2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Competency Requirements for Transformational E-Government
Sirko Hunnius
IfG.CC Institute for eGovernment
shunnius@ifg.cc
Abstract
One key aspect of e-government is its potential for
an ICT enabled transformation of the public sector.
Through ICT, new forms of collaboration and inter-
organizational public service networks become
feasible, making it possible to carry out the public
sector’s tasks more efficiently and effectively.
However, a rather significant gap exists between this
transformational potential and the tangible results that
have been achieved so far. One reason for this slow
and cumbersome implementation seems to be that
public managers lack the necessary competencies to
bring the promises of e-government to fruition. This
article analyzes the changing competency requirements
for public managers that accompany e-government and
describes the first steps in the development of an e-
government competency framework for public
managers. The article sums up the results of a
literature review on e-government competencies, a
survey carried out for the article, and data gathered in
focus group workshops. Based on these results, a first
set of e-government competencies is then outlined that
goes beyond pure ICT skills. The article concludes with
a discussion of the framework and its implications for
human resource management in the public sector.
1. Introduction
E-government can be understood as the ICT-
enabled transformation of the public sector to achieve
better government (type-3, -4 definition of [1]). In this
respect, e-government is more than just ICT
implementation and on-line government, which
reduces e-government to the on-line delivery of public
services (type-1 definition of [1]). Instead, the broader
transformational perspective of e-government takes
into account the potential to reorganize the whole of
the public sector through the use of information and
communication technologies (ICT). Hence, ICT brings
with it the potential for public managers to rethink
which and how public services are produced and what
actors are involved in which roles. The necessary
networking and cooperation among public sector
organizations, if carried out in a well-thought out,
rigorous and consistent way, is expected to have a
transformational impact upon what government does
and especially how it does it. However, the term
1530-1605/12 $26.00 © 2012 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2013.139
Tino Schuppan
IfG.CC Institute for eGovernment
schuppan@ifg.cc
transformation is being used in many different ways in
the e-government context (e.g. [2]; [3]). [4] defines
systemic transformation as a second tier of
transformation: Accordingly, the application of ICT
goes beyond the mere instrumental use of ICT (first
tier), but implies profound institutional change. It alters
the relationships and behavior of the actors involved
and thereby changes the model of public management
and public administration itself (second tier). For
instance, ICT makes it possible to separate public
services into different processes, some of which are
conducted in the front office, where public services are
delivered, and others of which take place in the back
office, where they are produced. ICT thus facilitates
new organizational forms, like one stop agencies,
which bundle a number of different services from a
variety of agencies and offer them at one location (the
"front office") – on-line or off-line [5]. This
understanding forms the underpinning of the "joined-
up" approach [6], which addresses policy-making and
implementation issues across organizational
boundaries, as ways to mitigate the effects of
widespread fragmentation in the public sector. Hence,
e-government is a major enabler of new forms of
networked government [7], which are based on a
complex socio-technical design.
2. Problem Statement
Compared to this ambitious understanding of e-
government as “transformational government” [8], so
far the results achieved in practice appear rather
meager, with large projects of this kind often being
considered failures [9], [10], [11], [12]. In the
literature, a number of factors have been regarded as
hindrances towards the implementation of e-
government, such as institutional factors in the
administrative system (e.g. [13]), characteristics of the
political system [14], and citizen acceptance (e.g. [15]).
One factor that is considered to hinder e-government
reforms is insufficient or inadequate individual
competencies on the part of public administration
personnel (e.g. [16]). These competencies include both
competencies involved in transforming the public
sector with e-government, as well as in working in
structures transformed in this manner. However, so far,
little attention has been paid to e-government
1662
1664
competencies either in practice or in academic
research. Often, there is no established understanding
of e-government competencies at all [17].
Because of the increasing importance of lifelong
learning, the competency approach is enjoying larger
recognition worldwide, as it focuses on the results of
learning processes [18], [19]. In Europe in particular,
the competency concept has become important in
establishing comparability between educational
degrees issued in different countries [20]. When
applied in professional life, the competency concept
takes into account what a person is able to do in a
working context, regardless of how this knowledge has
been acquired. Instead of formal qualifications and
degrees, which differ throughout Europe, skills,
techniques, expertise, and know-how become more
important [20], [21]. While the qualification concept is
input-oriented, the competency concept is output-
oriented, i.e., regardless of formal degrees.
However, despite increasing interest in this
competency approach, competency is a rather “fuzzy
concept” [22]. In particular the terms competency and
competence are often used inconsistently [23], [24].
While the term “competence” can be defined as the
ability to fulfill a task to a certain, often specifically
defined, standard, in comparison the more holistic term
competency means the underlying attributes of a
person, such as knowledge, skills, abilities, and
attitudes needed to fulfill competence standards [23].
For this article, the goal of which is the identification
of broader competencies as well as the standardization
of specifically defined competences, we therefore use
the term competences when talking about
standardizable abilities. In contrast we use the term
competency for the whole conglomerate of knowledge,
skills, and competences as well as underlying attitudes
and motivations required of a person [17].
To date, in practice, the topic of e-government
competencies is – if at all – still being addressed in a
very IS-dominated fashion. The same is true for the
scientific community in public management and in the
administrative sciences [25], which often very
unilaterally still perceives e-government as an ICT
subject [26], [27], [28]. Nevertheless, in practical
projects and in the everyday work of public
administration, it is becoming increasingly apparent
that new competencies are required which go beyond
the simple use of an ICT application, or even ICT
specialist and tool knowledge [1]. A comprehensive
change of competency requirements for all civil
servant groups can be expected—and is already
becoming apparent.
1665
1663
The function of public managers, that is to
translate political programs into administrative action,
gives them an elevated role in the politico-
administrative system [29]. They serve as compilers
and therefore need an understanding of the political
system as well as of how the administrative system
functions [29].
To address this competencies problem, this article
asks the following research questions: Which
competencies are considered necessary for managers of
e-government implementation to reap e-government’s
potential? What competencies are relevant which are
not exclusively related to ICT? And finally, how can
all of these competencies be systematized into a
holistic framework?
Such a holistic framework of necessary
competencies can serve as the basis in practice and
academia for the design of training and Masters
programs, as well as for workforce planning efforts.
"E-government work force planning efforts […] offer
organizations the opportunity to assess their current
work force capabilities, determine future work force
requirements in the context of e-government [...], and
implement strategies to eliminate gaps, both current
and future, between work force capabilities and work
force requirements" [40]. Currently, these
competencies are not being systematically instilled in
public sector managers. This is despite the fact that
these efforts are especially necessary, in light of, the
challenges facing the public sector in many countries
in the coming years, with e.g. a large part of the public
work force retiring and financial resources becoming
more and more scarce.
This article is structured as follows: at the
beginning, the research methods employed will be
briefly laid out. Second, the literature on e-government
competencies will be reviewed to derive an initial set
of competencies relevant in the e-government context.
Subsequently, the results of a survey and focus group
workshops with e-government experts will be
presented in order to determine competency
requirements. These results will then be analyzed and
the necessary skills and competencies structured in
what can be considered a first draft of an e-government
competence model. To conclude, implications for
human resource management in the public sector and
open research questions will be outlined.
3. Methods
Competencies are generally methodologically
difficult to determine [17]. Furthermore, the question
of changing and newly arising competencies in the
context of e-government faces some significant
challenges:
x There is no agreed and established job profile
for an “e-government project manager” on
which to draw upon. Furthermore, there is
debate, whether e-government is a profession or
an occupation [31].
x The understanding of transformational e-
government in practice is at best mixed and
rather incomplete. This poses an obstacle for a
large scale survey, because it cannot be
assumed that the respondents have an
established understanding of the subject.
x Given the dynamics in the field of e-
government and the time lag needed to adjust
competency levels, a reflection about future
competency requirements is necessary. This
makes the task even more challenging, because
participants not only need an understanding of
which competencies are currently relevant, but
must also predict which competencies will be
relevant in the near future (“today's Java is
tomorrows legacy language” [35]).
Therefore, the methodology of this article is multi-
staged: The previous research on the topic has been
reviewed, inter alia conference contributions to
IRSPM, EGPA, HICCS, DEXA from 2003 to 2010.
Based on this analysis, an initial set of e-government
skills and competencies has been derived which serves
as the basis for an on-line survey. This survey was
conducted among e-government experts in Bulgaria,
Germany, Greece, and Romania as part of an EU
research project. These countries have been chosen
because they represent a sample of diverse
administrative traditions. Furthermore, e-government is
unequally developed in these countries, according to
their score in e-government benchmarking studies [38]
so that the survey respondents come from countries
with different reform trajectories.
The questionnaire asked participants about the
relevance of a skill or competency and the necessary
level of that skill or competency in public
administration. Respondents rated the relevance of a
specific skill or competency on a four-tier scale, with
zero meaning it would not be important and three
meaning that it would be very important. The
competency level definitions used in the survey
followed the generic definitions of the European
Qualification Framework. In the questionnaire, the
term skills was used for more technical and
methodological proficiencies and competency was
used for personal and social aspects as well as work
1666
1664
ethic and attitude. Respondents had to make such an
assessment for three different roles carried out by
public administration personnel: a project staff
member, a project manager and a member of senior
management. The survey asked specifically about the
competencies necessary in e-government projects in
order to gain an understanding of those competencies
required to make use of the transformational potential
of e-government. Finally, statistical personal data were
obtained from the participants at the end of the survey.
The survey came with a glossary that provided a short
definition of the items in question. In total, 83
participants completed the questionnaire.
The survey results were validated and specified in
more detail in workshops e-government experts in the
various countries involved in the EU research project.
In total, 67 experts who were either themselves public
personnel or consultants or scholars from the field of e-
government participated in these workshops. The
results obtained from the survey and the workshops
were then consolidated and systematized.
4. Literature Review
Until now, e-government competencies have
hardly been discussed in the academic debate. Only a
few academic articles addressing e-government-related
competencies or skills exist (e.g. [31], [32], [33], [17]),
and even these often lack the focus of this article.
Other contributions elaborate on organizational
capabilities [34] in contrast to individual competencies;
do not explicitly address e-government but rather ICT
in general [35], [36]; or focus on specific competencies
or attitudinal aspects [37] without integrating these into
a holistic approach to e-government competencies [11].
Academic articles on e-government competencies
have only been published since around the year 2000
[17]. Similar to the discussion on skills necessary for
ICT professionals in general [35], the first academic
contributions addressing e-government competencies
considered pure ICT competencies [26], [27], [28]. As
in the ICT professionals domain, these were later
supplemented [35] by non-technical competencies,
such as process management [39]. Only a few
academic contributions consider new interdisciplinary
knowledge or mixed competencies, including
competencies necessary in the public sector domain in
a more networked environment [32], [39], [33], [17].
[32] conducted a survey among European e-
government practitioners about the status of e-
government competencies in national action plans and
e-government strategies and, in addition, analyzed six
e-government projects in European countries. Using a
similar methodology, [17] interviewed civil servants
from a German state and selected external e-
government experts and furthermore analyzed two
German e-government projects. [39] analyzes the
strategy of OECD countries in relation to e-
government competencies. [28] derive their findings
from practitioners' reports and a survey of public sector
managers in Malawi. Most of these contributions
highlight e-government competencies with a rather
holistic approach, yet without structuring or integrating
them into a framework. Only [39] categorizes the
competencies rather broadly into information
technology, information management and information
society skills. The different e-government
competencies that are mentioned in these articles are
assembled in Table 1.
In a conceptual model for e-government
education, [31] address inter alia the issue of what e-
government competencies actually are. They relate this
question to the eight different stakeholder groups
which they identify, of which the role of the project
manager is the focus in this article.
Table 1: Review of e-government skills and
competencies
Paper Competencies for public managers
Mundy et basic knowledge (k.) of information
al. 2001 technology, design options and methods of
[28] developing IS; k. about the nature and role
of information and IS, organizational
systems and processes, organizational
strategies, and IS policies; skills (s.) to
identify opportunities for new IS, design
and construction of software systems,
project and change management;
communication, negotiation, and problem-
solving s.; stakeholder management
Settles basic ICT s.; leadership s.; human capital
2005 [33] s.; knowledge management s.; project
management s.; modeling s.; s. to deal
with legal implications of IS privacy;
evaluation s.
Parrado business s.: matching business strategy to
2005 [39] new technologies; information
management s.; information technology s.:
strategy and planning, system
development and implementation, service
and user support; information society s.:
stakeholder management, technological
literacy and ICT awareness,
implementation and evaluation
management
1667
1665
Leitner basic ICT s.; leadership s., social and soft
2006 [32] s.; organizational s.; project and contract
management s.; information and
knowledge management s.; e-government
models and strategies
Schuppa design knowledge (legal, technical,
n 2010 organizational); negotiation s.; persistence;
[17] thinking in terms of networks; stress
resistance; implementation competency;
design competencies
By combining the competencies mentioned in the
literature to date, an initial set of e-government
competencies has been assembled (Table 2). This set
includes public management-related competencies (e.g.
contract and performance management) mentioned by
[32] and [39]; IS-related competencies (e.g. IS strategy
and ICT literacy) mentioned by [28], [39], and [32];
organizational design-related competencies (e.g.
process management, juridical and organizational
design) mentioned by [28], [33], and [17]; personal and
social competencies (e.g. persistence, stress resistance,
communication, and leadership) highlighted by [28],
[32], and [17]. In part, these were then specified in
more detail, something which is necessary for a
competence model. This final set of competencies then
formed the basis for the survey that was conducted.
5. Survey and Workshop Results
The skills considered the most important for e-
government project managers across all project
countries are project management, process
management, organizational design, risk management,
and IS strategy skills (Table 2). Results across
countries were very similar: In every country, at least
four of the five general skills (highlighted in bold)
considered most relevant for project managers were
among the top five general skills for all countries
surveyed. Thus, there is a significantly homogeneous
understanding of e-government skills for project
managers, consistent with earlier research [32].
Table 2: Relevant Skills for Project
Managers
Skills for Project Tot
1 1 1
Managers BG1 DE EL RO al
Project Management 2,84 2,81 2,76 3,00 2,85
Process Management 2.68 2.63 2.60 2.90 2.70
Organizational Design 2.42 2.53 2.56 2.82 2.59
1
BG = Bulgaria; DE = Germany; EL = Greece; RO = Romania.
 sophisticated understanding of the policy process
Risk Management 2.68 1.94 2.72 2.86 2.59
involved.
IS Strategy 2.68 2.29 2.44 2.76 2.55 To be able to not only to translate between the ICT
ICT Literacy 2.53 2.06 2.92 2.52 2.55 professionals and the other stakeholders in the project,
Information Processing 2.56 1.88 2.56 2.73 2.46 but also to assess the technical issues in the project,
some understanding of IS architecture is necessary.
Change Management 2.47 2.06 2.44 2.64 2.43
This involves questions of interoperability and
Quality Management 2.41 2.00 2.16 2.68 2.31 standardization, especially because a project can
Contract Management 2.53 1.73 2.08 2.68 2.28 involve numerous organizations and affect their IS
Juridical 1.95 1.65 2.12 2.24 2.01
landscape.
Performance Another important point mentioned by the e-
Management 2.11 1.71 2.12 2.05 2.01 government experts in the workshops centered on the
knowledge of the wider sectoral and societal impacts
Media 2.12 1.77 1.80 2.32 2.00
of e-government. Such impacts include the changing
Policy Process 2.11 1.81 2.28 1.59 1.96 relationship between the state and its citizens, as well
ICT Specialist 1.78 1.38 2.36 2.05 1.95 as the democratic principles of the broader society.
Marketing 1.95 1.44 1.64 2.46 1.89
This brings in topics like open government and e-
democracy, topics which are currently gaining traction
The personal and social competences assessed as in the public debate. Accordingly, e-government
very important for the e-government project project managers need an understanding of these
management were communicative competency, self- models and concepts, and must be aware of the official
management and cooperation competency as well as government policies related to them, in order to act
leadership. upon them. These competencies, which previously not
The participants in the workshop discussions received due significance, were therefore added to the
focused heavily on the social and personal list of necessary e-government competencies.
competencies needed by an e-government project
manager. The personal competencies that were 6. Discussion
mentioned centered on the project managers ability to
withstand conflicts, overcome obstacles, and handle The results have shown that, in addition to IS-
complexity and uncertainty. A project manager related competencies, a wide range of different skills
therefore needs a high level of intrinsic motivation and and competencies are considered to be important in the
must be enthusiastic about the transformational change context of e-government (i.e., mixed competencies).
in order to be a credible and authentic promoter of the Thus it becomes apparent that public managers
project. involved with e-government in particular need
In regard to the social competencies, it was knowledge about the possible applications and
stressed that in order to establish e-government opportunities of IS architecture, as well as operational
systems that cut across organizational boundaries, a process knowledge, so that they can understand
project manager needs to be able to manage the various impending changes and make strategic decisions. The
stakeholders in such a project. These include members governance-related leadership literature especially
in the different organizations involved, which are not neglects this aspect, either by ignoring it or by
subordinated hierarchically within the organizational assuming, more or less explicitly, that operational
structure. Therefore, it can be expected, that a project knowledge is not necessary for strategic skills.
manager must rely more heavily on the ability to The initial set of skills and competencies included
cooperate, negotiate and communicate. knowledge areas and skills from several different
Communication becomes more relevant because of the disciplines (e.g. IS research, business administration,
possibly varied backgrounds of the participants, who public administration) which could be considered to
may come from different policy and professional bias the survey results. However, in the survey these
domains. Furthermore, a project manager needs to be diverse skills and competencies were all judged to be
able to “translate” technical requirements to the other highly relevant. This not only validates the pre-
actors in the project, as well as to political leaders. In selection but also emphasizes the fact that e-
addition, the ability to anticipate and analyze the government projects are highly challenging and
different stakeholders' interests and rationalities is sophisticated. Managing these projects thus requires
required. Therefore, the project manager would need a

1668
1666
political, juridical, IS and management competencies,
as well as formidable social and personal ones.
The results confirm that project leaders face
special challenges because they must possess profound
interdisciplinary expert technical knowledge and
heightened social competences. They also require
specialist knowledge—sometimes in great detail—to
be able to communicate with the different expert
communities involved in these projects and to ensure
the necessary broader political support. Remarkably
though, ICT specialist competency was rated as one of
the less relevant items in the survey. Instead, more
generic non-ICT skills, e.g. project management,
topped the list. Nevertheless these generic skills need
to be applied to the special context and challenges in e-
government projects. Therefore, only possessing
general, e.g. project management, competency is
insufficient. Instead, project managers must be skilled
to cope with the special pitfalls and challenges that
occur implementing e-government projects that include
elements of organizational change and IS development.
Looking toward future developments, it can be
assumed that the relevance of isolated competencies in
ICT applications will decrease, in part because human-
machine interactions will continue to improve. It can
be expected that technical expertise will gain
importance, because ICT will become an integral, self-
evident element of work in public administration.
Already, every branch of public administration—
security, law enforcement, social services and others—
utilizes ICT. It is becoming clear that the changes in
competence requirements at issue have much less to do
with digitalization and much more to do with new
public administration procedures and processes. This
also applies to executives. To date, however, there is a
lack of consistent management and control concepts
that address digital and spatially distributed work
forms and the competencies related to such forms,
which are necessary to manage and work within public
service networks.
7. E-Government Competency Framework
Through a detailed analysis of the survey results
and especially from the workshops in detail, it is
possible to distinguish new core e-government skills
and competencies closely related to e-government and
informatization of the public sector from those which
are already prevalent in the public sector and "merely"
now need to be applied to e-government. We thereby
differentiate between the first category of newly arising
core e-government skills and competencies and the
1669
1667
second category, which we term generic government
competencies. For example project management has
been adopted in different contexts in the public sector
for some time, but in the context of e-government its
techniques need to be adapted through the addition of
IS project management components. In contrast, e-
government strategies and policies and IS design are
logically unthinkable without ICT application in the
public sector.
Within these broad categories, we distinguish
among the competencies based on their subject matter
(e.g. design, management). Similar approaches can be
found in the general IS competency literature. It
categorizes competencies by patterns of skills
considered important in different contexts, the types of
activities performed when using skills or the
organization that is most associated with the skill, to
name some examples [35].
In light of the interrelatedness of the competencies
and their interplay when applied (mixed-
competencies), any attempt to force these
competencies into a structure will admittedly result in
some simplification and a certain loss of rigor. Yet, in
our view, the differentiation of competencies according
to subject matter makes sense, not just for analytical
purposes, but also to make the framework more
accessible. Furthermore, it highlights those specific
competencies that are new in the context of e-
government. This has practical relevance for human
resource development, the underlying purpose of the
competence model. By distinguishing the core e-
government competencies from the rather generic
government competencies, the need for further
education becomes more obvious.
Table 3: E-Government Competency
Framework
Competency Category Competency Example
Generic E-Government Competencies
Change Competencies Change Management,
Project Management
Government Administrative Law, Policy
Competencies Process
Social Competencies Leadership, Cooperation
Personal Competencies Self-Management,
Creativity
Core E-Government Competencies
Design Competencies Organizational, Process,
and IS Design
Management Performance and
Competencies Contract Management
E-Policy Competencies Strategies & Policies,
Models & Concepts
E-Competencies Information Processing,
ICT literacy
7.1. Generic Government Competencies
The so-called generic government competencies
include personal competencies (creativity, self-control
and motivation, and time management) and social
competencies (leadership, cooperation and
communication). These competencies gain higher
relevance in a more networked and somewhat less
hierarchical e-government working environment,
which requires more cooperation across organizational
boundaries. Furthermore, they include policy and legal
competencies (policy process, administrative law and
cultures, specialized law) and change-related
competencies (project and change management skills
and implementation competence). These latter
categories are also more or less generic competencies
that have been required in the public sector for some
time, but which need to be applied to the special
challenges in the context of e-government in order to
implement transformational changes.
7.1.1. Change Competencies. Change competencies
are necessary to ensure the implementation of an e-
government initiative. Besides the more technical
aspects of project management, implementation
requires a skillful change manager to ensure that an e-
government system not only functions technically, but
becomes part of the daily routines of the organizations
involved. Apart from generic change competencies,
this requires skills in IS project management and inter-
organizational project and change management. This is
because transformational e-government projects often
transcend organizational boundaries.
7.1.2. Government Competencies. This category is
made up of competencies which, in their classic form,
enabled public servants to act within a traditional
bureaucratic organization: skills to follow
administrative processes, to apply the specialized law
of a policy domain, e.g. public health, and an
understanding of the policy process and its impact on
the machinery of government. In order to transform
public administration with e-government, however,
they need to understand not only how ICT must be
applied to this machinery of government as a mere
tool. Instead, they also need to be able to reflect on
how administrative processes can be transformed by
1670
1668
making use of ICT. E-government project managers
have to be aware of the consequences of administrative
law and culture as well as the impact of special law on
a reform process. Furthermore, they need sophisticated
skills to be able to mold an e-government project into
the policy process in different organizations, policy
areas or perhaps even jurisdictions – depending on the
scale of the project.
7.1.3. Social Competencies. Social Competencies in
general are highly important, because managers of e-
government projects can rely less on existing
hierarchical instruments, as these are limited to their
own organization. Rather, they have to lead across
organizational boundaries and communicate and
cooperate within public service networks. They need to
convey technological aspects to laypersons in this field
and requirements to ICT professionals. Furthermore
they have to ensure a shared understanding between
actors with different organizational backgrounds and
maybe even from different domains – such as tax
administration and social security – who might be
involved in a joint project.
7.1.4. Personal Competencies. Personal competencies
that become more important in the context of e-
government are self-management, creativity, and self-
motivation. These are necessary to operate proactively
in a less stable, less conditionally programmed
environment. Self-management means the ability to
work independently, manage time and priorities, and so
forth, and also includes a project manager's ability to
withstand conflicts and overcome obstacles as well as
the ability to handle complexity and uncertainty.
7.2. Core E-Government Competencies
Among the so-called core e-government
competencies which can be grouped together are the e-
government management competencies (risk
management, quality management, performance
management, and contract management), e-
government design competencies (organizational
design, process design, IS design, ICT specialist, and
marketing skills), eCompetencies (ICT literacy,
information processing, and media skills), and e-policy
competencies (e-strategies and e-policies, models and
concepts, and information processing law). These are
rather new competencies that arise in the context of e-
government.
7.2.1. E-Government Design Competencies. Design
competencies include skills and competencies from
different disciplines, such as organization theory, IS
design science, and business administration. These
competencies are especially necessary to be able to
analyze, rethink and design ICT-enabled public service 7.2.4. E-Competencies. E-competencies are necessary
production and provision structures. These include IS- to cope with the implications of ICT on the working
related competencies – such as IS design and IS environment – on an individual as well as on a higher
programming – as well as significant non-IS-related organizational and sectoral level. On an individual
organization and process design competencies that are level, we understand them as the competency to
necessary to take advantage of new design process information while having to deal with
opportunities. As it is understood here, marketing information overflow, complexity, and uncertainty.
competency is distinctly different from the sometimes Media competency refers to the ability to apply certain
truncated common use of the term: It means necessary devices and applications, like e.g. workflow
knowledge about and the skill to design a service management systems. On a higher level, an e-
according to the citizens’ needs, as well as how to government project manager needs to be able to
ensure the usability and utilization of the service. To envision, understand, and apply uses of ICT within the
translate these user and citizen requirements into public sector, something we term ICT literacy.
suitable e-government services also presupposes an
understanding of socio-technical design. 8. Critical Reflection on the Competency
7.2.2. E-Government Management Competencies. Framework and Conclusion
To develop and enact sustainable business models
behind e-government services, an e-government
Drawing on the literature, an initial set of e-
project manager requires certain management
government skills and competencies has been
competencies that transcend project management
assembled. These have then been evaluated, expanded
competencies. In addition to this latter category, they
upon and specified in a survey and workshops in four
must possess risk, performance, financial, and contract
European countries. Concerning the question of which
management competencies. These are necessary to
competencies are necessary, especially non-IS-related
manage an organization within a public service
ones, we have shown that e-government competencies
network, negotiate service-level-agreements, measure
encompass a large variety of different skills and
and manage the performance in an inter-organizational
competencies (i.e., mixed competencies) which go far
context, set up and run information systems in a
beyond a limited set of IS-related competencies. The
network of shared production and, finally, to manage
participating e-government experts have given special
risk and resilience given existing mutual dependencies.
relevance to change (e.g. project and change
Within an e-government project, a governance
management) and design-related (legal, technical, and
structure needs to be developed that ensures that these
organizational) competencies as well as various
functions are administered properly.
personal and social competencies. Thereby, previous
7.2.3. E-Policy Competencies. This category includes
discussions of e-government competencies in the
the underlying knowledge and skills necessary to
literature have been consolidated, amended and
embed an e-government initiative within its wider
systematized.
organizational and political context, that is within a
Based on these results, a competence model for e-
local jurisdiction, state or whatever suitable setting. In
government has been developed. The personal, social,
such an effort, the focus lies in knowledge of existing
professional and methodological competencies have
e-government strategies and policies as the ability to
been grouped together according to their subject
assess ICT trends and strategic potentials. These
matter. Among these competencies, generic
competencies are especially important in order to avoid
competencies can be distinguished from those
stand-alone solutions that are cut off from
competencies that are specifically characteristic of e-
complementary services and out of touch with political
government. These latter core e-government
priorities. Furthermore this category also includes the
competencies can further be subdivided into design
knowledge of legal and security aspects relevant for
competencies, management competencies, e-policy
deploying ICT in the public sector. These have recently
competencies and e-competencies. It has thereby been
gained recognition, due to several data protection
shown that by clustering the different competencies
scandals which have caught the attention of the public
according to subject matter, a structured framework of
and the media. Finally, a basic understanding of the
e-government competencies can be developed.
societal impacts of e-government is necessary; this
The framework contains a large breadth of
refers to aspects such as social and democratic
competencies from different fields of knowledge.
inclusion.
Thus, it is questionable whether one person can possess

1671
1669
all these different competencies. However, this may
not be necessary, since it is a generic framework which
would, in any event, need to be adapted to a specific
job. Furthermore, it could be argued for some
competencies, that they could be assigned to different
competency categories, or even that an entirely
different categorization could be proposed. However,
due to the interrelatedness of the competencies (mixed
competencies), any category-based structure lacks a
certain rigor. In addition, the significance of the
category structure should not be overestimated, as it is
the competencies themselves, not the structure, that
form core of the framework.
A reflection on the methods employed in the study
must take into account the general controversy about
the validity of competency modeling [40]. In the study,
the understanding of e-government was described and
e-government experts assessed the relevance of various
competencies based upon this understanding. As an
intermediate step, the different tasks involved in e-
government implementation could be specified and the
competencies could be tied directly to these [41]. This
approach would resemble the traditional task analysis
approach to job analysis [42] and is considered to
enhance rigor of the process [43]; [41]. Therefore,
further research should look into specific tasks that are
carried out in e-government implementation to validate
the framework. This study, intended to develop a
generic e-government competency framework and only
for broadly defined job categories, can be used as a
basis for such a validation.
Another limitation of the study is the number and
selection of countries in which the empirical data were
gathered. Further research should analyze whether the
competencies selected also apply in other parts of the
world, especially in Anglo-Saxon and developing
countries.
During the next steps of the research, these e-
government skills and competences will be specified in
more detail. Besides improving the detail of the
competency model, it also needs to be broadened to
cover other roles involved in e-government. The
conceptual model developed by [31] can serve as a
framework for this undertaking. Accordingly, research
questions which remain open include not only which
competencies are relevant for the different roles
involved in e-government (what and who questions).
Rather, questions related to e-government education
must be addressed, including (1) how the competencies
should be developed; (2) where the education should
be carried out; and (3) when the education should be
delivered. In this respect, this article can only be
considered a first step.
1672
1670
9. References
[1] T. Field, E. Muller, and E. Lau, The E-Government
Imperative, OECD e-Government Studies, OECD
Publications, Paris, 2003.
[2] A. Zuurmond, “Organisational Transformation Through
the Internet”, Journal of Public Policy, 2005 (25), pp.
133-148.
[3] B.P. Bloomfield, N. Hayes, “Power and Organizational
Transformation through Technology: Hybrids of
Electronic Government”, Organization Studies, 2009
(30), pp. 461-487.
[4] R.R. O’Neill, E-Government: Transformation of Public
Governance in New Zealand? Victoria University of
Wellington, Wellington, 2009.
[5] K. Lenk, “Electronic Service Delivery - A Driver of
Public Sector Modernization”, Information Polity, 2002
(7), pp. 87-96.
[6] V. Bogdanor (ed.), Joined-Up Government, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2005.
[7] C. Centeno, R. van Bavel, and J.C. Burgelman, “A
Prospective View of e-Government in the European
Union”, The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2005
(3), pp. 59-66.
[8] M. Janssen, W.S. Shu, “Transformational Government:
Basics and Key Issues”, ICEGOV '08 Proceedings of
the 2nd International Conference on Theory and
Practice of Electronic Governance, ACM, New York,
2008, pp. 117-122.
[9] S. Purao, K. Desouza, “Looking for Clues to Failures in
Large-Scale, Public Sector Projects: A Case Study”,
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-44), IEEE
Computer Society Press, 2011.
[10] K. Lenk, T. Schuppan, “An Unsuccessful Effort to
Implement One Stop Government in Germany”, 32nd
EGPA Annual Conference, Toulouse, France,
September 8-10, 2010.
[11] R. Heeks, “Most e-Government-for-Development
Projects Fail How Can Risks be Reduced?”, IDPM
Working Paper, iGovernment Working Paper Series,
Paper No. 14, 2003.
[12] T.A. Pardo, H.J. Scholl, “Walking Atop the Cliffs:
Avoiding Failure and Reducing Risk in Large Scale E-
Government Projects”, Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-
35), IEEE Computer Society Press, 2002, pp. 124b.
[13] S. Kim, H.J. Kim, H. Lee, “An institutional analysis of
an e-government system for anti-corruption: The case of
OPEN”, Government Information Quarterly, 2009 (26),
pp. 42-50.
[14] G.J. Gulati, D.J. Yates, C.B. Williams, “Understanding
the Impact of Political Structure, Governance and Public
Policy on E-Government”, Proceedings of the 45th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS-45), IEEE Computer Society Press, 2012, pp.
2541-2550.
[15] L. Carter, F. Bélanger,”The utilization of e-government
services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance
factors”, Information Systems Journal, 2005 (15), pp. 5-
25.
[16] R. Heeks, “e-Government as a Carrier of Context”,
Journal of Public Policy 2005 (25), pp. 51-74.
[17] T. Schuppan, “E-Government Competencies. Looking
Beyond Technology”, in: Shea, C.M.; Garson, G.D.
(eds.): Handbook of Public Information Systems, 3rd ed.,
Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, 2010, pp. 353-370.
[18] D. Gnahs, Kompetenzen—Erwerb, Erfassung,
Instrumente, W. Bertelsmann Verlag GmbH & Co. KG,
Bielefeld, 2007.
[19] M. van der Klink, K. Schlusmans, and J. Boon,
“Designing and Implementing Views on
Competencies”, in: Sicilia, M.-A. (ed.): Competencies
in Organizational E-Learning: Concepts and Tools,
Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA, 2007.
[20] J. Winterton, F. Delamare-Le Deist, and E. Stringfellow.
“Typology of knowledge, skills and competences:
clarification of the concept and prototype”, Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg, 2006.
[21] European Institute for Public Administration,
“Organisational Changes, Skills and the Role of
Leadership required by eGovernment”, European
Institute for Public Administration, Luxembourg, 2005.
[22] J. Boon, M. van der Klink, “Competencies: The triumph
of a fuzzy concept”, Academy of Human Resource
Development Annual Conference. Proceedings Vol. 1,
2002, 327-334.
[23] T. Hoffmann, “The Meanings of Competency”, Journal
of European Industrial Training, 1999 (23), pp. 275-285.
[24] C. Rowe, “Clarifying the use of competence and
competency models in recruitment, assessment and staff
development”, Industrial and Commercial Training,
1995 (27), 12-17.
[25] A. Grönlund, “Ten Years of E-Government. The ‘End of
History’ and New Beginning”, in: Wimmer, M.A.;
Chappelet, J-L.; Janssen, M.; Scholl, H.J. (eds.):
Electronic Government. 9th International Conference,
EGOV 2010. LNCS 6228, Springer, Berlin, 2010, pp.
13-24.
[26] P. Elovaara, S. Eriksén, A. Ekelin, C. Hansson, M.
Nilsson, J. Winter, “Educational Programs in e-
Government”, in: Traunmüller, R. (ed.): Electronic
Government. Third International Conference, EGOV
2004. LNCS 3183, Springer, Berlin, 2004, pp. 457-459.
[27] S. Kaiser, “Qualification Requirements in e-
Government: The Need for Information Systems in
Public Administration Education”, in: Traunmüller, R.
(ed.): EGOV04. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
3183, Springer, Berlin, 2004.
[28] D. Mundy, C. Kanjo, and P. Mtema, “Meeting training
needs for information age reform: shortcomings of
current training provision”, in: Heeks, R. (ed.):
Reinventing Government in the Information Age:
International practice in IT-enabled public sector
reform, Routledge, London, 2001, pp. 277-289.
1673
1671
[29] K. Schedler, I. Proeller, New Public Management, UTB,
Stuttgart, 2011.
[30] A. Armstrong, “E-government Work Force Planning: A
Pilot Study”, The Journal of Government Financial
Management, 2002 (51), pp. 32-35
[31] T. Janowski, E. Estevez, and A. Ojo, “Conceptualizing
Electronic Governance Education”, Proceedings of the
45th Hawaii International Conference on System
Science (HICSS-45), IEEE Computer Society Press, pp.
2269-2278.
[32] C. Leitner, eGovernment: “People and Skills in Europe’s
Administration”, Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-
39), IEEE Computer Society Press, 2006, pp. 77-86.
[33] A. Settles, “What Skills are Needed in an E-World. E-
Government Skills and Training Programs for the Public
Sector”, in: Khosrow-Pour, M. (ed.): Practicing E-
Government: A Global Perspective, Idea Group
Publishing, Hershey, PA, 2005, pp. 383-414.
[34] R. Plattfaut, B. Niehaves, J. Pöppelbuß, J. Becker,
“Development of BPM Capabilities – Is Maturity the
Right Path?” Proceedings of the 19th European
Conference on Information Systems (ECIS),
Helsinki/Finland, 2011, Paper 27.
[35] K.P. Gallagher, T. Goles, Stephen Hawk, J.C. Simon,
K.M. Kaiser, C.M. Beath, Wm.B. Martz Jr., “A
Typology of Requisite Skills for Information
Technology Professionals”, Proceedings of the 44th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS-44), IEEE Computer Society Press, 2011.
[36] J. Ross, “Creating a Strategic IT Architecture
Competency: Learning in Stages”, CISR Working Paper
No. 335, Center for Information Systems Research,
Sloan School of Management Working Paper No. 4314-
03, 2003.
[37] E. Shin, “Attitudinal Determinants of E-Government
Technology Use Among U.S. Local Public Managers”,
Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-45), IEEE
Computer Society Press, 2012, pp. 2613-2622.
[38] European Commission (ed.), Smarter, Faster, Better
Government. 8th Benchmark Measurement, European
Commission, Brussels, 2009.
[39] S. Parrado, “Skills for Electronic Service Delivery in
Public Agencies”, in M. Khosrow-Pour, M. (ed.):
Practicing E-Government. A Global Perspective, Idea
Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, 2005, pp. 310-328.
[40] G.V. Barrett., R. Depinet, (1991). “A reconsideration of
testing for competence rather than intelligence”,
American Psychologist, 1991 (46), 1012-1024.
[41] J.S. Schippmann, R.A. Ash, M. Battista, L. Carr, L.D.
Eyde, B. Hesketh, J. Kehoe, K. Pearlman, E.P. Prien,
J.I. Sanchez, “The practice of competency modeling”,
Personnel Psychology, 2000 (53), 703-740.
[42] R.D. Gatewood, H.S. Field, Human Resource Selection.
Harcourt, Orlando, 2001.
[43] F. Lievens, J.I. Sanchez, W. De Corte, “Easing the
Inferential Leap in Competency Modelling”, Personnel
Psychology, 2004 (57), 881-904.