Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236 – 248

E-government maturity models: Extension of the

Layne and Lee model
Kim Viborg Andersen4, Helle Zinner Henriksen
Department of Informatics, Copenhagen Business School,
60 Howitzvej, 02000 Frederiksberg, Denmark

Available online 7 February 2006

Abstract

The article proposes a reorientation of the e-government maturity models by focusing IT

applications to improve the core activities and bring end-users as the key stakeholders for future
e-government investments. The proposed Public Sector Process Rebuilding (PPR) maturity model
is an extension of the Layne and Lee model.
D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The e-government wave has caught the attention of not only the software and consultant
industry, but also in the policy institutions, the public administration, and by an increasing
number of researchers, at conferences, and workshops. Although there indeed was solid
research on IT in government during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s and limited new
fundamental new research perspectives has been introduced with the e-government wave,1,2
there is a momentum and mass of researchers that could form the basis for breaking new
research grounds in studying the new face of government.3

4 Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K.V. Andersen).

0740-624X/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.008
 K.V. Andersen, H.Z. Henriksen / Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248 237

As part of the enthusiasm on IT in government, best practices and maturity models are
being developed and applied to monitor whether governments are on the right track. The
perhaps most quoted e-government maturity model published in Government Information
Quarterly argues that progress on e-government data integration is a matter of technological
and organizational complexity.4 The maturity model developed by Layne and Lee has been
quoted frequently by various research communities and is one of few examples of studies
within e-government where one can identify a linkage and additive value.5–7
With the new generations of IT, we suggest that strategic use of IT to be directed to cover
more dimensions than simply integration issues and supportive functions of formal
government primarily provided by technology. Our key argument pursued in this article is
that the maturity models for e-government stages need to capture the future use of IT
applications with the external users such as citizens, businesses, and other governmental
agencies when performing the core activities in government. The proposed maturity model
that could help further progress of the e-government is labeled the Public Sector Process
Rebuilding (PPR) model.
In the article, we raise an alert signal for use of the Layne and Lee model arguing that it
reinforces the technology bias pushed by government and international organizations when
promoting e-government.8 The technology quest for data integration that enable government
to harvest economics-of-scale benefits, improving document repository facilities, and
reduction transaction costs indeed are reasonable motives for government to pursue when
investing in IT. After more than thirty years of use of IT in the public sector, these benefits
are, however, self-evident and government should move beyond these benefits focusing more
on streamlining core processes and reaching customers in a more efficient manner.
The proposition in this article is that we should avoid ground our maturity models in
operational and technical interfacing only. Instead strategic ambitions on government use of
IT should be in focus. As reasonable the traditional motives for IT adoption are, the Layne
and Lee model is replicating the dominating rationalities for adoption of technologies
followed by the government during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Motives on increased
information quality, efficiency, and effectiveness and intra/intergovernmental interaction
dominate not only the Layne and Lee model. A literature review on e-government research
conducted by the authors of this article clearly demonstrated that issues as values, interaction,
and orientation are not in focus for e-government research. Rather e-government literature
comprises predominately themes as information quality, efficiency, and effectiveness.9
This article should not be read as a critique of the Layne and Lee model. Rather, the article
is proposing to reorient e-government strategic thinking by a thoroughly examination of what
e-government is all about. We offer in Section 2 of this article our input to that discussion. In
Section 3 of the article, we examine several maturity models in use in both academia and in
practice. In Section 4 of the article, we put forward the proposed PPR model and provide
illustrative cases of the four maturity levels. One of the downsides of maturity models is that
they often end up labeling maturity in opposition to immaturity, as a discrete variable.
Introducing the PPR model, we offer the view that rather than labeling a government unit as
mature or immature, focusing on a set of activities through the lenses of the customer is more
constructive view in strategic thinking. We conclude the article in Section 5 by discussing
238 K.V. Andersen, H.Z. Henriksen / Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248

strategic implications of the proposed model and propose roads to follow for furthering the
research on stage models.

2. The notion of E-government

The position taken in this article is that e-government applications and strategies are
cultivating a better-safe-than-sorry strategy escorted by horizontal and vertical integration
of back-office and front-end systems at the expense of exploring new areas and dimensions
of interaction with the end-users. As such, e-government might be more a symbol of crisis
of previous generations IT quests in government than an indicator of change in
government.
In the implementation of e-government applications, governments are seeking efficiency,
effectiveness, and data quality improvement gains.9 Subsequently, the governmental
administrative functions and activities along with general front-end services dominate the
application arsenal. Less frequent are IT applications directed towards policy input and
customer involvement. In essence, while transactions might become faster and information
quality improve as national e-government strategies are implemented, there is room for
exploring the government potential to bring the activities and the linkage between the
individual case worker in government and the company, citizen, or politician in focus for
future research and strategies on e-government.
Various authors have pointed out that technology does not have an impact per se, it is all a
matter of choice, power, and situated change—IT is not evolving by itself; it is all about
decisions on how to adopt IT at the societal, organizational, and individual level.10–12 If so, e-
government is a profound example of this failing to live up to their expectations by ignoring
the power of organizational and social institutions.13,14
Although there is high reliance on the Internet dimension in the technology domain of
e-government, older technologies such as electronic document interchange (EDI) and newer
mobile technologies are vital technologies at the activity level of e-government. The
technology-fix of e-government is a critical component in implementing visions of
abandoning the prevalent division between inside and outside the governmental organization,
pushing for data and application mobility across vendors, and transferring data ownership to
the customers. Despite we acknowledge and emphasize the role of technology, e-government
strategies have endless faith in technology as a driver for e-government but few attempts have
been made to reorganize the other elements in making information systems work.
The beQ reflects what the late Rob Kling labeled utopian optimism and technological
centric beliefs stipulating that a digital front-end in itself is a mechanism of change.15 We
advocate that a more reflective and critical use of IT is desired. Rather than focus on the front-
end, we argue that the core processes and the activities involved are a more prosperous road
to follow.
This observation is supported by the literature findings on the terms e-government, e-
governance, online government, digital government, one-stop government, and electronic
government. Of these six concepts, e-government is the most frequently cited term.4 This
 K.V. Andersen, H.Z. Henriksen / Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248 239

occurrence is interpreted as indicating a high reliance on formal government rather than on

the activities performed by government. In pursuing the e-government road, various
objectives are pursued (transparency, accessibility, accountability) spanning a variety of
government operations (governmental administration, front services, policy input, and
involvement of users/citizens).

3. Maturity models in E-government

The terms bmaturityQ and bimmaturityQ are often used to characterize the state of a given
level in a continuous process. The terms are used relative to their objects (e.g., be-government
is still in an immature stateQ). This use of the term bimmatureQ in relation to e-government
creates an ontological vacuum because both the term and its object are somewhat fuzzy.
The concept of e-government represents a rich pool of organizational and technological
issues.16 Adding the notion of maturity or immaturity does not strengthen the ontology of the
concept. Some qualitative and/or quantitative measures to determine what characterizes
different degrees of maturity are necessary.
There are a number of academic disciplines that use the term maturity and develop
maturity models as classification schemes. In the field of software process improvement, the
Capability Maturity Model, a measure of maturity, determines how structured the software
development process is.17 Within the field of business economics, examples of explicit usage
of the term maturity are found in the Product Life Cycle concept.18,19
In the information systems (IS) field, the term maturity is also familiar, for instance in the
context of the bStages of Growth modelQ.20 The Stages of Growth model illustrates the
organizational stage in a development process where the organizational usage of IT is
measured. Whereas Galliers and Sutherland decomposed maturity into six stages with each
stage characterizing the presence of particular attributes of the organization, the strength of
the Stages of Growth model is in its focus on IT and organization. This overall typology of
technology and organization is used as a point of departure in the further development of an
e-maturity model where the focus is on the organizational and technological capability to
engage in e-government.
As a caveat with respect to the often used classification schemes based on maturity models,
it should be acknowledged that not all researchers agree on the suitability of bevolutionisticQ
development models as a means for measuring IT capabilities in organizations.21
Within the IS community, the debate on stage models is classical, suggesting that as
appealing as stage models might be, there is often a normative value in the stage model with an
evolution over time, which indirectly states that phase IV is better than phases I, II, and III. In
practice, however, the individual phases occur simultaneously and are part of different elements
of e-government. Also, the triggers for moving to one stage rather than another stage are more
rewarding to focus on rather than observing whether or not government is at stage I or IV.
Acknowledging this critique of maturity models, we stress that the four levels of our
proposed model do not appear as distinct stages. The four levels rather represent discrete
points in a continuous development process in the organization. The four levels should
240 K.V. Andersen, H.Z. Henriksen / Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248

therefore be used as indicators for positioning the organization in the e-government landscape
and not be regarded as absolute measures.
Although we acknowledge the potential shortcomings in stage models’ capacity to capture
the drivers and evolution of e-government, stage models can be one element in formulating a
strategic flag pole and milestone framework for emergent areas as e-government. Within the
strategic context, various consultant companies and consultants,22 national and international
policy-institutions,8,23 and researchers4,24,25 have formulated diffusion stage models and have
begun gathering empirical data to investigate the categorize local and national governments in
the different levels. For example, Moon relies on the maturity model proposed by
PricewaterhouseCoopers.22,24
The World Bank provides an example of this analogue to the e-commerce stage models by
arguing that bE-Commerce has evolved already through four stages: 1) publishing, 2)
interactivity, 3) completing transactions, and 4) delivery. To date, most e-government activity
has centered on publishing. A study by Anderson Consulting finds vast differences among
countries in the maturity of their e-government effort. Perhaps the key finding, however, is
that even the most mature countries have tapped less than 20% of the potential.Q26
Complementary to the World Bank model, the UN has identified five stages that essentially
capture the same issues (see Fig. 1): The emerging stage is where there is an official
government online presence established; stage two (enhanced) is where the government sites
increase and information becomes more dynamic. Level three is the interactive stage where
users can download forms, e-mail officials, and interact through the Web. Level four is the
transactional stage where users can actually pay for services and other transactions online.
Stage five is the seamless level where there is full integration of e-services across admin-
istrative boundaries.

Fig. 1. The World Bank stage model of e-government.26

 K.V. Andersen, H.Z. Henriksen / Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248 241

A more comprehensive stage model has emerged from a study of various government Web
sites and related e-government initiative. The proposed model identifies a b. . .multi-
perspective transformation within government structures and functions as they make
transitions to e-government through each stage.Q4
The issue of integration is profound in the Layne and Lee model. The Layne and Lee
model reinforces intragovernmental data integration with a front-end built on top. This could
enable integration and will require the solving of various technological and organizational
challenges. The World Bank and Layne and Lee to a large extent have done little more than
replicated the stage models from the e-commerce area focusing more on technological
capabilities than on case handling and effectiveness in the public administration. As was
evident with the forecasts and typologies for e-commerce progress, most of these failed and
did not capture the picture right. The danger of ending in the same situation in the e-
government field is high if progressing along the Layne and Lee model (see Fig. 2).

4. The PPR Maturity Model

The major difference between the Layne and Lee model and the Public Sector Process
Rebuilding (PPR) model27 is the activity and customer centric approach rather than the
technological capability. The two key dimensions are displayed along the horizontal and

Fig. 2. The Layne and Lee model: integration and technological and organizational complexity.4
242 K.V. Andersen, H.Z. Henriksen / Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248

vertical dimensions, respectively, in Fig. 3. Applications developed along these two dimensions
can be rare or widespread in the extended organizational room of governmental activities.
Rather than being discrete variables, the variables should be used as a continuum.
The cultivation phase (I) shelters horizontal and vertical integration within government,
limited use of front-end systems for customer services, and adoption and use of Intranet
within government. There can be elements of self-service but most often in the form of PDF
files that can be downloaded, completed, and then returned either as an attachment to e-mail
or by mailing the completed form to government. The organizations in this group are not
likely to have digital services in focus and will rarely have work processed and displayed
through the net. Instead, the organization is unclear whether to define the objective with the
use of the Internet to increase the user frequency, the services provided, and/or the quality and
speed of services.
From the user point of view, the Internet interface to the public institution in this phase can
be experienced as yet another means of enforcing bgate keepingQ and filtering the users. By
gate keeping, the employees are protecting against stress and they are able to control the
information flow. The downside is that the public institution in this phase will be experienced
as inaccessible, have long case processing time, and no accessibility for accessing the
processing of requests.
Clearly many organizations within this group are keen users of IT and will often prioritize
internal data integration and await the completion of data integration before proceeding to
digital interface to the users.
This is the stage where most governments are now, and worse it is often considered a
strategic goal for most governments. Having the characteristics of this phase as a strategic
goal can be counter productive to the activity and customer focus.

Fig. 3. The PPR maturity model: activity and customer centric stages.
 K.V. Andersen, H.Z. Henriksen / Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248 243

Phase II is the extension stage with extensive use of intranet and adoption of personalized
Web user interface for customer processes. There is a sharp distinction between bour dataQ
and the services provided through bthemQ.
Ownership and data infrastructure are essential as in phase I, but the Web user
interface is targeted towards the end-users rather than other public authorities or the
agencies themselves. The ambition of having a user interface for the end-users shines
through the actual Web site. While this is a key difference between phases I and II, this
ambition also presents a key failure risk and precipitates costly user interfaces, no
integration with other systems, expensive maintenance, and fading out of old software
and data format.
At this stage there are still many manual routines, and while the user might be likely to find
many forms and information, the agency is equally interested in re-directing the users to
information at other agencies.
Whereas it is a frequent feature at many Web sites to provide link icons to other
information, we view this feature negatively: The more links to other places, the more
negative we would rate the agency because this indicates that the users did not get their
requests for information rewarded at this particular agency.
Phase III is the stage where the organization matures and abandons the use of the intranet,
have transparent processes, and offers personalized Web interface for processing of customer
requests. The Internet and intranet have merged and the key concern is to use IT to lower the
marginal costs for processing the customer requests for services. Rather than linking to other
institutions, the homepage is feeding information from other institutions to the users online.
Further, the Web site is organized to solve problems and requests rather than presenting
formal organizational structures and general information. Self-service is a key priority in this
phase and the exceptions where this cannot be completed online are clearly stated with
instructions on how to proceed in analog mode.
Phase IV is the revolutionary phase characterized by data mobility across organizations,
application mobility across vendors, and ownership to data transferred to customers. In this
phase, the employees’ actions can be traced through the Internet and there is information
available online about progress in, for example, case handling. This is possible through intra-
and extraorganizational mobility of data and services. Also, economics of scale is sought after
actively. The Internet is not seen exclusively as a means to create increased mobility within
the government. Rather, the ambition is to transfer data ownership and the orientation of data
base infrastructure to the end-users.
There indeed is a long push to reach phase IV. The blooming literature on e-government28–30
has provided the fuel for the hypothesis that governments are still predominately in phase I, that
is, they are aiming for data and system integration but have only limited front-end services, and
essentially still have an intra- and intergovernmental view of the development and
implementation of IT.
Accordingly, a personalized Web interface for customer processes, data mobility across
organizations, application mobility across vendors, and transfer of data ownership to the
customers is still not implemented and constituted in light of the PPR approach key
challenges to be met.
244 K.V. Andersen, H.Z. Henriksen / Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248

For example, the lack of mobility on data and application level lock-in government and
their customers to path dependency and decreases in competition for IT-enabled services. The
in-house and lock-in path has been a convenient road to follow for government, its
consultants, and IT suppliers because this has in reality created a myriad of e-government
solutions that are just as incomparable, in-transparent, and inaccessible for the customers as
the previous information and communication channels were. The only difference could be
that they are bfaster and smarterQ as formulated by the former UK e-envoy.

5. Findings

We found the state agencies to be less advanced along the two dimensions analyzed in the
study: the degree of activity centric Web pages and processing of the end-users information
and service requests. Based on an assessment of 110 state agencies and boards, we identified
four illustrative cases—one from each maturity level.
From the first category, the cultivation level, one of the interesting cases emerging from the
study is an agency where profound investments in internal case handling was supplemented
with phone assisted case handling and physical meetings. Although part of the reason for the
manual routines is law requirement of physical identification of the persons, the case is
illustrative of how all bits and parts of case handling are left to traditional communication
patterns at this stage of the maturity model.
The second category, the extension stage, is illustrated by a state agency handling
complaints from the health sector. There are numerous forms that can be downloaded in
digital format but the sequence of activities has not changed. Yet, the target for the homepage
appears to be the end-users whereas institutional interests have been downplayed
substantially.
Individual case workers at the agency and their individual contribution to solving the
problems and information requests put forward by the users of the Web site is not exposed
through the Internet. Instead, the users are overall left to routines that have not changed and
it is unclear how the core activities of the agency are still by and large shielded from the
users.
The third category, the matured level, is illustrated by a case from an agency that not only
had various self-service solutions and the end-user in focus but also explained the
technologies and the application of, for example, digital signature. In contrast to the other
analyzed agencies, they put effort and commitment in aiming for online services.
Most of the services from the agencies are not breaking new ground. They are old routines
simply digitalized. Examples of PDF forms en masse are profound examples of what makes
sense according to the Layne and Lee model but aid little to the strategic development of the
public sector. With more than 80 percent of the workers in agencies working without being
impacted by e-government, it is worth reflecting on whether the field is in need of new
strategic models.
The revolutionary level, the fourth category, is the least populated category. A premier
example from this category is the National Agency for Labor Injuries. Through the
 K.V. Andersen, H.Z. Henriksen / Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248 245

1990s and beyond, they have aimed for a high digitalization and reduction of overhead
costs. Benefiting now from these early investments, users can access their cases, follow
the progress, and see who and when professionals and case workers have accessed their
case.
Another example in the category revolution where there is mobility of data and access for
users is the National Tax Authority. At their first launch of a Web site, The National Tax
Authority experienced a soaring use of their Web site but an almost unchanged number of
phone calls asking for information. That puzzled the vice director for the Authority. Despite
the callers being online, they had not managed to find the information that the employees
should easily have been able to find using the Internet platform.
By monitoring the key words that the end-users and the employees employed, the agency
reorganized the user interface and the data infrastructure. For example, the employees might
call a form a bcar assessment formQ and the users called it bcar registration formQ. As a result
of redesigning the Web site and removing the intranet for searching in the catalogues, they
reduced the phone calls by 30 percent.
Similar results were demonstrated by an Australian survey where they tested four stages
they labeled presence, interaction, transaction, and transformation of government agencies in
general. About half of the responders were in the first group regardless of level of agency
(state, county or municipality). Only a very few managed to qualify to the fourth level of the
model. The Australian study also addressed the level of sophistication of government portals,
classifying the content of portals in four levels aggregation, personalization, integration, and
unification. Sixty percent of their responders were at the lowest stage of evolution
(aggregation of content) and only six percent were at the most advanced stage (assessing
data and content of all government departments).
In another Australian study of the adoption of e-government, a similar distribution was
observed.31 In Clark’s model, stage 1 represented the agency’s ability to publish information
about itself and stage 2 allowed citizens to access data and interact with the agency through
the Internet. In the third stage, citizens were permitted to enter secure information and make
transactions with the agency. The fourth and final stages provided the citizen with access to
integrated services between different government agencies, regardless of point of entry. The
two mentioned studies confirm that there is still a long way to go before we can talk about a
one-stop government.
In our view, the two studies share at least three features which are different from the PPR
approach to maturity. First, the focus is on what is feasible from a technological perspective.
The studies are in that sense along the lines of the Layne and Lee model.
Second, the stages in the models tested reflect a view of government agencies where things
should not be changed too much. The underlying assumption being that e-government is
acceptable in those cases where it is possible to digitize without changing routines.
The third element which is not clear from reading the studies and therefore interpreted as
not being important in the studies is the eagerness to categorize activities in different stages
without considering their relative importance for reaping the benefits of the investments in
technology and organizational change. The studies are more occupied with classifying levels
of interaction instead of considering the possible benefits of interaction. The PPR model
246 K.V. Andersen, H.Z. Henriksen / Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248

focuses on core activities being transferred to a media where citizens can service themselves
thereby redistributing resources in the government agencies.

6. Conclusions

The proposed maturity model is changing the focus of e-government to the front-end of
government and away from a technical integration issue, as is suggested in the Layne and Lee
Model. Also, contrasting the Layne and Lee model, the proposed PPR model emphasizes the
digitalization of the core activities not from the perspective of what is technologically feasible
but from what is beneficial for the end-users regardless of the possible internal changes
caused by the digitalization.
There are cases where the PPR model is less appealing. In the governmental agencies and
the part of their work where direct user contact is explicitly stated as not part of their mission,
such as the intelligence units and the police (homicide investigation), it is tempting to argue
that the PPR argument that activities and services should be in focus for the Internet
applications is likely to do more harm than good. Although we acknowledge that (large) parts
of the police work do not qualify for full transparency through the Internet, the degree of
customer orientations in this sector varies greatly among countries. In the United States and
Sweden, for example, the DMV allows citizens to apply for renewal of their car registration
through the Internet. In other countries, as Denmark, this is still a manual process where the
car owner has to register in person.
The use of the PPR model to capture the maturity level of state agencies in Denmark,
considered one of the most developed e-government countries, exposes an embryonic use of the
Internet rather than using the Web to make the case workers visible. The low scores are
surprising, given the overall diffusion of the Internet to the households and companies in the
Danish case.
Being among the world’s top five in terms of modem and broad band connection to the
Internet for companies, private households, and the public sector,32 the government sector,
surprisingly, has not managed to exploit the potential for opening up the governmental black
box.
One implication of the lack of progress along the two key dimensions in the PPR model is
to call for more research into the driving forces for possible progression along the model’s
four phases. Should agencies that commence at one stage remains at this stage? Is there a
pattern is the characteristics among the agencies that progress or fade from one stage to
another? Also, it is not clear bhow muchQ of an agency’s homepage should be activity and
customer centric to constitute a critical mass to progress to the next stage. These unresolved
issues are to some extent a result of the inherent problems with stage models.
Also, using other data collection methods could possible lead to other conclusions.
Qualitative case studies and longitudinal studies along with log files of supply and demand
are some of the roads we will take in the coming years to seek to answer the unanswered
questions that have surfaced from the use of the PPR maturity model in the empirical study
reported in this paper.
 K.V. Andersen, H.Z. Henriksen / Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248 247

Notes and References

1. Bretschneider, S. (2003). Information technology, e-government, and institutional

change. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 738–744.
2. Kraemer, K. L., & King, J. L. (2003). Information technology and administrative
reform: Will the time after e-government be different? Irvine, CA7 CRITO, University of
California.
3. Thomas, J. C., & Streib, G. (2003). The new face of government: Citizen-initiated
contacts in the era of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 13(1), 83–102.
4. Layne, K., & Lee, J. W. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage
model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.
5. Grant, G., & Chao, D. (2005). Developing a generic framework for e-government.
Journal of Global Information Management, 13(1), 1–30.
6. Reddick, C. G. (2004). A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and
empirical evidence for U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly, 21(1), 51–64.
7. Yang, K. (2003). Neoinstitutionalism and e-government: Beyond Jane Fountain. Social
Science Computer Review, 21(4), 432–442.
8. UNPAN. (2002). Benchmarking e-government. A global perspective. New York7 United
Nations Online Network in Public Administration and Finance.
9. Danziger, J. N., & Andersen, K. V. (2002). Impacts of IT on politics and the public sector:
Methodological, epistemological, and substantive evidence from the bGolden AgeQ of
transformation. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(5), 591–627.
10. Marcus, L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of
the ACM, 26(6), 430–444.
11. Orlikowsky, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A
situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.
12. Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2000). Virtual teams: Managerial behavior control’s impact on team
effectiveness. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems,
Brisbane, Australia (pp. 575–580).
13. Burn, J., & Robins, G. (2003). Moving towards e-government: A case study
of organisational change processes. Logistics Information Management, 16(1),
25–35.
14. Fountain, J. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional
change. Washington, DC7 Brookings Institution.
15. Kling, R. (1996). Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices.
San Diego, CA7 Academic Press.
16. Traunmqller, R., & Lenk, K. (2002). Electronic government. Proceedings of the
13th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA).
September 2–6. Aix-en Provence, France7 Springer Verlag.
17. Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., & Weber, C. V. (1991). Capability maturity
model for software (Technical report CMU/SEI-91-TR-24). Pittsburgh, PA: Software
Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University.
248 K.V. Andersen, H.Z. Henriksen / Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248

18. Lancaster, G., & Massingham, L. (1993). Marketing management. New York7 McGraw-
Hill.
19. Robson, W. (1997). Strategic management and information systems. London7 Pitman
Publishing.
20. Galliers, R. D., & Sutherland, A. R. (1991). Information systems management and
strategy formulation: The bstages of growthQ model revisited. Journal of Information
Systems, 1(2), 89–114.
21. King, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (1984). Evolution and organizational information systems:
An assessment of Nolan’s stage model. Communications of the ACM, 27(5), 466–475.
22. Hiller, J., & Bélanger, F. (2001). Privacy strategies for electronic government. Arlington,
VA7 Pricewaterhouse Coopers Endowment for the Business of Government.
23. UN. (2003). World public sector report: E-government at the crossroads. New York7
United Nations.
24. Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or
reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.
25. Stamoulis, D. G., Georgiadis, P., & Markatos, D. (2001). Revisiting public information
management for effective e-government services. Information Management & Computer
Security, 9(4), 146–153.
26. The World Bank. (2003). A definition of e-government. Washington, DC7 Author.
27. Andersen, K. V. (2004). E-government and public sector process rebuilding. Amsterdam7
Kluwer.
28. Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2005). The first leg of e-government research:
Domains and application areas 1998–2003. International Journal of Electronic Govern-
ment Research, 1(4), 26–44.
29. Grfnlund, 2. (2004). State of the art in e-gov research—A survey. First Scandinavian
workshop on e-government. Örebro, Sweden7 Örebro University.
30. Teicher, J., Hughes, O., & Dow, N. (2002). E-government: A new route to public sector
quality. Managing Service Quality, 12(6), 384–393.
31. Clark, E. (2003). Managing the transformation to e-government: An Australian
perspective. Thunderbird International Business Review, 45(4), 377–397.
32. OECD. (2004). OECD information technology outlook: ICTs, e-commerce and the
information economy. Paris7 OECD.