E-government public services in Romania must follow unitary procedures considering the new requirements of the European Union from the Digital Agenda for Europe Strategy 2020. E-government 2.0 has to be implemented because of the cultural and behavioral transformations in the interaction between governments and users of e-services. E-government 2.0 projects use tools and techniques of social media to accomplish their goals. This article examines the possible risk categories and the risk management procedures needed to mitigate risks in future Romanian e-government projects, according to the strategic lines of development for the Digital Agenda. We propose a risk management plan for the e-government lines of action within the strategic lines of development that includes identifying, assessing, and mitigating the risks. New and modernized government services through e-government 2.0 projects that apply risk management will bring a significant improvement in how citizens and businesses relate to government and will increase the use of e-government services.
1. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2015). The great theory hunt: Does e-government really have a problem?, Government Information Quarterly, 32, 1-11.
2. Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities, Government Information Quarterly, 29, 123-132.
3. Boughzala, I., Janssen, M., Assar, S. (2015). E-Government 2.0: Back to Reality, a 2.0 Application to Vet (Chapter 1), In I. Boughzala, M. Janssen, Assar S. (Ed.), Case Studies in e-Government 2.0 - Changing Citizen Relationships (pp. 1-14), Online: Springer International Publishing Switzerland, ISBN 978-3-319-08081-9 (eBook).
4. Colesca, S.E. (2009). Increasing E-Trust: A Solution to Minimize Risk in EGovernment Adoption, Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 4(1), 31-44.
5. Didraga, O., & Brandas, C. (2014). Study on the E-Government State of Play in Romania, Proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Academic Conference on Economics, Management and Marketing (MAC-EMM 2014), December 5-6, 2014, Prague, Czech Republic.
6. Didraga, O., & Brandas, C. (2015). Comparative Study on E-Government Indicators between Romania and the European Union, Informatica Economica Journal, 19(1), 67-76.
7. Dixon, B. (2010). Towards E-Government 2.0: An Assessment of Where EGovernment 2.0 is and Where It Is Headed, Public Administration & Management, 15(2), 418-454.
8. European Commission (2014). Delivering the European Advantage? ‘How European Governments can and should benefit from innovative public services’ - eGovernment Benchmark - May 2014, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, ISBN 978-92-79-38052-5.
9. European Commission (2015a), Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2014 - Romania, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/romania Accessed 18 March 2015.
10. European Commission (2015b), eGovernment in Romania, Edition 12.0 - eGovernement Factsheets, January 2015, Retrieved from https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/egov_in_romania_-_january_2015_-_v.12.0_final.pdf Accessed 21 March 2015.
11. Gatman, A. (2011). e-Government - Assisting Reformed Public Administration in Romania, Romanian Journal of Economics, 32, 1(41), 216-242.
12. Georgescu, M., & Popescul, D. (2014). The uncertainty of using Web 2.0 Technologies in E-Government development. Romania‟s Case, Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 769-776.
13. ISO (2009). ISO 31000:2009. Risk management - Principles and guidelines, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
14. Khalil, O.E.M. (2011). E-Government Readiness: Does national culture matter?, Government Information Quarterly, 28, 388-399.
15. MCSI (2015). Strategia Națională privind Agenda Digitală pentru România 2020 - Februarie 2015, Retreieved from http://www.mcsi.ro/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?nodeguid=0617c1d7-182f-44c0-a978-4d8653e2c31d Accessed 10 April 2015
16. Meijer, A.J., Koops, B.-J., Pieterson, W., Overman, S., & ten Tije, S. (2012). Government 2.0: Key Challenges to Its Realization, Electronic Journal of EGovernment, 10(1), 59-69.
17. Savoldelli, A., Codagnone, C., & Misuraca, G. (2014). Understanding the egovernment paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption, Government Information Quarterly, 31, S63-S71.
18. Stoica, O. (2009). E-Government Implementation in Romania. From National Success to International Example, Retrieved from http://www.nispa.org/conf_paper_detail.php?cid=17&p=1549&pid=166, Accessed 21 March 2015.
19. Sun, P.-L., Ku, C.-Y., & Shih, D.-H. (2015). An implementation framework for E-Government 2.0, Telematics and Informatics, 32, 504-520.
20. Tesu, M.D. (2012). Developing E-Government for Better Public Services Within European Union, Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 7(2), 79-88.
21. United Nations (2014). E-Government Survey 2014 - E-Government for the Future We Want, New York: United Nations, ISBN: 978-92-1-123198-4, available online: http://www.unpan.org/e-government.
22. Victorian Government - Department of Premier and Cabinet (2010a). Government 2.0 Projects in VPS: an introduction to managing risk, Retrieved from http://www.vic.gov.au/blog/social-media-guides/government-2-0-projects-vpsintroduction-managing-risk/ Accessed 20 April 2015.
23. Victorian Government - Department of Premier and Cabinet (2010b). Victorian Public Service - Government 2.0 Risk Register and Management Plan, Retrieved from http://www.vic.gov.au/blog/social-media-guides/victorian-public-servicegovernment-2-0-risk-register-management-plan/ Accessed 20 April 2015.