Abstract

Most nations have defined strategies for e-government. The objectives for implementing e-government are often defined but the means for fueling the adoption and diffusion of e-government are typically less clear in policy statements. The present study assesses the impact of the Danish eDay initiative. The eDay initiative simply yet powerfully states that one governmental authority has the right to demand that its communication with another authority must be in electronic format. The eDay initiative represents a drastic change in the former policy statements concerning IT adoption and diffusion in Danish government. Policy statements had previously been based on voluntary adoption based on indirect and pedagogical intervention in governmental agencies, but eDay marked a departure and the carrot has been exchanged by the stick and the voice is imperative.

Keywords

e-Government business process reengineering information society 

References

  1. Accenture. Leadership in Customer Service: New Expectations, New Experiences, 2005 (available through http://www.accenture.com/).Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, K. V. E-Government and Public Sector Process Rebuilding (PPR): Dilettantes, Wheelbarrows, and Diamonds, Boston: Kluwer Adademic Publishers, 2004.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, K. V., Juul, N. C, Henriksen, H. Z., Bjørn-Andersen, N., and Bunker, D. Business-to-Business E-Commerce, Enterprises Facing a Turbulent World, Copenhagen: DJØF Publishers (Association of Danish Lawyers and Economists), 2000.Google Scholar
  4. Bangemann, M. Europe and the Global Information Society, Brussels: European Commission, 1994 (available online at http://www.medicif.org/Dig_library/ECdocs/reports/Bangemann.htm).Google Scholar
  5. Boyer, R. “Technical Change and the Role of Regulation,” in G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, and L. Soete (eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory, London: Pinter Publishers, 1988, pp. 67–94.Google Scholar
  6. Cap Gemini. Online Availability of Public Services: How Is Europe Progressing?, EU: DG Information and Media, March 3, 2005 (available online at http://europa.eu.int/information_society/soccul/egov/egov_benchmarking_2005.pdf.Google Scholar
  7. Damsgaard, J., and Lyytinen, K. “International Trade at the Speed of Light: Building an Electronic Trading Infrastructure in Denmark, Finland, and Hong Kong,” in T. J. Larsen, L. Levine, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes, Laxenburg, Austria: IFIP, 1998, pp. 417–438.Google Scholar
  8. Damsgaard, J., and Lyytinen, K. “The Role of Intermediating Institutions in Diffusion of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI): How Industry Associations in the Grocery Sector Intervened in Hong Kong, Finland, and Denmark,” The Information Society (17:3), 2001, pp. 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeLone, H. W., and McLean, E. R. “Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable,” Information Systems Research (3:1), 1992, pp. 60–95.Google Scholar
  10. Eckhoff, T. Statens styringsmuligheter, Oslo: TANUM-NORLI, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. European Union. The Role of E-Government for Europe’s Future, Brussels: European Commission, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. Gregor, S., and Johnston, R. B. “Theory of Interorganizational Systems: Industry Structure and Processes of Change,” in R. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 34 th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, 2001, pp. 159–170.Google Scholar
  13. Henriksen, H. Z., and Andersen, K. V. “Diffusion of E-Commerce in Denmark: An Analysis of Institutional Intervention,” Knowledge, Technology, and Policy (17:2), 2004, pp. 63–81.Google Scholar
  14. Holden, S. H., Norris, D. F., and Fletcher, P. D. “Electronic Government at the Local Level: Progress to Date and Future Issues,” Public Performance and Management Review (26:4), 2003, pp. 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnston, R. B., and Gregor, S. “A Theory of Industry-Level Activity for Understanding the Adoption of Interorganizational Systems,” European Journal of Information Systems (9:4), 2000, pp. 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaylor, C, Deshazo, R., and Van Eck, D. “Gauging E-Government: A Report on Implementing Services among American Cities,” Government Information Quarterly (18:4), 2001, pp. 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. King, J. L., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K. L., McFarlan, F. W., Raman, K. S., and Yap, C. S. “Institutional Factors in Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research (5:2), 1994, pp. 139–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kumar, K., van Dissel, H. G., and Bielli, P. “The Merchant of Prato Revisited: Toward a Third Rationality of Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (22:2), 1998, pp. 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lai, V. S., and Guynes, J. L. “An Assessment of the Influence of Organizational Characteristics on Information Technology Adoption Decision: A Discriminative Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (44:2), 1997, pp. 146–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Layne, K., and Lee, J. W. “Developing Fully Functional E-Government: A Four Stage Model,” Government Information Quarterly (18:2), 2001, pp. 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moon, M. J. “The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality?,” Public Administration Review (62:4), 2002, pp. 424–433.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nielsen, R. Retskilderne, Copenhagen: Jurist-og Økonomforbundets forlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  23. OECD. World Public Sector Report 2003: E-Government at the Crossroads, New York: United Nations, 2003 (available online at http://unpanl.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN012733.pdf).Google Scholar
  24. Scholl, H. J. “Organizational Transformation through E-Government: Myth or Reality?,” in M. A. Wimmer, R. Traunmüller, Å. Grönlund, and K. V. Andersen (eds.), Electronic Government, 4 th International Conference (EGOV2005), Berlin: Springer, 2005, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  25. Tan, C. W., and Pan, S. L. “Managing E-Transformation in the Public Sector: An E-Government Study of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS),” European Journal of Information Systems (12:4), 2003, pp. 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Teo, H. H., Tan, B. C. Y., and Wei, K. K. “Organizational Transformation Using Electronic Data Interchange: The Case of TradeNet in Singapore” Journal of Management Information Systems (13:4), 1997, pp. 139–165.Google Scholar
  27. Thong, J. Y. L. “An Integrated Model for Information Systems Adoption in Small Businesses,” Journal of Management Information Systems (15:4), 1999, pp. 187–214.Google Scholar
  28. United Nations. UN Global E-government Readiness Report, New York: United Nations, 2004 (available online at http://unpanl.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpanO21888.pdf).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helle Zinner Henriksen
    • 1
  • Jan Damsgaard
    • 1
  1. 1.Copenhagen Business School FrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations