Measuring e-Government Maturity: A meta-synthesis approach

Open access


Many governments in the world have created e-government initiatives including developed and developing countries. In order to better understand e-government evolution, different maturity models have been developed by many authors. In this paper the most cited e-government maturity models are analyzed using the meta-synthesis approach. As a result, five stages of e-government maturity are identified. The comparative results show the supported stages by each e-government initiative as important elements in the decision making process. This paper is attempting to show that although there are many models for measuring e-government maturity, they all converge on one common model. The contribution of this paper is in simplifying work for researchers when choosing the right maturity model.

1. Alabau Muñoz, A. (2004). La Unión Europea y su política para el desarrollo de la administración electrónica: tras los objetivos de la Estrategia de Lisboa. Madrid: Fundación Vodafone España.

2. Alhomod, S. M., & Shafi, M. M. (2012). Best Practices in E government: A review of Some Innovative Models Proposed in Different Countries. International Journal of Electrical & Computer Sciences, 12(1), 1–6.

3. Almazan, R. S., & Gil-García, J. R. (2008). E-Government portals in Mexico.

4. Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236–248.

5. Baum, C., & Di Maio, A. (2000). Gartner’s four phases of e-government model. Gartner Group.

6. Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2004). The influence of perceived characteristics of innovating on e-government adoption. Electronic Journal of E-Government, 2(1), 11–20.

7. Chandler, S., & Emanuels, S. (2002). Transformation not automation. In Proceedings of 2nd European Conference on E-government (pp. 91–102).

8. Chen, J., Yan, Y., & Mingins, C. (2011). A Three-Dimensional Model for E-Government Development with Cases in China’s Regional E-Government Practice and Experience. In Management of e-Commerce and e-Government (ICMeCG), 2011 Fifth International Conference on (pp. 113–120). IEEE.

9. Davies, P. (2008). e-Government Best Practices learning from success, avoiding the pitfalls.

10. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., Callaghan, R., & Yared, H. (2002). Government on the Web II. National Audit Office. Retrieved from

11. Ebrahim, Z., & Irani, Z. (2005). E-government adoption: architecture and barriers. Business Process Management Journal, 11(5), 589–611.

12. Fath-Allah, A., Cheikhi, L., Al-Qutaish, R. E., & Idri, A. (2014). eGovernment Maturity Models: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 5(3).

13. Hiller, J. S., & Belanger, F. (2001). Privacy strategies for electronic government. E-Government, 200, 162–198.

14. Howard, M. (2001). E-government across the globe: how will“ e” change government? Government Finance Review, 17(4), 6–9.

15. Jayashree, S., & Marthandan, G. (2010). Government to E-government to E-society. Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(19), 2205–2210.

16. Jensen, L. A., & Allen, M. N. (1996). Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 553–560.

17. Jorgensen, D. J., & Cable, S. (2002). Facing the challenges of e-government: A case study of the city of Corpus Christi, Texas. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 67(3), 15–21.

18. Kim, D.-Y., & Grant, G. (2010). E-government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 12(3), 230–244.

19. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.

20. Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An Open Government Maturity Model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492–503.

21. Lee, J. (2010). 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 220–230.

22. Lee, S. M., Tan, X., & Trimi, S. (2005). Current Practices of Leading e-Government Countries. Commun. ACM, 48(10), 99–104.

23. Löfstedt, U. (2008). E-services for and by citizens: towards e-participation and social systems design for development of local public e-services. Departement of Information Technology and Media, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall.

24. Maranny, E. A. (2011). Stage Maturity Model of m-Government (SMM m-Gov): Improving e-Government performance by utilizing m-Government features. University of Twente. Retrieved from

25. Moon, M. J. (2002). The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.

26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). The e-government imperative. Paris, France: OECD.

27. Palvia, S. C. J., & Sharma, S. S. (2007). E-government and e-governance: definitions/domain framework and status around the world. In International Conference on E-governance.

28. Reddick, C. G. (2004). A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for US cities. Government Information Quarterly, 21(1), 51–64.

29. Rohleder, S. J., & Jupp, V. (2003). e-government Leadership: Engaging the customer. Online Accenture.

30. Ronaghan, S. A. (2002). Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective. New York: United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration. Retrieved from

31. Sandieson, R. (2006). Pathfinding in the research forest: The pearl harvesting method for effective information retrieval. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 401–409.

32. Sandieson, R. W., Kirkpatrick, L. C., Sandieson, R. M., & Zimmerman, W. (2010). Harnessing the power of education research databases with the pearl-harvesting methodological framework for information retrieval. The Journal of Special Education, 44(3), 161–175.

33. Shahkooh, K. A., Saghafi, F., & Abdollahi, A. (2008). A proposed model for e-Government maturity. In Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications, 2008. ICTTA 2008. 3rd International Conference on (pp. 1–5). IEEE.

34. Siau, K., & Long, Y. (2005). Synthesizing e-government stage models–a meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(4), 443–458.

35. United Nations, & Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2012). United Nations e-government survey 2012 e-government for the people. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from

36. United Nations E-Government Development Database. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2014, from

37. Valdés, G., Solar, M., Astudillo, H., Iribarren, M., Concha, G., & Visconti, M. (2011). Conception, development and implementation of an e-Government maturity model in public agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 176–187.

38. Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204–211.

39. Wescott, C. G. (2001). E-Government in the Asia-pacific region. Asian Journal of Political Science, 9(2), 1–24.

40. West, D. M. (2004). E-Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27.

41. Windley, P. J. (2002). eGovernment maturity. USA: Windleys’ Technolometria, Available: Http:// Retrieved from

42. World Bank: e-Government. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2014, from

SEEU Review

The Journal of South East European University

Journal Information

Target Group experts in the fields of: law, economy, public administration, international relations, political sciences, languages, communication, technology sciences, and environment.


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 247 247 29
PDF Downloads 142 142 15