نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 گروه مدیریت منابع انسانی دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران
2 استادیار، گروه مدیریت عملیات و فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.
3 کارشناسیارشد مدیریت عملیات و فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Abstract
There are many challenges and obstacles in the interoperability of the electronic systems of the courts to create integrated judicial services. The purpose of this research is to examine and prioritize the challenges of cooperation, in terms of creating disruptions in the exchange of information between prosecutors, in the judicial case management system, from the point of view of the judges' office managers. This research was done in 1401 in Alborz province. The process of hierarchical analysis has been used as a method. The researcher-made questionnaire was designed using theoretical foundations and previous research and was approved by professors and a number of experts in the judicial case management system. The collected information was analyzed using the hierarchical analysis process. According to the opinions of the managers of the judges' office, cultural, organizational, cost, managerial and technological challenges were prioritized. Then, procedural, legal, collaborative, functional and conceptual challenges were placed in the next priorities. Considering that the cultural and organizational challenges had the greatest weight, it can be concluded that the influence of human and organizational factors should be taken into account in the exchange of information in the electronic systems of the courts, in order to provide integrated judicial electronic services.
Introduction
The integrated flow of information in the judicial system requires the effective connection of systems and organizations. By creating integrated information systems that support the exchange of information between organizations, organizations are also integrated and the possibility of more effective cooperation is provided. Interactions between organizations are usually expressed as the ability of cooperation of organizations. Interoperability means the ability of heterogeneous and different organizations to share information and work processes using common standards. Interoperability in e-government is a process in which independent and heterogeneous information systems managed by different organizations and units or external partners work with each other using predetermined features and concepts. There are many challenges and obstacles in the way of cooperation (interactivity) of the electronic systems of courthouses to create integrated judicial services, the elimination of which can help the judicial and judicial system in creating effective and efficient services. Among these challenges, we can mention cultural differences, inconsistency between goals and values, lack of trust and dependence on resources, lack of proper infrastructure of information and communication technology, lack of supporting laws, improper management of changes and workforce training.
Case study
The purpose of this research is to examine and prioritize the challenges of cooperation, in terms of creating disruptions in the exchange of information between prosecutors, in the judicial case management system, from the point of view of judges' office managers. This research was done in 1401 in Alborz province.
Materials and Methods
The conceptual model of the research is derived from several well-known models in the field of maturity and organizational collaboration challenges. In all interoperability frameworks and models, the dimensions of technology, organization and meaning are stated as the main areas in which the main challenges and issues are manifested. Therefore, these three challenges were considered in the conceptual model. Based on the famous model of Scholl and Klischewski, legal, discretionary, managerial, collaborative, performance and cost dimensions were also added. In the research of Manda and Backhous, the challenge of the domain of discretion and legality is placed in one category, so we also put these two challenges in one category called legal. In various sources, process and cultural challenges have been mentioned repeatedly as independent challenges, but they did not exist in the models. So we added these challenges to the model. Also, criteria and sub-criteria were not explained in detail in the models. We expanded and expanded the challenges using various sources to provide a comprehensive model. For example, regarding the functional challenge in the conceptual model that has two sub-criteria of time and quality, we described the sub-criteria more fully using the model of Daclin, Chen and Valspear. Therefore, in order to provide a comprehensive and complete framework and at the same time understandable, we created a model of interoperability challenges including 10 main criteria and 29. The research method is descriptive-survey and practical in terms of purpose. Based on the criteria presented in the conceptual model, a questionnaire was designed and approved by professors and a number of experts in the judicial case management system. The collected data was analyzed using the hierarchical analysis process. The hierarchical analysis process enables decision makers to determine the mutual and simultaneous effects of many complex and uncertain situations. This process helps decision makers to set priorities based on their knowledge and experience and research goals; in such a way that they consider their judgments and feelings. Indicators can be quantitative or qualitative. This method is based on pairwise comparisons. In this research, the hierarchical group analysis method was used to analyze the knowledge of 10 experts of the judicial case management system. The degree of inconsistency in all matrices of pairwise comparisons was less than 0.1.
Discussion and Results
According to the opinions of the managers of the judges' office, cultural, organizational, cost, managerial and technological challenges had the most weight and were prioritized. After them, procedural, legal, collaborative, functional and conceptual challenges were placed in the next priorities. Considering that the cultural and organizational challenges had the most weight, it can be concluded that the obstacles in the exchange of information in the electronic systems of the courts, in order to provide integrated judicial electronic services, are mainly beyond the technical dimension and human, social, economic, etc. There are important elements that deserve attention.
Conclusion
The necessary suggestions to remove the existing obstacles are as follows: Continuous training of employees and increasing their knowledge and expertise in the field of the joint project of the judicial case management system between prosecutors, through holding training courses and workshops, preparing a detailed organizational chart, describing the duties and powers and its implementation method in a documented and written form, holding conferences, Seminars, educational workshops to inform managers about the strengths and weaknesses of the organization and provide suitable solutions for managing differences and conflicts and increasing the ability of managers to control internal and external relations in the field of joint projects. Using a common language such as the Farsi language and dialect for communication between employees, standardizing policies, processes and systems by modeling tested and reliable global frameworks and standards such as the Electronic Government Interoperability Framework (eGIF), using management methods and tools Business process for modeling and controlling processes, providing resources, knowledge and guidance necessary to achieve cooperation goals for employees and their participation in decisions to create a sense of responsibility in them.
کلیدواژهها [English]
منابع فارسی
حقیقی نسب، منیژه و خسروی، سامیه. (1390). ارزیابی سطح بلوغ تعامل پذیری سازمانی مؤسسه تحقیقات فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات. مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دوره 3، شماره 6: 1-20.
جبارزاده کرباسی، بهرام؛ رحمان سرشت، حسین؛ خاشعی، وحید؛ خلیل نژاد، شهرام. (1400). عناصر موثر بر همکاری میان سازمانی در مراحل پیش آیندی. پژوهش های مدیریت در ایران،23(2): 77-55.
میرزایی، نیما؛ محمدی، پرستو. (1392). تعیین راهبرد انتقال فناوری اتیلن با استفاده از روشAHP ، نشریه بینالمللی مهندسی صنایع و مدیریت تولید، ۲۴ (۲) :۲۳۷-۲۵۵.
مرادی، محمد؛ رمضانیان، محمدرحیم؛ سلطانی، فاطمه. (1393). شناسایی مؤلفهها و شاخصهای تعاملپذیری در زنجیره تأمین. فصلنامه علمی ترویجی مدیریت زنجیره تامین. 16(4): 29-16.
گلستان، فرشاد؛ حسنقلیپور، طهمورث؛ نجفی، زهرا. (1400). بررسی جایگاه مرکز آمار ایران با استفاده از روشAHP ، پژوهش های مدیریت در ایران، 18(3): 2-205.
Arief, A., Ayub Wahab, I., & Muhammad, M. (2020). Barriers and Challenges of e-Government Services: ASystematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
Axelsson, K., & Melin, U. (2008). An inter-organisational perspective on challenges in one-stop government. International Journal of Electronic Governance, (1), 3, 296-314.
bekkers, v. (2007). The governance of back-office integration: Some Dutch Experiences. Public Management Review.
Carboni, N., & Velicogna, M. (2012). Electronic Data Exchange Within European Justice: e-CODEX Challenges,Threats and Opportunities. International Journal For Court Administration, 1-17.
Chen, D., Vallespir, B., & Daclin, N. (2008). An Approach for Enterprise Interoperability Measurement. Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS, 1-12.
Chituc, C.-M., Azevedo, A., & Toscano, C. (2009). A framework proposal for seamless interoperability in a collaborative networked environment. Computers in Industry 60 , 317–338.
Daclin, N., Chen, D., & Vallespir, B. (2006). Enterprise interoperability measurement - Basic concepts. EMOI-INTEROP., 110-115,.
dos Santos, E., & Reinhard, N. (2012). Electronic Government Interoperability: Identifying the Barriers for Frameworks Adoption. Social Science Computer Review30(1), 71-82.
Elmir, B., & Bounabat, B. (2010). Integrated Public E-Services Interoperability Assessment. International Journal of Information Science and Management, 1-13.
Gil-Garcia, J., & Sayogo, D. (2016). Government inter-organizational information sharing initiatives:Understanding the main determinants of success. Government Information Quarterly, 1-11.
Goldkuhl, G. (2008). The challenges of Interoperability in E-government:Towards a conceptual refinement. pre-ICIS 2008 SIG eGovernment Workshop, 1-6.
Gottschalk, P. (2009). Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly , 26, 75–81.
Guerdia, W. (2012). A Contribution to Enterprise Interoperability Maturity Assessment. 1-247.
Haghighinasab, M., & Khosravi, S. (2011). Evaluating the Organizational Interoperability Maturity Level in ICT Research Center. joural of information technology management, Volume 3(Issue 6), 1-2. (In Persian)
Halligan, J., & Moore, T. (2006). E-government in Australia:The challenges of moving to integrated services. University of Canberra, 1-22.
Jabbarzadeh karbasi, B., Rahmanseresht, H., khashei, V., Khalil Nezhad, S. (2021). Factors Affecting Inter-organizational cooperation at the front-end phase. Management Research in Iran, 23(2), 55-77. (In Persian)
Klischewski, R., & Askar, E. (2012). Linking service development methods to interoperability governance: The case of Egypt. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 22–31.
Lanfang Fei. (2023). Regulation under administrative guidance: The case of China's forcing interoperability on digital platforms. Computer Law & Security Review. 48, 126-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105786.
Leal, G., Guédria, W., & Panetto, H. (2020). Enterprise interoperability assessment: A requirements engineering approach. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Taylor & Francis, 33(3), 265-286.
Legner, C., & Lebreton, B. (2007). Business Interoperability Research:Present Achievements and Upcoming Challenges. International Journal of Electronic Markets, 17(3), 176-186.
LIU, L., LI, W., ALJOHANI, N., D. LYTRAS, M., HASSAN, S.-U., & NAWAZ, R. (2020). A Framework to Evaluate the Interoperability of Information Systems –Measuring the Maturity of the Business Process Alignment. International Journal of Information Management, 54. 102153, 3-40.
Manda, M., & Backhouse, J. (2016). An analysis of the barriers to e-government integration, interoperability andinformation sharing in developing countries: a systematic review of literature. Proceedings of ACIST, (pp. 42-54). Accra, Ghana.
Milo Bianchi, Matthieu Bouvard, Renato Gomes, Andrew Rhodes, Vatsala Shreeti. (2023). Mobile payments and interoperability: Insights from the academic literature, Information Economics and Policy, 65, 296-314.
Mohammadi, p., & mirzaee, n. (2013). Determining the transfer strategy of ethylene technology using the AHP method. international journal of Industrial Engineering and Production Management, 24(2), 238-255. (In Persian).
Moradi, m., ramezanian, m., & soltani, f. (2014). indenfying the components and indicatores of interoperability in the supply chain. journal of modiriate zanjire taamin,volume16,issue43, 16-29. (In Persian)
Mugumya, s. (2019). E-government systems interoperability challenges case of public sectore in rwanda.
Najafi, z., hasangholipour, t., & golestan, f. (2014). positioning the statistical center of iran as customers evaluate it on the AHP model. journal of management research in iran, 18(3): 205-225. (In persian)
Noori, R., & Mohamadhossein, H-R. (2021). Toward Islamic-Iranian public administration theory: A comparative historical study. Public Policy and Administration, 20(4), 543–558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13165/VPA-21-20-4-14
Oliveira, A., & Eler, M. (2017). Interoperability in e-Government Solutions:The Case of Brazilian Federal Universities. XIII Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems, Lavras, Minas Gerais, 324-331.
Rahman Rinty, M., Prodhan, U. K., Rahman, & Mijanur, M. (2022). A prospective interoperable distributed e-Health system with loose couplingin improving healthcare services for developing countries. elsevier, 1-15.
Rosa, J., Teixeira, C., & Pinto, J. (2013). Risk factors in e-justice information systems. Government Information Quarterly , 30, 241–256.
Sulehat, N., & Taib, C. (2016). E-Government Information Systems Interoperability in Developing Countries: The Case of Jordan. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, 2(1), 38-49.
Vasiliki Margariti, Teta Stamati, Dimosthenis Anagnostopoulos, Mara Nikolaidou, Anastasia Papastilianou. (2022). A holistic model for assessing organizational interoperability in public administration, Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), 134-145.
Zutshi, A., Grilo, A., & Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2012). The Business Interoperability Quotient Measurement Model. Computers in Industry, 63, 389–404.
)