Measuring e-Government Maturity: A meta-synthesis approach

Abstract

Many governments in the world have created e-government initiatives including developed and developing countries. In order to better understand e-government evolution, different maturity models have been developed by many authors. In this paper the most cited e-government maturity models are analyzed using the meta-synthesis approach. As a result, five stages of e-government maturity are identified. The comparative results show the supported stages by each e-government initiative as important elements in the decision making process. This paper is attempting to show that although there are many models for measuring e-government maturity, they all converge on one common model. The contribution of this paper is in simplifying work for researchers when choosing the right maturity model.

Comparative analysis of selected process maturity assessment models applied in the public sector

“…The analysis of the information provided in Table 1 implies that the e-government maturity measurement models most frequently discussed in the literature are the Layne and Lee model (referred to in 13 papers) and the Andersen and Henriksen model (analysed in 7 papers). The foregoing assumption is legitimate on account of the highest number of citations concerning the said models (Chaushi et al, 2015;Nielsen, 2016;Kawashita et al, 2020;Fath-Allah et al, 2014).…”

“…"E-Government refers to the use by government agencies of information technologies that have the ability to transform relations with citizens, businesses, and other arms of government" (https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/digitaldevelopment/brief/egovernment, 2015). E-government means using information and communication technologies to deliver improved public services (Chaushi et al, 2015). The literature review has revealed that there is an abundance of different models used to measure e-government maturity.…”

Development of e-government in the field of social services and benefits: Evidence from Romania

“…The next phase includes an interaction (two-way communication between government and citizens). The third phase is represented by being able to perform online transactions with the government (similar to e-commerce) and the fourth stage is represented by a full integration of backend systems and information (called e-Participation, e-Democracy, or e-Governance) (Chaushi et al, 2015). With the aim of filling the gap in terms of offering proactive services and extending the stage model of e-government development, another study suggests the view of no-stop-shop, as a service that requires no forms, has an integrated back end and is proactive (a future can be predicted, but not its exact timing) or predictive (for instance for age-related services) (Scholta et al, 2019).…”

Digitally Transforming Electronic Governments into Smart Governments: SMARTGOV, an Extended Maturity Model

“…This particularly appears in terms of defining the mature or last stage in each model. Therefore, different perspectives of e-government have been reflected in each model's number of stages and features (Chaushi et al, 2015; Nielsen, 2016). Our observation is that while several maturity models focus on the traditional notion of e-governments as ICT-enabled transactional public services starting from delivering information (publish) and to completing transaction services online (transact) and integrating the government's different departments (portals, vertical, and horizontal) (Kim and Grant, 2010; Layne and Lee, 2001; Reddick, 2004), other models consider e-government a sense of e-democracy, and thus, citizens’ political participation and engagement in decision-making is the highest stage of e-government maturity models (Bélanger and Hiller, 2006; Lee, 2010; Lee and Kwak, 2012; Moon, 2002).…”