Measuring interoperability maturity in government networks.

The purpose of this paper is to create a model that describes the development of interorganisational collaboration in government networks that apply eGovernment. Contrary to several models that describe eGovernment from a government-to-citizen perspective, and primarily emphasise on the front office of eGovernment services, this paper focuses on the collaboration that takes place in the back office to enable successful eGovernment services. A maturity model was developed to describe and assess the level of interorganisational collaboration in government networks that apply eGovernment. Through a structured literature review, 19 existing maturity models related to interorganisational collaboration and eGovernment were identified. These models were subsequently analysed on their dimensions and on the stages that were used to define maturity. Furthermore, the authors of this paper studied the characteristics of each stage and the preconditions for increasing maturity. Based on this literature review and their analysis, the authors propose a new maturity model in which existing concepts are integrated and extended from a network perspective. This model describes the levels of interorganisational collaboration in government networks on three dimensions: system, information and process. Five levels of increasing interconnectedness describe how the interorganisational collaboration in government networks unfolds across these three dimensions. The model is empirically applied through case studies of three government networks. Medium- to large-sized networks of municipalities and their cooperating partners that apply eGovernment services in their permit application procedure have been studied. The model appears to be suitable for assessing the development of interorganisational collaboration among government networks that implement eGovernment in their service provisioning. Further research could focus on the use of this model in order to analyse additional growth strategies, aiming to create successful roadmaps. (aut.ref.)

[1]  Patrick Wauters Benchmarking e-government policy within the e-Europe programme , 2006, Aslib Proc..

[2]  Clay G. Wescott,et al.  E‐Government in the Asia‐pacific region , 2001 .

[3]  Chitu Okoli,et al.  A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research , 2010 .

[4]  Theresa A. Pardo,et al.  E-Government Interoperability , 2012 .

[5]  Richard Heeks,et al.  Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[6]  Richard L. Nolan,et al.  Managing the computer resource , 1973, Commun. ACM.

[7]  R. Batenburg,et al.  Measuring chain digitisation maturity: an assessment of Dutch retail branches , 2010 .

[8]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[9]  Choon Seong Leem,et al.  Information technology maturity stages and enterprise benchmarking: an empirical study , 2008, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[10]  Luis Guijarro,et al.  Semantic interoperability in eGovernment initiatives , 2009, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[11]  Rachel Silcock What is E-government , 2001 .

[12]  Yuan Long,et al.  Synthesizing e-government stage models - a meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach , 2005, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[13]  J.H.A.M. Grijpink,et al.  Combating Identity Fraud in the Public Domain: Information Strategies for Healthcare and Criminal Justice , 2011, ECEG 2011.

[14]  Petter Gottschalk,et al.  The Modeling Process for Stage Models , 2010, J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer..

[15]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  A critque of the stage hypothesis: theory and empirical evidence , 1984, CACM.

[16]  Mete Yildiz,et al.  E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[17]  Janice M. Burn,et al.  Moving towards e‐government: a case study of organisational change processes , 2003 .

[18]  Victor Bekkers The Governance of Back Office Integration in E-Government: Some Dutch Experiences , 2005, EGOV.

[19]  Theresa A. Pardo,et al.  Electronic governance and organizational transformation , 2007, ICEGOV '07.

[20]  L. Greiner Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow , 1997 .

[21]  Grady E. Means,et al.  MetaCapitalism: The e-Business Revolution and the Design of 21st-Century Companies and Markets , 2000 .

[22]  D. West E‐Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes , 2004 .

[23]  Bram Klievink,et al.  Realizing joined-up government - Dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[24]  Delfina Soares,et al.  Information systems interoperability in public administration: Identifying the major acting forces through a Delphi study , 2011, J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res..

[25]  Robert K. Kazanjian,et al.  An empirical test of a stage of growth progression model , 1989 .

[26]  Jan Dul,et al.  Case Study Methodology in Business Research , 2007 .

[27]  Vassilios Peristeras,et al.  Analyzing E-Government as a Paradigm Shift , 2002 .

[28]  Jungwoo Lee,et al.  10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: A qualitative meta-synthesis , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[29]  Foto N. Afrati,et al.  Change management, a critical success factor for e-government , 2001, 12th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications.

[30]  Samir Chatterjee,et al.  A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research , 2008 .

[31]  C. Hart Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. , 1998 .

[32]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Research in Information Systems , 2010 .

[33]  Albert Jacob Meijer,et al.  Why don't they listen to us? Reasserting the role of ICT in Public Administration , 2007, Inf. Polity.

[34]  Yannis Charalabidis,et al.  Towards Standardising Interoperability Levels for Information Systems of Public Administrations , 2008 .

[35]  David H. Coursey,et al.  Models of E-Government: Are They Correct? An Empirical Assessment , 2008 .

[36]  Unpan Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective , 2022 .

[37]  José Ramón Gil-García,et al.  Understanding the evolution of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[38]  John Lane,et al.  IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries , 1991 .

[39]  Jason L. Dedrick,et al.  Computing and Public Organizations , 1986 .

[40]  Hans Solli-Sather,et al.  A framework for analysing interoperability in electronic government , 2011 .

[41]  I. Netchaeva,et al.  E-Government and E-Democracy , 2002 .

[42]  Helle Zinner Henriksen,et al.  E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model , 2006, Gov. Inf. Q..

[43]  Abhaya C. Nayak,et al.  Approaches for semantic interoperability between domain ontologies , 2006, Expert Syst. J. Knowl. Eng..

[44]  Jungwoo Lee,et al.  Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model , 2001, Gov. Inf. Q..

[45]  William R. King,et al.  Integration Between Business Planning and Information Systems Planning: Validating a Stage Hypothesis , 1997 .

[46]  Herbert Kubicek,et al.  Insights from recent studies for improving interoperability frame-works , 2009 .

[47]  Hans Jochen Scholl,et al.  Interoperability in E-Government: More than Just Smart Middleware , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[48]  Ralf Klischewski,et al.  E-Government Integration and Interoperability: Framing the Research Agenda , 2007 .