Co-creating e-Government Services: An Empirical Analysis of Participation Methods in Belgium

  • Anthony SimonofskiEmail author
  • Monique Snoeck
  • Benoît Vanderose
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 35)


As citizens have more and more opportunities to participate in public life, it is essential that administrations integrate this participation in their e-government processes. A smarter, more participatory, governance is a well-recognized and essential part of any city that wants to become “Smart” and generate public value. In this chapter, we will focus on the impact of this participatory approach on the development of e-government services by the city. Therefore, the goal of this chapter is to identify which methods administrations can apply to co-create their e-government services with citizens and to understand the gap between the methods used in practice and citizens’ preferences.

This chapter contributes to research and practice in different ways. First, the literature review allows the identification of eight participation methods to co-create e-government services. Second, we further examine these methods by means of 28 in-depth interviews, a questionnaire sent to public servants and a questionnaire sent to citizens. This multi-method approach allows identifying the barriers and drivers of public servants regarding the co-creation of e-government services but also the citizens’ perception of these methods. By contrasting the identified methods with their implementation, we better understand the discrepancies between literature and practice. At the same time, this chapter will give practitioners a repository of participation methods as well as information about the perception public servants and citizens have of them. Finally, we expect the insights provided in this chapter will stimulate research on the practical use of all these different methods.


e-Government Co-creation Methods Citizen Participation 


  1. Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2004). User-centered design. In W. Bainbridge (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (pp. 445–456). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 236–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anthopoulos, L. G., Siozos, P., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2007). Applying participatory design and collaboration in digital public services for discovering and re-designing e-Government services. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Axelsson, K., Melin, U., & Lindgren, I. (2010). Exploring the importance of citizen participation and involvement in e-government projects. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 4, 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayed, H., Vanderose, B., & Habra, N. (2017). Agile cultural challenges in Europe and Asia: Insights from practitioners. In Proceedings - 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice Track, ICSE-SEIP 2017 (pp. 153–162).Google Scholar
  6. Baarda, D. B., de Goede, M. P. M., & van der Meer-Middelburg, A. G. E. (1996). Basisboek open interviewen: Praktische handleiding voor het voorbereiden en afnemen van open interviews. Houten, The Netherlands: Stenfert Kroese.Google Scholar
  7. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., … Thomas, D. (2001). Agile Manifesto. Software Development, 9, 28–35.Google Scholar
  9. Berntzen, L., & Johannessen, M. R. (2016). The role of citizen participation in municipal smart city projects: Lessons learned from Norway. In Smarter as the New Urban Agenda (pp. 299–314). Basel, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Billestrup, J., & Stage, J. (2014). E-government and the digital agenda for Europe a study of the user involvement in the digitalisation of citizen services in Denmark (pp. 71–80). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews. Evaluation, 2, 1–16.Google Scholar
  13. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chan, C. M. L., & Pan, S. L. (2008). User engagement in e-government systems implementation: A comparative case study of two Singaporean e-government initiatives. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17, 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chantillon, M., Crompvoets, J., & Peristeras, V. (2017). The governance landscape of geospatial E-services—the Belgian case. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cossetta, A., & Palumbo, M. (2014). The co-production of social innovation: The case of living lab. In Smart city: How to create public and economic value with high technology (pp. 221–233). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Dameri, R. P., & Rosenthal-Sabroux, C. (2014). Smart city and value creation. In Smart city: How to create public and economic value with high technology in urban space (pp. 1–12). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. De Róiste, M. (2013). Bringing in the users: The role for usability evaluation in eGovernment. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 441–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Drever, E. (1995). Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research. A teacher’s guide. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Council for Research in Education.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission (2009) Living Labs for user-driven open innovation. Accessed 26 Nov 2017
  21. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22, 338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feeney, M., & Welch, E. (2016). Technology-task coupling: Exploring social media use and managerial perceptions of E-government. The American Review of Public Administration, 46, 162–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Følstad, A., Jørgensen, H. D., & Krogstie, J. (2004). User involvement in e-government development projects. In Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 217–224).Google Scholar
  24. Furuholt, B., & Wahid, F. (2008). E-government challenges and the role of political leadership in Indonesia: The case of sragen. In Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-41) (p. 411 (1–10)). IEEE Computer Society Conference Publishing Services, Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  25. Galvagno, M., Dalli, D., & Galvagno, M. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: A systematic literature review. Managing Service Quality, 24, 643–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gorden, R. (1998). Coding interview responses. In Basic Interviewing Skills (pp. 180–198). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Pr Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science, 40, 440–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City, 12, 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karkin, N., & Janssen, M. (2014). Evaluating websites from a public value perspective: A review of Turkish local government websites. International Journal of Information Management, 34, 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karlsson, F., Holgersson, J., Söderström, E., & Hedström, K. (2012). Exploring user participation approaches in public e-service development. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 158–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2011). Open government implementation model: A stage model for achieving increased public engagement. In 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times (pp. 254–261). College Park, MD: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Linders, D. (2011). We-Government: An anatomy of citizen coproduction in the information age. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times (pp. 167–176). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mahaux, M., & Maiden, N. (2008). Theater improvisers know the requirements game. IEEE Software, 25, 68–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. In 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2011) (pp. 185–194). Tallinn, Estonia: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olphert, W., & Damodaran, L. (2007). Citizen participation and engagement in the design of e-government services: The missing link in effective ICT design and delivery. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Omar, E. M. K. (2011). e-Government readiness: Does national culture matter? Government Information Quarterly, 28, 388–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oostveen, A.-M., & Van Den Besselaar, P. (2004). From small scale to large scale user participation: A case study of participatory design in e-government systems. In Proceedings of Eighth Conference on Participatory Design: Artful Integration: Interweaving media, Materials and Practices PDC 04 (pp. 173–182)Google Scholar
  39. Scholl, H. J., & Scholl, M. C. (2014). Smart Governance: A roadmap for research and practice. In M. Kindling & E. Greifeneder (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th iConference (pp. 163–176). Berlin, Germany: Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (IDEALS).Google Scholar
  40. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. London: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  41. Simonofski, A., Serral Asensio, E., Desmedt, J., & Snoeck, M. (2017). Citizen participation in smart cities: Evaluation framework proposal. In 2017 IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics (pp. 227–236).Google Scholar
  42. Simonofski, A., Vanderose, B., Snoeck, M., Crompvoets, J., & Habra, N. (2017). Reexamining E-participation: Systematic literature review on citizen participation in E-government service delivery full paper. In AIS (Ed.), 2017 23rd Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  43. Snijders, R., Ozum, A., Brinkkemper, S., & Dalpiaz, F. (2015). Crowd-Centric Requirements Engineering: A method based on crowdsourcing and gamification. Dep Inf Comput Sci Utr Univ Tech Rep UU-CS-2015-004.Google Scholar
  44. Sørum, H. (2011). An empirical investigation of user involvement, website quality and perceived user satisfaction in eGovernment environments. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 6866, pp. 122–134).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Storey, M., Treude, C., & Van Deursen, A. (2010). The impact of social media on software engineering practices and tools. In FSE/SDP workshop on future of software engineering research (pp. 359–364). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Velsen, L., van der Geest, T., ter Hedde, M., & Derks, W. (2009). Requirements engineering for e-Government services: A citizen-centric approach and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Verdegem, P., & Verleye, G. (2009). User-centered E-Government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 487–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wijnhoven, F., Ehrenhard, M., & Kuhn, J. (2015). Open government objectives and participation motivations. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony Simonofski
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Monique Snoeck
    • 3
  • Benoît Vanderose
    • 4
  1. 1.KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.University of NamurNamurBelgium
  3. 3.KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.University of NamurNamurBelgium

Personalised recommendations