Local E-Government in Norway

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 con© Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 2005, 17(2):41–84 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]  Ronald K. Mitchell,et al.  Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts , 1997 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[25]  Chris Meyer,et al.  Cap Gemini Ernst & Young , 2002 .

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

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

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

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

[30]  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 .

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

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

[33]  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..

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

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

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

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