2011 5th Malaysian Conference in Software Engineering (MySEC)
A Systematic Literature Review of Interoperable
Architecture for E-Government Portals
Khairul Anwar Sedek
Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences
Universiti Teknologi MARA
02600 Arau, Perlis, Malaysia
khairulanwar@perlis.uitm.edu.my
Abstract— One of the roles of e-government portals is to provide
a one-stop service to users. In order to fulfill this role, it requires
collaboration with other government agencies and businesses to
provide an effective one-stop center for users to access and
perform various services. Current e-government portals are
mostly lack of interoperability whereby users still need to access
government services from various portals or websites.
Interoperability is a technical requirement to achieve
government services collaboration and integration. There are
many challenges and approaches to achieve better
interoperability in e-government portals. Architecture-based and
model-based approaches are essential research areas that can
improve interoperability starting from the planning stages.
Architecture provides overall overview of e-government
components and relationship between components. This paper
systematically reviews current architecture-based approaches to
find a suitable approach and its requirements to produce a better
architecture for e-government portal based on the lessons learned
from the previous works.
Keywords-Systematic literature review; Software Architecture;
E-government Portal; Interoperability
I. INTRODUCTION
E-government portal becomes an important medium as a
one-stop centre for the public to access government services.
Most developed countries such as Republic of South Korea,
United States, and Canada are in top rank of e-government
achievement [1]. They have state-of-the-art of e-government
portal technology that provides high-quality services to citizens
and contributes significantly to their success [2], [3].
The main barrier that contributes to the failed e-government
projects is integration barrier. The integration barriers include
lack of architecture, incompatible data standards, lack of
relevant integration expertise, and the existence of legacy
process [4]. According to Shaw [5], “software architecture is
the principled study of the overall structure of software system,
especially the relation among subsystems and components”.
Furthermore, Shaw stresses that software architecture is an area
that must be refined and improved in order to produce a better
software system. Architectural descriptions provide skeleton of
a system properties and describe the system capabilities
according to system requirements. Therefore, study in e-
978-1-4577-1531-0/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
82
Shahida Sulaiman1,2, Mohd Adib Omar1
School of Computer Sciences1
Universiti Sains Malaysia
11800 USM Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Systems2
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
shahidasulaiman@utm.my, adib@cs.usm.my
government architecture is a very important area because it can
improve the overall structure of complex integration and
interoperability of e-government system.
One-stop e-government portal requires integration and
interoperability with various departments, public organizations,
and private organizations. They use variety of systems,
platforms, data formats, procedures, and protocols.
Furthermore, e-government portals that provide multi type of
e-government services are required. The multi type of e-
government portals includes Government to Citizen (G2C),
Government of Government (G2G), Government to employee
(G2E), and Government to Business (G2B) [6] in one-stop
service centre. These requirements make integration of e-
government services in one-stop portal a very tedious and
complex task. They require proper planning and strategy to
achieve better results.
This paper focuses on the study of current e-government
portals by looking into the details of the architecture of e-
government portals. This is to learn from the architecture on
ways to improve e-government portals especially in terms of
interoperability. Unlike the previous works [7–9], this study
investigates the architectural style, quality attributes, and
achievement towards higher interoperability level using
systematic literature review (SLR) [10].
The objectives of this paper are:
1) To summarize the existing works towards improving
interoperability of e-government portals in the context of
architecture.
2) To identify the strengths and limitations of current e-
government architecture in order to suggest areas for further
research.
The remaining five sections are as follows. Section II
presents the related works to this paper. Section III explains the
review process followed in this study. Section IV reports
research results. Section V explains the discussion of research
results and finally in Section VI concludes and outlines some
possible future works.
 II. RELATED WORKS
Ouchetto et al. [7] analyse five e-government architecture
and frameworks including EOSG (Europe), eSDK (UK), FEA
(US), EIP, and eAI. The study investigates the availability of
eight e-government portal features. The features include inter-
authorities integration, legacy system integration,
evolutionarity, access type, back-office, architecture
orientation, and technology and standards.
Guijarro [8] surveys interoperability framework and
enterprise architectures of e-government portals in Europe and
United States (US). The study focuses on interoperability
policy and its implementation in the frameworks and enterprise
architectures. Enterprise architecture in Europe is a high-level
architecture consists of four levels. Enterprise architecture in
US produces Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework
(FEAF) based on Zachman Framework. The study investigates
three selected architectures only. It does not provide the overall
descriptions and analysis for larger number of architectures.
Helali et al. [9] review seven e-government architectures
from developed countries. The work analyses the availability
of intrinsic and extrinsic characteristic of e-government
architecture. The quality attributes that have been applied to all
architectures are interoperability and integration, security and
trust, and compatibility. The study reports that a few
architectures considering cost, scalability and legality in the
architecture of portals. However, the study does not evaluate
the quality of the architecture.
Unlike the previous works, this paper explores the
architectural structures and elements of e-government portals
and analyses their achievements towards a high level of
interoperability. This enables us to evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of the present approaches and discover the area of
the current approaches that can be improved.
III. REVIEW PROCESS
The review processes follow the SLR guidelines for
software engineering by Kitchenham [11]. The guidelines have
three main phases: review planning, review execution, and
review reporting phase. The following sub-sections explain the
review planning phase. This phase consists of research
questions, search strategy, selection criteria, and qualitative
analysis.
A. Research Questions
The criteria for identification of research questions are
population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and context.
Table I shows the criteria and scope of research question
structure.
Based on the research question structure as shown in Table
I, the research questions are:
x How many researches propose architectural approach
for e-government portals and when is the earliest and
the latest study?
x What are the important characteristics of architectural
aspect of e-government portal?
x How far the interoperability and reliability
achievements of the current architecture of e-
government portal?
x What are the common flaws and strengths of the
existing e-government architectures?
Table I. Structure of research question
Criteria Scope
Population Papers propose e-government architecture portal.
Intervention Approaches that address issues in interoperability.
Comparison Limitation and strength of each approach.
Outcomes Suggest improvement area of existing approach.
Context Architecture for e-government portal
B. Search Strategy
This study uses iterative search strategy that consists of the
following steps:
1) Preliminary search in major indexing databases: Use
initial keywords such as “e-government portal”, “e-
government architecture”, and “e-government portal
architecture”. The objective of this stage is to test and refine
the search keywords.
2) Research in major indexing databases: Use refined
keywords. The refined keywords are “e-government AND
architecture AND portal.” The major indexing databases are
Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, ISI Web of Knowledge, ACM
Digital Library, SpringerLink, and CiteseerX.
3) Record search results.
4) Classify papers according to types of publications:
They are journals, conferences, theses, technical magazines,
book chapters, technical book, reports, and web pages.
C. Selection Criteria
This step ranks the source of papers from highest to lowest
priority: journals, conferences or proceedings, technical
reports, thesis reports, and books. The reviewed papers are
mainly in English. Other languages will also be reviewed if
they can be translated into English using an automatic
translator such as Google Translate software. The subjects
covered are software engineering and computer sciences. The
papers should explicitly contain text that attempts to define,
propose, suggest, or describe an architectural approach for e-
government interoperability.
D. Qualitative Analysis
The tabulation of data synthesis involves collating and
summarizing the results of the included primary studies.
Information from the study (such as intervention, population,
context, sample sizes, outcomes, and study quality) in a manner
that is consistent with the review questions. Appendix I shows
the summary of the analysis for e-government portal
architectures. It highlights similarities and differences in the
outcomes of the study.
83
 Each column has the following architectural characteristics:
x Year of the publication.
x Extended Level of Conceptual Interoperability Model
(LCIM) [12]: This model has the interoperability level
from level 0 to level 6 as shown in Fig. 1.
x Type of e-government: The types of e-government
include G2G, G2B, G2E, and G2C [6]. The
architecture supports this type of e-government portals.
x Integration maturity level: This is based on Layne and
Lee’s model as shown in Fig. 2 [13]. The evaluation of
the paper is based on the complexity and level of
integration involved as shown in the architectures.
x Architectural style or architectural patterns: This is a
description of elements and relation types together
with a set of constraints on how they may be used [14].
x Quality attributes: This determines quality attributes of
architecture including usability, modifiability,
performance, correctness and completeness, and
buildability [14].
Figure 1. The extended LCIM [12]
Figure 2. The Layne and Lee’s dimension and stage of e-government
development [13]
84
IV. RESULTS
Appendix I shows results of the search procedure. There are
seventeen unique works selected from 8,368 articles. The
selected papers met the criteria as defined in the Section III.C.
The selected papers are those that proposed new or enhanced
approaches or techniques of architectures for e-government
portal. The earliest study is in year 2005. There is only one
published research in 2001. In 2004, the number of research
increased to two, two researches in year 2005, four in 2007,
three in 2008, two in 2009, three in 2010 and one in 2011. It
shows that there is no significant increase in the number of
research.
In term of e-government type, most architectures
implement G2G and G2C. Only six out of seventeen
architectures support G2B and only two architectures support
G2E. Therefore, the most implemented e-government type is
G2C. Five e-government portals provide one-stop portal.
Table II shows the achievement of e-government portal in
the LCIM level. There are nine proposed architectures (53%)
that achieve level 2. The rest shows that seven at level 3, one at
level 4, and no e-government portal at level 0, 1, 5, and 6.
TABLE II. EVALUATION OF THE LCIM LEVEL OF E-GOVERNMENT
PORTAL ARCHITECTURE
LCIM Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of
0 0 9 7 1 0 0
architectures
Table III shows the achievement of the proposed
architecture in the level of integration maturity. About 25% or
four architectures achieve vertical integration. The rest of the
architecture, 13 architectures achieves horizontal integration. It
is the highest maturity level of integration. No architecture
found in catalogue and transaction level.
TABLE III. LEVEL OF INTEGRATION MATURITY OF E-
GOVERNMENT PORTAL ARCHITECTURE
Integration Catalogue Transaction Vertical Horizontal
maturity integration integration
Number of
0 0 4 12
architectures
Most architecture (59%) adopts SOA or Web service. The
rest adopt e-GIF, EAI, GML, and proprietary architecture.
Only one uses unknown architecture. In addition, the previous
works address the quality attributes that are security, reliability,
usability, and performance. City One-stop Portal is the only
one architecture that addresses all of these attributes [15].
Security is the attribute that mostly addressed in the
architecture, which is 47%, or eight architectures.
V. DISCUSSIONS
This section answers the research questions.
A. How many researches propose architectural approach for
e-government portal and when is the earliest and the latest
study?
This study includes seventeen unique researches that
propose architectural e-government portal. The earliest study is
in the year 2001 [16] and the latest study is Service Oriented
Travel Portal [17]. The earliest architecture employs basic
HTTP architecture, web services and enterprise application
integration (EAI). The latest work [17] employs SOA in the
portal architecture. The existing work proposes the concept of
one-stop portal since 2001 [16].
B. What are the important characteristics of architectural
aspect of e-government portal?
Various characteristics of e-government portals are
identified from previous works since the year 2001. Below are
significant architectural characteristics of e-government
portals.
x SOA, EAI, and layered architectures are the common
architectural style in e-government portal [18], [19].
The architectures are defined in several perspectives,
such as global architecture, service architecture, and a
detailed architecture [19], [20].
x Business process engine is an enabler for dynamic and
interoperable service integration and fully automatic
processes [21]. Implementation of semantic Web
service technology can improve interoperability by
utilizing it higher semantic expressiveness [19].
x To ensure better interoperability especially in one-stop
e-government portals, the respected countries should
comply with the e-government Interoperability
framework (eGIF) [22].
x The architectures incorporate mediators to resolve
semantic or technical mismatches during interaction
between services [19] using a suitable approach such
as Semantic Mediator Model and User Ontology to
improve integration in distributed environment [23].
x Consumer are allowed to add or remove services based
on the specified criteria such as price, reliability,
security, credit, or weighted performance utilities [17].
x A service search engine is required to select emerging
Web services and automatically across the Internet
[17], [24].
x The architectures should be customizable to support
evolving user’s service requirements and government
policies through portlet approach as an example [15].
x Requirements for generic one-stop e-government
architectures are client-centred approach, channel
multiplicity, concurrent access point, versatility,
security, life events, normalized services,
heterogeneity, entity authorization, and standard
evolution [25]. Small and medium size e-governments
face special issues and challenges in interoperability,
scalability, security and trust, and transparent services
because they have limited cost considerations [26].
SOA, one-stop portal service centre, semantic web services,
integrated and interoperable e-government, and layered
architecture are the most common current e-government
architecture. However, there are some significant idea that can
distinguish the ordinary e-government portal to a better one
such as providing users with freedom and autonomy to manage
their own related services based on their needs and wants.
C. How far the interoperability and reliability achievements
of the current e-government portal architecture?
This paper examines the interoperability level based on the
extended LCIM [12] and integration maturity model [13]. The
evaluation results in LCIM achievement are available in Table
II. Most works achieve level two and three. System in level
two has syntactic interoperability where there is a common
data format in order to exchange messages. In level three, the
system achieves semantic interoperability where they know the
meaning of data or message exchange. Not a single e-
government portal architectural work achieves level four, five
and six. In the level four, the system reaches pragmatic
interoperability where systems involve in the integrated system
understands the process and the workflow employed in the
transaction. There is no evidence that shows the latest
architecture achieves a higher LCIM level.
Table III shows the achievement of integration maturity of
e-government portal architecture. The research result is as in
Appendix I. Four works achieve vertical integration, 12 works
in horizontal integration and no single project falls lower than
this level of integration stage. Generally, most works reach
horizontal integrations where at this stage the architecture is
able to achieve a true integrated and interoperable portal across
different functions and organizations in a one-stop portal
service centre.
Only five works claim they address reliability issues.
However, the number is smaller if the evaluation is based on
the actual reliability definition. Web application reliability
should focus on prevention or reduction of Web failures [27].
The quality of a system should be better if can be introduced
earlier during analysis and design.
D. What are the common limitations and strengths of the
existing e-government architecture?
The overall discussions show that the current works achieve
better e-government approaches that fulfil current users’
requirements. For example, they are able to produce a one-stop
portal, integrated, secure, reliable and easy to use. The ability
of a few works that support G2G, G2B, G2E, and G2C type of
e-government is one of the high achievements in this study.
However, there are some weaknesses in the current works that
can be refined and improved to fulfil current and future users’
needs and wants. Examples of users’ needs and wants are [28–
30]:
x User-centricity.
x Real-time, accurate, reliable, and easy to use.
x Provide customized and manageable services.
x Green government.
x Simplification of e-service usage and administrative
procedure.
Most e-government architectures achieve horizontal or
vertical integration; however, most works achieve up to level 3
85
of LCIM. This shows that most works achieve higher
integration maturity but not in the area of interoperability.
Producing a higher level of interoperability and reliability will
fulfil current users’ needs and wants. They want fast and one-
stop centre e-government service centre. The lesson learned
from this study will be able to provide the elements to be
included in the development of architecture for e-government
portal such as how it should be structured and how it should be
connected to various external and internal services.
Most recent e-government architectures adopt SOA.
However, those reviewed architectures do not have detail
descriptions including the structural properties and extra-
functional properties [31]. Additionally, the descriptions of the
architectures should be in multiple views such as the logical
view, the development view, the physical view, and the process
view [32]. A complete and detailed architecture will ease the
development and implementation of a system and integration
of among systems.
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS
There is no single architecture showing how the
architecture can help users to manage services. The services are
adding, removing, monitoring, and scheduling service
executions, which have relation according to their needs and
wants. This will give freedom to users in managing their own
services and perform the trusted services on the Web.
Furthermore, current works are lack of the architecture towards
a high level of interoperability and reliability. Our future
research is to formulate an architecture for e-government
portals that is able to fulfil above requirements. To achieve this
vision, it requires the use of a systematic formulation and a
right approach to produce an architecture that can achieve a
high level of interoperability and reliability.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge Postgraduate Incentive
Grant, 1001/PKOMP/821112 that supported the Writing
Workshop (WRiTe 2) as the platform to produce this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] United Nations, “E-government Survey 2010,” United Nations, 2010.
[2] W. Ke and K. K. Wei, “Successful e-government in Singapore,”
Commun. ACM, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 95–99, Jun. 2004.
[3] Y. Kim, J. Yoon, S. Park, and J. Han, “Architecture for implementing
the mobile government services in Korea,” Conceptual Modeling for
Advanced Application Domains, pp. 601–612, 2004.
[4] W. Lam, “Barriers to e-government integration,” Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 511–530, 2005.
[5] M. Shaw, “The coming-of-age of software architecture research,” in
Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software
Engineering, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2001, p. 656–.
[6] K. Siau and Y. Long, “Synthesizing e-government stage models – a
meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach,” Industrial
Management & Data Systems, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 443-458, 2005.
[7] H. Ouchetto, D. Chiadmi, and M. Fredj, “A comparative study of e-
Government architecture,” in Procceding of the First International
Conference on E-Business an E-Learning, Princess Sumaya University
for Technology of Amman, 2005, pp. 259–266.
[8] L. Guijarro, “Interoperability frameworks and enterprise architectures in
e-government initiatives in Europe and the United States,” Government
Information Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 89–101, 2007.
86
[9] R. Helali, I. Achour, L. Labed Jilani, and H. Ben Ghezala, “A Study of
E-Government Architectures,” E-Technologies: Transformation in a
Connected World, pp. 158–172, 2011.
[10] B. A. Kitchenham, “Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature
Reviews in Software Engineering Version 2.3,” Keele University and
National ICT Australia Ltd., Joint Technical Report, 2007.
[11] B. A. Kitchenham et al., “Preliminary guidelines for empirical research
in software engineering,” IEEE Transactions on software engineering,
pp. 721–734, 2002.
[12] C. D. Turnitsa, “Extending the levels of conceptual interoperability
model,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Summer Computer Simulation
Conference, 2005.
[13] K. Layne and J. Lee, “Developing fully functional E-government: A
four stage model,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 2,
pp. 122-136, Summer 2001.
[14] L. Bass, P. Clements, and R. Kazman, Software architecture in
practice, second edition. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co.,
Inc., 2003.
[15] D. Zhu, Y. Li, J. Shi, Y. Xu, and W. Shen, “A service-oriented city
portal framework and collaborative development platform,” Information
Sciences, vol. 179, no. 15, pp. 2606-2617, Jul. 2009.
[16] E. Tambouris, “An Integrated Platform for Realising Online One-Stop
Government: The eGOV Project,” in Database and Expert Systems
Applications, International Workshop on, Los Alamitos, CA, USA,
2001, vol. 0, p. 0359.
[17] Y. Li, H. Chen, X. Zheng, C.-F. Tsai, J.-H. Chen, and N. Shah, “A
service-oriented travel portal and engineering platform,” Expert Systems
with Applications, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1213-1222, Feb. 2011.
[18] P. Yan and J. Guo, “Researching and Designing the Architecture of E-
government Based on SOA,” in 2010 International Conference on E-
Business and E-Government (ICEE), 2010, pp. 512-515.
[19] T. Vitvar, A. Mocan, S. Nazir, and X. Wang, “Pan-European E-
Government Services Architecture,” Semantic Technologies for E-
Government, vol. 1, p. 25, 2010.
[20] M. M. Lankhorst and W. L. . Derks, “Towards A Service-Oriented
Architecture for Demand-Driven e Government,” in Enterprise
Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2007. EDOC 2007. 11th
IEEE International, 2007, pp. 214-214.
[21] P. Salhofer and D. Ferbas, “A pragmatic approach to the introduction of
e-government,” in Proceedings of the 8th annual international
conference on Digital government research: bridging disciplines &
domains, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2007, pp. 183–189.
[22] Y. Charalabidis et al., “The Greek Electronic Government
Interoperability Framework: Standards and Infrastructures for One-Stop
Service Provision,” in Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, 2008, pp.
66–70.
[23] K. Votis, C. Alexakos, B. Vassiliadis, and S. Likothanassis, “An
ontologically principled service-oriented architecture for managing
distributed e-government nodes,” Journal of Network and Computer
Applications, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 131-148, Apr. 2008.
[24] M. Fugini and M. Mezzanzanica, “An application within the plan for E-
government: The workfair portal.,” Annals of Cases on Information
Technology, vol. 6, pp. 59–89, 2004.
[25] G. P. Dias and J. A. Rafael, “A simple model and a distributed
architecture for realizing one-stop e-government,” Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 81-90, Spring 2007.
[26] A. Kaliontzoglou, P. Sklavos, T. Karantjias, and D. Polemi, “A secure
e-Government platform architecture for small to medium sized public
organizations,” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, vol. 4,
no. 2, pp. 174–186, 2005.
[27] V. S. Alagar and O. Ormandjieva, “Reliability Assessment of WEB
Applications,” in Computer Software and Applications Conference,
Annual International, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2002, vol. 0, p. 405.
[28] T. A. Horan and T. Abhichandani, “Evaluating user satisfaction in an e-
government initiative: results of structural equation modeling and focus
group discussions,” Journal of Information Technology Management,
vol. 17, no. 4, p. 33, 2006.
[29] M. Kunstelj, T. Juki, and M. Vintar, “Analysing the Demand Side of
E-Government: What Can We Learn From Slovenian Users?,”
Electronic Government, pp. 305–317, 2007.
[30] eGovernment Secretariat, “Visions and priorities for eGovernment in
Europe: Orientations for a post 2010 eGovernment Action Plan,”
European Commision, Mar. 2009.
[31] M. Shaw and D. Garlan, “Formulations and formalisms in software
architecture,” Computer Science Today, pp. 307–323, 1995.
[32] S. Ziemer, “An Architecture for Web Applications,” Essay in DIF 8914
Distributed Information Systems, 2002.
[33] Qing Chen, “Content-Oriented E-Government Information Portal
Architecture and Strategies,” in 2010 International Conference on E-
Business and E-Government (ICEE), 2010, pp. 468-471.
[34] K. Griggs and R. Wild, “An Architecture Employing Emerging
Technologies for Knowledge Capture in Government Planning and
Decision Systems,” in Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on
E-government, 2008, p. 181.
[35] M. Sellami and M. Jmaiel, “A Secured Service-Oriented Architecture
for E-government in Tunisia,” Proceedings of the eGovernment
Interoperability Campus 2007 Conference (eGovINTEROP’07), 2007.
[36] M. Janssen and A. Cresswell, “Enterprise architecture integration in e-
government,” 2005.
[37] R. H. Wild and K. A. Griggs, “A web portal/decision support system
architecture for collaborative intra-governmental planning,” Electronic
Government, an International Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 61–76, 2004.

APPENDIX I: SUMMARY OF EXISTING RESEARCHES IN E-GOVERNMENT ARCHITECTURE

Type of portal Year LCIM E-government Integration Architectural style Quality attributes
level type Maturity level
Technical architecture of service-oriented one- 2011 3 G2C, G2B Vertical SOA Security, Usability
stop travel portal [17]
SOA-based e-government [18] 2010 2 G2C, G2G Horizontal SOA N/A
Content-oriented e-government portal [33] 2010 2 G2C Vertical N/A Usability
SemanticGov Architecture (Pan-European) [19] 2010 3 G2C, G2E, Horizontal Semantic Web N/A
G2G, G2B service
City One-top Portal [15] 2009 2 G2C, G2G, Horizontal SOA Security, Reliability,
G2B Usability, Performance
eGIF architecture for one-stop e-government 2008 3 G2C, G2G, Horizontal eGIF architecture Security, Reliability,
service (Greek) [22] G2B Usability
Integration of distributed e-government [23] 2008 3 G2C, G2G Horizontal SOA with ontology Security
E-Government Planning Portal [34] 2008 3 G2G, G2C Vertical Semantic Web N/A
service
Demand-driven e-government [20] 2007 3 G2C, G2E, Horizontal SOA Security, Reliability,
G2G Usability
Secure e-government architecture (Tunisia) [35] 2007 2 G2C, G2G Horizontal SOA Security, Reliability,
Usability
Distributed architecture for one-stop e- 2007 2 G2C, G2G Horizontal Distributed Web Security, Performance
government [25] service architecture
Layered architecture for pragmatic e- 2007 3 G2C, G2G Horizontal SOA Security
government [21]
Secure SMPO e-government [26] 2005 2 G2G, G2C, Horizontal SOAP-based Web Security, Usability,
G2B service Low cost
Enterprise Architecture Integration (EAI) in E- 2005 2 G2C, G2G, Horizontal EAI Reliability, Usability
Government [36] G2B
Workfair Portal [24] 2004 2 G2G, G2C Vertical SOAP-based Web Usability
service
Web portal architecture for collaborative intra- 2004 2 N/A N/A Proprietary N/A
government planning [37] Semantic Web
architecture
One-stop e-government portal architecture [16] 2001 2 G2C, G2B, Horizontal Client server Web Usability
G2G architecture

87