International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 53–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

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

e-Government stakeholders—Who are they and what do they want?夽

Jennifer Rowley ∗
Department of Information and Communications, Manchester Metropolitan University, Geoffrey Manton Building, Rosamund St West, Manchester M15 6LL, United Kingdom

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

Keywords: There is an increasing recognition that various stakeholder groups for e-government have a signifi-
e-Government cant role to play in ensuring the long-term success of the e-government enterprise. This article seeks
Stakeholder analysis to contribute to the understanding of the stakeholders’ multiple perspectives by proposing typologies of
User adoption
stakeholder roles, and stakeholder benefits, respectively, and embedding these in a stakeholder benefits
Stakeholder interests
analysis tool. A literature review is used to surface the diverse existing categorizations of e-government
Stakeholder benefits
stakeholders and their interests and the benefits sought. This review informs a proposal for a typology
of stakeholder roles, and for a typology of stakeholder benefits, which together are used to construct an
initial proposal for a stakeholder benefits analysis tool (SBAT), which can be used to map stakeholder
roles to stakeholder benefits. This tool has been tested by an expert group, and revised. This exploratory
study is an important first step towards the development of tools and approaches for understanding the
benefits sought by a wide range of different stakeholder groups in e-government. Progress in the devel-
opment of such tools is important for the development of knowledge and practice, policy, and evaluation
with respect to stakeholder engagement with, and participation in, e-government.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Themistocleous, 2005, p.63), that too much of the existing work
on citizen interaction with e-government takes a ‘supply side’ per-
Interest in e-government has mushroomed over the past 10 spective (Codagnone & Undheim, 2008; Reddick, 2005), and, that
years as governments have viewed e-government as a lever there has been insufficient exploration of the ‘fit’ between sup-
for changing outmoded bureaucracies, making improvements in ply assumptions and usage drivers (Lee-Kelley & Kolsaker, 2004).
the efficiency and effectiveness of public service, enhancing ser- Looking ahead, a number of commentators envisage that increased
vice to citizens and businesses, and promoting participation and accountability to constituents will reduce public services’ account-
democracy. Within Europe there have been major initiatives and ability to central government (Leadbeater & Cottam, 2008; Millard,
investments at both pan-European level and within many of the EU 2008), with an associated shift in the emphasis of e-government
member states. Some would argue that in a number of instances from making services available online (associated with the ‘new
this investment and impetus has been techno-centric, and it is public management’ approach), to open government and greater
only latterly, as governments and their agencies and departments transparency (associated with ‘digital era governance’ or ‘con-
are beginning to acknowledge that citizens and businesses are nected governance’) (Dunleavy & Margetts, 2006; Osimo, 2008; UN,
reluctant to engage with their governments through electronic 2008). Millard (2008) foresees a future model for e-government
channels that the focus has shifted to users. The drive to under- enabled through Web 2.0 technologies, in which ‘constituents them-
stand and establish the ‘value’ and ‘impact’ of the investment in selves will also be involved in policy target setting and measurement
e-government has spawned a growing interest in the evaluation when directly related to their own use of public sector services and
of e-government, whether this be through the development of facilities’ (p.1).
benchmarking methodologies or through investigations into the There is an increasing recognition that the way forward is
factors that influence the adoption of e-government by citizens. through participation, and that the various stakeholder groups
There is a growing consensus that ‘evaluations need to address for e-government have a significant role to play in ensuring the
the notion of benefit to the citizen’ (Irani, Love, Elliman, Jones, & long-term success of the e-government enterprise (Flak and Rose,
2005; Flak & Nordheim, 2006; Scholl, 2004; Tan, Pan, & Lim, 2005).
Yet, there has been very little comparative analysis of the per-
spectives of different stakeholders, possibly because there has
夽 This paper is an EGovMoNet (e-Government Monitor Network) paper. EGov- been too great a focus on the supply side and the technology
MoNet is a Thematic Network co-funded by the European Commission. (e.g. Kosaker & Lee-Kelley, 2006), or arguably because there is a
∗ Tel.: +44 0161 247 6137.
E-mail address: [email protected].
strongly held assumption that, in providing e-government, as in

0268-4012/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.05.005
54 J. Rowley / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 53–62

other actions, governments are acting on behalf of their people. As testing of this tool by an expert panel, reports on the findings from
Chircu (2008) suggests, although e-government projects are char- the process, and reflects of the value of the tool. Finally, conclusions
acterised by many stakeholders with multiple value dimensions and recommendations for further developments are offered.
(financial, social and political), few e-government studies adopt a
multi-dimensional perspective incorporating all value dimensions
2. Stakeholders and their categorization
and relevant stakeholders. Rather, most studies identify and focus
on one specific stakeholder group such as citizens, service users,
This section introduces some useful insights from stakeholder
small–medium sized enterprises, or other government agencies.
theory and its application in e-government practice and theory.
Whilst such research may offer in-depth insights into engagement
Next it discusses the process associated with the development of a
and interaction with e-government, in the absence of an agreed
typology of stakeholder roles on the basis of extant categorizations
typology of stakeholder groups or roles its contribution towards a
of e-government stakeholders.
wider understanding of engagement with e-government is limited.
Further, such research takes a narrow perspective on stakeholder
interests, objectives and benefits sought, since it precludes con- 2.1. Stakeholder theories
sideration of the connection between and any conflicts arising
from the interests of different stakeholders, and therefore omits to There is general agreement that the public sector is complex
progress to the most important consideration, which is the man- and involves a variety of stakeholders (Boyne, 2002; Breschneider,
agement of those connections and conflicts. Governments need 1990; Hood, 1991) and that this inherent complexity is trans-
to know more about who their stakeholders are, and what they lated into the e-government arena (Flak & Nordheim, 2006; Scholl,
want, to succeed in e-government service adoption, to encourage 2004; Tan et al., 2005). Chircu (2008) shows that e-government
participation and e-democracy, and to enhance the impact of e- projects are characterised by many stakeholders with multiple
government investment. value dimensions (financial, social and political), but argues that
This article then draws on a wide range of previous research, few e-government studies adopt a multi-dimensional perspective
consultancy, and practice in e-government, seeking out mention of incorporating all value dimensions and relevant stakeholders.
stakeholder groups, and their interests. The aim of the article is to The centrality of stakeholders to the success and long-term
promote debate and reflection on stakeholders in e-government. effectiveness of an organization was argued in a seminal work by
This will be achieved through: Freeman (1984). Freeman’s definition of a stakeholder is:
‘a stakeholder in an organization is (by its definition) any group
• The development of a typology of e-government stakeholder
or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement
roles.
of the organization’s objective (p.25).
• The development of a typology of potential benefits to e-
government stakeholders. Whilst there has been some discussion associated with the
• The development of a tool (the stakeholder benefits analysis tool) application of stakeholder theory, with its roots in the business
for assessing perceptions of the overlap and conflict between world, to e-government settings, a number of authors have recog-
the interests associated with different e-government stakeholder nised the value of aspects of its conceptual base (Flak & Rose,
roles. 2005; Flak & Nordheim, 2006; Scholl, 2004; Tan et al., 2005). Fur-
ther, several authors have argued the case for the alignment of
Together these outputs are intended to: e-government objectives with stakeholder interests and suggested
that such alignment is central to effective e-governance (Allen,
• Encourage a more inclusive approach to the consideration of all Paquet, & Roy, 2001; Tennert & Schroeder, 1999).
stakeholders. Stakeholder theory encourages the identification of stakehold-
• Help to ensure that significant stakeholder groups and roles are ers and the development of stakeholder typologies. One such
not overlooked. typology, developed by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997), differenti-
• Promote understanding of the divergence, conflicts, and align- ates stakeholders on the basis of ‘salience’. Salience recognises that
ment of stakeholder interests and benefits. not all stakeholders are equal, and there is discrimination in the
• Enhance comparability and benchmarking. extent to which the claims of different stakeholders are acknowl-
edged, on the basis of the relative power, legitimacy and urgency
On the other hand, in pressing for a more energetic consider- of the claims of the different stakeholders. Stakeholder theory also
ation of stakeholders, we acknowledge that generic frameworks encourages consideration of competing perspectives, objectives,
have limited application in specific contexts, because each e- and claims, the conflicts that arise from these differences, and the
government project, service and initiative is different, has different processes whereby these differences are ‘negotiated’. On the other
stakeholders and stakeholder roles, and those stakeholders have hand, the classical way of modelling stakeholders is by presenting
different interests and seek different benefits. This does not nec- a focal organization or project at the centre of a nexus of stakehold-
essarily imply that the search for general frameworks is fruitless. ers, whereas in e-government it is also important to understand and
It does, however, strengthen the case for a high level of subtlety model stakeholder-to-stakeholder relationships (Flak & Nordheim,
and sophistication in the construction and application of such a 2006; Scholl, 2004).
framework. Another potential weakness of stakeholder theory lies in its defi-
This article commences with a consideration of stakeholder the- nition of the concept in terms of individuals or groups. In this article
ory and the categorization of e-government stakeholders in the we argue that for e-government the most appropriate way of seg-
e-government literature, and informed by this previous work, pro- menting stakeholders is in terms of ‘roles’ rather than as ‘groups’.
poses a typology of stakeholder roles. The next section explores This is because it is important to acknowledge that in e-government
the objectives, desired outcomes, sought benefits, and motivators both individuals and organizations can play several roles, either
of the various groups of stakeholders as articulated in the literature concurrently or in sequence. Thus, for example, an individual can
as a basis for the proposal of a typology of stakeholder benefits. be all of a service user, a citizen, and an employee in a business,
Using these two typologies, an initial draft of the stakeholder ben- whilst an organization might be a business, and an e-government
efits analysis tool is proposed. The following section discusses the supplier. Also, as Scholl (2004) points out, stakeholder stances, par-
 J. Rowley / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 53–62 55

ticularly in the public sector, may change over time. This means, Table 1
Examples of categorizations of e-government based on stakeholder categories.
for instance, that whilst stakeholders to, say an e-government
project, may have different long-term objectives, their short-term Source Categories of e-government
objectives may incidentally align in specific contexts or over short Belanger and Hiller (2006) Government delivering Services to
periods of time; these changing positions present further interest- Individuals (G2IS)
ing challenges for stakeholder management and engagement with Government-to-Individuals as Part of the
e-government. Political Process (G2IP)
Government-to-Business as a Citizen
Another perspective on stakeholders is to be found in the mar-
(G2BC)
keting strategy literature. Grounded in the relationship marketing Government-to-Business in the
paradigm, the six markets model is designed to encourage orga- Marketplace (G2BMKT)
nizations to take a more holistic perspective on their stakeholder Government-to-Employees (G2E)
Government-to-Government (G2G)
roles (Payne, Ballantyne, & Christopher, 2005), and to extend their
marketing actions and communication to embrace all six mar- Yildiz (2007) building on Government-to-Government (G2G)
kets, viz., customer markets, referral markers, supplier markets, Brown and Brudney (2001)
Government-to-Citizen (G2C)
employee (recruitment) markets, influence markets, and internal
Government-to-Business (G2B)
markets. The particular attraction of this model is that it identi- Government-to-Civil Societal
fies a general purpose typology of stakeholder roles, and invites Organizations (G2CS)
complementary consideration of, for instance, internal markets Citizen-to-Citizen (C2C).
(employees as stakeholders), customer markets (service users), and
influence markets (politicians, community networks).
continued until the identification of additional documents did not
generate any new categorizations of stakeholders.
2.2. Towards a typology of e-government stakeholder roles
2.2.2. Analysis and synthesis of prior categorizations
In order to move towards a typology of e-government stake- Torraco (2005) suggests that a taxonomy or other conceptual
holders, categorizations of stakeholders were sought in the classification of constructs is one form of synthesize of previous
e-government literature. This process involved the following literature and can lay the foundation for new theorizing. On the
stages. basis of the documents identified in the literature review, two
different approaches to such categorizations were noted. First cat-
2.2.1. Literature review egorizations of stakeholders are often implicit in categorizations
A thorough literature review was conducted of the e- of e-government, as shown in Table 1. Secondly, explicit catego-
government literature in pursuit of any mention of stakeholder rizations are offered by a number of authors. Some of these are
categorizations. Initially documents were identified through summarized in Table 2; this table demonstrates that there are
searches in Google Scholar and Web of Science using terms such both general categorizations (often to be found in national and
as ‘e-government’ and ‘stakeholder’. The initial document set was international policy documents) and more specific categorizations,
further developed through trawling citations in articles and the typically relating to a specific project or initiative. These catego-
use of ‘cited by’ to identify relevant citing articles (Webster & rizations were then used to generate a comprehensive list of all
Watson, 2002). In addition, selected journals (e.g. Government Infor- potential stakeholder roles. These roles were then grouped into
mation Quarterly, Electronic Government; An International Journal, those roles that could be adopted by individuals and those that
and European Journal of ePractice) were scanned. Documents iden- could be adopted by organizations. An iterative process of refine-
tified included web pages, reports, conference papers and journal ment was then undertaken, eliminating roles specific to special
articles, and were drawn from disciplinary bases of information contexts, collapsing similar categories, and eliminating any over-
systems, management, and public administration. Searching was laps between categories. The resulting typology is shown in Table 3.

Table 2
Roles of e-government stakeholders identified by different authors.

Source Stakeholder categories

General categorizations
Heeks (2006) Non-profits, other agencies, citizens/customers, businesses, communities, government
Mintzberg (1996) Customers, clients, subjects, and citizens (constituents for e-government services)
Orange, Burke, Elliman, and Kor (2006) Politicians, staff, public, project managers, design developers, other government agencies
UN (2008) Public administrators, programmers, end-users, politicians
Yildiz (2007) Government, citizen, business, civil society

Special purpose categorizations

Beynon-Davies (2005) Customers, suppliers, partners, employees (general)
Large and small businesses, individual tax payers, students/graduates, senior citizens (for Inland Revenue, UK)
Flak and Nordheim (2006) Regional council, regional partners, national and international policy makers, systems vendors, county governor,
county municipality, citizens of municipality, municipal politicians, municipal administration, municipal service
production units (for a local government project in Norway)
Heeks (2003) Senior managers of the Epidemiology Service, Ministry of Health, internal users (managers health specialists,
statistical specialists, information systems personnel), external users (in various ministries, local authorities,
research institutions and international organizations), citizens (computerisation in a national Epidemiology
Service in Central Asia)
Irani et al. (2007) Informed citizens (academic), elected representatives, local government staff, regional and central staff, others
(VIEGO participants)
Millard (2008) Policy makers, researchers, practitioners, constituents as citizens and businesses (stakeholders in impact
measurement)
Tan et al. (2005) Singapore government, IRAS (Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore), tax officials, taxpayers, employers (e-filing
for tax initiative)
56 J. Rowley / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 53–62

Table 3 Table 4
Proposed typology of E-government Constituents for e-government services (based on Mintzberg, 1996).
stakeholder roles.
Category of Nature Focus
1. People as service users constituent
2. People as citizens
Customers Purchase commodities from Driving cost out of the
3. Businesses
government agencies (e.g. transaction
4. Small-to-medium sized enterprises
utilities, lottery tickets)
5. Public administrators (employees)
Clients Purchase or receive Delivering a commercially
6. Other government agencies
professional services from appropriate, quality
7. Non-profit organizations
government over a period of outcomes for the individual
8. Politicians
time (e.g. health services,
9. E-Government project managers
education, job location
10. Design and IT developers
services)
11. Suppliers and partners
Subjects Receive mandatory service To seek a fair, consistently
12. Researchers and evaluators
from government without the applied service delivery.
opportunity to influence the
parameters of service provision
3. Divining stakeholder benefits (e.g. taxpayers, prison inmates)
Citizens Receive services from the To ensure a consistent,
This section focuses on the development of a typology of stake- government at a broad level equitable and appropriate
(e.g. sewerage, roads), act as outcome from the whole
holder benefits. We use the term ‘benefits’ here because ‘benefits’ is ‘owner’ (e.g. voting, lobbying) series of interactions
a ‘consumer-side’, active notion. Asking what benefits stakeholders
seek from e-government, rather that what are their objectives or
interests is more likely to lead to answers that: and above 51% reported using the Internet regularly, but only 30%
used the Internet in the last 3 months of 2007 for interaction with
• Are focussed more directly on what they want from an e- public authorities. Low take up not only means that governments
government service. find it difficult to justify expenditure on e-government, and that
• Provide a more generic framework for comparing and integrating citizens are not benefiting from the investment in e-government,
the perspectives of all stakeholders. but also that governments are not achieving the efficiency gains
that they seek from their investment.
Nevertheless, along the journey towards the development of a Some e-government researchers have turned to established
typology of benefits it is necessary to draw on literature that talks theories in pursuit of developing an understanding of the adoption
in terms of interests, impacts, objectives, and adoption. This section of e-government. Three theories are important, the technology
commences with a brief distillation of the few studies or commen- adoption model (TAM), Roger’s diffusion of innovation theory
taries that do consider and compare the perspectives of different (DOI), and work on service quality that centres on models such
stakeholders. It then moves on to focus on previous proposals as the service quality gap model and SERVQUAL and its variants
regarding the benefits and desired outcomes from users/citizens for e-services, such as E-S-QUAL, SITEQual, and .comQ (Rowley,
and governments/administrations, respectively, concluding with a 2006). Rowley (2006) undertakes an analysis of the features that
brief section on other stakeholders. This account is based on the researchers have identified as contributing to e-service quality, and
documents identified in the literature review described in the pre- provides a summary list: site features, security, communication,
vious section, supplemented by additional documents generated to reliability, customer support, responsiveness, information, acces-
further enhance the representation of documents on ‘adoption’, and sibility, delivery, and personalisation. Specifically in the context of
‘e-government policies and objectives’. Finally the development e-government and its adoption, Carter and Belanger (2005) based
of the proposed typology of e-government stakeholder benefits is their study on TAM and DOI; they found that the following factors
outlined. were important in adoption: perceived ease of use, compatibility,
and trustworthiness. Developing this work, Carter (2008) suggests
3.1. Comparing stakeholder interests that perceived usefulness, trust of the Internet, previous use of an
e-government service, and perceived ease of use all have an impact
An early contribution that recognised the different foci of the dif- on intention to use an e-government service. Further, perceived
ferent ‘constituent groups’ was offered by Mintzberg (1996), and is usefulness emerges as the most important factor; it alone explains
summarised in Table 4. More recently, Irani, Elliman, and Jackson 75% of the variance in intention to use. Gilbert, Balestrini, and
(2007), in discussions on the future of e-government with focus Littleboy (2004) argue that it is important to consider both the
groups composed of Welsh Assembly members (elected represen- positive and the negative factors that influence adoption, or, in
tatives) and local government managers focussed on evaluation and other words, to understand not only what encourages people to
measurement, found that whereas the focus group of managers and
IT experts focussed on technological and organizational issues, the Table 5
group of elected representatives from local government were most Subcategories of e-government and their dominant characteristics (based on Yildiz,
interested in e-inclusion and participation, and their influence on 2007).
decision-making processes, and the role of elected representatives. Parties of communication Dominant characteristics
Yildiz (2007) also approaches the issue of the interests of different
G2G Communication; Coordination;
stakeholder groups obliquely when he identities the sub-categories Standardisation of information and services
of e-government and their dominant characteristics, as in Table 5. G2C Communication; Transparency;
Accountability; Effectiveness, Efficiency;
Standardisation of information and services;
3.2. Users/citizens and adoption factors Productivity
G2B Communication; Collaboration; Commerce
Adoption of e-government is perceived to be a challenge by G2CS Communication; Collaboration; Commerce
many administrations. For example, Wauters and Lorincz (2008) C2C Communication; Coordination; Transparency;
Accountability; Grassroots; Organization
(quoting Eurostat Statistics) suggest that among Europeans aged 15
 J. Rowley / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 53–62 57

use e-government, but also to be clear about what discourages • Improving the operational efficiency of departments by replacing
them from doing so. They find that trust, financial security, and labour intensive processes with e-government systems. There are
information quality are adoption barriers, whilst time and money two types of efficiency, viz., cashable efficiency gains (reduction
are potential adoption benefits. The most recent UN e-Government of costs); and, non-cashable efficiency gains (improved outputs
report (UN, 2008) also focuses on adoption barriers and suggests or quality of services) (AGIMO, 2004; CPA, 2002; ODPM, 2005).
that non-adoption might be due to: poor understanding of the • Re-engineering internal business processes (Beynon-Davies,
needs of the people; inadequate infrastructure; inadequate service 2005).
delivery; poor content accessibility; usefulness and accuracy; lan- • Re-shaping the relations between citizens and service providers
guage; social and cultural issues; lack of trust; lack of marketing; (Silcock, 2001).
and/or lack of confidentiality. • Achieving more joined-up services (NAO, 2002).
Whilst looking to parallels with e-commerce may provide use- • Making services more accessible (Cabinet Office, 1999).
ful insights into e-government adoption, some commentators (e.g. • Re-invigorating local democracy and public participation in local
Codagnone & Undheim, 2008; Millard, 2008) argue that this leads decision-making (Martin, 2003).
to a narrow perspective that focuses only on the role of the citi- • Reducing the discretion of staff, thereby increasing equity and
zen (or constituent) as consumer, and fails to embrace their other consistency and bureaucratic accountability (Reddick, 2005).
roles as taxpayer, and, citizen and voter. In these different roles,
‘constituents’ may seek different kinds of benefits. They also align Some authors (although as yet, few policy makers) are seeking
these different roles with three major policy goals for government: to identify impacts of pay-offs that go beyond first order gov-
ernment process efficiency parameters, to dimensions of national
1. Taxpayers-efficiency and the search for savings – benefits for gov- performance, such as reduction of the social divide, and increased
ernment – a dynamic, productivity-driven, innovative and value business competitiveness (Srivastava & Teo, 2007). Millard (2008)
for money set of institutions. suggest that a re-focus on governance issues strengthens the focus
2. Users (consumers)-effectiveness: the search for quality services of e-government objectives on promoting economic growth, jobs,
– benefits for the constituents – producing and delivering competitiveness, sustainable development, inclusion, democracy,
inter-active, user-centred, innovative, personalisable, inclusive quality of life, citizenship, trust, continuity, stability, and universal
services, maximising fulfilment and security. human rights.
3. Citizens-governance: the search for good governance—benefits for An important body of work that embeds consideration of e-
society: open, transparent, accountable, flexible, participatory, government policy objectives, analysing them in terms of outputs,
and democratic. outcomes and impacts, is the e-government measurement and
evaluation activity. For example, the extract from Millard (2008)
Lee-Kelley and Kolsaker (2004) identify human elements such reproduced in Table 6 is a good illustration of the alignments
as citizen-centricity, sociological factors, attitudinal orientation, between outputs and operational objectives, outcomes and spe-
political cynicism, and philosophical preferences and convictions cific objectives, and impact and general objectives. Millard also
as possibly influential in e-government adoption. Other researchers differentiates between outcomes for the government agency, and
have considered the demographic variables that might affect adop- outcomes for constituents. This checklist has been a useful resource
tion. For example, Dwivedi and Williams (2008) showed that age, in working towards our proposed generic list of benefits.
education, and broadband access at home were key intervening
variables; they eliminated gender as a factor influencing adoption. 3.4. Other stakeholders

3.3. Governments/administrations and their policy and strategic There has been less focus on other stakeholder groups and
objectives the benefits that they seek from e-government. Yet, Heeks (2006)
suggests that businesses are equally or even more important stake-
Some definitions of e-government such as the following, from holders in e-government than citizens. The % level of interaction
the UK Local Government Association, encapsulate some of the of UK business with e-government is higher than the % level for
objectives of e-government from the policy perspective: citizens. In addition, there is evidence that G2B services across
‘exploiting the power of information and communication tech- the EU are in fact more developed than G2C services (Rohleder
nology to help transform the accessibility, quality and cost & Jupp, 2004). Regardless of whether businesses in general are
effectiveness of public services, and to help revitalise the rela- well served by e-government, there are two key reasons for con-
tionship between customers and citizens and public bodies who sidering the benefits that they seek. Firstly, some groups, such as
work on their behalf’ (LGA, 2002) SME’s, may be less well served than others. For example, Adeshara,
‘the use of ICT and its application by the government for the Juric, Kuljis, and Paul (2004) found that UK SME’s did not rate
provision of information and public services to the people. The e-government services as efficient and essential as conventional
aim of e-government, therefore, is to provide efficient gov- services, and the proliferation of UK government websites and inad-
ernment management of information to the citizen; better equate awareness of services was found to impact negatively on
service delivery to citizens; and empowerment of the people SME’s acceptance of e-government. Secondly, in order to consider
through access to information and participation in public policy the interaction of the interests of the different stakeholder groups
decision-making’ (UN, 2005, p.14) it is necessary to be able to profile the benefits sought by all stake-
holders.
Other government policy documents and commentators echo In addition to the limited explicit and visible evaluation of
similar themes, but are often a little more explicit about their objec- G2B, the G2G dimension of e-government has also received lim-
tives. The following list is draw from a range of sources, and is ited scrutiny. Heeks (2006) notes that administration has not been
illustrative of policy objectives and agendas: addressed by global benchmarking, but with goals such as cutting
costs, decentralising power, managing performance, and provid-
• High quality and full range of public services for all (business, ing strategic decision-making G2G is central to achieving the goals
citizens, general community) (based on ODPM, 2006). of e-government. Further, there is a recognition that back-office
• Delivering value for money and visible results (ODPM, 2006). integration is essential to the effective delivery of front office
58 J. Rowley / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 53–62

Table 6 Table 7
Example outputs, outcomes and impacts as components in an government policy Proposed typology of e-government stakeholder benefits.
measurement framework (reproduced from Millard, 2008).
Accessibility, accountability, adoption (of e-gov), business competitiveness,
Outputs (operational objectives) channel choice (users), citizen-centred, communication, confidentiality,
HW, SW, applications, services, etc., rolled out, available and operational consistency, continuity and stability, convenience, cost (to user), cost
Establishment of government services delivery channels effective, democracy, discretion, easy to use, economic growth and
Access to and use of digital infrastructure productivity, employment and jobs, empowers employees, fulfilment (task
Change in working procedures related to the implemented ICT systems completed), inclusivity, inspires confidence, integration (among
Back-office processes re-engineered government units), interoperability (of IT systems), justice, modernisation,
Organizational change openness, operational efficiency, participation, privacy, quality information,
Interoperability and operation between technology, information and data, quality of life, quality of service, reduced admin burden, reliability, resource
processes, service and organizations rationalisation, responsiveness, security, standardisation of information and
Establishment of systems for identity, security and trust services, sustainable development, trustworthiness, value for money.
Completed staff training courses
Involvement of all actors/stakeholders
Completion of e-government studies and surveys
started to talk in terms of benefits and pay-off’s. Drawing together
Implementation of awareness raising campaigns
these different perspectives to form the basis for the creation of a
Outcomes (specific objectives) generic list of stakeholder interests which is suitable for compar-
Specific outcomes for the government agency or provider: ing the interests of different groups or roles is necessarily a ‘messy’
Increased efficiency, including cost reduction resource rationalisation, greater process involving judgements and compromises.
productivity, etc.
The typology of stakeholder benefits in Table 7 was generated
Time savings
Staff who are more competent and skilled in their jobs and thus achieve through a thematic analysis of the concepts in the documents
greater output reviewed in this section. This analysis involved:
Less bureaucracy and administration more transparency, accountability, etc.,
within the agency
• The identification of descriptors of outputs, criteria, impacts,
Increased staff satisfaction
Increased security for the agency objectives, barriers, facilitators, and interests.
Redeployment of staff from back-office (administration) to front office (service • The compilation of a list of such descriptors.
delivery) • The elimination of duplication or near duplication from the list.
Increased agency agility and innovation • The translation of all descriptors so that they were expressed as
Specific outcomes for constituents could include: a ‘benefit’ (rather than as an outcome or objective, for example).
Successful access to use of government services • The alphabetical ordering of the descriptors.
Time savings
Less bureaucracy and administration
More convenience 4. Developing the stakeholder benefits analysis tool (SBAT)
More transparency, accountability, etc., for users
Increased user satisfaction
Building on the two typologies proposed in Tables 3 and 7, the
Increased service fulfilment (problem solved)
Increased security for users next stage of this project was to propose a draft of the stakeholder
benefits analysis tool (SBAT) and, then, to test and refine the tool.
Impact (general objectives) The tool aims to offer a simple means for mapping of stakeholder
Economic productivity roles to stakeholder benefits, in order to support:
Economic growth
Jobs
Competitiveness • Reflection on the expectations and desired benefits sought from
Local and regional development e-government investment, development, delivery, and engage-
Environmental improvement and sustainable development ment by different stakeholder roles or groups.
Inclusion
• Investigation of the extent of alignment in benefits sought
Democracy, participation and citizenship
Quality of life/happiness between different stakeholder roles.
Increased justice and security
Universal human rights and peace An initial draft of the SBAT was developed by mapping the pro-
posed stakeholder groups/roles in Table 3 against the proposed
stakeholder benefits of e-government in Table 7. This created a
services. Linked to this is consideration of employees and IT devel- grid similar to that shown in Appendix A, although, the version
opers as stakeholders. For example, recently Slack and Walton of the SBAT shown in Appendix A is the version after testing and
(2008) have reported on an investigation into the stakeholder per- refinement as discussed below.
spectives of telecommunications company employees and local The SBAT was tested by a group of 15 e-Government experts
authority employees in the implementation of an e-government. at a meeting of the eGovMoNet (EGovernment Monitor Network)
There is scope for more investigations as to the interests of such in Copenhagen in 2008. EGovMoNet is a network of organizations
groups. and experts created to promote the analysis, measurement, and
sharing of good practice in e-government across Europe, with a
3.5. Towards a typology of e-government stakeholder benefits particular focus on user satisfaction and impact measurement; it
is funded by the European Commission. Data was from gathered
Teasing out a clear picture of the benefits that stakeholders from the network members through an inter-active session dur-
seek from e-government through a study of the literature is far ing a network meeting. All participants were ‘key informants’ with
from straightforward. The evaluation, measurement, and bench- extensive experience in the measurement of e-government. The
marking literature talks about outputs, outcomes and impacts. The profile of the expert participants is shown in Table 8. The process
policy and strategy literature speaks in terms of objectives. The was as follows:
user/citizen adoption literature uses notions of barriers and facili-
tators to the use of e-government services, and expresses concern 1. Using the initial stakeholder benefits analysis tool (based on the
about user satisfaction and service quality. A few authors have literature), each group member was asked to identify the top
 J. Rowley / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 53–62 59

Table 8
Expert respondent profile.

Job role Public administrator (employee)0 Design and IT Evaluator/ Research Other
developer consultant 8 4
0 3
Experience with egov (years) −2 5 3–5 6–10 11+
6 3 1
Age −29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+ Not specified
4 2 5 2 1 1
Home country Belgium, Denmark, Slovakia, Sweden, Slovenia, Italy (2), Norway (3), Germany, Netherlands, not specified (3)

six benefits that would pre-occupy each stakeholder role, and to different stakeholder roles. By way of example, Appendix B shows
complete the draft SBAT, accordingly. the top three benefits perceived to be sought by some of the
2. Respondents were then formed into four discussion groups of 3 stakeholder roles identified in this study. Whilst the identifica-
or 4 members. tion of benefits is extremely tentative, this table does serve to
3. Each group was then asked to go through the same process as in demonstrate the benefits of seeking to map and compare differ-
point 1, in order to arrive at a consensus (in relation to the top ent stakeholder interests. It offers insights into overlaps in key
six benefits for each role), and to complete a copy of the SBAT benefits sought by different roles, and some unexpected inter-
for the group, accordingly. They were then invited to discuss, role synergies.
reflect, and report on any key points that are evident from this
consensus. In this study, a group of experts were invited to offer their
4. Groups were asked to report back briefly to a plenary session; perspectives on the benefits associated with each of the differ-
notes were made from this session and other informal discus- ent stakeholder roles. Further research and practice might usefully
sions between the researcher and the groups. take the list of benefits and characteristics generated and refined in
5. Both the group and individually completed SBAT’s were col- this study, and invite participants who are members of the groups
lected. that are typically associated with this role, to indicate their priori-
6. Data analysis was undertaken drawing on all of the completed ties; this data could then be collated into the stakeholder benefits
checklists, and informed by other comments and discussions, analysis tool sheet for analysis and comparisons.
with a view to creating a simplified version of the initial SBAT
which focussed on key stakeholder groups and their benefits. Ini- 5. Conclusion
tial analysis involved counting the frequency and rankings of the
top six benefits for different stakeholder groups. On this basis, This article started from the premise that successful e-
and informed by checklists from groups and other discussion, government requires the engagement of all stakeholders, and that
benefits that were ticked on no or few occasions were eliminated, a preliminary to that engagement is a shared understanding of
and benefits that appeared to cluster were merged. the interests, perspectives, value dimensions, and benefits sought
from e-government by the various stakeholder roles. Although
This process supported the generation of a simplified version there is a growing recognition of the need to consider stakeholder
of the SBAT which would be more suitable for wider testing and perspectives, most research to date has tended to focus on the
use. The revised version of the SBAT is shown in Appendix A. This interests of one or two key stakeholder groups. This paper seeks to
revised version is less complex than the first draft. Specifically: make a contribution by proposing typologies of stakeholder roles,
and stakeholder benefits, and embedding these in the stakeholder
• The following benefits were deleted: channel choice (users); dis- benefits analysis tool (SBAT). This is designed to be used to sup-
cretion; justice; modernisation; quality information; quality of port:
life; sustainable development; inspires confidence; participation.
• The following benefits were merged: economic growth and pro- • The identification of stakeholders.
ductivity with business competitiveness; confidentiality with • The recognition of differing interests amongst stakeholders.
privacy; accessibility with inclusivity; transparency with open- • The development of strategies to align stakeholder interests so
ness and with trustworthiness; resource rationalisation with that participation in e-government can be self-governing.
value for money.
There is, however, considerably more work to do to progress
Although this exercise is exploratory, it offers some outcomes understanding of stakeholder roles and benefits in e-government.
and insights that could usefully inform further research and prac- Specifically this could usefully include:
tice:
• Further testing of the stakeholder benefits analysis tool both with
• Mapping e-government benefits against stakeholder groups can other expert groups, and also with groups of participants in spe-
be used to generate useful insights into the benefits that are cific e-government initiatives.
most important across a number of stakeholder groups. In this • The application of the stakeholder benefits analysis tool with
study, the following benefits ranked the highest: accessibility groups of participants in e-government initiatives as a basis for
and inclusivity; easy to use; economic growth and productiv- improved understanding of any potential synergies and conflicts
ity (including business competitiveness); integration of e-gov in respect of various e-government projects and initiatives.
processes; reduced administrative burden; and, transparency, • Development of additional tools and models to enhance under-
openness and trustworthiness. standing of the processes through which different stakeholder
• Mapping can offer insights into the difference in emphasis and groups ‘negotiate’ towards an outcome and, the assessment of
priorities between different stakeholder groups. Such insights the relative legitimacy, urgency and weight that is and should be
are an important prerequisite to the establishment of policy associated with the aspirations of different stakeholder roles and
objectives for e-government that encompass the perspectives of groups.
 60
Appendix A. The stakeholder benefits analysis tool (revised)

Stakeholder groups/roles.

Characteristics/benefits of People as People as Businesses SMEsa Public Other Non-profit Politicians E-Gov Design and IT Suppliers and Researchers Total
e-government service users citizens administrators Government organizations project developers partners and evaluators
(employees) agencies managers

J. Rowley / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 53–62

Accessibility and inclusivity 13 5 2 4 1 3 11 2 4 2 0 6 53
Accountability 0 5 1 1 0 2 2 6 3 1 2 23
Adoption (of e-gov) 0 0 1 1 6 5 1 4 8 2 1 4 33
Citizen-centred 7 8 0 0 1 2 3 2 0 1 0 1 25
Communication 4 3 1 1 2 4 1 5 1 0 1 1 24
Confidentiality and Privacy 9 9 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 10 29
Consistency 2 0 1 0 2 4 1 0 1 4 3 3 21
Continuity and stability 1 1 3 0 7 5 1 1 4 2 3 2 30
Convenience 7 2 2 0 4 1 1 3 0 0 0 3 23
Cost (to user) 5 3 4 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 20
Cost effective 0 0 10 7 2 2 2 3 5 3 3 0 37
Democracy 1 8 0 0 1 1 5 8 0 0 0 2 26
Easy to use 13 4 2 4 7 1 4 1 2 2 3 1 41
Economic growth and 0 0 14 11 0 0 0 5 2 3 6 1 41
productivity (inc Business
competitiveness)
Empowers employees 0 0 0 0 11 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 17
Fulfilment (task completed) 4 3 4 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 28
Integration (of e-gov processes) 0 1 2 1 6 10 1 0 9 7 3 5 45
Interoperability (of IT systems) 0 0 3 1 3 5 0 0 6 9 6 1 34
Operational efficiency 0 0 7 3 5 4 0 1 4 2 4 0 30
Participation 1 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 1 2 15
Quality of service 2 4 3 5 1 1 4 0 3 3 0 5 31
Reduced admin burden 1 1 6 6 9 6 0 3 4 0 3 1 40
Reliability 5 0 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 26
Resource rationalisation, value for 1 2 8 5 4 2 1 5 2 2 3 1 36
money
Responsiveness 3 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 2 20
Security 1 1 5 4 1 2 1 3 2 4 3 1 28
Standardisation of information 0 0 1 0 1 6 1 0 4 7 3 1 24
and services
Transparency, openness and 4 10 2 2 1 1 12 9 3 1 5 11 62
trustworthiness
a
Small-to-medium sized enterprises.
 J. Rowley / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 53–62 61

References

trustworthiness
Adeshara, P., Juric, R., Kuljis, J., & Paul, R. (2004). A survey of acceptance of e-

Accountability
Transparency,
openness and
government services in the UK. Journal of Computing and Information Technology,

Democracy
Politicians
12(2), 143–150.
AGIMO. (2004). Australian government information office: Demand and value assess-
ment. http://www.agimo.gov.au/government/damvam
Allen, B. A., Paquet, J. L., & Roy, J. (2001). E-governance & government on-line in
Canada: Partnerships, people and prospects. Government Information Quarterly,
18, 93–104.

Transparency, openness
Belanger, F., & Hiller. (2006). A framework for e-government: Privacy implications.

and trustworthiness
Business Process Management Journal, 12(1), 48–60.
Beynon-Davies, P. (2005). Constructing electronic government: The case of the UK

Accessibility and
Inland Revenue. International Journal of Information Management, 25, 3–20.
organizations

Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal

Democracy
Non-profit

inclusivity
of Management Studies, 39(1), 97–122.
Breschneider, S. (1990). Management information systems in public and private
organizations—An empirical test. Public Administration Review, 50(5), 536–545.
Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2001). Achieving advanced electronic government
services: An examination of obstacles and implication from an international
perspective. In Paper presented at the National Public Management Research Con-
Reduced admin burden

ference, Bloomington, IN.

Integration (of e-gov
Other Government

Cabinet Office. (1999). Modernising government. London, UK: HMSO.

Standardisation of
information and
Carter, L. (2008). E-government diffusion: A comparison of adoption constructs.
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2(3), 147–161.
Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen
processes)
agencies

trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15, 5–25.
services

Chircu, A. M. (2008). E-government evaluation: Towards a multi-dimensional frame-

work. Electronic Government: An International Journal, 5(4), 345–363.
Codagnone, C., & Undheim, T. A. (2008). Benchmarking eGovernment:
Tools, theory, and practice. European Journal of ePractice, 4 (available at
Continuity and stability

www.epracticejournal.eu)
Reduced admin burden
Empowers employees
Public administrators

CPA (2002). Improving public services through eGovernment. House of Com-

mons Report No. 54 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/
cmpubacc/845/84503.html.
Dunleavy, P., & Margetts, H. (2006). New public management is dead—Long live
(employees)

Easy to use

digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,

16(3), 467–494.
Dwivedi, Y. K., & Williams, M. D. (2008). Demographic influences on UK citizens@
e-government adoption. Electronic Government: An International Journal, 5(3),
261–274.
eGISE (2008). www.iseing.org/iseing/eGISE.htm.
productivity (inc business

Flak, L. S., & Nordheim, S. (2006). Stakeholders, contradiction and salience: An

Small-to-medium sized

Reduced admin burden

empirical study of a Norwegian G2G effort. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii

Economic growth and

International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE

competitiveness)

Flak, L. S., & Rose, J. (2005). Stakeholder governance: Adapting stakeholder theory to
the e-government field. Communication of the Association for Information Systems,
Cost-effective

16(31), 1–46.
enterprises

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Appendix B. Top three benefits associated with specific stakeholder roles

Gilbert, D., Balestrini, P., & Littleboy, D. (2004). Barriers and benefits in the adop-
tion of e-government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4),
286–301.
Heeks, R. (2003). Most e-government-for-development projects fail; how can the risk
Value for money

be reduced? IDPM.
rationalisation
Cost-effective

Heeks, R. (2006). Understanding and measuring eGovernment: International bench-

(inc business
competitive-
productivity
growth and

marking studies. In Presented at the UDESA workshop, E-Participation and

Businesses

Economic

Resource

E-Government: Understanding the Present and Creating the Future, Budapest, Hun-
gary, July (p. 2006).
ness)

Hood, C. (1991). Public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1),
3–19.
Irani, Z., Love, P. E. D., Elliman, T., Jones, S., & Themistocleous, M. (2005). Evaluat-
Confidentiality and privacy

ing e-government: Learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities.

Transparency, openness

Information Systems Journal, 15, 61–82.

Irani, Z., Elliman, T., & Jackson, P. (2007). Electronic transformation of govern-
and trustworthiness

ment in the UK: A research agenda. European Journal of Information Systems, 16,
People as citizens

327–335.
Citizen-centred

Kosaker, A., & Lee-Kelley, L. (2006). Citizen-centric e-government: A critique of the

Democracy

UK model. Electronic Government: An International Journal, 3(2), 127–138.

Leadbeater, C., & Cottam, H. (2008). The user generated state: Public services 2.0.
(available at: www.charlesleadbeater.net/archive/public-services-20.aspx)
Lee-Kelley, L., & Kolsaker, A. (2004). E-government: The “fit” between supply
assumptions and usage drivers. Electronic Government: An International Journal,
1(2), 130–140.
Confidentiality and

LGA. (2002). egov@local: Towards a national strategy for local e-Government. Local
People as service

Accessibility and

Government Association.
Martin, S. J. (2003). Engaging with citizens and service users: Communication,
Easy to use
Stakeholder groups/roles.

consultation and co-production. In A. G. Bovaird, & E. Loeffler (Eds.), Public

inclusivity

Management and Governance.. London: Routledge.

privacy

Millard, J. (2008). EGovernment measurement for policy makers. European Journal

users

of ePractice, 4 (available at www.epracticejournal.eu)

Mintzberg, H. (1996). Managing government, governing management. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 74(3), 75–83.
Benefit 1

Benefit 2

Benefit 3

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
NAO. (2002). Better public services through e-government. National Audit Office.
62 J. Rowley / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 53–62

ODPM. (2005). Delivering efficiency in local services: Further guidance for local author- Srivastava, S. C., & Teo, T. S. H. (2007). E-government payoffs: Evidence from cross
ities. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pub/531/ country data. Journal of Global Information Management, 15(4), 20–40.
\deliveringefficiencyinlocalservicesfurtherguidancePDF1129kb id1135531.pdf Tan, C.-W., Pan, S. L., & Lim, E. T. K. (2005). Managing stakeholder interests in e-
ODPM. (2006). ODPM evidence and innovation strategy 2005-08. Consultation Paper government implementation: Lessons learned form a Singapore e-Government
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pub/401/ project. Journal of Global Information Management, 13(1), 31–53.
Orange, G., Burke, A., Elliman, T., & Kor, A. L. (2006). CARE: An integrated frame- Tennert, J. B., & Schroeder, A. D. (1999). Stakeholder analysis. In Proceedings of 60th
work to support continuous, adaptable, reflective evaluation of e-government Annual Meeting of the American Society of Public Administration.
systems: A research note. In Presented at European and Mediterranean Conference Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and exam-
on Information Systems, Alicante, Spain, July. ples. Human Resource Development, 4(3), 356–367.
Osimo, D. (2008). Benchmarking eGovernment in the Web 2.0 era: What to measure United Nations. (2005). Global E-Government Readiness Report 2005.
and how. European Journal of ePractice, 4 (available at www.epracticejournal.eu) United Nations. (2008). E-government survey 2008; from e-government to connected
Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., & Christopher, M. (2005). A stakeholder approach to rela- governance. New York: UN.
tionship marketing strategy: The development and use of the ‘six markets Wauters, P., & Lorincz, B. (2008). User satisfaction and administrative simplification
model’. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), 855–871. with the perspective of eGovernment: Two faces of the same coin? European
Reddick, C. G. (2005). Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to Journal of ePractice, 4 (available at www.epracticejournal.eu)
servers? Government Information Quarterly, 22, 38–57. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future:
Rohleder, J. J., & Jup, V. (2004). eGovernment leadership; high performance, maximum Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
value. Accenture. Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and
Rowley, J. (2006). An analysis of the e-service literature: Towards a research agenda. ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 646–655.
Internet Research, 16(3), 339–359.
Scholl, H. J. (2004). Involving salient stakeholders. Action Research, 2(3), 277–304. Professor Jennifer Rowley is professor of information and communications at
Silcock, R. (2001). What is e-government? Parliamentary Affairs, 54, 88–101. Manchester Metropolitan University. Her research interests are wide ranging and
Slack, F., & Walton, J. (2008). Organizational culture and stakeholder power: A case embrace information and knowledge management, e-government, e-marketing,
study of postgraduate initiative in e-Government. In Presented to ICEGOV2008, and relationship marketing.
Cairo, Egypt.