CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0E-Government and Public ServicesPublic Policy and Administration ResearchPublic Administration and Political Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Model of risk governance in digital public sector projects: The case of Kazakhstan’s electronic human resource management platform

Open access
Salykova, Leila, Rakhmetova, Rakhila, Andekina, Regina, Maxyutova, Ainura, Sembinova, Marzhan, Mussabekov, Zhandos·2026·Risk Governance and Control Financial Markets & Institutions
DOI 10.22495/rgcv16i3p6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Risk governance has become a central concern in public administration as governments implement complex digital transformation projects aimed at improving service delivery, efficiency, and transparency. Although International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 31000 provides a structured framework for identifying, assessing, treating, monitoring, and communicating risks, its procedural orientation may be insufficient in public sector environments shaped by cognitive biases, institutional inertia, information asymmetry, and misaligned incentives (Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2017; ISO, 2018). This study develops an ecological model of risk governance that integrates ISO 31000, Behavioural public administration (BPA), and agency theory into a multi-layered framework for analysing digital public sector projects. Using Kazakhstan’s electronic human resource management (e-HRM) platform as a qualitative single-case study, the research draws on document analysis, 20 semi-structured interviews, observation of inter-agency discussions, and descriptive project-level evidence. The findings show that formal risk registers and technical safeguards were necessary but insufficient: optimism bias, status quo bias, inter-agency coordination problems, and vendor-government incentive misalignment generated emergent risks during implementation. The study contributes to public administration theory by conceptualising risk governance as an adaptive system and offers practical recommendations for improving accountability, risk disclosure, user adoption, and institutional coordination in digital transformation projects.

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 · 10.22495/rgcv16i3p6

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Aven, T. (2016). Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2015). Routledge handbook of interpretive political science (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315725314 · DOI
  3. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
  5. Duit, A., & Galaz, V. (2008). Governance and complexity—Emerging issues for governance theory. Governance, 21(3), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00402.x · DOI
  6. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/258191 · DOI · Paper page
  7. El-Sokkary, N., Arafa, A. A., Zahran, E. G., Hefny, H. A., & Ramdan, N. (2026). Recent trends of machine learning techniques for risk assessment in hazardous environments. Artificial Intelligence Review, 59, Article 108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-026-11507-8 · DOI
  8. Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage. · DOI
  9. Frigo, M. L., & Anderson, R. J. (2011). Strategic risk management: A foundation for improving enterprise risk management and governance. The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 22(3), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.20677 · DOI
  10. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., & Tummers, L. (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12609 · DOI
  11. Hillson, D., & Murray-Webster, R. (2017). Understanding and managing risk attitude (2nd ed.). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315235448 · DOI
  12. Hopkin, P. (2018). Fundamentals of risk management: Understanding, evaluating and implementing effective risk management (5th ed.). Kogan Page.
  13. Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001 · DOI
  14. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X · DOI · Paper page
  15. Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Klijn, E.-H., & Teisman, G. R. (2003). Institutional and strategic barriers to public-private partnership: An analysis of Dutch cases. Public Money & Management, 23(3), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00361 · DOI
  17. Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 56–63. https://preview-prod-production.gurooproducer.com/learntolead2021/lovallo-and-Kahneman-2003.pdf
  18. Lungisa, S., Nzewi, O. I., & Sikhosana, N. (2023). Adapting enterprise risk management principles to local government in a developing country. Journal of Governance & Regulation, 12(4), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv12i4art4 · DOI
  19. Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), Article 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Muhtar, M., Winarna, J., & Sutaryo, S. (2024). Local development in the emerging market: Does integrated government internal control matter? [Special issue]. Journal of Governance & Regulation, 13(2), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv13i2siart7 · DOI
  21. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). Towards an open government in Kazakhstan. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279384-en · DOI
  22. Pepaj, I., & Batalli, M. (2024). Trends of reforming the administration towards the development of modern administrative procedures [Special issue]. Journal of Governance & Regulation, 13(2), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv13i2siart6 · DOI
  23. Renn, O. (2017). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849772440 · DOI
  24. Rokhman, A., Çömez, P., & Rosyadi, S. (2024). Interactive model of government websites based on decision tree analysis and web quality 4.0 [Special issue]. Journal of Governance & Regulation, 13(2), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv13i2siart11 · DOI
  25. Sulila, I., Santoso, I. R., Polin, M., Lukum, R., & Gobel, W. (2024). Development of e-government public policy implementation model in online tax services. Journal of Governance & Regulation, 13(3), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv13i3art6 · DOI
  26. Tambaip, B., Tjilen, A. P., Riyanto, P., & Ohoiwutun, Y. (2025). Organizational behavior in responding to Special Autonomy Policy in the emerging market: Governance and regulatory challenges in a conflict-prone region. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 15(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv15i1art1 · DOI
  27. Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E.-H. (2008). Complexity theory and public management. Public Management Review, 10(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802002451 · DOI
  28. Thompson-Bahm, H., Teixeira, J. E., & Lobo, R. C. G. (2025). Enhancing sustainability and human centricity through emerging technologies from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0: An integrative literature review. Corporate Governance and Sustainability Review, 9(3), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.22495/cgsrv9i3p7 · DOI
  29. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

Metadata

Authors
Salykova, L., Rakhmetova, R., Andekina, R., Maxyutova, A., Sembinova, M., & Mussabekov, Z.
Affiliations
  • Astana IT University (KZ)
  • Kyzylorda Open University (KZ)
  • Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan (KZ)
  • Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan (KZ)
  • Astana IT University
ORCID
Venue
Risk Governance and Control Financial Markets & Institutions
Publisher
Virtus Interpress
Published
2026-08-26
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
66
ISSN
  • 2077-429X (ISSN-L)
  • 2077-4303
DOI
10.22495/rgcv16i3p6
OpenAlex
W7204239846
Cited by
0
References
3
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Risk Governance and Control Financial Markets & Institutions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
Keywords
risk governance, digital transformation, Kazakhstan, ISO 31000, agency theory, optimism bias, status quo bias, inter-agency coordination, emergent risks, ecological model, risk register, risk disclosure, user adoption, institutional inertia

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