Tomasz Janowski

22 From electronic governance to policy-

driven electronic governance – evolution
of technology use in government
Abstract: Policy-Driven Electronic Governance (EGOV) captures an idea that
through the appropriate use of Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT) we can transform the working of government organizations and how they
interact with citizens, businesses and other arms of government in order to achieve
a variety of high-value public policy goals. Such goals generally include delivering
better public services, reforming public institutions, engaging citizens in govern-
ment decision-making, and increasing the performance of public policies in
health, education, security, employment and other sectors. The aim of this chapter
is to outline the evolution of government use of technology, and to introduce Pol-
icy-Driven EGOV as the latest phase in this evolution by proposing: conceptual
model for Policy-Driven EGOV, evidence of emerging presence of Policy-Driven
EGOV among national EGOV strategies, challenges in progressing from EGOV to
Policy-Driven EGOV, and a research and policy agenda to build a foundation for
this new phase.

Keywords: information and communication technology, government, public policy,

electronic government, electronic governance, policy-driven electronic governance

While the provision of public services and infrastructure, formulation and imple-
mentation of public policies, and maintenance of social order and security remain
the core functions of any government, such functions must be increasingly per-
formed in both physical and digital worlds. With 86 % of the world’s population
using mobile phones and 33 % using the Internet by end of 2011, with fixed broad-
band prices falling by 75 % and the price of ICT services by 30 % between 2008
and 2011, with mobile-cellular services becoming the prime revenue source in
developing countries, and with broadband becoming part of national infrastruc-
tures in countries around the world (ITU 2012), no government can afford leaving
this space unattended or ungoverned. In order to establish their presence and
authority in the digital world and to improve their internal operations, government
organizations are increasingly adopting the latest in mobile, cloud, social, virtual
and other technologies following their private sector counterparts (Accenture
2013), and transforming themselves in the process.
The concept of Electronic Government captures an idea that the appropriate
use of ICT and the resulting transformation can positively change the internal

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
426 Tomasz Janowski

working of government and lead towards: more efficient operations, better public
service delivery, and more effective public administration reform including the
reform of public finances, leadership, human resource management, transparency,
procurement, regulation and many others (OECD 2011). This understanding is
reflected by the early but still relevant definition of Electronic Government as “the
use of information and communication technologies, and particularly the Internet,
as a tool to achieve better government” (OECD 2003). However, the impact of ICT
extends beyond government boundaries, and includes how government interacts
with various outside entities. We refer to this broader concept as Electronic Gover-
nance (EGOV) “the application of technology by government to transform itself
and its interactions with customers, in order to create impact on the society”
(Estevez and Janowski 2013). The goals of such transformation include engaging
citizens in government decision-making, building Knowledge Society for all
(UNESCO 2009) and increasing the performance of public policies in health, educa-
tion, economy, security, and other sectors, in addition to Electronic Government-
specific goals. The concepts of Electronic Government and Electronic Governance
are contrasted in (Grönlund and Horan 2004).
In this chapter we make an argument that the difference between Electronic
Government and Electronic Governance is not just conceptual but part of a larger
evolution of the use of technology by governments. The chapter tracks this evolu-
tion by identifying four distinctive development phases with corresponding sets
of goals, challenges and limitations: 1. Technology in Government – deploying
technology in government, 2. Electronic Government – transforming government
organizations through technology, 3. Electronic Governance – transforming rela-
tionships between government and citizens, businesses and other non-state actors
through technology, and 4. Policy-Driven Electronic Governance – supporting pol-
icy and development goals in different locations and sectors through technology
and how it transforms government and its relationships with citizens and other
non-state actors. Policy-Driven Electronic Governance, the latest and still largely
undeveloped phase, is the subject of the remainder of this chapter where we
present: a conceptual model for Policy-Driven EGOV, offer some evidence that vari-
ous elements of Policy-Driven EGOV already appear among national EGOV strate-
gies, outline some challenges in progressing from EGOV to Policy-Driven EGOV,
and propose a research and policy agenda to build a foundation for this new
phase.
The rest of this chapter is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the evolu-
tion of the use of technology by governments and identifies four distinctive phases
in this evolution. Section 3 proposes a conceptual model to explain the latest phase
in this evolution – Policy-Driven EGOV. Section 4 provides some evidence that
Policy-Driven EGOV is starting to take roots among national EGOV strategies by
most advanced countries in this area. Section 5 outlines a research and policy
agenda for Policy-Driven EGOV. The final Section 6 provides some conclusions.

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
 From electronic governance to policy-driven electronic governance 427

1 Evolving use of technology by government

Over the past two decades, the goals of government investment in technology
has changed significantly, from increasing the quality and efficiency of internal
government operations, through delivering better public services and making them
available across both traditional and electronic channels, to facilitating adminis-
trative and institutional reform in government, engaging citizens in policy- and
decision-making processes, and (more recently) directly supporting policy and
development goals in health, education, economy, security and other sectors. With
evolving goals, the type of initiatives undertaken by governments to fulfill them
evolved as well. The aim of this section is to identify four phases in this evolution:
1. technological – Technology in Government, 2. organizational – Electronic Gov-
ernment, 3. socio-economic – Electronic Governance, and 4. context-specific – Pol-
icy-Driven Electronic Governance. These phases are depicted in Table 1 and
described as follows.

Tab. 1: Evolving Use of Technology by Government

Phases Context Goals

Phase 1 Technology in Technological Increasing the quality and efficiency

Government of internal government operations

Delivering public services across

traditional and electronic channels
Phase 2 Electronic Government Organizational

Facilitating administrative and

institutional reform in government

Phase 3 Electronic Governance Socio-economic Engaging citizens and other non-state

actors in decision-making processes

Phase 4 Policy-Driven Context-specific Supporting policy and development

Electronic Governance goals in specific locations and sectors

1.1 Phase 1 – technology in government

Phase 1 “Technology in Government” focuses essentially on deploying technologi-
cal environment in government (Ojo et al. 2011) in order to digitize government
information, equip government officials with the appropriate technological tools,
automate government processes and work practices and others. The goals pursued
in this phase include: establishing government portals to publish government
information and services online (Rorissa and Demissie 2010), empowering govern-

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
428 Tomasz Janowski

ment officials with various technological tools (Scholl et al. 2007) and introducing
information systems to manage existing business processes (Weerakkody et al.
2006). The challenges to fulfill such goals include: connecting agencies, citizens
and businesses to the Internet (ITU 2012); ensuring that the systems run by differ-
ent government organizations are interoperable (Scholl and Klischewski 2007);
and connecting legacy systems to other systems and to the Internet (Lam 2005).
However, as Phase 1 focuses on technological development alone, it is unable to
help improve existing business processes and work practices, to ensure inter-
agency cooperation or real-time responsiveness by government organizations to
make available seamless and transactional services, or to demonstrate that govern-
ment investment in technology can create sustainable benefits to the public.

1.2 Phase 2 – electronic government

Learning from the limitations of the Phase 1, Phase 2 “Electronic Government” is
not focused on technology alone but on utilizing technology to improve organiza-
tional environment within government, on transforming the internal working of
government through technology. The goals pursued at this phase include: aligning
technology and business processes within a government organization (Kim et al.
2007), training government officials in new technological skills (Edelmann et al.
2013), enabling cross-agency collaboration (Ramon Gil-Garcia et al. 2007), promot-
ing whole-of-government (Christensen and Lægreid 2007), developing seamless
services (Estevez 2009) and building one-stop portals and offering seamless servi-
ces according to the needs of citizens and not the internal structure of government
(Wimmer 2002). The challenges to fulfill such goals include: hierarchical organiza-
tion and command-and-control operation, inward looking culture and lack of col-
laboration in government, lack of compatible technological infrastructure and
common standards between agencies, and lack of customer orientation and resist-
ance to change (Ke and Wei 2004). However, as Phase 2 initiatives focus on organi-
zational improvement in government alone, they are unable to increase the usage
of electronic channels by the public (Carter and Bélanger 2005) to match increased
supply of government information and services electronically, to carry out public
consultation on design and content of different delivery channels (Anthopoulos et
al. 2007), to build capacity among different groups of citizens in using electronic
channels (van Deursen and van Dijk 2009), or to demonstrate that improvements
in internal government organization can create sustainable benefits to the public.

1.3 Phase 3 – electronic governance

Learning from the limitations of Phase 2, Phase 3 “Electronic Governance” is not
focused on organizational improvement in government alone but on improving

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
 From electronic governance to policy-driven electronic governance 429

relationships between government on the one side, and citizens, businesses and
other non-state actors on the another (Reddick 2005). The goals pursued at this
phase include: making government portals accessible to all groups in the society
(West 2005), utilizing social media to engage citizens in government decision-mak-
ing (Bertot et al. 2010), making government data available online for businesses
and non-profits to build useful services for citizens (Hendler et al. 2012), promoting
the use of electronic procurement for businesses to be able to sell goods and servi-
ces to government (Padhi and Mohapatra 2010), integrating public, private and
non-profit services into one service space (Chan et al. 2008), and co-creating of
public services (Linders 2012). In general, government is expected to create and
maintain a platform for all relevant actors to create public value through collabora-
tion and innovation (Janssen and Estevez 2013), and this role requires a range of
legal, institutional, cultural and other transformations. The challenges to fulfill
such goals include: large differences among different groups in the society
between access to technology (e.g. digital skills) and ability to benefit from access
to technology (e.g. information society education); lack of trust in government and
particularly its willingness and ability to address societal needs; and increased
engagement of non-state actors in delivering public services, executing public pro-
grams and spending public funds, raising the risk of corruption and lack of
accountability (Langford and Roy 2009). Unlike Phase 1 and 2, Phase 3 can directly
create public value, for instance by ensuring the actual usage of electronic public
services by addressing both supply (Electronic Government) and demand (Digital
Divide) sides. However, while improving relationships between government and
its constituencies as part of Phase 3 is important, it does not automatically lead
to improved conditions of these constituencies.

1.4 Phase 4 – policy-driven electronic governance

Learning from the limitation of Phase 3, Phase 4 “Policy-Driven Electronic Gover-
nance” is not just focused on improving the relationships between government
and its constituencies but on improving the conditions of these constituencies
through better organization within government and improved relationships with
government due to transformative use of technology. However, in order to contrib-
ute to improving the conditions of citizens, businesses and other non-state actors,
Policy-Driven EGOV cannot restrict itself to working on the national level or focus
on addressing cross-sectoral issues alone. It must focus on a specific application
environment (both location and sector) and tailor its response to the needs and
circumstances of this environment in terms of the choice of locally-relevant and/
or sector-specific goals, locally-acceptable and sectorally-feasible ways of pursuing
such goals, and managing the impact of meeting such goals on the local environ-
ment and the sector involved. The locations can vary across all levels of govern-
ment – national, provincial and local. The sectors can cover health, education,

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
430 Tomasz Janowski

economy, environment, governance, security and other sectors. Policy-Driven

EGOV is expected to directly support policy and development goals in different
locations and sectors, while taking into account location- and sector-specific goals
and circumstances. The concept is elaborated in subsequent sections.

2 Policy-driven electronic governance – model

This section proposes a conceptual model for Policy-Driven Electronic Governance.
Given the focus on improving the conditions of citizens, businesses and other non-
state actors through technology-enabled improvements within government and in
relationships between government and its constituencies, Policy-Driven EGOV
naturally connects to the issues of governance and development. The model relies
upon well-established link between both, with governance playing a key role in
any development effort and good governance considered a pre-condition to achiev-
ing any form of development.
The concept of Policy-Driven Electronic Governance can be applied to a range
of public policies. Here we apply this concept to Sustainable Development (SD)
“the development that meets the needs of the present generation without compro-
mising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs” (World Com-
mission on Environment and Development 1987), and propose a model for SD-
Driven Electronic Governance (EGOV4SD) to capture the notion that EGOV sup-
ports simultaneous pursuit of social, economic, environmental dimensions of sus-
tainability (Estevez and Janowski 2013). Each dimension includes a variety of con-
cerns: social dimension includes among others poverty and inequality, hunger
and malnutrition, gender imbalance, illiteracy, maternal and infant mortality, and
access to communication; environmental dimension includes among others cli-
mate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, water scarcity, land degradation and
fish stock depletion; and economic dimension includes among others transporta-
tion, energy consumption, logistics and growth. In addition, transitional dimen-
sion captures ongoing pursuit of sustainable practices and lifestyles and includes
among others environmentally-friendly technology and practice, integration of
environmental dimensions into policies and plans, energy from renewable sources,
green accounting and access of under-privileged groups.
In order to balance the pursuit of such goals, SD faces specific governance
issues including: 1. engaging the whole society and economy – citizens, businesses
and other non-state actors in sustainability transition, 2. integrating public policies
across different levels and sectors to ensure coherency of government decisions,
and 3. adopting a long-term perspective in public policy development to address
inter-generational concerns. Technology in turn can play an important role in
addressing such SD-specific governance issues, for instance by facilitating feed-
back from citizens (including the youth) to public policy drafts through electronic

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
 From electronic governance to policy-driven electronic governance 431

Fig. 1: Conceptual model for EGOV4SD.

participation and deliberation channels, crowdsourcing and promoting ideas how

to utilize technology and innovation for sustainability, consolidating whole-of-gov-
ernment responses to public policy challenges and making openly available policy-
and development-related data for better research, models and decisions.
Figure 1 above depicts possible conceptual model for EGOV4SD. In this model,
SD is depicted at the intersection of economic, social and environmental sustaina-
bility representing simultaneous pursuit of the goals related to these dimension;
EGOV is depicted at the intersection of administrative system, political system and
civil society, representing how technology can be used to transform the working
of administrative and political systems and their relationships with the society;
EGOV4SD is depicted at the intersection of technology, governance and SD, repre-
senting technology-enabled governance of SD.

3 Policy-driven electronic governance – evidence

This section presents some evidence that EGOV development, as observed at the
national, regional and global levels, is increasingly contributing to various dimen-
sions of sustainability. In the process, we validate the proposed model for
EGOV4SD. The evidence was drawn from three national EGOV strategies from Sing-
apore (Government of Singapore 2011), Korea (Ministry of Public Administration
and Security 2011), and Estonia (Government of Estonia 2006), regional strategy
pursued by the European Union (European Commission 2010), and two global
EGOV ranking instruments published by the United Nations (UNDESA 2012) and
Waseda University (Waseda University 2012), and is depicted in Table 2.

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
432 Tomasz Janowski

Tab. 2: SD dimensions among EGOV strategies.

According to this sample, economic sustainability is pursued through e.g.

innovation centers and entrepreneurship, joint growth among e-government stake-
holders, third party involvement in EGOV development, and integrating public,
private and third sector services into one service space; social sustainability is
pursued through e.g. establishment of electronic health records, improvements to
services that cater to different needs, involving stakeholders in public policy proc-
esses, traceability of the use of one’s own data, Internet in rural areas, multi-
channel service delivery and digital inclusion and ICT for ageing society; environ-
mental sustainability is pursued through e.g. reducing carbon footprint through
green IT systems, promoting awareness of environmental issues and cloud com-
puting and resource utilization. In addition, increased transparency in government
operations and disaster management and business continuity contribute to transi-
tional sustainability through building trust in government and maintaining a reli-
able technological environment.

4 Policy-driven electronic governance – agenda

This section explains the challenges in performing the transition from EGOV to
Policy-Driven EGOV including: 1. shortage of research and understanding about

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
 From electronic governance to policy-driven electronic governance 433

developing EGOV in specific locations and sectors, 2. absence of EGOV policy and
development instruments adapted to requirements and conditions in particular
locations and sectors, 3. shortage of human capacity within such locations and
sectors to be able to build and utilize such instruments, 4. lack of models and
experience of engaging universities and other non-private actors in EGOV initia-
tives, and 5. fundamentally different nature of the transition from EGOV to Policy-
Driven EGOV – narrowing the application context, compared to earlier transi-
tions – widening the application context, making incremental development diffi-
cult. We also propose an action agenda to overcome such challenges.

4.1 Location- and sector-specific EGOV research

While there is a growing experience and body of research on how to plan, develop
and sustain EGOV initiatives in general, systematic studies and cases of how EGOV
initiatives are being deployed in different locations and sectors are scarce. Even
scarcer is research into theories, methods and tools that facilitate location- and
sector-focused EGOV development. Some of the probing questions are: In what
aspects is the choice of a particular location or sector affecting EGOV develop-
ment? Which development stages – planning, design, implementation, operation,
sustainability – are affected and how? How to adapt location- and sector-inde-
pendent EGOV development instruments to particular locations and sectors to opti-
mize their performance? How to transfer adaptation experience between locations
and sectors? A focused research effort is required to develop a better understand-
ing of location- and sector-aware EGOV and to explore and answer these and other
relevant questions.

4.2 Location- and sector-specific EGOV instruments

As each location and sector comes with its own set of conditions, goals and accept-
able ways of pursuing such goals given the conditions, Policy-Driven EGOV must
rely on location- and sector-specific policies and development instruments. For
example, applying generic one-size-fits-all EGOV maturity stages like e.g. informa-
tion, interaction, transactions and data-sharing to track progress in EGOV develop-
ment (the higher maturity, the better) may be appropriate for some countries but
not for others. Likewise, measuring the performance of Policy-Driven EGOV should
rely on the indicators that reflect locally-defined policy goals, not on the one-size-
fits-all generic benchmark instruments. For example, context-aware benchmarking
would allow locations or sectors to learn from their peers – locations and sectors
in similar development conditions, or leaders – locations and sectors most success-
ful in pursuing the relevant public policy goals. In these and other cases, a focused
research, development and policy efforts are required to build, apply and institu-
tionalize the use of such instruments.

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
434 Tomasz Janowski

4.3 Location- and sector-specific EGOV capacity

While the knowledge of the local or sectoral conditions, ownership of the local or
sectoral development goals and awareness of locally- or sectorally-acceptable ways
of pursing such goals are critical for successful planning and implementation of
Policy-Driven EGOV, the capacity to engage in such planning and implementation
is increasingly scarce for lower levels of government and possibly within different
sectors. Instead of focusing the resources and capacity at the central level for
visibility and prestige, a focused effort is required to build human and institutional
capacity at the local levels, choosing the right level to balance effectiveness and
efficiency of the response, and promoting collaboration between levels. A similar
effort is required to refocus Policy-Driven EGOV initiatives from cross-sectoral
issues referring to public administration, public services, public policy, etc. to sec-
toral issues to address the needs of health, education, security, economy, environ-
ment and other sectors. In both cases, location- and sector-specific EGOV educa-
tion programs are also required to enable a new generation of government leaders,
managers and experts to emerge.

4.4 Location- and sector-specific EGOV networks

The outcome of Policy-Driven EGOV depends on government being able to engage
citizens, businesses, academia, non-profits and other non-state actors in various
network forms aimed at formulating and pursuing location- and sector-specific
development goals through EGOV initiatives. However, such networks are still
scarce particularly among local governments, so is the experience with establish-
ing and operating them. Within multi-stakeholder Policy-Driven EGOV networks,
academia could contribute to planning and design of EGOV initiatives; the private
sector could contribute to development and implementation; while the non-profit
sector would ensure the delivery of benefits from EGOV initiatives to the target
group of stakeholders, thus contributing to their sustainability. As part of such
networks, local universities and the universities located within specific sectors
have a key role to play in formulating location- and sector-specific policies, in
constructing development instruments to support such policies, and in building
local capacity to apply such instruments. In addition, such networks could also
facilitate the transfer of local-level and sector-specific EGOV innovations within
and between countries, thus contributing to accelerating local development.

4.5 From EGOV to policy-driven EGOV

Concerning the evolving use of technology by government, the nature of the transi-
tion from phase 3 (EGOV) to 4 (Policy-Driven EGOV) is to narrow (localize or spe-
cialize) the application context, whereas all transitions from phase 1 (Technology

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
 From electronic governance to policy-driven electronic governance 435

in Government) to phase 2 (Electronic Government) and from phase 2 (Electronic

Government) to phase 3 (Electronic Governance) is to gradually expand the appli-
cation context. Given this fundamental difference, it is difficult to carry out the
transition from EGOV to Policy-Driven EGOV by building incrementally upon ear-
lier phases. The transition requires investment into: 1. research and innovation
including location- and sector-specific EGOV research – Section 4.1, 2. policy sup-
port including development of location- and sector-specific EGOV policies and
instruments – Section 4.2, 3. capacity building including building location- and
sector-specific EGOV capacity at both individual and institutional levels – Section
4.3, and 4. network development including the development of multi-stakeholder
location- and sector-specific EGOV networks – Section 4.4. Lacking location- and
sector-specific EGOV implementation evidence, the transition also requires the
ability to run controlled experiments in applying EGOV to various location- and
sector-specific policy and development goals, and to develop and validate theories
while learning from such experiments. Table 3 presents an integrated agenda for
transition towards Policy-Driven EGOV.

Tab. 3: From EGOV to policy-driven EGOV – integrated agenda.

Research Policy Capacity Net-

and Support Building work
Innova- Develop-
tion ment

1 Location- and sector-specific EGOV research x

2 Location- and sector-specific EGOV instruments x x

3 Location- and sector-specific EGOV capacity x

4 Location- and sector-specific EGOV networks x

5 Location- and sector-specific EGOV agenda x x x x

5 Conclusions
This chapter focused on the use of Information and Communication Technologies
in government and how this usage has been evolving over the past two decades
through the progression of various development goals: 1. improvements in internal
government operations, 2. delivery of better public services, 3. institutional and
administrative reform in government, 4. engagement of citizens and other non-
stage actors in government decision-making processes, and 5. direct contributions
to policy and development goals in health, education, economy, environment and
other sectors. The chapter identified four phases in this evolution, characterized

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
436 Tomasz Janowski

Tab. 4: Characterizing phases in technology use by government.

Phases Characterization

Transformation Includes Location- and

of government? non-state actors? sector-specific?

1 Technology in Government no no no

2 Electronic Government yes no no

3 Electronic Governance yes yes no

4 Policy-Driven Electronic yes yes yes

Governance

by the presence of transformation in government to accompany technological

development, the nature of this transformation being internal to government or
also involving relationships between the government and its various stakeholders,
and whether this transformation is location- and sector-independent or it responds
to the needs and conditions of different locations or sectors. The resulting charac-
terization is depicted in Table 4.
The chapter then focused on the latest “Policy-Driven Electronic Governance”
phase, providing a conceptual model for this phase based on a Sustainable Devel-
opment framework, some evidence of the presence of Policy-Driven Electronic Gov-
ernance among existing EGOV strategies at the national, regional and global
levels, and an action agenda to facilitate the transition from EGOV to Policy-Driven
EGOV.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Elsa Estevez for collaboration, discussions and
very useful feedback received on earlier versions of this chapter.

References
Accenture. 2013. Accenture Technology Vision 2013 − Every Business is Digital Business.
http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-Technology-Vision-2013-
Executive-Summary.pdf (Accessed 12 April 2014).
Anthopoulos, Leo G., Panagiotis Siozos & Ioannis A. Tsoukalas. 2007. Applying participatory
design and collaboration in digital public services for discovering and re-designing
e-Government services. Government Information Quarterly 24(2). 353–376.
http://dde.teilar.gr/publications/141/141fulltext.pdf (Accessed 12 April 2014).

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
 From electronic governance to policy-driven electronic governance 437

Bertot, John C., Paul T. Jaeger & Justin M. Grimes. 2010. Using ICTs to create a culture of
transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for
societies. Government Information Quarterly 27(3). 264–271. http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0740624X10000201 (Accessed 12 April 2014).
Carter, Lemuria & France Bélanger. 2005. The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust,
innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal 15(1). 5–25.
Chan, Calvin M. L., Yimeng Lau & Shan L. Pan. 2008. E-government implementation: A macro
analysis of Singapore’s e-government initiatives. Government Information Quarterly 25(2).
239–255. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X06001651 (Accessed
12 April 2014).
Christensen, Tom & Per Lægreid. 2007. The Whole-of-Government Approach to Public Sector
Reform. Public Administration Review 67(6). 1059–1066.
Edelmann, Noella, Peter Parycek & Judith Schossbock. 2013. Exit the E-government Ivory Tower: A
Training Strategy − A Case Study from Austria. In 2013 46 th Hawai‘i International Conference
on System Sciences, 1674–1683. IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA.
Estevez, Elsa 2009. Programmable Messaging for Electronic Government. National University of
the South PhD Thesis.
Estevez, Elsa & Tomasz Janowski. 2013. Electronic Governance for Sustainable Development –
Conceptual framework and state of research. Government Information Quarterly 30. 94–109.
European Commission. 2010. The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011–2015. Brussels, 15
December 2010.
Government of Estonia. 2006. Estonian Information Society Strategy 2013.
http://www.epractice.eu/files/media/media_186.pdf (Accessed 12 April 2014).
Government of Singapore. 2011. e-Government Master Plan 2011–2015, Connecting People,
Enriching Lives. http://www.egov.gov.sg/egov-masterplans/egov-2015/vision-strategic-
thrusts (Accessed 12 April 2014).
Grönlund, Åke & Thomas A. Horan. 2004. Introducing e-Gov: History, Definitions, and Issues.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems 15(1). 713–729.
Hendler, James, Jeanne Holm, C. Musialek & G. Thomas. 2012. US Government Linked Open Data:
Semantic.data.gov. IEEE Intelligent Systems 27(3). 25–31.
ITU − International Telecommunication Union. 2012. Measuring the Information Society.
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/ (Accessed 12 April 2014).
Janssen, Marijin & Elsa Estevez. 2013. Lean government and platform-based governance – Doing
more with less. Government Information Quarterly 30(1). S1–S8.
Ke, Weiling & Kwok Kee Wei. 2004. Successful e-government in Singapore. Communications of
the ACM 47(6). 95–99.
Kim, Hyun Jeong, Gary Pan & Shan Ling Pan. 2007. Managing IT-enabled transformation in the
public sector: A case study on e-government in South Korea. Government Information
Quarterly 24(2). 338–352.
Lam, Wing. 2005. Barriers to e-government integration. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management 18(5). 511–530.
Langford, John & Jeffrey Roy. 2009. Building shared accountability into service transformation
partnerships. International Journal of Public Policy 4(3/4). 232.
Linders, Dennis. 2012. From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen
coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly 29(4). 446–454.
Ministry of Public Administration and Security. 2011. Smart Government Implementation Plan
2011–2015. In “Digital Society Development in Korea”. In “Digital Society Development of
Korea”, http://egovexport.or.kr/site/egovexport/upload/book/digital_society_development_
of_korea.pdf
OECD − Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2003. The e-Government
Imperative. OECD Publishing.

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM
438 Tomasz Janowski

OECD − Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2011. Government at a Glance
2011. OECD Publishing.
Ojo, Adegboyega, Tomasz Janowski & Esla Estevez. 2011. Whole-of-government approach to
information technology strategy management: Building a sustainable collaborative
technology environment in government. Information Polity 16(3). 243–260.
Padhi, Sidhartha S. & Pratap K. J. Mohapatra. 2010. Adoption of e-procurement in the
government departments. Electronic Government, an International Journal 7(1). 41.
Ramon Gil-Garcia J., InduShobha Chengalur-Smith & Peter Duchessi. 2007. Collaborative
e-Government: impediments and benefits of information-sharing projects in the public
sector. European Journal of Information Systems 16(2). 121–133.
Reddick, Christopher G. 2005. Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers?
Government Information Quarterly 22(1). 38–57.
Rorissa, Abebe & Dawit Demissie. 2010. An analysis of African e-Government service websites.
Government Information Quarterly 27(2). 161–169.
Scholl, Hans Jochen, Raya Fidel, Shuhua Monica Liua, Michael Paulsmeyer & Kris Unsworth.
2007. E-government field force automation: Promises, challenges, and stakeholders.
In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 4656, 127–142.
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-38049054789 & partnerID=tZOtx3y1
(Accessed 12 April).
Scholl, Hans Jochen & Ralf Klischewski. 2007. E-Government Integration and Interoperability:
Framing the Research Agenda. International Journal of Public Administration 30(8–9). 889–
920.
UNDESA − UN Depertment of Economic and Social Affairs. 2012. UN E-Government Survey 2012 −
E-Government for the People. United Nations, New York, 2012.
UNESCO − UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2009. National Information
Society Policy: A Template. UNESCO, Paris, November 2009.
Van Deursen, A. J. A. M. & J. A. G. M van Dijk. 2009. Improving digital skills for the use of online
public information and services. Government Information Quarterly 26(2). 333–340.
Waseda University. 2012. Waseda University International e-Government Ranking 2012.
http://www.waseda.jp/eng/news11/120224_egov.html (accessed 12 April 2014).
Weerakkody, Vishanth, Simon Baire, Jyoti Choudrie. 2006. E-Government: The Need for Effective
Process Management in the Public Sector. In Proceedings of the 39 th Annual Hawai‘i
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06). Vol. 4, 74b–74b. IEEE.
West, Darrell M. 2005. Equity and Accessibility in E-Government. Journal of E-Government 1(2).
31–43.
Wimmer, Maria A. 2002. A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGOV
project. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1(1). 92–103.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Authenticated | twjanowski@gmail.com
Download Date | 12/30/16 3:43 PM