As far as I know the UN uses the E-Government Readiness Index (EGDI) to measure that. If you look for it you might find the specific method they use.

https://www-935.ibm.com/services/in/cio/pdf/leverage_wp_data_gov_council_maturity_model.pdf

Is the IBM Data Governance Council Maturity Model used as a benchmark for assessing the maturity of e-government initiatives? It appears from the document, that this model was designed as a a quality control discipline for adding new rigor and discipline to the process of managing, using, improving and protecting organizational information (data governance) for corporate organizations rather than the realm of e-government services.

Disregard, I overlooked the part in the document that states it has been used in public sector government.

There were a couple of QESP Newsletter articles on e-government in Oct/Nov 2014 with links that might help, see http://qesp.org/articles/ict-metrics-nist%E2%80%99s-new-measurement-science-plan

and http://qesp.org/articles/what-went-wrong-egovernment-and-digital-economy-policy.

The UN Standards of Excellence in Public Administration Education and Training might also be relevant.

Thank you Mr Tello, Krimmer, Umachandran, Pritchard and Smilie.  Really appreciate suggestions.  I will look from all angle suggested to measure the e-government maturity level in Malaysia. : )

Dear Mas Anom Abdul Rashid and Simone Milan. 

The UN eGov Index, the EU eGov benchmarking, Waseda Index et al are ALL supply and technology focused. That means they do NOT address actual value creation from eService or eGov infrastructure provisions.

The above also hold for the academic stage/maturity models like Moon, Layne&Lee etc. Andersen&Henriksen looks at outcomes but not specifically. 

With the exemption of the PPR model (Andersen and Henriksen 2006) all other models analysed have a technology and supply orientated, i.e. have no focus on outcomes or actual use (Lee 2010, Alhomod and Shafi 2012). This is unfortunate, as the tangible benefits of any ICT solution and eServices in particularely can only be realized through the actual and effective use of supplied eServices by citizens (Meyerhoff and Kelly 2011, Meyerhoff Nielsen 2011, UNDESA 2014).

Similarly, most of the models have no real understanding of core government service concepts. For instance:

• Individual service elements – that is information, transaction capability, personal data – are not separate maturity levels but rather elements in a given service request and subsequent delivery. Similarly downloadable forms are merely a type of static information and does not warrant a separate maturity level (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2015).
• Decision making, as illustrated by the eParticipation and eDemocracy stages, should not be considered an eGovernment maturity level. Rather engagement, petition and voting solutions should be seen service types, as the consist of information, transaction capability and some form of data, e.g. information about an election, and internet voting solution allowing for vote casting, plus data such as unique ID numbers, name and address for authorizing a vote. Thus the eParticipation and eDemocracy stage(s) should be seen as an indication of democratic maturity and degree of transparency in a country not as eGovernment maturity levels.
• Front-office service provision and back-office integration are mixed up in a number of models. For instance, one-stop-shop portals does not constitute a form of transaction, but is rather an indicator of degree to which authorities cooperate and integration (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2015).

None of the models I have identifed to date include aspects of governance directly. Some, like the Waseda model, highlight management and coordination issues such as the existence of chief information officers (Waseda 2014). Similarly vertical and horizontal integration, and the existence of one-stop-shops, sharing of information and data can be interpreted as aspects of cooperation between different authorities and levels of government – even private and third party stakeholders (Chen 2011) (Lee and Kwak 2012).

In terms of countries actively using state/maturity models to govern their eGov deveopments there are two schools in my experience: 

I hope the above is of use and of interest. As Robert Krimmer mentioned this is part of our research at Tallinn Uni of Technology and my phd in particular. If you have other questions please let me know, but may be easier to do as a mini-skype-workshop  :)

Regards,

Morten 

A very good article, which I enjoyed reading, about this subject  is in the link below. Best wishes & regards.

http://web.stanford.edu/~gvaldesu/articles/CapabilityMaturityFrameworkForEgov.pdf

hi dear all

you can see this files (from iran)

Mr Morten, thank you for your answer and explanation.

Mr Nizar and Mr Mohammad, thank you for sharing the information. 

All the information is very useful and important to me. 😊

Dear Colleagues

Good Day,

Here you assume  e-government as a "Technology", therefore you have to use 

Technology Readiness Levels (TRL)  method of estimating technology maturity of Critical Technology Elements (CTE) of a program during the acquisition process. They are determined during a Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) that examines program concepts, technology requirements, and demonstrated technology capabilities. TRL are based on a scale from 1 to 9 with 9 being the most mature technology. The use of TRLs enables consistent, uniform, discussions of technical maturity across different types of technology.

Different definitions are used. Although they are conceptually similar, significant differences exist in terms of maturity at a given technology readiness level.

1- U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) definitions.

2- NASA definitions.

3- ESA definition.

4- European Commission definition.

5- Oil & Gas Industry (API 17N).

6-  etc etc

Please, read the attached articles 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level

http://www.innovationseeds.eu/Virtual_Library/Knowledge/TLR_Scale.kl

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/619/61913.htm

http://ncp-space.net/are-you-familiar-with-the-technology-readiness-levels/

This paper from the International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (Vol.5, No.3, May 2014) compares and evaluates 25 different models for assessing e-government maturity.

http://airccse.org/journal/ijsea/papers/5314ijsea06.pdf

All the models they consider seem to be tracking behind the actual transformative power of the web to help shape the nature of governance in society  - so there's plenty of scope to create your own more forward looking model of e-government maturity.  Hope this is helpful.

I found this article to be very informative and might help you in your research on e-goverment maturity models:

https://ict4dblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/a-better-e-government-maturity-model/

A model applied in Colombia in 2006 (Rodríguez, 2006) https://www.academia.edu/265789/Investigaci%C3%B3n_Sobre_El_Estado_De_Avance_Del_Gobierno_Electr%C3%B3nico_En_Colombia_a_Nivel_Municipal_Regional_Y_Nacional another in España by (Esteves, 2006) http://www.latienda.ie.edu/working_papers_economia/WPE05-32.pdf

Dear Somya Joshi.

Do you have more information on the Manchester Model? See some interesting aspects in it (even if it does not address use, only indirectly governance/cooperation though its integration aspects). 

Dear Gilber Corelles.

Interesting. Do you know if the documents exist in English versions (even abstracts)? Do you happen to have the illustrations missing in the Spanish journal? Do you know if the Rodriquez/Columbian model is still used and by who? The Rodriquez model is quit similar to other academic models I have seen (i.e. similar to Layne&Lee but adds an "eDemocracy" stage. 

Thank you in advance. 

Morten

There are several maturity models. In the articles bellow below you can find some maturity accessing methods we used for Portuguese municipalities. You probably need to adapt existing models to your specific context,

Conference Paper Assessment of e-government maturity in Portuguese municipali...

Article Privacy Policies in Web Sites of Portuguese Municipalities: ...

Conference Paper Local e-government information and service delivery

Article Significant socio-economic factors for local e-government de...

Conference Paper Evolution of local e-government maturity in Portugal

Hi Mas Anom Abdul Rashid,

you can use European Union maturity model of e-government. This model reveals the degree of technological sophistication and the degree of organizational transformation in government agencies. In particular, the five levels in this model reflect how businesses and citizens can interact with government agencies and how government agencies can cooperate and communicate. Those levels are the following:

• Level 1, called information;
• Level 2, called one-way interaction (downloadable application forms);
• Level 3, called two-way interaction (electronic application forms, e-forms);
• Level 4, called transaction (full electronic); and
• Level 5, called personalization.

You can read about them in my papers, e.g.

E. Ziemba, T. Papaj, A pragmatic approach to e-government maturity in Poland – implementation and usage of SEKAP, in Proceedings of 13th European Conference on eGovernment – ECEG 2013, red. E. Ferrari, W. Caselnovo, University of Insubria, Varese, Como, Italy, 13 14 June 2013, pp. 560-570.

All the best,

Ewa

E-Governance Maturity Model (Gartner, 2000)

http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/internet/documents/S3ID12%20Investigating%20the%20potential%20of%20mobile%20phones%20for%20e-governance%20in%20Indonesia.pdf

 Thank you dear Profs and Drs for your responses.  Mr Krishnan, the Gartner (2000) model is quite similar to the measurement method I used.   

@ Mas Anom, Please link your research, i would like to read.

Mr Krishnan, here's one of my humble article:

@ Mos Anom - Good article, well narrated, best wishes. 

I fully endorse your view

• that there is no well-developed maturity model for e-government thus far; the best available models are simple, but still useful for understanding some key facts about e-government. The IT adoption in governments, best practices and maturity models are being developed and applied to monitor government as to ensure they are on the right track in their implementation.....quote from Pp55 of your article Discovering Malaysian State e-Government.
• United Nations and American Society for Public Administration

(United Nations-DEPA, 2002) suggested an e-government model

• the maturity level stood at the third level which was the interactive, only minimal online transactions could take place... processed over time ....Pp58.
• two websites might have been closed down due to their in-compliance... politics to be handled ... Pp62

I was in 2006 working for Oracle ERP implementation in Uganda. The reason for such implementation was from various reasons (not to be disclosed) but eventually to bring in financial controls.

Therefore e-government is prudent for bringing in transparency and better control of resources with clear accountability.

There are several model for measuring e-government maturity. I have two papers related to that matter: http://proceedings.ictinnovations.org/2015/paper/392/measuring-e-government-maturity-comparative-analysis-of-e-government-indexes

Dear Ma

We are working on KM maturity. You find an interesting gap. 

Our publications might help you.

Good luck

Article Exploring knowledge management maturity from funcionalist an...

Article Construcción de un modelo de madurez de gestión del conocimi...

Article Linking knowledge management maturity and innovation in lead...

A very frank 6 December 2016 speech, by Karen Chester, Australian Productivity Commission deputy chair, uses interesting metrics and 2 case studies to explain why an evidence-based approach is essential to good public policy. See Evidence-based policy: missing in action? (an edited version of the speech) in The Mandarin at http://themandarin.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2decc67f06bfa54d2335d6308&id=9fcb269147&e=1609091ee4