=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3049/paper17
|storemode=property
|title=International Rankings in E-GOV Strategy Formulation: Appraisal of Their Use and Relevance
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3049/Paper17.pdf
|volume=Vol-3049
|authors=Wagner Araujo,Delfina Soares,João Carvalho
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/egov/AraujoSC21
}}
==International Rankings in E-GOV Strategy Formulation: Appraisal of Their Use and Relevance==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3049/Paper17.pdf
International Rankings in E-GOV Strategy
Formulation: Appraisal of Their Use and Relevance
Wagner Araujo*, Delfina Soares**, João Carvalho***
* Algoritmi Centre, University of Minho, Portugal / United Nations University (UNU-EGOV), Portugal,
wagner.s.araujo@unu.edu
** United Nations University (UNU-EGOV), Portugal, soares@unu.edu
*** Algoritmi Centre, University of Minho, Portugal jac@dsi.uminho.edu
Abstract. Many countries use international rankings in the formulation of electronic government
and electronic governance (E-GOV) strategies. This practice seems to require some
systematization, considering the limitations of these indexes as recognized by the Institutions
that produce them and by the literature. Based on the scanning of national strategies and
interviews with public officials, this exploratory study resulted in a proposal of an E-GOV strategy
formulation framework taking into account international rankings. Despite the existence of
certain constraints and dependence of stakeholders, the investigation revealed that rankings are
relevant in this scenario and impact strategy formulation. The study concludes that this
framework would be useful and should be flexible, instructive, easy to use, comprehensive, co-
participative, and effective. A research agenda for its development finalizes the article, arguing
that it can be an opportunity to improve E-GOV strategy formulation processes and the knowledge
in the field.
Keywords: E-Governance; E-Government; E-GOV; E-GOV Strategy Formulation
Acknowledgement: This work has been supported by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia
within the R&D Units Project Scope: UIDB/00319/2020.
1. Introduction
The acronym E-GOV is used in this paper to refer to e-Governance, the public sector's use of IT to
improve information and service delivery, encouraging citizen participation in the decision-making
process, and making governments more accountable, transparent, and effective (UNESCO, 2019). It
is a comprehensive concept that encompasses, but goes beyond, what is often named "e-
government" (Bannister & Connolly, 2012), focused on the use of IT to more effectively and
efficiently deliver government services to citizens and businesses (United Nations, 2019).
E-GOV actions and initiatives seem to be developed under a strategy, which reminds the
traditional strategic alignment between IT and organizations' business stated years ago (Henderson
& Venkatraman, 1999). In fact, if IT is heavily involved in reform, it must be planned strategically
Copyright ©2021 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
164 Ongoing Research
(Heeks, 2006b). To formulate E-GOV strategies, many countries consideres international rankings.
The reputation of the institutions that produce them, for example, the United Nations (UN) or The
World Bank (WB), among others, can be the reason for that. UN publishes the E-Government Survey
every two years, indexing countries through the assessment of IT use to transform the way
government works. The report presents an E-Government Development Index (UN/EGDI) for each
country and is considered the only global report assessing all UN Member States (UNITED
NATIONS, 2018). The WB is responsible for the Ease of Doing Business Report, which ranks
countries through Doing Business Indicators (WB/DB) measuring areas of business life, including
the relationship between companies and the government.
These are just two examples of existing rankings that are currently used in E-GOV strategy
formulation. However, why are they used, to whom are they important, what role can they perform,
and particularly, how can they be used in strategy formulation are remaining open questions which
this research aims to address. Answers to these questions will naturally provide a set of relevant
insights that can inform the establishment of a prescriptive framework, or a method (Hevner, March,
Park, & Ram, 2004) that gives explicit prescriptions (Gregor, 2006) to the formulation of E-GOV
strategies.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: section 2 contextualizes the E-GOV strategies
scenario involving international rankings; section 3 describes the research design, while section 4
presents the results and a discussion about the characteristics of a future framework for the
formulation of E-GOV strategies taking into account international rankings; and section 5 concludes
the paper.
2. E-Gov Strategies and International Rankings
The use of Information Technology (IT) to enhance and transform government and governance is
not a simple task. The point is "how exactly the core government functions like providing public
services and infrastructure, formulating and implementing public policies, maintaining social order
and security, operating social programs, and promoting economic growth should be performed in
both physical and digital worlds"(Janowski, 2015). This is not an easy challenge and consistent
approaches seem necessary to support public managers which are frequently required to develop
new strategies that will lead to better performance (Boyne & Walker, 2004).
Although there is no universally accepted definition of strategy (Mintzberg & Quinn, 1996), the
term will be used in this article as a plan "explicit, developed consciously and purposefully, and
made in advance of the specific decisions to which it applies" (Mintzberg, 1978). This plan is also
characterized by analytical, formal, and logical processes through which organizations scan the
internal and external environment, and develop policy options which differ from the status quo
(Andrews, Boyne, Law, & Walker, 2009).
This definition refers to the strategy content and also, to the strategy formulation process,
something that the literature in management has already explored. Although the association of
organizational strategy classifications to public agencies has limited relevance (Boyne & Walker,
2004), the attempt to anticipate future events and program actions to face them is a common practical
Ongoing Research 165
task that does not differentiate between the private and the public sector (Johanson, 2019). So, while
the strategy-making process reflects on how alternatives and actions are selected (Hart, 1992), the
strategy content is the stance and the specific operational steps chosen to maintain or improve
organization performance (Johanson, 2019). This definition is compatible with E-GOV strategies as
an output of a formulation process, containing purposes, choices, and intentions that countries'
officials formally explicit to pursue. It is not different from any strategic plan and seeks to answer
questions like "Where does the country want to get?" and "How does the country expect to get
there?" (Heeks, 2006a).
E-GOV strategies are a top-level document that addresses strategic directions, goals, components,
principles, and implementation guidelines (Rabaiah & Vandijck, 2009). All this content, which
results from the formulation process, should be compatible with E-GOV purposes: (i) facilitate
internal government operations and administrative reform; (ii) improve government electronic
public service quality and delivery that respond to the needs of citizens and businesses; (iii)
strengthen the relationship of a government with its different stakeholders, like citizens, civil society,
non-government organizations, and the business sector; (iv) increase citizen participation in
decision-making processes; (v) make government more open, accountable, and transparent; and (vi)
support the reach of shared or participatory society (Alarabiat, Soares, Ferreira, & De Sá-Soares,
2018). This list presents many perspectives, which brings a wide range of objectives to pursue, and
the formulation of a strategy can be an adequate path for public officials to face the challenge.
A strategy can support the management of investments and adequate evaluation through
performance indicators. The assessment of E-GOV has proven to be an important but complex aspect
due to the various perspectives involved, the difficulty of quantifying mostly qualitative objectives,
and the contexts of use (Ogutu & Irungu, 2013). Public officials normally rely on benchmarking
studies to monitor the implementation and shape investments (Heeks, 2006b) and, to facilitate the
process, they usually resort to international rankings and their indicators.
International institutions regularly undertake significant studies to produce rankings of countries
on a wide range of features, including information technology (Rorissa, Demissie, & Pardo, 2011),
and some of these measures and variables can be related to E-GOV purposes. However, the use of
international rankings must be accompanied by a systematic study and reflection on the
implications, possibilities, and pitfalls of this practice. Many of them are built using a mix of
indicators, with substantial discretion available to the compiler in choosing what specific indicators
to include, in selecting weightings and devices to limit double counting, and in smoothing over data
unavailability (Davis, Kingsbury, & Merry, 2012). Even ranking producers recognize limitations and
alert that each country should decide the level and extent of their ranking use by balancing this
practice with national development priorities (UNITED NATIONS, 2018).
However, existing E-GOV strategy formulation frameworks do not take into account
international rankings (Chen, 2006; Janowski, 2015; Mkude & Wimmer, 2013; Rabaiah & Vandijck,
2009), although the use them in strategy formulation is wide. It occurs both in developing and as
well as in developed countries, as shown in Table 1, which presents information on strategies of nine
different countries in four different continents.
166 Ongoing Research
Table 1: Use of International Rankings in E-GOV Strategies.
Country/Strategy Rankings Used Kind of use
Argentina Digital Agenda 2018 World Economic Forum Diagnosis and
(Presidencia de la Nación (WEF) Global contextualization
Argentina, 2018) Competitiveness Report
2018; IMD/Digital
Competitiveness Index 2018
Austria Digital Roadmap 2018 UE/European Digital Diagnosis and
(Federal Chancellery and Federal Economy and Society Index contextualization
Ministry & of Science, 2016) 2016; WEF/Network
Readiness Index 2016
Brazil Digital Government UN/E-Government Diagnosis,
Strategy 2020-2022 (Governo Development Index (2016) contextualization, and
Federal, 2020) (2018) definition of goals
Chile State Digital UN/E-Government Definition of goals
Transformation Strategy 2018- Development Index
2022 (Chile, 2018)
Mexico National Digital Strategy UN/E-Government Diagnosis,
2013 – 2018(Mexico, 2013) Development Index (2012) contextualization, and
definition of goals
Netherlands / Dutch UE/European Digital Diagnosis and
Digitalization Strategy 2018 Economy and Society index contextualization
(Netherlands, 2018)
Thailand Digital Government UN/E-Government Index Diagnosis,
Development Plan 2017-2021 (2016); Open Data index contextualization, and
(Thailand, 2017) (2016) definition of goals
Turkey National E-Government UN/E-Government Index Diagnosis and
Strategy and Action Plan 2016- (2014); WB/Ease of Doing contextualization
2019 (Turkey, 2016) Business Ranking (2016)
Table 1 shows that international rankings are used across a wide range of countries that differ in
their geographic location and size, economic status, population size, and development stage.
Countries have been selected among the 193 United Nations Member States, and only documents
formally published were considered. Procedures included web-based search engines and, when
necessary, further contact with country authorities. Furthermore, Table 1 shows that international
rankings play an important role in different phases of the process of E-GOV strategy formulation,
including diagnosis, contextualization, and the definition of goals.
Ongoing Research 167
3. Research Design
After establishing evidence of the use of international rankings in the formulation of E-GOV
strategies, it became pertinent to gain a deeper understanding of the way and why rankings are
used. This was viewed as important to ascertain whether a research line on the subject is worth
pursuit (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2008), and an exploratory study was set up. Due to its
characteristics of generating contextual, nuanced, and authentic accounts of the participants' world
(Schultze & Avital, 2011), the interview technique is perfectly suited to the purpose.
This exploratory study was carried out in Brazil between July and August 2019 and involved
semi-structured recorded interviews with nine Brazilian public officials. Six of them were high-level
government executives such as National Deputy Secretaries, Directors, and a CIO. The remaining
three were Senior Advisors working directly with high-level executives, not necessarily the ones
that were part of the first group. The selection of respondents looked to include roles typically
involved in national E-GOV strategy formulation. Eight of them worked in at least one of the three
Brazilian E-GOV strategies formulated since 2015. Additional prudency has been taken to cover
public officials still involved in digital public policies nowadays.
Questions have been selected to perceive the importance of a future framework for the
formulation of E-GOV strategies, taking into account international rankings. Although the
importance of these rankings as a tool for policy definition, program prioritization, and strategy
formulation has already been stated (Soares, Araujo, & Carvalho, 2018), questions have been selected
to confirm it and to explore the relevance of a framework to support the process. The following
questions have been used: "Are international rankings relevant (and why)?"; "For whom?"; "How
international rankings impact E-GOV strategy formulation?"; and "Would a prescriptive framework
be useful for the formulation of E-GOV strategies taking into account international rankings (and
why)?".
These questions prove to be convenient to establish some features of the framework, grounded
on content analysis. So, a re-analysis procedure of all the responses was conducted sought to "define
the objectives for a solution", consistent with the Design Science Research methodology (Peffers,
Tuunanen, Rothenberger, & Chatterjee, 2007). These results will be presented in section 4.5, along
with the discussion towards the framework.
4. Results and Discussion
This section presents the data analysis and main results of the interviews, along with a discussion
about them. For anonymization reasons, respondents are identified into brackets using the acronym
"rsp", followed by "_x", where "x" varies from 1 to 9. Respondents 1 to 6 are high-level government
executives; respondents 7 to 9 are technical advisors. Interview excerpts are delimited by quotation
marks and followed by the respondent's identification.
168 Ongoing Research
4.1 Rankings are relevant, although some limitations exist.
This statement was formulated based on the answers received to the question "Are international
rankings relevant (and why)?" All the respondents said that rankings are relevant, some with great
emphasis. According to them, they are relevant because they offer: "historical data series to make
comparisons with other countries" [rsp_1, rsp_2, rsp_4, rsp_8], "showing the country evolution over
time" [rsp_2]. "They have a standard evaluation process, show country experiences, create a
gamification between countries and offer an independent evaluation method" [rsp_4]. They also
"generate an international, productive and collaborative dialogue about efficient public policies"
[rsp_4], "with technically-sense recommendations, not mandatory rules, coming from trustful
International Institutions" [rsp_8].
They are relevant due to their utility: "they are useful to mid and long-term planning" [rsp_1], "to
formulate public policies, independent of government level" [rsp_9], "to identify gaps and strengths
in policies and strategies formulation" [rsp_7]. They are "now driving the whole work of the
Presidency's public policies analysts, especially in competitiveness agenda" [rsp_8]. They are also
useful to "guarantee a slot in the political agenda, a necessary condition to engage the Public
Administration into any effort" [rsp_1, rsp_2].
Nonetheless, respondents reminded that some limitation exists. "Despite the importance of an
international institution's brand, some rankings are relevant only at the technical level, case of
UN/EGDI. Others, like WB/DB, reached a higher status, driving the public policy and changing the
governance process, including the actors involved" [rsp_3]. "Rankings are a simplification result of
many indicators, and indicators presume resulted-oriented work, something that not all government
institutions are. For this reason, rankings are relevant, but not always, especially when exists some
criticism about the ranking owner" [rsp_6].
4.2 The relevance of rankings is dependent on the stakeholders.
This statement resulted from the interpretation of the answers provided to the question “For
whom?”. According to the interviewees, rankings are relevant for public officials, public agents, and
policymakers [rsp_1, rsp_3, rsp_4, rsp_7]; for politicians, political actors, and Ministers [rsp_1, rsp_2,
rsp_3, rsp_4]; for international investors [rsp_3]; and for top-ranked countries [rsp_2]. But, not for
citizens [rsp_1, rsp_6, rsp_8, rsp_9]. “Rankings have different importance to different actors” [rsp_4].
"Policymakers look for good practices worldwide, while political actors use to play with the
ranking rules" [rsp_4] looking for political gains. "The relevance is higher for politicians than
technicians" [rsp_8]. "If a ranking endorses a public policy that a government high executive
believes, a low-cost initiative that climbs positionings, relevance grows" [rsp_5]. Their "theoretical
fundamentals are relevant to institutional leaders, inducing good practices, leading to institution
improvement" [rsp_6]. "Depending on the importance of publisher to the country, ranking rules
superpose countries' decisions, because their meaning of success, a premium work, an international
recognition" [rsp_4]. "Top-ranked countries use them as a soft power mechanism, to influence other
ones" [rsp_2]. However, in the opinion of some respondents, rankings are not relevant for citizens.
Ongoing Research 169
Citizens are mainly and naturally concerned with self-demands, short-range plans, day-to-day
issues, and transactional services [rsp_1, rsp_6, rsp_8, rsp_9].
4.3 Rankings impact E-GOV strategies in many ways, with constraints.
This statement resulted from the analysis of answers provided to the question "How international
rankings impact E-GOV strategy formulation?". All respondents endorsed that rankings impact
government strategies, including E-GOV. "They did impact former strategies, do it to currents, and
will impact next ones" [rsp_4]. Authorities "usually keep up with strategic deliverables and
associated measures, what lead to international rankings" [rsp_2]. "They are useful to expose a
situation and support a point-of-view with decision-makers" [rsp_6]. “Despite the inexistence of a
formal orientation to government agencies, there are high-level government units, the Presidency,
uses them to legitimate their work" [rsp_8].
They also motivate a result-oriented approach, "especially when allowing regional comparisons
or similar-context-countries comparisons" [rsp_2]. "If we consider that a public policy is a set of
government programs and projects, each one of them with its success indicators, it is natural some
impact of rankings and respective indicators" [rsp_8]. Especially in E-GOV, "international rankings
give a general direction of which policy aspects are considered relevant, which ones might have
more priority" [rsp_7].
However, despite being "a good tool to support planning, it cannot be the unique" [rsp_2].
Rankings should be the "result of a public policy, a great result if it allows better positions" [rsp_2].
Their use is constrained "by local reality and the local context" [rsp_1], they are "not a decision-
maker, don't decide which public policy will be done" [rsp_2]. "They are a factor, an important
reference, a parameter, a message to the Estate, but with superficial influence" [rsp_3].
4.4 A framework taking into account international rankings would be useful.
This statement resulted from the replies gathered for the question "Would a prescriptive framework
be useful for the formulation of E-GOV strategies taking into account international rankings (and
why)?". In short, the framework would be useful [rsp_1, rsp_2, rsp_3, rsp_4, rsp_8, rsp_9]. "As an
information source, it has the potential to support the decision-process" [rsp_2], "with limitations,
but more beneficial than harmful" [rsp_4]. "If it offers a direct correlation between functionality and
components (process, efficiency) and results and outputs (efficacy, effectiveness), it will be valuable,
something that assures impact on the user perspective. It does not make sense a lot of digital
transformed public services with no citizens using it, a good position in EGDI ranking, but no e-
services users. It is not about the process; it is all about client satisfaction" [rsp_3].
Ranking specific criteria has been highlighted: "certain measurements turn possible to identify
core E-GOV structures that must exist, like Digital ID, E-procurement, or a Unique Authentication
Service" [rsp_1]. Finally, the necessity to include other rankings into the framework scope has been
mentioned, like "trust measurements, for example" or others "that capture citizens perceptions,
something that UN/EGDI does not do, would be very useful" [rsp_9].
170 Ongoing Research
4.5 Further Results and Discussion Towards the Framework
Data analysis of the interviews confirmed the relevance of the subject between the set of
practitioners. Results confirmed that a framework for the formulation of E-GOV strategies, taking
into account international rankings, would be useful. Some constraints and limitations became also
evident after the analysis. These elements seemed to be very relevant as inputs for the design process
of the new framework. Aimed at finding newer and deeper inputs, a re-analysis of all the responses
was conducted to define the objectives for a solution. It involved the screening of all responses,
independently of the questions, and the results achieved are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Expected characteristics of the framework
Framework Interview's excerpt that supports the interpretation
Characteristic
Flexible: "Strategies should not be exclusively guided by rankings, but also by local
adjustable to the reality, local context."[rsp_1]; "Different countries have different contexts, but
country context. E-GOV objectives are very common and similar. The final objective is mostly
the same, for example, the unique digital identity. 'What to do' does not vary,
'how to do' varies according to a given country. So, the implementation should
be guided by the context."[rsp_1]; "It is mandatory a balance between ranking
measures and country priorities."[rsp_2]; "It will depend on the country's
maturity. Lower maturity, higher-ranking importance. Higher maturity, lower
importance to them. Rankings are more important to countries which use them
as a persuasive tool."[rsp_2]; "It is not easy to transfer a public policy from a
country to another because it depends on the country's trajectory."[rsp_4];
"Prudence should exist to avoid a choice of a 'best practice' that does not fit to
a country. A translation is needed, based on context analysis." [rsp_4].
Instructive: "All our strategic initiatives use core E-GOV structures: interoperability, single
supports the sign-on, digital ID; all these come from International rankings."[rsp_1]; "This
learning process framework, as a source of information, […] has the potential to support
and the decisions."[rsp_2]; "UN/EGDI not yet trespassed the technical barrier to a
association of political level, what WB/DB did. Maybe because technicians do not know how
rankings the evaluation process occurs and how indicators are measured."[rsp_3];
characteristics "Rankings are biased, have preconceptions and distortions because they
to E-GOV aggregate indicators and some lack of updates. Why? To maintain the historical
purposes. series and do not lose the comparative feature. This is an eternal trade-
off."[rsp_4]; "Rankings facilitates to find references of what is a good policy
implementation, to learn from it. It also shows which policies need to be
improved."[rsp_7].
Easy-to-use: "Rankings can be used as a checklist of strategic items, a minimum set of what
simplifies the has to be done, a development guide."[rsp_1]; "Something that supports
use of rankings interpretation, helping to make the correlation between what society
international needs and what is evaluated, a translator for public officials and the
rankings in E- society."[rsp_3]; "As much we lower the transaction costs, allowing transfer
GOV strategy formulation efforts to the execution, it will be helpful."[rsp_4]; "UN/EGDI was
formulation. not studied in detail, due to a traditional lack of time to build a strategy"[rsp_9].
Ongoing Research 171
Comprehensive: "UN/EGDI ranking is good, but not enough to check impact. Other indexes,
broadly covers such as Edelman Trust Barometer, UN/Human Development Index,
the E-GOV WB/Doing Business, are rankings with potential to evaluate digital
purposes government impact."[rsp_1]; "If the framework uses more than one ranking,
preferably those with a focus on results, it could work." [rsp_3]; "… not only E-
GOV rankings but others based on citizens perceptions, something that
UN/EGDI is not, rankings that measure trust, for example, would be very
useful." [rsp_9]
Co-creative: "Citizens are short-term oriented, with day-to-day concerns […], politicians are
enables the mid-term, need to legitimate what they do and why, every 3 or 4 years […]
participation of public officials need to construct a long-term agenda, delivering outputs in
multiple short and mid-term to balance the citizens and politicians' expectations"[rsp_1].
stakeholders. "Rankings show the common criteria used to evaluate other countries by global
institutions, what impacts local authority's political agenda-setting up" [rsp_1];
"They are proxies of impact, not impact itself. Citizens' objective is to obtain a
retirement pension, not an online service to order a pension. Note that if it
happens seamlessly, better. Sometimes, rankings risky guide countries to be
efficiency, not effectiveness." [rsp_4]; "In a conflict scenario between
technicians and politicians, it would be useful if the framework brings technical
and rational arguments, based on evidence, evidencing the impact of these
indexes."[rsp_4]; "Considering that international rankings influence a national
E-GOV strategy formulation, its design and governance should involve
multiple stakeholders from multiple sectors, to avoid agenda capture by
interest groups."[rsp_7].
Effective: "Rankings did not show 'how to do', they are a checklist of what a country
delivers an E- has/has not. If the framework focuses on the E-GOV strategies formulation
GOV strategy process, it will help countries." [rsp_3]; "A framework oriented by international
after a complete rankings would allow a better performance in our work (strategy
formulation formulation)." [rsp_8]; "The ideal process to build an E-GOV strategy involves
process. a nominated coordinator, multi-disciplinary professionals, and multiple
government agencies teamwork. A vision definition, a context analysis, a
public consultation, an action plan, a benchmarking with similar countries, and
a monitoring structure."[rsp_9].
According to the analysis, the future framework should be flexible, instructive, easy-to-use,
comprehensive, co-creative, and effective. This list of framework characteristics seems to be
compatible with the literature explored previously in this article. The framework should be flexible
because E-GOV is a particular case of ICT application in government, a complex and diverse
institution that varies according to countries' organization, political structure, population, size,
economy, and so on. It should be an easy-to-use artifact, once the strategy formulation is a complex
process. It must be comprehensive, since E-GOV features a variety of purposes to link,
simultaneously, to different international indexes. The co-creative characteristic can be associated
with e-governance processes, which involve many stakeholders. Finally, effectiveness is a natural
goal of e-governance processes and strategies.
172 Ongoing Research
5. Conclusion
Many countries use international rankings as an important source of information in the process of
E-GOV strategy formulation. Examples of these rankings are the United Nations E-Government
Survey and the World Bank Ease of Doing Business Report, but this study unveils a wider reality,
showing a list of nine national E-GOV strategies with references to the European Commission
Digital Economy and Society Index, the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report,
and others. These countries cover different contexts regarding geographic location, economic status,
population size, and development stage.
Evidence showed that international rankings are performing roles such as diagnosis,
contextualization, and definition of goals. Findings also demonstrated that this practice is valued by
politicians, public officials, international investors, and countries, but not by citizens. The
exploratory study confirmed that the construction of a framework for the formulation of E-GOV
strategies, taking into account international rankings, would be useful, and features of the future
framework have been identified: it should be flexible, instructive, easy to use, comprehensive, co-
participative, and effective. The research agenda encompasses the framework development, to
support public officials to better use these indexes and support the E-GOV strategies formulation.
However, other opportunities exist in exploring the relationship between international rankings and
other E-GOV themes. Limitations of the study can be considered the number of countries in the
national strategy's inventory and the fact the interviewees were from a single country.
References
Alarabiat, A., Soares, D., Ferreira, L., & De Sá-Soares, F. (2018). Analyzing e-governance assessment
initiatives: An exploratory study. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, (ii).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209309
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2009). Strategy formulation, strategy content and
performance: An empirical analysis. Public Management Review, 11(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802489989
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2012). Forward to the past: Lessons for the future of e-government from the
story so far. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the
Information Age, 17(3), 211–226. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/IP-2012-000282
Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2004). Strategy content and public service organizations. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 14(2), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh015
Chen, Y. N. (2006). E-Government Strategies in Developed and Developing Countries : An Implementation
Framework and Case Study, 14(March), 23–46.
Chile. (2018). Estrategia de Transformación Digital. Retrieved March 16, 2021, from
https://innovadorespublicos.cl/documentation/publication/40/#
Davis, K. E., Kingsbury, B., & Merry, S. E. (2012). Indicators as a Technology of Global Governance. Law &
Society Review, 46(1), 71–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00473.x
Ongoing Research 173
Federal Chancellery and Federal Ministry, & of Science, R. and E. (2016). Digital Roadmap Austria. Retrieved
March 16, 2021, from
https://www.digitalroadmap.gv.at/fileadmin/downloads/digital_road_map_broschuere_eng.pdf
Governo Federal. (2020). Estratégia de Governo Digital 2020-2022 — Português (Brasil). Retrieved March 16,
2021, from https://www.gov.br/governodigital/pt-br/EGD2020
Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly: Management Information
Systems, 30(3), 611–642. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148742
Hart, S. L. (1992). An Integrative Framework for Strategy-Making Processes Author ( s ): Stuart L . Hart
Source : The Academy of Management Review , Vol . 17, No . 2 ( Apr ., 1992 ), pp. 327-351 Published
by : Academy of Management Stable URL : https://www.jstor.org/stable. Academy of Management
Review, 17(2), 327–351.
Heeks, R. (2006a). Implementing and Managing eGovernment (Vol. 23). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00154.x
Heeks, R. (2006b). Understanding and measuring egovernment: international benchmarking studies.
UNDESA Workshop E-Participation and E-Government: Understanding the Present and Creating the
Future, Budapest, (July), 27–28. Retrieved from
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN023686.pdf
Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, H. (1999). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for
transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 38(2.3), 472–484.
https://doi.org/10.1147/SJ.1999.5387096
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS
Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government
Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001
Johanson, J.-E. (2019). Strategy Formation and Policy Making in Government. Strategy Formation and Policy
Making in Government. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03439-9
Mexico, G. de L. R. (2013). Estrategia Digital Nacional de Mexico. Retrieved March 16, 2021, from
https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/17083/Estrategia_Digital_Nacional.pdf
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in Strategy Formation. Management Science, 24(9), 934–948.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.24.9.934
Mintzberg, H., & Quinn, J. B. (1996). The strategy process: concepts, contexts, cases. London: Prentice-Hall
International.
Mkude, C. G., & Wimmer, M. A. (2013). Strategic framework for designing e-government in developing
countries. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 8074 LNCS, pp. 148–162).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40358-3-13
Netherlands. (2018). Dutch Digitalisation Strategy | Report | Government.nl. Retrieved March 16, 2021,
from https://www.government.nl/documents/reports/2018/06/01/dutch-digitalisation-strategy
174 Ongoing Research
Ogutu, J. O., & Irungu, J. K. (2013). Citizen-centric evaluation framework for e-government systems in
Kenya. The case of public service commission of Kenya Online Recruitment amp; Selection system. IST-
Africa Conference and Exhibition (IST-Africa), 2013, 1–8.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research
methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–
77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
Presidencia de la Nación Argentina. (2018). Agenda Digital Argentina. Retrieved March 16, 2021, from
https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/195154/20181105
Rabaiah, A., & Vandijck, E. (2009). A Strategic Framework of eGovernment : Generic and Best Practice.
Electronic Journal of E-Government, 7(3), 241–258.
Rorissa, A., Demissie, D., & Pardo, T. (2011). Benchmarking e-Government: A comparison of frameworks for
computing e-Government index and ranking. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 354–362.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.09.006
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2008). Research Methods for Business Students 5th Ed. Research
methods for business students. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Schultze, U., & Avital, M. (2011). Designing interviews to generate rich data for information systems
research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2010.11.001
Soares, D., Araujo, W., & Carvalho, J. (2018). Electronic governance policy measurement, assessment and
monitoring: a discussion. ICT Electronic Government 2017: Survey on the Use of Information and
Communication Technologies in the Brazilian Public Sector, 173–182. Retrieved from
https://www.cetic.br/media/docs/publicacoes/2/TIC_eGOV_2017_livro_eletronico.pdf
Thailand. (2017). Thailand Digital Government Development Plan 2017–2022. Retrieved March 16, 2021,
from http://jfcct.bypronto.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1871/2018/05/Digital-Government-
Development-Plan-2017-2021-executive-version.pdf#:~:text=The Thailand Digital Government
Development Plan (2017 – 2021) has,Government Infrastructure Integration and Buildi
Turkey. (2016). National E-Government Strategy and Action Plan. Retrieved March 16, 2021, from
https://bilgem.tubitak.gov.tr/en/urunler/2016-2019-national-e-government-strategy-and-action-plan
UNESCO. (2019). UNESCO Thesaurus. Retrieved October 19, 2019, from
http://vocabularies.unesco.org/browser/thesaurus/en/page/?uri=http://vocabularies.unesco.org/t
hesaurus/concept17004
United Nations. (2019). United Nations E-Government Development Knowledge Base. Retrieved March 16,
2021, from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb
UNITED NATIONS. (2018). E-Government Survey 2018: Gearing E-Government to support transformation
towards sustainable and resilient societies. New York. https://doi.org/e-ISBN: 978-92-1-055353-7
Ongoing Research 175
About the Authors
Wagner Silva de Araujo
Wagner Silva de Araujo is a Research Assistant at the United Nations University Operating Unit on Policy-
Driven Electronic Governance (UNU-EGOV) and a PhD Candidate at the Department of Information Systems,
School of Engineering, University of Minho. He is also a researcher at Centro ALGORITMI / University of
Minho. He has more than 25 years of experience in the Brazilian Government in positions like the CIO of the
National Prosecuting Agency, National Director of Digital Government, and Chief Advisor of the National
Secretary of Digital Government. His academic interests focus on strategic planning and design of digital
government and digital governance initiatives.
Delfina Soares
Delfina Soares is the Head of the United Nations University Operating Unit on Policy-Driven Electronic
Governance (UNU-EGOV). She has been associated with the Operating Unit since 2015, when she joined as
Adjunct Associate Professor. She has strong ties to UNU-EGOV’s host university, the University of Minho,
where she has held various positions over the past 18 years, including Lecturer and Assistant Professor at
the Department of Information Systems and as a Researcher with Centro ALGORITMI. Her areas of research
and expertise include electronic governance at a national, local, and sectorial level, electronic government
interoperability and cross-agency collaboration, electronic democracy and electronic participation, and
electronic governance measurement and monitoring.
João Alvaro Carvalho
João Alvaro Carvalho is Full Professor and Head of the Department of Information Systems, School of
Engineering, University of Minho, and researcher at Centro ALGORITMI. He is also Adjunct Professor at the
United Nations University Operating Unit on Policy-Driven Electronic Governance (UNU-EGOV). His academic
interests focus on the fundamentals of information systems (involving information, information technology,
and human, organizational, and social dimensions) and on enterprise development interventions that involve
the implantation, use and exploitation of information technology. He is also interested on research
approaches and methods and on curricula and education in information systems.