Journal of Computer Information Systems

ISSN: 0887-4417 (Print) 2380-2057 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucis20

Factors Influencing The Success Of E-Government

Ewa Ziemba, Tomasz Papaj, RafaŁ Żelazny & Maria Jadamus-Hacura

To cite this article: Ewa Ziemba, Tomasz Papaj, RafaŁ Żelazny & Maria Jadamus-Hacura (2016)
Factors Influencing The Success Of E-Government, Journal of Computer Information Systems,
56:2, 156-167

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2016.1117378

Published online: 15 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 36

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucis20

Download by: [Penn State University] Date: 28 January 2016, At: 21:26
 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SUCCESS OF
E-GOVERNMENT
EWA ZIEMBA
University of Economics, Katowice, Poland
RAFAŁ ŻELAZNY
University of Economics, Katowice, Poland
ABSTRACT
This research focuses on the critical success factors (CSFs) of
e-government. Its main purposes are to (1) explain the
development of the methodology of CSFs for e-government, (2)
present the practical implementation of this methodology in Polish
Downloaded by [Penn State University] at 21:26 28 January 2016
public administration, and (3) to assess the preliminary results of the
practical implementation. The article continues as follows. First, the
article clarifies the concept of e-government and the CSFs for
e-government. Second, the methodology of CSFs for e-government
is explained in detail. Third, the article presents the preliminary
results of the practical implementation of this methodology in
Poland, at the local and state level of government. The article
concludes with a discussion on research findings, implications, and
avenues for further research. This work contributes to extant
research by showing a holistic approach to the CSFs for
e-government.
Keywords: e-Government, critical success factors, CSFs,
success, factors, research method, methodology
INTRODUCTION
Studies aimed at e-government have been developing from
2000 [2, 10, 19, 21, 40, 43, 46]. At the same time, many
governments across the world are renovating themselves into
an e-government [1, 6, 13, 22, 44, 45].
Poland started its e-government efforts at the beginning of
the 2000s. These efforts accelerated in 2004, when the govern-
ment strategy was drawn in the document entitled Action plan
for the development of electronic government (e-government) for
the years 2005–2006 [35]. The document described the legal
framework for e-government, evaluated the current level of
e-government development, set the strategic guidelines for
developing e-government in the coming few years, and indicated
projects to be implemented by Polish government units. A clear
reference to e-government was made in the Strategy of develop-
ment of information society in Poland until 2013 [42]. The use
of information and telecommunication technologies (ICTs) to
rebuild government processes and to provide government ser-
vices electronically for all government stakeholders (govern-
ment employees, citizens and enterprises) was indicated as one
of priorities for the future work. Currently, the framework of
e-government for 2013–2020 is outlined in the document
Program of integrated state computerization [36]. The strategic
goals of this program are to increase the supply of high-quality
e-government services in Poland and to raise the level of e-gov-
ernment usage by all government stakeholders. In order to do
this, appropriate competencies of e-government stakeholders are
needed. Furthermore, e-government adoption is investigated
annually in Poland. The Ministry of Administration and
Digitization (MAiC) examines the impact of digitization on the
functioning of public administration in Poland [47, 48].
156 Journal of Computer Information Systems
TOMASZ PAPAJ
University of Economics, Katowice, Poland
MARIA JADAMUS-HACURA
University of Economics, Katowice, Poland
Due to emerging new demands, developing new technolo-
gies, and the new experiences of e-government, the efforts
toward e-government adoption have been growing. Polish and
foreign researchers developed studies on various e-government
issues. Nevertheless, there are some questions that still need to
be answered. The main ones are: What does e-government mean
today? How to succeed in e-government? What are the factors
influencing the success of e-government?
This paper looks at e-government in a comprehensive con-
text. A comprehensive view of e-government is that it relates to
the entire range of government roles and activities, shaped by
the use of ICTs combined with various management models.
More concretely, e-government brings together four domains [5,
16, 31, 50]:
● e-administration, i.e., improving government processes
by using ICTs and government process management;
● e-government services, i.e., delivering government ser-
vices electronically to citizens, businesses, and govern-
ment employees;
● e-democracy, i.e., improving transparency and demo-
cratic decision-making, as well as citizens’ participation
in public decisions; and
● e-governance, i.e., developing cooperation, networking,
and partnerships between government units, citizens,
and the business.
e-Government is embedded in combinations of political con-
ditions as well as cultural, technological, and organizational
changes designed to support and drive a profound transforma-
tion in government units [45]. Therefore, the adoption of e-gov-
ernment is not straightforward, and it requires rather a complex
technological, organizational, social, economic, and political
framework approach (undertaking) [8, 11, 32–34]. It involves
rethinking government organization, culture, and processes;
introducing business management models; increasing involve-
ment of the public in the decision-making process; changing
behavior; and using ICTs and information for the successful
adoption of e-administration, e-government services, e-democ-
racy, and e-governance. In addition, it depends on the effective
organization of e-government stakeholders, each of whom
brings their own ability, experience, knowledge, and skill toward
adopting e-government. It requires the coordination of many
activities of government units and a close cooperation of
employees, managers, IT specialists, as well as citizens and
businesses [50].
Success in e-government is very context dependent [7, 14,
26, 27, 41, 49]. To identify factors influencing the success of
e-government, this study suggests the use of critical success
factor (CSFs) approach [38, 39]. CSFs are becoming very
important as they help identify the cause of failure as well as
improve e-government. Although CSFs for e-government
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016
 remain a challenge for researchers and practitioners alike [3, 4,
15–17, 25, 33, 37], there has been relatively little research
exploring CSFs in countries of Eastern and Central Europe,
including Poland. Moreover, these studies are dispersed and
fragmentary; they focus on the surface level of e-government’s
phenomena [20, 24, 28–30].
To address this gap, this study contributes to the development
of the methodology of CSF analysis for e-government. The
study is an extensive and enhanced version of the earlier study
published in 2013 [50]. In this study, the conceptual framework
of CSFs for e-government adoption was proposed and described.
In the proposed framework, the CSFs were considered holisti-
cally as economic, sociocultural, technological, and organiza-
tional aspects (i.e., four dimensions). Moreover, the CSFs were
reflected in the three stages: ICT access, ICT competences and
awareness, and ICT use.
The main purposes of this study are to:
● explain the development of the methodology of CSFs
for e-government;
● present the practical implementation of this methodol-
Downloaded by [Penn State University] at 21:26 28 January 2016
ogy in Polish public administration; and
● assess the preliminary results of the practical
implementation.
This research constitutes a very helpful basis for identifying
CSFs for e-government adoption, especially in countries of
Eastern and Central Europe. The list of 55 identified and exam-
ined success factors for e-government (Table 5) can be treated as
a prototype list of CSFs in other countries. It is fundamentally
important for the Eastern and Central European countries, their
researchers and practitioners, to have a framework of CSFs for
e-government as quickly as possible. These countries are just
planning and undertaking many projects on e-government co-
financed by the European Union. The knowledge about factors
influencing successful e-government adoption is particularly
needed to make e-government plans and receive funding from
the European Union budget.
This article is divided as follows:
● the “Introduction” shows a brief introduction to
e-government and CSFs for e-government;
Reviewing literature
Step 1
Step 2 Defining the prototype CSFs
Step 3 Verifying the prototype CSFs
Step 4 Evaluating the prototype CSFs
Step 5 Creating and testing the draft survey questionnaire
Step 6 Creating the final survey questionnaire
Step 7 Defining the sample and the sample size
Collecting the data
Step 8
Analyzing the collected data
Step 9
The final CSFs for e-government
FIGURE 1. The Graphical Representation of the Steps in the Research
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016 Journal of Computer Information Systems
● the section “Methodology of critical success factors for
e-government” explores in detail the methodology of
CSFs for e-government;
● the section “Practical application of methodology and its
preliminary results” presents the employment of this
methodology for assessing sucess factors influencng e-
government in Poland; and
● the article concludes with a discussion on research findings,
limitations, implications, and avenues for further research.
METHODOLOGY OF CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
FOR E-GOVERNMENT
A multistep approach was applied in our research methodol-
ogy. It is worth mentioning that every step has to be completed
before passing to the next one. Figure 1 presents a graphical
representation of the research methodology.
Step 1: Reviewing Literature
A review of the literature was conducted to identify CSFs
for the e-government presented there. The search for the
appropriate literature on e-government began with five biblio-
graphic databases, that is: Ebsco, ProQuest, Emerald
Management Plus, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus. This
was achieved by developing a relevant set of keywords and
phrases such as “critical success factors,” “CSFs,” “e-govern-
ment,” “electronic government,” “success factors,” “success”
in all possible permutations and combinations (taking into
consideration the logical AND, and OR as appropriate) and
conducting a corresponding search.
In addition, some journals dedicated to e-government
research were also explored, especially Government
Information Quarterly (GIQ), Transforming Government:
People, Process, and Policy (TGPPP), Electronic Government:
an International Journal (EGIJ), Journal of Global Information
Technology Management (JGITM), The Electronic Journal of
e-Government (EJEG), Journal of US-China Public
Administration, Canadian Journal of Administrative Science,
Business Process Management Journal, Business Strategy
Building the methodology and preliminary
research
Practical application
of the methodology
157
 Series (BSS), European Journal of Scientific Research, The
Southern African Journal of Information and Communication,
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Issues in
Information Systems (IIS), and Journal of Computer
Information Systems (JCIS).
Moreover, open access papers and empirical studies were
examined.
Step 2: Defining the Prototype CSFs
This step required the combination of theoretical knowl-
edge and practical experience. Only a theoretical knowledge
based on literature review and practical experience based on
working in practice can provide insights to indicate mean-
ingful factors influencing e-government. Therefore, CSFs for
e-government in the Silesian Voivodeship (Poland) were indi-
cated on the basis of practical experience. The practical
experience means the very close longstanding collaboration
of the research team with the Silesian Centre for Information
Society (SCSI) in Katowice. SCSI is responsible for e-gov-
ernment in the Silesian Voivodeship, which is as a leader of
Downloaded by [Penn State University] at 21:26 28 January 2016
e-government in Poland.
The research team took a constructive and practical approach
to their work on defining the protype CSFs. The following
methods and techniques were used:
● practical experience to identify CSFs for e-government
in Poland, especially in the Silesian Voivodeship;
● logical deduction to compare CSFs identified based on
literature and practical experience, and to indicate one
set (framework) of all CSFs described in literature and
identified in the action research;
● logical deduction to recognize a nature of indicated
factors and to determine dimensions and stages of fac-
tors according to their nature;
● brainstorming sessions to establish the final set of CSFs;
● creative thinking and logical deduction to assign each
factor to an appropriate dimension and an appropriate
stage.
Finally, the result of a 4-month research team work was the
set of initial 46 CSFs for e-government. The CSFs were con-
sidered holistically as economic (E), sociocultural (S), techno-
logical (T), and organizational (O) aspects (i.e., four
dimensions). Moreover, the CSFs were reflected in the three
stages: ICT access (A) demonstrating technical and economic
accessibilities of ICTs, ICT competences and awareness (C)
demonstrating competences and awareness related to the use of
ICTs, and ICT use demonstrating (U) the actual usage of ICTs in
the government units.
Step 3: Verifying the Prototype CSFs
46 prototype CSFs were examined and verified through the
means of the Delphi study. At this step, thanks to the Delphi
study the prototype CSFs were examined and verified. 22
experts participated in the Delphi study. The experts were
selected to combine knowledge and experience of scholars,
researchers, and practitioners. The group of experts was com-
posed of: (a) 16 employees of the local and state government,
who are responsible for e-government in Poland and (b) 6
professors of Polish universities, who conduct studies and
empirical research on e-government (Table 1). The Delphi
process was viewed as a series of rounds. In the early rounds,
four experts participated, in the last round all 22 experts took
part in the Delphi research. In each round, every expert dealt
with and filled in a questionnaire which was delivered to a
158 Journal of Computer Information Systems
researcher who gathered, organized, and gave every expert
back an account of the standpoint of the whole group and the
expert’s own opinion. A summary of opinions expressed by
each expert made them aware of the range of positions and the
reasons underlying those positions. In the last round, the
experts evaluated the strength of the influence of particular
factors on e-government. The experts had to answer the ques-
tion: Using a scale of 1–5, state to what extent do you agree
that the following factors influence the e-government adoption?
A 5-point Likert scale was used in the evaluation. The scale
respectively represented: 1—disagree strongly, 2—disagree, 3
—neither agree nor disagree, 4—agree, and 5—agree strongly.
The result of Delphi study was to reduce the number of
factors from 46 to 44 (Table 2). Changing the initial number
of 46 CSFs was the result of Delphi study experts’ opinions.
The two factors “Hardware awareness of managerial workers
in government units” and “E-government service awareness of
managerial workers in government units” were replaced with
the factor X11—ICT awareness of managerial workers in
government units. The four factors concerning social exclu-
sion of workers, citizens, and entrepreneurs due to age, edu-
cation, place of residence, and disability were replaced with
the factor X17—Social exclusion of workers, citizens, entre-
preneurs due to age, education, place of residence, and dis-
ability. Two factors were added to the set of CSFs, i.e., 38—
Competence of employees of government units in the field of
new management models and X39—Top management
support.
The result of Delphi study was also to establish the final
assignment of all factors to the identified dimensions and stages.
This final set of the 44 prototype factors is presented in Table 2.
The majority of the factors are explored by Ziemba et al. [50] in
greater detail.
Step 4: Evaluating the Prototype CSFs
In order to gain greater and deeper verification of the prototype
CSFs and to evaluate each of these factors, the collected data were
statistically analyzed. Statistical Package for Social Science
(SPSS) for Windows and STATISTICA were utilized to show the
descriptive statistics of CSFs. The following statistical measures
for data analysis were employed: minimum (Min), maximum
(Max), mean, standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation
(CV). To conduct reliability analysis, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
(α) was used [12, 18, 23]. The conducted statistical analyses could
be performed on a small sample size. Those prototype factors and
their descriptive statistics by individual dimensions and stages are
shown in Table 2.
The calculated means for 44 factors (items) are in the range
from 2.95 to 4.82, using the 5-point Likert scale. There are
differences in the variability of the factors, but they all have
enough variation to be useful. The coefficient of variation stays
in the range from 8.75% to 37.85%. Only two items—X1
(Public and private outlay on hardware, networks, and telecom-
munications) and X27 (Maturity of e-government services)—are
smaller than 10%. These findings have shown that all factors
affect e-government.
Having decided which items are worth including in the final
set of factors, the overall scale and the subscale of internal
consistency were estimated using the test for reliability.
Cronbach’s coefficient values were chosen to examine the inter-
nal consistency among items on a scale. The original alpha score
with all 44 items shows a strong internal consistency (0.873).
The values of Cronbach’s alpha for each item with the assump-
tion that a given item Xi (i = 1, 2,. . . 44) was deleted are
presented in Figure 2. The results showed that deleting any
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016
 TABLE 1. The Delphi Study Experts
No. Title Government sector Government unit
1. Minister Counselor State government The Ministry of Administration and Digitization
2. Deputy Director for European Affairs State government Centre for Health Information Systems
3. Director State government Central Statistical Office, Szczecin
4. IT Team Manager Local government Marshal’s Office Silesian Voivodeship
5. SEKAP Project Coordinator Local government Marshal’s Office Silesian Voivodeship
6. Deputy Director Local government Silesian Centre for Information Society
7. Design and Development of E-government Services Local government Silesian Centre for Information Society
Specialist
8. Head of IT Department Local government Dąbrowa Górnicza City Hall
9. Head of IT Department Local government Jaworzno City Hall
10. Junior Inspector of IT Department Local government Jaworzno City Hall
11. Chief Specialist—coordinator of office IT services Local government Kalisz City Hall
12. Head of IT Department Local government Katowice City Hall
13. Representative of the President for the Promotion of Local government Katowice City Hall
Innovativeness
14. IT Team Manager Local government Mysłowice City Hall
Downloaded by [Penn State University] at 21:26 28 January 2016

15. Head of IT Department Local government Zawiercie District Office

16. Inspector of Information Technology and Local government Żywiec City Hall
Telecommunications
17. Professor University Warsaw School of Economics
18. Professor University Warsaw School of Economics
19. Professor University Poznan University of Economics
20. Professor University University of Economics in Katowice
21. Professor University University of Economics in Katowice
22. Professor University University of Economics in Katowice

item does not seem to make a large difference and Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient still belongs to the high range. The original
alpha score for all 44 items still shows a strong internal
consistency.
In the identified four dimensions and three stages,
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values are between 0.511 (moder-
ate) and 0.804 (high) (Table 3).
The variability and reliability analyses proved the internal
consistency of factors and underpinned the reasoning behind that
decision to conduct further study of those 44 CSFs, in the
indicated dimensions and stages.
Step 5: Creating and Testing the Draft Survey Questionnaire
At this step, a draft survey questionnaire was prepared to be
applied in the last round of the Delphi study. In this survey, 44
statistically evaluated factors (at step 4) were listed. Each of
those factors required an evaluation of the strength of influence
on e-government point of view. Likert scale was used in the
evaluation: 1—disagree strongly, 2—disagree, 3—neither agree
nor disagree, 4—agree, and 5—agree strongly. The survey was
prepared in Microsoft Word. The electronic versions of the
questionnaire were sent via e-mail to 16 Polish government
units at the local and state levels. The same experts who
participated in the third step of this study were the experts at
this step. Eight completed questionnaires were sent to us via
e-mail. The experts marked the influence strength of each
factor and some of them proposed some changes in the proto-
type factors.
In order to make a decision about adding new factors to the
set of 44 prototype CSFs, for the Delphi study, the research
team acted as moderators to transfer the opinions of each
expert to the others. By doing this, we ensured anonymity for
every expert to eliminate possible unfairness that might arise
due to the positions held and experience acquired. As a result
of this step, the final set of CSFs was expanded to 55 factors.
The last round of the Delphi study also allowed us to correct
the draft survey questionnaire, especially in confusing or
incomprehensible statements. The final proposed CSFs are
presented in Table 5.
The changes of the set of 44 prototype CSFs were related to
the following factors:
1. Factor X1—Public and private outlay on hardware, net-
works, and telecommunications have been divided into
two factors: X1—Public outlay on hardware, networks,
and telecommunications and X2—Private outlay on hard-
ware, networks, and telecommunications.
2. The following factors have been added to the final CSFs:
● X12—Differentiation of e-government service charges
due to ways of processing—electronic or paper;
● X14—Citizens’ and enterprises’ awareness of e-gov-
ernment services;
● X19—Citizens’ and enterprises’ competences to use
e-government services;
● X30—Interoperability of information systems in gov-
ernment units;
● X32—Information security in government units;
● X37—Coordination of ICT projects in government
units;
● X42—Corruption in the implementation of ICT pro-
jects in government units;
● X45—State standardization of solutions for
e-government;
● X47—Mandatory usage of electronic documents in
government units; and

Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016 Journal of Computer Information Systems 159

 TABLE 2. 44 Prototype CSFs for e-Government and their Descriptive Statistics
Dimension/ Number of
Number and name of critical success factor Stage responses Min Max Mean SD CV (%)
X1 Public and private outlay on hardware, networks and E/a 22 4 5 4.77 0.43 8.99
telecommunications
X2 Competition on ICT market E/a 22 2 5 4.00 0.87 21.82
X3 Public outlay on back-office and front-office information systems, E/a 22 2 5 4.55 0.86 18.87
especially e-government services
X4 Financial situation of government units E/a 22 2 5 4.36 1.00 22.97
X5 Public and private outlay on ICT education for government managers E/c 22 4 5 4.41 0.50 11.41
X6 Public and private outlay on ICT education for government E/c 22 3 5 4.23 0.53 12.50
employees
X7 Public and private outlay on creating ICT competence centre for E/c 22 2 5 4.00 1.07 26.73
government units
X8 Economic benefits coming from ICT usage in government units E/u 22 2 5 3.91 1.11 28.36
X9 Economic risk of ICT implementation in government units E/u 20 1 5 2.95 1.00 33.85
X10 Public outlay on ICT promotion in government units E/u 21 2 5 3.76 1.04 27.76
X11 ICT awareness of managerial workers in government units S/a 21 3 5 4.67 0.58 12.37
Downloaded by [Penn State University] at 21:26 28 January 2016

X12 Public e-services absorption by stakeholders of government units S/a 21 3 5 4.48 0.60 13.44
X13 Incentive system promoting competence improvement of S/c 21 1 5 3.86 1.24 32.05
government employees (especially in ICT)
X14 ICT external expert consultancy for government units in the field S/c 22 1 5 3.64 1.14 31.23
of ICTs
X15 New social and cultural competences of government employees S.c 22 2 5 4.00 0.87 21.82
X16 Information culture in government units conducive to the use of ICTs S/u 22 4 5 4.64 0.49 10.62
X17 Social exclusion of workers, citizens, entrepreneurs due to age, to S/u 22 2 5 3.73 0.98 26.42
education, to place of residence, to disability
X18 Innovative hardware and networks in government units T/a 22 2 5 4.27 0.99 23.05
X19 Innovative e-government services T/a 22 2 5 4.64 0.85 18.28
X20 Open source software licenses T/a 22 3 5 3.86 0.83 21.57
X21 Standardized ICTs for government units T/a 21 2 5 4.29 0.78 18.29
X22 Dedicated (personalized) ICTs for government units T/a 21 2 5 4.29 0.85 19.72
X23 ICT leaderships and visionaries in government units T/c 22 3 5 4.50 0.67 14.95
X24 ICT competences of government employees T/c 22 2 5 4.55 0.74 16.25
X25 Integration of front-office and back-office information systems T/u 22 3 5 4.64 0.58 12.53
X26 Quality of e-government services T/u 22 2 5 4.82 0.66 13.79
X27 Maturity of e-government services 19 4 5 4.79 0.42 8.75
X28 E-government services enabling e-voting T/u 21 1 5 3.81 1.17 30.63
X29 E-government services enabling public consultation and T/u 21 2 5 4.14 0.79 19.14
participating in public decision making
X30 Coordination of public ICT investments O/a 21 2 5 4.29 1.06 24.63
X31 Public-private partnership in the field of ICTs O/a 22 1 5 3.36 0.85 25.20
X32 Rule of law O/a 21 2 5 4.10 1.00 24.30
X33 Institutional support for the development of ICT infrastructure O/a 22 2 5 3.95 1.00 25.26
X34 Access for employees of government units to their network resources O/a 20 1 5 3.35 1.27 37.85
X35 Coopetition on ICT market O/a 20 2 5 3.25 0.97 29.74
X36 ICT benchmarking for local and state government O/a 21 1 5 3.48 0.98 28.21
X37 Approved e-government strategy O/a 22 2 5 4.00 0.93 23.15
X38 Competence of employees of government units in the field of new O/c 22 2 5 4.00 0.87 21.82
management models
X39 Top management support O/u 21 2 5 4.29 1.06 24.63
X40 Internal regulations of government units on access to e- O/u 21 2 5 4.14 0.85 20.60
government services
X41 Adaptation of new management models in government units O/u 21 3 5 4.38 0.59 13.46
X42 Participation of employees of government units in organizational O/u 21 1 5 3.57 1.21 33.80
changes
X43 Electronic communication between government units O/u 22 4 5 4.64 0.49 10.62
X44 New ways of providing work by employees of government units O/u 21 2 5 3.62 0.80 22.24

160 Journal of Computer Information Systems Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016

 0,880

0,875

0,870

0,865

0,860

0,855
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
X1
X1
X1
X1
X1
X1
X1
X1
X1
X1
X2
X2
X2
X2
X2
X2
X2
X2
X2
X2
X3
X3
X3
X3
X3
X3
X3
X3
X3
X3
X4
X4
X4
X4
X4
Downloaded by [Penn State University] at 21:26 28 January 2016

Cronbach's alpha when item deleted Cronbach alpha for all items

FIGURE 2. The Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Values for 44 Prototype CSFs

TABLE 3. Reliability Analysis—Dimensions and Stages TABLE 4. Reliability Analysis—Dimensions and Stages
Analysis for 44 Prototype CSFs Analysis for 55 Proposed CSFs
Number of Cronbach’s alpha Number of Cronbach’s Alpha
Dimensions/Stages items coefficient Dimensions/Stages items coefficient
Economic 10 0.589 Economic 12 0.791
Sociocultural 7 0.511 Sociocultural 9 0.801
Technological 12 0.804 Technological 14 0.824
Organizational 15 0.790 Organizational 20 0.876
ICT access (supply) 19 0.783 ICTs access (supply) 23 0.853
ICT competences 9 0.720 ICTs competences 10 0.823
ICT use (demand) 16 0.577 ICTs use (demand) 22 0.886
Total 44 0.873 Total 55 0.941

● X55—Citizens’ and enterprises’ satisfaction with
using e-government services.
3. The factor X34—Access for employees of government
units to their network resources (mobile workstation) has
been replaced with the number X54.
Step 6: Creating the Final Survey Questionnaire
After updating the set of CSFs, we were able to work out the
final version of the survey questionnaire. The survey question-
naire contained six sections:
1. The first section was designed to clarify who is in the
study sample and who is not. It requested non-personal
participation in this study. It comprised information about
the research team, the goals of the survey, the reason for
the survey, voluntary participation, and willingness to
provide a copy of the study results for respondents if
desired. Moreover, confidentiality was assured to elimi-
nate potential bias and fears. In addition, an e-mail address
and a phone number of a research team member were
shown. The contact information was useful for
respondents to ask questions, clear up some ambiguities
about the questionnaire and its questions, and obtain assis-
tance in completion of the questionnaire.
2. In the second section, definitions and explanations of the
main terms used in the questionnaire were provided, e.g.,
e-government, e-government services, ICT, hardware, net-
works and telecommunications.
3. The third section requested non-personal characteristics of
government unit. The characteristics comprised a kind of a
government unit, a geographical location of the govern-
ment unit, and staff members of government unit. At the
end of this section, respondents could provide their e-mail
addresses to receive the findings of the study.
4. The mission of fourth section was to examine 55 factors
and to show a couple of factors, primarily influencing a
successful adoption of e-government. Each of the 55 fac-
tors was listed and a question about the importance of
each factor for e-government was posted. This section was
designed by using the 5-point Likert scale. It is important
to stress that each factor was explained by using a balloon.
It is a small pop-up window that informed respondents of
a factor and its nature in detail.

Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016 Journal of Computer Information Systems 161

 TABLE 5. 55 CSFs for e-Government and their Descriptive Statistics
Dimension/ Number of
Number and name of critical success factor Stage responses Min Max Mean Median SD CV (%)
X1 Public outlay on hardware, networks and E/a 635 1 5 4.5 5 0.70 15.46
telecommunications
X2 Private outlay on hardware, networks and E/a 631 1 5 3.4 3 1.08 31.94
telecommunications
X3 Competition on ICT market E/a 629 1 5 3.8 4 0.96 24.96
X4 Public outlay on back-office and front-office information E/a 633 1 5 4.2 4 0.84 20.12
systems, especially e-government services
X5 Financial situation of government units E/a 634 2 5 4.5 5 0.72 15.88
X6 Public and private outlay on ICT education for government E/c 634 1 5 4.0 4 0.81 20.06
managers
X7 Public and private outlay on ICT education for government E/c 634 1 5 4.0 4 0.82 20.69
employees
X8 Outlay on creating ICT competence centre for government E/c 632 1 5 3.7 4 0.87 23.63
units
X9 Potential economic benefits coming from ICT usage in E/u 633 2 5 3.8 4 0.83 21.67
Downloaded by [Penn State University] at 21:26 28 January 2016

government units
X10 Economic risk of ICT implementation in government units E/u 631 1 5 3.3 3 0.87 26.27
X11 Public outlay on ICT promotion in government units E/u 630 1 5 3.7 4 0.91 24.61
X12 Differentiation of e-government services charges due to E/u 632 1 5 3.8 4 1.01 26.74
ways of processing – electronic or paper
X13 ICT awareness of managerial workers in government units S/a 634 1 5 4.3 4 0.87 20.41
X14 Citizens’ and enterprises’ awareness of egovernment S/a 635 1 5 4.2 4 0.84 20.04
services
X15 Public e-services absorption by stakeholders of S/a 635 2 5 4.0 4 0.80 19.92
government units
X16 Incentive system promoting permanent competence S/c 636 1 5 4.0 4 0.86 21.32
improvement of government employees (especially in ICT)
X17 External ICT expert consultancy for government units in S/c 633 1 5 3.7 4 0.91 24.44
the field of ICT
X18 New social and cultural competences of government S/c 633 2 5 3.9 4 0.82 20.86
employees
X19 Citizens’ and enterprises’ competences to use e- S/c 634 1 5 4.1 4 0.79 19.57
government services
X20 Information culture in government units conducive to the S/u 634 2 5 4.2 4 0.73 17.37
use of ICT
X21 Social exclusion of workers, citizens, entrepreneurs due to S/u 635 1 5 4.1 4 0.88 21.60
age, to education, to place of residence, to disability
X22 Innovative hardware and networks in government units T/a 634 1 5 4.1 4 0.83 20.18
X23 Innovative e-government services T/a 634 1 5 4.1 4 0.84 20.59
X24 Open source software licenses T/a 634 1 5 4.0 4 1.00 24.71
X25 Standardized ICTs for government units T/a 630 1 5 4.1 4 0.87 21.55
X26 Dedicated (personalized) ICTs for government units T/a 635 1 5 3.7 4 1.02 27.57
X27 ICT leaderships and visionaries in government units T/c 635 1 5 3.8 4 0.93 24.32
X28 ICT competences of government employees T/c 633 2 5 4.4 5 0.67 15.28
X29 Integration of front-office and back-office information T/u 633 2 5 4.5 5 0.68 15.24
systems
X30 Interoperability of information systems in government T/u 630 1 5 4.2 4 0.79 18.71
units
X31 Quality of e-government services T/u 634 1 5 4.3 4 0.79 18.45
X32 Information security in government units T/u 634 1 5 4.3 5 0.79 18.09
X33 Maturity of e-government services T/u 633 2 5 4.2 4 0.75 17.86
X34 E-government services enabling e-voting T/u 635 1 5 3.6 4 1.05 28.82
X35 E-government services enabling public consultation and T/u 635 1 5 3.7 4 0.92 24.82
participating in public decision making
X36 Coordination of public ICT investments O/a 636 1 5 4.0 4 0.87 21.94
X37 Coordination of ICT projects in government units O/a 631 1 5 4.0 4 0.81 20.06
(Continued )

162 Journal of Computer Information Systems Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016

 TABLE 5. (Continued)
Dimension/ Number of
Number and name of critical success factor Stage responses Min Max Mean Median SD CV (%)
X38 Public-private partnership in the field of ICTs O/a 632 1 5 3.3 3 0.87 26.09
X39 Rule of law O/a 635 1 5 4.1 4 0.82 19.96
X40 Institutional support for the development of ICT O/a 634 1 5 4.1 4 0.81 20.04
infrastructure
X41 Coopetition in the ICT market O/a 633 1 5 3.3 3 0.86 25.65
X42 Corruption in the implementation of ICT projects in O/a 632 1 5 3.3 3 1.16 35.01
government units
X43 ICT benchmarking for local and state government O/a 633 1 5 3.6 4 0.83 23.24
X44 Approved e-government strategy O/a 630 1 5 3.6 4 0.92 25.39
X45 State standardization of solutions for e-government O/a 634 1 5 4.4 5 0.81 18.69
X46 Competences of employees of government units in the O/c 631 1 5 4.1 4 0.78 18.95
field of new management models
X47 Mandatory usage of electronic documents in government O/u 634 1 5 4.2 4 0.82 19.60
units
X48 Top management support O/u 633 1 5 4.4 5 0.77 17.54
Downloaded by [Penn State University] at 21:26 28 January 2016

X49 Internal regulations of government units on access to e- O/u 630 1 5 4.0 4 0.81 20.22
government services
X50 Adaptation of new management models in government O/u 627 1 5 3.9 4 0.79 20.06
units
X51 Participation of employees of government units in O/u 629 1 5 3.8 4 0.82 21.45
organizational changes
X52 Electronic communication between government units O/u 628 1 5 4.4 5 0.70 16.00
X53 New ways of providing work by employees of government O/u 629 1 5 3.7 4 0.91 24.40
units
X54 Access for employees of government units to their network O/u 627 1 5 3.6 4 1.01 28.01
resources (mobile workstation)
X55 Citizens’ and enterprises’ satisfaction with using O/u 624 1 5 4.2 4 0.81 19.38
egovernment services

5. The fifth section collected the data about the level of
e-government development in a government unit. The
questions of the sections were closely related to CSFs
listed in the fourth section. This part of the survey will
be a subject of other papers.
6. At the end of the survey questionnaire, an acknowledg-
ment of respondents for taking part of the study was set.
Additionally, a re-request for e-mail was listed to receive
the findings of the study.
Applying the CAWI (computer-assisted web interview)
method and employing the Survey Monkey platform, the survey
questionnaire was uploaded to the website. Then, the pilot study
was conducted to verify the web survey questionnaire. In the
pilot study, some respondents participated in the fifth step of the
examined web survey questionnaire. The finishing touches were
put into it, especially formal and technical. No substantive
amendments were required.
Step 7: Defining the Sample and the Sample Size
After creating the final survey questionnaire, the next step was
to decide about the respondents’ group who will participate in the
study sample. The sample group should consist of internal stake-
holders of e-government, that is government employees working
in the selected government units at the state and the local level of
government. In order to reach the biggest group of respondents
and to obtain representative results, the research team cooperated
fully with the Ministry of Administration and Digitization of
Poland (MAiC) and the Chancellery of the Prime Minister of
Poland (CPM). As a result of this cooperation, a suitable address
database of Polish local and state government units was drawn by
the application of Microsoft Excel software for this purpose.
The actual research sample was composed of 2711 govern-
ment units, comprising 2268 local government units and 443
state government units, which respectively referred to 81% of
the whole local government and 82% of purposive sampling of
government units at the state level.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY AND
THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Step 8: Collecting the Data
Having finalized the methodology development, the metho-
dology of the actual sample was applied and the results were
evaluated. At this step, the research team worked very closely
with MAiC and CPM.
The Deputy Minister of MAiC personally signed an official
letter supporting and promoting the conducted research. The offi-
cial letter with a hyperlink to the web survey questionnaire was
sent to the prepared e-mail database listings. The government
electronic inboxes were used for this purpose. In addition, on the
website of CPM, information on the conducted research was
posted. Additionally, the bulletin of CPM [9] extended the invita-
tion to the state government units to participate in the research.
The bulletin was electronically sent to the respondents by CPM.

Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016 Journal of Computer Information Systems 163

 As a result of the above activities, the information about the
study was sent to 2268 local government units and 443 state
government units. In case of any doubts, the respondents asked
questions via e-mail or mobile. The explanation was provided on
the ongoing basis by an appointed person whose contact data
were included in the first section of the survey questionnaire.
Data collection occurred between the December 22, 2013,
and April 15, 2014. The number of completed questionnaires
was systematically controlled. In case of lack of feedback,
reminder notices were sent to appropriate respondents.
Over a 4-month period of intense work, we obtained a set of
636 correct and complete responses in digital format (response
rate—23.45%). 542 of the responses were collected from the
local government (response rate—23.89%) and 94 of them were
from state government (response rate—21.21%). The data were
stored in two data formats: Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel software.
Step 9: Analyzing the Collected Data
Downloaded by [Penn State University] at 21:26 28 January 2016
Additionally, the variability of items was examined (Table 5).
The coefficient of variation stays in the range from 15.24% to
35.01%, and all factors have enough variability to be useful
(above 10%).
After examination of the internal consistency among items
on a scale and the variability of items, the mean, median,
standard deviation, and coefficient of variation were used to
demonstrate the construct validity of 55 factors (Table 5).
The calculated means for 55 items are in the range from 3.32
to 4.53, using the 5-point Likert scale. 30 items have values
exceeding 4. For eight factors, the medians exceed the highest
value, namely 5. The means for those factors are higher than the
means for the other factors. The means are in the range from
4.34 to 4.53. There are the following factors: X1, X5, X28, X29,
X32, X45, X48, and X52. The means and medians for all 55
factors are presented in Figure 4. Table 6 shows the rank of
factors with the highest means and medians.
The results of statistical analyses allow us to recommend the
eight CSFs for e-government in Poland. These are:
● X5: Financial situation of government units (economic

As the process of collecting data was completed and before factor);

passing to detailed statistical analyses, our next step was to
calculate the reliability to examine the internal consistency
among items on a scale. Look at the fourth step of the metho-
dology, we used Cronbach’s coefficient values.
The results of Cronbach’s alpha values for all the research
items, research dimensions, and stages have values no lower
than 0.800. Generally, the removal of some items would not
lead to the improvement of internal consistency among items on
a scale. Only the removal of four items would lead to a minimal
improvement in Cronbach’s alpha (X2—changes of 0.00008;
X24—changes of 0.00001; X26—changes of 0.00048, and
X42—changes of 0.00086). Overall, the original alpha scores
with all 55 items, four dimensions, and three stages show a
strong internal consistency and reliability. The results of relia-
bility analysis are presented in Figure 3 and Table 4.
● X1: Public outlay on hardware, networks, and telecom-
munications (economic factor);
● X29: Integration of front-office and back-office informa-
tion systems (technological factor);
● X52: Electronic communication between government
units (organizational factor).
● X48: Top management support (organizational factor);
● X28: ICT competencies of government employees (tech-
nological factor);
● X45: State standardization of solutions for e-govern-
ment (organizational factor);
● X32: Information security in government units (techno-
logical factor);
It is worth noticing that there are no sociocultural factors in
the set of the eight key success factors. There seems to be little

0,943

0,942

0,942

0,941

0,941

0,940

0,940

0,939

0,939

0,938
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9

x10
x11
x12
x13
x14
x15
x16
x17
x18
x29
x20
x21
x22
x23
x 24
x 25
x 26
x 27
x 28
x 39
x 30
x 31
x 32
x 33
x 34
x 35
x 36
x 37
x 38
x 49
x 40
x 41
x 42
x 43
x 44
x 45
x 46
x 47
x 48
x 59
x 50
x51
x52
x53
x54
5
x1

Cronbach's alpha when item deleted Cronbach alpha for all items

FIGURE 3. The Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Values for 55 Proposed Factors

164 Journal of Computer Information Systems Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016

 5,5

5,0

4,5

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
x10
x11
x12
x13
x14
x15
x16
x17
x18
x19
x20
x21
x22
x23
x24
x25
x26
x27
x28
x29
x30
x31
x32
x33
x34
x35
x36
x37
x38
x39
x40
x41
x42
x43
x44
x45
x46
x47
x48
x49
x50
x51
x52
x53
x54
x55
mean median
Downloaded by [Penn State University] at 21:26 28 January 2016

FIGURE 4. Median and Mean for All 55 Factors

appreciation amongst government units of the increased influ- This study contributes to e-government research in two ways.
ence of sociocultural factors on e-government. In their opinion, First, it made an attempt at developing a methodology of CSFs for
economic, technological, and organizational factors are the most e-government. Second, it showed practical application of this pro-
important ones. The sociocultural factors are accorded less posed methodology and indicated CSFs for e-government in Poland.
importance than other factors. However, three sociocultural fac- The proposed methodology of CSFs for e-government con-
tors were identified amongst the first 20 factors (Table 5). These sists of nine steps:
are: X13—ICT awareness of managerial workers in government
units, X20—Information culture in government units conducive 1. Reviewing literature;
to the use of ICT; X14—Citizens’ and enterprises’ awareness of 2. Defining the prototype CSFs;
e-government services. The mean, median, standard deviation, 3. Verifying the prototype CSFs;
and coefficient of variation of those factors are slightly inferior 4. Evaluating the prototype CSFs;
compared to the values of the eight CSFs listed in Table 6. 5. Creating and testing the draft survey questionnaire;
6. Creating the final survey questionnaire;
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORKS 7. Defining the sample and the sample size;
8. Collecting data; and
In the recent past, few academic studies have concentrated on 9. Analyzing the collected data.
e-government and various potential factors influencing success
in e-government. The concept of CSFs gives a good basis for At each step, different methods and techniques were used
stating which determinants should be followed and which bar- and different goals were achieved. The key tools of this meth-
riers removed during the implementation of e-government pro- odology were the Delphi study and a survey. They provided a
jects and e-government successful adoption. CSFs show the way of collecting comparable quantitative data from different
limited number of areas in which satisfactory results will ensure local and state government units in Poland. Each step had to be
successful e-government. completed before passing to the next one. As a result of employ-
ing this methodology, the factors for successful e-government
were indicated and the critical factors among them.
TABLE 6. Ranking of Final CSFs according to Mean Scores The practical implementation of this methodology in Polish
local and state public administration led to the identification of
No. Critical success factor Mean Median various factors influencing e-government in Poland and the
X5 Financial situation of government units 4.53 5 examination of the strengths of their impact on e-government.
The eight critical factors were indicated, i.e.:
X1 Public outlay on hardware, networks, 4.51 5
and telecommunications ● public outlay on hardware, networks, and
X29 Integration of front-office and back- 4.45 5 telecommunications;
office information systems ● financial situation of government units;
X52 Electronic communication between 4.40 5 ● ICT competences of government employees;
government units ● integration of front-office and back-office information
X48 Top management support 4.38 5 systems;
● information security in government units;
X28 ICT competences of government 4.37 5
● state standardization of solutions for e-government;
employees
● top management support; and
X45 State standardization of solutions for 4.35 5 ● electronic communication between government units.
e-government
X32 Information security in government 4.34 5 Although the developed methodology and its practical imple-
units mentation are generic and comprehensive ones, there is a

Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016 Journal of Computer Information Systems 165

 limitation of this study. It lies in the fact that this study only
examines the data of Polish government units.
This article attempts to provide a new line of thinking and
further scope for researchers in areas of CSFs for e-government.
Such a comprehensive study has not been performed earlier. It
should be developed and applied to other settings. First, there
are some reasons to suppose the CSFs for e-government at the
local levels of government will be different than at the state level
of government. Moreover, the empirical observations show that
the CSFs vary depending on the size of government units or
geographical location. All those conjectures will be examined in
a future study. Second, the proposed methodology and its prac-
tical implementation constitute a very comprehensive basis for
identifying CSFs for e-government adoption, but researchers
may develop, verify, and improve this methodology and its
implementation. Third, interested researchers may use this pro-
posed methodology and do similar analyses with different sam-
ple groups in Poland and other countries. Many comparisons
between different countries can be made. There are reasons to
think that this methodology, its implementation, and results can
be useful for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in
Downloaded by [Penn State University] at 21:26 28 January 2016
particular. This is because the countries are similar and they
have to resolve the same problems. They are similar not only
through their common neighborhood and analogous geopolitical
situation, but also through their joint history, traditions, culture,
and values. There is also a similarity in the field of building
democratic state structures and a free-market economy as well
as participating in the European integration process. The quality
of ICT and telecommunications infrastructure in the countries is
at the same level. The maturity levels of e-government in these
countries are similar. In addition, it would be interesting to
compare e-government CSFs for the Central and Eastern
European countries and European (world) leader countries.
Fourth, government units and government authorities could
find answers to important contemporary questions, in particular:
Which areas and operations of government units should be
primarily focused on in order to achieve the most satisfying
results of transition from a government to e-government?
In any case, the research methodology elaborated in this
study will supply researchers who would like to conduct similar
or alternative tests with the same or altered sample groups with
an initial point and a solid base for their analyses.
CONCLUSION
The overall mission of this article is to provide a compre-
hensive understanding and coverage of the CSF theory used in
information system research. It deals with the ICT adoption to
support the government and the transition from a traditional
government to e-government. It refers not only to use ICTs in
government units, but also to the way in which successful
adoption of ICTs can be achieved. Specifically, it aims to
focus on the following key objectives: (1) to provide the meth-
odology of CSFs for e-government and (2) to deploy this meth-
odology to identify CSFs for a successful adoption of
e-government.
This research contributes to understanding how CSF theory
should be employed to identify factors for successful e-govern-
ment adoption. The theoretical contribution of this research is
that it analyzes and synthesizes CSFs for e-government in order
to enhance knowledge of them from various perspectives. The
methodological contribution of this research is that the metho-
dology of CSFs is developed and described to enhance knowl-
edge and skills of using CSFs. The practical contribution of this
research is employing this proposed methodology to identify
CSFs for e-government in Poland and show areas in which
satisfactory results will ensure successful e-government.
166 Journal of Computer Information Systems
FUNDING
This research has been supported by a grant entitled
“Designing a system approach to sustainable development of
the information society – on the example of Poland” from the
National Science Centre in Poland, 2011/01/B/HS4/00974,
2011–2014.
REFERENCES
[1] A Digital Agenda for Europe. Communication from the
Commission of 19 May 2010 to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM
2010. 245. 2012. Available from: http://europa.eu/legisla-
tion_summaries/information_society/strategies/index_en.
htm
[2] Almarabeh T, AbuAli A. 2010. A general framework for
e-government: definition maturity challenges, opportu-
nities, and success. Eur J Sci Res. 39:32–34.
[3] Altameem T, Zairi M, Alshawi S. 2006. Critical success
factors of e-government: a proposed model for e-govern-
ment implementation. Proceedings Conference:
Innovations in Information Technology Conference;
Dubai; p. 501–505.
[4] Angelopoulos S, Kitsios F, Papadopoulos T. 2010. New
service development in e-government: identifying critical
success factors. Transform Govern People Process Policy.
4:95–118.
[5] Anttiroiko AV. 2008. A brief introduction to the field of
e-government. In: Anttiroiko AV, editor. Electronic gov-
ernment: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications.
New York, NY: Hershey; p. xli–lxxv.
[6] Assembly of European Regions, AER. 2012. Available
from: http://www.aer.eu/main-issues/economic-develop-
ment/aer-innovation-award.html
[7] Atkinson R. 1999. Project management: cost, time and
quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to
accept other success criteria. Int J Project Manage.
17:337–342.
[8] Beynon-Davies P. 2007. Models for e-government.
Transform Govern People Process Policy. 1:7–28.
[9] Biuletyn Służby Cywilnej [Bulletin of Civil Service].
2013. 13:2.
[10] Brainard LA, McNutt JG. 2010. Virtual government-citi-
zen relations: informational, transactional or collaborative?
Admin Soc. 42:836–858.
[11] Choudrie J, Weerakkody V, Jones S. 2005. Realising
e-government in the UK: rural and urban challenges. J
Enterp Inf Manage. 18:568–585.
[12] Cronbach LJ. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika. 16:296–334.
[13] European Public Sector Award, EPSA. 2012. Available
from: http://www.epsa2011.eu/en/content/show/&tid=143
[14] Fonseca-Lind S, Ramaswamy M. 2013. E-governance in
Puerto Rico: perspectives for the next decade. Issues Inf
Syst. 14:207–214.
[15] Garcia-Sanchez IM, Cuadrado-Ballesteros B, Frías-Aceituno
JV. 2012. Determinants of e-government development: some
methodological issues. J Manage Strategy. 3:11–20.
[16] Gil-García JR, Helbig N. 2007. Exploring E-government
benefits and success factors. In: Anttiroiko AV, Mälkiä M,
editors. Encyclopedia of digital government. Hershey: Idea
Group Inc., p. 803–811.
[17] Gil-Garcia JR, Pardo TA. 2005. E-government success
factors: mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations.
Govern Inf Quart. 22:187–216.
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016
 [18] Gliem JA, Gliem RR. 2003. Calculating, interpreting, and
reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for
Likert-type scales. Proceedings of 2003 Midwest
Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing,
and Community Education. Columbus: The Ohio State
University; p. 82–88.
[19] Hanna NK. 2010. Transforming government and building
the information society: challenges and opportunities for
the developing world. New York, NY: Springer.
[20] Harindranath G. 2008. ICT in a transition economy: the
case of Hungary. J Glob Inf Technol Manage. 11:33–55.
[21] Heeks R, Bailur S. 2007. Analyzing e-government
research: perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods
and practice. Govern Inf Quart. 24:243–265.
[22] Heichlinger A, editor. 2011. EPSA trends in practice.
Driving public sector excellence to shape Europe for
2020. Maastricht: EIPA.
[23] Hinton PR, Brownlow C, McMurvay I, Cozens B. 2004.
SPSS explained. London: Routledge.
[24] Ifinedo P, Singh M. 2011. Determinants of eGovernment
maturity in the transition economies of Central and Eastern
Downloaded by [Penn State University] at 21:26 28 January 2016
Europe. Electron J e-Govern. 9:166–182.
[25] Iskender G, Ozkan S. 2013. E-government transformation
success. An assessment methodology and the preliminary
results. Transform Govern People Process Policy. 7:364–
392.
[26] Joosten D, Basten D, Mellis W. Measurement of informa-
tion system project success in organizations – what
researchers can learn from practice. ECIS 2011
Proceedings, paper 177. 2011. Available from: http://
aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/177
[27] Jugdev K, Müller R. 2005. A retrospective look at our
evolving understanding of project success. Project Manage
J. 36:19–31.
[28] Kopackova H, Michalek K, Cejna K. 2007. Accessibility
and findability of local e-government websites in the
Czech Republic. Universal Access Inf Soc. 9:51–61.
[29] Krisztina C, Aniko V. 2007. A survey on mass perception
of e-government services in Hungary. Inf Tarsadalom.
7:86–96.
[30] Laszlo G. 2008. Enhancement of the performance of
administrative systems and e-government services in
Hungary in correlation with EU funding. Proceedings of
the 4th International Conference on e-Government;
Melbourne, RMIT University; p. 263–273.
[31] Michel H. 2005. e-Administration, e-government, e-gov-
ernance and the learning city: a typology of citizenship
management using ICTs. Electron J e-Govern. 3:213–218.
[32] Moon MJ, Norris DF. 2005. Does managerial orientation
matter? The adoption of reinventing government and
e-government at the municipal level. Inf Syst J. 15:43–60.
[33] Nfuka EN, Rusu L. 2013. Critical success framework for
implementing effective IT governance in Tanzanian public
sector organizations. J Glob Inf Technol Manage. 16:53–77.
[34] Pina V., Torres L, Royo S. 2009. E-government evolution
in EU local governments: a comparative perspective.
Online Inf Rev. 33:1137–1168.
[35] Plan działań na rzecz rozwoju elektronicznej administracji
(eGovernment) na lata 2005–2006 [Action plan for the
development of electronic government (e-government)
for the years 2005–2006]. 2004. Warszawa: Ministerstwo
Nauki i Informatyzacji. Available from: http://archiwum-
ukie.polskawue.gov.pl/HLP/files.nsf/0/
B686F3119ECD01A1C125721F003BA1CF/$file/
Plan_dzialan_na_rzecz_rozwoju_elektronicznej_administ-
racji_na_lata_2005_-_2006.pdf
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016 Journal of Computer Information Systems
[36] Program zintegrowanej informatyzacji państwa [Program
of integrated state computerization]. 2013. Warszawa:
Ministerstwo Administracji i Cyfryzacji. Available from:
https://mac.gov.pl/projekty/program-zintegrowanej-infor-
matyzacji-panstwa-do-2020-r
[37] Rana NP, Dwivedi YK, Williams MD. 2013. Analysing
challenges, barriers and CSF of egov adoption. Transform
Govern People Process Policy. 7:177–198.
[38] Rockart JF. 1979. Chief executives define their own data
needs. Harv Bus Rev. 57:57–81.
[39] Rockart J, Bullen C. 1981. A primer on critical success
factors. Center for Information Systems Research Working
Paper No 69. Cambridge: Sloan School of Management,
MIT.
[40] Serrano-Cinca C, Rueda-Tomás M, Portillo-Tarragona P.
2009. Determinants of e-government extension. Online Inf
Rev. 33:476–498.
[41] Shareef MA, Yogesh NA, Dwivedi K. 2012. Examining
adoption behavior of mobile government. J Comput Inf
Syst. 53:39–49.
[42] Strategia rozwoju społeczeństwa informacyjnego w Polsce
do roku 2013 [Strategy of development of information
society in Poland until 2013]. 2008. Warszawa:
Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji.
Available from: http://www.mswia.gov.pl/strategia/
[43] Sultan A, AlArfaj, KA, AlKutbi GA. 2012. Analytic hier-
archy process for the success of e-government. Bus
Strategy Ser. 13:295–306.
[44] The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011–2015.
2012. Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of
15 December 2010, Harnessing ICT to promote smart,
sustainable and innovative government, Brussels,
15.12.2010, COM 2010. 743 final 2012. Available from:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_soci-
ety/strategies/index_en.htm
[45] The Role of eGovernment for Europe’s Future. 2012.
Communication of 26 September 2003 from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions, COM 2003. 567.
Available from: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/
information_society/strategies/index_en.htm
[46] Tolbert CJ, Mossberger K. 2006. The effects of e-govern-
ment on trust and confidence in government. Public Admin
Rev. 66:354–369.
[47] Wpływ cyfryzacji na działania urzędów administracji pub-
licznej w Polsce w 2013 [The impact of digitization on the
functioning of public administration in Poland]. 2013.
Warszawa: Ministerstwo Administracji i Cyfryzacji.
Available from: https://mac.gov.pl/files/pbs_mac_cyfry-
zacja_11122013.pdf
[48] Wpływ cyfryzacji na działania urzędów administracji pub-
licznej w Polsce w 2012 [The impact of digitization on the
functioning of public administration in Poland]. 2012.
Warszawa: Ministerstwo Administracji i Cyfryzacji.
Available from: https://mac.gov.pl/files/wp-content/uploads/
2011/12/PBS_MAC_Cyfryzacja_full_PL-2012.pdf
[49] Xu X, Zhang W, Barkhi R. 2010. IT infrastructure cap-
abilities and IT project success: a development team per-
spective. Inf Technol Manage. 11:123–142.
[50] Ziemba E, Papaj T, Żelazny R. 2013. A model of success
factors for e-government adoption – the case of Poland.
Issues Inf Syst. 14:87–100.
167