A Six-Dimensional Strategic Development Tool for e-Government Effectiveness

  • Timothy E. DolanEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 3)


Governments have had over a decade to incorporate secure, and functionally interactive features into agency websites-oriented toward the provision of public information, services, accountability, and transparency; various evaluative schemes have been proffered to measure their progress and relative effectiveness. While no single standard evaluative tool has emerged, a number of efforts have yielded useful benchmarks though a number have also been limited in overall scope with little reference to strategic planning; often reflecting the perspectives of information technology specialists or administrators and not the broader interests of stakeholders. What is generally missing is a comprehensive development gauge that includes technical functionality in the areas known to be essential to effective e-Government site development. This piece builds upon previous work in site evaluation and presents an applied strategic inventory tool that might more comprehensively address e-Government Web development on the dimensions of security, database integration, internal communication capacity, lateral interagency capacity, citizen interactivity, and transparency of government process. The e-Government applied inventory tool features a matrix based upon the presence or absence of three key indicators associated with each of the six dimensions of site effectiveness. This evaluative model is applied to the ministerial websites of six selected countries; Djibouti, Finland, India, Kenya, Namibia, and Peru. The chapter ends with a discussion on the likely correlations between this e-Government strategic development tool and its possible utility as a measure of relative political development.


e-Government e-Government effectiveness Website assessment Website security Website interactivity Transparency  Strategic development 


  1. Alghamdi, I. A., Goodwin, R., & Rampersad, G. (2011). E-Government readiness assessment for government organizations in developing countries. Computer and Information Science, 4(3). doi: 10.5539/cis.v4n3p3.
  2. Anderson, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assange, J. (2009). Gmail may hand over IP addresses of journalists. Wikileaks. Retrieved May 2, 2012 from
  4. Ataloglou, M.P., & Economides, A. A. (2009). Evaluating European Ministries’ websites. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 3, 147–177.Google Scholar
  5. Borras, J. (2004). International technical standards for e-government. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 12(2), 95–104.Google Scholar
  6. CYPRG (Cyberspace Policy Research Group) (2001) ‘Web Attribute Evaluation System (WAES)’; URL:
  7. Dolan, T.E., (2013). Potemkin portals or the real revolution?: The state of e-government in Egypt. Digest of Middle East Studies.Google Scholar
  8. Gebba, T. R., & Zakaria, M. R. (2012). E-Government in Egypt: An analysis of practices and challenges. Journal of Technology and Management, 1(1), 11–25.Google Scholar
  9. Gibson, William, Fresh Air, National Public Radio interview, Aug. 31, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. Gottschalk, P. (2009). Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gottschalk, P., & Solli-Saether, H. (2009). E-Government interoperability and information resource integration: Frameworks for aligned development. Hershey: Information Science Information Service.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanna, N. K. (2011). Managing change and innovation in government, in transforming government and building the information society: Innovation, technology and knowledge management. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hassan, H., S., Shehab, E., & Peppard, J. (2011). Recent advances in e-services in the public sector: State of the art and future trends. Business Process Management Journal, 17(3), 526–545.Google Scholar
  14. Heeks R., & Molla A. (2009). Impact assessment of ICT development projects: A compendium of approaches, Manchester University Institute for development policy and management, Ed. Development Informatics Group.Google Scholar
  15. Love, P., Irani, Z., & Jones, S. (2008). Learning lessons from evaluating eGovernment: Reflective case experiences that support transformational government. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17, 155–164.Google Scholar
  16. Kerzner, H. (2001). Strategic planning for project management using a project management maturity model. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Klischewski, R., & Ukena, S. (2010). E-Government goes semantic web: How administrations can transform their information processes. In P. Vitvar, K. Tarabanis, & V. Peristeras (Eds.), Semantic technologies for e-government. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Layne, K., & Lee, J. W. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136. doi:  10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1.
  19. Lofstedt, Ulrica. (2005). E-Government—Assessment of current research and some proposals for future directions. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 1, 39–52.Google Scholar
  20. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  21. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Morozov, E. (2011). The Net Delusion: How not to liberate the world. Penguin.Google Scholar
  23. Mutula, S. M., & Pieter, V. B. (2006). An evaluation of e-readiness assessment tools with respect to information access: Towards an integrated information rich tool. International Journal of Information Management, 26, 212–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Open Net Initiative. (2009). Internet filtering in the Middle East and North Africa. Retrieved April 21, 2012 from
  25. Savoldeli, Codagnone, and Misuraca (2012) Explaining the eGovernment paradox: an analysis of two decades of evidence from scientific literature and practice on barriers to eGovernment, ICEGOV ‘12 Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 287-296.Google Scholar
  26. United Nations (2012) E-Government Survey Measurement Criteria Retrieved March 20, 2013.
  27. World Wide Web Consortium. (1999). Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0. W3C Working Draft, 11.Google Scholar
  28. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and Power. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Policy ForesightAshlandUSA

Personalised recommendations