eGovernment in cities of the knowledge society. An empirical investigation of Smart Cities' governmental websites

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 75-83

  Fietkiewicz, Kaja J ^a   Mainka, Agnes ^a   Stock, Wolfgang G ^a  

^a HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Boundary object; eGovernment; Informational World City; Knowledge society; Maturity; Usability; Website

Indexed keywords

EID: 84994275715     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.003     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Al-Khalifa, H.S., The accessibility of Saudi Arabia government web sites: An exploratory study. Universal Access in the Information Society 11:2 (2010), 201–210.
2. Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., Flores, F., Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly 29:2 (2012), 123–132.
3. Cabinet Office, eAccessibility of public sector services in the European Union. 2005 (Retrieved 13 March 2013 from www.rnib.org.uk).
4. Castells, M., The informational city. Information technology, economic restructuring, and the urban-regional process. 1989, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK, Cambridge, MA.
5. Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Shao, M., 2005 accessibility diagnosis on the government web sites in Taiwan. Proceedings of the 2006 international cross-disciplinary workshop on web accessibility (W4A), 2006.
6. Choudrie, J., Ghinea, G., Integrated views of e-government website usability. Perspectives from users and web diagnostic tools. Electronic Government 2:3 (2005), 318–333.
7. Cook, M.E., What citizens want from e-government. 2000, Center for Technology in Government, Albany, NY.
8. Coursey, D., Norris, D., Models of e-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review 68:3 (2008), 523–536.
9. Davis, F.D., Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13:3 (1989), 319–340.
10. Fietkiewicz, K.J., Stock, W.G., How “smart” are Japanese cities? An empirical investigation of infrastructures and governmental programs in Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka and Kyoto. Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2015, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 2345–2354.
11. Fong, A., Valerdi, R., Srinivasan, J., Boundary objects as a framework to understand the role of systems integrators. Systems research forum, 2, 2007, 11–18.
12. Friedrichs, S., Hart, T., Schmidt, O., (eds.) E-government, 2002, Bertelsmann, Gütersloh.
13. Gascó, M., Approaching e-government interoperability. Social Science Computer Review 30:1 (2010), 3–6.
14. Gottschalk, P., Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly 26:1 (2009), 75–81.
15. Hartmann, S., Mainka, A., Peters, I., Government activities in social media. An empirical investigation of eGovernments in informational world cities. Proceedings of CeDEM the international conference for e-democracy and open government, Krems, Austria, 2013, 173–186.
16. Hiller, J., Bélanger, F., Privacy strategies for electronic government. 2001 (Retrieved 02 January 2013 from www.businessofgovernment.org).
17. Holzer, M., Zheng, Y., Manoharan, A., Shark, A., Digital governance in municipalities worldwide, a longitudinal assessment of municipal web sites throughout the world. The e-governance institute, Rutgers University, Newark and the global e-policy e-government institute, 2014, University, Sungkyunkwan.
18. Jaeger, P.T., Greene, N.N., Bertot, J.C., Perkins, N., Wahl, E.E., The co-evolution of e-government and public libraries: Technologies, access, education, and partnerships. Library and Information Science Research 34:4 (2012), 271–281.
19. Klischewski, R., Askar, E., Linking service development methods to interoperability governance: The case of Egypt. Government Information Quarterly 29:1 (2012), 22–31.
20. Kumar, V., Mukerji, B., Butt, I., Persaud, A., Factors for successful e-government adoption: A conceptual framework. Electronic Journal of e-Government 5:1 (2007), 63–76.
21. Layne, K., Lee, J., Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly 18:2 (2001), 122–136.
22. Lee, J., 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-government: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly 27:3 (2010), 220–230.
23. Lee, G., Kwak, Y.H., An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly 29:4 (2012), 492–503.
24. Linde, F., Stock, W.G., Information markets. A strategic guideline for the I-commerce. 2011, De Gruyter Saur, Berlin, Germany, New York, NY.
25. Mainka, A., Fietkiewicz, K., Kosior, A., Pyka, S., Stock, W.G., Maturity and usability of e-government in informational world cities. Ferrari, E., Castelnovo, W., (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th European conference on e-government. University of Insubria Varese, Italy, 13–14 June 2013, 2013, Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International (ACPI), 292–300.
26. Mainka, A., Hartmann, S., Orszullok, L., Peters, I., Stallmann, A., Stock, W.G., Public libraries in the knowledge society: Core services of libraries in informational world cities. Libri 63:4 (2013), 295–319.
27. Manoharan, A., Carrizales, T.J., Recent trends in e-government: States' and local governments' utilisation of websites. International Journal of Electronic Governance 4:4 (2011), 283–303.
28. McDermott, P., Building open government. Government Information Quarterly 27 (2010), 401–413.
29. Medaglia, R., eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly 29:3 (2012), 346–360.
30. Mergel, I., Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. federal government. Government Information Quarterly 30:2 (2013), 123–130.
31. Moon, M., The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?. Public Administration Review 62:4 (2002), 424–433.
32. Nam, T., Toward the new phase of e-government: An empirical study on citizens' attitude about open government and government 2.0. The 11th public management research conference, June 2–4, 2011, 2011, Maxwell School of Syracuse University.
33. Norris, D.F., Moon, M.J., Advancing e-government at the grass roots: Tortoise or hare?. Public Administration Review 65:1 (2005), 64–75.
34. OECD, Rethinking e-government services. User-centred approaches. 2009 (Retrieved 13 March 2013 from http://www.oecd.org).
35. Østerlund, C.S., Crowston, K., What characterize documents that bridge boundaries compared to documents that do not? An exploratory study of documentation in FLOSS teams. Proceedings of the 44th Hawai'i international conference on system sciences, 2011, IEEE Computer Science, Washington, DC.
36. Pardo, T.A., Nam, T., Burke, G.B., E-government interoperability: Interaction of policy, management, and technology dimensions. Social Science Computer Review 30:1 (2011), 7–23.
37. Reddick, C.G., Roy, J., Business perceptions and satisfaction with e-government: Findings from Canadian survey. Government Information Quarterly 30:1 (2013), 1–9.
38. Röttger, M., Stock, W.G., Die mittlere Güte von Navigationssystemen. Ein Kennwert für komparative Analysen von Websites bei Usability-Nutzertests. Information – Wissenschaft und Praxis 54 (2003), 401–404.
39. Saebo, O., Rose, J., Molka-Danielsen, J., eParticipation: Designing and managing political discussion forums. Social Science Computer Review 28:4 (2009), 403–426.
40. Scott, J.K., “E” the people: Do US municipal government websites support public involvement?. Public Administration Review 66:3 (2006), 341–353.
41. Sharma, S., Palvia, S., E-government and e-governance. Definitions/domain framework and status around the world. 5th international conference on egovernance, 2010, Foundations of E-Government, New York, NY, 1–12.
42. Shi, Y., The accessibility of Chinese local government web sites: An exploratory study. Government Information Quarterly 24:2 (2007), 377–403.
43. Star, S.L., This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology & Human Values 35:5 (2010), 601–617.
44. Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museums of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19:3 (1989), 387–420.
45. Stock, W.G., Informational cities: Analysis and construction of cities in the knowledge society. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62:5 (2011), 963–986.
46. Susha, I., Grönlund, Å., eParticipation research: Systematizing the field. Government Information Quarterly 29:3 (2012), 373–382.
47. United Nations, E-government survey 2012. E-government for the people. 2012, United Nations, New York, NY.
48. Venkatesh, V., Chan, F.K.Y., Thong, J.Y.L., Designing e-government services: Key service attributes and citizens’ preference structures. Journal of Operations Management 30:1-2 (2012), 116–133.
49. Yi, M., Oh, S.G., Kim, S., Comparison of social media use for the U.S. and the Korean governments. Government Information Quarterly 30:3 (2013), 310–317.
50. Yigitcanlar, T., Informational city. Hutchison, R., (eds.) Encyclopedia of urban studies, 1, 2010, Sage, New York, NY, 392–395.