research-article

Toward an Enabler-Based Digital Government Maturity Framework: A Preliminary Proposal Based on Theories of Change

Authors:

Cesar Renteria,

J. Ramon Gil-Garcia,

Theresa A. PardoAuthors Info & Claims

ICEGOV '19: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

Pages 408 - 417

https://doi.org/10.1145/3326365.3326419

Published: 03 April 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Digital government has been seen as a strategy to improve public services, foster engagement with citizens, and modernize government agencies. Regardless of the recognition of this important role in government transformation, there is no consistent evidence in terms of the determinants and results of digital government strategies. More specifically, there is no clarity about what leads to successful digital government initiatives. Stage-based maturity models have been used to better understand the current situation of digital government in terms of results. They are also seen as useful in helping to understand the resources and capabilities of government agencies and how they contribute to successful digital government projects. However, existing maturity models have been criticised due to their lack of theory, oversimplification of reality, and linear thinking. In an attempt to overcome some of these shortcomings, this paper proposes what we call an enabler-based digital government maturity model. Our proposed model not only argues for a multidimensional view, but also suggests how to think about specific mechanisms of impact. By specifying the mechanisms of influence, our proposal starts a necessary conversation about maturity models and the potential complementarity of stage-based and enabler-based approaches.

References

[1]

Andersen, K.V. and Henriksen, H.Z. 2006. E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government information quarterly. 23, 2 (2006), 236--248.

[2]

Bach, J. 1994. The Immaturity of the CMM. American Programmer. 7, (1994), 13.

[3]

Becker, J. et al. 2009. Developing maturity models for IT management. Business & Information Systems Engineering. 1, 3 (2009), 213--222.

[4]

Becker, J. et al. Maturity Models in IS Research.

[5]

Benbasat, I. et al. 1984. A critque of the stage hypothesis: theory and empirical evidence. Communications of the ACM. 27, 5 (1984), 476--485.

Digital Library

[6]

Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. 1985. The strategies for taking charge. Leaders, New York: Harper. Row. (1985).

[7]

Biberoglu, E. and Haddad, H. 2002. A survey of industrial experiences with CMM and the teaching of CMM practices. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges. 18, 2 (2002), 143--152.

Digital Library

[8]

Birckmayer, J.D. and Weiss, C.H. 2000. Theory-based evaluation in practice: what do we learn? Evaluation review. 24, 4 (2000), 407--431.

[9]

De Bruin, T. et al. 2005. Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model. (2005).

[10]

De Bruin, T. and Rosemann, M. 2005. Towards a business process management maturity model. (2005).

[11]

Cejudo, G.M. and Michel, C.L. 2017. Addressing fragmented government action: Coordination, coherence, and integration. Policy Sciences. 50, 4 (2017), 745--767.

[12]

Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. 2007. The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public administration review. 67, 6 (2007), 1059--1066.

[13]

Coursey, D. and Norris, D.F. 2008. Models of e-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public administration review. 68, 3 (2008), 523--536.

[14]

Debri, F. and Bannister, F. 2015. E-government stage models: A contextual critique. System Sciences (HICSS), 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on (2015), 2222--2231.

Digital Library

[15]

Fath-Allah, A. et al. 2014. E-government maturity models: A comparative study. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications. 5, 3 (2014), 71.

[16]

Ford, J.D. and Ford, L.W. 1994. Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review. 19, 4 (1994), 756--785.

[17]

Friedman, A. 1994. The stages model and the phases of the IS field. Journal of Information Technology. 9, 2 (1994), 137--148.

[18]

Gottschalk, P. 2009. Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly. 26, 1 (2009), 75--81.

[19]

Hiller, J.S. and Bélanger, F. 2001. Privacy strategies for electronic government. E-government. 200, (2001), 162--198.

[20]

Hood, C. and Dixon, R. 2015. What we have to show for 30 years of new public management: Higher costs, more complaints. Governance. 28, 3 (2015), 265--267.

[21]

Joshi, P. and Islam, S. 2018. E-Government Maturity Model for Sustainable E-Government Services from the Perspective of Developing Countries. Sustainability. 10, 6 (2018), 1882.

[22]

Kim, D.-Y. and Grant, G. 2010. E-government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration. Journal of Systems and Information Technology. 12, 3 (2010), 230--244.

[23]

King, J.L. and Kraemer, K.L. 1984. Evolution and organizational information systems: an assessment of Nolan's stage model. Communications of the ACM. 27, 5 (1984), 466--475.

Digital Library

[24]

Koschinsky, J. and Swanstrom, T. 2001. Confrontin Policy Fragmentation: A Political Approach to the Role of Housing Nonprofits. Review of Policy Research. 18, 4 (2001), 111--127.

[25]

Kotter, J.P. and others 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. (1995).

[26]

Lahrmann, G. et al. 2011. Inductive design of maturity models: applying the Rasch algorithm for design science research. International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems (2011), 176--191.

Digital Library

[27]

Lasrado, L.A. et al. 2015. Maturity models development in is research: a literature review. IRIS Selected Papers of the Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia 2015. Paper (2015).

[28]

Layne, K. and Lee, J. 2001. Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government information quarterly. 18, 2 (2001), 122--136.

[29]

Lee, J. 2010. 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly. 27, 3 (2010), 220--230.

[30]

Mettler, T. 2011. Maturity assessment models: a design science research approach. International Journal of Society Systems Science (IJSSS). 3, 1/2 (2011), 81--98.

[31]

Moynihan, D.P. 2006. Ambiguity in policy lessons: The agencification experience. Public Administration. 84, 4 (2006), 1029--1050.

[32]

Netchaeva, I. 2002. E-government and e-democracy: a comparison of opportunities in the north and south. Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands). 64, 5 (2002), 467--477.

[33]

Nolan, R.L. 1973. Managing the computer resource: a stage hypothesis. Communications of the ACM. 16, 7 (1973), 399--405.

Digital Library

[34]

Poeppelbuss, J. et al. 2011. Maturity models in information systems research: Literature search and analysis. CAIS. 29, 1 (2011), 1--15.

[35]

Pöppelbuß, J. and Röglinger, M. 2011. What makes a useful maturity model? a framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. ECIS (2011), 28.

[36]

Rogers, P.J. and Weiss, C.H. 2007. Theory-based evaluation: Reflections ten years on: Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New directions for evaluation. 2007, 114 (2007), 63--81.

[37]

Shaw, J.D. 2017. Advantages of starting with theory. Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY.

[38]

Siau, K. and Long, Y. 2005. Synthesizing e-government stage models--a meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 105, 4 (2005), 443--458.

[39]

Van Veenstra, A.F. et al. 2011. Barriers and impediments to transformational government: insights from literature and practice. Electronic Government, An International Journal. 8, 2--3 (2011), 226--241.

[40]

Verhoest, K. et al. 2016. Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries. Springer.

[41]

Weiss, C.H. and others 1995. Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts. 1, (1995), 65--92.

[42]

Wendler, R. 2012. The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study. Information and software technology. 54, 12 (2012), 1317--1339.

Digital Library

[43]

Wescott, C.G. 2001. E-Government in the Asia-pacific region. Asian Journal of Political Science. 9, 2 (2001), 1--24.

[44]

West, D.M. 2004. E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public administration review. 64, 1 (2004), 15--27.

[45]

2016. Digital by default: A guide to transforming government. McKinsey Center for Government.

[46]

2017. Introducing the Gartner Digital Government Maturity Model 2.0. Gartner, Inc.

[47]

2009. Measurement and Evaluation Tool for E-Government Readiness: METER 2.

Cited By

Iannacci FKaranasios SViscusi GMcManus RRupietta CTan C(2025)Unboxing maturity models: A set-theoretic perspective on e-Government configurations over timeThe Journal of Strategic Information Systems10.1016/j.jsis.2024.10187434:1(101874)Online publication date: Mar-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2024.101874
Okan A(2024)Exploring the Landscape of e-Government Maturity Models: Insights from Systematic Mapping Study and Comparative AnalysisDigital Government: Research and Practice10.1145/36565865:2(1-26)Online publication date: 12-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656586
JAMOULI YTETOUANI SCHERKAOUI OSOULHI A(2023)A model for Industry 4.0 readiness in manufacturing industriesData and Metadata10.56294/dm20232002(200)Online publication date: 29-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.56294/dm2023200
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Toward an Enabler-Based Digital Government Maturity Framework: A Preliminary Proposal Based on Theories of Change
1. Applied computing
  1. Computers in other domains
    1. Computing in government
      1. E-government

Recommendations

Digital Government Maturity as a Technologically New E-Government Maturity Model: Experience of Kazakhstan
ICEEG '19: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on E-commerce, E-Business and E-Government

This article discusses recent e-Government maturity models, presents the principles and levels of development of Digital Government, and conducts a comparative analysis of the concepts of Digital and e-Government. This article will also present the e-...
Improving governance with an e-government maturity model
ICEGOV '09: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governance

In this paper, we analyze the main characteristics of the e-Government Maturity Model developed by the Government Agency for e-Government and the Knowledge and Information Society (AGESIC) of Uruguay. The purpose of the model is to contribute to ...
Maturity Model for Local E-Government: A Case Study
ICCMS '17: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation

Many maturity models have been used to evaluate or classify e-government portals. In the case of evaluating electronic services provided to citizens, an appropriate e-government maturity model should be selected. Ecuadorian municipalities' portals have ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

ICEGOV '19: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

April 2019

538 pages

ISBN:9781450366441

DOI:10.1145/3326365

Editors:
Soumaya Ben Dhaou
United Nations University (UNU-EGOV)
,
Lemuria Carter
University of New South Wales (UNSW)
,
Mark Gregory
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT University)

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 03 April 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

ICEGOV2019

ICEGOV2019: 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

April 3 - 5, 2019

VIC, Melbourne, Australia

Acceptance Rates

ICEGOV '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 81 of 171 submissions, 47%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 350 of 865 submissions, 40%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
256
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)35
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

Reflects downloads up to 14 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Iannacci FKaranasios SViscusi GMcManus RRupietta CTan C(2025)Unboxing maturity models: A set-theoretic perspective on e-Government configurations over timeThe Journal of Strategic Information Systems10.1016/j.jsis.2024.10187434:1(101874)Online publication date: Mar-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2024.101874
Okan A(2024)Exploring the Landscape of e-Government Maturity Models: Insights from Systematic Mapping Study and Comparative AnalysisDigital Government: Research and Practice10.1145/36565865:2(1-26)Online publication date: 12-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656586
JAMOULI YTETOUANI SCHERKAOUI OSOULHI A(2023)A model for Industry 4.0 readiness in manufacturing industriesData and Metadata10.56294/dm20232002(200)Online publication date: 29-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.56294/dm2023200
Escobar FAlmeida WVarajão J(2023)Digital transformation success in the public sectorInformation Polity10.3233/IP-21151828:1(61-81)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.3233/IP-211518
Felippes Bda Silva IBarbalho SAdam THeine ISchmitt R(2022)3D-CUBE readiness model for industry 4.0: technological, organizational, and process maturity enablersProduction & Manufacturing Research10.1080/21693277.2022.213562810:1(875-937)Online publication date: 25-Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2022.2135628

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents