Advertisement

Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0: Foundations for Building Next Generation eGovernment Maturity Models

  • Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 32)

Abstract

Demographic, economic and other challenges is putting the public sector and service deliver under increasing pressure. ICT as an enabler of increased efficiency, effectiveness and transformation has long been recognized as part of the solution. National experiences show that the potential of ICT has not been fully realized, especially not in relation to Government 3.0 (Gov3.0). Existing public administration, information systems management and eGovernment literature and individual studies all point to the role of governance and cross-organisational cooperation in successfully introducing eServices and citizens actual use of them.

With a specific focus on eGovernment and eGovernance maturity and stage models, the literature attempt to unearth the underlying reasons why countries with similar infrastructures and eService availability experience very different levels of online interaction with the public sector, and in particular whether existing stage models address governance and cooperation.

Unfortunately, the review highlight a number of gaps including: Focus on outcomes and actual use is missing; most lack a real understanding of core government service concepts; decision-making should not be considered an eGovernment maturity level; front-office service provision and back-office integration is mixed-up; none addresses governance directly; most models are merely restructure or adjust existing ones, and none address Gov3.0 as such.

Keywords

ICT Government 3.0 eGovernment eGovernance Cross-governmental cooperation Public service delivery eServices Maturity models Stage models Public administration Citizens Businesses IT management IT governance ICT enabled reform 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This chapter is a result of the project “SmartEGOV: Harnessing EGOV for Smart Governance (Foundations, methods, Tools)/NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000037”, supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (EFDR). It work was also supported in part by funding from Tallinn University of Technology, Project B42; OGI – Open Government Intelligence project in the EU Horizon 2020 framework program, grant agreement 693849.

References

  1. Alhomod SM, Shafi MM (2012) Best practices in e-government: a review of some innovative models proposed in different countries. Int J Electri Comput Sci 12(2):1–6Google Scholar
  2. Almazan RS, Gil-Garcia JR (2008) e-Government portals in Mexico. Electron Gov Concepts Methodol Tools Appl 6:1726–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ANAO (1999) Electronic service delivery, including internet use by Commonwealth government agencies. ANAO, Australian National Auditing Office, Canberra, p 87Google Scholar
  4. Andersen KV, Henriksen HZ (2006) E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Gov Inf Q 23(2):236–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bannister F (2001) Dismantling the silos: extracting new value from IT investments in public administration. Inf Syst J 11(1):65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bannister F (2007) The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons. Int Rev Adm Sci 73(2):171–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bannister F, Connolly R (2011) Transformation and public sector values, in tGov 11. Brunel University, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Bates MJ (1989) The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review 13(5):407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baum C, Di Maio A. (2000) Gartner’s four phases of e-government model. In: Gartner GroupGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown AE, Grant GG (2005) Framing the frameworks: a review of IT governance research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 15(1):38Google Scholar
  11. Brown CV, Magill SL (1994) Alignment of the IS functions with the enterprise: toward a model of antecedents. MIS Q:371–403Google Scholar
  12. Chan CM, Lau YM, Pan SL (2008) E-government implementation: a macro analysis of Singapore's e-government initiatives. Gov Inf Q 25(2):239–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chandler S, Emanuels S (2002) Transformation not automation. In: Proceedings of 2nd European conference on E-government. Management Center Europe, BrusselesGoogle Scholar
  14. Charalabidis Y (2015) What is government 3.0? In: Charalabidis Y (ed) Governance and transformation. Yannis Charalabidis, AthensGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen JYY, Mingins C (2011) A three-dimensional model for e-government development with cases in China’s regional e-government practice and experience. In: ICMeCG, 2011 fifth international conference on management of e-commerce and e-government. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., WuhanGoogle Scholar
  16. Christensen T, Lægreid P (2007) The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Adm Rev 67(6):1059–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christine Leitner, J.-M.E., François Heinderyckx, Klaus Lenk, Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen, Roland Traunmüller (2003) eGovernment in Europe: the state of affairs. p 66Google Scholar
  18. Cisco IBSG (2007) e-Government Best Practices learning from success, avoiding the pitfalls. Cisco IBSGGoogle Scholar
  19. Cordella A (2007) E-government: towards the e-bureaucratic form? J Inf Technol 22(3):265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cordella A, Bonina CM (2012) A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: a theoretical reflection. Gov Inf Q 29(4):512–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davison RM, Wagner C, Ma LC (2005) From government to e-government: a transition model. Inf Technol People 18(3):280–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. de Bri F, Bannister F (2010) Whole-of-government: the continuing problem of eliminating silos. Proceedings of the 10th European conference on eGovernment. National Centre for Taxation Studies and University of Limerick, Ireland, pp 122–133Google Scholar
  23. Deloitte and Touche (2001) The citizen as customer. In: CMS management. Deloitte and Touche, p 58Google Scholar
  24. Demmke C (2006) Governmental, organisational and individual performance. Performance myths, performance “hype” and real performance. EIPAScope 2006(1):411 Google Scholar
  25. Dias GP, Gomes H (2014) Evolution of local e-government maturity in Portugal. In: Information systems and technologies (CISTI), 2014 9th Iberian conference on. 2014. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  26. EC (2012) E.C., Public services online ‘Digital by default or by De-tour?’ Assessing user centric eGovernment performance in Euorpe – eGovernment Benchmark 2012. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  27. EC (2014) E.C., Delivering the European advantage? ‘How European governments can and should benefit from innovative public services’. European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  28. Edelmann N, Krimmer R, Parycek P (2008) Engaging youth through deliberative e-participation: a case study. Int J Electron Gov 1(4):385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. European Commission, D.R.a.I (2013) Powering European public sector innovation: towards a new architecture. D.R.a. Innovation, Editor. European Commission, DG Research and Innovation, Brussels, pp 1–64Google Scholar
  30. Eurostat (2016) Information society household survey [cited 28 March 2016]; Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/information-society/data/database
  31. Fath-Allah A et al (2014) eGovernment maturity models: a comparative study. Int J Software Eng Appl 5(3):72–91Google Scholar
  32. Frissen V et al (2007) The future of eGovernment: an exploration of ICT-driven models of eGovernment for the EU in 2020. D. Osimo, D. Zinnbauer and A. Bianchi, Joint Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  33. Gammon H (1954) The automatic handling of office paper work. Public Adm Rev 14(1):63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heeks R (2005) Implementing and managing eGovernment: an international text. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  35. Heeks R (2006) Understanding and measuring eGovernment: international benchmarking studies. UNDESA workshop “E-participation and e-government: understanding the present and creating the future”. Budapest, Hungary, pp 27–28Google Scholar
  36. Heeks R (2015) A better eGovernment maturity model. In: iGovernment Briefing. Manchester, University of ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  37. Heeks R, Bailur S (2007) Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Gov Inf Q 24(2):243–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hiller JS, Belanger F (2001) Privacy strategies for electronic government. E-government 200:162–198Google Scholar
  39. Hodgkinson S (2002) Managing an e-government transformation program. Working Towards Whole-of-Government Online Conference, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  40. Howard M (2001) E-government across the globe: how will “e” change government? Gov Finan Rev 17(4):6–9Google Scholar
  41. Huijboom N, van der Broek T, Frissen V, Kool L, Kotterink B, Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Millard J (2009a) Public services 2.0: key areas in the public sector impact of social computing. p 134Google Scholar
  42. Huijboom N et al (2009b) Public Services 2.0: the impact of social computing on public services, in Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  43. Igari N (2014) How to successfully promote ICT usage: a comparative analysis of Denmark and Japan. Telematics Inform 31(1):115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. InfoDev, C.f.D.a.T (2002) The e-government handbook for developing countries. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 1–41Google Scholar
  45. Iribarren M et al (2008) Capability maturity framework for eGovernment: a multi-dimensional model and assessing tool. In: Electronic government. Springer, pp 136–147Google Scholar
  46. Janowski T (2015) Digital government evolution: from transformation to contextualization. Gov Inf Q 32(3):221–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Janssen M, Chun SA, Gil-Garcia JR (2009) Building the next generation of digital government infrastructures. Gov Inf Q 26(2):233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf Syst Manag 29(4):258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jukić TT, Ljupčo N, Nameslaki A (2015) Investigation of e-government research field: what has been done and how to proceed? NISPAcee J Public Admin Policy 23Google Scholar
  50. Kalampokis E, Tambouris E, Tarabanis K (2011) Open government data: a stage model. In: Electronic government. Springer, pp 235–246Google Scholar
  51. Kim D-Y, Grant G (2010) E-government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration. J Syst Inf Technol 12(3):230–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Klievink B, Janssen M (2009) Realizing joined-up government—dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Gov Inf Q 26(2):275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Klischewski R, Scholl HJ (2008) Information quality as capstone in negotiating e-government integration, interoperation and information sharing. Electron Gov Int J 5(2):203–225Google Scholar
  54. Koh CE, Prybutok VR (2003) The three ring model development of an instrument for measuring dimensions of E-government functions. J Comput Inf Syst 43(3):34Google Scholar
  55. Layne K, Lee J (2001) Developing fully functional E-government: a four stage model. Gov Inf Q 18(2):122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lee J (2010) 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Gov Inf Q 27(3):220–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lee G, Kwak YH (2012) An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Gov Inf Q 29(4):492–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lips M (2012) E-government is dead: long live public administration 2.0. Inf Polity 17(3):239–250Google Scholar
  59. Luna DE et al (2013) Improving the performance assessment of government web portals: a proposal using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Inf Polity 18(2):169–187Google Scholar
  60. Meyerhoff M, Kelly A (2011) Scandinavia 2.0: efficiency, cooperation and innovations to alleviate the economic crisis. Eur J ePract 11:19–38Google Scholar
  61. Meyerhoff Nielsen M (2014) Identifying eGovernment success factors: an analysis of selected national governance models and their experiences in digitising service delivery. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: challenges in Eurasia, 2014, pp 19–25Google Scholar
  62. Meyerhoff Nielsen M (2015) Supply and use of citizen eServices: an analysis of selected national experiences in relation to existing governance and cooperation models. NISPAcee J Public Admin Policy 23Google Scholar
  63. Meyerhoff Nielsen M (2016a) The role of governance, cooperation, and eService use in current eGovernment stage models. HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  64. Meyerhoff Nielsen M (2016b) eGovernance and stage models: Analysis of identified models and selected Eurasian experiences in digitizing citizen service delivery. Int J Electron Gov Res x(x):2016Google Scholar
  65. Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Igari N (2012) Speaking Danish in Japan. CeDEM 12 conference for E-Democracy and Open Government 3–4 May 2012 Danube-University Krems, 2012, p 137Google Scholar
  66. Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Mika Y (2014) An analysis of the Danish approach to eGovernment benefit realisation. Internet Technologies and Society 2014 conference proceedings, 2014, pp 47–58Google Scholar
  67. Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Robert K (2015) Reuse of data for personal and proactive service: an opportunity not yet utilised. In: CeDEM 15 conference for e-democracy and open government 20–22 May 2015, Danube-University Krems, Austria. Krems an der Donau: Donau-Universität Krems; eJournal of eDemocracy and Open GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  68. Millard J (2010) Government 1.5 – is the bottle half full or half empty? Eur J ePract (9):35–48Google Scholar
  69. Millard J (2013) ICT-enabled public sector innovation: trends and prospects. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance. ACMGoogle Scholar
  70. Millard J, Luca C, Galasso G, Riedl R, Neuroni AC, Walser K, Sami Hamida A, Huijboom N, Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Leitner C, Fehlmann RS (2007) European eGovernment 2005–2007: Taking stock of good practice and progress towards implementation of the i2010 eGovernment Action Plan. p 80Google Scholar
  71. Millard J et al (2008) Social computing: trends in public services and policies. JRC-IPTSGoogle Scholar
  72. Ministry of Interior Korea (2016) Government 3.0. Ministry of Interior Korea, SeoulGoogle Scholar
  73. Moon MJ (2002) The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality? Public Adm Rev 62(4):424–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. NAO (2002) N.A.O., Government on the Web II. UK National Audit Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  75. NASCIO, N.A.o.S.C.I.O. (2006) Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model (EAMM), version 3.1. National Association of State Chief Information Officers, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  76. Netchaeva I (2002) e-government and e-democracy a comparison of opportunities in the North and South. Int Commun Gaz 64(5):467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. O’Leary R, Gerard C, Bingham LB (2006) Introduction to the symposium on collaborative public management. Public Adm Rev 66(s1):6–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Obi T (2012) WASEDA – IAC Internationl e-Government Index. Waseda University and IAC International Agency of CIO, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  79. Obi T (2014) WASEDA – IAC internationl e-government index. Waseda University and IAC International Agency of CIO, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  80. Obi T (2015) WASEDA – IAC Internationl e-Government Index. Waseda University and IAC International Agency of CIO, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  81. OECD (2014) Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies 15 July 2014 – C(2014)88. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  82. Persson A, Goldkuhl, G (2005) Stage-models for public e-services-investigating conceptual foundations. 2nd Scandinavian Workshop on e-Government, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  83. Peters BG, Pierre J (1998) Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. J Public Adm Res Theory 8(2):223–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Poeppelbuss J et al (2011) Maturity models in information systems research: literature search and analysis. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 29(27):505–532Google Scholar
  85. Pollitt C (2014) Future trends in European public administration and management: an outside-in perspective. COCOPS Coordination for Cohesion in the Public Sector of the FutureGoogle Scholar
  86. Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2011) Public management reform: a comparative analysis-new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  87. Pöppelbuß J, 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. ECISGoogle Scholar
  88. Reddick CG (2004) A two-stage model of e-government growth: theories and empirical evidence for US cities. Gov Inf Q 21(1):51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Roberts SE (1977) Theories and Models in Information Retrieval. J Doc 33(2):126–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Röglinger M, Pöppelbuß J, Becker J (2012) Maturity models in business process management. Bus Process Manag J 18(2):328–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rohleder SJ, Jupp V (2003) e-Government leadership: engaging the customer. Accenture, Arlington, pp 1–94Google Scholar
  92. Ronaghan SA (2002) Benchmarking e-government: a global perspective: assessing the progress of the UN member states United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  93. Rorissa A, Demissie D, Pardo T (2011) Benchmarking e-Government: a comparison of frameworks for computing e-Government index and ranking. Gov Inf Q 28(3):354–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Ross JW, Weill P, Robertson D (2006) Enterprise architecture as strategy: creating a foundation for business execution. Harvard Business Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  95. Scholl HJJ (2009) Profiling the EG research community and its core. In: Electronic government. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  96. Self P (2000) Rolling back the state. Economic dogma & political choice. St Martin’s Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  97. Shahkooh KA, Saghafi F, Abdollahi A (2008) A proposed model for e-Government maturity. In: Information and communication technologies: from theory to applications, 2008. ICTTA 2008. 3rd international conference on. 2008. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  98. Shareef MA et al (2011) e-Government Adoption Model (GAM): differing service maturity levels. Gov Inf Q 28(1):17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Siau K, Long Y (2005) Synthesizing e-government stage models-a meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach. Ind Manag Data Syst 105(4):443–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Silcock R (2001) What is e-government. Parliam Aff 54(1):88–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Statskontoret (2000) 24-timmmarsmyndighet: Förslag til kriterier för statlige elektronisk förvaltning i medborgarnas tjänst. Statskontoret, Stockholm, pp 1–80Google Scholar
  102. Toasaki Y (2003) e-Government from a user’s perspective. World Bank, TaipeiGoogle Scholar
  103. Traunmüller R, Wimmer MA (2003) E-government at a decisive moment: sketching a roadmap to excellence. In: Electronic government. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. UNDESA (2008) E-Government Survey 2008: From e-government to connected government. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  105. UNDESA (2010) E-Government Survey 2010: Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  106. UNDESA (2012) E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the people. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  107. UNDESA (2014) E-Government Survey 2014: E-Government for the future we want. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  108. Walsh D, Downe S (2005) Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs 50(2):204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Weill P (2004) Don’t just lead, govern: how top-performing firms govern IT. MIS Q Exec 3(1):1–17Google Scholar
  110. Wescott CG (2001) E-Government in the Asia-pacific region. Asian J Political Sci 9(2):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. West DM (2004) E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Adm Rev 64(1):15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Windley PJ (2002) eGovernment maturity [Online]. USA: Windleys’ Technolometria. Available: http://www.windley.com/docs/eGovernment% 20Maturity.pdf
  113. Yildiz M (2007) E-government research: reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Gov Inf Q 24(3):646–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tallinn University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and GovernanceTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations