Smart government aims to provide intelligent and agile personalized public services to government stakeholders. Over the past few years, governments seek to employ innovative technologies, such as blockchain, analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), cloud computing, robotics process automation, and machine learning (ML), to improve citizens’ experiences and quality of life as well as government decision-making processes. They also aim to increase the efficiency of business processes and to transform the delivery of public services. However, the extant e-government literature lacks an inclusive digital government maturity model that can be used as a unified reference for guiding public organizations through the journey to smart government. Accordingly, the main aim of this paper is to develop a smart government maturity model by extending and revising the extant literature related to e-government. The developed model is then used to empirically evaluate the smart government initiative in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). We applied the model on 41 UAE federal governments’ websites/portals and measured their maturity level using 73 indicators. The findings indicate that the UAE is quite advanced with regard to smart government, as the majority of governmental entities scored “High” and above on the use of innovative and disruptive technologies in various domains. The smart government maturity model proved its efficacy and value in evaluating the UAE's smart government initiative.
AlmazanRSGil-GarcíaJR (2008) E-government portals in Mexico. In: Electronic Government: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. USA: IGI Global, 1726–1734.
2.
AlmuftahHWeerakkodyVSivarajahU (2016) Comparing and contrasting e-government maturity models: A qualitative-meta synthesis. Electronic government and electronic participation: Joint proceedings of ongoing research and projects of IFIP WG 8.5 EGOV and EPart 201623: 69–79. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-670-5-69.
3.
Al-HujranO (2012) An assessment of Jordan's e-government maturity: A user-centric perceptive. International Journal of Electronic Governance5(2): 134–150.
4.
AndersenKVHenriksenHZ (2006) E-government maturity models: Extension of the layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly23(2): 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.008.
5.
AndroutsopoulouAKaracapilidisNLoukisE, et al. (2019) Transforming the communication between citizens and government through AI-guided chatbots. Government Information Quarterly36(2): 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.10.001.
6.
Barcevičius E, Cibaitė G, Codagnone C, Gineikytė V, Klimavičiūtė L, Liva G, …Vanii I (2019) Exploring Digital Government transformation in the EU. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
7.
BaumCDi MaioA (2000) Gartner's Four Phases of E-Government Model. USA: Gartner Group.
8.
BélangerFHillerJS (2006) A framework for e-government: Privacy implications. Business Process Management Journal12(1): 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150610643751.
9.
BertotJEstevezEJanowskiT (2016) Universal and contextualized public services: Digital public service innovation framework. Government Information Quarterly33(2): 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.05.004.
10.
ChatfieldATAlhujranO (2009) A cross-country comparative analysis of e-government service delivery among arab countries. Information Technology for Development15(3): 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/itdj.20124.
11.
ChatfieldATReddickCG (2019) A framework for internet of things-enabled smart government: A case of IoT cybersecurity policies and use cases in US federal government. Government Information Quarterly36(2): 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.007.
FanQ (2011) An evaluation analysis of e-government development by local authorities in Australia. International Journal of Public Administration34(14): 926–934.
18.
Fath-AllahACheikhiLAl-QutaishRE, et al. (2014) E-government maturity models: A comparative study. International Journal of Software Engineering and its Applications5(3): 71–91.
19.
Fath-AllahACheikhiLAl-QutaishRE, et al. (2015) E-government portals maturity models: A best practices’ coverage perspective. JSW10(7): 805–824. https://doi.org/10.17706//jsw.10.7.805-824.
20.
Gil-GarciaJRHelbigNOjoA (2014) Being smart: Emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly31: I1–I8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.09.001.
21.
GosslerTSigalaIFWakolbingerT, et al. (2019) Applying the delphi method to determine best practices for outsourcing logistics in disaster relief. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management9(3): 438–474.
22.
GottschalkP (2009) Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly26(1): 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.03.003.
23.
HabibiASarafraziAIzadyarS (2014) Delphi technique theoretical framework in qualitative research. The International Journal of Engineering and Science3(4): 8–13.
24.
HarshAIchalkaranjeN (2015) Transforming e-government to smart government: A south Australian perspective. In: RamT (eds) Intelligent Computing, Communication and Devices. Switzerland: Springer, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2012-1_2.
25.
HassonFKeeneyS (2011) Enhancing rigour in the delphi technique research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change8(9): 1695–1704.
HowardM (2001) E-government across the globe: how will ‘e’ change government. Government Finance Review17(1): 6–9.
28.
HsuC-CSandfordBA (2007) “The delphi technique: Making sense of consensus”. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation12(10): 1–8.
29.
HujranOAbu-ShanabEAljaafrehA (2020) Predictors for the adoption of e-democracy: An empirical evaluation based on a citizen-centric approach. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy14(3): 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-03-2019-0016.
30.
HujranOAl-DebeiMMAAlhawsawiR (2021) Potential barriers to the use of social media in the public sector: Lessons from Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Business Information Systems36(1): 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2021.112397.
31.
IannacciFSeepmaAPDe BlokC, et al. (2019) Reappraising maturity models in e-government research: The trajectory-turning point theory. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems28(3): 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.02.001.
IsmagilovaEHughesLDwivediYK, et al. (2019) Smart cities: Advances in research—An information systems perspective. International Journal of Information Management47: 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.004.
34.
JanowskiT (2015) Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly32(3): 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001.
35.
JoshiPRIslamS (2018) E-government maturity model for sustainable E-government services from the perspective of developing countries. Sustainability10(6): 1882. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061882.
36.
KankanhalliACharalabidisYMellouliS (2019) Iot and AI for smart government: A research agenda. Government Information Quarterly36(2): 304–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.003.
37.
KimDYGrantG (2010) E-government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration. Journal of Systems and Information Technology12(3): 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/13287261011070858.
LeeGKwakYH (2012) An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly29(4): 492–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.001.
40.
LeeJ (2010) 10 Year retrospect on stage models of e-government: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly27(3): 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.12.009.
41.
LemkeFTaveterKErlenheimR, et al. (2020, November) Stage models for moving from E-government to smart government. In: RamT (eds) International Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia. Russia: Springer, 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39296-3_12.
42.
MaheshwariDJanssenM (2014) Reconceptualizing measuring, benchmarking for improving interoperability in smart ecosystems: The effect of ubiquitous data and crowdsourcing. Government Information Quarterly31: S84–S92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.009.
43.
MishraSS (2020) Testing the antecedents to e-democracy towards citizens’ happiness: A structural equation modelling approach to ‘MyGov’ initiative. India. International Journal of Public Administration43(15): 1293–1303.
44.
MoonMJ (2002) The evolution of E-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?Public Administration Review62(4): 424–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00196.
45.
NielsenMM (2016) E-governance and stage models: Analysis of identified models and selected eurasian experiences in digitising citizen service delivery. Electronic Government, an International Journal12(2): 107–141. https://doi.org/10.1504/EG.2016.076132.
46.
NitzschePPistoiaAElsäßerM (2012) Development of an evaluation tool for participative E-government services: A case study of electronic participatory budgeting projects in Germany. Administration & Public Management Review18: 6–25.
47.
PereiraGVMacadarMALucianoEM, et al. (2017) Delivering public value through open government data initiatives in a smart city context. Information Systems Frontiers19(2): 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9673-7.
48.
PinaVTorresLRoyoS (2009) E-government evolution in EU local governments: A comparative perspective. Online Information Review33(6): 1137–1168. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520911011052.
49.
PowellC (2003) The delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing41(4): 376–382.
50.
ReddickCG (2004) A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for U. S. cities. Government Information Quarterly21(1): 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2003.11.004.
51.
SandreyMABulgerSM (2008) The delphi method: An approach for facilitating evidence based practice in athletic training. Athletic Training Education Journal3(4): 135–142.
52.
SchedlerKGuenduezAAFrischknechtR (2019) How smart can government be? Exploring barriers to the adoption of smart government. Information Polity24(1): 3–20. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-180095.
53.
ShahkoohKASaghafiFAbdollahiA (2008) A proposed model for e-government maturity, in 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications, Damascus, Syria, IEEE, pp. 1–5.
54.
ShamsiRSHAAmeenAAIsaacO, et al. (2018) The impact of innovation and smart government on happiness: Proposing conceptual framework. International Journal of Management and Human Science2(2): 10–26.
55.
SiauKLongY (2004) A stage model for e-government implementation. In 15th Information Resource Management Association International Conference (IRMA'04), New Orleans, LA (pp. 23–26).
TootsM (2019) Why E-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia's Osale. ee. Government Information Quarterly36(3): 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.002.
TwizeyimanaJDAnderssonA (2019) The public value of E-government – A literature review. Government Information Quarterly36(2): 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001.
61.
United Nations (2012) United Nations e-government Survey (2012) E-Government for the people. UN Publication ST/ESA/PAS/SER.E/150.
Von der GrachtHA (2012) Consensus measurement in delphi studies: Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change79(8): 1525–1536.
66.
VuKHartleyK (2018) Promoting smart cities in developing countries: Policy insights from Vietnam. Telecommunications Policy42(10): 845–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.10.005.
WirtzBWWeyererJCSchichtelFT (2019) An integrative public IoT framework for smart government. Government Information Quarterly36(2): 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.07.001.
70.
World Bank (2001) Issue note: E-government and the World Bank.
71.
YousufMI (2007) Using experts’ opinions through delphi technique. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation12(4): 1–8.
