Past research on the topic of e-government activities is heavily rooted in describing technological innovation in terms of a maturational model. Apparently, technological innovation has occurred incrementally—and the benefits, if realized, are slow to accrue. This research examines the utility of maturational models in understanding the achievement of e-government benefits. The findings are predicated on a retrospective panel analysis of how public organizations realize the benefits of technological innovations. This study revealed that although a maturational model may be helpful for describing aggregate efforts, it is less useful in understanding the potential for individual gains. Based on the results of this sample, rapid advances, nonlinear activities, and permeable boundaries are important determinants of achieving the benefits of technological innovation and, thus, worthy of ongoing research.
Ahl, V., & Allen, T.F.H. (1996). Hierarchy theory, a vision, vocabulary and epistemology . New York: Columbia University Press.
2.
Attewell, P., & Rule, J. (1984). Computing and organizations: What we know and what we don't know. Communications of the ACM, 27, 1184—1192.
3.
Comfort, L. (1994). Self organization in complex systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 393-410.
4.
Dooley, K. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organizational change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and theLife Sciences , 1, 69-97.
5.
Fountain, J. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
6.
Garson, G.D. (2005) Handbook of public information systems (2nd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker.
7.
Gersick, C.J. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10-36.
8.
Hiller, J.S., & Belanger, F. (2001). Privacy strategies for electronic government. In M. A. Abramson & G. E. Means (Eds.), E-government 2001 (pp. 162-198). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
9.
Ho, A.T. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62, 434-444.
10.
International City/County Management Association. (2000). Digital Government Survey. Washington, DC: ICMA/PTI.
11.
International City/County Management Association. (2002). Digital Government Survey. Washington, DC: ICMA/PTI.
12.
International City/County Management Association. (2004). Digital Government Survey. Washington, DC: ICMA/PTI.
13.
Kaufman, S.A. (1992). Origins of order: Self organization and selection in evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14.
Kiel, L.D. (1994). Managing chaos and complexity in government. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four-stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136.
16.
Lindbloom, C.E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.
17.
McGrath, J.E., & Tschan, F. (2004). Dynamics in groups and teams: Groups as complex action systems. In M. S. Poole & A. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 50-72). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
Moon, M.J. (2001). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?Public Administration Review, 62, 424-434.
19.
Moon, M.J., & de Leon, P. (2001). Municipal reinvention: Managerial values and diffusion among municipalities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 327-351.
20.
Norris, D.F., & Moon, M.J. (2005). Advancing e-government at the grassroots: Tortoise or hare?Public Administration Review, 65, 64-75.
21.
Northrop, A. (2003). E-government: The URBIS cities revisited. Retrieved December 20, 2004, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/ITG/
22.
Northrop, A., Kraemer, K.L., Dunkle, D., & King, J.L. (1990). Payoffs from computerization: Lessons over time . Public Administration Review, 50, 505-514.
23.
Overman, E.S. (1996). The new science of management: Chaos and quantum theory and method. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 75-89.
24.
Poole, M.S., & Van de Ven, A.H. (1989). Toward a general theory of innovation. In A. Van de Ven, H. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation (pp. 637-662). New York: Ballinger, Harper and Row.
25.
Poole, M.S., Van de Ven, A.H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M.E. (2000). Organizational change NS innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Tushman, M.L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 171-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
30.
Walker, D. (2001, July 11). E-government in the information age: The long view. Statement presented to E-Gov 2001 Conference, 2001. Retrieved November 20, 2002, from http://www.gao.gov/cghome/ia/egov.htm
31.
West, D. (2005). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review , 64(1), 15-27.
