چشم انداز مدیریت دولتی

مدل بلوغ مرحله‌‏‏ای حکمرانی الکترونیک بر مبنای دسته‏‌بندی زیرمولفه‌های ارزیابی

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی (با رویکردهای آمیخته)

نویسندگان

1 گروه مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران شمال

2 گروه مهندسی صنایع، دانشگاه ازاد اسلامی واحد تهران شمال

چکیده

هدف: مدل جامع بلوغ حکمرانی الکترونیک که همه حوزه‌های تعاملی دولت با سایر بخش‌ها را شامل شود،  رویکردی برای نمایش و اندازه‌گیری رشد و همراستایی اقدامات دستگاه‌های اجرایی دولتی در تحقق حکمرانی الکترونیک است. ارائه مدل بلوغ حکمرانی الکترونیکی شامل زیرمولفه‌های ارزیابی متناسب با رشد فناوری اطلاعات، سطح‌بندی بلوغ حکمرانی الکترونیک متناسب با زیرمولفه‌های ارزیابی و همچنین تشریح اقدامات ذیل هر سطح و زیرمولفه از اهداف اصلی این مقاله است.
طراحی/روش‌شناسی/رویکرد: روش‌شناسی تدوین مدل بلوغ حکمرانی الکترونیک بر مبنای بهینه‌کاوی رویکردهای مرسوم از سه مرحله اصلی طرح‌ریزی شده است که شامل مطالعه مدل‌های بلوغ دولت و حکمرانی الکترونیک، مقایسه مدل‏‌های موجود و استخراج زیرمولفه‌ها‏ جدید متناسب با رشد فناوری اطلاعات، ارائه ساختار جدیدی برای ارزیابی بلوغ حکمرانی الکترونیک به کمک نظرات خبرگان، استفاده از ابزار پرسشنامه و تحلیل عاملی تاییدی برای تایید مدل پیشنهادی و تعریف سطوح مختلف بلوغ و اقدامات متناسب با زیرمولفه‌های بلوغ است.
یافته‏‌های پژوهش: با بررسی منابع کتابخانه‏‏‌ای و نظرات خبرگان 27 زیرمؤلفه استخراج شده که در شش مولفه شامل مدیریت، راهبردی، فناوری، امنیت، افراد و ارزیابی و اندازه‌گیری دسته‌بندی شده‌اند. تحلیل عاملی و داده‌های پرسشنامه، ساختار مدل را تایید کرده است. چهار سطح برای مدل بلوغ حکمرانی الکترونیک پیشنهاد شده است: آگاهی، تکاپوی هدفمند، مدیریت شده و اکوسیستم بهینه.
محدودیت‌ها و پیامدها: دسترسی به اقدامات جزئی دستگاه‌های دولتی در توسعه حکمرانی الکترونیک و عدم امکان بررسی قابلیت اجرایی مدل پیشنهادی از مهمترین محدودیت‌های تحقیق است.
پیامدهای عملی: مدل بلوغ ارائه ‌شده راهنمایی برای تعالی دستگاه‌های اجرایی کشور در پیاده‌سازی حکمرانی الکترونیک است و سطوح آن، مسیر رشد آنها را نشان می‌دهد و مبنایی برای هماهنگی میان دستگاه‌های مختلف است.
ابتکار یا ارزش مقاله: شناسایی مهمترین مولفه‌ها و زیرمولفه‌های ارزیابی بلوغ حکمرانی الکترونیک متناسب با ویژگی‌های عصر حاضر و ارائه آن در قالب یک ساختار مناسب به همراه تشریح اقدامات به تفکیک سطوح و زیرمولفه‌های مدل. 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Staged Capability Maturity Model for E-Governance Based on Classification of the Evaluation Components

نویسندگان [English]

  • Behrouz Raei 1
  • Vahid Baradaran 2

1 3rd floor, Engineering Faculty, Islamic Azad University, Hakimieh, Babaee Highway, Tehran, Iran.

2 3rd floor, Engineering Faculty, Islamic Azad University, Hakimieh, Babaee Highway, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Purpose: The main aim is to present a comprehensive model of e-governance maturity, which includes all areas of governmental interactions with other sectors. Identifying the evaluation components of maturity model, leveling e- governance and explaining the measures under each level and component are the other objectives.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The methodology is designed based on the optimization of conventional approaches with three main stages, which includes studying e-government and e-governance maturity models, comparing existing models and extracting new subcomponents, providing a new structure for evaluating e-governance maturity, with the help of expert opinions, usage of questionnaire tools and confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the proposed model and define different levels of maturity and measures appropriate to the components of maturity.
Research Findings: Based on literature review and expert opinions, 27 sub-components were extracted, which were classified into six components, including management, strategy, technology, security, people, and evaluation and measurement. Factor analysis and questionnaire data confirmed the model structure. Four levels have been proposed for the e-governance maturity model: awareness, purposeful managed endeavor, and optimal ecosystem.
Limitations & Consequences: Accessing to the actions of governmental affairs in the development of e-governance and the impossibility of examining the feasibility of the proposed model is one of the most important limitations of the research.
Practical Consequences: The proposed maturity model is a guide for the excellence of the executive organs of the country in the implementation of e-government and its levels show the path of their growth and is the basis for coordination between different organs.
Innovation or value of the Article: Identifying the most important components and subcomponents of e-governance maturity assessment in accordance with the characteristics of the present age and presenting it in the form of an appropriate structure along with a description of measures by levels and subcomponents of the model.
Paper Type: Research Article

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • E-governance
  • Maturity model
  • Confirmatory Factor Analysis
  1. Abbasi, F., Mahmudi, J. & Aghajantabar, M. (2019). Review of Research Trend in Electronic Governance, Journal of Future Studies Management, 30(116), 15-30. (In Persian).
  2. Abdallah, S., & Fan, I.S. (2012). Framework for e-government assessment in developing countries: a case study from Sudan, Electronic Government an International Journal, 9(2), 158-177, Doi: 10.1504/EG.2012.046267.
  3. Alshehri, M., & Drew, S. (2010). Implementation of e-government: advantages and challenges. Proceedings of the IASK International Conference E-Activity and Leading Technologies& InterTIC 2010, http://hdl.handle.net/10072/40620.
  4. Anttiroiko, A.-V. (2007). Democratic E-Governance: Basic Concepts, Issues and Future Trends. 한국지역정보화학회지, 10.1, 27-45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242323172_ Democratic_E-Governance_Basic_Concepts_ Issues_ and_Future_Trends.
  5. Arabadzhyiev, D., Popovych, Y., Lytvynchuk, I., Bakbergen, K., & Kyrychenko, Y. (2021). Digital Society: Regulatory and Institutional Support of Electronic Governance in Modern Realities. SHS Web of Conferences, 1-7. Doi: 1051/shsconf/202110003008.
  6. Australian Government Digital Transformation Agency (2022). Digital Transformation Agency, Retrieved from Digital Transformation Agency. https://www.dta.gov.au/
  7. Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) (2006). Australian Government Information Interoperability Framework, Sharing information across boundaries. ISBN: 1921182105, 9781921182105.
  8. Backus, M. (2001). E-Governance and Developing Countries-Introduction and Examples, IICD - International Institute for Communication and Development, Ghana, Kenya, Togo, https://bibalex.org/baifa/en/resources/document/288383.
  9. Barman, R. (2014). E-Government and E-Governance: a Conceptual Framework, International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, 3, 1-4.
  10. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., & Pöppelbuß, J. (2009). Application, Developing Maturity Models for IT Management – A Procedure Model and its, Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1, 213-222. Doi: 10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5.
  11. Bindu, N., Sankar, C. P. & Kumar, K. S. (2019). From conventional governance to e-democracy: Tracing the evolution of e-governance research trends using network analysis tools. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 385-399. Doi:10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.005.
  12. Chang, I., Hwang, H., Hung, M., Lin, M., & Yen, D. (2007). Factors affecting the adoption of electronic signature: Executives’ perspective of hospital information department. Decision Support Systems, 44(1), 350-359. Doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2007.04.006.
  13. Concha, G., Astudillo, H., Porrua, M., & Pimenta, C. (2012). E-Government procurement observatory, maturity model and early measurements. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 43-50. Doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.08.005.
  14. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1-9. Doi:10.7275/jyj1-4868.
  15. De Bruin, T., Freeze, R., & Kulkarni, U. (2005). Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model, 16th Australasian Conference on Information System, 29 Nov – 2 Dec 2005, Sydney.
  16. Deghati, A., Yaghoubi, N., Kamalian, A. R. & Dehghani, M. (2019). Presenting a Phased Development Pattern of Network Governance Using a Meta-synthesis Approach, Journal of Public Administration, 11 (2), 203-230. Doi: 10.22059/JIPA.2019.277187.2501. (In Persian).
  17. Deghati, A., Yaghoubi, N., Kamalian, A.R., Dehghani, M. & Moradi, E. (2020). Presenting an Establishment and Development Pattern of Electronic Governance Using Meta-synthesis Approach.., Public Administration Perspective (PAP), 10(4), 89-120. Doi: 10.29252/JPAP.2019.96614. (In Persian).
  18. Deloitte, T. (2002). The citizen as a customer. CMA Management. 32-94.
  19. Department of Finance and Administration. (2006). Delivering Australian Government Services: Service Delivery Capability Model: a guide for mapping an agency’s capability to deliver multi-agency, multi-channel and customer-centric services, Australian Government Information Management Office. http://www.agimo.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/51527/sdcm.pdf.
  20. Di Maio, A. & Baum, C. (2000). Gartner's Four Phases of E-Government Model. Gartner Research.
  21. Digital administration for general public, businesses and authorities (2022). Implementing eID. Retrieved from Implementing eID: https://www.egovernment.ch/en/umsetzung/schwerpunktplan/elektronische-identitat/
  22. Digital Transformation Agency (2017). Digital delivery of government service Digital Transformation Agency submission to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Australian Government, https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9d695f6a-2354-4cc5-be0d-913de41b25de&subId=516630.
  23. Dixon, J. K. (2005). Exploratory factor analysis, In: Munro, B., Ed., Statistical Methods for Health Care Research, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Publisher, Philadelphia, 321-349.
  24. Ebadi, N. (2016). The Maturity Level of E-Governance in Iran Ministry Portals, Journal of Public Administration, 3, 487-510. Doi: 20.1001.1.20085877.1395.8.3.5.3. (In Persian).
  25. e-Estonia (2018). e-Estonia guide, https://e-estonia.com/wp-content/uploads/eestonia-guide-2018.pdf.
  26. Eppel, E., & Allen, B. (2020). Digital Government: Leadership, Innovation and Integration, Public Policy and Governance Frontiers in New Zealand, 233-255. Doi: 10.1108/S2053-769720200000032032.
  27. Fang, Z. (2002). E-government in digital era: concept, practice, and development, International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 10, 1-22.
  28. Fath-Allah, A., Cheikhi, L., Al-Qutaish, R. E., & Idri, A. (2014). E-government maturity models: A comparative study. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 5(3), 71-94. Doi:10.5121/ijsea.2014.5306.
  29. Finger, M., & Pécoud, G. (2003). From e-Government to e-Governance? Toward a model of e-Governance. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on E-Government-ECEG., 119-130.
  30. Freeze, R., & Kulkarni, U. (2005). Knowledge management capability assessment: Validating a knowledge assets measurement instrument. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 6-6 Jan. 2005, Big Island, HI, USA, USA. Doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2005.375.
  31. Funilkul, S., & Chutimaskul, W. (2009). The framework for sustainable eDemocracy development. Transforming Government: People, Transforming Government People Process and Policy, 3(1), 16-31. Doi: 10.1108/17506160910940713.
  32. Gibbs, J., & Kraemer, K. (2004). A cross‐country investigation of the determinants of scope of e‐commerce use: an institutional approach, Electronic markets, 14(2) 124-137.
  33. Giorgini, P. (2018). From Security-by-Design to the Identification of Security-Critical Deviations in Process Executions, Information Systems in the Big Data Era: CAiSE Forum, 18–234. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-92901-9_19.
  34. Gottschalk, P. (2009). Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 75-81. Doi:10.1016/j.giq.2008.03.003.
  35. Government of Canada (Developed by KPMG). (2000). e-Government Capacity Check. Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/emf-cag/risk-risques/tools-outils-eng.asp.
  36. GSA and the Federal CIO Council (2022). Retrieved from https://playbooks.idmanagement.gov/
  37. Homburg V. (2018). ICT, E-Government, and E-Governance. The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 347-361. Doi:10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_18.
  38. Hosseini, S. A., Ghasemi, M., Yaghoubi, N. & Salarzehi, H. (2022). Exploring the antecedents and consequences of smart governance using the fuzzy Delphi method, Public Administration Perspective (PAP), In Press, Doi: 10.52547/JPAP.2021.222712.1081. (In Persian).
  39. Ilyas, M. (2016). E-governance practices and models: Options for Pakistan. Institute for strategic studies. Research and Analysis (ISSRA), 8(1), 43-64. https://ndu.edu.pk/issra/issra_pub/articles/issra-paper/ISSRA_Papers_Vol8_IssueI_2016/03_June-e-Governance_Practices(Col-Ilyas).pdf
  40. Information Technology Organization of Iran, (2020). E-government report card in the sixth period of evaluation of e-government services. https://ito.gov.ir/. (In Persian).
  41. Institute of Internal Auditors. (2013). Selecting, Using, and Creating Maturity Models: A Tool for Assurance and Consulting Engagements. https://www.iia.nl/SiteFiles/IIA_leden/PG%20Maturity%20Models.pdf.
  42. Iribarren, M., Concha, G., Valdes, G., Solar, M., Villarroel, M.T., Gutiérrez, P., Vásquez, Á. (2008). Capability maturity framework for eGovernment: A multi-dimensional model and assessing tool, Electronic Government - 7th International Conference, EGOV 2008, Proceedings, 136-147. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-85204-9_12.
  43. Juliantari, P., Dantes, G. R., & Divayana, D. G. (2020). Analysis of E-Government Governance in Bangli District’s Government Using the COBIT 5 Framework. 3rd International Conference on Innovative Research Across Disciplines (ICIRAD 2019), 1-7. Atlantis Press.
  44. Kalsi, S. N. & Kiran, R. (2013). E-governance success factors: an analysis of e-governance initiatives of ten major states of India. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(4), 320-336. Doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-08-2011-0101.
  45. Khanra, S.& Joseph, R. P. (2019). E-Governance Maturity Models: A Meta-ethnographic Study. The International Technology Management Review, 8(1), 1-9. Doi:10.2991/itmr.b.190417.001.
  46. 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. Doi:10.1108/13287261011070858.
  47. Kim, S.T. (2006). Converging e-democracy and e-government model toward an evolutionary model of e-governance: The case of South Korea.
  48. Krishnan, S., Teo, T. S., & Lymm, J. (2017). Determinants of electronic participation and electronic government maturity: Insights from cross-country data. International Journal of Information Management, 37(4), 297-312. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.03.002.
  49. Kumar, P.S., Keziya rani, J., Umashankar, C. & Ramana, V. (2010). e-Governance Applications for citizens-Issues and Framework. International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, 2(7), 2362-2365.
  50. Kumbhar, M. A. (2012). A critical study of implication of e-governance services for effective communication with special reference to Citizens in Pune City, Master Thesis, Faculty of Management, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth., http://hdl.handle.net/10603/5433.
  51. Layne, K. & Lee, J. (2001). Developing Fully Functional E-Government: A Four Stage Model, Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136. Doi: 10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1.
  52. Lee, G. & Kwak, Y.H. (2012). An Open Government Maturity Model for social media-based public engagement, Government Information Quarterly, 29, 492–503. Doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.001.
  53. Mahapatr, R., & Perumal, S. (2006). E-governance in India: a strategic framework. International Journal for Infonomics: Special issue on measuring e-business for 48-64.
  54. Manoharan, A. P., Ingrams, A., Kang, D., & Zhao, H. (2020). Globalization and Worldwide Best Practices in E-Government. International Journal of Public Administration, 1–12. Doi:10.1080/01900692.2020.1729182.
  55. Margolis, M., & Moreno-Riaño, G. (2010). E-Government, customers and citizens, Book chaper in Understanding e-government in Europe: issues and challenges, P. G. Nixon, Koutrakou, V. N. & Rawal, a. R., First Edition, Routledge.
  56. Meijerink, T. (2016). Assessing the e-governance maturity level of Dutch municipalities through the analysis of municipal websites: Does municipality size have an effect on website maturity level? Master’s Thesis, Faculty of BMS: Behavioural, Management, and Social Sciences, University of Twente. http://purl.utwente.nl/essays/70929.
  57. Mittal, P., & Kaur, A. (2013). E-Governance - A challenge for India. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering & Technology, 2(3), 1196-1200. http://egovstandards.gov.in/sites/default/files/IJARCET-VOL-2-ISSUE-3-1196-1199_1.pdf.
  58. Moghaddasi, A., Manian, A., Gholipour, R., Hasanzadeh, A. (2016). A Model for Electronic Good Governance in Electronic Learning Sector of Iran, Journal of Information Technology Management, 8(3), 591-620. (In Persian).
  59. Myeong, S., Kwon, Y., & Seo, H. (2014). Sustainable e-governance: The relationship among trust, digital divide, and e-government. Sustainability, 6(9), 6049-6069. Doi: 10.3390/su6096049.
  60. Okike, E.U. & Lobadi, N. O. (2019). An Assessment of E-government Programme in Botswana, International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS), 17(12), 81-91.
  61. Penmetsa, M. K., & Bruque-Camara, S. (2021). A framework for building a sustainable digital nation: essential elements and challenges, Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 23(3), 262-286. Doi: 10.1108/DPRG-10-2020-0148.
  62. Plumptre, T. W., & Graham, J. (2000). Governance in the new millennium: challenges for Canada, Ottawa, Canada: Institute on Governance.
  63. Prananto, A., McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2003). A study of the progression of e-business maturity in Australian SMEs: Some evidence of the applicability of the stages of growth for e-business model. 7th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), 67-81.
  64. Pudjianto, B., Zo, H., Ciganek, A., & Rho, J. (2011). Determinants of e-government assimilation in Indonesia: An empirical investigation using a TOE framework. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 21(1), 49-80.
  65. Raei, B. & Baradaran, V. (2020). A Model for Evaluating Electronic Governance (e-governance) in Iran's Executive Sectors, Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 49(13), 135-150. http://jour.aicti.ir/Article/27315. (In Persian).
  66. Rao, R., Rao, V., Bhatnagar, C., & Satyanarayana, S. (2004). E-Governance Assessment Frameworks (EAF Version 2.0). Technical report, National Institute for Smart Government, Hyderabad.
  67. Rodríguez-Bolívar, M. P., Alcaide-Muñoz, L. & Cobo, M. J. (2018). Analyzing the scientific evolution and impact of e-Participation research in JCR journals using science mapping. International Journal of Information Management, 40, 111-119. Doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.12.011.
  68. Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1990). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart, John Wiley & Sons.
  69. Saghafi, F. & Fasanghari, M. (2010). Comprehensive Interactive Maturity Model for Mobile Government, Iranian Communication and Information technology, 2(3-4), 27-40. (In Persian).
  70. Saghafi, F., Nassereslammi, F. & Alijerban, M. (2010). Customized Mobile-Government Maturity Model, Journal of Science Technology Policy, 3(2), 46-64. Doi: 20.1001.1.20080840.1389.3.2.5.7. (In Persian).
  71. Saparniene, D. (2013). From e-government to e-governance: e-initiatives in europe. Siauliai University, Lithuania.
  72. Savic, D. (2006). E-governance: Theoretical foundations and practical implications. http://www.dobrica.savic.ca/pubs/egovernance_foundations.pdf.
  73. Smits, D., & Hillegersberg, J. V. (2015). IT Governance maturity: developing a maturity model using the Delphi method. 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA. Doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2015.541.
  74. Suri, P. K., & Sushil. (2017). Strategic Planning and Implementation of E-governance. Springer Singapore. Doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-2176-3.
  75. Taghavifard, M.T. & Hejazinia, R. (2021). Introducing e-Government 2.0 Maturity Model: Focusing on Developing Countrie, Bussines Intelligent Management Studies, 10(38), 1-36, Doi: doi.org/10.22054/ims.2021.61644.1993. (In Persian).
  76. United Nations (2003). UN Global Survey of E-Government. A collaboration between the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and the Civic Resource Group (CRG). https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2003-Survey/unpan016066.pdf.
  77. United Nations (2008). United Nations e-government survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Public Administration and Development Management, Vol. 8, United Nations Publications.
  78. United Nations (2012). United Nations E-government Survey 2012: E-government for the People. United Nations Publications. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2012-Survey/Complete-Survey.pdf.
  79. 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. Doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.04.007.
  80. Vice President of Management Development and Human Capital of the Presidency (2017). Comprehensive map of the electronic government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. https://shenasname.ir/egovernement/2431-egovern-map. (In Persian).
  81. Williamson, A. (2004). Getting Ready for eDemocracy: A Five-stage Maturity Model for Community ICT. The Australian Electronic Governance Conference, Melbourne Victoria. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.201.4845&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
چشم انداز مدیریت دولتی
دوره 14، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 54
1402
صفحه 93-137