The forgotten promise of e-government maturity: Assessing responsiveness in the digital public sector

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 439-445

  Andersen, Kim Normann ^a   Medaglia, Rony ^a   Vatrapu, Ravi ^a   Henriksen, Helle Zinner ^a   Gauld, Robin ^b  

^a Copenhagen Business School ^*  (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Australia; Denmark; E Government; Maturity model; New Zealand; Responsiveness

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053607441     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Andersen K. Public sector process rebuilding using information systems. Proceedings of electronic government: First international conference, EGOV 2002 2002, 37-44. Springer.
2. Andersen K.V., Henriksen H.Z. e-Government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly 2006, 23(2):236-248.
3. Andersen K.V., Henriksen H.Z., Rasmussen E.B. Re-organizing government using IT: The Danish model. e-Government in Europe: Re-booting the state 2007, 103-118. Routledge, London. P.G. Nixon, V.N. Koutrakou (Eds.).
4. Andersen K.N., Henriksen H.Z., Medaglia R., Danziger J.N., Sannarnes M.K., Enemærke M. Fads and facts of e-government: A review of impacts of e-government (2003-2009). International Journal of Public Administration 2010, 33(11):564-579.
5. Andersen K., Bjørn-Andersen N., Dedrick J. Governance initiatives creating a demand-driven e-commerce approach: The case of Denmark. The Information Society: An International Journal 2003, 19(1):95-105.
6. Bannister F. The curse of the benchmark: An assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons. International Review of Administrative Sciences 2007, 73(2):171-188.
7. Buchanan E.A. Internet research ethics: Past, present, and future. The handbook of internet studies 2009, 83-107. Blackwell, West Sussex, UK. R. Burnett, M. Consalvo, C. Ess (Eds.).
8. Decman M. Responsiveness of e-government and the case of Slovenia. Proceedings of the 5th European conference on e-government 2005, 127-136.
9. Economist Intelligence Unit e-Readiness rankings 2009. The usage imperative Retrieved from. http://graphics.eiu.com/pdf/E-readiness%20rankings.pdf.
10. Fountain J.E. Building the virtual state - Information technology and institutional change 2001, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
11. Galliers R.D., Sutherland A.R. Information systems management and strategy formulation: the 'stages of growth' model revisited. Information Systems Journal 1991, 1(2):89-114.
12. Gauld R., Gray A., McComb S. How responsive is e-government- Evidence from Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly 2009, 26(1):69-74.
13. Goldfinch S. Pessimism, computer failure, and information systems development in the public sector. Public Administration Review 2007, 67(5):917-929.
14. Grant G., Chau D. Developing a generic framework for e-government. Advanced Topics in Global Information Management 2002, 5:72-101.
15. Heeks R., Bailur S. Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly 2007, 24(2):243-265.
16. Helbig N., Ramón Gil-García J., Ferro E. Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly 2009, 26(1):89-97.
17. Henriksen H.Z., Andersen K.V. Diffusion of e-commerce in Denmark: An analysis of institutional intervention. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy (KTP) 2004, 17(2):63-81.
18. Kunstelj M., Decman M. Current state of e-government in Slovenian municipalities. The Electronic Journal of e-Government 2005, 3(3):117-128.
19. Lancaster G., Massingham L. Marketing management 1998, McGraw-Hill.
20. Layne K., Lee J. Developing fully functional e-government: A four-stage model. Government Information Quarterly 2001, 18(2):122-136.
21. OECD The e-government imperative: Main findings 2003, OECD, Paris.
22. OECD Rethinking e-government services: User-centred approaches 2009, OECD, Paris.
23. Paulk M.C., Curtis B., Chrissis M.B., Weber C.V. Capability maturity model, version 1.1. Software, IEEE 1993, 10(4):18-27.
24. Reddick C.G. A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly 2004, 21(1):51-64.
25. Robertson S., Vatrapu R. Digital government. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2010, 44:317-364.
26. Robson W. Strategic management and information systems 1997, Prentice Hall, Harlow, NY.
27. Rosacker K.M., Olson D.L. Public sector information system critical success factors. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 2008, 2(1):60-70.
28. Rose J., Sæbø Ø. Democracy squared: Designing on-line political communities to accommodate conflicting interests. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 2005, 17(2):133-168.
29. Scott M., DeLone W., Golden W. Understanding net benefits: A citizen-based perspective on e-government success. ICIS 2009 proceedings 2009, Retrieved from. http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2009/86.
30. Sørum H., Medaglia R., Andersen K. Assessment of website quality: Scandinavian web awards right on track?. Electronic Government 2009, 5693:198-209.
31. United Nations Public Administration Network e-Government survey 2010: Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis 2010, United Nations, New York.
32. Wang Y., Liao Y. Assessing e-government systems success: A validation of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success. Government Information Quarterly 2008, 25(4):717-733.
33. Waseda University Institute of e-Government 2010 Waseda University e-government ranking 2010, Author.
34. West D.M. e-Government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review 2004, 64(1):15-27.
35. Yang K. Neoinstitutionalism and e-government: Beyond Jane Fountain. Social Science Computer Review 2003, 21(4):432-442.