[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: ICEGOV2011 acceptance notification for paper 6
Good news as you will see below, my paper on TGF has been accepted for this year's ICEGOV conference in Estonia on 26-28 September, see http://www.icegov.org/ This looks like another very good opportunity for publicity with some influential people down to attend including Theresa Pardo who is very well connected with the US administration and some EC officials. But before I accept the invitation and start work on the camera ready version of the paper there are some issues we need to address: - first the problem of who can attend to present on behalf of the TC. I can't pay my own way for this trip but would be prepared to attend if someone sponsored me, alternatively can someone else attend? - second there are a number of difficult review comments, see below, that we need to deal with in the final paper so I will need help to address these if we feel we have the answers to them. So views please on should we accept the invitation and invest the time in preparing the final paper, and the question of who can attend. John -----Original Message----- From: ICEGOV2011 [mailto:icegov2011@easychair.org] Sent: 07 July 2011 21:00 To: John Borras Subject: ICEGOV2011 acceptance notification for paper 6 Dear Borras, Thank you for your submission entitled “The Transformational Government Framework” to the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV2011). On behalf of the Program Committee, we are very pleased to inform you that your submission was accepted as a paper (10 pages) for presentation at the conference and publication in the conference proceedings. The conference proceedings will be published by the ACM Press. Congratulations! Please note the following important information to prepare the final version of your submission: 1) REVIEWS - Review comments are below the text of this email. We expect you to make every effort to address these comments when preparing the final version of your paper, and generally aim at the highest quality prior to the official publication. We reserve the right not to publish papers that fail to address review comments or measure up to the quality expected from an international publication. 2) PAGE LIMIT - Please note that the final version of your paper must fit within the prescribed page limit. Please take the utmost care while compressing your paper to comply with the limit. Just deleting paragraphs will make your paper incomprehensible, and in that case we may not be able to publish it. 3) FINAL VERSION PREPARATION - The final version must strictly follow the ACM format, including the names of authors, copyright notice at the bottom of the first page and the ACM Computing Classification categories and terms (http://www.acm.org/class/1998/) as shown in the submission template at http://icegov.org/resources/word-template.doc. Please follow these guidelines strictly. You could also ask for professional help to check the grammar and style of your English, if necessary. Additionally, please note that the proceedings will be printed in black and white, and you are responsible to ensure that all figures are clear and understandable in black and white. 4) COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM – ACM will send you the ACM copyright form and complete instructions. Reminders will be sent to authors with outstanding forms. For publishing your paper, ACM must receive the completed copyright form signed by one author of the paper. 5) The FINAL VERSION of your paper must be uploaded through your easychair account as a zipped archive, along with the PDF version of your paper and the MS Word version (at least 2 files), no later than Monday 8 August 2011. The paper should be uploaded by selecting the options ‘proceedings’ and then uploading the paper (note that this is different than the way you uploaded your initial submission). We should receive the whole package by the deadline; otherwise your paper may not be included in the proceedings. 6) REGISTRATION. Please note that at least one author is expected to attend the conference and present the paper in order for it to be published. Registration information is available at: http://icegov.org/resources/ICEGOV2011-Registration_Form.doc In the meanwhile, please direct all enquiries to icegov@icegov.org or directly to us. With kind regards, Elsa Estevez and Marijn Janssen ICEGOV2011 Programme Chairs ----------------------- REVIEW 1 --------------------- PAPER: 6 TITLE: The Transformational Government Framework AUTHORS: John Borras OVERALL RATING: 2 (accept) A - SUBMISSION TYPE How would you type the submission? 1) Paper (10 pages) 2) Case Study (6 pages) 3) Demonstration (2 pages) 4) Poster (2 pages) Your choice: 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- B - SUBMISSION CLASSIFICATION How would you classify the submission? 1) Highly foundational 2) Tends towards foundational 3) Balanced foundations and practice 4) Tends toward practical 5) Highly practical Your choice: 5 ---------------------------------------------------------- C - BEST PAPER Do you recommend this submission for the Best Paper Award? 1) No 2) Yes - Foundations 3) Yes - Practice 4) Yes - Foundations and Practice Your choice: No ---------------------------------------------------------- D - SUBMISSION SUMMARY Please describe the main points of the submission. Your text: This paper outlines an ICT-enabled framework for Transformational Government, which could be used by public officials. The proposed framework is the initial output of the OASIS Technical Committee and needs to be considered as work-in-progress. ---------------------------------------------------------- E - STRENGTHS Please identify the strong points of the submission. Your text: Well-structured paper with clear principles and components. ---------------------------------------------------------- F - WEAKNESSES Please identify the weak points of the submission. Your text: This work has substantial overlap with earlier work on citizen-centric government published by the OECD, Canada and Australia. However, the authors do not acknowledge these publications in their paper. ---------------------------------------------------------- G - IMPROVEMENTS Please offer suggestions for improvement. Your text: The authors need to point out differences compared to existing literature in this field and develop a case for the added value of their paper, particularly compared to the 2008 OECD publication on citizen-centric government.---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- REVIEW 2 --------------------- PAPER: 6 TITLE: The Transformational Government Framework AUTHORS: John Borras OVERALL RATING: 0 (borderline paper) A - SUBMISSION TYPE How would you type the submission? 1) Paper (10 pages) 2) Case Study (6 pages) 3) Demonstration (2 pages) 4) Poster (2 pages) Your choice: 1 B - SUBMISSION CLASSIFICATION How would you classify the submission? 1) Highly foundational 2) Tends towards foundational 3) Balanced foundations and practice 4) Tends toward practical 5) Highly practical Your choice: 2 C - BEST PAPER Do you recommend this submission for the Best Paper Award? 1) No 2) Yes - Foundations 3) Yes - Practice 4) Yes - Foundations and Practice Your choice: 1 D - SUBMISSION SUMMARY Please describe the main points of the submission. Your text: This paper attempts to propose a conceptual framework for "Transformational Government" -- The framework consists of four "components:" (1) Guiding Principles, (2) Delivery processes, (3) Critical Success Factors, and (4) Benefit Realisation Strategy. The authors claim that e-Government has basically accomplished very little except for incremental changes, and that it takes "transformational government" to bring about real change (towards more citizen centricity of government service?). E - STRENGTHS Please identify the strong points of the submission. Your text: This paper is a nice discussion piece, although not an academic paper (it misses to demonstrate through the academic literature why e-Government has not delivered, or has not instigated organizational change). F - WEAKNESSES Please identify the weak points of the submission. Your text: The paper is conjectural in most claims it makes. The opening (Background) paragraph mostly consists of word fragments. Then it continues, "Responding effectively to these challenges means governments need to be capable of delivering change which is transformational, not incremental." This is a huge claim, which is not discussed nor justified. Also, the concept of transformation in government is completely unclear: From what starting state to what end state via what process does transformation occur? What needs to be transformed? The authors charge on: "The Wikipedia entry for Transformational Government [10] provides a detailed list of all supporting evidence." This does not qualify as academic discourse. And, "A key focus of Transformational Government is therefore to move towards an integrated ICT and back-office service architecture across all parts of government - reaping efficiency gains while at the same time enabling better, more citizen-focused service delivery." This is nave, I am sorry. G - IMPROVEMENTS Please offer suggestions for improvement. Your text: Mark this as a discussion piece, and perform a serious lit review on the transformational impacts of electronic government; there is a lot literature out there. ----------------------- REVIEW 3 --------------------- PAPER: 6 TITLE: The Transformational Government Framework AUTHORS: John Borras OVERALL RATING: 1 (weak accept) A - SUBMISSION TYPE How would you type the submission? 1) Paper (10 pages) 2) Case Study (6 pages) 3) Demonstration (2 pages) 4) Poster (2 pages) Your choice: 1) However, for suggestions to make it a full paper, see below. B - SUBMISSION CLASSIFICATION How would you classify the submission? 1) Highly foundational 2) Tends towards foundational 3) Balanced foundations and practice 4) Tends toward practical 5) Highly practical Your choice: 4) C - BEST PAPER Do you recommend this submission for the Best Paper Award? 1) No 2) Yes - Foundations 3) Yes - Practice 4) Yes - Foundations and Practice Your choice: 1) D - SUBMISSION SUMMARY Please describe the main points of the submission. Your text: The paper presents a framework developed for disseminating best practices of transformational e-government to guide government leaders to undertake the comprehensive change that is required to realize the outcomes of transformational government. E - STRENGTHS Please identify the strong points of the submission. Your text: The paper presents a promising framework that may help to guide government leaders to making the necessary changes to their organizations for realizing t-government. It is a very comprehensive framework addressing a broad range of issues to be dealt with, and providing clear guidance on many of these issues. The paper is very well written and structured. F - WEAKNESSES Please identify the weak points of the submission. Your text: The paper only presents an outlook of the proposed framework. Therefore, it is unclear how the framework emerged and how it was designed, which literature was used for developing the framework (foundation), how it contributes to existing literature (contribution) and whether it actually works in practice (validation). Although the paper states that in the development of the framework, it is considered that government organizations are very different, the framework is quite top-down and presents a clear implementation strategy. It may not be feasible for different governments to implement transformation in such a structured way, nor may it achieve the desired outcomes. Therefore, it will be very interesting to see how it can be used in practice (although this may require a study over several years). G - IMPROVEMENTS Please offer suggestions for improvement. Your text: Firstly - and most importantly, the authors need to include the grounding of the framework in literature as well as the metholodoly by which it was designed. Now it is unclear how the framework emerged. Questions such as, Who developed it? On which grounds? Using which methodology? need to be addressed. These are basic requirements on acadamic papers and SHOULD be satisfied. If possible, it would also be nice to see it applied in practice to validate the framework, but as the authors state that work is still ongoing, this may not be feasible. Therefore, and secondly, a reflection on the expected use and the benefits as well as the expected problems with the framework could greatly improve the description. A discussion on the strenghts and weaknesses as well as its application to practice will improve the paper. One of the elements that may need further consideration is the focus on engineered change. The framework used a change implemenation approach that expects certain benefits to emerge through changing the organization structure and by taking a project orientation to the change process. It will be interesting to see whether all transformational benefits are expected to be achieved by undertaking such engineered change, or that other change strategies may need to be taken into account too.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]