Overcoming barriers to digital government: mapping the strategies of digital champions
Open accessAbstract
Previous research has identified a variety of barriers to digital government, and regularly emphasizes the importance of individuals that navigate institutional contexts and strategically pursue digital government solutions. This exploratory analysis investigates how these individuals understand barriers to digital government and the strategies that they apply to overcome them. Using interviews with digital champions in the U.S government, we extract the tactics employed to overcome these barriers including storytelling, community building, external validation, orientation towards citizen perspectives and a reliance on external peer networks. Results highlight the interconnected nature of barriers and the non-linear quality of strategies, and allow the construction of a theoretical model for structural and cultural barriers and strategies as experienced by digital champions. This model highlights the perceived efficacy and impact of cultural strategies, and the association of these strategies with external peer networks and citizens, and a tension in how digital champions describe actors and approaches introduced from the private sector.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Empirical insight remains limited regarding if and how investing in sophisticated analytics tools and modernized IT architecture influences organizational abilities and performance for public sector institutions relative to private firms.
“This signifies an important knowledge gap around if and how investing in sophisticated analytics tools and modernized IT architecture influences organizational abilities and performance for public sector institutions relative to private firms (Wilson and Mergel 2022).”
From How Do Digital Capabilities Affect Organizational Performance in the Public Sector? The Mediating Role of the Organizational Agility (2024) · cites this paper as Wilson and Mergel 2022
Cites
New Public Management Is Dead--Long Live Digital-Era Governance
Dunleavy, P. (2005) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mui057 · Cited by 2,638 · cited 3× · see citing works
“…and expectation-setting strategies, which emphasized the values underpinning Stoker ’ s (2006) articulation of Public Value Management as “ a system of dialogue and exchange associated with networked governance ” (p. 56) and Dunleavy et al. ’ s (2006) framework for Digital-Era Governance.”
BackgroundBovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00168 · Cited by 964 · see citing works
E-government adoption: Architecture and barriers
Ebrahim, Z., & Irani, Z. (2005) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/14637150510619902 · Cited by 755 · cited 5× · see citing works
“…government in light of Janowski ’ s (2015) evolutionary model reveals that structural barriers are most prominent in the research on e-government and government technology adoption, which aligns with that model ’ s first phase (Ebrahim & Irani, 2005; Savoldelli et al., 2014; Schwester, 2009).”
BackgroundInfluentialE-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies
Meijer, A. (2015) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.01.001 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Know-how to lead digital transformation: The case of local governments
Pittaway, J. J., & Montazemi, A. R. (2020) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2020.101474 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited?
Nograšek, J., & Vintar, M. (2014) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2013.07.006 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Tangi, L., Janssen, M., Benedetti, M., & Noci, G. (2020) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-57599-1_4 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Luthfi, A., & Janssen, M. (2019) · International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology · doi:10.18517/ijaseit.9.3.8846 · Cited by 12 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…(Luna-Reyes, Gil-Garcia, & Romero, 2012), e-governance (Meijer, 2015), government innovation (Schank & Hudson, 2018), data-driven government (Luthfi & Janssen, 2019), open government (Schnell, 2020), and most recently, digital transformation (Mergel, Edelmann, & Haug, 2019), to name a few.”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Atobishi, T., Moh’d Abu Bakir, S., & Nosratabadi, S. (2024) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci14020037 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
“This signifies an important knowledge gap around if and how investing in sophisticated analytics tools and modernized IT architecture influences organizational abilities and performance for public sector institutions relative to private firms (Wilson and Mergel 2022).”
Background
- Authors
- Wilson, C., & Mergel, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Oslo (NO)
- University of Konstanz (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Wilson, Christopher
- Venue
- Government Information Quarterly
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-04
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 101681
- ISSN
- 0740-624X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4212893850
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 49 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 10
- FWCI
- 117.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Government Information Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Georgetown University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Smart Cities and Technologies
- Keywords
- e-government, organizational change, storytelling, community building, external validation, citizen perspective, peer networks, cultural barriers, structural barriers, digitalization of public administration, private sector influence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
