Measurement and benchmarking foundations: Providing support to organizations in their development and growth using dashboards

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 30, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2013, Pages

  Maheshwari, Devender ^a   Janssen, Marijn ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Benchmarking; Dashboard; Improvement; Maturity; Measuring; Stage models; Stages of growth

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873060658     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. 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.
2. Architecture_Working_Group IEEE Std 1471-2000 Recommended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems 2000, IEEE Standard 1471-2000, Washington, DC.
3. 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.
4. Baum C., Di Maio A. Gartner's four phases of e-government model 2000, Gartner Group, Stamford, CT, (21, 12-6113).
5. Clark T., Jones R. Organisational interoperability maturity model for C2 1999.
6. Cook M.A. Building enterprise information architectures. Reengineering information systems 1996, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
7. Coursey D., Norris D.F. Models of e-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review 2008, 68(3):523-536.
8. DeBusk G.K., Brown R.M., Killough L.N. Components and relative weights in utilization of dashboard measurement systems like the Balanced Scorecard. The British Accounting Review 2003, 35(3):215-231.
9. Deloitte T. The citizen as customer. CMA Management 2001, 74(10):58.
10. EFQM EFQM model for business excellence 2003, European Foundation for Quality Management, Brussels, 2003
11. Few S. Dashboard confusion. Intelligent Enterprise 2004, 7(4):14-15.
12. Few S. Information dashboard design: The effective visual communication of data 2006, O'Reilly.
13. Grönlund Å. Connecting eGovernment to real government-The failure of the UN eParticipation index. Electronic Government 2011, 26-37.
14. Group C.I.A.W. Levels of information systems interoperability (LISI) March, 30, 1998.
15. Gupta M.P., Jana D. E-government evaluation: A framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly 2003, 20(4):365-387.
16. Hiller J.S., Bélanger F. Privacy strategies for electronic government. E-government 2001 2001, 162-198. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland. M.A. Abramson, G.E. Means (Eds.).
17. Hsieh H.F., Shannon S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 2005, 15(9):1277-1288.
18. Jackson M.C. Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers 2003, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
19. Janssen M. Measuring and benchmarking the back-end of e-government: A participative self-assessment approach. Electronic Government 2010, 156-167.
20. Janssen M., Davidse A. Evaluation of a performance-based accountability system. Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on e-government 2004, 403-410. Trinity College, Dublin.
21. Janssen D., Rotthier S., Snijkers K. If you measure it they will score: An assessment of international eGovernment benchmarking. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age 2004, 9(3,4):121-130.
22. Janssen M., Veenstra A.F.v Stages of growth in e-government: An architectural approach. Electronic Journal of eGovernment 2005, 3(4):193-200.
23. Kalampokis E., Tambouris E., Tarabanis K. Open government data: A stage model. Electronic Government 2011, 235-246.
24. Kaplan R., Norton D. Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons 2001, 15(1).
25. Klievink B., Janssen M. Realizing joined-up government. Dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Government Information Quarterly 2009, 26(2):275-284.
26. Kromidha E. Strategic e-government development and the role of benchmarking. Government Information Quarterly 2012, October, 29(4):573-581.
27. Kunstelj M., Vintar M. Evaluating the progress of e-government. Information Polity 2004, 9(3-4):131-148.
28. Layne K., Lee J. Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly 2001, 18(2):122-136.
29. Lee J. 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-government: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly 2010, 27(3):220-230.
30. Maheshwari D., Janssen M. Measuring organizational interoperability in practice: The case study of Population Welfare Department of Government of Sindh, Pakistan. ICEGOV 2012, October 22-25, 2012, Albany NY, United States 2012.
31. Maheshwari D., Janssen M., Veenstra A.F.v A multi-level framework for measuring and benchmarking public service organizations: Connecting stages-of-growth models and enterprise architecture. ICEGOV2011, September 26-28, 2011, Tallinn, Estonia 2011.
32. Mayor T. Six Sigma comes to IT: Targeting perfection. CIO Magazine 2003, (available at:www.cio.com/archive (accessed 24 January 2004)).
33. Moon M.J. The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?. Public Administration Review 2002, 62(4):424-433.
34. Nabitz U., Klazinga N. EFQM approach and the Dutch Quality Award. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 1999, 12(2):65-71.
35. Ojo A., Janowski T., Estevez E. Determining progress towards e-government: What are the core indicators?. Paper presented at the 5th European Conference on e-government, Antwerpen 2005.
36. Ojo A., Janowski T., Estevez E. Building theoretical foundations for electronic governance benchmarking. Electronic Government 2011, 13-25.
37. Paulk M.C., Curtis B., Chrissis M.B., Weber C.V. Capability maturity model, version 1.1. Software, IEEE 1993, 10(4):18-27.
38. Paulk M., Curtis B., Chrissis M., Weber C. Capability maturity model, version 1.1. Software, IEEE 2002, 10(4):18-27.
39. Peters R., Janssen M., Engers T.M.v Measuring e-government impact: Existing practices and shortcomings. 6th International Conference on Electronic Commerce 2004, ACM International Conference Proceedings Series, Delft, The Netherlands. M. Janssen, H.G. Sol, R.W. Wagenaar (Eds.).
40. Petrović M., Bojković N., Anić I., Petrović D. Benchmarking the digital divide using a multi-level outranking framework: Evidence from EBRD countries of operation. Government Information Quarterly 2012, October, 29(4):597-607.
41. Reddick C. A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for US cities. Government Information Quarterly 2004, 21(1):51-64.
42. Rohleder S., Jupp V. E-government leadership: Engaging the customer 2003, Accenture, New York.
43. Schekkerman J. Extended Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model (E2AMM) 2006, (Version 2.0).
44. Siau K., Long Y. Synthesizing e-government stage models - A meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems 2005, 105(3):443-458.
45. Technology The e-government handbook for developing countries 2002, Center for Democracy and Technology, World Bank, Washington, DC, ([Online] http://www.infodev.org).
46. Turnitsa C. Extending the levels of conceptual interoperability model 2005.
47. UN Government Report (2001) "Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective-assessing the UN membestates" 2001, UN Publication, (http://www.upan1.org/egovernment2.asp).
48. UN UN global e-government survey 2003 2003.
49. UN Government readiness report 2005: From e-government to e-inclusion 2005, United Nations, ONU.
50. UN Government survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance 2008, United Nations, New York.
51. UN United Nations e-government survey 2010 2010.
52. UN United Nations e-government survey 2012.
53. van der Veer H., Wiles A. Achieving technical interoperability 2008, European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
54. Wescott C. E-government in the Asia-Pacific region. Asian Journal of Political Science 2001, 9(2):1-24.
55. West D.M. E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review 2004, 64(1):15-27.