Local E-Government in Norway: Current Status and Emerging Issues

Recent studies indicate that e-government initiatives have not held their promise of improving government services. The majority of efforts to benchmark e-government have had central government as the unit of analysis. This study employs the MeGAP-3 (The Municipal E-Government Assessmen Project) assessment tool to assess the status of municipal e-government in the Agder region in southern Norway, an area with high Internet penetration and mature information and communication technology (ICT) use. MeGAP-3 proved effective in providing a relative positioning of these Norwegian municipalities, but we argue that country specific assessment indicators are needed to complement the tool and enable cross-country comparisons by relative scores. Surprisingly, the results show that the sophistication of local government web sites was fairly low. A series of qualitative interviews were con1 Flak et al.: Local E-Government in Norway: Current Status and Emerging Issues Published by AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), 2005 42 • L. S. Flak, D. H. Olsen & P. Wolcott ducted to explore the factors that shape the development of municipal egovernment. The evidence suggests that the dominant stakeholder in development is the bureaucratic administration rather than citizens or politicians. This group has a strong focus on internal efficiency and cost reduction. The majority of respondents report cost reduction as the major driver behind egovernment development. However we also identified a more citizen-centric approach that stresses the need for improving access and service quality for citizens. The study outlines a number of areas where further research will be needed to fully understand the development of e-government in Norway.

[1]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  A strategic perspective of electronic democracy , 2001, CACM.

[2]  Michael H. Deis,et al.  An Evaluation of Retraining Programs for Dislocated Workers in the Airline Industry , 2002 .

[3]  Åke Grönlund Framing e-Gov: e=mc3 , 2003, EGOV.

[4]  A. Ho Reinventing Local Governments and the E‐Government Initiative , 2002 .

[5]  Stuart Bretschneider,et al.  Management Information Systems in Public and Private Organizations: An Empirical Test. , 1990 .

[6]  Richard T. Vidgen,et al.  Interactive E-Government: Evaluating the Web Site of the UK Inland Revenue , 2004, J. Electron. Commer. Organ..

[7]  Ann Macintosh,et al.  Conventional and Electronic Service Delivery within Public Authorities: The Issues and Lessons from the Private Sector , 2003, EGOV.

[8]  Richard T. Vidgen,et al.  Measuring Web site quality improvements: a case study of the forum on strategic management knowledge exchange , 2003, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[9]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[10]  Alastair G. Smith,et al.  Applying evaluation criteria to New Zealand government websites , 2001, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[11]  Helle Zinner Henriksen,et al.  The Diffusion of e-Services in Danish Municipalities , 2004, EGOV.

[12]  M. J. Moon The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? , 2002 .

[13]  Charles H. Kaylor E-government. The next wave of e-government: The challenges of data architecture , 2005 .

[14]  Tamara Hoegler,et al.  Quo Vadis e-Government? - A Trap between Unsuitable Technologies and Deployment Strategies , 2002, EGOV.

[15]  C. Demchak,et al.  Democracy and Bureaucracy in the Age of the Web , 2002 .

[16]  Petra Schubert,et al.  Extended Web Assessment Method (EWAM) - Evaluation Of E-Commerce Applications From The Cus- tomer's Viewpoint (Copyright 2002 IEEE. Published in the Proceedings of the Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences, January 7-10, 2002, Big Island, Hawaii.) , 2002 .

[17]  Ronald K. Mitchell,et al.  Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts , 1997 .

[18]  Stuart Bretschneider,et al.  Does the Perception of Red Tape Constrain IT Innovativeness in Organizations? Unexpected Results from a Simultaneous Equation Model and Implications , 2002 .

[19]  J. Ignacio Criado,et al.  E‐government in practice , 2003 .

[20]  Jörgen Svensson,et al.  Size Matters - Electronic Service Delivery by Municipalities? , 2002, EGOV.

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

[22]  Mateja Kunstelj,et al.  Development of e-government in Slovenia , 2003, Inf. Polity.

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

[24]  Charles Lowe Experiences of Take-Up of e-Government in Europe , 2003, EGOV.

[25]  G. Paquet,et al.  E-Governance and Smart Communities , 2001 .

[26]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management: Part II , 2001 .

[27]  Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko Toward the European information society , 2001, CACM.

[28]  Darell West Global E-Government, 2006 , 2006 .

[29]  Davy Janssen,et al.  If you measure it they will score: An assessment of international eGovernment benchmarking , 2004, Inf. Polity.

[30]  Andrew Potter Accessibility of Alabama government Web sites , 2002 .

[31]  Seang-Tae Kim,et al.  Leapfrogging form Traditional Government to e-Government , 2001, Human.Society@Internet.

[32]  Charles Kaylor,et al.  Gauging e-government: A report on implementing services among American cities , 2001, Gov. Inf. Q..

[33]  Genie N. L. Stowers,et al.  Becoming cyberactive: State and local governments on the World Wide Web , 1999, Gov. Inf. Q..

[34]  John D. Nugent If E‐Democracy Is the Answer, What's the Question? , 2001 .

[35]  Allison Brueckner Government & community building: A study of Michigan local governments online , 2002, ASIST.

[36]  Petra Schubert,et al.  Extended Web Assessment Method (EWAM): Evaluation of Electronic Commerce Applications from the Customer's Viewpoint , 2002, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[37]  Richard T. Vidgen,et al.  An Evaluation of Cyber-Bookshops: The WebQual Method , 2001, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[38]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for U.S. cities , 2004, Gov. Inf. Q..

[39]  Richard T. Vidgen,et al.  Interactive E-Government: Evaluating the Web Site of the UK Inland Revenue , 2007, Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res..

[40]  Best Practices in the European Countries , 2004 .

[41]  E. Ettedgui,et al.  Benchmarking e-government in Europe and the US , 2003 .