This study examines the preconditions necessary for digital transformation in governance, particularly in developing countries. Using a dual-method approach—systematic literature review (SLR) and morphological analysis—the research identifies key technological, organizational, and environmental factors that enable or inhibit digital adoption in the public sector. The findings highlight leadership commitment, effective change management, public engagement, and private sector collaboration as critical enablers, while inadequate infrastructure, resistance to change, and regulatory barriers act as inhibitors. The study contributes to the literature by offering a comprehensive framework for understanding digital transformation adoption in governance. Practically, it provides policymakers with actionable insights to navigate digital transformation challenges and enhance governance effectiveness.
AckomPSOwusu KwatengKTettehFK, et al. (2022) Understanding e-government services: integration of process virtualization theory and user resistance. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance24(5): 418–434.
2.
Alcaide–MuñozLRodríguez–BolívarMPCoboMJ, et al. (2017) Analysing the scientific evolution of e-Government using a science mapping approach. Government Information Quarterly34(3): 545–555.
3.
AliOOsmanajVAlryalatM, et al. (2023) The impact of technological innovation on marketing: individuals, organizations and environment: a systematic review. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja36(3): 1–36.
4.
AndroniceanuA (2023) The new trends of digital transformation and artificial intelligence in public administration. Administratie si Management Public40: 147–155.
5.
AwaHOUkohaOEmechetaBC (2016) Using TOE theoretical framework to study the adoption of ERP solution. Cogent Business & Management3(1): 1196571.
6.
BansalASinghH (2020) BharatNet: a leap towards digital India, but concerns remain. Telematics and Informatics47(10): 13–21.
7.
BhatiaRRaiASahaD (2020) Aadhaar, India's unique identification system: data privacy and security concerns. Information Systems Frontiers22(5): 1165–1178.
8.
BinduNSankarCPKumarKS (2019) Research collaboration and knowledge sharing in e-governance: temporal analysis of co-author network. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy13(1): 2–33.
9.
BokhariSAAMyeongS (2023) Influence of government innovation initiatives on responsive E-governance: an empirical analsysis on government response to COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan. Lex Localis21(4): 992–1019.
10.
BwalyaKJMutulaS (2016) A conceptual framework for e-government development in resource-constrained countries: the case of Zambia. Information Development32(4): 1183–1198.
11.
CharalabidisYLoukisE (2012) Open government data, transparency, and governance effectiveness: an empirical study. Information Systems Management29(4): 258–268.
12.
ChenQZhangYEvansR (2024) Local government social media use, citizen satisfaction, and citizen compliance: evidence from the COVID-19 outbreak in Shanghai. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction101: 104238.
13.
ChohanSRHuG (2022) Strengthening digital inclusion through e-government: cohesive ICT training programs to intensify digital competency. Information Technology for Development28(1): 16–38.
14.
DarusalamDJanssenMSaidJ, et al. (2023) An evaluation framework for the impact of digitalization on the quality of governance: evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age10(1): 1–21.
15.
De ClasseTMDe AraujoRMXexéoGB, et al. (2021) Public processes are open for play. Digital Government: Research and Practice2(4): 32.
16.
Digital India (2015) DeitY. Ministry of Communications & IT, Government of India.
17.
DwivediYKRanaNPTajvidiM, et al. (2017) Exploring the role of social media in e-government: an analysis of emerging literature. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 97–106.
18.
FountainJ (2001) Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC7: Brookings Institution Press.
19.
FurtadoLSda SilvaTLCFerreiraMGF, et al. (2023) A framework for Digital Transformation towards Smart Governance: using big data tools to target SDGs in Ceará, Brazil. Journal of Urban Management12(1): 74–87.
20.
GaoXTanJ (2020) From web to weber: understanding the case of “one-go at most” as ict-driven government reform in contemporary China. China Review20(3): 71–97.
21.
Gasco-HernandezMNasiGCuccinielloM, et al. (2022) The role of organizational capacity to foster digital transformation in local governments: the case of three European smart cities. Urban Governance2(2): 236–246.
22.
GebremeskelBKJonathanGMYalewSD (2023) Information security challenges during digital transformation. Procedia Computer Science219: 44–51.
23.
Gil-GarciaJRMartinez-MoyanoIJ (2007) Understanding the evolution of e-government: the influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics. Government Information Quarterly24(2): 266–290.
24.
HahnRKühnenM (2013) Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production59: 5–21.
25.
HaryantiTRakhmawatiNASubriadiAP (2023) A comparative analysis review of digital transformation stage in developing countries. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management16(1): 150–167.
26.
HienBNTuyenNTKLanNT, et al. (2024) The impact of digital government initiatives on public value creation: evidence from HO CHI minh city - vietnam. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental18(2): e04892.
27.
HoblosNSandeepMSPanSL (2023) Achieving stakeholder alignment in digital transformation: a frame transformation perspective. Journal of Information Technology39(4): 02683962231219518.
28.
IulianoGCuadrado-BallesterosBBisognoM (2024) Citizens’ e-participation in the digital world: empirical insights from Europe. Public Money & Management45(9): 1–10.
29.
JainVDhirATandonU, et al. (2020) Use of digital technologies in public services: a systematic literature review. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy14(2): 301–325.
30.
JanowskiT (2015) Digital government evolution: from transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly32(3): 221–236.
31.
JhaSKSinghR (2021) Fostering citizen engagement and collaborative governance through ICTs: a case study of MyGov in India. Government Information Quarterly38(2): 101529.
32.
KaurHSidhuGK (2020) Digital India initiative: opportunities, challenges, and implications for public administration. International Journal of Electronic Governance11(1): 1–16.
33.
KimSChoiBLewYK (2021) Where is the age of digitalization heading? The meaning, characteristics, and implications of contemporary digital transformation. Sustainability13(16): 8909.
34.
KoeswayoPSHandoyoSAbdul HasyirD (2024) Investigating the relationship between public governance and the corruption perception Index. Cogent Social Sciences10(1): 2342513.
35.
KouroubaliAKatehakisDG (2019) The new European interoperability framework as a facilitator of digital transformation for citizen empowerment. Journal of Biomedical Informatics94: 103166.
36.
KumarA (2020) E-governance: a boon to the Indian economy. International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science, and Management3(1): 116–120.
37.
LeeH (2024) Public service delivery on mobile apps: factors of diversification and coproduction. International Journal of Public Administration47(3): 159–171.
38.
LeeJPKwakYH (2020) Exploring the determinants of successful digital transformation in the public sector: a systematic literature review. Government Information Quarterly37(3): 101–481.
39.
LeeHTsohouAChoiY (2017) Embedding persuasive features into policy issues: implications to designing public participation processes. Government Information Quarterly34(4): 591–600.
40.
LiaoKLiuHLiuF (2023) Digital transformation and enterprise inefficient investment: under the view of financing constraints and earnings management. Journal of Digital Economy2: 289–302.
41.
MahmoodFKhanAZKhanMB (2019) Digital organizational transformation issues, challenges and impact: a systematic literature review of a decade. Abasyn University Journal of social sciences12(2): 231–249.
42.
Mel’nykМVSalinVN (2018) Preconditions of effective development of digital economy. Accounting. Analysis. Auditing5(6): 6–16.
43.
MergelIEdelmannNHaugN (2019) Defining digital transformation: results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly36(4): 101385.
44.
MettlerTMiscioneGJacobsCD, et al. (2024) Same same but different: how policies frame societal-level digital transformation. Government Information Quarterly41(2): 101932.
45.
MishraDMaheshwariN (2023) Effective governance through crowdsourcing: a strategic framework for empowered participation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management71: 4647–4664.
46.
MisuracaGViscusiG (2015) Shaping public sector innovation theory: an interpretative framework for ICT-enabled governance innovation. Electronic Commerce Research15: 303–322.
47.
NamT (2019) Determinants of local public employee attitudes toward government innovation: government 3.0 in Korea. International Journal of Public Sector Management32(4): 418–434.
48.
NawaflehSKhasawnehA (2024) Drivers of citizens E- loyalty in E-government services: E-service quality mediated by E-trust based on moderation role by system anxiety. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy18(2): 217–240.
49.
NewmanJMintromMO'NeillD (2022) Digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and bureaucratic transformation. Futures136: 102886.
50.
PideritRJojoziN (2017) Enhancing citizen participation in South African e-government: technology, organisation and environment factors. International Journal of Education Economics and Development8(2-3): 162–175.
51.
PihirITomicic-PupekKFurjanMT (2019) Digital transformation playground – literature. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences43(1): 33–48.
52.
PlekhanovDFrankeHNetlandTH (2022) Digital transformation: a review and research agenda. European Management Journal41(6): 821–844.
53.
PuspitasariDAKurniawanT (2023) Assessing the national complaint handling system in Indonesia (LAPOR!) using the design–reality gap model. International Journal of Electronic Governance15(2): 118–134.
54.
QiuSGaoXYueW, et al. (2023) Government-led and Internet-empowered citizen participation in China's policymaking: a case study of the Shanghai 2035 Master Plan. Government Information Quarterly40(3): 101806.
55.
SaninaABalashovARubtcovaM (2023) The socio-economic efficiency of digital government transformation. International Journal of Public Administration46(1): 85–96.
56.
ScupolaAMergelI (2022) Co-production in digital transformation of public administration and public value creation: the case of Denmark. Government Information Quarterly39(1): 101650.
57.
SebőMBelG (2023) E-Government and provision of public services: economic, social, and political determinants of citizen complaints. International Public Management Journal27(4): 659–679.
58.
SharmaSKMetriBDwivediYK, et al. (2021) Challenges common service centers (CSCs) face in delivering e-government services in rural India. Government Information Quarterly38(2): 101573.
59.
SyedRBandaraWEdenR (2023) Public sector digital transformation barriers: a developing country experience. Information Polity28(1): 5–27.
60.
ThompsonNMullinsAChongsutakawewongT (2020) Does high e-government adoption assure stronger security? Results from a cross-country analysis of Australia and Thailand. Government Information Quarterly37(1): 101408.
61.
TornatzkyLFleischerM (1990) The Process of Technology Innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
62.
TranfieldDDenyerDSmartP (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management14(3): 207–222.
63.
UrsNSpoallerD (2022) Governmental websites quality in Romanian cities: usability, accessibility, and the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences66: 113–130.
64.
Valle-CruzD (2019) Public value of e-government services through emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Sector Management32(5): 530–545.
65.
Van den BergACGiestSNGroeneveldSM, et al. (2020) Inclusivity in online platforms: recruitment strategies for improving participation of diverse sociodemographic groups. Public Administration Review80(6): 989–1000.
66.
WhitfordABYatesJBurchfieldA, et al. (2020) The adoption of robotics by government agencies: evidence from crime labs. Public Administration Review80(6): 976–988.
67.
WidhiasthiniNWSubawaNSPrathamaGH, et al. (2023) Realisation of transparency implementation of e-procurement in election campaign. International Journal of Procurement Management18(4): 421–436.
68.
WirtzBWKurtzOT (2017) Determinants of citizen usage intentions in e-government: an empirical analysis. Public Organization Review17(3): 353–372.
69.
WukichCSicilianoMDEniaJ, et al. (2017) The Formation of transnational knowledge networks on social media. International Public Management Journal20(3): 381–408.
70.
YanY-CLyuS-J (2023) Can e-government reduce local governments' financial deficits? analysis based on county-level data from China. Government Information Quarterly40(3): 101812.
71.
YuanY-PDwivediYKTanGW-H, et al. (2023) Government digital transformation: understanding the role of government social media. Government Information Quarterly40(1): 101775.
72.
ZwickyF (1969) “Discovery, Invention, Research through the Morphological Approach”, Macmillan, Canada.
