A project of such potential cost and complexity would require a compelling vision. So part of the early planning included picking a name and logo for the project, shown here, to represent integration and power in a culturally meaningful way. The word Merkava, which can be translated as chariot, has deep religious significance in Jewish scripture as well as secular meaning and uses. The scriptural reference is to the vision of Ezekiel that includes creatures with four faces—a man, a lion, an eagle, and a bull—along with a chariot with complex wheels within wheels, all of which move in an integrated way.⁵ The initial development team was aware of the possible resistance to such major changes. So, they employed the logo and its larger meaning to reinforce the idea of a new shared identity for the project and those participating in it. According to Ronny Jacobowitz, “We were trying to push for a very clear message that says, we want to be together in doing this.”

The message appears to have been effective. This logo, developed at the beginning of the work, is used extensively in documents and presentations, reinforcing the distinctive identity of the project. Enthusiasm for the project was high among the early adopters interviewed for the case study. As Jacobowitz put it, “Some people may be against the team or things that are done wrong, but not against the idea itself.”

The metaphorical vision represented by the Merkava logo fits well with what emerged as the practical vision for the Merkava ERP and its place in the overall e-government initiative. Both involve the themes of reform, multiple components working in an integrated way, and multiple layers of complexity.⁶ The place of Merkava in that overall picture is as a layer of cross-cutting functions for all agencies: initially there was reform in the financial management, procurement, and human resource administration. Financial management goals focused on the conversion from a cash to accrual-based accounting system for all agencies, and one that would provide the integrated information base necessary for enhanced transparency, more efficient resource allocation, physical asset management, procurement controls, and more meaningful information for decision makers. Real estate asset management was added to the financial management component. These reform targets have substantial potential to improve the internal efficiency of government and the strategic position of the Merkava ERP in the overall e-government vision.

That overall e-government vision is represented in the five-layer model shown in Figure 2 below. The layers reflect their cross-government design, linking eventually across all agencies. The layers show a certain level of interdependency among the various system and infrastructure components. The capabilities in each layer form a foundation that the functions of higher layers depend on and interact with. The information sharing and integration capabilities of the Merkava.

ERP, for example, depend on the connectivity provided by the bottom Gov@net layer. However, unlike the Merkava layer, the others are not single integrated systems, but rather combinations of applications, infrastructure, facilities, and devices like smart cards. As an overall vision, this model makes clear that the Merkava initiative and those in the other layers have been conceived of as parts of an interrelated whole. That is, the direct public returns anticipated from the service applications available through the eGov Portal layer and Access Centers depend on the successful investment in and implementation of systems in the layers below.

However, at this point in the development of the Merkava ERP, the higher layer capabilities are not all linked to the Merkava operations and applications. For example, the e-procurement system works through the eGov portal and depends on the Tehila citizen connectivity layer, but is not fully integrated with the procurement modules in Merkava. Since these various systems are developed and come on line somewhat independently, the contribution of lower layers to public returns cannot be directly linked in every case to the service layers. This question of linking versus independently developed components is inherent in a comprehensive set of systems such as this and has not been fully resolved in this eGov initiative. This issue does not, however, diminish the public value case for the Merkava project as much as it illustrates the complexity of public value assessment for highly integrated government initiatives.