Whittling Down Barriers: e-Government in the Netherlands

(1)

Naud Berkhuizen – S2110903

MSc Public Administration: International and European Governance

Supervisor: Dr. S. Giest

Word Count (excluding references & appendices): 18,861

(2)

1. Introduction

The impact of technology on public administrations is a topic of continued interest amongst civil servants and researchers. Technology has the potential to fundamentally evolve and change the ways in which citizens and government interact. Citizens come to expect a certain degree of digital service delivery through their experiences in the private sector, and public organizations seek to keep up. Unfortunately projects to improve digital service delivery through so called e-governments are seldom successful (Savoldelli et al., 2014). There are a multitude of barriers, such as lack of funds or lack of technical skills, that can lead to projects going astray (Coursey & Norris, 2008). The outcomes include large spending on ICT without many results to show for it, as well as a bad reputation for the public organizations involved, both on the topic of IT and more generally (Savoldelli et al., 2014). Therefore it is important to get a better grasp on what influences the success rate of e-government projects.

This research seeks to explore the factors that can impede projects’ potential to increase the maturity of e-government systems. To that end it aims to answer the research question: “How do

technical, organizational, legal, and financial barriers affect e-government project outcomes?”.

In order to do so, the thesis will explore the literature discussing what these barriers entail, and how they fit within the larger theme of increasing the maturity of e-government systems. In order to answer the research question, this theoretical insight will be tested in an in-depth case study of The Netherlands. Through interviews with civil servants involved at different levels of the digital government, this thesis will showcase which barriers they experience, and how intensely those impede their ability to deliver a good result. Based on the existing theory this thesis hypothesizes that in order to achieve the highest levels of maturity, that organizational barriers (such as a lack of good management and cross-departmental cooperation) provide to be the most troublesome. Academically, this thesis distinguishes itself on two key aspects. Firstly, the existing and established theories on barriers to increased e-government maturity have not previously been examined in the Dutch context. By exploring whether all previously established hypotheses about these barriers hold in the case of The Netherlands we will either gain increased confidence in the existing theories by confirming them, or we will generate ideas on the limits or specifics of the theories by finding a case that does not match the expectations. Secondly, there are recent theories about organizational barriers being more significant than all others in the later stages of

(5)

e-government maturity (Meijer, 2015). This idea has primarily resulted from meta-analysis of other research, but so far there has been no in-depth qualitative research testing this hypothesis. In this thesis the evaluation of this recent theoretical refinement will be started, paving the way for adaptations and replications in other contexts.

The societal relevance of the research primarily stems from the practical reality that this research reflects. Civil servants attempt to move the digital service delivery of their organizations forward, but regularly face a variety of significant problems. By better understanding which issues block their ability to improve the maturity of the e-government systems that they work on, it becomes better possible to define the success criteria for such ICT projects. If more projects succeed, it becomes possible to deliver better services to citizens, which as some research has hinted at, might improve their trust in government as a whole (Heeks, 2006). Regardless, more successful ICT projects mean a more efficient spending of resources by public organizations, which is a worthwhile goal in and of itself.

1.1 Roadmap

Chapter 2 of this thesis will discuss the literature surrounding digital governance. First it will explore different conceptualizations of e-government as well as the historical context in which we should seek to understand current developments on the topic of e-government (2.1). Through a discussion of how e-government systems mature, and how we can classify different stages of maturity (2.2) we end up with the question: why do not all systems mature fully or at the same rate? Section 2.3 addresses this question by exploring the different possible barriers to successful implementation, while section 2.4 positions this research in the context of the field as a whole and its recent developments. Chapter 3 describes the research design of the thesis research (3.1) by explaining the method of data collection, the method of data analysis, how the case was selected, and how the research attempts to prevent common threats to inference from affecting the outcome. In section 3.2 there is a brief description of the case, in order to provide the reader with some necessary context to the rest of the thesis. Throughout chapter 4 the findings from the interviews are presented grouped into common themes: digital governance in The Netherlands (4.1), obstacles & success factors (4.2), and the future prospects (4.3). Chapter 5 uses this information to answer the two main hypotheses (5.1 & 5.2), which leads into the conclusions presented in chapter 6.

(6)

2. Literature review

Although e-government as a concept and as a body of literature is relatively modern (approximately two decades), it has its roots in many different disciplines of research which all contribute to it. In order to be able to adequately discuss the implementation of e-government and the barriers that can arise when doing so, it is worthwhile to understand what research e-government draws upon, how the concept and the literature surrounding it has evolved, and in what larger public administration context e-government gets implemented. After establishing both the scope of e-government generally, and the theoretical context of this thesis, the literature review will then turn to the theorized and observed barriers to successfully implementing e-government, namely technical, organizational, legal, and financial barriers.

Drawing from a wide variety of peer-reviewed sources, this literature review will first review the different conceptualizations of what e-government can mean, and what conceptualization will be handled during the remainder of the thesis. Then it will briefly examine the research roots of government, especially ‘IT in Government’, in order to contextualize the evolution of e-government research as a whole. Next, an overview will be provided of the larger context in which the implementation of e-government happens and has happened through an examination of the rise of New Public Management and its subsequent transformation into Digital Era Governance. Then through a discussion of e-government models for assessing maturity, we end up at the barriers that can prevent public organizations from successfully implementing e-government systems, which shapes the conceptual framework that is the basis for the rest of the research. At the end of this chapter, we will have the necessary theoretical baggage to start answering the research question: “How do technical, organizational, legal, and financial barriers affect e-government project

outcomes?”

2.1 E-government

2.1.1 Conceptualization

As the overarching topic of the thesis, it is important to have a common understanding of what the concept means and entails. In order to achieve that, this section will explore some of the historical definitions of e-government in order to see its evolution, and to be able to contrast different definitions. One of the early definitions that exemplifies early e-government as a successor to IT

(7)

transition from paper-based to digital processes (Fang, 2002). This early conceptualization focusses on how information technology can replace existing paper processes without changing anything fundamental about the content or intent of those processes. This is very much in line with the body of literature that it draws upon, since IT in government was more engaged with the back-end implementation of computers (Grönlund & Horan, 2005). This is in contrast to a definition from West in the same period of time, who talked about e-government as the delivery of information and services online (West, 2000). The mention of a delivery implies that the technology behind e-government is used in front-end, externally facing processes rather than within the organizations itself. But still the understanding is that the information or services delivered do not change as a result of the implementation of new technologies.

Looking forward, we see a changed conceptualization of what e-government is according to researchers and international organizations, namely a “vehicle for fostering customer orientation in public agencies” (Bekkers & Homburg, 2007, p. 374). The shift that has happened in the field in the intervening period is that e-government is now seen to have transformational potential, changing the way that public organizations interact with their stakeholders, especially citizens under this definition. Hence we have moved away from transporting existing processes into the digital sphere, and have moved towards transforming what it means to interact with citizens (digitally). Although this definition is closer to later treatment of e-government in the literature, it is rather narrow and excludes multiple stakeholders.

Therefore this thesis will abide by the definition of Bekkers & Homburg, which reads as follows: “We therefore define e-government as public organizations’ use of modern ICT’s … to support or redefine the existing and/or future (information, communication and transaction) relations with stakeholders in their internal and external environment” (Bekkers and Homburg, 2007, p. 374). There are quite a few elements to unpack in this definition, starting with the usage of modern ICT’s by public organizations. Bekkers and Homburg (2007) have the foresight to not limit the scope of what technologies could provide a transformation of service delivery by public organizations. This is important because the development of e-government is not tied to any particular technological advancement, and innovations such as blockchain and artificial intelligence, although not as present a decade ago, might become an integral part of digital public service delivery (Keramati et al., 2018). Secondly, Bekkers and Homburg (2007) allow room for both the supporting of existing

(8)

relations with stakeholders, as well as their outright transformation. This is relevant because although we have seen examples of transformative e-government systems, their implementation is still rather rare (Savoldelli et al, 2014). Systems that support or partially transform stakeholder interactions are significantly more common (Savoldelli et al, 2014). Lastly, Bekkers and Homburg (2007) leave the possibility open that e-government affects the interaction of public organizations with different groups of stakeholders. While there is a lot of research on Government to Citizen (G2C) e-government systems, we should also keep in mind the possible impact of Government to Business (G2B) and Government to Government (G2G) systems (Wang & Liao, 2008). Even though the object of research in this thesis is the development of G2C systems, this definition stays true to the diverse topics of research that shape the literature body of e-government, while still emphasizing the impact it can have on the relations between public organizations and different groups of stakeholders.

Now that we have proposed a conceptualization of what e-government is, the thesis will explore the literature and context that has shaped this understanding of e-government.

2.1.2 History and Context

In order to better understand how e-government started out as a body of literature, it is important to understand its predecessor, primarily IT in government (Grönlund & Horan, 2005). E-government as a term and object of study started emerging in the late 1990’s, and started gaining traction in the early 2000’s, born out of the internet boom in parallel with e-commerce (Grönlund & Horan, 2005). Before that, since the 1970’s at least, there was research on the implementation of computers and other information technology (Kraemer et al., 1978). As previously mentioned, the potential of these technologies was primarily envisioned internally at public organizations, improving cost-efficiency of processes by means of office automation, as well as providing faster responses to citizen service requests (Wescott, 2001). The field was also busy with overcoming the many computer issues that governments came across in their initial explorations of these technologies (Kraemer et al., 1978).

The development of IT in government mostly happened in the larger macro-political context of new public management (NPM). Strongly influenced by business practices, the goal was to make the public sector more efficient (Dunleavy & Hood, 1994). This paradigm, which mostly saw prevalence from 1985-2002, was characterized by three main elements: disaggregation,

(9)

competition, and incentivization (Margetts & Dunleavy, 2013). Disaggregation in the context of NPM meant that responsibilities which once belonged to the central government were now entrusted to either new agencies or semi-public organizations (Dunleavy et al., 2006). The element of competition meant that the government was now introducing mandatory competition into markets where there previously was a bureaucratic monopoly, while incentivization lead to large amounts of privatization and public-private partnerships (Dunleavy et al., 2006).

Especially the large amount of agencification and privatization of services that were previously provided by the central government had a large impact on the development of e-government systems. Rather than the central government supplying a set of interconnected services, most services are being provided in parts by different organizations (Klievink & Janssen, 2009). This fragmentation, also referred to the creation of silos, makes the future integration of databases and services much more difficult and costly, and thus requires a large commitment by governments (Struis et al., 2014). Furthermore, the emphasis of NPM on managerial practices as the primary driving force behind innovating public organizations left little space for the full realization of the potential of IT (Dunleavy et al., 2005).

With the onset of the world wide web, new opportunities quickly became apparent. Web-based service delivery became a priority for public organizations, as well as creating a secure intranet (Moon, 2002). More and more the focus of the field started to be about the way in which information technology could be used to communicate with citizens (Ho, 2002). This communication was generally rather one-sided, with public organizations using new technology to put relevant information on websites for citizens to peruse (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006). Still, the goal was not only to become more efficient anymore, but also to provide citizens with easier and better access to information, as well as increased transparency and accountability (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006).

In this initial phase of e-government, both researchers and practitioners are mostly positive about the potential of these new technologies (Heeks & Bailur, 2007). Arguably somewhat uncritically so, since there is little to no mention of the costs of failed projects, and the frequency of such failures (Heeks & Bailur, 2007). Wescott (2001) does mention some of the problems faced by public organizations in adopting e-government, namely that they are “behind private businesses in adopting ICT systems, including higher costs of ICT introduction due to the scale of public

(10)

organizations; the inertia of existing options and habits; paper trail required for approval processing; concerns about security; confidentiality of information; obsolete regulations and laws; lack of understanding and computer skills; difficulties of carrying out organizational change; and the nature of public sector financing and procurement practices” (p.5). Although Wescott (2001) paints a picture of an inert public sector that does not have the necessary skills, resources, and legal framework, he is still optimistic about the potential and future of e-government. He is not alone in his optimism despite the presence of barriers and failures in this period of time (Ho, 2002, Fang, 2002, Moon, 2002, Layne & Lee, 2001). This points towards a situation of e-government enthusiasm, while there were not many indications that its potential was being reached at all (Heeks & Bailur, 2007).

From this point onwards, the development of e-government was further helped along by the emergence of digital-era governance (DEG). DEG was the successor of new public management from approximately 2002 onwards, with its first wave lasting until about 2010, and the second wave is ongoing (Margetts & Dunleavy, 2013). Whereas NPM can be seen as a barrier to the successful development and implementation of e-government, DEG with its focus on reintegration, needs-based holism, and digitalization provides a context in which digital innovations can flourish (Dunleavy et al., 2005). Reintegration means that the fragmentation and agencification of NPM gets reversed, therefore leading to simplification of processes and less data silos (Margetts & Dunleavy, 2013). Needs-based holism represents a shift in the rationale behind designing service processes. Rather than reasoning solely from the perspective of the public organization providing the service, agencies design their services from the perspective of the citizen and their needs (Margetts & Dunleavy, 2013). Lastly, digitalization poses that information technology is not just a tool for public organizations to use, but that it is at the heart of their value creation (Dunleavy et al., 2005). These ideas and processes did not suddenly come into being, instead they slowly started to replace the increasingly failing paradigm of new public management (Dunleavy et al., 2005). We see these developments reflected in the e-government literature. Increasingly researchers discuss the transformative potential of e-government, believing that public sectors can innovate not only in what services it provides, but also how it designs them and what kind of interactions it maintains with internal and external stakeholders (Windrum, 2008). This transition is quite necessary, since up until this point there is too little involvement by citizens and other external

(11)

stakeholders in the e-government decision-making process (Heeks, 2006). While this is not necessarily a problem, it has lead to a regular mismatch between what services agencies want to provide digitally, and the ones that citizens expect to receive (Anthopoulos et al., 2016). Therefore more and more organizations start to use digital platforms as a means of communicating with citizens, not only communicating to them (Milakovich, 2012). Not only is the goal to make public organizations more accessible to citizens, but also to increase the interactivity between the two (Lakka et al., 2013). Badri & Alshare (2008) describe this as the evolution from information to services and transactions. A big aspiration for many researchers and governments at this point is to have government contribute to democracy (Kolsaker & LeKelley, 2008). The goal of e-democracy is to make it possible for citizens to be more involved in the policy-making process at all of its stages, increasing transparency, accountability, and legitimacy (Kolsaker & Lee-Kelley, 2008). E-democracy, or a similar concept, is the final step in many e-government models (Lee, 2010, Meijer, 2015).

An important side note to make here is the legitimacy paradox that one could argue exists in making government services ever more citizen-centered. This paradox exists, Bekkers & Homburg (2007) argue, when governments define themselves too much as a service delivery unit for their ‘customers’ without taking into account the “multidimensionality of citizenship and public administration” (p. 380). Therefore the challenge is to approach citizens at the same time in all their roles: voter, good citizen, consumer, and so on. Otherwise governments risk becoming less rather than more legitimate through their implementation of e-government (Bekkers & Homburg, 2007).

This idea of citizen-centered service delivery also affected the scope of e-government research significantly. Researchers posit that in order to effectively redesign their service delivery around citizens, public organizations need to both understand what citizens expect from e-government services, but also what drives them to adopt such services or not (van Dijk et al., 2008). We can refer to these questions in e-government as the citizen perspective, or as the demand-side. At the same time, the questions about successfully implementing e-government systems and services from the perspective of the government, supply-side research, was also still necessary (Janssen & Kuk, 2009, Bekkers, 2009). From this point onwards we can see this pronounced divide in the approach of e-government research in either analyzing the factors that lead to success from the

(12)

perspective of government, or the factors that affect citizen adoption and satisfaction (Savoldelli et al., 2014).

Recently the difficulty of determining the success of e-government citizen systems has been explored more extensively. While there have been some attempts at determining the success of particular information systems provided by governments, Scott et al. (2016) argue that this issue is more complicated than it has been treated as. Personalized services mean that we can no longer treat stakeholder groups as homogenous, since different citizens are getting different services delivered to them (Scott et al., 2016). Furthermore, since the role of information systems in society as a whole has shifted away from being productive and efficient, and more towards citizens’ personal and social contexts, the context in which we evaluate e-government success has to shift along with that (Scott et al., 2016). While new models are being developed and tested, there is no consensus on how to comprehensively measure the success of e-government systems yet (Scott et al., 2016, Rey-Moreno et al. 2018).

Supply-side research is still working on understanding what factors internal to public organizations inhibit and facilitate the successful design and implementation of e-government systems. Researchers are exploring whether those factors have changed over time, and are taking a more holistic approach by including more cultural factors into their consideration than previously (Meijers, 2015, Savoldelli et al., 2014). This has brought some movement in this sub-field, which has long been stuck at defining barriers as being separable into the categories technical, political/organizational, legal, and financial (Coursey & Norris, 2008). So far this has not led to being able to better realize the potential of government however, and there is still talk of an e-government paradox resulting from almost two decades of investment and little evidence of success (Savoldelli et al., 2014). This makes sense however if we look over to the demand-side research discussed earlier. If we do not know how to define and measure successful e-government services, then how can we design it? These are some of the challenges the field is currently still exploring.

This section has explored the development of the e-government literature in broad terms, and the context in which its development occurred. Yet some questions remain, chief among which are: how do e-government systems develop over time, and what causes or inhibits that development? These two questions will be answered over the course of the next two sections.

(13)

2.2 E-government maturity models

So far we have discussed e-government as a rather static phenomenon: it is either there or it is not, and it is either successful or it is not. Yet clearly reality is more complicated than that, and in order to capture this reality we turn to e-government maturity models. As implied by the name, maturity models have the intent to describe how mature and well-developed an e-government system is, generally by describing the different stages that such a system will go through (Layne & Lee, 2001). There are multiple reasons to use maturity models. First of all, it can provide a guideline to practitioners for the steps they have to take in order to end up with a comprehensive, successful e-government system (Klievink & Janssen, 2009). Secondly, mapping the evolution of e-e-government stages raises interesting questions about the dynamics that allow for transitions, as well as what can stop systems from reaching the next stage. In this section two main strands of maturity models will be discussed, namely technology-driven and service-driven. After which the thesis will explore whether or not these two streams of thought can be integrated, and what common criticisms to e-government maturity models are.

2.2.1 Layne and Lee’s maturity model

Layne and Lee (2001) brought the idea of maturity models to e-government, and their original model has sprouted many other conceptualizations of e-government maturity models (Lee, 2010). In their research Layne and Lee (2001) describe four stages that each have associated functionalities and challenges. These stages will be briefly explored here.

The first stage, cataloging, is where most governments started out. In this phase it is assumed that they have very little understanding of how to deal with information technology, and they create a digital presence mostly in response to pressure by both internal and external stakeholders. This pressure primarily originates from the expectations that citizens have from the private sector, and governments comply since they see the benefits of civil servants having to spend less time answering basic questions to citizens. Challenging in this phase is that new procedures and policies will have to be designed and implemented in order to maintain the online presence, as well as how to handle the first privacy concerns.

Layne and Lee (2001) describe the second stage as transaction, where the demand by stakeholders starts to extend to being able to fulfill procedures online, for example through the digitalization of paperwork. This is the first step in which the interaction between citizen and government starts to

(14)

change, since there is some amount of interaction. Such interaction poses new questions for the public organizations, such as: how do we allow transactions to affect information in our databases while staying secure and retaining confidentiality? And: should there be an integration of offline and online systems?

Vertical integration follows this stage. The verticality of the integration refers to the idea that it happens across multiple levels, in this case levels of government. So while previously there were data silos because every agency and municipality was providing their own services, now when a citizen interacts with say a local government through a request, this information is also available to the relevant other agencies, so that the citizen does not have to go through the same procedure for the same service with multiple agencies (Klievink & Janssen, 2009). The challenge here comes from data format compatibility and signal authentication. In order to be able to exchange data between all these different agencies, the data must be of the same format so that the systems that send and receive it can communicate. Signal authentication means that governments need to find a way to check whether data on an interaction received by an agency is real.

Lastly, Layne and Lee (2001) describe horizontal integration, the final step in their maturity model. While under vertical integration agencies with the same function across different levels were integrated, now agencies with different functions are integrated too. While it is not immediately clear why horizontal integration comes after vertical integration, Layne and Lee (2001) argue that “It is expected that vertical integration within the similar functional walls but across different levels of government will happen first, because the gap between levels of government is much less than the difference between different functions” (p. 130). This sentiment is echoed by other researchers as well (Andersen & Henriksen, 2006; Lee, 2010; Klievink & Janssen, 2009). The challenges associated with horizontal integration are mostly the same as those associated with vertical integration, but now more difficult to get right. Data format compatibility now has to exist for data about a large variety of topics such as health, income, and housing e.g..

As we can see, this model is very technologically driven and focused. The emphasis is on how the technological capacity of public organizations develops, and how that determines (new) ways of service delivery. This is very much in line with the supply-side research highlighted earlier, in which the main consideration is how to design/implement the services that governments want to

(15)

provide, without looking for what citizens want to receive in terms of services. Since that does not tell the entire story of e-government, the next section will highlight a contrasting model.

2.2.2 The Public Sector Process Rebuilding (PPR) maturity model

The public sector process rebuilding (PPR) model, developed by Andersen & Henriksen (2006) both presents a criticism on and an adaptation of the Layne & Lee (2001) model of e-government maturity. Rather than assuming that technologically advanced systems automatically provide better service, Andersen & Henriksen (2006) posit that what is relevant for the maturity of e-government services is up to what degree they have been designed for individual or societal benefit. This will become evident as we go through the stages of the model.

In the PPR model the first stage is cultivation, which includes horizontal and vertical integration for internal processes complemented by an initial front-facing system for citizens. This is in large contrast with the Layne & Lee (2001) model, where vertical and horizontal integration are the final steps because they are the most technologically demanding. Integration is a point of departure here, because it is a necessary condition for providing more citizen-centered service delivery (Andersen & Henriksen, 2006; Klievink & Janssen, 2009).

The next stage is extension, where the systems built during the cultivation phase start to become more outward-facing, rather than primarily serving as links between public organizations. There is no one-stop-shop yet in this phase, so citizens still have to spend an undesirable amount of time to get the services they are looking for. Maturity, the stage which follows it, changes that by placing a large amount of emphasis on the ability of citizens to serve themselves digitally. This means that citizens can easily find the services they are looking for, and that there are clear instructions on how to proceed when a requested service cannot be provided in a digital environment. Finally, Andersen & Henriksen (2006) describe their ideal revolutionary e-government system, where citizens own their data, and this data can move freely between different agencies when desired by citizens.

Even though we should categorize the research by Andersen & Henriksen (2006) as demand-oriented, importantly their assumptions about what the ideal e-government system would look like for citizens is not empirically verified. This ties back to the problems raised by Scott et al. (2016), namely that even when researchers are designing e-government systems from the perspective of citizens, they do not have a strong enough grip on what a successful system would actually look

(16)

like to those citizens. Nonetheless the model by Andersen & Henriksen (2006) enhances our understanding of the different ways in which e-government systems can develop, as well as challenging the assumption of technologically-driven, which up until their research permeates the e-government maturity models (Layne & Lee, 2001; Wescott, 2001; Lee, 2010).

2.2.3 Integrating the models

In the previous two sections, two models were presented with different key assumptions. Yet they both hold a piece of the reality of how e-government systems develop over time. Therefore we turn to the qualitative metanalysis by Lee (2010), who makes an effort at integrating the two streams of maturity models. He does this by presenting a model of successive ‘metaphors’, which while akin to stages are somewhat more loosely defined. Each successive metaphor progresses along two axes: the “Citizen/Service Perspective” and the “Operation/Technology Perspective” (Lee, 2010, p. 229).

The first metaphor is presenting, where information is displayed digitally. After that there is a stage of assimilating where processes and services that already exist are also provided digitally, often in parallel with the paper procedure. From there Lee (2010) describes the process of reforming, where processes in the ‘real’ world are changed in order to better fit with the properties of the digital space, with the goal of efficiency. Next comes morphing, where processes both offline and online are transformed to provide the best service, changing their scope. Eventually there will be e-governance which represents a situation where “Processes and service in both worlds are synchronously managed, reflecting citizen involved changes with reconfigurable processes and services” (Lee, 2010, p. 224).

In its quest to integrate two different dimensions into a single e-government maturity model, the descriptions of its individual phases are quite broad. Yet what it describes well is the interaction between offline and online processes, and the transition from using the digital space as a means of increasing efficiency towards a citizen-involved model of e-governance. So in the process of integrating the two previous perspectives in maturity models, we see the emergence of new insights.

(17)

2.2.4 Critiquing maturity models

Even though maturity models help develop our understanding by examining the development of e-government systems, they are far from perfect. This section will discuss some of the most common critiques on maturity models found in the literature.

First of all, the linearity assumption of stage models is challenged quite often (Anderson & Henrikson, 2006; Klievink & Janssen, 2009). The linearity assumption entails that systems must proceed through the stage model step by step, and that no step can be skipped. Klievink & Janssen (2009) show that in the case of Dutch municipalities there have been cases of maturity stages being skipped. That leads into the next criticism, which has to do with parallel stages. Even if we assume that stages have to be followed in order, it is still unclear whether all elements of one stage actually have to be present to start developing features of the next (Anderson & Henrikson, 2006). There is evidence that this is not the case (Lee, 2010). Lastly, the idea of a stage model imposes a degree of normative judgement on e-government systems, namely that stage 4 is ‘better’ than stage 3 and so forth (Anderson & Henrikson, 2006). In the end what is important is that the system achieves what a given agency sets out for it to do, taking into account its unique context, not that it achieves a particular stage in a maturity model (Scott et al., 2016).

So even though there is much we can learn from analyzing e-government systems through the lens of maturity models, they do not allow us to discern the exact dynamics of development. Although we have a general idea of the way in which a system develops, we still do not know why it does and does not reach a particular stage. The next section will further talk about the mechanisms going into e-government system evolution.

2.3 Barriers to implementation

It has been commonly observed that e-government projects do not always succeed, far from it (Wescott, 2001; Savoldelli et al., 2014; Scott et al., 2016). Yet maturity models do not give us a precise enough insight into how e-government systems develop in order to be able to determine why some projects progress all the way to the final stages of maturity, while some do not (assuming that they both intend to reach that stage). Therefore this section will discuss the most commonly discussed categories of barriers to the implementation of e-government systems, when during the process they are most likely to occur, and the ways in which they can affect implementation. In the literature on e-government four types of broad categories come up when barriers to

(18)

implementation are discussed. These are technical/IT, political/organizational, legal, and financial (Meijer, 2015, Almarabeh & AbuAli, 2010).

2.3.1 Technical barriers

One of the earliest concern in the e-government literature was that governments were falling behind compared to the private sector during the implementation of information technology (Wescott, 2001). One of the large factors for that was the lack of IT skills among the employees and project managers in the public sector, and a lack of IT skill development (Ho, 2002; Moon, 2002; Layne & Lee, 2001). Although less so, this still is a relevant issue more than a decade later (Meijer, 2015). Other technical barriers include an insufficient amount of hardware and software that is compatible and interoperable across different agencies/levels of government, and an overreliance on IT staff from the private sector (Eynon & Margetts, 2007; Ebrahim & Irani, 2005). A final technical barrier worth mentioning is the lack of interoperability of government systems and/or databases, resulting in a siloed digital landscape that makes it very hard and costly to integrate (Klievink & Janssen, 2009; Savoldelli et al, 2014; Struijs, Braaksma and Daas, 2014).

2.3.2 Political and organizational barriers

There are multiple different interpretations of this category, and each have their merits. The first primarily has to do with a lack of managerial support, political support, or good leadership (Eynon & Margetts, 2007; Coursey & Norris, 2008). A lack of managerial and/or political support can mean that a project does not get initiated in the first place, or that the people working on it do not get access to the resources that they would reasonably need to do their work properly (Eynon & Margetts, 2007). A lack of good leadership on the other hand can mean that even if the resources are there, that they are not properly allocated.

The second broad category of political and organizational barriers is what Meijer (2015) refers to as cultural barriers. His argument is that traditional bureaucratic culture, with hierarchy, formality, and uniformity as primary characteristics is inert, and “preserves the traditional ways of interacting with citizens” (p. 199). Furthermore officials may be afraid that that technologies can decrease the reliability, legitimacy, or autonomy of government (Meijer, 2015). All in all this could cause heavy resistance to change and new technologies, impeding the implementation of such projects.

(19)

2.3.3 Legal barriers

Legal barriers in the context of e-government are often associated with privacy and security (Coursey & Norris, 2008; Meijer, 2015). Security partially overlaps with being a technical barrier, but shall be discussed here according to its treatment in the literature at large. Privacy, while initially being an issue about whether or not a person could be identified too easily based on the data they provide in transactions, has grown more complex over the past decade (Ebrahim & Irani, 2005; Meijer, 2015). Currently the ideal situation according to many researchers is that citizens explicitly control which agencies should have access to their data for the sake of personalized services, and which should not (Andersen & Henriksen, 2016). If privacy concerns regarding a new system cannot be quelled, that can singlehandedly stop a project in its tracks because of the direct negative impact that can have on its users (Goldkuhl, 2009).

Security deals on the one hand with the resistance of the system with regards to viruses and hackers, but also with whether there are sufficient security rules and policies (Ebrahim & Irani, 2005, Savoldelli et al, 2014). If a system is not secure then it has the potential to do more harm than good, meaning that a lack of security can severely hamper a project.

A second category of legal barriers has more to do with regulation on e-government. Goldkuhl (2009) shows evidence that “if the design process should adhere to all detailed formulations, there will be little room for innovation” (p. 91). Such a lack of innovation could mean halting the design of new features, resulting in a lack of further development of the system.

2.3.4 Financial barriers

Chief among the financial barriers is the low amount of financial resources in public organizations, combined with projects generally being expensive due to their scope (Wescott, 2001). Furthermore, hiring IT expertise from the private sector is expensive, whether it is temporary or in the form of consultancies (Ebrahim & Irani, 2005). This is further problematized by the limited amount of salary governments can pay IT specialists, making it hard to hire them in the first place (Moon, 2002).

Furthermore, even when the experts that can design and implement IT projects have been hired, the systems themselves still have to be bought and maintained, and employees need to be trained in order to be able to use the systems (Meijer, 2015). This is a significant drain on public sector budgets, and that is assuming that everything goes well and the system pans out as planned. There

(20)

is also a risk of projects failing somewhere during their lifespan, effectively wasting all the money invested into such a project (Savoldelli et al., 2014). So not only are e-government projects expensive, but there is also a risk that there is no return on investment, meaning that it can be hard to justify.

2.3.5 Expanding on types of barriers

As we have already seen, the categories are not entirely separate, but are rather interconnected. Since e-government projects are expensive and can fail, it can be hard to garner managerial and/or political support for them. Even if the project gets going, it might not always have the appropriate resources, which increases the propensity for it to fail. Such failures can reinforce a culture of skepticism towards e-government projects, making future projects more likely to fail (Meijer, 2015).

Most of the literature on barriers to implementation talks primarily about the structural barriers, “the central idea is that these barriers can be overcome if key organizational actors are willing to support the innovation process and if the contributions of these actors can be organized” (Meijer, 2015, p. 200). This has left cultural barriers, referring to cultural values and the image of technology in organizations, under-addressed in the literature (Meijer, 2015). This is further emphasized by Savoldelli et al. (2014) who argue that as time has gone by political/organizational barriers have become more important than technical barriers (which initially dominated the literature). As of yet little research has been done to test this assertion in a variety of contexts.

2.4 Place of the research in wider literature

So far this thesis has provided a thorough account of the conceptualization, history, and context of e-government as a field of study. By further honing in on how e-government systems develop and mature, and the obstacles in achieving said maturity, it has touched on issues of both societal and academic relevance.

The research of the thesis is aimed at providing evidence for which barriers, be they technical, political, legal, or financial, impact the development and implementation of e-government services. In order to be able to effectively design and implement systems of e-government that are beneficial to citizens, businesses, and governments worldwide it is important to have a better and more precise understanding of what factors can make a project (potentially) fail.

(21)

This thesis has value for the literature at large by providing a qualitative case study on the effect of, and interplay between, different barriers to implementation in the case of the Dutch central Government. The body of literature on e-government, and on barriers to implementation specifically, is becoming increasingly nuanced and precise in their description of how and why e-government systems develop, and what factors play a major role in those developments. There are currently little to no empirical tests of these recent additions to the literature, such as the ones that Meijer (2015) and Savoldelli et al. (2014) bring. Therefore the aim of this research is to see whether or not the commonly cited barriers in the literature hold up in this case study, and whether the effect of cultural barriers can be identified.

The competing hypotheses that the research will attempt to choose between are the following.

H1: Technical, organizational, legal, and financial barriers are equally important in determining the success rate of projects in the assimilating and reforming stages of maturity.

This has been the status quo in the literature on barriers to implementation for quite a long period of time, namely that each barrier is important and that their interaction determines the outcome (Coursey & Norris, 2008). That assumption is complemented by a more recent piece of theoretical development that posits that this idea mostly holds in earlier stages of maturity (Savoldelli et al., 2014).

H2: Organizational barriers are more influential than technical, legal, and financial barriers in determining the success rate of projects in the morphing and e-Governance stages of maturity.

Encompassing the contributions of Meijer (2015) and Savoldelli et al. (2014), they posit that organizational, and as a part of that cultural, barriers are more and more outweighing the other types of barriers. Their claim is that this effect is significant for later stages of maturity.

(22)

3. Research Design and Case Description

3.1 Research Design

3.1.1 Goals of the research

The aim of this research is to analyze the causal mechanisms between the barriers to e-government implementation that civil servants experience, and the result of their projects. In order to do so it will do a case study on the e-government development of the Dutch central government. By studying one case in rich detail it becomes possible to more closely examine the interplay between the variables of interest. The goal is to answer the research question: “How do technical,

organizational, legal, and financial barriers affect e-government project outcomes?”

3.1.2 Method of data collection

In order to be able to answer this research question, primarily semi-structured interviews were held with respondents that have worked on various such projects. The goal of the semi-structured interview is to ask questions pertaining to the hypotheses, while leaving room for the respondent to introduce competing explanations for the case (Kvale, 1994). This means that the unit of analysis is at the individual level, since we are collecting data at the individual level without then using it to determine an aggregate (Toshkov, 2016).

The sample consists of on the one hand medior to senior bureaucrats involved in e-government processes, as well as prominent members of the knowledge community ‘Gebruiker Centraal’. Sampling occurred through a combination of purposeful sampling and snowball sampling. The sampling was started by approaching two prominent figures (determined by function and media presence) in both the Dutch civil service as well as in the knowledge community ‘Gebruiker Centraal’, who were asked after the conclusion of the interview if they knew anyone else that would be worthwhile to talk to for the purpose of the research (respondents 2 and 1 respectively). Through two stages of snowballing the rest of the sample was determined.

Each participant was sent a cover letter in Dutch in advance of the interview (appendix 1) in order to inform them of the purpose, procedure, and risks and benefits of the research. Furthermore the cover letter included how the information provided during the interview would be handled. Upon meeting with the respondents, I provided them with a consent form in Dutch (appendix 2), in which they confirm that they are participating voluntarily and can stop the interview at any time,

(23)

that they feel free to not answer a particular question or to answer off the record, that the interview will be recorded and transcribed, and that any summary, or direct quotations will be anonymized, and care will be taken to ensure that any other information that might reveal their identity is not enclosed.

The interview itself proceeded semi-structurally according to the interview guide. Broadly the sequence of questions in the interview guide was followed, but whenever a respondent mentioned something relevant to the research question follow-up questions would be provided such as: “could you give an example of that?” or “could you elaborate a bit more on your experience with x?”. A few notes on the particulars of the proceedings of some of the interviews. The recordings for interviews 2 and 3, which were on the same file due to happening consecutively, were corrupted and inaccessible. With agreement from the participants, the transcripts are reconstructed based on the extensive notes that the researcher made during these interviews as well as some questions answered via email. Lastly, it proved impossible to meet with respondent 6 during the period of data collection, but they were nonetheless determined to be a potentially important source of information for the research due to their position within ‘Gebruiker Centraal’. Therefore that transcript is built from an email exchange with them, for which they gave permission. This is an imperfect solution, which according to the researcher outweighs the downsides of not including the information at all.

3.1.3 Method of data analysis

The overarching method of data analysis that this research adheres to is process tracing. Process tracing is defined as “the use of evidence from within a case to make inferences about causal explanations of that case” (Bennett & Checkel, 2015, p. 4). This means the analysis will consist of bringing together pieces of information provided by the different participants in order to on the one hand determine which of the rivalling hypotheses best explains the case, and on the other hand to be able to describe in detail how the causal mechanisms related to the research question operate. More concretely that means organizing the information given by respondents by which hypotheses they are relevant to, and linking that information to the theory on the one hand, and to other pieces of information (by the same or different respondents) on the other hand.

Therefore, after all the interviews had been conducted, each transcript was read thoroughly and annotated. Then quotes from all the transcripts were collected and grouped by recurring themes,

(24)

such as particular obstacles that respondents described. This categorization provided the basis for the findings section, and eventually for the analysis section.

3.1.4 Case selection

As mentioned previously, this study is a within-case study taking the development of e-government by the central Dutch e-government as its case of interest. This case is relevant in answering the research question for multiple reasons. First of all, the existing theories on barriers to e-government implementation have mostly been tested in non-Dutch contexts. That means we get to add either supporting or key contrasting evidence to the validity of those theories. Secondly, there has been little to no within-case work detailing the interactions between different barriers to implementation, and how they compare in importance in determining outcomes. Lastly, the Dutch case is well documented meaning that civil servants involved are willing to talk about the extent of their experiences openly.

3.1.5 Operationalization of key variables

The operationalization of variables refers to making them measurable and detectable (Toshkov, 2016). Let us first consider the dependent variable, the outcome of e-government projects. Success will be defined from the perspective of the public organization, since the barriers to implementation are also analyzed from their perspective. That means that the sentiments of the respondents regarding the projects are a major indicator regarding their success. This is further aided by comparing the projects at large with the stage of maturity of the e-government system. Projects that are successful should be moving the system towards increased maturity.

For the independent variables, namely the barriers, we will briefly repeat their main concrete expressions. Based on the literature we will be categorizing the statements of the respondents on the obstacles they experienced into their relevant barrier. The following overview is based primarily on Ebrahim & Irani (2005), Savoldelli et al. (2014), and Meijer (2015).

Technical barriers include a lack of IT skills and expertise, incompatible siloed data structures, lack of software and/or hardware, lack of documentation on systems, lack of IT training programs, and unqualified project management.

(25)

Organizational barriers include a lack of leadership, a lack of political/managerial support, insufficient cooperation and coordination (within and between departments), inert bureaucratic culture, resistance to change, and an unclear vision.

Legal barriers include privacy and security concerns, as well as very specific regulation inhibiting the amount of room for innovation.

Financial barriers include the high cost of external IT professionals, the cost of installing and maintaining e-government systems, the cost of training employees to use the systems, and the shortage of financial resources in public organizations.

If there are statements that do not fit any of these categories, they will also be collected, grouped where possible, and presented as competing explanations in determining the dependent variable.

3.1.6 Validity, reliability, and common threats to inference

In this section internal and external validity will be discussed, as well as reliability and how common threats to inference are dealt with.

For almost all within-case research, external validity is limited, and this research is no exception (Toshkov, 2016). While the conclusions of this research will not be able to be directly generalized, it can still contribute to generalizable knowledge indirectly by “being embedded in a larger theoretical body of literature. When single cases test or extend theories, uncover new causal mechanisms, and suggest novel concepts, they contribute to general arguments that might prove useful for the explanations of other cases” (Toshkov, 2016, p. 305).

The goal is for the research to have strong internal validity through careful examination of the interaction between observed variables. Because of the level of detail allowed by the detailed exploration of a single case, the likelihood is increased that we can successfully choose among alternate explanations.

In order to determine reliability for this qualitative research, it is relevant to look towards the trustworthiness of the sources used. For interview respondents we cannot be sure about the veracity of their statements, so therefore it is important to get statements from a multitude of participants. There is no guarantee in this regard, but by careful cross-referencing it will be attempted to ensure the reliability of the research.

(26)

Common threats to inference can be counteracted by considering alternative options, ensuring a lack of randomness, and checking for reverse causality. Reverse causality has to be taken into account, especially when considering project outcomes in the past to be influencing barriers to implementation in the present. Therefore it will be important to ask after, and be attentive to, civil servants’ past as well as present experiences with implementing e-government, and to see whether they believe their current projects are more difficult because of past results.

Considering alternative explanations is at the core of process tracing, since part of the research method is gathering evidence to choose between a set of alternative explanations. Similarly, due to the within-case nature of the research, randomness is unlikely to pose problems.

3.2 Case Description

In this section a broad description of the development of e-government in the Netherlands shall be provided, in order set an appropriate context for the findings and analysis.

Over the past two decades or so the Netherlands has consistently been praised as a leader in terms of e-government development (United Nations 2001, 2008, 2016; European Commission, 2015). Both the government itself as well as research institutes consistently publish agenda’s and reports pushing the digital government forward (NL DIGIbeter, 2018). Yet that does not always mean that the Netherland is successful in doing so. For example multiple organizations, such as the ‘Studiegroep Informatiesamenleving en Overheid’, as well as ‘Gebruiker Centraal’ have been pushing for a more citizen-centered approach to service delivery, as well as seeing ICT as part of the core of the service delivery process (Studiegroep I&O, 2017). Yet this has as of yet not lead to changes. The need for such changes are further emphasized by the evaluation report of ‘Digicommissaris’ Bas Eenhoorn, which stated that if the current course is retained, that the digitalization of the government will stagnate (ABDTOPConsult, 2017). Thus the often praised e-government development is no guarantee for future developments, it remains necessary to actively innovate in order to prevent stagnation.

Since 2008, when the ‘Nationaal Uitvoeringsprogramma Betere Dienstverlening en E-overheid' (NUP) was introduced, MijnOverheid has been a mainstay in the Dutch digital service delivery. Starting out with limited users and participating organizations, this portal website and communication platform from government to citizen has steadily grown since. By now many large

(27)

government organizations are accessible through MijnOverheid, and every Dutch citizen above 14 years old has an account made for them.

(28)

4. Findings

In this section, the findings of the various interviews will be summarized based on broad themes that were observed throughout the interviews. For these themes both the commonalities and differences between the answers given by the respondents will be noted. In order to stay true to the original responses, quotes shall be given in Dutch, the language in which the interviews took place. For the sake of readability, each quote shall be followed by an English paraphrasing in the paragraph describing it. The information provided here shall be the basis of the analysis in the chapter following it. First this section shall portray how respondents talked about their goals for digital service delivery in The Netherlands, as well as how far they reckon they are in achieving those goals. A description of the success rates of projects leads us to an extensive summary of the obstacles and success factors mentioned by respondents. Lastly, the participants’ perspective on the future will be briefly showcased.

4.1 Digital Governance in The Netherlands

4.1.1 The Goal

Each of the respondents was asked to describe what the goal of the e-government systems in The Netherlands should be. A sentiment that broadly summarizes the participants’ responses is:

“Met het doel om het aanbod van diensten en informatie zodanig om te vormen dat niet de behoefte van de organisatie maar de behoeften van de eindgebruiker centraal staan.” (respondent 4)

The goal according to them is that the supply of services and information should be provided based on the needs of the user, not on that of the organization. Each of the participants describe this aspiration in these general terms: to build systems based around the needs of the citizen. Another respondent who subscribes to this notion specifies what they think those needs are:

“Maar je moet begrijpen dat gemak het hoogste goed is voor iedereen. Er zal niemand zeggen die zaken makkelijk kunnen afhandelen: goh dat was vreselijk” (respondent 1)

“Snelheid en gemak zijn de Key Performance Indicators voor alle software, daar ben ik echt heilig van overtuigd. Dus op het moment dat je ziet dat uitzonderingen de regel worden dan ga je dus de verkeerde kant op.” (respondent 1)

(29)

They claim that convenience is the highest good for all users, and that speed and convenience are the Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) for all software. Although these needs are not contested nor specifically confirmed by other respondents, other specific goals do come up. Those include transparency (respondent 2), digital inclusivity (respondent 4), and security (respondent 3). Another important element to bring up is that:

“De digitale overheid moet een middel zijn in plaats van een doel opzich, anders is het lastig om mensen in beweging te brengen” (respondent 2)

What they emphasize is that it is important to see the digital government and its services as a means to an end, rather than a goal in itself. This is important in order to be able to activate people to work on the digital government, otherwise it might end up low on the priority list according to respondent 2.

4.1.2 The Current Situation

The next step is to find out how the current situation compares to the collective goal of the respondents. With regard to the technical elements of the digital government, the following was brought up:

“Maar we krijgen het als overheid steeds beter in de vingers. Laten we wel wezen dat veel van de mensen die ICT doen bij de overheid ingehuurd zijn en niet voor de overheid werken. Dus de technische aspecten krijgen we steeds beter in de vingers, en dan zie je dat er andere behoeftes ontstaand. Bijvoorbeeld dat iedereen mee moet kunnen doen” (respondent 4)

This respondent describes that, partially thanks to the fact that many of the people who work on ICT for the government are from the private sector, the technical aspects are increasingly under control. And the fact that that is somewhat under control leads to attention to relatively new topics, such as digital inclusion. This idea of improvement is not entirely shared between all respondents however:

“Als er al verandering in zit dan is dat marginaal. Je ziet toch financieel dat de uitgaven nog steeds stijgen, dat we nog steeds voor minimaal een miljard te veel uitgeven per jaar, maar je merkt het ook aan het sentiment online dat het voor mensen nog steeds niet duidelijk is waar ze precies naartoe moeten om zaken te doen, en dat als ze dan

(30)

ergens komen dat ze niet gelukkig worden dus dat is veranderd in kleine stapjes.” (respondent 1)

This respondent describes that any change over the past years is marginal according to them because financially the costs keep rising, that the government still spends about a billion to much on ICT per year, and that user still do not know where they have to be in order to perform transactions with the government digitally. And that even when they find where they have to be, that they are not happy with the transaction. Therefore this statement does not contest that there have been improvements in the technical knowledge, but rather that the service delivery has not improved significantly regardless of the amount of ICT knowledge available. This idea that citizens do not know where to perform their transactions with the government is supported by another respondent who says:

“Er was 15 jaar geleden een klantgedachte, namelijk het idee dat er 1 loket zou moeten zijn voor alle digitale transacties. Maar in plaats van dat ene loket hebben we er op het moment 1500, en de burger moet zelf uitzoeken waar hij moet zijn.” (respondent 2)

Here the respondent describes that 15 years ago there was an intent to have 1 online service point for citizens with the government, but instead there are currently 1500 and very little guidance on where a citizen should go to achieve what they want to. While this is confirmed by respondent 4, according to them there is an improvement in this area, and in increased amount of cooperation:

“Dat had je vroeger heel vaak dat je als burger als boodschapper wordt gehaald dat je langs verschillende loketten moet. En dat wordt steeds meer via de achterkant geregeld, de mogelijkheid tot samenwerken is de afgelopen jaren flink gestegen.” (respondent 4)

They describe that a lot of the moving between digital service points that the citizen first had to do themselves, now happens more and more in the system due to increased possibilities for cooperation.

4.1.3 Project Succes Rate

So given that there is a gap between the current situation and the described goal, how successful are the projects that seek to improve the service delivery by the Dutch public organizations?

(31)

“Nou mijn ervaring is ook dat maar weinig projecten echt lukken. Dan heb ik het niet over financieel vlak maar puur op acceptatievlak, dus worden mensen er blij van, dat is eigenlijk mijn definitie van is het goede software.” (respondent 1)

“Dat aandeel [van projecten die niet goed van de grond komen] is altijd te groot. Nou je ziet de gezicht-hebbende projecten, de investeringstrajecten om het zo te zeggen waar tientallen miljoenen in omgaan daar zitten de grote risico’s.” (respondent 4)

All respondents agree that too many projects get stuck or do not achieve their goals successfully. The degree of pessimism or optimism differs however: while respondent 1 describes that in their experience very few projects actually succeed, where success is defined as whether the user is happy with the final product. Respondent 4 counterbalances this somewhat by saying that especially the large projects, the ones with the most visibility, are most at risk of not succeeding. Since success is largely defined by the respondents as acceptance by users, the following is also important to note:

“Ja er wordt gevraagd wat men ervan vindt. Of er ook wat mee gebeurt is een hele andere vraag.” (respondent 1)

Here it is noted that although most projects have some sort of feedback mechanism, there exists some doubt that this feedback is actually used for improvement of the service.

4.2 Obstacles & Success Factors

In the following section the obstacles and success factors that the participants described are grouped and portrayed. An effort has been made to exhaustively mention all aspects that the participants brought up, although not each individual’s quotes on each aspect are incorporated for the sake of redundancy.

4.2.1 Supervision & Management

The first major factor mentioned by all respondents is the quality of supervision and management. Here follow some exemplary quotes:

"En eigenlijk te weinig kennis van zaken van de partijen die in de toezichthoude rol zitten. ICT heeft een hele andere dynamiek dan de andere beleidsterreinen" (respondent 4)