Measurement Based E-government Portals’ Benchmarking Framework: Architectural and Procedural Views

  • Laila CheikhiEmail author
  • Abdoullah Fath-Allah
  • Ali Idri
  • Rafa E. Al-Qutaish
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 746)


E-government benchmarking can be defined as the process of classifying e-government according to some agreed best practices. It can be used to benchmark, evaluate achievements and identify missing best practices for stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to propose and build a new benchmarking framework for e-government portals, which is based on measurement of best practices using a best practice model. To achieve this purpose, we have identified useful guidelines to build a new benchmarking framework based on an analysis and discussion of the five most famous e-government benchmarking frameworks in the literature. As a result a new framework referred to as Measurement Based e-Government Benchmarking Framework (MBeGBF) is proposed which moves beyond the actual benefits of these ordinary frameworks by providing guidelines and best practices for agencies to improve their portals’ quality.


E-government Benchmarking Benchmarking frameworks Portal Best practice model Best practices Maturity model 


  1. 1.
    Bhutta, K.S., Huq, F.: Benchmarking–best practices: an integrated approach. Benchmarking Int. J. 6, 254–268 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schellong, A.: EU eGovernment benchmarking 2010+. Camb. MA Inst. Quant. Soc. Sci. Harv. Univ (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nurdin, N., Indonesia, M.P., Stockdale, R., Scheepers, H.: Benchmarking Indonesian local e-government. Benchmarking 7, 15 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peters, R.M., Janssen, M., van Engers, T.M.: Measuring e-government impact: existing practices and shortcomings. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 480–489 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mosse, B., Whitley, E.A.: Critically classifying: UK e-government website benchmarking and the recasting of the citizen as customer. Inf. Syst. J. 19, 149–173 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    West, D.M.: E-government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes. Public Adm. Rev. 64, 15–27 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    West, D.M.: Global e-government, Center for Public Policy. Brown University, United States (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Commission, Benchmark Measurement of European eGovernment services, 8th Benchmark Measurement. Rep. Prep. Capgemini Rand Eur. IDC Sogeti DTI (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Commission, Digitizing Public Services in Europe: Putting ambition into action, 9th Benchmark Measurement. Rep. Prep. Capgemini IDC Sogeti -Pract. Indigov RAND Eur. Dan. Technol. Inst. Dir. Gen. Commun. Netw. Content Technol (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Commission, Public Services Online ‘Digital by Default or by Detour? Assessing User Centric eGovernment performance in Europe – eGovernment Benchmark 2012. Rep. Prep. Capgemini IDC Sogeti -Pract. Indigov RAND Eur. Dan. Technol. Inst. Dir. Gen. Commun. Netw. Content Technol (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    UNDESA, UN E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the People, United Nations, New York, United States (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Waseda University Institute of e-Government. 2013 Waseda University International E-government Ranking (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hunter, D., Jupp, V.: E-Government Leadership. Rhetoric vs Reality–Closing the Gap. Accenture (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rohleder, S.J., Jupp, V.: eGovernment leadership: High performance, maximum value. Accenture (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cole, M., Jupp, V.: Leadership in Customer Service: New Expectations, New Experiences. Accenture (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roberts, D.: Leadership in Customer Service: Delivering on the Promise. Accenture (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fath-Allah, A., Cheikhi, L., Al-Qutaish, R.E., Idri, A.: A theoretical e-government portals’ benchmarking framework. In: 2015 10th International Conference on Intelligent Systems: Theories and Applications (SITA), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fath-Allah, A., Cheikhi, L., Al-Qutaish, R.E., Idri, A.: E-government portals best practices: a comprehensive survey. Electron. Govern. Inter. J. 11, 101–132 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    The European Centre for Total Quality Management. E-Government A Best Practice Perspective (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sørum, H.: An empirical investigation of user involvement, website quality and perceived user satisfaction in eGovernment environments. In: Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective, pp. 122–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rodríguez, R.A., Welicki, L., Giulianelli, D.A., Vera, P.M.: Measurement framework for evaluating e-governance on municipalities websites. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. pp. 381–387 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seifert, J.W., McLoughlin, G.J.: State e-Government strategies: Identifying best practices and applications (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Georgescu, M., Georgescu, I.: Do We Need a Powerful E-Government. Commun. IBIMA 5, 242–249 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    United Nations. Main Features Reviewed by the United Nations e-Government Survey (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berntzen, L., Olsen, M.G., Benchmarking e-government-a comparative review of three international benchmarking studies In: 2009 Third International Conference on Digital Society, ICDS 2009, pp. 77–82 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    United Nations. Compendium of Innovative E-government Practices UN (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Iribarren, M., Concha, G., Valdes, G., Solar, M., Villarroel, M.T., Gutiérrez, P., Vásquez, Á., Capability maturity framework for eGovernment: a multi-dimensional model and assessing tool. In: Electronic Government, pp. 136–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kumar, V., Mukerji, B., Butt, I., Persaud, A.: Factors for successful e-government adoption: a conceptual framework. Electron. J. E-Gov. 5, 63–76 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee, G., Kwak, Y.H.: An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 492–503 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laila Cheikhi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abdoullah Fath-Allah
    • 1
  • Ali Idri
    • 1
  • Rafa E. Al-Qutaish
    • 2
  1. 1.Software Project Management Research Team, ENSIASMohammed V UniversityRabatMorocco
  2. 2.Department of Software Engineering, École de Technologie SupérieureUniversity of QuébecMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations