Ewa Ziemba and Tomasz Papaj
2. Literature review and related works – maturity models of e‐Government
2.1 An overview of e‐Government
Such a novel and eerily actual topic of e‐Government has become the subject of broad research among many renown academic institutions and practitioners’ forums in the world. The concept of e‐Government was coined by several researchers and scholars( Anttiroiko, 2008; Brainard and McNutt, 2010; Cordella and Lannacci, 2010; Hanna, 2010; Serrano‐Cinca, Rueda‐Tomás and Portillo‐Tarragona, 2009; Siau and Long, 2006; Tolbert and Mossberger, 2006; Zhao, 2010; Ziemba and Olszak, 2012). Furthermore, since 2003 the Gartner Group( Baum and Maio, 2000) and the Deloitte( Deloitte, 2000) has laid the foundations for e‐Government and creating solutions for its development. Moreover, such organizations as: the European Commission( COM, 2010), OECD( The E‐Government …, 2001) and the World Bank( A Definition …, 2003) are involved in the discourse on e‐Government.
Those above literature findings allow us to draw the following connotation of e‐Government. E‐Government is embedded in combinations of political conditions as well as cultural, technological and organizational changes designed to support and drive a profound transformation in government agencies( Cordella and Lannacci, 2010). According to Tolbert and Mossberger e‐Government has been proposed as a way to transform and improve relations between government agencies and citizens as well as increase citizens’ trust in government( Tolbert and Mossberger, 2006). E‐Government requires ICTs use to rebuild government processes and to deliver government information and government services to citizens, enterprises, employees and government agencies( Brainard and McNutt, 2010; Serrano‐Cinca, Rueda‐Tomás and Portillo‐Tarragona, 2009; Siau and Long, 2006; Ziemba and Papaj, 2012). Hence we can identify four main domains of e‐Government: improving government processes( e‐administration), providing government services electronically( e‐Government services, improving democratic decision making( e‐democracy), and developing cooperation and partnerships between government stakeholders( e‐governance)( Anttiroiko, 2008; Serrano‐Cinca, Rueda‐Tomás and Portillo‐Tarragona, 2009).
To sum up, in our opinion e‐Government is multidimensional by nature and requires consideration of organizational, technological, social, cultural, and economic issues. A more detailed definition of e‐ Government applied here is the following: e‐Government means the ICTs utilization and accomplishing organizational, process, legal, competence and cultural transformation in government agencies, in order to make e‐Government services electronically accessible to various external and internal stakeholders( citizens, enterprises, and government agencies). It creates five forms of relations between government agencies and their stakeholders: Government‐to‐Citizens( G2C), Citizens‐to‐Government( C2G), Government‐to‐Business( G2B), Business‐to‐Government( B2G), Government‐to‐Government( G2G).
2.2 Levels of e‐Government maturity models
E‐Government services can be available at different levels of maturity( Karokola and Yngström, 2009; Reddick, 2004). The term " maturity " relates to the degree of interaction between government agencies and their stakeholders, the way of delivering government information and services electronically, the degree of technological sophistication as well as the degree of formality and optimization of government processes. Hence methods of evaluating the readiness of government agencies to render e‐Government services to different stakeholders and at different levels of maturity are a key ingredient in the successful development of e‐Government. Ergo, researchers and practitioners have developed various models to analyze and improve the maturity of e‐Government( Almarabeh and AbuAli, 2010; Andersen and Henriksen, 2006; Baum and Maio, 2000; Beynon‐Davies, 2007; Deloitte, 2000; Irani and Love, 2008; Kachwamba and Hussein, 2009; Kachwamba and Hussein, 2009; Infinedo and Singh, 2011; Davison, Wagner and Ma, 2005).
Existing e‐Government maturity models can be categorized into three groups: governmental models, holistic approach models for e‐Government projects, and models of e‐Government evolution( Dong‐Young and Gerald, 2010; Valdés, Solar, Astudillo, Iribarren, Concha and Visconti, 2011; Concha, Astudillo, Porrúa, Pimenta, 2012). The first group of models( governmental) has been created by governments, consultants and scientists to facilitate the identification and improvement of e‐Government maturity levels by government agencies. For example, these models provide a common framework to identify, describe and asses the capabilities required to deliver service to citizens and they can be used by government agencies to identify their current business‐
561