Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
M. Prensky (2001)
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1on The Horizon, 9
European Commission
Involving Experts in the Process of National Policy Convergence
C. Cinca, C. Molinero, Alexandre Queiroz (2003)
The measurement of intangible assets in public sector using scaling techniquesJournal of Intellectual Capital, 4
S. Bennett, K. Maton, L. Kervin (2008)
The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidenceBr. J. Educ. Technol., 39
Irma Graafland-Essers, E. Ettedgui (2003)
Benchmarking e-government in Europe and the US
Suree Funilkul, W. Chutimaskul (2009)
The framework for sustainable eDemocracy developmentTransforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 3
Hepu Deng (2008)
Towards objective benchmarking of electronic government: an inter‐country analysisTransforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2
K. Layne, Jungwoo Lee (2001)
Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage modelGov. Inf. Q., 18
M. Yasin (2002)
The theory and practice of benchmarking: then and nowBenchmarking: An International Journal, 9
Gabriella Cattaneo, Cristiano Codagnone, Pál Gáspár, Patrick Wauters, K. Gareis (2007)
Benchmarking and measuring digital government: lessons from the EU experience
C. Centeno, R. van Bavel, J.C. Burgelman
Egovernment in the EU in the Next Decade: Vision and Challenges
Steve Jones, R. Hackney, Z. Irani (2007)
Towards e‐government transformation: conceptualising “citizen engagement”: A research noteTransforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1
F. Bannister
United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Egovernment Readiness Index
Alexandru Grigorescu (2003)
International Organizations and Government Transparency: Linking the International and Domestic RealmsInternational Studies Quarterly, 47
C. Cassell, G. Symon (2004)
Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research
R. Behn
The data don't speak for themselves
Bertelsmann Foundation
Begix – Messung Von Egovernment/E‐Democracy – Hintergrundinformationen Zur Methode
Øystein Sæbø, J. Rose, L. Flak (2008)
The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research areaGov. Inf. Q., 25
S. Borrás, Kerstin Jacobsson (2004)
The open method of co-ordination and new governance patterns in the EUJournal of European Public Policy, 11
Ines Mergel, Charlies Schweik, J. Fountain (2009)
The Transformational Effect of Web 2.0 Technologies on Government
M. Wisniewski (2001)
Using SERVQUAL to assess customer satisfaction with public sector servicesManaging Service Quality, 11
J. Creswell (2010)
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
Darell West (2006)
Global E-Government, 2006
Accenture
The New E‐government Equation: Ease, Engagement, Privacy and Protection
J. Caldow
The Quest for Electronic Government: A Defining Vision
Capgemini
Egovernment Benchmark Method Paper – 8th Measurement
Karen Anderson, R. McAdam (2004)
A critique of benchmarking and performance measurement: Lead or lag?Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11
Capgemini
Europe – Online Availability of Public Services: How Is Europe Progressing?
Richard Callahan, G. Gilbert (2005)
End-User Satisfaction and Design Features of Public AgenciesThe American Review of Public Administration, 35
Davy Janssen, Sabine Rotthier, Kris Snijkers (2004)
If you measure it they will score: An assessment of international eGovernment benchmarkingInf. Polity, 9
R. Behn
Compared with what?
Capgemini
The User Challenge – Benchmarking the Supply of Online Public Services
C. Reddick (2004)
A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for U.S. citiesGov. Inf. Q., 21
Archon Fung (2006)
Varieties of Participation in Complex GovernancePublic Administration Review, 66
B. Hayes (1997)
Measuring customer satisfaction : survey design, use, and statistical analysis methods
Capgemini
Smarter, Faster, Better Egovernment
F. Bannister (2007)
The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisonsInternational Review of Administrative Sciences, 73
European Commission
eEurope 2005: An Information Society for All
George Kopits, J. Craig (1998)
Transparency in government operations
I. Kanat, S. Ozkan (2009)
Exploring citizens' perception of government to citizen servicesTransforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 3
Bertelsmann Foundation
Balanced Egovernment
J. Fountain (2001)
Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change
Z. Irani, Madi Al-Sebie, Tony Elliman (2006)
Transaction Stage of e-Government Systems: Identification of Its Location and ImportanceProceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06), 4
David Osimo (2008)
Benchmarking eGovernment in the Web 2.0 era: what to measure, and how
B. Lanvin, S. Dutta, Fiona Paua (2003)
The Global Information Technology Report
Rocky Dwyer (2009)
Prepare for the impact of the multi‐generational workforce!Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 3
Van Ryzin, G. Gregg (2004)
Expectations, performance, and citizen satisfaction with urban servicesJournal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23
W. Wong, E. Welch (2004)
Does E‐Government Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Website Openness and Government AccountabilityGovernance, 17
Å. Grönlund (2003)
Emerging Electronic InfrastructuresSocial Science Computer Review, 21
Accenture
Egovernment Leadership – Realizing the Vision
Benjamin Mosse, E. Whitley (2009)
Critically classifying: UK e‐government website benchmarking and the recasting of the citizen as customerInformation Systems Journal, 19
J. Bullivant (1994)
Benchmarking for continuous improvement in the public sector
M. Prensky (2001)
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrantson The Horizon, 9
Cristiano Codagnone, T. Undheim (2008)
Benchmarking eGovernment : tools, theory, and practice, 1
A. Macintosh, A. Whyte (2008)
Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipationTransforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2
Unpan (2022)
Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective
Habin Lee, Z. Irani, I. Osman, Asim Balci, S. Ozkan, T. Medeni (2008)
Research note: Toward a reference process model for citizen‐oriented evaluation of e‐Government servicesTransforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2
C. Pollitt (2006)
Performance Management in Practice: A Comparative Study of Executive AgenciesJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16
Michael Williams (2008)
E‐government adoption in Europe at regional levelTransforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2
R. Behn (2003)
Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different MeasuresPublic Administration Review, 63
Alexander Schellong (2008)
Government 2.0Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2
Economist Intelligence Unit
The 2003 E‐readiness Rankings
Brad Rawlins (2008)
Give the Emperor a Mirror: Toward Developing a Stakeholder Measurement of Organizational TransparencyJournal of Public Relations Research, 21
R. Reed, David Lemak, J. Montgomery (1996)
Beyond Process: TQM Content and Firm PerformanceAcademy of Management Review, 21
C. Reddick (2005)
Empirical Models of E-Government Growth in Local Governmentse-Service Journal, 3
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to offer insights and suggestions for the design of existing and future e‐government benchmarks. Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents several frameworks to structure the discussion of e‐government benchmark design based on a review of existing research and practice. Second, it provides an overview of relevant benchmarking activities including new insights on the European Union's (EU's) benchmarking activities. Finally, suggestions for the future design of the EU's benchmarking are made. Findings – The scope of prominent e‐government benchmarks is mostly on the supply/output side and a development stage model of a selection of government (online) services. Benchmarks follow underlying cause‐and‐effect frameworks. Capturing government transformation also remains a core challenge. To discuss the design of e‐government benchmarks, a three‐tier structure is proposed: guiding principles, benchmark methodology, and reporting and learning. Overall, governments around the globe are facing significant changes in the coming years which will shape their thinking on digital government in general and the priorities for benchmarking it in particular. Among others, these are the trade‐off between free market and regulation, demographic change and the information economy. Practical implications – The paper provides policy makers and consultants with a framework to approach and discuss e‐government benchmarks in general and the future design of the EU e‐government benchmark in particular. Originality/value – The paper analyzes existing e‐government benchmarks, presents a framework for designing e‐government benchmarks and makes a range of recommendations on changes to the methodology of the EU e‐government benchmark.
Transforming Government People Process and Policy – Emerald Publishing
Published: Oct 12, 2010
Keywords: Benchmarking; Government; Communication technologies; European Union; United Nations
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.