Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

E‐government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration

E‐government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for assessing the maturity level of electronic government (e‐government). Design/methodology/approach – The conceptual framework is based on two models: the intellectual capital (IC) management and the capability maturity model integration (CMMI). Findings – The framework is composed of four input areas (human capital, structural capital, relational capital, and IT investment) and five maturity stages (web presence, interaction, transaction, integration, and continuous improvement). These areas are assessed by using the IC management model and the CMMI model. Employing the IC management process enables not only practitioners to effectively manage resources, but also auditors to more objectively assess the input area. Using the CMMI model allows governments to conduct process‐based assessments. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the literature and practice in the following ways. First, it outlines how to define and assess key attributes of e‐government activities. It can help governments to enhance the awareness and understanding of maturity levels of e‐government. Second, this research expands the scope of current studies on a maturity model by providing a balanced view between input factors (resources) and results (maturity stages). For practitioners, assessing the input factors enables them to realize how to prioritize strategies and resources. For academics, this attempt sheds light on the concepts of IC in e‐government studies. Third, considering the CMMI model will be helpful to conduct an objective and useful assessment. On the basis of a matrix for assessing maturity levels, governments can conduct self‐assessment and establish stable and mature implementation processes. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Systems and Information Technology Emerald Publishing

E‐government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration

Download PDF
15 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/e-government-maturity-model-using-the-capability-maturity-model-0s7CpdvhG5
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1328-7265
DOI
10.1108/13287261011070858
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for assessing the maturity level of electronic government (e‐government). Design/methodology/approach – The conceptual framework is based on two models: the intellectual capital (IC) management and the capability maturity model integration (CMMI). Findings – The framework is composed of four input areas (human capital, structural capital, relational capital, and IT investment) and five maturity stages (web presence, interaction, transaction, integration, and continuous improvement). These areas are assessed by using the IC management model and the CMMI model. Employing the IC management process enables not only practitioners to effectively manage resources, but also auditors to more objectively assess the input area. Using the CMMI model allows governments to conduct process‐based assessments. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the literature and practice in the following ways. First, it outlines how to define and assess key attributes of e‐government activities. It can help governments to enhance the awareness and understanding of maturity levels of e‐government. Second, this research expands the scope of current studies on a maturity model by providing a balanced view between input factors (resources) and results (maturity stages). For practitioners, assessing the input factors enables them to realize how to prioritize strategies and resources. For academics, this attempt sheds light on the concepts of IC in e‐government studies. Third, considering the CMMI model will be helpful to conduct an objective and useful assessment. On the basis of a matrix for assessing maturity levels, governments can conduct self‐assessment and establish stable and mature implementation processes.

Journal

Journal of Systems and Information Technology – Emerald Publishing

Published: Aug 17, 2010

Keywords: Government; Intellectual capital; Strategic evaluation

References

  • E‐government: a strategic operations management framework for service delivery
    Affisco, J.F.; Soliman, K.S.
  • E‐government maturity models: extension of the Layne and Lee model
    Anderson, K.V.; Henriksen, H.Z.
  • E‐government maturity at Spanish local levels
    Claver‐Cortes, E.; De Juana‐Espinosa, S.; Jose Tari, J.
  • Implementing the balanced scorecard using the analytic hierarchy process
    Clinton, B.D.; Webber, S.A.; Hassell, J.M.
  • Reporting organisational performance in managing human resources
    Cuganesan, S.
  • Intangibles and sustainability in local government reports: an analysis into an uneasy relationship
    Del Bello, A.
  • Analysing Intellectual Capital Statements
    DMSTI
  • Assessing for Excellence
    EFQM
  • The sell side – observations on intellectual capital indicators
    Flostrand, P.
  • Techniques for improving response rates in OM survey research
    Frohlich, M.T.
  • Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government
    Gottschalk, P.
  • Developing a generic framework for e‐government
    Grant, G.; Chau, D.
  • Privacy Strategies for Electronic Government, E‐Government Series
    Hiller, J.; Belanger, F.
  • Characterizing the software process: a maturity framework
    Humphrey, W.S.
  • Capability Maturity Framework for E‐Government: A Multi‐Dimensional Model and Assessing Tool
    Iribarren, M.; Concha, G.; Valdes, G.; Solar, M.; Villarroel, M.T.; Gutierrez, P.; Vasquez, A.
  • Realizing joined‐up government – dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation
    Klievink, B.; Janssen, M.
  • Developing fully functional e‐government: a four stage model
    Layne, K.; Lee, J.
  • Choosing a technological forecasting method
    Levary, R.R.; Han, D.
  • Quality measures for libraries and information services
    Melo, L.B.; Sampaio, M.I.
  • Review: information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value
    Melville, N.; Kraemer, K.; Gurbaxani, V.
  • Guidelines for Managing and Reporting on Intangibles
    Meritum project
  • Comparison of EPA'S QMS to SEI'S CMMI
    Mills, P.; Braun, L.; Marohl, D.
  • The evolution of e‐government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality?
    Moon, M.J.
  • Dealing with the knowledge economy: intellectual capital versus balanced scorecard
    Mouritsen, J.; Larsen, H.T.; Bukh, P.N.
  • A framework for assisting the design of effective software process improvement implementation strategies
    Niazi, M.; Wilson, D.; Zowghi, D.
  • Creating Value From Intellectual Assets
    OECD
  • On the assessment of the strategic value of information technology: conceptual and analytic approaches
    Oh, W.; Pinsonneault, A.
  • A two‐stage model of e‐government growth: theories and empirical evidence for US cities
    Reddick, C.G.
  • Prioritizing performance measures within the balanced scorecard framework
    Reisinger, H.; Cravens, K.S.; Tell, N.
  • How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process
    Saaty, T.L.
  • How quality management models influence company results – conclusions of an empirical study based on the Delphi method
    Saizarbitoria, I.H.
  • Intellectual capital reporting by the New Zealand local government sector
    Schneider, A.; Samkin, G.
  • Aligning the balanced scorecard and a firm's strategy using the analytic hierarchy process
    Searcy, D.L.
  • Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
    SEI
  • Synthesizing e‐government stage models – a meta‐synthesis based on meta‐ethnography approach
    Siau, K.; Long, Y.
  • How IT creates business value: a process theory synthesis
    Soh, C.; Markus, M.L.
  • The New Organizational Wealth
    Sveiby, K.E.
  • Using a reliability capability maturity model to benchmark electronics companies
    Tiku, S.; Azarian, M.; Pecht, M.
  • Benchmarking E‐government: A Global Perspective
    United Nations and American Society for Public Administration
  • Understanding mail survey response behaviour
    Yammarino, F.J.; Skinner, S.J.; Childers, T.L.