Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0: Foundations for Building Next Generation eGovernment Maturity Models

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government Technology Infrastructure and Services

Part of the book series: Public Administration and Information Technology ((PAIT,volume 32))

Abstract

Demographic, economic and other challenges is putting the public sector and service deliver under increasing pressure. ICT as an enabler of increased efficiency, effectiveness and transformation has long been recognized as part of the solution. National experiences show that the potential of ICT has not been fully realized, especially not in relation to Government 3.0 (Gov3.0). Existing public administration, information systems management and eGovernment literature and individual studies all point to the role of governance and cross-organisational cooperation in successfully introducing eServices and citizens actual use of them.

With a specific focus on eGovernment and eGovernance maturity and stage models, the literature attempt to unearth the underlying reasons why countries with similar infrastructures and eService availability experience very different levels of online interaction with the public sector, and in particular whether existing stage models address governance and cooperation.

Unfortunately, the review highlight a number of gaps including: Focus on outcomes and actual use is missing; most lack a real understanding of core government service concepts; decision-making should not be considered an eGovernment maturity level; front-office service provision and back-office integration is mixed-up; none addresses governance directly; most models are merely restructure or adjust existing ones, and none address Gov3.0 as such.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alhomod SM, Shafi MM (2012) Best practices in e-government: a review of some innovative models proposed in different countries. Int J Electri Comput Sci 12(2):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Almazan RS, Gil-Garcia JR (2008) e-Government portals in Mexico. Electron Gov Concepts Methodol Tools Appl 6:1726–1736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ANAO (1999) Electronic service delivery, including internet use by Commonwealth government agencies. ANAO, Australian National Auditing Office, Canberra, p 87

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen KV, Henriksen HZ (2006) E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Gov Inf Q 23(2):236–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannister F (2001) Dismantling the silos: extracting new value from IT investments in public administration. Inf Syst J 11(1):65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannister F (2007) The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons. Int Rev Adm Sci 73(2):171–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannister F, Connolly R (2011) Transformation and public sector values, in tGov 11. Brunel University, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates MJ (1989) The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review 13(5):407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum C, Di Maio A. (2000) Gartner’s four phases of e-government model. In: Gartner Group

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown AE, Grant GG (2005) Framing the frameworks: a review of IT governance research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 15(1):38

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown CV, Magill SL (1994) Alignment of the IS functions with the enterprise: toward a model of antecedents. MIS Q:371–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan CM, Lau YM, Pan SL (2008) E-government implementation: a macro analysis of Singapore's e-government initiatives. Gov Inf Q 25(2):239–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler S, Emanuels S (2002) Transformation not automation. In: Proceedings of 2nd European conference on E-government. Management Center Europe, Brusseles

    Google Scholar 

  • Charalabidis Y (2015) What is government 3.0? In: Charalabidis Y (ed) Governance and transformation. Yannis Charalabidis, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen JYY, Mingins C (2011) A three-dimensional model for e-government development with cases in China’s regional e-government practice and experience. In: ICMeCG, 2011 fifth international conference on management of e-commerce and e-government. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Wuhan

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen T, Lægreid P (2007) The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Adm Rev 67(6):1059–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christine Leitner, J.-M.E., François Heinderyckx, Klaus Lenk, Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen, Roland Traunmüller (2003) eGovernment in Europe: the state of affairs. p 66

    Google Scholar 

  • Cisco IBSG (2007) e-Government Best Practices learning from success, avoiding the pitfalls. Cisco IBSG

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordella A (2007) E-government: towards the e-bureaucratic form? J Inf Technol 22(3):265–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordella A, Bonina CM (2012) A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: a theoretical reflection. Gov Inf Q 29(4):512–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison RM, Wagner C, Ma LC (2005) From government to e-government: a transition model. Inf Technol People 18(3):280–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bri F, Bannister F (2010) Whole-of-government: the continuing problem of eliminating silos. Proceedings of the 10th European conference on eGovernment. National Centre for Taxation Studies and University of Limerick, Ireland, pp 122–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte and Touche (2001) The citizen as customer. In: CMS management. Deloitte and Touche, p 58

    Google Scholar 

  • Demmke C (2006) Governmental, organisational and individual performance. Performance myths, performance “hype” and real performance. EIPAScope 2006(1):4–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias GP, Gomes H (2014) Evolution of local e-government maturity in Portugal. In: Information systems and technologies (CISTI), 2014 9th Iberian conference on. 2014. IEEE

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2012) E.C., Public services online ‘Digital by default or by De-tour?’ Assessing user centric eGovernment performance in Euorpe – eGovernment Benchmark 2012. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2014) E.C., Delivering the European advantage? ‘How European governments can and should benefit from innovative public services’. European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelmann N, Krimmer R, Parycek P (2008) Engaging youth through deliberative e-participation: a case study. Int J Electron Gov 1(4):385–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, D.R.a.I (2013) Powering European public sector innovation: towards a new architecture. D.R.a. Innovation, Editor. European Commission, DG Research and Innovation, Brussels, pp 1–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat (2016) Information society household survey [cited 28 March 2016]; Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/information-society/data/database

  • Fath-Allah A et al (2014) eGovernment maturity models: a comparative study. Int J Software Eng Appl 5(3):72–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Frissen V et al (2007) The future of eGovernment: an exploration of ICT-driven models of eGovernment for the EU in 2020. D. Osimo, D. Zinnbauer and A. Bianchi, Joint Research Centre

    Google Scholar 

  • Gammon H (1954) The automatic handling of office paper work. Public Adm Rev 14(1):63–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heeks R (2005) Implementing and managing eGovernment: an international text. Sage, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Heeks R (2006) Understanding and measuring eGovernment: international benchmarking studies. UNDESA workshop “E-participation and e-government: understanding the present and creating the future”. Budapest, Hungary, pp 27–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Heeks R (2015) A better eGovernment maturity model. In: iGovernment Briefing. Manchester, University of Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Heeks R, Bailur S (2007) Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Gov Inf Q 24(2):243–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiller JS, Belanger F (2001) Privacy strategies for electronic government. E-government 200:162–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson S (2002) Managing an e-government transformation program. Working Towards Whole-of-Government Online Conference, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard M (2001) E-government across the globe: how will “e” change government? Gov Finan Rev 17(4):6–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Huijboom N, van der Broek T, Frissen V, Kool L, Kotterink B, Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Millard J (2009a) Public services 2.0: key areas in the public sector impact of social computing. p 134

    Google Scholar 

  • Huijboom N et al (2009b) Public Services 2.0: the impact of social computing on public services, in Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Igari N (2014) How to successfully promote ICT usage: a comparative analysis of Denmark and Japan. Telematics Inform 31(1):115–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • InfoDev, C.f.D.a.T (2002) The e-government handbook for developing countries. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Iribarren M et al (2008) Capability maturity framework for eGovernment: a multi-dimensional model and assessing tool. In: Electronic government. Springer, pp 136–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Janowski T (2015) Digital government evolution: from transformation to contextualization. Gov Inf Q 32(3):221–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen M, Chun SA, Gil-Garcia JR (2009) Building the next generation of digital government infrastructures. Gov Inf Q 26(2):233–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf Syst Manag 29(4):258–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jukić TT, Ljupčo N, Nameslaki A (2015) Investigation of e-government research field: what has been done and how to proceed? NISPAcee J Public Admin Policy 23

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalampokis E, Tambouris E, Tarabanis K (2011) Open government data: a stage model. In: Electronic government. Springer, pp 235–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim D-Y, Grant G (2010) E-government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration. J Syst Inf Technol 12(3):230–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klievink B, Janssen M (2009) Realizing joined-up government—dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Gov Inf Q 26(2):275–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klischewski R, Scholl HJ (2008) Information quality as capstone in negotiating e-government integration, interoperation and information sharing. Electron Gov Int J 5(2):203–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh CE, Prybutok VR (2003) The three ring model development of an instrument for measuring dimensions of E-government functions. J Comput Inf Syst 43(3):34

    Google Scholar 

  • Layne K, Lee J (2001) Developing fully functional E-government: a four stage model. Gov Inf Q 18(2):122–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J (2010) 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Gov Inf Q 27(3):220–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee G, Kwak YH (2012) An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Gov Inf Q 29(4):492–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lips M (2012) E-government is dead: long live public administration 2.0. Inf Polity 17(3):239–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Luna DE et al (2013) Improving the performance assessment of government web portals: a proposal using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Inf Polity 18(2):169–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff M, Kelly A (2011) Scandinavia 2.0: efficiency, cooperation and innovations to alleviate the economic crisis. Eur J ePract 11:19–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff Nielsen M (2014) Identifying eGovernment success factors: an analysis of selected national governance models and their experiences in digitising service delivery. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: challenges in Eurasia, 2014, pp 19–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff Nielsen M (2015) Supply and use of citizen eServices: an analysis of selected national experiences in relation to existing governance and cooperation models. NISPAcee J Public Admin Policy 23

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff Nielsen M (2016a) The role of governance, cooperation, and eService use in current eGovernment stage models. Hawaii

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff Nielsen M (2016b) eGovernance and stage models: Analysis of identified models and selected Eurasian experiences in digitizing citizen service delivery. Int J Electron Gov Res x(x):2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Igari N (2012) Speaking Danish in Japan. CeDEM 12 conference for E-Democracy and Open Government 3–4 May 2012 Danube-University Krems, 2012, p 137

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Mika Y (2014) An analysis of the Danish approach to eGovernment benefit realisation. Internet Technologies and Society 2014 conference proceedings, 2014, pp 47–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Robert K (2015) Reuse of data for personal and proactive service: an opportunity not yet utilised. In: CeDEM 15 conference for e-democracy and open government 20–22 May 2015, Danube-University Krems, Austria. Krems an der Donau: Donau-Universität Krems; eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government

    Google Scholar 

  • Millard J (2010) Government 1.5 – is the bottle half full or half empty? Eur J ePract (9):35–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Millard J (2013) ICT-enabled public sector innovation: trends and prospects. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance. ACM

    Google Scholar 

  • Millard J, Luca C, Galasso G, Riedl R, Neuroni AC, Walser K, Sami Hamida A, Huijboom N, Meyerhoff Nielsen M, Leitner C, Fehlmann RS (2007) European eGovernment 2005–2007: Taking stock of good practice and progress towards implementation of the i2010 eGovernment Action Plan. p 80

    Google Scholar 

  • Millard J et al (2008) Social computing: trends in public services and policies. JRC-IPTS

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Interior Korea (2016) Government 3.0. Ministry of Interior Korea, Seoul

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon MJ (2002) The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality? Public Adm Rev 62(4):424–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAO (2002) N.A.O., Government on the Web II. UK National Audit Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • NASCIO, N.A.o.S.C.I.O. (2006) Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model (EAMM), version 3.1. National Association of State Chief Information Officers, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Netchaeva I (2002) e-government and e-democracy a comparison of opportunities in the North and South. Int Commun Gaz 64(5):467–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary R, Gerard C, Bingham LB (2006) Introduction to the symposium on collaborative public management. Public Adm Rev 66(s1):6–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obi T (2012) WASEDA – IAC Internationl e-Government Index. Waseda University and IAC International Agency of CIO, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Obi T (2014) WASEDA – IAC internationl e-government index. Waseda University and IAC International Agency of CIO, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Obi T (2015) WASEDA – IAC Internationl e-Government Index. Waseda University and IAC International Agency of CIO, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2014) Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies 15 July 2014 – C(2014)88. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson A, Goldkuhl, G (2005) Stage-models for public e-services-investigating conceptual foundations. 2nd Scandinavian Workshop on e-Government, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters BG, Pierre J (1998) Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. J Public Adm Res Theory 8(2):223–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poeppelbuss J et al (2011) Maturity models in information systems research: literature search and analysis. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 29(27):505–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt C (2014) Future trends in European public administration and management: an outside-in perspective. COCOPS Coordination for Cohesion in the Public Sector of the Future

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2011) Public management reform: a comparative analysis-new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pöppelbuß J, Röglinger M (2011) What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. ECIS

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddick CG (2004) A two-stage model of e-government growth: theories and empirical evidence for US cities. Gov Inf Q 21(1):51–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts SE (1977) Theories and Models in Information Retrieval. J Doc 33(2):126–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röglinger M, Pöppelbuß J, Becker J (2012) Maturity models in business process management. Bus Process Manag J 18(2):328–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohleder SJ, Jupp V (2003) e-Government leadership: engaging the customer. Accenture, Arlington, pp 1–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronaghan SA (2002) Benchmarking e-government: a global perspective: assessing the progress of the UN member states United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorissa A, Demissie D, Pardo T (2011) Benchmarking e-Government: a comparison of frameworks for computing e-Government index and ranking. Gov Inf Q 28(3):354–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross JW, Weill P, Robertson D (2006) Enterprise architecture as strategy: creating a foundation for business execution. Harvard Business Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl HJJ (2009) Profiling the EG research community and its core. In: Electronic government. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Self P (2000) Rolling back the state. Economic dogma & political choice. St Martin’s Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahkooh KA, Saghafi F, Abdollahi A (2008) A proposed model for e-Government maturity. In: Information and communication technologies: from theory to applications, 2008. ICTTA 2008. 3rd international conference on. 2008. IEEE

    Google Scholar 

  • Shareef MA et al (2011) e-Government Adoption Model (GAM): differing service maturity levels. Gov Inf Q 28(1):17–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siau K, Long Y (2005) Synthesizing e-government stage models-a meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach. Ind Manag Data Syst 105(4):443–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silcock R (2001) What is e-government. Parliam Aff 54(1):88–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statskontoret (2000) 24-timmmarsmyndighet: Förslag til kriterier för statlige elektronisk förvaltning i medborgarnas tjänst. Statskontoret, Stockholm, pp 1–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Toasaki Y (2003) e-Government from a user’s perspective. World Bank, Taipei

    Google Scholar 

  • Traunmüller R, Wimmer MA (2003) E-government at a decisive moment: sketching a roadmap to excellence. In: Electronic government. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • UNDESA (2008) E-Government Survey 2008: From e-government to connected government. United Nations, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDESA (2010) E-Government Survey 2010: Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. United Nations, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDESA (2012) E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the people. New York

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDESA (2014) E-Government Survey 2014: E-Government for the future we want. United Nations, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh D, Downe S (2005) Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs 50(2):204–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weill P (2004) Don’t just lead, govern: how top-performing firms govern IT. MIS Q Exec 3(1):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Wescott CG (2001) E-Government in the Asia-pacific region. Asian J Political Sci 9(2):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West DM (2004) E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Adm Rev 64(1):15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windley PJ (2002) eGovernment maturity [Online]. USA: Windleys’ Technolometria. Available: http://www.windley.com/docs/eGovernment% 20Maturity.pdf

  • Yildiz M (2007) E-government research: reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Gov Inf Q 24(3):646–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This chapter is a result of the project “SmartEGOV: Harnessing EGOV for Smart Governance (Foundations, methods, Tools)/NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000037”, supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (EFDR). It work was also supported in part by funding from Tallinn University of Technology, Project B42; OGI – Open Government Intelligence project in the EU Horizon 2020 framework program, grant agreement 693849.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tallinn University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Akadeemia tee 3, 12618, Tallinn, Estonia

    Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

Authors
  1. Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland Galway, Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland

    Adegboyega Ojo

  2. Danish Technological Institute, Taastrup, Denmark

    Jeremy Millard

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. (2017). Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0: Foundations for Building Next Generation eGovernment Maturity Models. In: Ojo, A., Millard, J. (eds) Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government Technology Infrastructure and Services. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63743-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation