Most countries have defined strategies for e-government. The objectives for implementing e-government are often defined but the means for fuelling the adoption and diffusion of e-government are typically less well clear in the policy statements. The present study assesses the impact of latest Danish initiative implemented to stimulate e-government adoption. The e-Day initiative simply yet powerfully states that ‘one governmental authority has the right to demand that its communication with another authority must be in electronic format’ which is expected to create ripple effects both internally and externally. The e-Day initiative represents a drastic change in the former policy statements concerning IT adoption and diffusion in Danish government. The policy statements had previously been based on voluntary adoption focusing on visions and pedagogical intervention in governmental agencies, but the e-Day initiative marked a departure from that strategy and the carrot has been exchanged by the whip, and the voice is imperative.
AbrahamsonE. (1996). Management Fashion, The Academy of Management Review21(1): 254–285.
2.
Accenture (2005). Leadership in Customer Service: New Expectations, New Experiences, Accenture.
3.
AndersenK.V. (1998). EDI and Data Networking in the Public Sector, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4.
AndersenK.V. (2004). E-Government and Public Sector Process Rebuilding (PPR): Dilettantes, Wheelbarrows, and Diamonds, Boston: Kluwer Adademic Publishers.
5.
AndersenK.V., JuulN.C., HenriksenH.Z., Bjorn-AndersenN., and BunkerD. (2000). Business-to-Business e-Commerce, Enterprises Facing a Turbulent World, 1st edn., Copenhagen: DJøF Publishers.
6.
Bangemann (1994). Bangemann Report, Europe and the Global Information Society, Brussels: European Commission.
7.
BerryF.S., and BerryW.D. (1999). Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research, in SabatierP.A. (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, Oxford: Westview Press, pp. 169–200.
8.
BoyerR. (1988). Technical Change and the Role of Regulation, in DosiG., FreemanC., NelsonR., SilverbergG., and SoeteL. (eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory, London: Pinter Publishers, pp. 67–94.
9.
Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, (2004). Online Availability of Public Services: How is Europe progressing?Report prepared for European Commission DG Information Society, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young.
10.
DamsgaardJ., and LyytinenK. (1998). International Trade and the Speed of Light: Building an electronic trading infrastructure in Denmark, Finland, and Hong Kong, in Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.2 and 8.6 Joint Working Conference on Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes (Helsinki, Finland, 10–13 December, 1998).
11.
DamsgaardJ., and LyytinenK. (2001). The Role of Intermediating Institutions in Diffusion of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI): How industry associations in the grocery sector intervened in Hong Kong, Finland, and Denmark, The Information Society17(3): 195–210.
12.
DeLoneH.W., and McLeanR.E. (1992). Information Systems Success: The quest for the dependent variable, Information Systems Research3(1): 60–95.
ElsterJ. (1989). The Cement of Society – Study of Social Norms, M.A.: MIT Press.
15.
EU (2003). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The role of eGovernment for Europe's future, COM567(final).
16.
GregorS., and JohnstonR.B. (2001). Theory of Inter organizational Systems: Industry Structure and Processes of Change, In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS 34).
17.
HoldenS.H., NorrisD.F., and FletcherP.D. (2003). Electronic Government at the Local Level – Progress to Date and Future Issues, Public Performance & Management Review26(3): 1–20.
18.
JohnstonR.B., and GregorS. (2000). A Theory of Industry-Level Activity for Understanding the Adoption of Interorganizational Systems, European Journal of Information Systems9(4): 243–251.
19.
KaylorC., DeshazoR., and Van EckD. (2001). Gauging e-Government: A report on implementing services among American cities, Government Information Quarterly18(4): 293–307.
20.
KingJ.L., GurbaxaniV., KraemerK.L., McFarlanF.W., RamanK.S., and YapC.S. (1994). Institutional Factors in Information Technology Innovation, Information Systems Research5(2): 139–169.
21.
KrcmarH., Bjorn-AndersenN., and O'CallaghanR. (1995). EDI in Europe: How It Works in Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
22.
KumarK., DisselH.G.v., and BielliP. (1998). The Merchant of Prato – Revisited: Toward a third rationality of information systems, MIS Quarterly22(2): 199–225.
23.
LaiV.S., and GuynesJ.L. (1997). An Assessment of the Influence of Organizational Characteristics on Information Technology Adoption Decision: A discriminative approach, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management44(2): 146–157.
24.
LayneK., and LeeJ.W. (2001). Developing Fully Functional e-Government: A four stage model, Government Information Quarterly18(2): 122–136.
25.
MarkusL.M., and RobeyD. (1988). Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal structure in theory and research, Management Science34(5): 583–598.
26.
MassettiB., and ZmudR.W. (1996). Measuring the Extent of Edi Usage in Complex Organizations: Strategies and illustrative examples, MIS Quarterly20(3): 331–345.
27.
MoonM.J. (2002). The Evolution of e-Government Among Municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?Public Administration Review62(4): 424–433.
28.
MuirA., and OppenheimC. (2002). National Information Policy Developments Worldwide: Electronic government, Journal of Information Science28(3): 173–186.
OECD (2003). World Public Sector Report 2003: E-Government at the Crossroads, New York: United Nations.
31.
RogersE.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn., New York: New Press.
32.
SchollH.J. (2005). Organizational Transformation Through e-Government: Myth or Reality?, Paper presented at the DEXA eGov2005 Conference (Copenhagen, Denmark). Statistics Denmark (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). Den offentlige sektors brug af IT [Public sector's use of IT], http:www.dst.dk.
33.
TanC.W., and PanS.L. (2003). Managing e-Trans formation in the Public Sector: An e-government study of the inland revenue authority of Singapore (iras), European Journal of Information Systems12(4): 269–281.
34.
TeoH.H., TanB.C.Y., and WeiK.K. (1997). Organizational Transformation Using Electronic Data Interchange: The case of TradeNet in Singapore, Journal of Management Information Systems13(4): 139–165.
35.
WalkerJ.L. (1969). The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States, The American Political Science Review63(3): 880–899.
36.
WeberM. (1922). Bureaucracy, in ShafritzJ.M., and HydeA.C. (eds.) Classics of Public Administration, 4th edn., Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
37.
WolfeR.A. (1994). Organizational Innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions, Journal of Management Studies31(3): 405–431.
38.
ZaltmanG., DuncanR., and HolbekJ. (1973). Innovations and Organizations, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
