Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Agenda
Literature review
Methodology
Introduction
E-government implies servicing citizens in public sector via ICT. There are many definitions
of e-government in the literature. The most which was cited in most Literature is: Electronic
government refers to governments use of technology, particularly web-based Internet
applications to enhance the access to and delivery of government information and service to
citizens, business partners, employees, other agencies, and government entities. (Layne, Lee
2001)
There are many e-government maturity models in the literature. Maturity models are defined
as: A method for judging the maturity of the processes of an organization & for identifying
the key practices those are required to increase the maturity of these processes. (Windley, P.,
200)
The Gap of this research is that the maturity models in the literature are mainly providers
(technical perspective (efficiency). A new maturity model based on Citizens perspective
(effectiveness) is needed.
Aim and Objectives of the Study
The aim:
To develop e-government maturity model from citizens perspectives
The objectives:
Propose new maturity model from Citizens perspectives their needs and their wants.
Literature Review
Maturity Models
Capability Maturity Models (CMMs) provides five maturity levels for software
development. Each maturity level indicates process capability & contains a number of
key processes directed at achieving (SearchSoftwareQuality.com)
Stage5
Stage4
Stage3
Stage2
Stage1
Optimized
Managed
Defined
Repeatable
Initial
Institutions (e.g. United Nations and American Society for Public Administration,
2001; Baum and Di Maio, 2000; Gartner Group Deloitte and Touche, 2001)
Individual researchers (e.g. Hiller and Blanger, 2001; Layne and Lee, 2001; Moon,
2002)
E. Hiller and Blanger's five-stage model (2001) and Moon's five-stage model (2002)
Hiller and Blanger (2001) identified a five-stage model:
1. Information
2. Two-way communication
3. Transaction
4. Integration
5. Participation
F. Moon (2002) adapted Hiller and Blanger (2001) five-stage model (despite some
minor differences in phrasing)
1. Simple information dissemination (one-way communication): This is the most
basic form of e-government, which disseminates information by simply posting it on
the web sites.
2. Two-way communication (request and response): Interaction occurs between
governments and users.
licenses and reporting financial data. Online businesses such as obtaining order and
making auctions are also possible.
4. Transformation: There is a jump between transformation and the previous three
stages. Rather than automating and digitalizing current operational processes, this
stage moves towards transforming the way that governments provide services. The
transformation involves both vertical (i.e. governments in different levels) and
horizontal integration (i.e. different departments or governments in different
locations). For external interfaces, governments build a single and unified portal
providing integrated and seamless services instead of separate and distributed
services. To achieve this aim, governments should initiate an internal integration to
re-engineer existing processes by reducing bottlenecks and intermediaries.
5. E-democracy: This is a long-term goal for e-government development. By offering
tools such as online voting, polling and surveys, governments attempt to improve
political participation, citizen involvement, and politics transparencies. At the same
time, e-government gradually changes the way in which people make political
decisions.
(Andersen, Henriksen 2006) proposed the (Public Sector Process Rebuilding (PPR) Model)
which was an extension of the Layne and Lee Model four stages (Catalogue, Transaction,
Vertical integration and Horizontal integration).
The major difference between the Layne and Lee model and the Public Sector Process
Rebuilding (PPR) model that is, (customer centric approach rather than the technological
capability).
Comparison between Layne and Lee Model and the PPR model
10
Whereas it is a frequent feature at many Web sites to provide link icons to other information,
we view this feature negatively: The more links to other places, the more negative we would
rate the agency because this indicates that the users did not get their requests for information
rewarded at this particular agency.
3. Phase3: is the stage where the organization matures and abandons the use of the
intranet, have transparent processes, and offers personalized Web interface for
processing of customer requests. The Internet and intranet have merged and the key
concern is to use IT to lower the marginal costs for processing the customer requests
for services. Rather than linking to other institutions, the homepage is feeding
information from other institutions to the users online. Further, the Web site is
organized to solve problems and requests rather than presenting formal organizational
structures and general information. Self-service is a key priority in this phase and the
exceptions where this cannot be completed online are clearly stated with instructions
on how to proceed in analog mode.
4. Phase 4: Revolutionary phase characterized by data mobility across organizations,
application mobility across vendors, and ownership to data transferred to customers.
In this phase, the employees' actions can be traced through the Internet and there is
information available online about progress in, for example, case handling. This is
possible through intra- and extra organizational mobility of data and services. Also,
economics of scale is sought after actively. The Internet is not seen exclusively as a
means to create increased mobility within the government. Rather, the ambition is to
transfer data ownership and the orientation of data base infrastructure to the endusers. (Andersen, Henriksen 2006)
There indeed is a long push to reach phase IV. The blooming literature on e-government has
provided the fuel for the hypothesis that governments are still predominately in phase I, that
is, they are aiming for data and system integration but have only limited front-end services,
and essentially still have an intra- and intergovernmental view of the development and
implementation of IT.
Accordingly, a personalized Web interface for customer processes, data mobility across
organizations, application mobility across vendors, and transfer of data ownership to the
customers is still not implemented and constituted in light of the PPR approach key
challenges to be met. (Andersen, Henriksen 2006)
12
The proposed maturity model is changing the focus of e-government to the front-end of
government and away from a technical integration issue, as is suggested in the Layne and Lee
Model. Also, contrasting the Layne and Lee model, the proposed PPR model emphasizes the
digitalization of the core activities not from the perspective of what is technologically
feasible but from what is beneficial for the end-users regardless of the possible internal
changes caused by the digitalization.
Research Methods:
Design science approach:
Identifying the problem (Lack of citizen oriented maturity model) by developing a novel
design to solve the problem:
Propose a process model to guide how the maturity model can be applied to real
world e-Gov systems
More citizen-centric e-government model will make citizen interact more frequently
with government.
Investigate more literature about citizen-perspectives needs from e-services (ebusiness, e-commerce, e-banking etc.)
13
References:
Andersen, K.V. & Henriksen, H.Z. 2006, "E-government maturity models: Extension of the
Layne and Lee model", Government Information Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 236-248.
Layne, K. & Lee, J. 2001, "Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model",
Government Information Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 122(15).
Moon, M.J. 2002, "The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or
Reality?", Public administration review, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 424-433.
Siau, K. & Long, Y. 2005, "Synthesizing e-government stage models - a meta-synthesis
based on meta-ethnography approach", Industrial Management + Data Systems, vol.
105, no. 3/4, pp. 443.
14