looked for information related to legal acts and public hearings, 18% looked for tax relation information, 17% visited the property registry, 16% looked for information related to border crossings, and 14% searched the vehicle registry for data [START_REF]DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Various use statistics for key infrastructure[END_REF]. The existence of eID/eSignature, digital post box solutions and a few select number of citizen service areas are confirmed in Table 8. What is harder to assess is the actual volume of public service delivery online -or degree of digitization (i.e. % of service delivery volume online). Where available the degree of digitization is included in Table 8. Available data shows a mixed picture. A relatively large number of Georgians have an eID/eSignature enabled ID card and almost all tax returns are submitted online. There is only limited use of FixMyStreet type solutions. By contrast to the successful introduction online tax forms and the enabling eID and eSignature most highvolume/high-frequency service areas such as social benefits, registering a new ad-dress, daycare, schools, universities are not available as eServices despite the existence of the required registries, good quality data and the document and data exchange infrastructure. Similarly, both citizens and authorities seem unaware of the potential efficiency of integrating services on the national portal or sending messages digitally via the joint-governmental digital post infrastructure provided by www.my.gov.ge.

Considering the limited data availability for eService use, statistics for the proportion of citizens use of online banking (eBanking), shop online (eCommerce) and their level of online interaction with public authorities is a useful substitute. Unfortunately, data is only available for 2016 and presented in Table 9. Despite the fragmented online service offers (depending on the service areas), the data in Table 9 highlights that the Georgians do use both private and public sector eServices, albeit at a far lower level than their general use of the internet -and most likely consisting of social media and online entertainment. While general internet access and use is higher than the EU28 average (see Table 2), Georgian use of eBanking, eCommerce and eGovernment services are all substantially lower (see Table 9). An interesting "Georgian dilemma" as actual use and households propensity to purchase internet for home use is on par with the most wired countries in the world, including other successful eGovernment service providers like Denmark, the Netherlands, and Estonia [START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | Governance and Online Service Delivery: The Danish Case[END_REF][START_REF] Meyerhoff Nielsen | eGovernment and Governance: The Danish-Japanese timelines and models compared[END_REF][START_REF]Information society household survey[END_REF][START_REF] Nielsen | E-governance and stage models: analysis of identified models and selected Eurasian experiences in digitising citizen service delivery[END_REF].

Observations and conclusions

Backoffice ICT use in Georgia has been a success, as has the introduction of key enablers, relevant registers and standards. Similarly, a number of high-volume, highfrequency online services are available. The areas of open data, data reuse in government and eParticipation can be improved, but show some initial promise -particularly in relation to the open data portal. Georgia faces a number of recurrent challenges, including: limited budget availability; a shortage or underutilization of qualified staff; expensive infrastructure; a lack of some key national standards; data compatibility; and security issues [START_REF] Gvenetadze | Georgia's Successful Journey to E-Government[END_REF]. These challenges are amplified by the vacuum left by an inefficient or missing governance structures to ensure cross-governmental cooperation and joint-development, and has led to a fragmented ICT framework [55, [START_REF] Gvenetadze | Georgian e-Government Model in the Reform of Public Administration[END_REF][START_REF] Millard | Update on e-Georgia Strategy 2014-2018: Implementation and Prioritization roadmap 2017-2018[END_REF][START_REF] Turashvili | Georgia in UN E-Government Survey -Results and Recommendations[END_REF][START_REF]IDIF -Institute for Development of Freedom of Information, E-Governance and E[END_REF]. While Georgians household propensity to purchase internet access and citizens general use of the internet is higher than the EU28 average (see Table 2), the use of banking, commerce and government online service offers is by comparison all substantially lower (see Tables 2,789). Despite the success in rolling-out the required internet infrastructure, the limited use of government eServices points to the influence of two inter-connected factors:

• While key enablers like eID and eSignatures are already rolled-out and available through the national ID card, actual use is limited. Online services need to be used to add value to the user and provide the envisaged return on investment, but this requires a coordinated and joint-governmental approach to usability and channel strategies, which are still lacking. Georgian authorities therefore need to increase their corporation to ensure that the national my.gov.ge portal contains all government eServices, no matter the responsible authority, that single-sign-on is implemented and that there is a common look-and-feel across different service delivery areas. • The lack of eID/eSignature use, limited public awareness of online service offers and the value of using them, a lack for channel strategies and promotion of public sector eService -maybe even a lack of trust in online transactions involving payment and personal data. The limited public awareness and lack of channel strategies seem to be influenced by issues related to governance and inter-governmental cooperation.

While distributed responsibility is a common feature in most countries, Georgia currently does not have a fully functioning mechanise to ensure cooperation and compliance with the national eGovernment vision, established mandates and standards. Similarly, there is currently no actual mechanism to ensure adequate funding of ICT projects, bind to together fragmented initiatives or to ensure compliance with established mandates, standards etc. This points to the importance of cooperation between authorities and the level of integration between entities in the provision and production of services, as proposed by authors such as Heeks [START_REF] Heeks | Implementing and managing eGovernment: an international text[END_REF][START_REF] Heeks | A better eGovernment maturity model[END_REF], Lee & Kwak [START_REF] Lee | An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement[END_REF] Chen & Mingins [START_REF] Chen | A Three-Dimensional Model for E-Government Development with Cases in China's Regional E-Government Practice and Experience[END_REF]. The Georgian case therefore provides additional evidence in support of the positive role inter-governmental cooperation plays in the introduction and takeup of eService. In the Georgian context, the vacuum left by an un-or understaffed eGDU, and an unclear mandate for the DEA to take on this responsibility, is partly to blame for the current stagnation in relation to eGovernment and online service use.

The eGovernance model currently being implemented may be complicated on paper but could in theory be a solution -although it is worth simplifying it. In fact, many aspects of the eGDU and the DEA seem to be duplicated, which results in misunderstanding amongst stakeholders, resistance to comply with mandatory requirements specified in the joint-governmental policies and strategies -not least the eGovernment strategy and action plan. While strategic initiatives are in the process of improving local government capacities and their user of ICT, municipalities are remark-ably absence in past, present and future eGovernment governance and intergovernmental cooperation models which are still largely planned vertically with national line ministries and agencies.

Similarly, the less than optimal use of joint infrastructures like the www.mygov.ge portal and eID/eSignature are examples of how benefit realization and value creation of ICT investments is not maximized due to authorities incompliance or limited support for key strategic objectives. Thus, the Georgian case highlights the importance of good management and coordination of government eGovernment activities in support of authors such as Davison [START_REF] Davison | From government to e-government: a transition model[END_REF], Iribarren et. al. [START_REF] Iribarren | Capability maturity framework for eGovernment: A multi-dimensional model and assessing tool[END_REF], Janowski [START_REF] Janowski | Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization[END_REF], Kalambokis et. al. [START_REF] Kalampokis | Open government data: a stage model[END_REF], Shareef et. al. [START_REF] Shareef | e-Government Adoption Model (GAM): Differing service maturity levels[END_REF], Waseda [31] and organizations such as the OECD [START_REF] Oecd | [END_REF].

In conclusion, the Georgian case adds support to the initial question asked i.e. that there is a positive relationship between a strong cooperative eGovernance model (cause) and the introduction of online services (effect 1) and subsequent citizen use of the online service delivery channel (effect 2). The Georgian experience highlights the importance of a formal governance model for ICT use. A governance model with clear and recognized mandates to ensure that decisions are made, conflicts are resolved, and the strategic visions, objectives and outcomes are achieved. While the existence of a national CIO (like the eGDU) or specialized government entity for eGovernment (like the DEA) does not guarantee success, the current vacuum in Georgia is a clear example of what often happens when a mechanism to ensure compliance with a strategic vision, decision making and conflict resolution is missing. The positive impact of informal and personal networks and the role of individuals in driving a vision, ensuring coordination and inter-governmental cooperation can play also emerge in the Georgia case, but with limited results. While having at least a partial mandate, the DEA staff has not been able to fully convince line ministries of the need for cooperation rather than launching overlapping or conflicting initiatives. While initially successful, the Georgian approach to eGovernance and intergovernmental cooperation would benefit from a streamlining of potentially overlapping mandates and the formalisation of informal networks. This will help minimize the risk of failure if consensus cannot be reached and if personal and institutional capacities or contacts do not exist (or fail).

Table 1

 1

		. Key socio-economic statistics 2016 [47, 48]
	Population (January 2016)	3,720,400
	Territorial size	69.700 km2
	Population density	57.3per km2
	Official languages	Georgian, Abkhazian (in Abkhazia)
	Ethnic groups	Georgian 86.8%, Azeri 6.3%, Armenian 4.5%, other 2.3% (incl. Rus-
		sian, Ossetian, Yazidis, Ukrainian, Kist, Greek)
	Median age and life expectancy	38 years and 74.4 years
	Population growth	-0.05%
	Urbanization	53.6%
	GDP 2016 (est.)	€13.67 billion
	GDP per capita 2016 (est.)	€ 5,025
	GDP growth rate 2016 (est.)	3.4%
	Unemployment 2016 (est.)	12.1%
	Imports 2016 (est.)	€ 6.43 billion
	Exports 2016 (est.)	€2.69 billion

Table 2

 2

	. Individual and household access to, and use of the internet, 2010-2016, selected years
	(EU28 country average in brackets) [49]
		2010	2013	2016 [50]
	Household internet access [51]	27% (70%)	82% (79%)	95% (86%)
	Individual with mobile internet [52]	18.80%# (21%*)	42.74%# (24%)	63% (27%)
	Individual using the internet	--(65%)	45.5%** (72%)	90% (79%)
	(at least once a week)
	# authors estimation based on 0.70 million and 1.59 million transactions in 2010 and 2013 respectively.
	*2011 data. **2012 data

Table 4 .

 4 General governance and institutional framework[START_REF][END_REF][70][START_REF]Introducing e-governance in local self governments[END_REF]

	National institutional	Mostly centralized, decisions are made and executed on high horizontal level.
	framework and gov-	Multi-level management approach is not implemented yet. eGovernment and
	ernance	ICT related initiatives are concentrated within key public agencies. Local gov-

Table 6 .

 6 eGovernance and coordination model implemented in 2016-2017[START_REF]Interview 1 -Key staff at DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Governance and online service delivery and use in Georgia[END_REF][START_REF] Millard | Update on e-Georgia Strategy 2014-2018: Implementation and Prioritization roadmap 2017-2018[END_REF] 75,[START_REF]On the Creation of the Legal Entity of Public Law (LEPL) -Data Exchange Agency[END_REF]

	Tactical level Strategic level Political level	collaborate with Data Exchange Agency Provide administrative support Head of DEA Commission Monitor decisions and implementations of e-gov strategy Coordinate with stakeholder forums Carry out operative work for E-Gov Commission Commission Monitor decisions and implementations of e-gov strategy Coordinate with stakeholder forums Carry out operative work for E-Gov Commission Implement decisions of E-Gov Implement decisions of E-Gov strategy for E-Gov Commission strategy for E-Gov Commission Prepare draft legislation and draft Prepare draft legislation and draft Preparing strategy Approving directions of strategy Approving projects and investments Strategic monitoring and assessment of Preparing strategy Approving directions of strategy Approving projects and investments Strategic monitoring and assessment of Setting political priorities chairs CIO Council achievements achievements is Member priorities and directions Give advice on needs,	Give advice on relevant issues Give advice on relevant issues of eGeorgia Strategy monitor projects CIOs are members of E-Gov Commission MoJ through projects and service provisioning MoF MoEd MoEc ... Relevant actors implementing strategic objectives Commission Collaborate and coordinate with E-Gov Commission / DEA and among relevant actors on E-Gov implementations Commission Collaborate and coordinate with E-Gov Commission / DEA and among relevant actors on E-Gov implementations Submit new projects Government of Georgia Enforcement of legislation Formal approval of strategic priorities Budget approval Enforcement of legislation Formal approval of strategic priorities Budget approval Prime Minister Office Implement strategic objectives through own projects Report status of projects to DEA Submit new projects of strategic importance to E-Gov Submit new projects of strategic importance to E-Gov Report status of projects to DEA Implement strategic objectives through own projects Minister's Prime Ministers are members of Government responsible owner of supports	+ + eGeorgia Strategy 2014-2018 eGeorgia Strategy 2014-2018 is part of Public Administration Reform (PAR) + Public Reform (PAR) + Administration
		Consultative bodies /	Contribute in joint Contribute in joint specifications / specifications /
	Operational level	Stakeholder Forums Other needed working groups as OGP	developments Contribute in awareness raising and take up developments Contribute in awareness raising and take up
		eGeorgia Strategy 2014-2018 Relevant legislation		Role Actors in the governance model Institutional body	Major tasks and Major tasks and activities in the activities in the context of policy implementation context of policy implementation	Relationship among actors	Crucial relation-ship with other Policy domain(s) that may impact governance	Related [Policy] Related [Policy] Initiative or Initiative or Programme + Programme +
		Figure 1. eGovernance and coordination model [65]
			Co-ordination of the implementation of	Wider co-ordination of the develop-
			strategy		ment of information society
	Vision					Administration of the Government
						of Georgia
						Civil society organizations
	Strategy		Administration of the Government of
			Georgia
			DEA
	Implementation of action plans	DEA			DEA, Communication Regulatory
						Body
	Daily implementation and everyday	Individual Ministries and responsible
	work		field agencies
			Thematic work groups /networks

Table 7 .

 7 my.gov.ge use 2012-2016, selected years[START_REF]DEA -Data Exchange Agency, Various use statistics for key infrastructure[END_REF]

		2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
	Registered users			7,740	4,650	40,026
	Number of services	1,319	21,082	52,343	46,652	69,665
	Repeat use per user*	--	--	6,76	10,03	1,74
	% of population*	--	--	0,21	0,12	1,08

*Author's estimation.

Table 8 .

 8 Individual use of the internet 2014-2016, selected years

		eService	Degree of digitization (i.e. % of service delivery volume
		availability	online)
			2010	2013	2016
	eID/eSignature [50]	Yes		48.3% (2015)	62,7 %
	Digital post [78]	Yes		584 (2015)	1,869
	Tax declaration [50, 79]	Yes	c. 35%	96%	96%
	Register for school	No
	Register for university	No
	Apply for student grant	No
	Change of address	No
	Housing subsidy	No
	Apply for pension	No
	Report vermin (FixMyStreet) [80]	Yes		400 reports	51 reports
	Report theft	No
	*Author's estimation based on 2015 volume of 1,800,000.
	**Author's estimation based on volume in 2010 of 678,770 electronic declarations, in 2013 of 2,526,004,
	in 2015 of 2,784,186 and in 2016 of 2,627,850.

Table 9 .

 9 Citizens use of eBanking, eCommerce and interaction with public authorities online (at least once per year) selected years (EU28 country average in brackets)[START_REF]Information society household survey[END_REF][START_REF]US Aid, Georgia Good Governance Initiative: E-Readiness Study in Georgia (Nationwide Survey) 2017[END_REF] Georgian data is comparable to EuroStat data as it follows the same data collection methodology, although collected by US Aid funded national survey "Georgia Good Governance Initiative: E-Readiness Study in

	2010	2013	2016*

*

Acknowledgements

This paper is a result of the project "SmartEGOV: Harnessing EGOV for Smart Governance (Foundations, methods, Tools) / NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000037", supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (EFDR). It was also supported in part by funding from Tallinn University of Technology, Project B42; OGI -Open Government Intelligence project in the EU Horizon 2020 framework program, grant agreement 693849.