Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 115–122

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf

Open e-government in U.S. state governments: Survey evidence from

Chief Information Officers
Sukumar Ganapati a,⁎, Christopher G. Reddick b
a
Department of Public Administration, College of Arts and Sciences, PCA 263A, Modesto Maidique Campus, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA
b
Department of Public Administration, The University of Texas at San Antonio, 501 West Durango Blvd., San Antonio, Texas 78207, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 17 February 2012 This paper examines the extent to which state governments in the United States have adopted open e-
government initiatives. The adoption is examined in terms of the three pillars of open government identified
Keywords: by President Obama's administration: transparency, participation, and collaboration. Chief Information Offi-
Open government cers (CIOs) of state governments were surveyed to identify the extent of the adoption. The paper highlights
Transparency that open e-government initiatives are unevenly developed. Nearly two-thirds of the CIOs surveyed felt that
Participation
they have achieved high levels of open e-government, but fewer CIOs felt similarly with respect to each of the
Collaboration
State governments
pillars of open government. Whereas a majority of the CIOs deemed good strides in the achievement of trans-
parency, they were less sanguine about achieving advanced methods in citizen participation or collaboration
among agencies.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction levels of open e-government, but fewer CIOs felt similarly with re-
spect to each of the three pillars. Many CIOs indicated a high degree
As soon as he took office in January 2009, President Barack Obama of achievement in transparency, followed closely by citizen participa-
signed a Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government tion. However, most CIOs felt that collaboration among agencies is yet
affirming his administration's commitment toward “creating an un- to take a strong foothold.
precedented level of openness in Government” (Obama, 2009). The The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The next section
memorandum highlighted three essential pillars of open government: outlines the literature background of this research. Then, the
transparency, participation, and collaboration. Subsequent to the mem- research method is outlined. The subsequent sections deal with the
orandum, the Open Government Directive issued in December 2009 achievement of open e-government, the motivations for their imple-
instructed executive departments and agencies to take specific actions mentation, and the achievement along the three dimensions of trans-
toward achieving the goal of creating a more open government. parency, participation, and collaboration. The last section concludes
Federal agencies thus have had the explicit presidential mandate to with the major findings of this research.
implement open government, especially through electronic means.
Has similar open e-government policy innovation diffused through to 2. Research background
the states? In this paper, we examine this diffusion of the federal
open government policy to the state levels. The question is significant The concept of open government is not new. Efforts to provide
in the current political context when open government has become a more information about government affairs have persisted for a
key issue for local, state, and federal agencies. long while (Chapman & Hunt, 1987; Cross, 1953). The Freedom of
The paper mainly draws on a survey of state Chief Information Of- Information Act (FOIA) enacted in 1966 is a key effort in this direc-
ficers (CIO) across the state governments in the United States, con- tion. The main thrust of the FOIA is on transparency and account-
ducted in 2010. The CIOs were asked questions about the state's ability, whereby citizen groups can obtain government documents
current stage of open e-government implementation and their per- and hold decision makers responsible for their actions. With the
ceptions of the initiatives for creating more open and transparent rapid growth of the internet in the 1990s, the FOIA was expanded
government. In essence, the paper highlights how the open e- to include electronic documents in 1996 (the EFOIA). Despite the
government initiatives are unevenly developed across states. Nearly formal legal framework enabling freedom of information and conse-
two-thirds of the CIOs surveyed felt that they have achieved high quent transparency, open government has often been at odds with
privacy and security (Piotrowski & Van Ryzin, 2007). The balance
⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: 1 305 348 5848.
between open government and security is tricky. Agencies have lim-
E-mail addresses: ganapati@fiu.edu (S. Ganapati), [email protected] ited access to their information due to such concerns. Montgomery
(C.G. Reddick). (2006) shows that the Bush administration subverted open

0740-624X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.006
116 S. Ganapati, C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 115–122

government efforts following the 9/11 incident. The Obama adminis- or concealing information. Bertot et al. (2010, p. 269) observe that
tration has arguably favored transparency over secrecy. Yet, the re- while social media could indeed have the potential to enhance trans-
cent WikiLeaks case also raises the tension between security and parency and openness, agencies need to have a transparency readi-
openness (Brian et al., 2011). ness, wherein there is “a culture of openness embedded within the
With the growth of e-government, the internet has added more governance system.” Indeed, there are numerous examples of state
means of communications between government officials, politicians, governments using open government, such as in Florida (http://
policymakers, and their constituents by allowing easier access to in- www.myflsunshine.com/), Tennessee (www.tn.gov/opengov), and
formation (Musso et al., 2000; Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006; West, Georgia (www.open.georgia.gov). A recent survey showed that state
2004). Highlighting the benefit of such information exchange, governors, both Democrats and Republicans, are making great efforts
Tolbert and Mossberger (2006) argue that more information on gov- at open government, especially when it comes to enhancing open
ernment websites increases trust and confidence in government. government through technology (Fouhy, 2011).
Cohen (2006) found that individuals who contact government online While a number of studies have focused on the broad national as-
were generally satisfied with such interactions. Information on the in- pects of open e-government, studies focusing on state governments
ternet is available 24/7, and can be accessed by anyone with a com- are few. It is in this context that our study focuses on the open gov-
puter connected to the internet. ernment at the state level. Although state governments are not be-
The spread of the internet and the growth of e-government pro- holden to the federal initiative in implementing e-government
vide further opportunities for transparency. The internet enables processes, consideration of the federal initiative is useful. First, de-
structured databases of raw information from different sources to spite U.S. federalism, federal policies could indeed lead to vertical pol-
be integrated and accessed for manipulation and interpretation icy diffusion through agenda setting among states (Karch, 2006,
through various technologies (e.g. application programmer inter- 2010; Menzel & Feller, 1977). In this context, pressure for state gov-
faces). Curtin (2010) calls this the “deep web” and argues for “setting ernments to follow the lead of the federal government in policy inno-
the data free.” The evolution of Web 2.0 technologies, such as social vations is common (Allen et al., 2004; Welch & Thompson, 1980). The
media and blogs can also arguably increase transparency and ac- federal-state interaction has been demonstrated for diffusion in a
countability (Lathrop & Ruma, 2010). These citizen-initiated forums number of policy arenas, including e-government (Karch, 2007;
provide alternative channels of information. Indeed, social media Tolbert et al., 2008). Second, the federal initiative provides a common
has been at the center of several social movements across countries basis to assess state level achievements. Third, the federal initiative is
(Castells, 2007). However, in their comparison of e-government dif- broader than what state governments have conceived as open gov-
fusion among American states, McNeal et al. (2003) argue that e- ernment. Whereas most states have focused on transparency, the fed-
government implementation is driven by legislative professionalism eral initiative includes participation and collaboration. Hence, we
and, to a lesser extent, state professional networks, rather than citizen used the three aspects of transparency, participation, and collabora-
demand. Tolbert et al. (2008) also find that e-government innovation tion as pillars of open government to assess state level achievements.
is dependent on state institutional capacity.
Recognizing the potential of the rapidly evolving information 3. Research methods
technologies, President Obama (2009) issued a memorandum on
Transparency and Open Government when he took office in January The authors administered an online survey of state government
2009. As McDermott (2010) observes, the initiative builds on a base CIOs during October and November 2010. The names of the CIOs
of existing laws and regulations, including the Freedom of Informa- were compiled from the Council of State Governments Directory of
tion Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and e-Government Act (and Administrative Officials (Council of State Governments, 2010). The
their amendments). The memorandum explicitly identified three contact information, including email addresses of state CIOs, was ver-
aspects: transparency, participation, and collaboration. Transparency ified for accuracy by communicating with the state government of-
implies that government agencies should disclose information about fices over the phone. All 50 state CIOs were emailed a cover letter
their operations and decisions online in publicly accessible ways. requesting their participation in the survey, including a web link to
Participation implies public engagement to enhance government ef- the online survey. The cover letter mentioned the purpose of the pro-
fectiveness, tapping into collective expertise and information distrib- ject and a statement that assured CIOs that their responses would be
uted across the society. Collaboration implies using innovative tools, anonymous. After two email reminders, 24 state CIOs (out of 50
methods, and systems to cooperate among government agencies, states) eventually participated in the survey, representing a response
with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the pri- rate of 48%. This is a similar response rate to a previous study of col-
vate sector (Lathrop & Ruma, 2010). Consequent to the Presidential laboration and e-government (Reddick, 2008). In order to ensure
memorandum, the Open Government Directive issued in December more candid responses the CIOs were assured that their state govern-
2009 established deadlines for action by different agencies (Orszag, ment would not be reported.
2009). The Directive laid out specific actions: (1) publish government In the cover letter and the survey instrument open e-government
information online; (2) improve the quality of government informa- was defined as having three pillars of transparency, citizen participa-
tion; (3) create and institutionalize a culture of open government; tion, and collaboration. These pillars were chosen as the foundation
(4) create an enabling policy framework for open government. The since they follow the federal government's standards for open gov-
Directive also required agencies to have specific open government ernment, making them easily recognizable to CIOs. Rather than pro-
plans, incorporating the three aspects of open government in the viding our own definition of open e-government we referred to the
Presidential memorandum. three pillars as the framework from which the questions were drafted
While federal agencies have had to adopt open government prin- on the survey. The questions on the survey instrument delved into
ciples due to the above presidential mandate, states differ in their examining facets of each of these pillars. The questions on the survey
legal framework of open e-government, as their public records access were taken from the literature review noted above and covered three
laws determine the basic information available to citizens. However, areas: the overall openness, initiatives that were taking place, and ex-
Pasquier and Villeneuve (2007) argue that the legal framework, by it- amining specifically the three pillars of open e-government.
self, may not be enough to achieve open e-government. Organization- In order to examine whether state governments are open, we an-
al and political dynamics may deter the open government efforts. alyzed the survey results using descriptive statistics. Since the overall
Organizations could employ a range of strategies, some enabling purpose has been to determine the extent of openness across the
them to circumvent transparency, or advancing a false transparency, states, these rather simple but effective methods were adequate to
 S. Ganapati, C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 115–122 117

Table 1 governments. Table 2 examines some characteristics of states that

Information on state government CIOs and responding states. responded to the survey with non respondents. For our response
Frequency Percent bias tests, we chose characteristics of whether the governor was a
Democrat, the population of the state, population of state's urban cen-
Age range
35–44 5 25 ters, and total government expenditures for the state. Examining the
45–54 11 55 mean values for each of these characteristics indicated that there
55–64 4 20 were differences between the 24 responding states and the 26 non-
N 20
responding states, but none of these were statistically significant
Gender when conducting independent sample t-tests looking for the equality
Female 5 25 of means. Therefore, we can say that the survey sample is representa-
Male 15 75 tive to the broader population of state governments, at least when ex-
N 20 amining these four characteristics.
Years worked as CIO for the state government
Less than 5 years 10 50 4. Open e-government achievement
5 to 10 years 7 35
11 to 15 years 2 10 Analysis of the overarching question of open e-government
16 to 20 years 1 5
achievement by states shows some interesting results. The survey
N 20
question for the state government CIOs was, “In your view, to what
Regional representation extent has open e-government been achieved in your state in each
Northeast 2 8.3 of the following?” The responses for the question in the survey
Midwest 5 29.9 were on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “Very High” to “Very
South 11 45.8
Low.” The results are summarized in Table 3, with the median statis-
West 6 25.0
N 24 tics in the last column. The table shows that the median response for
the “overall openness of state e-government” was 2 (indicating
“High”). However, the median values change for the three pillars of
reach the research goal. For many of the questions, median statistics transparency, participation, and collaboration, which are respectively
are reported since the median is a better measure of central tendency 2 (High), 2.5 (between “High” and “Neutral”), and 3 (“Neutral”). In
for ordinal data. sum, the CIOs believe that the state governments have achieved a
In addition to the survey, one of the questions on the survey high degree of open e-government, but this is mainly related to trans-
asked the CIO if they would like to participate in a follow up tele- parency, and not the other two pillars.
phone interview. Out of 24 states that responded to the survey 10 To examine overall openness further, the “Very High” and “High”
CIOs participated in a one hour telephone interview. The telephone responses were summed to reveal the CIOs' views (Table 3). Over-
interview covered the motivations and achievements of open e- all, 66.7% of CIOs who responded believed that there was a “Very
government in their state. The interviews were a great method to High” or “High” degree of open e-government for their state. The
supplement the responses to the survey instrument providing detail share of CIOs who believed the degree to be “Very High” or
on their responses. “High,” with respect to transparency and participation, is 58.3%
Table 1 provides demographic information on the responding and 50.0% respectively. Collaboration is achieved to a much lesser
state government CIOs. Over 50% of the CIOs were in the age range degree, with the shares being 33.4%, 12.5%, and 12.5% respectively
of 45–54 years old. The vast majority of CIOs were male, representing for collaboration among state government agencies, collaboration
75% of the respondents. The typical length of tenure as a state govern- among federal and state agencies, and collaboration among state
ment CIO was less than 5 years (50%). Examining the four census re- and local government agencies. Clearly, the data shows good overall
gions in the United States, there was greater representation in the progress of openness of state governments, but with respect to the
Southern U.S., and the remaining responses were spread throughout three pillars, transparency seems to be most achieved, followed
the regions of the country, with the fewest responses from the North- closely by citizen participation. In comparison to these two pillars,
east. The demographics of the CIOs that responded to the survey collaboration has not been achieved as much across the state
are similar to previous survey research on collaboration and e- governments.
government (Reddick, 2008). The key characteristics of open e-government indentified in the
Since our survey sample is small, we conducted response bias extant literature are summarized in Table 4. The majority of state
tests to determine how representative our sample is of all state government CIOs surveyed indicated that they had an established

Table 2
Tests of response bias.

Responded N Mean Minimum Maximum t-tests for equality of means

t-statistic Prob. Sign.

a
Democrat Governor Responded 24 0.50 0 1 1.251 0.217
Not responded 26 0.33 0 1
b
State population Responded 24 6400.93 621.76 24782.3 0.27 0.788
Not responded 26 5876.33 544.27 36961.7
Population urban centersc Responded 24 4333.19 232.45 17204.3 − 0.122 0.903
Not responded 26 4530.46 321.34 31989.7
Total government expendituresd Responded 24 $29630.99 $4994.07 $90623.8 − 0.527 0.601
Not responded 26 $35561.66 $3570.43 $232450
a
National Governors Association data with 1 = Democrat, 0 = Republican, and 0.5 Independent.
b
U.S. Census Bureau resident population (in thousands), July 2009.
c
Urban population (in thousands) centers by state, 2000.
d
U.S. Census Bureau 2007 in millions of dollars.
118 S. Ganapati, C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 115–122

Table 3
Overall state open e-government achievement.

In your view, to what extent has open e-government Very High % Neutral % Low % Very N Median
been achieved in your state in each of the following? High % Low % statistic

Overall openness of state e-government 4.2 62.5 25 8.3 0 24 2.0

(1) (15) (6) (2)
Transparency in state e-government 12.5 45.8 33.3 8.3 0 24 2.0
(3) (11) (8) (2)
Citizen participation in state government 8.3 41.7 29.2 16.7 4.2 24 2.5
(2) (10) (7) (4) (1)
Collaboration among state government agencies 4.2 29.2 50 16.7 0 24 3.0
(1) (7) (12) (4)
Collaboration among federal and state agencies 0 12.5 54.2 33.3 0 24 3.0
(3) (13) (8)
Collaboration among state and local government agencies 4.2 8.3 41.7 41.7 4.2 24 3.0
(1) (2) (10) (10) (1)

Notes: Number of responses are in parentheses; Very High = 1, High = 2, Neutral = 3, Low = 4, and Very Low = 5.

plan to implement open e-government (62.6%). There were 45.8% were implementing systems of public/private partnerships to bring
of state government CIOs who indicated that they had a central- open e-government services to citizens. Convenience fees were also
ized site for uploading data from their agencies. In addition, a common to pay for open e-government services. In general, states
similar share (45.5%) of the state government CIOs indicated were finding creative ways to improve efficiency in operations to jus-
they had a committee for overseeing open e-government imple- tify spending on open e-government. The 2008 recession especially
mentation. A few CIOs indicated that they had an e-rule making made creativity in financing open e-government initiatives important
process in place that would advance the open government policy for states.
implementation process (30.4%). Very few CIOs (16.7%) indicated Third, most state governments believed that open government
that they had an established mechanism for assessing the quality was not a fad and was here to stay because citizens demand
of online information by state agencies. Overall, the survey data more of their government, and openness is something to strive
in Table 3 shows that a plan for open e-government seems to for to make government more responsive and accountable to its
be in place in a majority of the states. Institutional mechanisms citizens. One CIO commented that governments are stewards of
of overseeing the implementation and uploading data to central resources and open government creates a greater level of trans-
repositories need further development in over half of the states. parency and hence accountability to their citizens. The telephone
Moreover, more advanced mechanisms for open e-government, interviews confirmed our survey findings – open e-government
such as e-rule making and assessing the quality of information, taking hold in state governments – and, consistent with the sur-
is not very common among state governments. vey results, transparency was mentioned to be the most achieved
In order to delve more deeply into open e-government of the three pillars.
achievement, we followed up with 10 CIOs in a follow up tele-
phone interview. This allowed open-ended discussion with CIOs, 5. Motivations and barriers for open e-government
providing a way for the CIOs to raise such issues faced by state
governments that were not captured with the survey instrument. To examine the diffusion of open e-government, the motivations
From these interviews three key themes arose: external pressures, for adopting it and the barriers in such adoption were examined. The
funding issues, and the endurance of open e-government. First, motivations and the barriers of adopting open e-government are
state governments were motivated to engage in open government summarized in Table 5. With respect to motivation, the top reason
because of external forces such as a legislative body, governor, or for adopting open e-government was the imperative from state leg-
following federal government trends in open government. There islature requiring such implementation (54.2%). Legislative backing
was also a number of CIOs that mentioned that they needed to gives an institutional basis for the states to adopt open e-
keep up with the demands of citizens, especially the younger gen- government. Laws on transparency (e.g. freedom of information,
eration of 18- to 30-year-olds that were more engaged with this sunshine laws) facilitate state government agencies to disseminate
social media technology. public documents over the web. The second most common motiva-
Second, the state government CIOs commented that funding was a tion was that the state government CIOs followed federal guidelines
major issue going forward with open e-government. Many states to implement open e-government (50%). This is an interesting find-
ing: the federal policies have influenced the permeation of open e-
government through to the states. The federal government can
Table 4 thus provide a broader institutional basis for sub-national govern-
Important characteristics of state open e-government. ment agencies in pursuing open government principles. The CIO
Yes% No% also was influential and initiated open e-government for many states
Does the state have an established plan to implement 62.6 (15) 37.5 (9)
(50%). CIO's leadership is thus an important motivation for states to
open e-government? adopt open e-government. CIOs' explanatory comments indicate that
Does the state have a centralized site for uploading 45.8 (11) 54.2 (13) the motivation for adopting open e-government also came from the
data from its agencies? governor, or due to other initiatives (e.g. the attorney general's of-
Does the state have a committee for overseeing open 45.5 (11) 54.5 (13)
fice, the executive branch, or performance management require-
e-government implementation?
Does the state have an e-rule making process in place? 30.4 (7) 69.6 (17) ments). Interestingly, citizens' initiatives requiring the state to
Does the state government have an established 16.7 (4) 83.3 (20) create open e-government were not very common among the states
mechanism for assessing the quality of online that responded to the survey (16.7%). These results overall confirm
information by the state agencies? the need for institutional motivations in extant literature with
Note: N = 24; number of observations in parentheses. respect to open e-government (Fountain, 2001; Gil-Garcia &
 S. Ganapati, C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 115–122 119

Table 5
Motivations and barriers to open e-government.

Motivations Percent Barriers Percent

The state legislature required implementation of open e-government. 54.2 (13) Other 41.2 (10)
The state followed federal guidelines to implement open e-government. 50 (12) There are no barriers to implementing open e-government. 25 (6)
The CIO decided to implement open e-government. 50 (12) Open e-government is not required by the state legislature. 20.8 (5)
Citizen initiatives required the state to implement open e-government. 16.7 (4) There is very little awareness of open e-government in the state. 12.5 (3)
Other 12.5 (3) Political leaders in the state do not see an imperative for open 8.3 (2)
e-government.
There is no motivation to implement open e-government. 4.2 (1) State agencies resist implementation of open e-government. 8.3 (2)

Notes: N = 24; number of observations in parentheses.

Martinez-Moyano, 2007; Kim et al., 2009). Adoption of open e- realtime web-based performance dashboards. This question uses a
government requires the legal mandate to do so; the state legisla- five point Likert scale response, ranging from “Very High” to
tures that take the lead in providing such mandates could thus be in- “Very Low” percent of use. Using a range for this question is im-
strumental in enhancing such adoption. Federal guidelines and portant because the CIO would have a difficult time providing a
professional leadership from the CIOs are also crucial. As McNeal precise number of what is available online in all state agencies,
et al. (2003) have also observed, citizen initiatives are not as impor- given the multitude of agencies within their state. The results of
tant for open e-government adoption. the responses are shown in Table 6. As the table shows, according
With respect to the barriers in implementing open e- to the CIOs, the most common information available online is pro-
government, there is much diversity in the state CIOs' responses curement policies (83.3%) (sum of “Very High” and “High” re-
(Table 5). In fact, the “other” category was the most common re- sponses). The second most common information available online
sponse (41.2%). Some of the explanatory responses for the “other” was annual budget information (62.5%). Performance reports are
category included budget constraints, lack of interoperability of IT posted online by 52.2% of responding states. The least common
systems, and general technology limitations of the state that hin- open e-government information presented online is a real-time
dered open e-government. These findings were also consistent web-based performance dashboard (4.2%). The realtime dash-
with the telephone interview, especially budget constraints. About boards have been increasingly utilized by the federal agencies to
25% of responding state CIOs did not think there was any barrier report their performance measures. Overall, the findings reveal
to open e-government at all. Some state CIOs believed that it was that budget and procurement information are readily available on-
not a requirement of their state legislatures (20.8%), which repre- line for most states, but more advanced open transparency initia-
sents a barrier to implementing this policy change. In addition, tives such as performance reports and agency specific data and
only 12.5% of state CIOs indicated “there is very little awareness statistics are less common. Even though transparency initiatives
of open e-government in the state” as a barrier. Overall, the lack are adopted to a greater extent than the other two pillars, there
of institutions (e.g. legislative teeth) could be a barrier to adopting is thus scope for further development. This overall finding was
open e-government. Budget limitations and lack of interoperable IT also consistent with the telephone interviews, since many state
systems could also be barriers to such adoption. Similar institution- legislatures require their government to post budget and procure-
al, budgetary, and technological limitations have also been raised in ment information online.
the context of e-government in general (Chen & Thurmaier, 2008; With respect to participation, the principal question in the survey
Coursey & Norris, 2008; Fountain, 2001). was “Approximately what percentage of the state agencies use each
of the following participatory methods?” The options for participato-
6. Transparency, participation, and collaboration ry methods were the common online mechanisms: blogs, online de-
liberations (web conferences, chats, etc.), Really Simple Syndication
As outlined earlier, although there is progress in overall (RSS) feeds, social networking tools (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), virtual
achievement of open e-government, the achievement varies in world (e.g., Second Life), wikis. Similar to the question above, the
terms of the three pillars of open government. The features of question used a five-point Likert scale response. The results of the
achievement of the three pillars are examined further in this sec- survey responses are summarized in Table 7. CIO responses indicate
tion in Table 6. With respect to transparency, a principal question that the states use RSS feeds (i.e., updated web content pushed to in-
in the survey was “Approximately what percentage of the state's terested users) to the greatest extent, with 23.8% of state CIOs
agencies make each of the following information available online?” responding as “Very High” or “High.” This is followed by online delib-
The options for the answers included common items that are char- eration tools such as web conferences, chats, and so forth (22.7% at
acteristic of transparency in open e-government: annual budget, the “Very High” or “High” level). The third most common technology
annual performance report, requests under Freedom of Information used are social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter
Act, agency specific data and statistics, procurement policies, and (18.1%). The RSS feeds and social media are mainly used by the

Table 6
Open e-government information available online.

Approximately what percentage of the state's agencies Very High % Medium % Low % Very N Median
make each of the following information available online? High % Low % statistic

Annual budget 45.8(11) 16.7(4) 16.7(4) 16.7(4) 4.2(1) 24 2

Annual performance report 26.1(6) 26.1(6) 26.1(6) 13(3) 8.7(2) 23 2
Requests under Freedom of Information Act 4.3(1) 17.4(4) 30.4(7) 39.1(9) 8.7(2) 23 3
Agency specific data and statistics 20.8(5) 20.8(5) 37.5(9) 16.7(4) 4.2(1) 24 3
Procurement policies 33.3(8) 50(12) 8.3(2) 4.2(1) 4.2(1) 24 2
Realtime web based performance dashboards 0 4.2(1) 25(6) 58.3(14) 12.5(3) 24 4

Notes: Number of responses are in parentheses; Very High = 1, High = 2, Medium = 3, Low = 4, and Very Low = 5.
120 S. Ganapati, C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 115–122

Table 7
Open e-government participatory methods.

Approximately, what percentage of the state agencies Very High % Medium % Low % Very N Median
use each of the following participatory methods? High % Low % statistic

Blogs 9.1(2) 4.5(1) 31.8(7) 50(11) 4.5(1) 22 4

Online deliberations (web conferences, chats, etc.) 9.1(2) 13.6(3) 22.7(5) 50(11) 4.5(1) 22 4
RSS feeds 19(4) 4.8(1) 23.8(5) 42.9(9) 9.5(2) 21 4
Social networking tools (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) 13.6(3) 4.5(1) 50(11) 18.2(4) 13.6(3) 22 3
Virtual world (e.g., Second Life) 0 4.5(1) 4.5(1) 27.3(6) 63.6(14) 22 5
Wikis 0 9.1(2) 18.2(4) 45.5(10) 27.3(6) 22 4

Notes: Number of responses are in parentheses; Very High = 1, High = 2, Medium = 3, Low = 4, and Very Low = 5.

state agencies to relay information about their activities; use of such Table 9 summarizes the responses. When summing “agree” and
media may not be strictly participatory in the sense of gaining from “strongly agree” responses, 50% of the CIOs registered the two options
the citizen knowledge through dialog. Online deliberation tools are of “a climate of trust and respect is fostered through open lines of
better mechanisms for such two way knowledge sharing. Overall, communication” and “processes are in place which partners can dis-
the results show that high use of open e-government participatory cuss, develop, and agree to common standards needed for the initia-
methods is not very common, the median response for all of the tive's success.” The option of “communication strategies that
methods was 2.0 (“Low”) with the exception of social networking facilitate two-way communication among the project team partners,
sites, which had a medium rating. and other stakeholders” has the highest amount of agreement at
In terms of collaboration, there were two questions in the survey. 65%. The lowest level of agreement are for “a common vision being
The first question was, “To what extent do you currently interact in shared among partners” and “the involvement of all leadership levels
the decision making process with each partner in e-government?” was an instituted practice,” both at 38.1% agreement. Overall, the re-
The question specifically asked to what extent do decisions on open sults on collaboration within state e-government shows that it offers
e-government collaborate with key stakeholders. The scales for re- many of the common characteristics of effective collaboration, but a
sponses ranged from independent decisions to consensual decisions. more penetrating system of collaboration across leadership levels
The options included: with federal government, within the state gov- and long term visioning is not as common.
ernment, with local governments (counties and cities), with citizens,
with the business community, and with contractors/suppliers. The 7. Conclusion
question used a five point response in the increasing order of collabo-
ration with the partners: all decisions are made independently, some In sum, the paper highlights how open e-government initiatives
shared decision making, all members have a vote in decision making, are unevenly developed across the states. Nearly two-thirds of the
and consensus is reached on all decisions. Table 8 summarizes the re- CIOs surveyed felt that they have achieved high levels of open
sults of the CIOs' responses. The table shows that most collaboration in e-government, but fewer CIOs felt similarly with respect to each of
e-government is taking place within the state government itself, with the pillars of open government. A majority felt they have attained a
65% of CIOs believing that there is “some shared decision making.” high degree of transparency, but they did not feel as strongly about
This is followed by “some shared decision making” with federal citizen participation and collaboration. These findings are revealing.
government and citizens, both done by 61.9% of responding Few state governments have concerted policies for overall transpar-
CIOs. There is the least amount of shared decision making in e- ency efforts. Yet, the CIOs perceived that transparency has been
government with local governments and contractors/suppliers, both achieved to a greater degree than citizen participation and collabora-
having scored 47.6% of responses. About 57.1% of CIOs believed that tion. This reveals there is opportunity for further growth along these
there is “some shared decision making” with the business community. dimensions.
Overall, the median statistics showed that “some shared decision The majority of state government CIOs surveyed indicated that
making” is the median response for all the key stakeholders, with they have an established plan to implement open e-government. A
the exception of contractors/suppliers, where all decisions are made few indicated that they had a centralized site for uploading data and
independently. The findings show that collaboration in open e- a committee to oversee open e-government implementation. Very
government is very common within the state government agencies few indicated that they have e-rule making processes in place. In
and there are many stakeholders involved in the process. the perception of the state CIOs, more advanced levels of open e-
The second question on collaboration in the survey was, “In your government are yet to be achieved. Interestingly, the CIOs indicated
view, how would you describe the characteristics of collaboration that state legislature and federal guidelines are important for states
within your state e-government?” The question used a five-point to implement open e-government. President Obama's federal initia-
Likert scale to seven options, as identified in the extant literature. tive has thus been important for the state governments too. The

Table 8
Collaboration among key stakeholders in open e-government.

To what extent do you currently interact in the decision making All decisions are Some shared All members have a vote Consensus is reached N Median
process with process with each partner in open e-government? made are madely % decision making % in decision making % on all decisions % statistic

With federal government 38.1 (8) 61.9 (13) 0 0 21 2

Within the state government 20 (4) 65 (13) 0 15 (3) 20 2
With local governments (counties and cities) 42.9(9) 47.6(10) 0 9.5(2) 21 2
With citizens 28.6(6) 61.9(13) 4.8(1) 4.8(1) 21 2
With the business community 38.1(8) 57.1(12) 0 4.8(1) 21 2
With contractors/suppliers 52.4(11) 47.6(10) 0 0 21 1

Notes: Number of responses are in parentheses; All decisions are made independently = 1, Some shared decision making = 2, All members have a vote in decision making = 3, and
Consensus is reached on all decisions = 4.
 S. Ganapati, C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 115–122 121

Table 9
Collaboration within state open e-government.

In your view, how would you describe the characteristics of collaboration within your Strongly Agree% Neutral% Disagree% Strongly N Median
open state e-government… agree% disagree% statistic

A common vision is shared among partners. 14.3(3) 23.8(5) 47.6(10) 14.3(3) 0 21 3

Involvement of all leadership levels is an instituted practice. 9.5(2) 28.6(6) 33.3(7) 28.6(6) 0 21 3
A climate of trust and respect is fostered through open lines of communication. 15(3) 35(7) 35(7) 15(3) 0 20 2.5
Partner/stakeholder roles and responsibilities are clearly defined, agreed to, 4.8(1) 28.6(6) 42.9(9) 23.8(5) 0 21 3
and understood by participants.
Communication strategies facilitate two-way communication among the project 10(2) 55(11) 20(4) 15(3) 0 20 2
team, partners, and other stakeholders.
Outreach programs keep those affected by an initiative informed of new developments. 10(2) 30(6) 45(9) 15(3) 0 20 3
Processes are in place which partners can discuss, develop, and agree to common 10(2) 40(8) 35(7) 15(3) 0 20 2.5
standards needed for an initiative's success.

Notes: Number of responses are in parentheses; Strongly agree = 1, Agree = 2, Neutral = 3, Disagree = 4, and Strongly disagree = 5.

CIOs' attitude is also significant, which reinforces the argument for Chapman, R. A., & Hunt, M. (Eds.). (1987). Open government. New York: Croom Helm.
transparency readiness found in the extant literature. Institutional Chen, Y. -C., & Thurmaier, K. (2008). Advancing e-government: Financing challenges
and opportunities. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 537–548.
considerations, which have emerged in extant literature on e- Cohen, J. (2006). Citizen satisfaction with contacting government on the Internet. Infor-
government, are significant for open e-government adoption too. Al- mation Polity, 11(1), 51–65.
though there is not much consensus on the barriers to implementing Council of State Governments (2010). Directory III: Administrative Officials, 2010.
Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.
open e-government in the states among the CIOs, budget constraints, Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of e-government: Are they correct? An em-
lack of interoperability of IT systems, and general technology limita- pirical assessment. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523–536.
tions seem to be common factors. Cross, H. (1953). The people's right to know; legal access to public records and proceed-
ings. New York: Columbia University Press.
With respect to the transparency pillar, state CIOs have mainly Curtin, G. C. (2010). Free the data!: E-governance for Megaregions. Public Works Man-
focused on transparency in procurement policies, budget informa- agement & Policy, 14(3), 307–326.
tion, and performance reports. With respect to participation, al- Fouhy, B. (2011). AP survey shows obstacles to open government. : Missourian http://
www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/03/14/openness-state-government-
though social media and other new web based methods have
ap-survey-shows-obstacles/ [Retrieved from]
been emphasized in the literature, most state government CIOs per- Fountain, J. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional
ceive that such tools have not been used for deliberation. The dis- change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
crepancy between the literature and practice is worth further Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Martinez-Moyano, I. J. (2007). Understanding the evolution of e-
government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics. Govern-
examination. This could be due to general reticence of government ment Information Quarterly, 24(2), 266–290.
agencies to use the social media, or because internal procedures Karch, A. (2006). National intervention and the diffusion of policy innovations. Ameri-
have not yet been well established to use such media. With respect can Politics Research, 34(4), 403–436.
Karch, A. (2007). Democratic laboratories: Policy diffusion among the American states.
to collaboration, whereas a majority of the CIOs felt that they had Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
shared decision making with federal government and citizens, Karch, A. (2010). Vertical diffusion and the policy-making process: The politics of em-
they did not feel as strongly with respect to the local governments bryonic stem cell research. Political Research Quarterly http://prq.sagepub.com/
content/early/2010/10/22/1065912910385252 [Retrieved from]
and contractors/suppliers. Kim, S., Hyun Jeong Kim, H. J., & Lee, H. (2009). An institutional analysis of an e-
There are two key limitations of this study that should be noted government system for anti-corruption: The case of OPEN. Government Information
that lead to suggestions for future research. First, this study con- Quarterly, 26(1), 42–50.
Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and par-
ducted a survey of state government CIOs. These public administra- ticipation in practice. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
tion officials would certainly have a key role to play in open McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly,
government, but the role of elected officials was not taken into ac- 27(4), 401–413.
McNeal, R. S., Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., & Dotterweich, L. J. (2003). Innovating in
count in the survey and is equally important. Because open e-
digital government in the American States. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 52–70.
government has strong policy and legal implications, future research Menzel, D. C., & Feller, I. (1977). Leadership and interaction patterns in the diffusion of
could do case studies of states that have effectively implemented innovations among the American states. Western Political Quarterly, 30(4),
open e-government to see what role the governor and the legislative 528–536.
Montgomery, B. P. (2006). Subverting open government: White House materials and ex-
body played in its implementation. A second limitation of this study is ecutive branch politics. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press.
that the sample size is relatively small with only 24 states responding. Musso, J., Weare, C., & Hale, M. (2000). Designing web technologies for local gover-
Even knowing we are dealing with an elite sample of individuals that nance reform: Good management or good democracy. Political Communication,
17(1), 1–19.
are actively involved in open government, such as small sample Obama, B. (2009). Transparency and open government. Memorandum for the heads of
makes it difficult to conduct more advanced statistical analysis to executive departments and agencies. Federal Register, 74(15), 4685–4686.
confirm the findings. Moreover, albeit the state CIOs responded to Orszag, P. (2009). Open government directive. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/
the survey, the responses are self-reported perceptions. Therefore, fu- assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf [Retrieved from]
ture research should examine a larger sample, perhaps surveying the Pasquier, M., & Villeneuve, J. P. (2007). Organizational barriers to transparency: A ty-
key officials of individual state agencies. pology and analysis of organizational behaviour tending to prevent or restrict ac-
cess to information. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(1), 147–162.
Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2007). Citizen attitudes toward transparency in
References local government. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 306–323.
Reddick, C. G. (2008). Collaboration and homeland security preparedness: A survey of
Allen, M. D., Pettus, C., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2004). Making the national local: Spec- U.S. city managers. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 5(1),
ifying the conditions for national government influence on state policymaking. 1–19.
State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 4(3), 318–344. Tolbert, C., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confi-
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of trans- dence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369.
parency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., & McNeal, R. (2008). Institutions, policy innovation, and e-
societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. government in the American States. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 549–563.
Brian, D., McDermott, P., & Weins, J. (2011). WikiLeaks is a wake-up call for openness. Welch, S., & Thompson, K. (1980). The impact of federal incentives on state policy in-
Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 135–136. novation. American Journal of Political Science, 24(4), 715–729.
Castells, M. (2007). Mobile communication and society: A global perspective. Cambridge, West, D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and cit-
MA: MIT Press. izen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–26.
122 S. Ganapati, C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 115–122

Dr. Sukumar Ganapati is an Associate Professor in the Public Administration Depart- Christopher G. Reddick is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Public
ment at Florida International University. Dr. Ganapati's research deals with the role Administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio, USA. Dr. Reddick's research
of institutions in the urban context, particularly with respect to housing, community and teaching interests is in information technology and public sector organizations.
development, and information technology. He has published in top ranked peer He has published over 50 journal articles and chapters on the subject of information
reviewed research journals, including Journal of the American Planning Association, technology and public administration. Some of his publications can be found in Gov-
Journal of Planning Education and Research (JPER), Housing Studies, Urban Affairs Re- ernment Information Quarterly, Electronic Government, and the International Journal
view, Public Administration and Development, Journal of Environmental Planning and of Electronic Government Research. Dr. Reddick recently edited the two volume book
Management, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Habitat Interna- entitled Handbook of Research on Strategies for Local E-Government Adoption and Im-
tional, and the International Journal of Electronic Government Research. Dr. Ganapati plementation: Comparative Studies. He is also author of the book Homeland Security
is the PI or the Co-PI of several research grants from the IBM Center for the Business Preparedness and Information Systems, which deals with the impact of information
of Government, the National Science Foundation, and other agencies. technology on homeland security preparedness.