E-government maturity models: more of the same?

Abstract

As e-government initiatives progressed, several models for measuring e-government maturity were proposed. Many are stage models based on the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in which e-government maturity is conceptualized as stages of growth that evolve over time. The paper aims to investigate if e-government stage maturity models measure the use and usefulness of egovernment. A meta-synthesis technique was used to compare and contrast 11 meta-models (models derived from other models), at the stage level, for their perspectives, concepts, metaphors, and their similarities and differences. We found that although models use different names and metaphors for analogous concepts, similarities exist among them, and individual stages overlap. Results show two gaps in research regarding the assessment of the actual use and usefulness of e-government. First, meta-models primarily assess the supply-side and operational/technology and citizen/service perspectives. Second, the use and usefulness of e-government are not addressed.

A Review of the e-Government Maturity Models: Are They Still Relevant?

“…The most recent e-Government maturity model was released in 2020 by Kawashita, Baptista, and Soares and was based on a meta-synthesis of eleven different research publications. They developed a seven-step model, which included each stage mentioned in the literature review (Kawashita et al, 2020). The stages of this paradigm include "Information Publishing," where there are no criteria for content, utility, or usability, and "Interaction between the Government and Users," where the scalability of two-way communication and the interactions' utility are unstandardized.…”

“…In the sixth stage, "Social Participation and e-Governance," users can use e-portals to express their ideas and cast ballots on significant subjects. The seventh and final stage, "Contextualization or Policy-Driven Electronic Governance," describes the implementation of public policies through an e-portal that prioritizes particular social groups, such as low-income singleparent households, rural areas, and so on (Kawashita et al, 2020).…”

“…The main issue with the e-government models is that they are nearly identical (Kawashita et al, 2020).…”

Digital Public Services

“…As Heeks (2015) points out, maturity models are a product of their time and are often context-related. In fact, these initial frameworks are mostly focused on technology adoption reflecting the early stage of development of Internet technologies at the time and are not particularly concerned about the real impact, use, and usefulness of e-Government solutions (Kawashita et al, 2020). Similarly, these initial models are quite rigid and are not able to take into account changing requirements, conditions and developments related to contextual or technological changes (Bertot et al, 2016).…”

Maturity and Quality Levels in the Use of Interoperable Information Systems for Economic Reactivation of Tourism-Hospitality-Gastronomy Sector Post-Pandemic. Case Study: Ecuador

“…Eminence of interoperability web-based applications according (Turban et al, 2002) Turban approach has been the basis for more modern frameworks and models covering the maturity of e-government services in general, usability and accessibility to such services among other aspects included in the works of (Días, Bruzza and Tupia, 2019) and (Salas, Tupia and Bruzza, 2021). Obviously, Turban has been based on the maturity levels proposed at the time by CMMI, which can be seen today oriented to IT services in (Kawashita, Baptista and Soares, 2020).…”