CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Public Procurement and PolicyE-Government and Public ServicesSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Transparency Maturity Model for Government Software Tenders

Open access
Hochstetter, Jorge, Vairetti, Carla, Cares, Carlos, Ojeda, Mauricio Garcia, Maldonado, Sebastian·2021·IEEE Access
DOI 10.1109/access.2021.3067217
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Over the last two decades, governments have increased their investment in information technology to improve the use of public resources, using public electronic procurement systems to obtain better prices, better solutions and to show transparency in the procurement process. Public procurement of software development projects is specific acquisitions having specific technical, methodological, and management constraints that make transparency an elusive target. This article proposes a maturity model as a tool to measure tendering transparency when government agencies procure software development. We have used a procedural model to support the design of maturity models along four dimensions: Institutionalization, Software procurement process, Communication, and Accountability. We have defined a five-step model, and we have tested it with real government buyers. The model is supported by an appraisal tool that helps to guide the next steps in the transparency of software acquisitions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2021.3067217

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The higher the level of maturity of risk management, the more reliable the contractor, since, as a rule, there are no unforeseen circumstances in the process of fulfilling an IT order.

    “Scientists argue that the higher the level of maturity of risk management, the more reliable the contractor, since, as a rule, there are no unforeseen circumstances in the process of fulfilling an IT order.”

    From Analysis of 105 IT Project Risks (2023) · cites this paper as Hochstetter et al. 2021

    Section VII describes a maturity model for transparency in government software tenders, not for contractors’ risk management. Searches for risk management, contractor reliability, and unforeseen circumstances found no passage linking maturity to contractor reliability or claiming that IT orders generally proceed without unforeseen circumstances. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Reliable contractors have a high level of maturity in terms of risk management.

    “come to the conclusion that reliable contractors have a high level of maturity in terms of risk management (Hochstetter et al. 2021).”

    From Analysis of 105 IT Project Risks (2023) · cites this paper as Hochstetter et al. 2021

    The model-development section (VII; page unavailable) defines maturity in terms of transparency in government software procurement, not contractors’ risk management. The accountability section discusses obligations between agencies and suppliers, but does not link contractor reliability to risk-management maturity. Searches for “risk management” and “reliable contractors” found no passage addressing that conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 90

  1. di maio, 2010, Gartner group government maturity model
  2. 10.1007/978-3-540-85204-9_12 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.001 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.giq.2008.12.007 · DOI
  5. budgen, 2008, Using mapping studies in software engineering, Proc PPIG, 8, 195
  6. 10.14236/ewic/EASE2008.8 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1109/RePa.2011.6046723 · DOI
  8. 10.1177/0020852318822055 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1108/GKMC-05-2018-0045 · DOI
  11. 10.1145/1414004.1414034 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/poms.12667 · DOI
  13. 10.1007/s00766-017-0265-y · DOI
  14. zelewski, 2007, Kann wissenschaftstheorie behilflich für die publikationspraxis sein, Wissenschaftstheoretische Fundierung und Wissenschaftliche Orientierung der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 71
  15. 10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.008 · DOI
  17. 10.1098/rsta.2017.0351 · DOI
  18. 10.1007/s10611-017-9695-1 · DOI
  19. 10.1596/prwp · DOI
  20. naessens, 2010, Ética pública y transparencia, Proc XIV Encuentro de Latinoamericanistas Españoles Congreso Internacional, 2113
  21. ordoñez, 2019, OntoAgile: An ontology for agile software development processes, DYNA, 86, 79, 10.15446/dyna.v86n209.76670 · DOI
  22. paulk, 1995, The Capability Maturity Model Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, 441
  23. petrie, 2009, Modelo de registro y acreditación de instituciones de educación superior basado en el modelo CMMI, Proc 7th LACCEI Latin Amer Caribbean Conf Eng Technol, 1
  24. 10.1108/13598540410550019 · DOI
  25. lozano, 2018, Transparencia en la gestión de las bibliotecas públicas del estado a través de sus sedes Web, El profesional de la información, 27, 36, 10.3145/epi.2018.ene.04 · DOI
  26. 2002, Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMISM) Version 1 1
  27. 10.1007/s12599-010-0102-z · DOI
  28. de bruin, 2005, Towards a business process management maturity model, Proc 13th Eur Conf Inf Syst, 1
  29. kitsios, 2019, Information systems strategy and strategy-as-practice: Planning evaluation in SMEs, Proc Americas Conf Inf Syst, 1
  30. 10.1109/HICSS.2015.541 · DOI
  31. 10.1109/CSEET.2017.14 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.giq.2008.03.003 · DOI
  34. 10.1177/0020852309104175 · DOI
  35. 10.2753/PIN1099-9922110400 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3_5 · DOI
  37. highsmith, 2013, Adaptive Software Development A Collaborative Approach to Managing Complex Systems
  38. paulk, 2009, A history of the capability maturity model for software, ASQ Softw Qual Prof, 12, 5
  39. 10.1016/j.is.2011.04.003 · DOI
  40. 10.1109/FOSE.2007.17 · DOI
  41. 10.1109/MoDRE.2018.00013 · DOI
  42. 10.1145/3131151.3131155 · DOI
  43. ugalde, 2019, La rendición de cuentas en los gobiernos estatales y municipales, Auditoria Superior de la Federación
  44. akimova, 2020, The negative impact of corruption on the economic security of states, Journal of International Management, 11, 1058
  45. 10.2307/20159030 · DOI
  46. 10.1016/j.dss.2011.10.014 · DOI
  47. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.01.012 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.02.017 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.001 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.004 · DOI
  51. 10.1016/j.giq.2010.04.007 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.giq.2006.07.016 · DOI
  53. hochstetter, 2018, Need for evaluate transparency in software procurement processes, International Journal of Advances in Electronics and Computer Science, 5, 25
  54. 10.1108/JOPP-06-01-02-2006-B004 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.1016/j.im.2013.07.003 · DOI
  56. mardones, 2016, Las compras públicas de tecnología e innovación como un elemento central de las políticas públicas del siglo XXI, Revista Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología, 5, 95
  57. 10.1016/j.giq.2006.09.008 · DOI
  58. villoria, 2014, Corrupción pública, EUNOMÍA Revista en Cultura de la Legalidad, 5, 159
  59. 10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.06.005 · DOI
  60. 2010, International Country Risk Guide Political Risk
  61. shenkar, 2008, International Business
  62. 10.3386/w25484 · DOI
  63. schwab, 2018, The global competitiveness report 2018, 671, 1
  64. 10.1515/9781400835157 · DOI · Paper page
  65. 2018, Corruptions Perception Index
  66. chaqués, 2004, Redes de Políticas Públicas
  67. sáenz, 2017, Calidad Transparencia y Ética Pública
  68. 10.1515/9780804784740 · DOI
  69. pérez-mergarejo, 2014, Modelos de madurez y su idoneidad para aplicar en pequeñas y medianas empresas, Ingeniería Ind, 35, 184
  70. 10.1007/s11127-007-9157-x · DOI
  71. 10.1016/j.is.2012.09.004 · DOI
  72. 10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.006 · DOI · Paper page
  73. 10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.002 · DOI
  74. 10.1016/j.giq.2011.08.005 · DOI
  75. concha, 2012, El desafío hacia el gobierno abierto en la hora de la igualdad, Documentos De Proyectos
  76. mingsakul, 2020, Impact of trade liberalization and technology advancements on productivity: Evidence from thai manufacturing sector, Proc BESSH, 1
  77. 10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.005 · DOI
  78. 10.1177/0020852311429533 · DOI
  79. rodríguez, 2011, Gobierno electrónico: Hacia la modernización y transferencia de la gestión pública, Revista De Derecho, 21, 1
  80. vera, 2006, Para analizar los procesos de democratización: Interfaces socioestatales, proyectos políticos y rendición de cuentas, Democratización Rendición de Cuentas y Sociedad Civil, 265
  81. 10.1111/exsy.12289 · DOI
  82. 10.1016/j.giq.2016.01.001 · DOI
  83. revorio, 2018, Democracia, representación y participación ciudadana, a la búsqueda de un equilibrio que la constitución no logró, Revista Derecho Político, 1, 239
  84. koenane, 2017, Ethics, accountability and democracy as pillars of good governance: Case of South Africa, African Journal of Public Affairs, 9, 1
  85. baldoni, 2019, Accountability, responsibility and robustness in agent organizations, Proc 1st Int Workshop Responsible Artif Intell Agents (RAIA), 1
  86. 10.2139/ssrn.746844 · DOI
  87. 2020, EPUSO Oficial
  88. grau, 2006, La transparencia en la gestión pública: Cómo construirle viabilidad?, Estado Gobierno Gestión Pública Revista Chilena de Administración Pública, 8, 22
  89. 10.4337/9780857934932.00015 · DOI
  90. france, 2019, Information accountability in a non-profit organisation, Journal of New Business Ideas and Trends, 17, 26

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hochstetter, J., Vairetti, C., Cares, C., Ojeda, M. G., & Maldonado, S.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Los Andes, Chile (CL)
  • Universidad de La Frontera (CL)
ORCID
Venue
IEEE Access
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2021
Volume
9
Pages
45668-45682
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/access.2021.3067217
OpenAlex
W3138894477
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Omeka S (Universidad de La Frontera) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Universidad de La Frontera
  • Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (AFB180003)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
procurement transparency, accountability, institutionalization, communication, assessment instruments

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