icegov2012 proceedings

adult population. A recent more sophisticated statistical analysis
of this data concluded that there is no statistically significant
correlation between the level of supply of eGovernment services
and the level of usage [29]; [36]. The “Adoption Paradox”
encompasses, in our view, several of the reasons cited by the
authors who introduced the concept of the “eGovernment
Paradox” and those who explained the more famous “IT
Productivity Paradox”. It is almost self-explanatory that if
adoption does not reach significant levels then the financial
resources invested in eGovernment simply creates a stratification
of costs and no benefits, either internal or external (as was the
case at the beginning of Internet banking). So, it is strategic to
investigate in depth the reasons for non-adoption, as they will
include related issues such as the lack of restructuring of policy
making and implementation processes, measurement problems, all
of which explain the excessive time lag between the
implementation of eGovernment and the delivery of its promises.
In Section 2, we illustrate the method and conceptualisation used
and in Section 3 we report the results of the systematic analysis of
the adoption barriers uncovered by about twenty years of
scientific and practitioner-generated analysis and evidence. In
Section 4, we discuss in depth the key findings of our analysis.
These show that in the most mature public administrations, the
key barriers to a real take up of eGovernment are those related to
the lack of a structured policy evaluation process and a lack of
stakeholders' participation in the decision making process. Finally,
Section 5 offers the conclusions and directions for future research.
2. METHOD AND CONCEPTUALISATION
The systematic and diachronic analysis of eGovernment adoption
barriers is based on an extensive literature review of a wide range
of scientific journals and papers published in the last two decades,
as well as practitioner-generated analysis 1 . The results of the
literature review have been classified by re-elaborating the model
proposed in [37], to which we have added one more dimension of
analysis that we have called “Political/Institutional”. This has
been done in order to highlight specific barriers related to the
public policy management process. In order to make the results of
our analysis more intelligible and also actionable in terms of
future redesign of the eGovernment policy design and
implementation processes, we have further developed from the
original and well known work of Layne & Lee, [38, further
improved by Andersen [39] in 2006], our own version of the
Maturity Model (MM) against which the barriers have been
mapped. This re-elaboration integrated the original model with
key characteristics of eGovernment that have been identified by
several scholars in literature [6]; [13]; [16]; [18]; [40]; [41]; [42];
[43]. Our conceptualisation of the MM is illustrated in Figure 1
and it is explained here below. It must be stressed that this model
is a hybrid conceptual mix of empirical and prescriptive elements
in that the later stages of the model are based on very rare best
practices rather than widely observed empirical experiments.
The Maturity Model has two conceptual dimensions:
• Process orientation. This dimension is defined as a
combination of the following variables: a) level of
1 The literature review includes journals such as Government Information
Quarterly; Strategic Information Systems; Business Process Management
Journal; Journal of Global Information Management; Information Polity;
International Journal of Public Sector Management; International
Journal of Public Information System; Public Administration Review).
288
integration within each single public administration [42]; b)
level of integration across public administrations, in jargon
“joined-up government” [40]; [42]; [44]; and c) degree of
processes’ outcomes orientation [16].
• Citizens centricity. This dimension is defined as a
combination of the following variables: a) degree of civil
servants acceptance of, and support to, eGovernment [45];
and b) level of citizen involvement in eGovernment services
design and development [18]; [46]; [47].
Figure 1 – eGovernment Maturity Model Source: Authors
elaboration on [38]; [39].
In the space defined by the two axes, as illustrated in Figure 1, the
Maturity Model is shaped by two key drivers:
• People and Organization driver. This driver concerns: a)
the depth of the cultural changes in relation to eGovernment
both inside the administration and among citizens; and b) the
level of digital divide within which eGovernment is
embedded.
• Technology and Information driver. It helps to determine
which technological stage has been achieved by a given
public organization and the level of integration and openness
of public information and data to civil servants and citizens.
As a result of combining the two dimensions and the two drivers,
the following six stages of maturity can be identified:
• Stage 1 – Web presence through a simple online
transposition of administrative processes without a clear
orientation to outcomes. Typical eGovernment initiatives at
this stage focus on infrastructural projects aimed at bundling
the territory with ICT networks.
• Stage 2 – Communication backbones are laid down and wide
local area networks are completed. At this stage integration
initiatives at both organizational and technological level are
promoted within (among departments) and across public
administrations.
• Stage 3 – At this stage, transaction services are deployed
together with privacy and security solutions to support these
transactions. Dematerialization initiatives are largely adopted
together with significant back office simplification.
Management changes are introduced inside public
administrations. Civil servants’ and public managers’
performance evaluation is largely based upon their capability
to achieve simplification targets.
• Stage 4 – Outcome-oriented processes are widely
implemented thanks to ICT adoption. Actions aimed at
reducing digital divide and stimulating adoption of