See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277905682

Success factors influencing implementation of e-government at different

stages of maturity: A literature review

Article  in  International Journal of Electronic Governance · January 2015

DOI: 10.1504/IJEG.2015.069495

CITATIONS READS

53 4,513

2 authors, including:

Sune Dueholm Müller

University of Oslo
54 PUBLICATIONS   487 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD thesis that I am supervising View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sune Dueholm Müller on 12 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Success  Factors  Influencing  Implementa-­‐
tion  of  E-­‐government  at  Different  Stages  
of  Maturity:  
A  Literature  Review  
Sune  D.  Müller*  and  Sofie  Skau  

Business  Administration,  Aarhus  University,  

Bartholins  Allé  10,  DK-­‐8000  Aarhus,  Denmark  

E-­‐mail*:  sdm@processinnovation.dk  

E-­‐mail:  sofieskau@gmail.com  

*  Corresponding  author  

Abstract  
Even  though  digitization  efforts  within  the  public  sector  began  over  two  decades  ago,  organizations  are  still  
struggling  to  implement  e-­‐government  services,  and  most  initiatives  end  in  failures.  As  e-­‐government  ser-­‐
vices  have  evolved  and  become  more  comprehensive,  the  challenges  of  implementing  them  have  become  
more   extensive   as   well.   The   aim   of   this   article   is   to   give   an   overview   of   the   e-­‐government   literature   and  
identify  digitization  success  factors  at  different  stages  of  e-­‐government  maturity  using  Lee’s  synthesized  e-­‐
government  development  model  (2010).  Six  categories  of  success  factors  were  identified  across  all  maturity  
levels,   including   external   environment,   organization,   management,   employees,   citizens,   and   technology.  
Low  level  success  factors  were  identified  within  the  organization  and  technology  categories  whereas  high  
level   success   factors   also   were   found   within   the   management   category.   Future   research   focusing   on   the  
distinction   between   low   and   high   level   success   factors   is   needed   to   help   practitioners   modify   their   plans  
and  make  the  right  decisions  when  digitizing  government  services  at  different  levels  of  e-­‐government  ma-­‐
turity.  

Keywords:  Barrier,  success  factor,  e-­‐government,  maturity  level,  implementation,  literature  review  

Biographical   notes:   Sune   Dueholm   Müller   received   his   PhD   in   business   process   innovation   from   Aarhus  
School  of  Business,  Denmark,  in  2009,  and  is  currently  employed  by  Aarhus  University.  His  research  inter-­‐
ests   are   within   information   systems,   digitization,   and   innovation.   He   can   be   reached   at  
sdm@processinnovation.dk.  

Sofie
 Abildgaard
 Skau
 received
 her
 Master
 in
 Information
 Technology
 (IS
 Management)
 from
 Aalborg
 Uni-­‐
versity,
  Denmark,
  in
  2013.
  Her
  research
  interests
  are
  within
  digitization.
  She
  can
  be
  reached
  at
  sofie-­‐
skau@gmail.com.
 
1. Introduction
In the 1990s governments started using in-
formation technology in providing services to
the public. Since then, those e-government
services have become more far-reaching, and
focus has shifted from reducing the amount of
paper-work by putting information on the
internet to the possibility for citizens to inter-
act electronically with the government
(Bélanger and Carter, 2012; Dawes, 2008).
Over the last decades, e-government has be-
come integral to the way business is conduct-
ed within the public sector (Jaeger and
Thompson, 2004). The greatest improvements
have been achieved in terms of enhancing
public services and improving government
operations while the least progress has been
made with regard to fostering e-democracy
and executing institutional and administrative
reforms (Dawes, 2008). But when implement-
ing those different services, many challenges
arise because e-government services involve
tensions between technological innovation
and organizational change, calling for work
processes to be re-engineered to achieve the
benefits of Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) (Henning and Gar Yein,
2009).
E-government plays an important role in ef-
forts to modernize the public sector and in-
crease the efficiency of service delivery to
reduce public spending. However, the chal-
lenges of digitization are often overlooked
(Gil-Garcia, 2013). Even though the imple-
mentation of e-government started over two
decades ago, organizations are still struggling
to implement those e-government services
and most projects end in failures (Sarantis et
al., 2011). The inability of governments to
manage large IT projects is a problem when
implementing e-government, because “unless
governments learn to manage the risks con-
nected with large public IT projects, these e-
dreams will turn into global nightmares. Gov-
ernments must get the fundamentals of IT
right if they want to harvest the huge potential
of going online” (OECD, 2001: 1).
There are many challenges when implement-
ing e-government, including technical, organ-
izational, managerial and socio-economic
challenges (Dwivedi et al., 2011). However,
the prospect of changing public sector organi-
zations from bureaucracies to service organi-
zations better equipped to meet citizens’
needs in the new millennium, reducing costs
and improving service quality, holds such
promise that successful e-government imple-
mentation is paramount (Hung, 2012). As e-
government services have evolved and be-
come more comprehensive, implementation
of them has become equally challenging. E-
government services at a high maturity level
demand different considerations than those on
a low level. Many success factors have been
identified in the literature, but no study exam-
ines the success factors at different stages of
e-government. The aim of this article is there-
fore to distinguish between success factors at
different stages of e-government maturity.
In the next section, e-government is defined
and Lee’s synthesized e-government devel-
opment model (Lee, 2010) is described as the
theoretical framework in this article. In sec-
tion two the methodology of the literature
review is presented. Findings and a discussion
are presented in the third and fourth section.
The article ends with implications for re-
search and practice and a conclusion.
2
2. Theoretical background
In this section the notion of e-government
services at different maturity levels is de-
scribed. A general definition of e-government
is presented before outlining Lee’s synthe-
sized e-government development model
(2010). Subsequently, a distinction between
high and low levels of e-government services
is discussed.
2.1 Definition of e-government
There are many definitions of e-government
in the literature (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009;
Dwivedi et al., 2011; Jaeger and Thompson,
2004; Luna-Reyes et al., 2012; Maumbe et al.,
2008). One definition concerns the opportuni-
ty for improving government through ICT.
Though a simple definition of e-government,
it points out the basic purpose of e-
government: “The use of information and
communication technologies, and particularly
the Internet, as a tool to achieve better gov-
ernment” (The OECD E-Government Task
Force, 2003). A more elaborate definition is:
“E-government is the application of Infor-
mation and Communication Technology
(ICT) to automate interactive exchanges be-
tween public institutions and their external
stakeholders by redeploying conventional
public services through the Internet” (Tan and
Benbasat, 2009: 176). This definition high-
lights the automation of exchanges and the
two-way communication between govern-
ments and citizens.
No matter the definition, the key point is that
ICT is an enabler of e-government, providing
electronic services to the public. It is im-
portant to stress that it is not only about gov-
ernment informing citizens, but also about
citizens being able to communicate and inter-
act more easily with government.
2.2 Lee’s model
Different e-government maturity stage models
exist, for example Layne & Lee describe four
stages of development (Layne and Lee, 2001)
and Siau & Long extend previous models,
describing five stages of e-government (Siau
and Long, 2005). Lee’s synthesized e-
government development model (2010) is
chosen as the theoretical framework in this
article as it is one of the most cited models
and a well-described meta-synthesis of twelve
former developmental stage models of e-
government. The synthesized model includes
the perspectives and considerations of both
Layne & Lee (2001) and Siau & Long (2005),
making it more comprehensive than either
model by themselves. The model’s descrip-
tion of e-government stages makes it a power-
ful analytical tool, enabling distinctions be-
tween more or less mature digitization efforts.
The model consists of five stages of e-
government services which are viewed from
two different perspectives. One perspective is
concerned with the services of government
toward citizens and the other perspective is
concerned with technology and operational
characteristics of those government services.
The model shows an evolutionary develop-
ment of e-government toward a high level of
maturity and consists of five stages: “present-
ing”, “assimilation”, “reforming”, “morph-
ing”, and “e-Governance”. Presenting is
about basic networking and simple presenta-
tion of information, e.g. on a website, both
from a citizen/service and opera-
tion/technology perspective. The implement-
ed technology at this stage will be the tech-
nical prerequisite for later stages. At this
3
stage, the first e-government initiatives are
launched. Assimilating covers interaction and
integration, and is the assimilation of basic
computing capabilities. Interaction from the
citizen perspective concerns the emergence of
interaction based services and informational
processes which require integration of opera-
tional processes and technology. The model
distinguishes between vertical and horizontal
integration. While vertical integration is the
integration of similar functions across differ-
ent levels of government, the horizontal inte-
gration is integration of different government
functions. The stage of Reforming covers
changing and reforming internal business pro-
cesses, and interaction with citizens through
the use of information technologies. The new
technologies might provide new ways of en-
gaging with citizens. At this level, efficiency
will increase as the political and administra-
tive processes and services are reformed.
Morphing is about changing the shape and
scope of services, processes, and business
models. At this stage, citizens are more partic-
ipative. Government processes are trans-
formed as routine services are delegated to
systems and services which results in officials
handling knowledge-based and service-
orientated work for the benefit of citizens. E-
governance is the last stage of the model and
the highest maturity level of e-government. At
this point, the government utilizes the full
capability of advanced information and com-
munication technologies, and the involvement
of citizens makes it possible to reconfigure
the administrative and political services more
or less in real time.
In Table 1, the five maturity levels and each
of their characteristics are shown. The charac-
teristics are described from a citizens/service
perspective and an operation/technology per-
spective.
e-Governance Involvement: The citizen is at cen-
ter stage – processes and services
are customized
Process management: Full capabil-
ity of new technology
Morphing Participation: Utilization of citi-
zens’ knowledge into better services
Transformation: Routine services
are handled by computers – officials
are service-oriented instead of task-
oriented
Reforming Transaction: New ways of transact-
ing with citizens (e.g. requests for
licenses and payment through web-
sites)
Streamlining: Technology makes
processes more efficient
Assimilating Interaction: Opportunity of interac-
tion based services (e.g. download-
ing forms)
Integration: The information and
processes in the organization are
integrated with technology
Presenting Simple presentation of information
(e.g. on a website)
Table 1: Summary of Lee's five stages of e-government maturity
2.3 Low and high levels of e-government
Lee’s synthesized e-government development
model (2010) provides five stages of e-
government but it is possible to divide the
five levels into two groups – high and low
levels – based on the changes needed to pro-
vide e-government services. The higher the
stage of e-government, the greater the neces-
sity of organizational changes. Similar to oth-
er models of IT-enabled business transfor-
mation, e.g. Venkatraman (1994), which dis-
tinguish between evolutionary and revolu-
tionary levels, we distinguish between low
and high levels of maturity in Lee’s synthe-
sized e-government development model
(2010). This is similar to the distinction be-
4
tween e-government and t-government – or
the transformational stage of e-government –
where the latter completely redefines the de-
livery of government services, entails new
ways of working, and requires a single point
of contact between government agencies and
citizens (see for example Dhillon et al., 2008;
Siau and Long, 2005; Weerakkody and Dhil-
lon, 2008). The low levels include the Pre-
senting and Assimilating stages and the high
levels include the Reforming, Morphing, and
e-Governance stages.
As described in Lee’s synthesized e-
government development model (2010), the
low levels of e-government focus on provid-
ing ICT enabled information to citizens. The
focus is on the supply of services through the
use of technology. The high levels on the oth-
er hand focus on a reformation of services. It
is therefore possible to distinguish between
incremental changes at the low levels and
radical changes at the high levels
(Weerakkody et al., 2011). Weerakkody et al.
(2011) state that “both researchers and practi-
tioners have suggested that if e-Government
is to be used to successfully transform the
public sector (i.e. reduce costs and eliminate
waste, improve efficiency, accountability,
transparency and quality of services), public
agencies will need radical changes in core
processes across organizational boundaries, in
a manner that has not been seen before in the
public sector” (Weerakkody et al., 2011: 320).
3. Methodology
The article seeks to give an overview of the
literature on success factors when implement-
ing e-government services at different stages
of maturity. The review methodology is based
on Webster and Watson’s “Analyzing the past
to prepare for the future: Writing a literature
review” (Webster and Watson, 2002).
3.1 Collection of articles
An electronic database search was undertaken
using Web of Knowledge as it is the world’s
leading scholarly database within the social
sciences and covers most journals on infor-
mation systems and government. The articles
were found through three steps which are
shown in Figure 1.
Step 1: Search
During the first step, the following search
string was used:
("electronic government*" OR "e-
government*" OR "digital government*" OR
digitali?ation* OR "transformation* govern-
ment*" OR "t-government*" OR "e-
governance*" OR "t-governance*" OR
"transformation* governance*" OR "digital
governance*" OR eGov* OR "E-Gov*" OR
"eGovernment*") AND (barrier* OR "success
factor*" OR challenge* OR "critical success
factor*" OR "influencing factor*" OR prob-
lem* OR risk* OR obstacle* OR impedi-
ment*)
Using this search string, words concerning
both e-government and barriers or success
factors were included. Furthermore, the selec-
tion criteria were English and peer reviewed
articles. The search was conducted using the
search field Topic which includes title, ab-
stract, and author keywords.
Step 2: Collection
During the second step, all abstracts of the
539 identified articles were read resulting in a
pool of 100 potentially relevant articles. Each
article had to meet two acceptance criteria: (1)
5
Each article concerns e-government, barriers, according to maturity level whenever possi-
or success factors, and (2) the main focus of ble. Our concept-centric approach to revie-
each article is implementation of e- wing the literature (Webster and Watson,
government. To heighten the reliability of the 2002), did not rely on any previously develo-
literature review, the articles were reviewed ped taxonomy, for example Larsen’s (2003)
and categorized independently by the authors. Taxonomy of Antecedents of Information
By reading the abstracts, all articles were pre- Systems Success, not wanting to limit this
liminarily sorted, leading to a discussion exploratory study to pre-defined categories.
among the authors about the relevance of We will, however, relate some of our findings
some articles. The review results were com- to the aforementioned taxonomy (Larsen,
pared and disagreements in terms of categori- 2003) in the discussion section. If not possi-
zation were discussed. The articles in question ble, it was categorized under general success
were scrutinized and discussed over two itera- factors.
tions to ensure the inclusion of all relevant
articles. This process of “check coding”
(Miles and Huberman, 1994) brought defini-
tional clarity with regard to Lee's model and
strengthened the reliability of the coding pro-
cess. The resulting agreement of 90 percent in
determining the relevance of the articles was
examined using Cohen's kappa (Cohen,
1960), with a result of ϰ = 0.80, a very high
level of agreement. Cohen's kappa was calcu-
lated in the following manner: ϰ = Pr(a) –
Pr(e) / 1 – Pr(e) = 0,90 – 0,50 / 1 – 0,5 = 0,8,
where Pr(a) is the relative observed agreement
among the researchers, and Pr(e) is the hypot-
hetical probability of chance agreement. The
Figure 1: Research methodology
articles in dispute (i.e., the articles that there
authors did not agree on the relevance of) 3.2 Analysis of articles
were scrutinized and discussed among the
authors to arrive at a decision about whether The 61 articles were reviewed and divided
to include them or not. into a pool of articles concerning general suc-
cess factors and five smaller pools concerning
Step 3: Categorization success factors at Lee’s five different stages
of e-government. The criteria for adding an
During the third step, the articles were read,
article to one pool or another were based on
resulting in a revised pool of 61 relevant arti-
the characteristics of Lee’s five stages as
cles (39 articles were deselected during this
shown in Table 1. When reading each article,
step). While reading the articles, different
the characteristics of the different maturity
success factors were identified and catego-
levels were considered as the basis for catego-
rized inductively using Excel (Corbin and
rization, including simple presentation (Pre-
Strauss, 2008). Each article was categorized

6
senting), interaction and integration (Assimi-
lating), transaction and streamlining (Reform-
ing), participation and transformation
(Morphing), and involvement and process
management (e-Governance). Articles that
could not be identified as belonging to one of
the stages were added to the pool of general
success factors.
When categorizing the articles, it became evi-
dent that dividing them according to Lee’s
five stages of maturity resulted in an immense
level of detail. It was therefore decided to
simplify the categorization and distinguish
between low and high levels of e-government
as described in section 2.3 Low and high lev-
els of e-government which gives a clearer
overview of the findings. Consequently, the
analysis results are presented according to
low, high, and general success factors. The
findings categorized according to all five lev-
els are shown in Appendix A, and the final
categorization of success factors is detailed in
Appendix B.
  plementing e-government initiatives (Tung
4. Findings
4.1 General success factors
In this section, the success factors mentioned
in the literature will be summarized, and an
overview is presented in Table 2. Whether e-
government is implemented successfully or
not depends on these factors. The analysis
results are presented under the following cat-
egories: external environment, organization,
management, employees, citizens, and tech-
nology. According to Webster & Watson
(2002), the contribution of each article should
be listed (see Appendices A and B), enabling
subsequent categorization of concepts and
themes to facilitate an overview.
4.1.1 External environment
Legislation
When governments implement e-government
services, it is important that the underlying
legal framework is up-to-date, making new
initiatives possible (Al Nagi and Hamdan,
2009; Beldad et al., 2011; Beldad et al.,
2012a; Beldad et al., 2012b; Jho, 2005;
Karim, 2003; Luna-Reyes et al., 2012;
Maumbe et al., 2008; Moon, 2002;
Nengomasha et al., 2010; Pieterson et al.,
2007; Shalini, 2009; Strejcek and Theil, 2003;
Wangwe et al., 2012). This is important for
the purpose of ensuring the security and pri-
vacy of the public. When e-government ser-
vices are implemented, new opportunities
emerge, and ensuring that former legislation
does not stand in the way of progress while
protecting the citizens is crucial.
Furthermore, external pressure and social in-
fluence are important for the success of im-
and Rieck, 2005; Hong and Tam, 2006).
Political and administrative reform
When implementing e-government, it is also
necessary to obtain politicians’ commitment
to the policies as this is an important starting
point when digitizing government services
(Norris and Moon, 2005; Shalini, 2009). In
addition to legislative reform, political and
administrative reforms are required (Rorissa
and Demissie, 2010; Sarantis et al., 2011).
The implementation of e-government influ-
ences the whole political-administrative sys-
tem, requiring processes to be streamlined
through technology (Schuppan, 2009;
Strejcek and Theil, 2003).
7
Socioeconomic factors
Socioeconomic factors are of significance
when implementing e-government (Maumbe
et al., 2008). For example, the social context
in which different government agencies are
located is of importance. Citizens from differ-
ent social environments will react differently
to different services offered by the public sec-
tor (Bhuiyan, 2011). Therefore, every gov-
ernment agency has to consider the types of
citizens using its services.
The level of economic development is im-
portant as it impacts the opportunities for de-
veloping and implementing new e-
government services (Rorissa and Demissie,
2010; Schuppan, 2009). Economic resources
and related issues are examined under the
organization category.
Culture
Culture is ubiquitous and therefore influences
the implementation of e-government. There
are many different aspects of culture and they
are found at different levels – both at the soci-
etal and organizational level, and no two cul-
tures are identical (Baines et al., 2010; Luna-
Reyes et al., 2007; Maumbe et al., 2008;
Rorissa and Demissie, 2010; Weerakkody et
al., 2011). This is why digitization should be
handled differently within each organization
to ensure successful implementation of e-
government. For example, a conservative cul-
ture works against implementation, because
new e-government initiatives are not easily
adopted and resistance will ensue. On the oth-
er hand, it promotes success if the organiza-
tion is competitive by nature as changes are
more easily adopted.
4.1.2 Organization
Characteristics
Other characteristics of the implementing
organization are of significance as they influ-
ence the likelihood of success (Luna-Reyes et
al., 2012). Those characteristics include the
rules, values, and norms of the organization
along with management, the employees, and
their willingness to change. This is examined
in greater detail under some of the other cate-
gories. Another characteristic mentioned in
the literature is the reputation of the organiza-
tion. It is important that the organization is
well-reputed as it will impact the chances of
implementation success, because services
provided by a well-reputed agency are more
easily adopted by citizens (Beldad et al.,
2012a). How the organization manages its
resources also influences the possibility of a
successful implementation of e-government
(Kim et al., 2007). But not all government
agencies are identical, and the size and type of
the government agency influence digitization
efforts as well (Moon, 2002). Finally, benefits
and costs to the organization are important
factors to consider as they impact the imple-
mentation success of e-government initiatives
(Tung and Rieck 2005; Hong and Tam, 2006).
Financial resources
The financial resources of an organization are
vital since they influence the available options
and possibilities of implementing e-
government (Edmiston, 2003; Lee and Kim,
2007; Moon, 2002; Norris and Moon, 2005;
Pieterson et al., 2007). However, it is not only
the economy and financial resources that de-
termine implementation failure or success.
The budget of the organization is also im-
portant, because it reflects the priorities of the
8
organization on a symbolic level (Maumbe et
al., 2008).
Infrastructure
The infrastructure includes the organizing
principles which influence organizational be-
havior, both internally and externally. The
organizational infrastructure should therefore
be given attention as it impacts implementa-
tion readiness (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009;
Bhuiyan, 2011; Lee and Kim, 2007; Luna-
Reyes et al., 2007; Luna-Reyes et al., 2012;
Rorissa and Demissie, 2010; Sharifi and
Manian, 2010; Strejcek and Theil, 2003;
Wangwe et al., 2012). Among other things,
the existing data and information foundation
is of significance in the sense that e-
government implementation is facilitated by a
well-developed infrastructure (Luna-Reyes et
al., 2012).
Stakeholders
E-government initiatives involve many stake-
holders with different interests (Fedorowicz et
al., 2010; Kamal et al., 2011; Sæbø et al.,
2011; Sarantis et al., 2011). Carrying out a
stakeholder analysis is important (Fedorowicz
et al., 2010) to ensure that all interests are
taken into account and prioritized. Further-
more, it is important to ensure that all stake-
holders have a stake in the project (Sæbø et
al., 2011; Sarantis et al., 2011) and that eve-
rybody is committed to the process (Wangwe
et al., 2012).
Collaboration
One of the success factors frequently men-
tioned in the literature is the importance of
information and knowledge sharing (Baines et
al., 2010; Fedorowicz et al., 2010; Groznik et
al., 2008; Groznik and Trkman, 2009; Lee
and Kim, 2007; Luna-Reyes et al., 2007; Seng
et al., 2010; Weerakkody et al., 2009; We-
erakkody et al., 2011; Wiredu, 2012). Many
employees possess tacit knowledge vital to
implementation, and a lack of information and
knowledge sharing is problematic (Koh et al.,
2005) because it entails poor organizational
learning (Kim et al., 2007; Wiredu, 2012).
One of the barriers to information and
knowledge sharing is an organization divided
into functional silos. Employees in one silo
might not trust the employees in another, re-
sulting in a lack of sharing of best practices
(Baines et al., 2010; Fedorowicz et al., 2010;
Groznik and Trkman, 2009; Lee and Kim,
2007; Luna-Reyes et al., 2007; Seng et al.,
2010; Weerakkody et al., 2011). It is not only
internally that the lack of information sharing
is an implementation barrier. Lack of infor-
mation sharing across governmental agencies
is a problem as well, and agencies therefore
need to improve their information sharing
practices (Hung, 2012; Weerakkody et al.,
2009). Lack of information and knowledge
sharing makes it difficult for agencies to col-
laborate, but collaboration is of paramount
importance when implementing e-government
services because they are often provided
across agencies (Baines et al., 2010; Groznik
and Trkman, 2009; Henning and Gar Yein,
2009; Karim, 2003; Koh et al., 2005; We-
erakkody et al., 2009).
4.1.3 Management
Characteristics
The characteristics of management in the or-
ganization play an important role (Luna-
Reyes et al., 2012). For example, the imple-
mentation readiness of management has con-
sequences for the implementation of e-
government services (Tung and Rieck, 2005).
9
Commitment
Along with political consensus (Bhuiyan,
2011) and political will (Wangwe et al., 2012)
in the organization, top management must
support the new projects to achieve imple-
mentation success (Koh et al., 2005; Wangwe
et al., 2012; Weerakkody et al., 2009;
Weerakkody et al., 2011). It is, however, not
enough to have top management support in
general as commitment to the specific pro-
jects is equally important (Seng et al., 2010;
Wangwe et al., 2012). A barrier to e-
government initiatives is the lack of internal
ownership. When an e-government project
does not have an owner with a clear division
of responsibilities, the risk of failure increases
as its focus might shift or even disappear
(Pieterson et al., 2007; Sarantis et al., 2011).
Strategy
A clear vision and strategy are important in-
gredients in e-government initiatives (Sarantis
et al., 2010; Seng et al., 2010; Sharifi and
Manian, 2010). For example, Helbig et al.
(2009) argue that it is important to align e-
government projects with online strategies
that focus on how to decrease the digital di-
vide (Helbig et al., 2009).
Managing the projects
As fear of change is likely to arise within the
organization, management should help ensure
that changes are introduced as painlessly as
possible. Change management is therefore
important when implementing e-government
services (Lee and Kim, 2007; Weerakkody et
al., 2009). In addition to change management,
other management aspects should be consid-
ered, including relationships, risks, plans, and
supplier management to ensure that projects
are implemented correctly and on time
(Karim, 2003; Lee and Kim, 2007; Sharifi and
Manian, 2010). In general, lack of project and
IT management is problematic because man-
agement often relies too heavily on technolo-
gy (Sarantis et al., 2011). As e-government
services are implemented, it is vital that those
services are evaluated for the purpose of op-
timization and adaptation (Hung, 2012) as e-
government implementation is an ongoing
process.
4.1.4 Employees
Human resources
Human resources are crucial elements in e-
government implementation (Bhuiyan, 2011;
Lee and Kim, 2007; Maumbe et al., 2008;
Moon, 2002; Weerakkody et al., 2009), espe-
cially the capabilities of the employees
(Nengomasha et al., 2010). A potential barrier
is the lack of IT experts and employees with
an interest in technology (Lee and Kim, 2007;
Norris and Moon, 2005; Seng et al., 2010).
The personal and political power relations
play an important role as well when imple-
menting e-government (Wiredu, 2012), and
they influence employees’ perception of new
e-government services. Some employees are
excited about new opportunities, but a poten-
tial barrier is lack of time to experiment
which is essential to innovation and improv-
ing e-government services (Seng et al., 2010).
Fear of change
As mentioned above, fear of change is a genu-
ine risk (Willoughby et al., 2010; Wiredu,
2012). Generally speaking, employees are
skeptical, and fear of redundancy is an im-
plementation barrier that negatively affect the
cooperation of employees (Wiredu, 2012).
Many factors influence fear of change. Seng
et al. (2010) argue that employees are forced
10
to move out of their comfort zone which
many, especially older employees, are reluc-
tant to do. Furthermore, the personal interests
of individual employees are given higher pri-
ority than the interests of the organization
which influences the cooperation of employ-
ees (Seng et al., 2010). However, the major
barrier when implementing e-government
services is the lack of participation which
makes it important to involve the employees
in the implementation effort (Weerakkody et
al., 2011).
Yet another implementation barrier is the em-
ployees’ way of thinking (Groznik et al.,
2008). Values, norms, and routines influence
work related behavior, and it is difficult to
change these. Many employees carry out
work based on habits and prior learning that
might not include a technological aspect.
Training and education
It is important that employees are trained and
educated in using the new services to ensure
the best citizen service possible (Al Nagi and
Hamdan, 2009; Lee and Kim, 2007; Strejcek
and Theil, 2003; Weerakkody et al., 2009;
Weerakkody et al., 2011). Furthermore, train-
ing and education is one way to reduce re-
sistance to change. One of the major tasks of
employees is guiding the citizens in using e-
government services since many citizens
might be familiar with the technology (e.g.
accessing information over the internet) but
have no idea how the government works
(Hung, 2012). In a situation where services
are accessed online, employees have to learn
how to guide citizens correctly.
4.1.5 Citizens
Digital divide
There are many different groups of citizens
and therefore many different considerations to
take into account. The literature mentions the
digital divide as a digitization barrier which
reflects demographic and social differences
between citizen groups (Bhuiyan, 2011;
Edmiston, 2003; Helbig et al., 2009; Jaeger
and Thompson, 2004; Luna-Reyes et al.,
2007; Schuppan, 2009; Sipior et al., 2011;
Verdegem and Verleye, 2009). When imple-
menting e-government services, the citizens’
acceptance is key to success (Pieterson et al.,
2007) and many different factors influence
their acceptance. Some citizens are not e-
government ready whereas others are (Shalini,
2009).
Age, level of education, attitudes, beliefs, and
norms influence citizens’ acceptance and
adoption of e-government services (Alomari
et al., 2012; Hammer and Al-Qahtani, 2009;
Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2006). These
factors determine citizens’ resistance to
change when new services are implemented
(Horst et al., 2007; Shalini, 2009; Willoughby
et al., 2010). Hung et al. (2006) mention that
citizens are influenced by external factors as
well, for example interpersonal relationships.
The level of internet experience, technological
know-how, and literacy are important factors
in e-government adoption (Alomari et al.,
2012; Beldad et al., 2012a; Beldad et al.,
2012b; Carter and Weerakkody, 2008;
Hammer and Al-Qahtani, 2009; Norris and
Moon, 2005; Rorissa and Demissie, 2010;
Willoughby et al., 2010). Positive former ex-
periences with e-government and self-efficacy
promote citizens’ acceptance and adoption of
11
new services (Beldad et al., 2012a; Beldad et
al., 2012b; Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al.,
2006).
Training and education
On account of the different factors mentioned
above, education and training of citizens is
necessary (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009;
Dugdale et al., 2005; Hammer and Al-
Qahtani, 2009; Hung et al., 2006; Strejcek
and Theil, 2003; Weerakkody et al., 2009;
Xiong, 2006) as it helps decrease the digital
divide and increases the likelihood of success-
fully implementing e-government. Xiong
(2006), for example, shows an unequal access
of Chinese citizens to e-government services,
suggesting that libraries may help increase the
awareness and usage of these services by
providing the necessary equipment, assis-
tance, and education (Xiong, 2006).
As part of training and education the govern-
ment has to increase awareness of its e-
government services and their value to en-
courage citizens to use them (Hung et al.,
2006; Jaeger and Thompson, 2004; Norris and
Moon, 2005; Shalini, 2009; Tung and Rieck,
2005). Lack of awareness is an implementa-
tion barrier since the public has to know about
services to start using them, making market-
ing an important part of digitization efforts
(Edmiston, 2003).
Citizens’ needs and trust
Citizens must experience a certain need for
the different service, otherwise they will not
use them (Hinnant and O’Looney, 2003)
which also calls for a high degree of relevance
of the information provided by the govern-
ment to citizens (Dugdale et al., 2005; Jaeger
and Thompson, 2004). The government
should therefore focus on citizens’ needs to
ensure the relevance and usefulness of its ser-
vices (Hung et al., 2006; Maumbe et al.,
2008; Mirchandani et al., 2008). When the
government provides electronic services to
citizens, they must be useful, otherwise citi-
zens will not accept and use the services
(Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2006). Citi-
zens have different backgrounds and will not
consider all services equally useful. Social
norms (Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2006)
and former experiences with e-government
services affect this perceived usefulness
(Horst et al., 2007). Taking the perceived use-
fulness (Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2006)
and ease of use (Hung et al., 2006) into ac-
count is important in ensuring that as many
citizens as possible will use the e-government
services (Alomari et al., 2012; Sipior et al.,
2011).
Perceived behavioral control is another issue
which concerns whether citizens are able to
see through the consequences of their online
actions, requiring transparent e-government
services in order for citizens to understand the
implications of using e-government services
(Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2006; Pieter-
son et al., 2007).
In the development and implementation of e-
government services there are important con-
siderations regarding security and privacy of
the citizens (Layne and Lee, 2001). It is es-
sential to ensure the privacy of citizens
(Edmiston, 2003; Fedorowicz et al., 2010;
Koh et al., 2005; Layne and Lee, 2001; Norris
and Moon, 2005; Pieterson et al., 2007). To
make sure that citizens feel secure using e-
government services, the government should
formulate security and privacy policies foster-
ing trust (Koh et al., 2005).
12
One of the factors most often mentioned in
the literature is trust. Citizens’ trust in gov-
ernment is crucial to the adoption of e-
government services. Trust concerns both
citizens’ faith in government and confidence
in the underlying internet technology which is
mediated by citizens’ former experiences
(Alomari et al., 2012; Baines et al., 2010;
Bannister and Connolly, 2011; Bélanger and
Carter, 2008; Beldad et al., 2011; Beldad et
al., 2012a; Beldad et al., 2012b; Carter and
Weerakkody, 2008; Colesca, 2009; Horst et
al., 2007; Hung et al., 2006; Jaeger and
Thompson, 2004; Kim et al., 2007; Koh et al.,
2005; Luna-Reyes et al., 2007; Pieterson et
al., 2007; Willoughby et al., 2010). Citizens
might perceive it as risky using e-government
services (Bélanger and Carter, 2008; Beldad
et al., 2011; Beldad et al., 2012a; Beldad et
al., 2012b; Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al.,
2006) which is why the government should
take steps to mitigate the perceived risks
(Beldad et al., 2011; Hinnant and O’Looney,
2003).
It is important to demonstrate the benefits of
e-government to citizens despite their skepti-
cism since it affects their level of trust. As
mentioned earlier, citizens have different con-
cerns when using e-government services
(Horst et al., 2007), influencing the perceived
risks. It is therefore important to focus on
both actual risks and perceived risks in assur-
ing citizens of the benefits of e-government
despite those risks (Ibid.). In doing so, it is
necessary to inform citizens about e-
government services to increase their aware-
ness of new possibilities (Hung et al., 2006).
4.1.6 Technology
Infrastructure
The technology infrastructure is important as
an insufficient infrastructure spells implemen-
tation failure. Conversely, a comprehensive
infrastructure increases the likelihood of im-
plementation success, because it makes it eas-
ier to further develop existing services and the
underlying systems (Al Nagi and Hamdan,
2009; Bhuiyan, 2011; Luna-Reyes et al.,
2012; Sarantis et al., 2011; Weerakkody et al.,
2009). Systems integration makes process
streamlining possible which in turn increases
the likelihood of e-government implementa-
tion success (Hung, 2012; Koh et al., 2005).
Advancing e-government services is easier
when existing systems are well-integrated and
the infrastructure is well-developed. It is also
made easier if the capabilities and capacities
of existing systems are extensive, comprehen-
sive, ubiquitous, transparent, and easy to use
(Alomari et al., 2012; Hinnant and O’Looney,
2003; Luna-Reyes et al., 2012; Willoughby et
al., 2010).
The compatibility and integration of systems
increase the likelihood of implementation
success. Obstacles to data interchange and
interoperability are implementation barriers
(Alomari et al., 2012; Hung et al., 2006;
Luna-Reyes et al., 2007; Pieterson et al.,
2007; Sarantis et al., 2011; Willoughby et al.,
2010) in addition to poor records management
and inadequate data (Luna-Reyes et al., 2007;
Nengomasha et al., 2010; Schuppan, 2009;
Shalini, 2009).
When implementing e-government services,
not only the inner workings of government
influence the success. The ability of the IT
industry to develop innovative systems that
13
support government services is also very im-
portant (Hung, 2012). Those innovative IT
systems must accommodate the complex
needs of the public sector and individual citi-
zens.
Design and access
During e-government implementation, citi-
zens’ reaction to the electronic services is
crucial. Among the factors effecting failure of
e-government services is poor website design,
making user friendliness essential (Alomari et
al., 2012; Jaeger and Thompson, 2004;
Shalini, 2009; Wiredu, 2012). In addition to
design, universal access to the various ser-
vices for all citizens is another factor impact-
ing the success or failure of e-government
adoption (Carter and Weerakkody, 2008;
Layne and Lee, 2001; Maumbe et al., 2008;
Pieterson et al., 2007; Willoughby et al.,
2010). Comparing Korean and US govern-
ment websites, Hong et al. (2008) have found
that legal enforcement (policies etc.) or other
additional mechanisms (e.g. periodic evalua-
tion) are needed to ensure web accessibility
for the elderly and the disabled (Hong et al.,
2008). Similarly, Shi (2007) has investigated
accessibility of Chinese e-government Web
sites, recommending that a text equivalent for
every non-text element be provided accom-
modate disabled Chinese people (Shi, 2007).
Technical security
As mentioned above, citizens have different
concerns when using e-government services
which is why it is important that the technical
security is high (Bertot et al., 2012; Hammer
and Al-Qahtani, 2009; Horst et al., 2007;
Karim, 2003; Norris and Moon, 2005;
Wangwe et al., 2012) and that well-
established standards are used (Wangwe et al.,
2012). In that way, citizens need not worry
about the privacy of personal information. To
support data security and privacy, the stability
of the service network used is important
(Karim, 2003).
4.2 Low level success factors
In this section, low maturity level success
factors are presented. Success factors have
been identified within the categories organiza-
tion and technology.
4.2.1 Organization
Expectations
When introducing new technologies, different
stakeholders have different expectations
based on divergent interests. At low levels of
e-maturity, technology is a new aspect of
government. Various expectations arise mak-
ing it important to examine the possibilities
afforded by the technology. Aligning expecta-
tions makes it possible to agree on criteria for
implementation success (Lee and Kim, 2007).
Prioritization
When implementing electronic services into
an organization, it is necessary to prioritize
between technology options. A barrier to suc-
cessful implementation is scattered efforts at
information technology use and information
systems building (Lee and Kim, 2007). It is
important to upgrade current technology to
achieve success. A barrier in this regard is
lack of funding and technological capabilities
within the organization (Lee and Kim, 2007;
Moon, 2002; Norris and Moon, 2005). Anoth-
er barrier is lack of central planning which is
needed to achieve implementation success
and avoid local optimization (Lee and Kim,
2007).
14
4.2.2 Technology management. Since the aim at higher levels of
e-government maturity is to reform govern-
Costs ment processes, business process management
is crucial (Groznik et al., 2008; Groznik and
E-government services at low maturity levels
Trkman, 2009; Pieterson et al., 2007; Verde-
present new opportunities for many citizens,
gem and Verleye, 2009; Weerakkody et al.,
forcing them to make choices that were not
2011). Technology should not be adapted to
available earlier. Central to this decision-
serve processes that are inefficient, but pro-
making process are costs, for example con-
cesses should be re-engineered and radically
venience fees for online transactions. These
changed to ensure effectiveness. At these lev-
costs are a barrier to some citizens’ adoption
els, focus should be on internal back office
of e-government services (Norris and Moon,
processes, and it is important to ensure that
2005). Another example is the cost of internet
technology and business processes are well-
access as some citizens cannot afford sub-
aligned (Kim et al., 2007).
scription plans (Dugdale et al., 2005). Conse-
quently, the government has to provide inter- 4.3.3 Technology
net access, for example at libraries.
Citizen centricity
4.3 High level success factors
It is essential that old government processes
In this section, high maturity level success not focusing on the citizens’ needs be
factors are presented. Success factors have changed. Citizens have to be at center stage,
been identified within the categories organiza- and all services should be customizable to
tion, management, and technology. citizens’ needs (Groznik and Trkman, 2009;
Helbig et al., 2009; Karim, 2003; Layne and
4.3.1 Organization Lee, 2001; Verdegem and Verleye, 2009). An
example of this is reusing citizens’ data
Results orientation (Pieterson et al., 2007). If government agen-
cies and supporting systems are well-
When implementing large-scale e-government
integrated, it is possible to provide citizens
projects, it is vital that the organization makes
with better services, increasing the likelihood
use of business cases (Sarantis et al., 2011).
of e-government implementation success. All
Business cases help the organization focus on
findings are summarized in Table 2 (success
specific goals, a plan for achieving them, and
factors abbreviated “CSFs”).
measurements of actual results which in turn
makes it easier to achieve implementation
success (Karim, 2003; Ntaliani et al., 2008).

4.3.2 Management

Business process management

The most important factor at high levels of e-

government maturity is business process

15
Category General CSFs Low level CSFs High level CSFs
External environment Legislation
Political and administrative
reform
Socioeconomic factors
Culture
Organization Characteristics Expectations Results orientation
Financial resources Prioritization
Infrastructure
Collaboration
Stakeholders
Management Characteristics Business process management
Commitment
Strategy
Managing the projects
Employees Human resources
Fear of change
Training and education
Citizens Digital divide
Training and education
Citizens’ needs and trust
Technology Infrastructure Costs Citizen centricity
Design and access
Security
Table 2: Research findings

5. Discussion maturity levels is evidence that researchers

The purpose of this literature review is to
provide an overview of the e-government lit-
erature and identify digitization success fac-
tors at different stages of e-government ma-
turity using Lee’s synthesized e-government
development model (2010). In categorizing
the articles, it became apparent that distin-
guishing between five maturity levels was not
very productive as only a few articles deal
explicitly with digitization at particular ma-
turity levels. The majority of the literature
focuses on e-government at a more abstract
level. The fact that the literature does not con-
sider e-government challenges at different
levels of maturity indicates that there is a lack
of knowledge about the issues, problems, and
opportunities facing governments in their dig-
itization efforts. The lack of case studies and
surveys in the literature focusing on specific
have not made a point out of distinguishing
between more or less mature e-government
initiatives in their research. However, the
need for maturity models is evidenced by the
proliferation of such models for nearly every-
thing an organization does - ranging from
systems development (e.g., the Capability
Maturity Model Integration) to IT service
management (e.g., the Information Technolo-
gy Infrastructure Library). Maturity models
allow an organization to assess its processes
and methods according to management best
practice and to establish a roadmap for im-
provement. E-government is no exception.
Having said that, Lee’s model is a theoretical
framework of limited practical use since the
characteristics at each maturity level are only
abstractly defined. A practicable model must
include goals and capabilities at each level.
Our identification of success factors is the

16
first step toward such a model based on Lee's
distinction between maturity stages.
Many of the success factors identified in the
literature pertain to e-government in general,
and most of them recur at both low and high
maturity levels. It is, however, important to
emphasize that the challenges facing organi-
zations at high maturity levels are different
from those at low levels in terms of scale. It is
therefore puzzling that so few of the success
factors relate to either low or high levels of
maturity. This underscores the need for em-
pirical research into the particular circum-
stances and conditions underlying more or
less ambitious e-government initiatives. One
explanation for this finding may be that many
success factors are related to IS implementa-
tion in general and not e-government imple-
mentation specifically. Indeed, comparing the
analysis results to Larsen's (2003) "taxonomy
of antecedents to IS success", there are stri-
king similarities. For example, our categories
“External environment” and “Organization”
seem to correspond to the metacategory “or-
ganization-related concepts” in Larsen’s ta-
xonomy (subsuming the categories “En-
vironment”, “Structure”, “MIS department”,
“IS maturity” and “Interorganizational relati-
ons”). In addition, there is a degree of overlap
between our “Employees” category and the
“Individual and job-related concepts” metaca-
tegory (the categories “Task”, “Performance”,
and “Individual”). Last, but not least, our
“Technology” category shares some re-
semblances to the “IT-related concepts” me-
tacategory (the “IT artifact” and “IT and sup-
port” categories). Future research should in-
vestigate in depth the extent to which the suc-
cess factor influencing e-government imple-
mentation are similar to those affecting IS
implementation in general. Such an investiga-
tion would, first of all, contribute to the goal
of unifying fragmented models of IS imple-
mentation (Kwon and Zmud, 1987). Second,
it would allow e-government practitioners to
pinpoint areas where they can draw on lessons
learned from other IS implementation efforts.
However, some factors are particular to digit-
ization efforts within the public sector as dis-
cussed below.
Considering the external environment, it be-
comes apparent that each government agency
cannot possibly handle implementation alone.
Both differences in terms of organizational
cultures and socioeconomic factors (Maumbe
et al., 2008; Rorissa and Demissie, 2010) af-
fect implementation success as well as legis-
lative (Beldad et al., 2011; Luna-Reyes et al.,
2012), political, and administrative frame-
works in need of reformation (Sarantis et al.,
2011; Schuppan, 2009). Many government
agencies must adjust to new environmental
conditions. The public sector in for example
Denmark is enormous and can metaphorically
be likened to a supertanker that is not easily
turned around. Practitioners should therefore
not only make short-term plans but also need
to focus on long-term strategies and success
factors. Future research should investigate
how to balance the need for local responsive-
ness in the short term and long-term strategic
planning at a global level (i.e., at the national
versus municipal level).
Most government agencies are on tight budg-
ets (Lee and Kim, 2007; Pieterson et al.,
2007) which limit the opportunities for devel-
oping and experimenting with new technolo-
gies and services. Naturally, private organiza-
tions are constrained by budgets as well, the
difference being that government agencies
have to be fiscally responsible and not squan-
der away taxpayer money. Furthermore, the
17
interests and needs of all citizen groups must
be taken into account since the public sector
is responsible for all citizens. Practitioners
should therefore ensure that fiscal resources
are used wisely considering as many citizen
groups as possible (Bhuiyan, 2011; Edmiston,
2003; Helbig et al., 2009; Jaeger and Thomp-
son, 2004; Luna-Reyes et al., 2007; Schup-
pan, 2009; Sipior et al., 2011; Verdegem and
Verleye, 2009). One of the means to achiev-
ing this goal is collaboration among govern-
ment agencies which is discussed below. Fu-
ture research should investigate how to incor-
porate citizens value judgments into the prior-
itization and selection of e-government initia-
tives.
Government is often accused of operating
within silos, each silo being responsible for
highly specialized job functions. Government
silos are a major barrier to e-government im-
plementation, because collaboration among
public agencies is a prerequisite for providing
streamlined and uniform services to citizens
(Hung, 2012; Koh et al., 2005; Weerakkody
et al., 2009; Wiredu, 2012). This is not possi-
ble as long as the agencies involved are mov-
ing in separate directions both organizational-
ly and technologically. Another success factor
is strategy and management commitment
(Beldad et al., 2011; Koh et al., 2005). By
formulating a common strategy and convinc-
ing decision makers of the importance of e-
government services, different government
agencies are better able to work toward the
same goals across government levels. One
way to achieve this is by adopting a holistic
perspective on the public sector, for example
at national rather than local administrative
levels (Ibid.). Central decision makers may
provide direction and guidance by establish-
ing overall goals and specifying requirements.
Implementation may in turn be promoted
through local adaptations of plans, processes,
and systems. Future research should investi-
gate how to create visibility across govern-
mental levels, showing links between local
initiatives and global strategies. Increased
transparency helps identify efforts at various
levels – both horizontally and vertically – that
either work against or support each other.
The digital divide is a fundamental barrier to
successful e-government implementation.
When implementing e-government services,
social considerations must be taken as the
public sector has special responsibilities to-
ward weak and marginalized citizens (Hong et
al., 2008; Shi, 2007). This is one of the most
apparent differences between the public and
the private sector. The public sector has to
provide services to all citizens and not only
selected customers. It is therefore essential
that practitioners charged with e-government
implementation take steps to ensure that as
many citizens as possible are included in the
process (Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2006;
Jaeger and Thompson, 2004). One of the
means to ensure inclusion is to provide com-
puter access at libraries and to prioritize user
friendly IT designs that encourage citizens
with a minimum of technical skills to use e-
government services (Alomari et al., 2012;
Carter and Weerakkody, 2008; Jaeger and
Thompson, 2004; Layne and Lee, 2001;
Maumbe et al., 2008; Pieterson et al., 2007;
Shalini, 2009; Willoughby et al., 2010;
Wiredu, 2012; Xiong, 2006). However, future
research should investigate the capabilities
and needs of different citizen groups, for ex-
ample people with disabilities as well as the
younger and older population sometimes re-
ferred to as the digital natives and the digital
immigrants. In continuation hereof, research
18
is required to explore the need for adaptive
services that cater to these different groups.
Some of the success factors identified at the
low maturity levels concern the fundamentals
of e-government implementation. Basic prior-
ities and expectations should be considered
when launching digitization endeavors as e-
government implementation success at the
lower maturity levels increases the likelihood
of implementation success at higher levels.
Developing countries in which digitization
efforts are in their infancy should first focus
on those low level success factors, although
some argue that stage models developed with
western, developed countries in mind are in-
appropriate for developing countries
(Maumbe et al., 2008). This is something that
should be duly considered when implement-
ing e-government in developing countries as
other solutions than those originating in the
western world might be required. This is an
area of research that needs future attention. In
other words, are stage models and recommen-
dations derived from e-government experi-
ences in the West applicable in developing
countries or are the basic premises sufficient-
ly different to warrant other approaches to
digitization? These are among the questions
that future research should address. From a
bird’s eye perspective, the major difference
between low and high level barriers is the
comprehensiveness of the challenges at the
higher levels. Higher levels call for extensive
changes, like those associated with business
process reengineering (BPR), whereas chang-
es at lower levels are more limited, e.g. auto-
mating certain transactions between citizens
and the public sector.
The high maturity level success factors re-
volve around two factors in particular: Pro-
cess reformation (Groznik et al., 2008; Pieter-
son et al., 2007; Weerakkody et al., 2011) and
citizen-centric focus (Karim, 2003; Verdegem
and Verleye, 2009). These two factors are
inseparable as the re-engineering of processes
must take citizens’ needs as a starting point.
Digitization is not a matter of plug and play
since inefficient and ineffective processes are
not improved by simply adding technology.
Therefore, business process management of
public sector reformation is essential (Groznik
et al., 2008; Groznik and Trkman, 2009; Pie-
terson et al., 2007; Verdegem and Verleye,
2009; Weerakkody et al., 2011). As a conse-
quence, practitioners should break with tradi-
tion-bound and deeply ingrained procedures
in the public sector. For example, both em-
ployees and citizens are accustomed to inter-
acting in certain ways (Ibid.). As technology
opens up new possibilities, both the way tasks
are carried out by employees and the way
citizen services are provided are being chal-
lenged. Future research should investigate
both the legal constraints and the institutional
factors inhibiting true innovation in the sense
of restructuring governmental practices
around outcomes (i.e., services to be provid-
ed) rather than procedures (i.e., bureaucratic
rules governing service provision).
To accomplish true innovation, the reform
process needs to originate from the top and
then trickle down through the entire public
sector. It is necessary to break with estab-
lished silos and organizational routines within
the public administration when improving
internal processes and service delivery. A
holistic, citizen-centric perspective is particu-
larly important when it comes to reengineer-
ing public services (i.e., at higher maturity
levels) since the extensive changes have far-
reaching consequences for citizens. Such con-
cerns play a lesser role at lower maturity lev-
19
els due to the more limited changes. Future
research should investigate how to structure
service delivery around citizens’ needs, for
example in order to be able to access public
services in terms of ‘life-events’ (citizens
needing different services throughout their
lives depending on age and their personal
situation).
As mentioned, the distinction between differ-
ent levels of e-government is vague, meaning
that the surveys and case studies reported do
not explicitly focus on particular levels of e-
government maturity. Hence, this is an area
ripe for future research. Research within this
area should aim at helping practitioners take
the influencing factors at specific levels of
maturity into account when implementing e-
government and thereby avoid making mis-
guided decisions. Decisions regarding e-
government implementation at low maturity
levels have to consider basic assumptions
about technology (Lee and Kim, 2007)
whereas decisions at higher maturity levels
focus on reforming and radically changing the
public sector (Groznik et al., 2008; Groznik
and Trkman, 2009; Pieterson et al., 2007;
Verdegem and Verleye, 2009; Weerakkody et
al., 2011). It is therefore evident that different
issues, challenges, and opportunities have to
be considered at different levels of maturity.
Further research is required to better under-
stand the challenges at different stages of e-
government. Before conducting case studies
and surveys, researchers should clarify the
level of maturity to ensure that the findings
are specific and usable to practitioners. Many
general success factors are found in the litera-
ture, but additional research at different stages
of e-government is needed as only few suc-
cess factors particular to low and high levels
have been investigated. In particular, the chal-
lenges at higher maturity levels should be
investigated further due to the complexity and
comprehensiveness compared to lower level
challenges. If researchers focus on the level of
maturity, it would be easier for practitioners
to derive more concrete advice from the lit-
erature on what to do and not to do when im-
plementing e-government. Many articles ad-
dress e-government at an abstract level, but in
the future researchers should focus on con-
crete examples usable to practitioners imple-
menting e-government.
Having identified success factors influencing
implementation of e-government at different
stages of maturity, our investigation estab-
lishes a foundation upon which to develop an
e-government maturity model in the future.
Due to the scarcity of empirical studies, more
research is, however, needed that distin-
guishes between the circumstances and fac-
tors influencing e-government initiatives at
different maturity levels – focusing in particu-
lar on high maturity levels due to the added
complexity of the challenges associated with
these efforts. Low level success factors con-
cern e-government “basics” (e.g., technology
issues) (Lee and Kim, 2007), but research has
yet to investigate the extent to which lessons
learned in the developed countries are appli-
cable to developing countries (Maumbe et al.,
2008). At higher levels, BPM is crucial to
technology driven public sector reformation
(Groznik et al., 2008; Groznik and Trkman,
2009; Pieterson et al., 2007; Verdegem and
Verleye, 2009; Weerakkody et al., 2011), but
the institutional constraints inhibiting trans-
formation remain understudied. Despite
knowledge of environmental factors impac-
ting e-government initiatives in general
(Beldad et al., 2011; Luna-Reyes et al., 2012;
Maumbe et al., 2008; Rorissa and Demissie,
20
2010; Sarantis et al., 2011; Schuppan, 2009),
we still don't know how to respond to en-
vironmental changes at different governmen-
tal levels while ensuring strategic alignment
between actions, for example by increasing
transparency across government levels. And
despite the need for fiscal responsibility and
having to cater to different citizen groups
(Bhuiyan, 2011; Edmiston, 2003; Helbig et
al., 2009; Jaeger and Thompson, 2004; Lee
and Kim, 2007; Luna-Reyes et al., 2007;
Pieterson et al., 2007; Schuppan, 2009; Sipior
et al., 2011; Verdegem and Verleye, 2009),
we don't know how to prioritize between e-
government initiatives and provide responsive
public services, taking citizens' needs, capabi-
lities, and value judgments into consideration
– services that respond to citizens changing
life events instead of citizens having to re-
spond to the instrumental logic of standard
operating procedures.
Based on this literature review and the above
discussion, it is also possible to point to some
factors that practitioners should focus on
when implementing e-government. In general,
many internal and external factors influence
e-government implementation. In a situation
where financial resources are scarce, collabo-
ration between government agencies is all the
more important to ensure that public services
are aligned. Furthermore, a holistic view of
the public sector is necessary. Since the pub-
lic sector has to accommodate all citizens, it is
necessary to ensure equal access to the ser-
vices with the possibility of help from gov-
ernment employees. Practitioners in develop-
ing countries should focus on implementing
the basic technology before proceeding with
services at higher maturity levels. Practition-
ers implementing high level e-government
services should understand that incremental
changes will not bring about the improve-
ments needed and should therefore consider
how to radically change the public sector by
involving senior officials and politicians be-
fore enrolling rank-and-file employees.
6. Conclusion
This literature review contributes to e-
government research, and offers advice to
practitioners working in the public sector by
providing an overview of the success factors
at different stages of e-government maturity.
Lee’s synthesized e-government development
model (2010) is used as the theoretical
framework for this article. The article demon-
strates that it is unproductive to categorize the
literature on success factors affecting e-
government implementation according to five
stages of maturity, because many articles span
several stages. That doesn’t mean that future
research should not focus on e-government
initiates at different stages of maturity. On the
contrary, in order to be able to provide practi-
tioners with advice in relation to very specific
digitization challenges, such research is need-
ed, and Lee’s model as well as the success
factors at different maturity levels (high ver-
sus low) identified in this article provides a
useful starting point. General success factors
are identified within six categories, namely
external environment, organization, manage-
ment, employees, citizens, and technology.
Low level success factors are identified with-
in the organization and technology categories,
and high level success factors are identified
within the categories of organization, man-
agement, and technology. Further research
focusing on the distinction between low and
high level success factors is needed to help
practitioners adapt their plans and make the
right decisions in different situations depend-
ing on the level of e-government maturity.
21
Taking the maturity level into consideration
implies, for example, that when implementing
high level e-government services it is essen-
tial to focus on both citizens and on internal
processes within the organization. It is not
possible to deploy technology to make pro-
cesses more effective without re-engineering
the processes.

22
Appendix A

In the following tables, the literature is categorized according to Lee’s five stages of e-government maturity:
Presenting, Assimilating, Reforming, Morphing, and e-Governance. In addition, general factors are shown.

Presenting
Category Success factor Literature
External environment Undeveloped legislation (Nengomasha et al., 2010)
Political-administrative system (Schuppan, 2009)
Economic development (Schuppan, 2009)
Organization Public services (Dugdale et al., 2005)
Employees Human capacity (Nengomasha et al., 2010)
Citizens Demographic and social factors (Schuppan, 2009)
Skill building (Dugdale et al., 2005)
Technology Cost of internet (Dugdale et al., 2005)
Inadequate data sys- (Nengomasha et al., 2010; Schuppan,
tems/technological infrastructure 2009)
Poor records management (Nengomasha et al., 2010)
Relevant content (Dugdale et al., 2005)

Assimilating
Category Success factor Literature
External environment Commitment from politicians (Norris and Moon, 2005; Rorissa and
Demissie, 2010; Shalini, 2009)
Policies (Shalini, 2009)
Stakeholders (Kamal et al., 2011)
Economic development (Rorissa and Demissie, 2010)
Culture (Luna-Reyes et al., 2007; Rorissa and
Demissie, 2010)
Legislation (Moon, 2002; Strejcek and Theil,
2003)
Organization Financial resources (Edmiston, 2003; Lee and Kim, 2007;
Moon, 2002; Norris and Moon, 2005)
Convenience fees for online transac- (Norris and Moon, 2005)
tion
Infrastructure (Lee and Kim, 2007; Luna-Reyes et
al., 2007; Rorissa and Demissie,
2010; Strejcek and Theil, 2003)
Communication/information sharing (Lee and Kim, 2007; Luna-Reyes et
al., 2007; Seng et al., 2010)
Lack of central planning (Lee and Kim, 2007)
Scattered IS/IT efforts (Lee and Kim, 2007)
Expectations (Lee and Kim, 2007)
Size and type of government (Moon, 2002)
Streamlining administration (Strejcek and Theil, 2003)
Management Management commitment/vision (Seng et al., 2010)
Change management/re-engineering (Lee and Kim, 2007)

23
 Relation/risk/plan management
Employees Lack/change of technology/staff (IT
experts)
Personal interests
Moving out of comfort zone
Lack of time to innovate
Marketing
Training/education
Human resources
Citizens Not e-ready
Resistance to change
Lack of awareness of online ser-
vices/government applications
Internet/technology knowledge/skills
Age/educational level
Privacy
Training/education
Meeting citizens’ needs citizen cen-
tricity
Literacy
Digital divide
Trust in internet/government
Perceived usefulness/advantages
Technology Static websites/design
Security
Infrastructure
Upgrading technology (lack of fund-
ing/technological capacity)
Compatibility/integration
Ease of use/complexity
(Lee and Kim, 2007)
(Lee and Kim, 2007; Norris and
Moon, 2005; Seng et al., 2010)
(Seng et al., 2010)
(Seng et al., 2010)
(Seng et al., 2010)
(Edmiston, 2003)
(Lee and Kim, 2007; Strejcek and
Theil, 2003)
(Lee and Kim, 2007; Moon, 2002)
(Shalini, 2009)
(Shalini, 2009)
(Norris and Moon, 2005; Shalini,
2009)
(Alomari et al., 2012; Hammer and
Al-Qahtani, 2009; Norris and Moon,
2005)
(Alomari et al., 2012; Hammer and
Al-Qahtani, 2009)
(Edmiston, 2003; Norris and Moon,
2005)
(Hammer and Al-Qahtani, 2009;
Strejcek and Theil, 2003)
(Mirchandani et al., 2008)
(Rorissa and Demissie, 2010)
(Edmiston, 2003; Luna-Reyes et al.,
2007)
(Alomari et al., 2012; Luna-Reyes et
al., 2007)
(Alomari et al., 2012)
(Alomari et al., 2012; Shalini, 2009)
(Hammer and Al-Qahtani, 2009;
Norris and Moon, 2005)
(Luna-Reyes et al., 2007; Shalini,
2009)
(Lee and Kim, 2007; Moon, 2002;
Norris and Moon, 2005)
(Alomari et al., 2012; Luna-Reyes et
al., 2007)
(Alomari et al., 2012)

Reforming
Category Success factor Literature
External environment Legislation (Beldad et al., 2011; Beldad et al.,
2012a; Beldad et al., 2012b; Karim,
2003; Wangwe et al., 2012)
Privacy (Fedorowicz et al., 2010)
Organization Stakeholder analysis (Fedorowicz et al., 2010)
Collaboration (Henning and Gar Yein, 2009; Ka-

24
 rim, 2003)
Commitment by all actors (Wangwe et al., 2012)
Data sharing (Fedorowicz et al., 2010)
Results orientation (Karim, 2003; Ntaliani et al., 2008)
Sustainable infrastructure (Wangwe et al., 2012)
Information (Groznik et al., 2008)
BPM (Groznik et al., 2008)
Management Contractor management (Karim, 2003)
Political will/support and commit- (Wangwe et al., 2012)
ment
Employee Employees’ way of thinking (Groznik et al., 2008)
Citizens Trust (Bélanger and Carter, 2008; Beldad et
al., 2011; Beldad et al., 2012a;
Beldad et al., 2012b; Horst et al.,
2007; Hung et al., 2006; Karim,
2003)
Risks (Carter and Weerakkody, 2008; Dug-
dale et al., 2005; Hinnant and
O’Looney, 2003; Kamal et al., 2011;
Kim et al., 2007; Mirchandani et al.,
2008; Wiredu, 2012)
Awareness of services (Hung et al., 2006)
Worries (Hung et al., 2006)
Usefulness of services (Horst et al., 2007)
Norms (Hung et al., 2006)
Personal experiences (Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2006)
Self-efficacy (Beldad et al., 2012a; Beldad et al.,
2012b; Horst et al., 2007)
External and interpersonal influences (Hung et al., 2006)
Training (Hung et al., 2006)
Perceived behavioral control (Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2006)
Technology Usefulness (Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2006)
Citizen centricity (Karim, 2003)
Standards (Wangwe et al., 2012)
Security (Horst et al., 2007; Karim, 2003;
Wangwe et al., 2012)
Network stability (Karim, 2003)
Compatibility (Hung et al., 2006)

Morphing
Category Success factor Literature
External environment Legislation (Pieterson et al., 2007)
Organization Stakeholders (engagement) (Sæbø et al., 2011; Sarantis
et al., 2011)
Lack of business cases (Sarantis et al., 2011)
Lack of internal ownership (Sarantis et al., 2011)
Insufficient administrative reform (Sarantis et al., 2011)
Alignment of technology and business processes (Kim et al., 2007)
Integration of resources (Kim et al., 2007)

25
 Organizational learning (Kim et al., 2007)
Redesign of processes (Pieterson et al., 2007)
Economy (Pieterson et al., 2007)
Responsibilities (Pieterson et al., 2007)
Management Absence of vision/strategy (Sarantis et al., 2011;
Sarantis et al., 2010)
Poor project and IT management (over-reliance on tech- (Sarantis et al., 2011)
nology)
Alignment of e-government and digital divide strategies (Helbig et al., 2009)
Employees Fear of change (Willoughby et al., 2010)
Citizens Trust (Bannister and Connolly,
2011; Kim et al., 2007;
Pieterson et al., 2007;
Willoughby et al., 2010)
Fear of change (Willoughby et al., 2010)
Lack of computer skills (Willoughby et al., 2010)
Privacy (Pieterson et al., 2007)
Control (Pieterson et al., 2007)
Acceptance (Pieterson et al., 2007)
Digital divide (Helbig et al., 2009)
Technology Inadequate infrastructure (Sarantis et al., 2011)
Obstacles to data interchange (Sarantis et al., 2011)
Comprehensiveness/integration/ubiquity/transparency/easy (Willoughby et al., 2010)
to use/safety/developed with e-government in mind
Reuse of citizens’ data (Pieterson et al., 2007)
Lack of interoperability (Pieterson et al., 2007;
Willoughby et al., 2010)
Accessibility (Pieterson et al., 2007;
Willoughby et al., 2010)
Identification of individual needs (Helbig et al., 2009)

e-Governance
Category Success factor Literature
External environment Legislation (Jho, 2005)
Organization Business process re-engineering (Groznik and Trkman, 2009; Verde-
(back office/not only citizens/radical gem and Verleye, 2009; Weerakkody
change) et al., 2011)
Information/knowledge sharing (non- (Baines et al., 2010; Groznik and
silo/best practice) Trkman, 2009; Weerakkody et al.,
2011)
Collaboration (Baines et al., 2010; Groznik and
Trkman, 2009)
Culture (Baines et al., 2010; Weerakkody et
al., 2011)
Management Support (Weerakkody et al., 2011)
Employees Participation/involvement (Weerakkody et al., 2011)
Education/training (Weerakkody et al., 2011)
Citizens Perceived ease of use (Sipior et al., 2011)
Digital divide (Sipior et al., 2011; Verdegem and
Verleye, 2009)

26
 Trust (Baines et al., 2010)
Technology Security (Bertot et al., 2012)
User centricity (Groznik and Trkman, 2009; Layne
and Lee, 2001; Verdegem and Ver-
leye, 2009)

General factors
Category Success factor Literature
External environment Legal framework (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009; Luna-
Reyes et al., 2012; Maumbe et al.,
2008)
Social/socioeconomic context (Bhuiyan, 2011; Maumbe et al., 2008)
Culture (Maumbe et al., 2008)
Organization Characteristics (Beldad et al., 2012a; Beldad et al.,
2012b; Luna-Reyes et al., 2012)
Infrastructure (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009; Bhuiyan,
2011; Luna-Reyes et al., 2012;
Maumbe et al., 2008; Sharifi and
Manian, 2010)
Lack of information and knowledge (Hung, 2012; Koh et al., 2005; We-
sharing erakkody et al., 2009; Wiredu, 2012)
Collaboration (Koh et al., 2005; Weerakkody et al.,
2009)
Security/privacy statements (Koh et al., 2005; Layne and Lee, 2001)
Experienced risks and mitigation (Beldad et al., 2012a; Beldad et al.,
2012b; Hinnant and O’Looney, 2003)
Measurement of services (Hung, 2012)
Budget (Maumbe et al., 2008)
Management Characteristics (Luna-Reyes et al., 2012)
Readiness (Tung and Rieck, 2005)
Leadership/top management (Koh et al., 2005; Weerakkody et al.,
2009)
Political consensus (Bhuiyan, 2011)
Vision (Sharifi and Manian, 2010)
Contracts (Sharifi and Manian, 2010)
Change management (Weerakkody et al., 2009)
Employees Personal/political power relations (Wiredu, 2012)
Fear of change (Wiredu, 2012)
Human resources (Bhuiyan, 2011; Maumbe et al., 2008;
Weerakkody et al., 2009)
Training/education (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009; Weerak-
kody et al., 2009)
Guiding citizens about how govern- (Hung, 2012)
ment works
Citizens Digital divide (Bhuiyan, 2011; Jaeger and Thompson,
2004; Maumbe et al., 2008)
Level of internet experience/skills (Beldad et al., 2012a; Beldad et al.,
2012b; Carter and Weerakkody, 2008)
Training/education (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009;
Weerakkody et al., 2009; Xiong, 2006)

27
 Trust (Beldad et al., 2012a; Beldad et al.,
2012b; Carter and Weerakkody, 2008;
Colesca, 2009; Jaeger and Thompson,
2004)
Awareness of benefits (Jaeger and Thompson, 2004; Tung and
Rieck, 2005)
Relevance of information (Jaeger and Thompson, 2004)
Needs (Hinnant and O’Looney, 2003;
Maumbe et al., 2008)
Technology Infrastructure (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009; Bhuiyan,
2011; Luna-Reyes et al., 2012;
Weerakkody et al., 2009)
Capability/capacity (Hinnant and O’Looney, 2003; Luna-
Reyes et al., 2012)
Delivery of variable systems (Hung, 2012)
Integrated systems (Hung, 2012; Koh et al., 2005)
Poor design of website (Hong et al., 2008; Jaeger and
Thompson, 2004; Shi, 2007; Wiredu,
2012)
Universal access to services (Carter and Weerakkody, 2008; Layne
and Lee, 2001; Maumbe et al., 2008)
Contractor (Sharifi and Manian, 2010)

Appendix B
This appendix summarizes the final categorization of the success factors identified in the literature. The ta-
bles below contain general success factors as well as success factors at low and high maturity levels.

General success factors

Category Success factor Literature
External environment Legislation (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009; Beldad et
al., 2011; Beldad et al., 2012a; Beldad
et al., 2012b; Jho, 2005; Karim, 2003;
Luna-Reyes et al., 2012; Maumbe et al.,
2008; Moon, 2002; Nengomasha et al.,
2010; Pieterson et al., 2007; Shalini,
2009; Strejcek and Theil, 2003;
Wangwe et al., 2012)
Political and administrative reform (Norris and Moon, 2005; Rorissa and
Demissie, 2010; Sarantis et al., 2011;
Schuppan, 2009; Strejcek and Theil,
2003)
Socioeconomic factors (Bhuiyan, 2011; Maumbe et al., 2008;
Rorissa and Demissie, 2010; Schuppan,
2009)
Culture (Baines et al., 2010; Luna-Reyes et al.,
2007; Maumbe et al., 2008; Rorissa and
Demissie, 2010; Weerakkody et al.,
2011)

28
Organization Characteristics (Beldad et al., 2012a; Beldad et al.,
2012b; Kim et al., 2007; Luna-Reyes et
al., 2012; Moon, 2002)
Financial resources (Edmiston, 2003; Lee and Kim, 2007;
Maumbe et al., 2008; Moon, 2002;
Norris and Moon, 2005; Pieterson et al.,
2007)
Infrastructure (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009; Bhuiyan,
2011; Lee and Kim, 2007; Luna-Reyes
et al., 2007; Luna-Reyes et al., 2012;
Maumbe et al., 2008; Rorissa and
Demissie, 2010; Sharifi and Manian,
2010; Strejcek and Theil, 2003;
Wangwe et al., 2012)
Collaboration (Baines et al., 2010; Fedorowicz et al.,
2010; Groznik et al., 2008; Groznik and
Trkman, 2009; Henning and Gar Yein,
2009; Hung, 2012; Karim, 2003; Kim
et al., 2007; Koh et al., 2005; Lee and
Kim, 2007; Luna-Reyes et al., 2007;
Seng et al., 2010; Weerakkody et al.,
2009; Weerakkody et al., 2011;
Wiredu, 2012)
Stakeholders (Fedorowicz et al., 2010; Kamal et al.,
2011; Sæbø et al., 2011; Sarantis et al.,
2011; Wangwe et al., 2012)
Management Characteristics (Luna-Reyes et al., 2012; Tung and
Rieck, 2005)
Commitment (Bhuiyan, 2011; Koh et al., 2005;
Pieterson et al., 2007; Sarantis et al.,
2011; Seng et al., 2010; Wangwe et al.,
2012; Weerakkody et al., 2009;
Weerakkody et al., 2011)
Strategy (Nengomasha et al., 2010; Sarantis et
al., 2010; Sipior et al., 2011; Willough-
by et al., 2010)
Managing the implementation (Beldad et al., 2012b; Colesca, 2009;
Kim et al., 2007; Sipior et al., 2011;
Tung and Rieck, 2005)
Employees Human resources (Bhuiyan, 2011; Lee and Kim, 2007;
Maumbe et al., 2008; Moon, 2002;
Nengomasha et al., 2010; Norris and
Moon, 2005; Seng et al., 2010; We-
erakkody et al., 2009)
Fear of change (Groznik et al., 2008; Seng et al., 2010;
Weerakkody et al., 2011; Willoughby et
al., 2010; Wiredu, 2012)
Training and education (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009; Hung,
2012; Lee and Kim, 2007; Strejcek and
Theil, 2003; Weerakkody et al., 2009;

29
 Weerakkody et al., 2011)
Citizens Digital divide (Alomari et al., 2012; Beldad et al.,
2012a; Beldad et al., 2012b; Bhuiyan,
2011; Carter and Weerakkody, 2008;
Edmiston, 2003; Hammer and Al-
Qahtani, 2009; Helbig et al., 2009;
Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2006;
Jaeger and Thompson, 2004; Luna-
Reyes et al., 2007; Maumbe et al.,
2008; Norris and Moon, 2005;
Pieterson et al., 2007; Rorissa and
Demissie, 2010; Schuppan, 2009;
Shalini, 2009; Sipior et al., 2011; Tung
and Rieck, 2005; Verdegem and
Verleye, 2009; Willoughby et al., 2010)
Training/education (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009; Dugdale
et al., 2005; Edmiston, 2003; Hammer
and Al-Qahtani, 2009; Hung et al.,
2006; Strejcek and Theil, 2003;
Weerakkody et al., 2009; Xiong, 2006)
Citizens’ needs and trust (Alomari et al., 2012; Baines et al.,
2010; Bannister and Connolly, 2011;
Bélanger and Carter, 2008; Beldad et
al., 2011; Beldad et al., 2012a; Beldad
et al., 2012b; Carter and Weerakkody,
2008; Colesca, 2009; Dugdale et al.,
2005; Edmiston, 2003; Fedorowicz et
al., 2010; Hinnant and O’Looney, 2003;
Horst et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2006;
Jaeger and Thompson, 2004; Kim et al.,
2007; Koh et al., 2005; Layne and Lee,
2001; Luna-Reyes et al., 2007;
Maumbe et al., 2008; Mirchandani et
al., 2008; Norris and Moon, 2005;
Pieterson et al., 2007; Shalini, 2009;
Sipior et al., 2011; Willoughby et al.,
2010)
Technology Infrastructure (Al Nagi and Hamdan, 2009; Alomari
et al., 2012; Bhuiyan, 2011; Hinnant
and O’Looney, 2003; Hung, 2012;
Hung et al., 2006; Koh et al., 2005;
Luna-Reyes et al., 2007; Luna-Reyes et
al., 2012; Maumbe et al., 2008;
Nengomasha et al., 2010; Pieterson et
al., 2007; Sarantis et al., 2011;
Schuppan, 2009; Shalini, 2009;
Weerakkody et al., 2009; Willoughby et
al., 2010)
Design and access (Alomari et al., 2012; Carter and
Weerakkody, 2008; Hong et al., 2008;

30

Technical security
Jaeger and Thompson, 2004; Layne and
Lee, 2001; Maumbe et al., 2008;
Shalini, 2009; Shi, 2007; Wiredu, 2012)
(Bertot et al., 2012; Hammer and Al-
Qahtani, 2009; Horst et al., 2007;
Karim, 2003; Norris and Moon, 2005;
Wangwe et al., 2012)

Low level success factors

Category Success factor Literature
Organization Expectations (Lee and Kim, 2007)
Prioritization (Lee and Kim, 2007; Moon, 2002;
Norris and Moon, 2005)
Technology Costs (Dugdale et al., 2005; Norris and
Moon, 2005)

High level success factors

Category Success factor Literature
Organization Results orientation (Karim, 2003; Ntaliani et al., 2008;
Sarantis et al., 2011)
Management Business Process Management (Groznik et al., 2008; Groznik and
Trkman, 2009; Pieterson et al., 2007;
Verdegem and Verleye, 2009; We-
erakkody et al., 2011)
Technology Citizen centricity (Groznik and Trkman, 2009; Helbig
et al., 2009; Karim, 2003; Layne and
Lee, 2001; Pieterson et al., 2007;
Verdegem and Verleye, 2009)
 

31
References  
Al  Nagi,  E.  &  Hamdan,  M.  (2009),  "Computerization  and  e-­‐Government  implementation  in  Jordan:  
Challenges,  obstacles  and  successes",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  26,  no.  4,  pp.  577-­‐
583.  
Alomari,  M.,  Woods,  P.  &  Sandhu,  K.  (2012),  "Predictors  for  e-­‐government  adoption  in  Jordan.  Deployment  
of  an  empirical  evaluation  based  on  a  citizen-­‐centric  approach",  Information  Technology  &  People,  
vol.  25,  no.  2,  pp.  207-­‐234.  
Baines,  S.,  Wilson,  R.  &  Walsh,  S.  (2010),  "Seeing  the  full  picture?  Technologically  enabled  multi-­‐agency  
working  in  health  and  social  care",  New  Technology,  Work  and  Employment,  vol.  25,  no.  1,  pp.  19-­‐
33.  
Bannister,  F.  &  Connolly,  R.  (2011),  "Trust  and  transformational  government:  A  proposed  framework  for  
research",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  28,  no.  2,  pp.  137-­‐147.  
Bélanger,  F.  &  Carter,  L.  (2008),  "Trust  and  risk  in  e-­‐government  adoption",  The  Journal  of  Strategic  
Information  Systems,  vol.  17,  no.  2,  pp.  165-­‐176.  
Bélanger,  F.  &  Carter,  L.  (2012),  "Digitizing  Government  Interactions  with  Constituents:  An  Historical  Review  
of  E-­‐Government  Research  in  Information  Systems",  Journal  of  the  Association  for  Information  
Systems,  vol.  13,  no.  Special  Issue,  pp.  363-­‐394.  
Beldad,  A.,  De  Jong,  M.  &  Steehouder,  M.  (2011),  "I  trust  not  therefore  it  must  be  risky:  Determinants  of  the  
perceived  risks  of  disclosing  personal  data  for  e-­‐government  transactions",  Computers  in  Human  
Behavior,  vol.  27,  no.  6,  pp.  2233-­‐2242.  
Beldad,  A.,  Van  Der  Geest,  T.,  De  Jong,  M.  &  Steehouder,  M.  (2012a),  "A  cue  or  two  and  I'll  trust  you:  
Determinants  of  trust  in  government  organizations  in  terms  of  their  processing  and  usage  of  
citizens'  personal  information  disclosed  online",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  29,  no.  1,  
pp.  41-­‐49.  
Beldad,  A.,  Van  Der  Geest,  T.,  De  Jong,  M.  &  Steehouder,  M.  (2012b),  "Shall  I  Tell  You  Where  I  Live  and  Who  
I  Am?  Factors  Influencing  the  Behavioral  Intention  to  Disclose  Personal  Data  for  Online  Government  
Transactions",  International  Journal  of  Human-­‐Computer  Interaction,  vol.  28,  no.  3,  pp.  163-­‐177.  
Bertot,  J.,  Jaeger,  P.  &  Hansen,  D.  (2012),  "The  impact  of  polices  on  government  social  media  usage:  Issues,  
challenges,  and  recommendations",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  29,  no.  1,  pp.  30-­‐40.  
Bhuiyan,  S.  (2011),  "Modernizing  Bangladesh  public  administration  through  e-­‐governance:  Benefits  and  
challenges",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  28,  no.  1,  pp.  54-­‐65.  
Carter,  L.  &  Weerakkody,  V.  (2008),  "E-­‐government  adoption:  A  cultural  comparison",  Information  Systems  
Frontiers,  vol.  10,  no.  4,  pp.  473-­‐482.  
Cohen,  J.  (1960),  "A  coefficient  of  agreement  for  nominal  scales",  Educational  and  Psychological  
Measurement,  vol.  20,  no.  pp.  37-­‐46.  
Colesca,  S.  (2009),  "Understanding  Trust  in  e-­‐Government",  Inzinerine  Ekonomika-­‐Engineering  Economics,  
vol.,  no.  3,  pp.  7-­‐15.  
Dawes,  S.  (2008),  "Evolution  and  Continuing  Challenges  of  E-­‐Governance",  Public  Administration  Review,  
vol.  68,  no.  6,  pp.  S86-­‐S102.  
Dugdale,  A.,  Daly,  A.,  Papandrea,  F.  &  Maley,  M.  (2005),  "Accessing  e-­‐government:  challenges  for  citizens  
and  organizations",  International  Review  of  Administrative  Sciences,  vol.  71,  no.  1,  pp.  109-­‐118.  
Dwivedi,  Y.,  Weerakkody,  V.  &  Janssen,  M.  (2011),  "Moving  Towards  Maturity:  Challenges  to  Successful  E-­‐
government  Implementation  and  Diffusion",  The  DATA  BASE  for  Advances  in  Information  Systems,  
vol.  42,  no.  4,  pp.  11-­‐22.  
Edmiston,  K.  (2003),  "State  and  Local  E-­‐Government.  Prospects  and  Challenges",  The  American  Review  of  
Public  Administration,  vol.  33,  no.  1,  pp.  20-­‐45.  
Fedorowicz,  J.,  Gogan,  J.  &  Culnan,  M.  (2010),  "Barriers  to  Interorganizational  Information  Sharing  in  e-­‐
Government:  A  Stakeholder  Analysis",  The  Information  Society,  vol.  26,  no.  5,  pp.  315-­‐329.  

32
Groznik,  A.,  Kovacic,  A.  &  Trkman,  P.  (2008),  "The  Role  of  Business  Renovation  and  Information  in  E-­‐
Government",  The  Journal  of  Computer  Information  Systems,  vol.  49,  no.  1,  pp.  81-­‐89.  
Groznik,  A.  &  Trkman,  P.  (2009),  "Upstream  supply  chain  management  in  e-­‐government:  The  case  of  
Slovenia",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  26,  no.  3,  pp.  459-­‐467.  
Hammer,  M.  &  Al-­‐Qahtani,  F.  (2009),  "Enhancing  the  case  for  Electronic  Government  in  developing  nations:  
A  people-­‐centric  study  focused  in  Saudi  Arabia",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  26,  no.  1,  
pp.  137-­‐143.  
Helbig,  N.,  Gil-­‐García,  J.  &  Ferro,  E.  (2009),  "Understanding  the  complexity  of  electronic  government:  
Implications  from  the  digital  divide  literature",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  26,  no.  1,  
pp.  89-­‐97.  
Henning,  F.  &  Gar  Yein,  N.  (2009),  "The  Challenge  of  Collaboration  -­‐  ICT  Implementation  Networks  in  Courts  
in  the  Netherlands",  Transylvanian  Review  of  Administrative  Sciences,  vol.,  no.  28,  pp.  27-­‐44.  
Hinnant,  C.  &  O’looney,  J.  (2003),  "Examining  Pre-­‐Adoption  Interest  in  Online  Innovations:  An  Exploratory  
Study  of  E-­‐Service  Personalization  in  the  Public  Sector",  IEEE  Transactions  on  Engineering  
Management,  vol.  50,  no.  4,  pp.  436-­‐447.  
Hong,  S.,  Katerattanakul,  P.  &  Joo,  S.  (2008),  "Evaluating  government  website  accessibility:  A  comparative  
study",  International  Journal  of  Information  Technology  &  Decision  Making,  vol.  7,  no.  3,  pp.  491-­‐
515.  
Horst,  M.,  Kuttschreuter,  M.  &  Gutteling,  J.  (2007),  "Perceived  usefulness,  personal  experiences,  risk  
perception  and  trust  as  determinants  of  adoption  of  e-­‐government  services  in  The  Netherlands",  
Computers  in  Human  Behavior,  vol.  23,  no.  4,  pp.  1838-­‐1852.  
Hung,  M.  (2012),  "Building  Citizen-­‐centred  E-­‐government  in  Taiwan:  Problems  and  Prospects",  Australian  
Journal  of  Public  Administration,  vol.  71,  no.  2,  pp.  246-­‐255.  
Hung,  S.,  Chang,  C.  &  Yu,  T.  (2006),  "Determinants  of  user  acceptance  of  the  e-­‐Government  services:  The  
case  of  online  tax  filing  and  payment  system",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  23,  no.  1,  pp.  
97-­‐122.  
Jaeger,  P.  &  Thompson,  K.  (2004),  "Social  information  behavior  and  the  democratic  process:  Information  
poverty,  normative  behavior,  and  electronic  government  in  the  United  States",  Library  &  
Information  Science  Research,  vol.  26,  no.  1,  pp.  94-­‐107.  
Jho,  W.  (2005),  "Challenges  for  e-­‐governance:  protests  from  civil  society  on  the  protection  of  privacy  in  e-­‐
government  in  Korea",  International  Review  of  Administrative  Sciences,  vol.  71,  no.  1,  pp.  151-­‐166.  
Kamal,  M.,  Weerakkody,  V.  &  Irani,  Z.  (2011),  "Analyzing  the  role  of  stakeholders  in  the  adoption  of  
technology  integration  solutions  in  UK  local  government:  An  exploratory  study",  Government  
Information  Quarterly,  vol.  28,  no.  2,  pp.  200-­‐210.  
Karim,  M.  (2003),  "Technology  and  Improved  Service  Delivery:  Learning  Points  from  the  Malaysian  
Experience",  International  Review  of  Administrative  Sciences,  vol.  69,  no.  2,  pp.  191-­‐204.  
Kim,  H.,  Pan,  G.  &  Pan,  S.  (2007),  "Managing  IT-­‐enabled  transformation  in  the  public  sector:  A  case  study  on  
e-­‐government  in  South  Korea",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  24,  no.  2,  pp.  338-­‐352.  
Koh,  C.,  Ryan,  S.  &  Prybutok,  V.  (2005),  "Creating  Value  through  Managing  Knowledge  in  an  E-­‐Government  
to  Constituency  (G2C)  Environment",  Journal  of  Computer  Information  Systems,  vol.  45,  no.  4,  pp.  
32-­‐41.  
Kwon,  T.  &  Zmud,  R.  1987.  Unifying  the  fragmented  models  of  information  systems  implementation.  In:  
Boland,  R.  &  Hirschheim,  R.  (eds.)  Critical  Issues  in  Information  Svstems  Research.  New  York:  John  
Wiley  &  Sons,  Inc.  
Larsen,  K.  (2003),  "A  Taxonomy  of  Antecedents  of  Information  Systems  Success:  Variable  Analysis  Studies",  
Journal  of  Management  Information  Systems,  vol.  20,  no.  pp.  169-­‐246.  
Layne,  K.  &  Lee,  J.  (2001),  "Developing  fully  functional  E-­‐government:  A  four  stage  model",  Government  
Information  Quarterly,  vol.  18,  no.  2,  pp.  122-­‐136.  
Lee,  J.  (2010),  "10  year  retrospect  on  stage  models  of  e-­‐Government:  A  qualitative  meta-­‐synthesis",  
Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  27,  no.  3,  pp.  220-­‐230.  

33
Lee,  J.  &  Kim,  J.  (2007),  "Grounded  theory  analysis  of  e-­‐government  initiatives:  Exploring  perceptions  of  
government  authorities",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  24,  no.  1,  pp.  135-­‐147.  
Luna-­‐Reyes,  L.,  Gil-­‐Garcia,  J.  &  Cruz,  C.  (2007),  "Collaborative  digital  government  in  Mexico:  Some  lessons  
from  federal  Web-­‐based  interorganizational  information  integration  initiatives",  Government  
Information  Quarterly,  vol.  24,  no.  4,  pp.  808-­‐826.  
Luna-­‐Reyes,  L.,  Gil-­‐Garcia,  J.  &  Romero,  G.  (2012),  "Towards  a  multidimensional  model  for  evaluating  
electronic  government:  Proposing  a  more  comprehensive  and  integrative  perspective",  
Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  29,  no.  3,  pp.  324-­‐334.  
Maumbe,  B.,  Owei,  V.  &  Alexander,  H.  (2008),  "Questioning  the  pace  and  pathway  of  e-­‐government  
development  in  Africa:  A  case  study  of  South  Africa's  Cape  Gateway  project",  Government  
Information  Quarterly,  vol.  25,  no.  4,  pp.  757-­‐777.  
Miles,  M.  &  Huberman,  A.  (1994),  Qualitative  Data  Analysis:  An  Expanded  Sourcebook,  SAGE  Publications,  
Thousand  Oaks,  California.  
Mirchandani,  D.,  Johnson,  J.  &  Josh,  K.  (2008),  "Perspectives  of  citizens  towards  e-­‐government  in  Thailand  
and  Indonesia:  A  multigroup  analysis",  Information  Systems  Frontiers,  vol.  10,  no.  4,  pp.  483-­‐497.  
Moon,  M.  (2002),  "The  Evolution  of  E-­‐Government  among  Municipalities:  Rhetoric  or  Reality?",  Public  
Administration  Review,  vol.  62,  no.  4,  pp.  424-­‐433.  
Nengomasha,  C.,  Mchombu,  K.  &  Ngulube,  P.  (2010),  "Electronic  Government  Initiatives  in  the  Public  
Service  of  Namibia",  African  Journal  of  Library,  Archives  and  Information  Science,  vol.  20,  no.  2,  pp.  
125-­‐137.  
Norris,  D.  &  Moon,  M.  (2005),  "Advancing  E-­‐Government  at  the  Grassroots:  Tortoise  or  Hare?",  Public  
Administration  Review,  vol.  65,  no.  1,  pp.  64-­‐75.  
Ntaliani,  M.,  Costopoulou,  C.  &  Karetsos,  S.  (2008),  "Mobile  government:  A  challenge  for  agriculture",  
Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  25,  no.  4,  pp.  699-­‐716.  
Oecd  (2001),  "The  Hidden  Threat  to  E-­‐Government.  Avoiding  large  government  IT  failures",  OECD  Public  
Management  Policy  Brief,  vol.,  no.  8,  pp.  1-­‐6.  
Pieterson,  W.,  Ebbers,  W.  &  Van  Dijk,  J.  (2007),  "Personalization  in  the  public  sector:  An  inventory  of  
organizational  and  user  obstacles  towards  personalization  of  electronic  services  in  the  public  
sector",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  24,  no.  1,  pp.  148-­‐164.  
Rorissa,  A.  &  Demissie,  D.  (2010),  "An  analysis  of  African  e-­‐Government  service  websites",  Government  
Information  Quarterly,  vol.  27,  no.  2,  pp.  161-­‐169.  
Sæbø,  Ø.,  Flak,  L.  &  Sein,  M.  (2011),  "Understanding  the  dynamics  in  e-­‐Participation  initiatives:  Looking  
through  the  genre  and  stakeholder  lenses",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  28,  no.  3,  pp.  
416-­‐425.  
Sarantis,  D.,  Charalabidis,  Y.  &  Askounis,  D.  (2011),  "A  goal-­‐driven  management  framework  for  electronic  
government  transformation  projects  implementation",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  28,  
no.  1,  pp.  117-­‐128.  
Sarantis,  D.,  Smithson,  S.,  Charalabidis,  Y.  &  Askounis,  D.  (2010),  "A  Critical  Assessment  of  Project  
Management  Methods  with  Respect  to  Electronic  Government  Implementation  Challenges",  
Systemic  Practice  and  Action  Research,  vol.  23,  no.  4,  pp.  301-­‐321.  
Schuppan,  T.  (2009),  "E-­‐Government  in  developing  countries:  Experiences  from  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa",  
Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  26,  no.  1,  pp.  118-­‐127.  
Seng,  W.,  Jackson,  S.  &  Philip,  G.  (2010),  "Cultural  issues  in  developing  E-­‐Government  in  Malaysia",  
Behaviour  &  Information  Technology,  vol.  29,  no.  4,  pp.  423-­‐432.  
Shalini,  R.  (2009),  "Are  Mauritians  ready  for  e-­‐Government  services?",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  
vol.  26,  no.  3,  pp.  536-­‐539.  
Sharifi,  M.  &  Manian,  A.  (2010),  "The  study  of  the  success  indicators  for  pre-­‐implementation  activities  of  
Iran's  E-­‐Government  development  projects",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  27,  no.  1,  pp.  
63-­‐69.  

34
 Shi,  Y.  (2007),  "The  accessibility  of  Chinese  local  government  Web  sites:  An  exploratory  study",  Government  
Information  Quarterly,  vol.  24,  no.  2,  pp.  377-­‐403.  
Siau,  K.  &  Long,  Y.  (2005),  "Synthesizing  e-­‐government  stage  models  –  a  meta-­‐synthesis  based  on  meta-­‐
ethnography  approach",  Industrial  Management  &  Data  Systems,  vol.  105,  no.  4,  pp.  443-­‐458.  
Sipior,  J.,  Ward,  B.  &  Connolly,  R.  (2011),  "The  digital  divide  and  t-­‐government  in  the  United  States:  using  
the  technology  acceptance  model  to  understand  usage",  European  Journal  of  Information  Systems,  
vol.  20,  no.  3,  pp.  308-­‐328.  
Strejcek,  G.  &  Theil,  M.  (2003),  "Technology  push,  legislation  pull?  E-­‐government  in  the  European  Union",  
Decision  Support  Systems,  vol.  34,  no.  3,  pp.  305-­‐313.  
Tan,  C.  &  Benbasat,  I.  (2009),  "IT  Mediated  Customer  Services  in  E-­‐Government:  A  Citizen’s  Perspective",  
Communications  of  the  Association  for  Information  Systems,  vol.  24,  no.  Article  12.  
The  Oecd  E-­‐Government  Task  Force  (2003),  "The  Case  for  E-­‐Government:  Excerpts  from  the  OECD  Report  
"The  E-­‐Government  Imperative"",  OECD  Journal  on  Budgeting,  vol.  3,  no.  1,  pp.  61-­‐96.  
Tung,  L.  &  Rieck,  O.  (2005),  "Adoption  of  electronic  government  services  among  business  organizations  in  
Singapore",  The  Journal  of  Strategic  Information  Systems,  vol.  14,  no.  4,  pp.  417-­‐440.  
Verdegem,  P.  &  Verleye,  G.  (2009),  "User-­‐centered  E-­‐Government  in  practice:  A  comprehensive  model  for  
measuring  user  satisfaction",  Government  Information  Quarterly,  vol.  26,  no.  3,  pp.  487-­‐497.  
Wangwe,  C.,  Eloff,  M.  &  Venter,  L.  (2012),  "A  sustainable  information  security  framework  for  e-­‐Government  
–  case  of  Tanzania",  Technological  &  Economic  Development  of  Economy,  vol.  18,  no.  1,  pp.  117-­‐
131.  
Webster,  J.  &  Watson,  R.  (2002),  "Analyzing  the  past  to  prepare  for  the  future:  Writing  a  literature  review",  
MIS  Quarterly,  vol.  26,  no.  2,  pp.  xiii-­‐xxiii.  
Weerakkody,  V.,  Dwivedi,  Y.  &  Kurunananda,  A.  (2009),  "Implementing  E-­‐Government  in  Sri  Lanka:  Lessons  
from  the  UK",  Information  Technology  for  Development,  vol.  15,  no.  3,  pp.  171-­‐192.  
Weerakkody,  V.,  Janssen,  M.  &  Dwivedi,  Y.  (2011),  "Transformational  change  and  business  process  
reengineering  (BPR):  Lessons  from  the  British  and  Dutch  public  sector",  Government  Information  
Quarterly,  vol.  28,  no.  3,  pp.  320-­‐328.  
Willoughby,  M.,  Gómez,  H.  &  Lozano,  M.  (2010),  "Making  e-­‐government  attractive",  Service  Business,  vol.  4,  
no.  1,  pp.  49-­‐62.  
Wiredu,  G.  (2012),  "Information  systems  innovation  in  public  organisations:  an  institutional  perspective",  
Information  Technology  &  People,  vol.  25,  no.  2,  pp.  188-­‐206.  
Xiong,  J.  (2006),  "Current  status  and  needs  of  Chinese  e-­‐government  users",  Electronic  Library,  vol.  24,  no.  
6,  pp.  747-­‐762.  

35

View publication stats