See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228408538

Assessment Frameworks of E-Government Projects: a Comparison

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

2 1,065

3 authors:

Panos Fitsilis Leonidas G. Anthopoulos

University of Thessaly University of Thessaly
93 PUBLICATIONS 778 CITATIONS 111 PUBLICATIONS 1,499 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vassilis C. Gerogiannis
University of Thessaly
80 PUBLICATIONS 582 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Industry4.0 skills View project

MYCOTICON View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vassilis C. Gerogiannis on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Assessment Frameworks of E-Government
Projects: a Comparison

P. Fitsilis1, L. Anthopoulos2, V. C. Gerogiannis3

1
Department of Project Management, Technological Educational Institute of Larissa, Greece,
fitsilis@teilar.gr
2
Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Greece, lanthopo@yahoo.com
3
Department of Project Management, Technological Educational Institute of Larissa, Greece,
gerogian@teilar.gr

Abstract
E-Government progress is being evaluated by multiple surveys using different methods,
indexes and addressing different perspectives. In this paper, an overview of the assessment
frameworks for e-Government software projects’ will be presented. All major assessment
approaches - from European Commission, the United Nations, the World Bank etc. - will be
analyzed and compared. As a result will emerge, the need for developing a multi-facet e-
government project’s assessment framework, able to systematically analyze and evaluate the
efficiency and the effectiveness of these projects.

Keywords: evaluation of information systems, e-government, project management.

1. Introduction
E-Government is defined as a continuous process of using Information and
Communication Technologies (ICT) to serve citizens and improve their interaction
with the state. ICT created new opportunities for changes, new information services,
improved citizen satisfaction, etc. Governments worldwide have developed strategic
plans for e-Government and ICT investments, such as the US Federal Government’s
[1], the European Commission’s eEurope Strategic Plan [2], the UK’s Modernizing
Government plan [3], the German Bund Online 2005 Strategic Plan [4] and the
Canadian “Government on-Line (GOL)” [5]. All these strategic plans define common
targets for e-Government, such as “time and cost savings for citizens and public
agencies” [6] and “the development of a citizen centered, results oriented and market
based public administration” [7]. Moreover, technological standards such as
“openness, usability, customization and transparency for public portals” [8] and
“interoperability between e-Government systems” [9] guide the implementation of e-
Government projects. In Table 1, the common targets of representative strategic plans
are presented.
 PCI 2009 Conference Proceedings

Table 1. Common targets of major e-government strategies

Strategic Plan Primary Targets
“Expanding e-Government” (US) i. Citizen centered, results-oriented,
market-based Public Administration.
ii. Federal and State Agencies.
interconnected in a one-stop portal.
iii. Guidelines and standards for all unique
initiatives, performed by state or local
Agencies.
“Modernizing Government” (UK) i. Knowledge economy revolution.
ii. Transformation of Business,
Government, People.
iii. Citizen-focused Government.
iv. Better services for citizens and
businesses.
v. Application of e-business methods in
public sector.
vi. All key services available online by
2008.
“Bund Online 2005” (Germany) i. Define and deliver online Federal Public
services.
ii. Client-orientation services.
iii. Transparency and faster processing for
federal services.
iv. Quality and security of public services.
“eEurope 2005” (European i. Citizen centered Public Administration.
Committee) ii. Encourage participation.
iii. 25 primary digital public services for all
European member countries.
iv. Multilingual one-stop shop.
v. Telecommunication’s costs reduction.
vi. Pan-European network of Public
Administrations (IDA) of member-
countries.

The implementation of an e-government strategy is actually done by multiple

programmes and projects making investments on infrastructures (e.g. broadband
networks and information systems); on software platforms (e.g. public portals, digital
public services and back-office applications); on initiatives encouraging social
participation (e.g. public access points, e-Democracy portals and campaigns). The
evaluation of projects’ and programmes’ progress indirectly measures e-Government
PCI 2009 Conference Proceedings

progress and it is a difficult and complex procedure, due to projects’ variety and
scope. However, evaluation is necessary since significant financial resources are
being invested. The evaluation results are used to support the reviewing procedure of
the strategic plans.

2. E-Government Benchmarking
E-Government benchmarking is currently based on surveys carried out at
international, supranational and national levels. Surveys focus on the achievement of
the targets of major e-Government strategic plans [10]. For the purposes of this paper,
we present some important evaluation models that are used to measure e-Government
progress.
The World Bank (www.worldbank.org) analyzes e-Government into five axes of
precedence: a) Better Service Delivery to Citizens, b) Improved Services for
Businesses, c) Empowerment through Information, d) Transparency and Anti-
Corruption and e) Efficient Government Purchasing. World Bank surveys deliver
useful data regarding e-Government, when combining Public Sector Governance [11]
with ICT topics. World Bank surveys examine e-Government as part of countries’ e-
strategies and evaluate the growth of public service offering from national e-
Government portals (G2C, G2B, G2G), together with e-Government interventions (in
process reform, IT standards, government networks, training, promotion and private
financing). World Bank evaluates also, the existence of central government web
portals, together with the percentage of basic public services available online, and
with the most desirable digital public services. Moreover, government annual
investments on ICT are measured, which can be combined to governance
effectiveness.
The United Nations [12] provide an e-Government assessment model in order to
evaluate countries’ migration to Connected Governance. Connected Governance is
the UN vision for e-Government, where public administration efficiency and public
service delivery will be established. Some major advantages with Connected
Governance are considered to be, such as the avoidance of duplication; the reduction
of operation costs; service transparency, efficiency and faster delivery; information
sharing and security; citizen empowerment and participation etc. UN model contains
indexes that measure existing e-Government approaches: e-Government readiness, e-
service provision, e-service stages and e-participation indexes. The UN e-Government
readiness index is a composite index comprising the web measure index, the
telecommunication infrastructure index and the human capital index. Moreover, UN
examines the maturity for the migration to Connected Governance with the following
indexes: central initiatives, dynamic structure of portals, and the overall progress and
performance. The first index measures whether the e-Government initiative is
centrally defined and managed. The portals index evaluates government web sites for
 PCI 2009 Conference Proceedings

their dynamic structure. The third index evaluates the affordability in infrastructure
and network integration, the public administration transformation efforts (integration,
service transformation and efficiency, service innovation, service delivery, document
control, staff training) and the social networks existence.
The Information Society Directorate General investigates e-Government progress in
Europe, by evaluating e-Europe 2003 and e-Europe 2005 targets with specific
benchmarking methods [6]. The indexes used for e-Government progress evaluation
[13] emphasized on the achievement of e-Europe political targets and on new member
countries progress. The main metrics of e-Europe benchmarking deal with: a) internet
indicators (internet access, usage and cost by citizens and enterprises), b) modern
online public services (offering the 20 basic services defined by the Internal/Market/
Consumer/Tourism Council, digital public service usage by individuals and
enterprises, e-Learning and e-Health services), c) a dynamic e-business environment
(e-commerce online transactions by individuals and enterprises, e-business readiness,
use of ICT by business), d) a secure information infrastructure (security problems
encountered by individuals and enterprises), e) broadband (penetration to households
and enterprises). In e-Europe benchmarking reports [6], e-Government is considered
as an integrated model that is evaluated with the following indexes: a) structural
landscape (dealing with existing politics, society, demography and economy), b)
readiness (meaning the existence of policies, funding and capability for e-
Government), c) quality of service (examining the access channels for public
services), d) back-office fulfilment (evaluating infrastructures, integration and process
improvement), e) service adoption and use (by citizens and businesses) and f) service
impact (regarding economic, social and democratic values).
E-Europe has been followed up by the i2010 policy framework for ICT
(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/index_en.htm). Information
Society DG evaluates i2010 progress with a new benchmarking framework [14]. This
framework uses indexes that evolved from e-Europe ones, and conform with i2010
priorities and guidelines: a) developments of broadband (coverage, usage,
performance and prices, multiplatform services), b) advanced services (availability
and usage of online services), c) security, d) impact (ICT sector growth, market
transformation), e) investment in ICT research, f) adoption of ICT by businesses
(basic connectivity, ICT and open source usage, e-commerce and e-business growth),
g) impact of adoption of ICT by business (investments by business, individuals and
government, productivity increase, employment and skills), h) inclusion (ICT use by
households, public access points, accessibility, digital literacy), i) public services (e-
Government availability and usage). The benchmark framework presented above, has
many similarities to the e-Europe’s ones, and evaluates e-Government with multiple
indexes, which examine government investments and readiness in Europe.
The Greek Information Society Observatory (www.observatory.gr) can be presented
as a national evaluation model case. The observatory carries out multiple surveys,
PCI 2009 Conference Proceedings

using different perspectives to assess Information Society diffusion in Greece. Most

of the analyzed perspectives conform to e-Europe benchmarking framework, since
most initiatives in Greece are funded by the European Information Society
Commission sources. The Greek Observatory evaluates e-Government with the
following indexes [15]: a) number of public services available online (availability and
sophistication), complying to e-Europe framework, b) individuals and enterprises
transacting with Government online, c) number of digital public services with back
office readiness, d) e-procurement services and e) public agencies using open source
software. Moreover, the Greek Observatory examines the efficiency of ICT
investments in public sector. The methodology [16] used for the investigation adopts
international best practices and the Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)
method. This study agrees that ICT investment in public sector is not always
efficiency-driven, and, by that sense, the parameters that influence an investment
decision must be analyzed (e.g. investments driven by a framework program). The
study has investigated e-Government users (public servants, tax-payers, consumers
and voters) and suggested three areas of efficiency in public sector: a) internal
organizational and economic improvement, b) social implications of ICT investments
(better services and chances for citizens and enterprises), c) external political
implications (reliable and transparent public administration). The analyzed indexes
concern the following axes of precedence [17]: a) direct economic benefits, b)
indirect economic benefits, c) ICT contribution to quality of citizen life and d) ICT
contribution to competitiveness. All these data resulted in the evaluation model [18]
consisting of a) financial indexes, b) direct profit indexes, c) performance indexes, d)
satisfaction indexes and e) staff training indexes.
The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) (www.theacsi.org) is one of the
leading customer satisfaction indexes in the world developed by the National Quality
Research Centre (NQRC) at the Stephen M. Ross Business School at the University
of Michigan. The ACSI helps to determine how satisfied consumers in US are, so that
consumer behaviour can be understood. The ACSI uses customer interviews as input
to a multi-equation econometric model developed at the University of Michigan's
Ross School of Business. The ACSI model is a cause-and-effect model with indexes
for drivers of satisfaction on the left side (customer expectations, perceived quality,
and perceived value), satisfaction (ACSI) in the centre, and outcomes of satisfaction
on the right side (customer complaints and customer loyalty, including customer
retention and price tolerance). ACSI personnel question around 80,000 Americans per
year regarding how satisfied they feel about any products and services they may have
used for that year. The satisfaction of the public with e-government services is rated
by ACSI and concerns citizen satisfaction with US federal government websites
(news & information, portals, search engines and digital public services). Citizen
satisfaction shows how well e-government initiatives go, and how much traffic is
 PCI 2009 Conference Proceedings

driven to the web channel. Latest surveys using the ACSI, show that investment in the
online channel will pay itself off and result in increased efficiency and happy citizens.
Accenture [20] evaluates e-Government regarding the performance the public sector
achieves from the citizen perspective. According to Accenture research, high
performers in the public sector base the value they create on two criteria: a) the
outcomes they deliver, meaning that they provide relentlessly citizen-centered
services and b) the cost-effectiveness they achieve, meaning that they hold
themselves accountable and they make their operations and results transparent to all.
Moreover, Accenture [19] defines the notion of shared services in the public sector, as
“the consolidation of administrative or support functions (such as human resources,
finance, information technology and procurement) from several departments or
agencies into a single, stand-alone organizational entity whose only mission is to
provide services as efficiently and effectively as possible”. From shared services
point of view, each public agency behaves as part of a larger system, and it works in
open and collaborative ways. Accenture methods consist of quantitative and
qualitative components, and both are applied over interviewing procedures carried out
on public sector senior executives. The Quantitative method displays survey sizes
such as the number of countries, public agencies and civil servants where the
interviews are carried out. On the other hand the qualitative method traces the
efficiency targets, and demands for improved services and cost pressures, which
governments face.

3. E-Government Evaluation Frameworks

Recent studies give significant approaches to e-Government evaluation. They all take
into account e-Government complexity and define different perspectives and methods
of assessment. This section presents some of them, describing in short their strengths
and weaknesses (Table 2). Wang and Liao [21] use the evaluation model of DeLone
and McLean for assessing e-Government success, and they define an evaluation
framework for measuring the success of Government-to-Citizen information systems.
The primary purpose of the DeLone and McLean paper [22] was to synthesize
previous research involving IS success into a more coherent body of knowledge and
to provide guidance to future researchers. Although Wang and Liao framework is
useful and provides a sound evaluation tool, is has weak points. Firstly, assessment
data are collected from direct surveys, which make it difficult to implement, and
secondly some important project management assessment dimensions (e.g. project
organization and project processes) are not included in the framework.
Van Der Westhuizen and Edmond [23] provide an alternative approach, again based
on DeLone and McLean evaluation model [22]: they include project and product
dimensions for assessing e-Government projects, but they do not emphasize on the
social or on the economic implications of e-Government projects. Moreover, the
PCI 2009 Conference Proceedings

proposed model does not associate the e-Government projects under evaluation with
the applied organization or political strategy.
Braclay [24] presents a framework for evaluating and measuring ICT project
performance, which is not focused on e-Government area. The proposed framework
uses balanced scoreboard methodology as an evaluation tool combined with other
project management perspectives, as they are defined in SERVQUAL [25], and it is
useful for single project assessment. However, it lacks in multi-project evaluation
capability, especially in e-Government cases where strategy guides project design and
implementation.
Victor et. al. [26] emphasize on the importance of post-completion project evaluation
in e-Government. The authors consider that conclusions and information extracted
from post-completion evaluation can provide useful information for the improvement
of forthcoming projects. The proposed model is based on COBIT [27] and CMM [28]
process maturity frameworks, but it does not consider existing major e-Government
evaluation models presented in this paper. Additionally, the study does not define
specific metrics and indexes for the evaluation model.
Liu et. al. [29] provide Key Performance Areas (KPAs) and Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) for different e-Government stakeholders. Their framework
considers the e-Government strategy as an evaluation dimension and they examine
project success according to strategic requirements. However, all evaluation
dimensions of an e-Government model or framework must contain indexes and
criteria affected by or concerning either the organizational or the national strategy,
because e-Government projects have to align totally to strategic planning objectives
and characteristics.
Esteves and Joseph [30] present an alternative assessment model of e-Government
projects. Their model defines the assessment dimensions, which are related to the
organization’s maturity and to the e-Government stakeholders. However, this model
cannot be considered as an evaluation framework, since it does not provide specific
measurement indexes and targets.
Finally, Batini et. al. [31] propose a framework for e-government project selection
that is called GovQual. It is a multi-layered framework that measures project quality
with respect to an organization’s environment (social context) and specific targets for
service quality. However, this framework does not examine strategy and strategic
targets for quality measurement.
All the above approaches are based on existing evaluation tools (e.g., SERVQUAL,
Balanced Scoreboard, COBIT etc.) to provide evaluation frameworks for e-
Government project progress, success and quality. The approaches focus on multiple
e-Government stakeholders and on their different points of view for project quality.
Moreover, the presented approaches recognize strategic goals as important parameters
 PCI 2009 Conference Proceedings

for project evaluations, but only one of them [24] incorporates strategy in all
evaluation dimensions [26]. Such an approach can be used as a project post-
completion selection tool, giving the selection dimension in e-Government evaluation
scope.
Table 2. Ε-government evaluation frameworks
Author(s) Approach Key Findings
Wang and Liao Framework for - assessment data are collected from direct
evaluating G2C projects surveys
based on Delone- - project management evaluation dimensions
McLean model such as project organization, processes are
not included in the framework
Van Der Evaluation framework - no social or economic implications of e-
Westhuizen based on Delone- Government projects are considered
and Edmond McLean model -
project and product
dimensions are included
Braclay Evaluation framework - it is ICT general and not focused on e-
for ICT project Government projects
performance - it uses a balanced scoreboard methodology
- it uses SERVQUAL project management
perspectives
- useful for single project assessment
- lacks in multi-project evaluation capability
Victor, Panikar Post completion - provides useful information for the
and Kanhere evaluation model improvement of forthcoming projects.
- based on COBIT and CMM process
maturity frameworks
- it does not consider existing major e-
Government evaluation models
- specific metrics and indexes are not defined
Liu, Derzs, Evaluation model - stakeholders dimension is very important in
Raus, and Kipp defining KPAs and KPIs e-Government
for e-Government - it contains a dimension for strategy
stakeholders - indexes of all dimensions should be
affected or measure strategy
Esteves and Evaluation model - it uses dimensions concerning
Joseph organization’s maturity and stakeholders
- it does not define specific indexes or targets
Batini, Viscusi, GOVQual e-Government - multi-layered framework
and D. project selection tool - associates project quality with social
Cherubini context
- it does not examine strategy
PCI 2009 Conference Proceedings

4. Conclusions
E-Government progress is being evaluated by multiple surveys, carried out by
international and supranational organizations, national observatories and individual
parties. All surveys evaluate e-Government progress using different methods, indexes
and perspectives. E-government progress evaluation is a complex procedure, since e-
government projects vary from infrastructural, to software and to political ones. In
this paper, an evaluation of the most well known assessment frameworks for e-
Government software projects’ was presented. From this study, it was made clear,
that the existing models and frameworks assess either project results or project
processes or customer satisfaction. It is evident that a holistic assessment framework
that combines all these different aspects and facets is missing. An “ideal” e-
government assessment framework should combine five different and concrete
perspectives namely: project organization perspective, project processes perspective,
project results perspective, social and economics perspective, citizen satisfaction
perspective. We believe that the development of such a framework is mainly an
exercise of measurement, simply because in order to evaluate, compare, predict and
control effectively, measurements are required. Thus our current research efforts
concentrate on the development of an “e-Government balanced scorecard”, able to
measure the various facets of an e-Government software project. Such a framework
can become a useful tool for every organization that plans to move to e-Government
era, while it can deliver data to central benchmarking agencies, and to national and to
supranational observatories.

References
1. US Federal Government, e-Government Strategy: Simplified Delivery of Services
to Citizens. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget,
US Federal Government – February 2002 [Online]Available:
http://www.firstgov.gov/Topics/Includes/Reference/egov_strategy.pdf
2. European Commission, eEurope 2005: An information society for all, European
Commission - COM 263, 2002. [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/eeurope
3. UK Cabinet Office, e-Government, a strategic framework for public services in the
information age (2000). [Online] Available: http://archive. cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-
envoy/resources-pdfs/$file/Strategy.pdf
4. German Federal Government, BundOnline 2005. 2003 Implementation Plan,
German Federal Government, 2003. [Online] Available: http://www.bunde.de
5. Treasury Board Secretariat, Government of Canada, Canada’s Report on Portals,
August 10, 2001.
 PCI 2009 Conference Proceedings

6. Cap Gemini Ernst&Young, Online Availability of Public services. How is Europe

Progressing? 5th Measurement Report, Information Society DG, 2005. [Online]
Available:http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/2005/doc/all_about/onli
ne_5th_measurement_fv4.pdf
7. FEA Practice Guidance, Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management
Office, November 2007. [Online] Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-
gov/fea/
8. J. Gant and D. Gant, “Web portal functionality and State Government E-service”.
In the Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii international conference on system sciences,
IEEE 2002.
9. UK Cabinet Office, Office of the e-Envoy, e-Government Interoperability
Framework (e-GIF). Part two: Technical Policies and Specifications, Office of the
e-Envoy, 2002. [Online] Available: http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/ documents/e-
GIF4Pt2_2002-04-25.pdf
10. L. Anthopoulos, P. Siozos I. A. Tsoukalas, Applying Participatory Design and
Collaboration in Digital Public Services for discovering and re-designing e-
Government services. Government Information Quarterly, Volume 24, Issue 2,
April 2007, Pages 353-376, Elsevier.
11. Kaufmann, Daniel, Kraay, Aart and Mastruzzi, Massimo, Governance Matters
VII: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators, 1996-2007, World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper No. 4654, June 24, 2008. [Online] Available:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1148386.
12. United Nations, UN E-Government Survey – From e-Government to Connected
Government. United Nations, 2008. [Online] Available:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028607.pdf)
13. Council of the European Union, Council Resolution on the implementation of the
eEurope 2005 Action Plan, Council of the European Union, 2003. [Online]
Available:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/2005/doc/all_about/benchmarking
/resolution.doc
14. Information Society DG, i2010 Benchmarking Framework, Information Society
DG, 2006. [Online] Available: http://ec.europa.eu/
information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/060220_i2010_benchmark
ing_framework_nov_2006.doc)
15. Greek Information Society Observatory, Measuring e-Europe 2005 and i2010
indexes, Greek Information Society Observatory, 2008 (in Greek). [Online]
Available: http://www.observatory.gr/ files/meletes/eEuropei2010_05-07.pdf)
16. National Technical University of Athens, Implementation methodology for the
study ‘Improving ICT investment effectiveness in Public Administration’, Greek
Information Society Observatory, 2008 (in Greek). [Online] Available:
http://www.observatory.gr/files/meletes/MVA_D0_gr.pdf)
PCI 2009 Conference Proceedings

17. National Technical University of Athens, Comparative evaluation of different

stages of the ICT investment efficiency for the study ‘Improving ICT investment
effectiveness in Public Administration’, Greek Information Society Observatory,
2008 (in Greek). [Online] Available:
http://www.observatory.gr/files/meletes/MVA_D1_gr.pdf)
18. National Technical University of Athens, Evaluation framework for the study
‘Improving ICT investment effectiveness in Public Administration’, Greek
Information Society Observatory, 2008 (in Greek). [Online] Available:
http://www.observatory.gr/files/meletes/MVA_D3_gr.pdf)
19. Accenture, Driving High Performance in Government: Maximizing the Value of
Public-Sector Shared Services, January 2005. [Online] Available:
http://www.accenture.com
20. Accenture, Leadership in Customer Service: New Expectations, New Experiences.
The Government Executive Series, Accenture, April 2005. [Online] Available:
http://www.accenture.com
21. Y.S. Wang and Y.W. Liao (2008). Assessing eGovernment systems success: A
validation of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success.
Government Information Quarterly, vol. 25 (2008), pp. 717-733, Elsevier.
22. W.H. DeLone and E.R. McLean, Information systems success: The quest for the
dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3, 1 (1992), 60–95.
23. D.Van Der Westhuizen and E.P.Fitzgerald, Defining and measuring project
success. In the Proceedings of the European Conference on IS Management,
Leadership and Governance, 07-08 Jul 2005, Reading, United Kingdom, 2005.
24. C. Barclay. Towards an integrated measurement of IS project performance: The
project performance scorecard. Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 10, Number 3,
July 2008, pp. 331-345, Springer.
25. P. Asubonteng, K.J. McCleary, and J.E.Swan. SERVQUAL revisited: a critical
review of service quality. The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 6 1996
(pp. 62-81).
26. G.J.Victor, A. Panikar and V.K.Kanhere. E-government Projects–Importance of
Post Completion Audits. In the Foundations of e-Government book, of the 5th
International Conference of e-Government (ICEG, 2007). [Online] Available:
http://www.iceg.net/2007/books/1/20_308.pdf
27. K. Boonen, H. Brand, IT Governance CobiT 4.1 - A Management Guide 3rd
Edition, Van Haren Publishing, 2008.
28. K.M. Dymond, A Guide to the CMMI: Interpreting the Capability Maturity Model
Integration, Process Transition International Inc., 2005.
29. J. Liu, Z. Derzs, M. Raus, and A. Kipp, eGovernment Project Evaluation: An
Integrated Framework. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5184, 2008, pp.
85-97, Springer.
 PCI 2009 Conference Proceedings

30. J. Esteves, and R.C. Joseph, A comprehensive framework for the assessment of e-
Government projects. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 25, 2008, pp. 118-
132, Elsevier.
31. C. Batini, G. Viscusi, and D. Cherubini, GovQual: A quality driven methodology
for e-Government project planning. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26,
2009, pp. 106-117.

View publication stats