Comparative Analysis of E-Gov Services: An Ontology-Based Approach

  • Aurora Sánchez-Ortiz
  • Arkalgud Ramaprasad
  • Thant Syn


Advances in information technology have motivated governments around the world to use it to improve their services. This initiative to electronify and transform their services has been termed e-Government, e-Governance, and e-Democracy. Built upon our prior work, we extend the ontology of e-Gov to include the quality of service. Next, we map the research on e-Gov services onto the ontology and visualize the current state of the research using the ontological map of monads and the dendrogram of clusters. Finally, we compare the research on e-Gov in different geographical regions—Africa, the Americas, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, and Europe. Overall, e-Gov research is selective and scattered; it is also regionally uneven. We conclude the chapter with a discussion on the implications of unbalanced e-Gov research.


  1. Alcaide-Muñoz, L., & Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P. (2015). Understanding e-Government research: A perspective from the information and library science field of knowledge. Internet Research, 25(4), 633–673.Google Scholar
  2. Cheetham, A. H., & Hazel, J. E. (1969). Binary (presence-absence) similarity coefficients. Journal of Paleontology, 43(5), 1130–1136.Google Scholar
  3. Dice, L. R. (1945). Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology, 26(3), 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gower, J. C. (1971). A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics, 27(4), 857–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-Government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 243–265.Google Scholar
  6. Jaccard, P. (1912). The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone. New Phytologist, 11(2), 37–50.Google Scholar
  7. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-Government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.Google Scholar
  8. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, J., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Medice, 6(7), 339 :b2700.Google Scholar
  9. Madsen, C. O., Berger, J. B., & Phythian, M. (2014). The development in leading e-government articles 2001-2010: Definitions, perspectives, scope, research philosophies, methods and recommendations: An update of Heeks and Bailur. In M. Janssen, H. J. Scholl, M. A. Wimmer, & F. Bannister (Eds.), Electronic government (pp. 17–34). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Ramaprasad, A., Sánchez-Ortiz, A., & Syn, T. (2015a). Gaps in local eGovernment research: An ontological analysis. In Proceedings of the 21st Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2015). Puerto Rico, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Ramaprasad, A., Sánchez-Ortiz, A., & Syn, T. (2015b). An ontology of eGovernment. In E. Tambouris, M. Janssen, H. J. Scholl, M. A. Wimmer, K. Tarabanis, M. Gascó, B. Klievink, I. Lindgren, & P. Parycek (Eds.), Electronic government (pp. 258–269). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ramaprasad, A., & Syn, T. (2014). Design thinking and evaluation using an ontology. In M. Helfert, B. Donnellan, & J. Kenneally (Eds.), Design science: Perspectives from Europe (pp. 63–74). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Ramaprasad, A., & Syn, T. (2015). Ontological meta-analysis and synthesis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37, 138–153.Google Scholar
  14. Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., Alcaide Muñoz, L., & López Hernández, A. M. (2016). Scientometric study of the progress and development of e-Government research during the period 2000-2012. Information Technology for Development, 22(1), 36–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Scholl, H. J. (2006). Is e-Government research a flash in the pan or here for the long shot? In M. A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl, A. Grönlund, & K. V. Andersen (Eds.), Electronic government: Proceeding of the 5th international conference (EGOV 2006) (pp. 13–24). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sokal, R. R., & Michener, C. D. (1958). A statistical method for evaluation systematic relationships. The University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 38, 1409–1438.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aurora Sánchez-Ortiz
    • 1
  • Arkalgud Ramaprasad
    • 2
  • Thant Syn
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidad Católica del NorteAntofagastaChile
  2. 2.University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Texas A&M International UniversityLaredoUSA

Personalised recommendations