E-government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration

Journal of Systems and Information Technology

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 230-244

  Kim, Dong Young ^a   Grant, Gerald ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Government; Intellectual capital; Strategic evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993035702     PISSN: 13287265     EISSN: 17588847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/13287261011070858     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Affisco, J.F. and Soliman, K.S. (2006), “E-government: a strategic operations management framework for service delivery”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 13-21.
2. Anderson, K.V. and Henriksen, H.Z. (2006), “E-government maturity models: extension of the Layne and Lee model”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 236-248.
3. Claver-Cortes, E., De Juana-Espinosa, S. and Jose Tari, J. (2008), “E-government maturity at Spanish local levels”, International Journal of Value Chain Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
4. Clinton, B.D., Webber, S.A. and Hassell, J.M. (2002), “Implementing the balanced scorecard using the analytic hierarchy process”, Management Accounting Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
5. Cuganesan, S. (2006), “Reporting organisational performance in managing human resources”, Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 164-188.
6. Del Bello, A. (2006), “Intangibles and sustainability in local government reports: an analysis into an uneasy relationship”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 440-456.
7. DMSTI (2003), Analysing Intellectual Capital Statements, Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Copenhagen.
8. EFQM (2003), Assessing for Excellence, European Foundation for Quality Management, Brussels.
9. Flostrand, P. (2006), “The sell side – observations on intellectual capital indicators”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 457-473.
10. Frohlich, M.T. (2002), “Techniques for improving response rates in OM survey research”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 53-62.
11. Gottschalk, P. (2009), “Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 75-81.
12. Grant, G. and Chau, D. (2005), “Developing a generic framework for e-government”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-31.
13. Hiller, J. and Belanger, F. (2001), Privacy Strategies for Electronic Government, E-Government Series, Pricewaterhouse Coopers Endowment for the Business of Government, Arlington, VA.
14. Humphrey, W.S. (1988), “Characterizing the software process: a maturity framework”, IEEE Software, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 73-79.
15. Iribarren, M., Concha, G., Valdes, G., Solar, M., Villarroel, M.T., Gutierrez, P. and Vasquez, A. (2008), Capability Maturity Framework for E-Government: A Multi-Dimensional Model and Assessing Tool, LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 136-147.
16. Klievink, B. and Janssen, M. (2009), “Realizing joined-up government – dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 275-284.
17. Layne, K. and Lee, J. (2001), “Developing fully functional e-government: a four stage model”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 122-136.
18. Levary, R.R. and Han, D. (1995), “Choosing a technological forecasting method”, Industrial Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 14-18.
19. Melo, L.B. and Sampaio, M.I. (2006), “Quality measures for libraries and information services”, Proceedings of the IATUL 27th Annual Conference, Porto.
20. Melville, N., Kraemer, K. and Gurbaxani, V. (2004), “Review: information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 283-322.
21. Meritum project (2002), Guidelines for Managing and Reporting on Intangibles, Fundación Airtel Móvil, Madrid.
22. Mills, P., Braun, L. and Marohl, D. (2002), “Comparison of EPA'S QMS to SEI'S CMMI”, Quality Assurance, Vol. 9 Nos. 3 / 4, pp. 165-171.
23. Moon, M.J. (2002), “The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality?”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 424-433.
24. Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H.T. and Bukh, P.N. (2005), “Dealing with the knowledge economy: intellectual capital versus balanced scorecard”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 8-27.
25. Niazi, M., Wilson, D. and Zowghi, D. (2005), “A framework for assisting the design of effective software process improvement implementation strategies”, The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 204-222.
26. OECD (2006), Creating Value From Intellectual Assets, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
27. Oh, W. and Pinsonneault, A. (2007), “On the assessment of the strategic value of information technology: conceptual and analytic approaches”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 239-265.
28. Reddick, C.G. (2004), “A two-stage model of e-government growth: theories and empirical evidence for US cities”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 51-64.
29. Reisinger, H., Cravens, K.S. and Tell, N. (2003), “Prioritizing performance measures within the balanced scorecard framework”, Management International Review, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 429-437.
30. Saaty, T.L. (1994), “How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process”, Interfaces, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 19-43.
31. Saizarbitoria, I.H. (2006), “How quality management models influence company results – conclusions of an empirical study based on the Delphi method”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 775-794.
32. Schneider, A. and Samkin, G. (2008), “Intellectual capital reporting by the New Zealand local government sector”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 456-486.
33. Searcy, D.L. (2004), “Aligning the balanced scorecard and a firm's strategy using the analytic hierarchy process”, Management Accounting Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
34. SEI (2002), Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), Version 1.1, Carnegie Mellon University and Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh.
35. Siau, K. and Long, Y. (2005), “Synthesizing e-government stage models – a meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 4, pp. 443-458.
36. Soh, C. and Markus, M.L. (1995), “How IT creates business value: a process theory synthesis”, Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Information System, Amsterdam.
37. Sveiby, K.E. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
38. Tiku, S., Azarian, M. and Pecht, M. (2007), “Using a reliability capability maturity model to benchmark electronics companies”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 547-563.
39. United Nations and American Society for Public Administration (2002), Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective, 2001, available at: www.unpan.org/e-government/Benchmarking%20E-gov%202001.pdf
40. Yammarino, F.J., Skinner, S.J. and Childers, T.L. (1991), “Understanding mail survey response behaviour”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 55, pp. 613-639.
41. Bharadwaj, A.S.A. (2000), “Resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 169-196.
42. Bollen, L., Vergauwen, P. and Schnieders, S. (2005), “Linking intellectual capital and intellectual property to company performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 1161-85.
43. Bontis, N. (1999), “Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: framing and advancing the state of the field”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 18 Nos. 5/6/7/8, pp. 433-462.
44. Conner, K.R. (1991), “A historical comparison of the resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: do I have a new theory of the firm”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 121-154.
45. De Sanctis, G. and Poole, M.S. (1994), “Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 121-147.
46. Germany guideline (2004), Intellectual Capital Statement Guideline – Made in Germany, Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour, Berlin.
47. Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-135.
48. Hermans, R. and Kauranen, I. (2005), “Value creation potential of intellectual capital in biotechnology – empirical evidence from Finland”, R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 171-185.
49. Johanson, U., Koga, C., Skoog, M. and Henningsson, J. (2006), “The Japanese government's intellectual capital reporting guideline: what are the challenges for firms and capital market agents?”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 474-491.
50. Powell, T.C. and Dent-Micallef, A. (1997), “Information technology as competitive advantage: the role of human, business, and technology resources”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 375-405.
51. Ray, G., Muhanna, W.A. and Barney, J.B. (2005), “Information technology and the performance of the customer service process: a resource-based analysis”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 625-652.
52. Robey, D., Ross, J.W. and Boudreau, M. (2002), “Learning to implement enterprise systems: an exploratory study of the dialectics of change”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 17-46.
53. Seetharaman, A., Low, K.L.T. and Saravanan, A.S. (2004), “Comparative justification on intellectual capital”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 522-539.
54. The World Bank (2003), A Definition of E-government, World Bank, Washington, DC.
55. Wade, M. and Hulland, J. (2004), “Review: the resource-based view and information systems research: review, extension, and suggestions for future fesearch”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 107-142.