ABSTRACT 
 
 
 
Title of Thesis: EFFICIENCY VERSUS DEMOCRACY: 
POLICY TRENDS AND ASSESSMENT OF  
STATE E-GOVERNMENT 
 
David Adam Anderson 
Master of Library Science, 2008 
 
Directed by: Professor Paul T. Jaeger, 
 College of Information Studies 
 
 
 
Assessments of E-government literature have noted a lack of both broadly-drawn 
studies and policy-oriented research.  This paper addresses this gap through a systematic, 
content-based assessment of E-government strategic planning documents from 37 states, 
meant to determine the holistic policy orientation of American E-government.  
Specifically, this study tests the proposition that state E-government policies can be said 
to exhibit either an evolutionary or revolutionary orientation towards affecting desired 
changes in matters of efficiency, democracy, or both.   
This orientational framework is drawn from examples found in federal E-
government policy and academic E-government literature.  It is also used to outline 
biases of existing E-government implementation models, and to frame discussion of a 
model for gauging progress in ?E-democracy.?  Other issues explored include the 
ultimate legitimacy of an E-government that fails to implement democracy-oriented tools, 
the potential Constitutional conflicts of a transformative approach to E-government, and 
the wisdom of re-conceptualizing citizens as ?customers.?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EFFICIENCY VERSUS DEMOCRACY: POLICY TRENDS AND ASSESSMENT OF 
STATE E-GOVERNMENT 
 
 
By 
 
David A. Anderson 
 
 
 
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 
University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment  
of the requirements for the degree of 
Master of Library Science 
2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advisory Committee 
 
Professor Paul T. Jaeger, Chair 
Professor Jennifer Golbeck 
Professor Dave Yates 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
? Copyright by 
David Adam Anderson 
2008
 
 ii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
I would like to thank Professors Jennifer Golbeck, Dave Yates, and especially Paul 
Jaeger for their time, advice, and guidance through the research and writing of this study.  
Also, for her support and encouragement, all love and affection goes to my wife, Jena 
Robinson. 
 
 
 iii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
List of Tables??....??????????????????????????..iv 
 
Chapter 1: Introduction????????????????????????..1 
 The Research Problem.?.?????????????????????...1 
Conceptual Framework???????????????????????3 
 Need for the Research???.????????????????????.4 
 
Chapter 2: Literature Review???????????????????.???6 
 The Emergence and Implications of Efficiency-Oriented E-government?.??..6 
E-democracy and Other Potentially Revolutionary Orientations??..????10 
Potential Policy Conflicts of a Revolutionary Orientation in E-government..?..15 
 
Chapter 3: A Framework to Assess Policy Orientation and Model Future Progress..20 
Potential Policy Orientations??...????????????????..?20 
 A Critique of Existing E-government Development Models????????21 
  Ronaghan Model??????????????????????23 
   Layne & Lee Model????????????????????...24 
  West Model????????????????????????26 
 Implications for Future E-democracy Scholarship;  
A Proposed Model for Gauging E-democracy Progress??????????27 
 
Chapter 4: Methodology???????..????????????????29 
 Location and Selection of Strategic Planning Documents?????????.29 
 Value of Strategic Planning Documents????????????????32 
 Content Analysis of State Plans???????????????????.34 
 
Chapter 5: State Policy Assessment???????????????????39 
 Analysis of State Efficiency Orientation???????????????...40 
 Analysis of State Democracy Orientation????????????.???.43 
 Discussion???????????????????????????..47 
 
Chapter 6: Use and Discussion of Developmental E-democracy Model????....50 
Method?...???????????????????????????.50 
  Michigan?????????????????????????51 
  Nebraska?????????????????????????53 
  Kansas??????????????????????????54 
 Discussion???????????????????????????..56 
 
Chapter 7: Conclusion????????????????????????.58 
 
Appendix A: List of State E-government Strategic Planning Documents and Links??62 
Appendix B: Coded Terms Indicating Inter-/ Intra-Governmental Collaboration?...?.66 
List of Works Cited???....????...??????????????????67 
 
 iv 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
 
Table 1: Potential Policy Orientations in E-government?????..??????.....20 
 
Table 2: Three Proposed Models of E-government Development???...??.???23 
 
Table 3: Document- and Author-Type Search Terms???????..??...?...........29 
 
Table 4: States Not Included in Study?????...????????????.?...31 
 
Table 5: Terms Used to Code for Policy Orientation........................................................36
 
 1 
Chapter 1: Introduction 
The Research Problem 
Researchers and policy makers have suggested that citizen-facing E-government 
(G2C), the use of the Internet by government entities to deliver information and services 
to constituents, can and should have a revolutionary effect on the public?s interaction 
with government.1  Specifically, the literature reveals two commonly expressed hopes for 
change that can be respectively characterized as efficiency- and democracy-based: 
1. E-government can improve government service delivery for the sake of 
bureaucratic efficiency, cost-savings and customer convenience, and/ or 
 
2. It can enhance and better facilitate democratic participation by citizens in the 
political process. 
 
As the first full presidential administration of the E-government era draws to an end, and 
as there are now some 15 years of state and federal policy making from which to draw, 
the degree to which these changes are discussed and desired, if at all, by American state 
governments can be determined with a good degree of clarity. Doing so will allow us to 
determine the present, overall thrust of American E-government policy, isolate best 
practices, and, if necessary, recommend desired changes. 
To date, however, a holistic, policy-based assessment of American E-government 
trends does not exist.  In fact, efforts to determine gaps in E-government scholarship as a 
whole have noted a dearth of both broadly-drawn studies and of policy-focused research. 
West (2004) has noted that ?of the empirical projects that have looked at e-government, 
                                                 
1 The Presidential Management Agenda of George W. Bush outlines three external stakeholder groups 
around which to focus E-government efforts. Besides Government-to-Citizen (G2C) initiatives, the PMA 
also discusses Government-to-Business (G2B), and Government-to-Government (G2G), as well as defining 
a fourth ?portfolio? initiative as Internal Efficiency and Effectiveness (IEE). These abbreviations have 
become common descriptive shorthand for E-government (Office of Management and Budget, 2003, p. 9-
11).   
 
 2 
most have limited their analysis to single American states or small number of Web sites, 
weakening the generalizability of the findings? (p. 17-18).  Yildiz (2007) claims that 
most E-Government research has been focused on ?the study of outcomes and outputs of 
the e-government projects,? and thus lacks ?a more in-depth analysis of the political 
nature of the e-government development processes, and a deeper recognition of complex 
political and institutional environments? (p. 647).   In short, studies often look at what is 
on a narrow cross-section E-government websites, without a broader, policy based 
consideration of why.  A narrow focus on just the implemented reality of E-government, 
divorced from a consideration of expressed ideals, can lead to a skewed perspective of 
the true policy environment.  Worse, it may indicate the lack of any awareness of a 
relevant policy environment at all.  E-government does not just spring up from nowhere, 
but is often rather the product of formal planning supported by a specific understanding 
of what it is and why it is needed.  
This study thus addresses the lack of broad, policy-based findings by presenting a 
content-based analysis of E-government strategic planning documents from 37 states.  
These plans have been coded for language that, it is argued, indicates efficiency- and 
democracy-based policy orientations.  Using these orientations, this study proposes a 
framework within which the policy of a given state can be comparatively located 
alongside those of other states, allowing for a more systematic assessment of overall 
trends.  Ultimately, this study demonstrates that American E-government policy discusses 
efficiency much more than democracy, and proposes recommendations for the future 
assessment of democracy-based implementation. 
 
 
 3 
Conceptual Framework 
Despite claims that no leading theory or consensus definition of E-government 
exists (Yildiz, 2007, p. 650; Schedler, Schmidt & Summermatter, 2004, p. 5), this study 
argues that two pairs of common definitional orientations can be isolated, and are useful 
for holistic policy assessment.  The first, already mentioned, concerns the functionality of 
E-government, i.e. are the functions, information, and services offered on government 
websites oriented towards an increase in efficiency or democracy?  Central issues here 
include the degree to which E-government is meant as an extension to the public-sector 
of those benefits reaped by businesses and consumers through E-commerce, the 
applicability of business methods to government processes, and the wisdom of re-
conceptualizing citizens as ?customers.?  
The second pair of isolated orientations describes the nature of E-government, i.e. 
is E-government an evolutionary or revolutionary concept?  Is E-government merely a 
means of improving existing processes, while leaving more foundational structures 
relatively untouched, or does it denote an entirely new epoch of government 
administration and/or democracy due to the (potentially) radical impact of the Internet?  
As I will show, a revolutionary approach to efficiency promotes a collaborative, cross-
agency/ jurisdictional approach to information and service delivery which blurs formerly 
strict lines dividing horizontal and vertical levels of government.  A revolutionary 
approach to democracy, rather, desires to not only enhance those avenues of political 
participation already open to citizens in our representative democracy, but also to open up 
entirely new ones that give citizens a more direct voice in policy making.  In sum, this 
study argues that state E-government policy can be said to exhibit either an evolutionary 
 
 4 
or revolutionary orientation towards affecting desired changes in efficiency, democracy, 
or both.   
Additionally, I will show that the differences in proposed models which aim to 
measure the progress of E-government across multiple stages of implementation (e.g., 
Layne & Lee, 2001; Ronaghan, 2002; West, 2005) can be accounted for using this 
orientational perspective as well, displaying differing degrees of an efficiency- or 
democracy-orientation while all oriented towards a revolutionary outlook.  Given that 
some authors (Jaeger, 2002; Seifert, 2002)  have pointed out the potential Constitutional 
conflicts a reorganized government, or a shift to a more direct brand of democracy may 
face, the ultimate wisdom of a revolutionary focus in these models?and in E-
government in general?must be considered.  A discussion of these potential conflicts 
serves as the basis for a preliminary model for E-democracy that I will propose and test 
on the programs of three states. 
 
Need for the Research 
Besides addressing the aforementioned lack of holistic, policy-oriented research, 
this study means also to assess the degree to which state policy mirrors an observed lag in 
democracy focus compared against the efficiency focus of E-government in other 
jurisdictions.  For instance, a 2001 study of 32 European E-government strategy papers 
showed implementation supporting efficiency gains (37%) and government reform (29%) 
far outdistancing that which supported political participation (12%) (Schedler, Schmidt & 
Summermatter, 2004, pp. 7-8).   Further, although George W. Bush made ?citizen-
centered,? ?results-oriented? and ?marked-based? E-Government a centerpiece of his 
 
 5 
2001 President?s Management Agenda, aiming to both increase efficiency, while 
expressing a seemingly democratic desire to make government ?more transparent and 
accountable,? federal E-government policy can be shown to be primarily efficiency-
focused as well (Office of Management and Budget, 2002, p. 4). 
In November of 2002, Congress passed the E-Government Act (P.L. 107-347) in 
support of the President?s initiative, establishing an Office of E-Government within the 
President?s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (Office of Management and 
Budget, 2003, p. 14).   OMB?s new E-Government task force quickly thereafter created 
23 Internet-based initiatives focused on improving and streamlining transactions between 
the Federal government and its various stakeholders (Office of Management and Budget, 
2003, pp. 12-13). The citizen-based initiatives, such as Recreation One-Stop, 
GovBenefits Assistance Online, and EZ Tax Filing, all emphasize easy access by 
customers to government services, leaving aside programs that may aid citizens in 
locating the sort of ?transparent? information they may require in order to keep their 
government ?accountable.?   
 Given both the oft-stated dictum that the states can act as ?laboratories of 
democracy,? often innovating in areas ahead of the curve of the Federal government, as 
well as findings of the Congressional Research Service that the federal model of E-
government ?has been important to relatively few states? e-government planning and 
execution? (Seifert & McLoughlin, 2007, p.13), the relative degree of democracy- and 
efficiency-based policy orientation in state E-government is an area ripe for research. 
 
 6 
Chapter 2: Literature Review 
The Emergence and Implications of Efficiency-Oriented E-government  
As noted by the Center for Digital Government, 
Digital Government was born of the promise of public services delivered 
faster, better and cheaper. Indeed, the motivation ? in large measure ? was 
to increase convenience and choice for citizens and businesses, generate 
efficiencies for government, and mine costs out of existing processes so 
scarce public funds could be better used in supporting other priorities.  
(Center for Digital Government, 2003, p. 5) 
 
In 1993, Vice President Al Gore?s National Performance Review (NPR) introduced the 
new notion of ?Electronic Government? as an interest of the Clinton administration 
(Gore, 1993). 2   The NPR?a comprehensive reform initiative to evaluate ?the efficiency, 
economy, and effectiveness of every federal program and service? (Relyea, 2003, p. 
12)?outlined seven initiatives meant to ?inaugurate the electronic government,? 
providing both ?dynamic opportunities to improve the efficiency and easy use of 
government services,? and a ?substantial return on investment through increases in 
productivity? (Gore, 1993).  Among these was what Gore termed ?Integrated Electronic 
Access to Government Information and Services,? in order to provide convenient ??one-
stop shopping?? through E-government ?Kiosks? similar, in Gore?s vision at that time, to 
automated teller machines (ATMs) (Gore, 1993).   
From its inception, then, interest in G2C E-government has been driven, at least in 
part, by an efficiency-based approach concerned above all with cost savings and 
improved customer experience. The roots of this approach, however, go deeper than the 
arrival of mainstream Internet use and the National Performance Review.  Rather, it can 
                                                 
2 Harold Relyea of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cites a 1997 NPR report as the ?first? use of 
the term ?Electronic Government,? but, if indeed Gore and the NPR are the true originators of the term, 
earlier uses can be found in the initial NPR reports of 1993. See Relyea, H.C. (2002). E-gov: Introduction 
and overview. Government Information Quarterly, 19, 9. 
 
 7 
be traced back at least as far as the post-WWII resurgence of interest in the classical 
liberal economics of John Locke and Adam Smith, which emerged as a countervailing 
trend to the vast expansion of the federal bureaucracy in the New Deal era (Heeks, 1999, 
pp. 9-11). Summarized simply by Richard Heeks as ?market good, government bad,? 
neo-liberalism ?emphasizes the economic efficiency of markets, of the forces of 
competition and of individual decisions? as well as ?the inefficiency of governments and 
of the forces of collective, planned intervention? (Heeks, 1999, p. 9).  By the time of the 
Republican resurgence characterizing American politics from the 1970s to today, neo-
liberalism had become the official economic stance of the ?New Right.?  
Since the 1970s then, reform efforts have been a focus of the federal executive, 
aimed at smaller government, a streamlined bureaucracy, and a more cost-effective 
administration of government services (Relyea, 2002, pp. 10-23). By the 1990s, the 
desire for market-based bureaucratic reform had become an international trend 
transcending partisan politics, popularly termed New Public Management (NPM). A 
?kind of merger or compromise between public administration and neo-liberal ideology? 
(Heeks, 1999, p. 12),  NPM has been characterized as a ?loose collection of policy and 
management initiatives designed to increase efficiency, accountability, and performance 
in bureaucratic states largely through the greater use of markets and market-based 
management systems? (Fountain, 2001, p. 19).   
The National Performance Review can be thus characterized as a federal attempt 
at New Public Management.  Central to this effort was the implementation of a market-
based customer service model, as dictated by President Clinton?s Executive Order 12862, 
dated, 9/11/1993: 
 
 8 
In order to carry out the principles of the National Performance Review, 
the Federal Government must be customer-driven. The standard of quality 
for services provided to the public shall be: Customer service equal to the 
best in business. 
 
Federal E-government, as a part of this new model, is seen primarily as a business 
strategy, a way to offer better service to constituents ?online, not in line? (Gore, 1997, p. 
70), while simultaneously reducing costs. 
Some commentators have suggested, however, that private-sector business models 
and government administration may not necessarily be all that compatible.  King 
discusses the use by the British government of ?CRM??the private-sector concept of 
Customer Relations Management?in developing its E-Government program, noting that, 
?the appropriateness of this technology to organizations striving to meet complex goals 
such as improving the quality of life for vulnerable people is open to question? (King, 
2007, p. 47).  Further, Schedler & Summermatter (2006) point to many other voiced 
criticisms of ?customer-oriented government,? including Constitutional challenges and 
?conflicting notions of citizenship and private consumption? (pp. 293).   
 Al Gore?s 1997 NPR publication Businesslike Government reminds the reader that 
?taxpayers are customers too,? implying that constituents think in terms of ?buying? 
certain services from the government, and as such expect the quality and delivery of these 
services to match similar transactional experiences from the private-sector (Gore, 1997, 
p. 7).  Governments have a monopoly over many of the services they provide and, with 
no profit motive or competition driving product quality or service delivery, have been 
decried as inefficient, unresponsive, and wasteful.  Some commentators see this as a 
prime reason for the widespread public loss of confidence in government affecting world 
democracies in recent decades (Kamarck & Nye, 2002, p.1; Ferdinand, 2000, pp. 5-6).   
 
 9 
Schedler & Felix (2000) have pointed out that, as a solution to this, ?the quality of 
services delivered and the resulting customer satisfaction could?help to legitimize 
public administration? (pp. 125-143).  New Public Management addresses this new 
motivation, replacing the profit drive with an emphasis on cost-savings (spending less, if 
not making more), increasing efficiency and reducing bloat, all the while restoring faith 
among the constituency through better services provided at a reduced tax burden.  
Legitimacy, not profit, incentivizes government service delivery. 
 But what of more traditional, democratic notions of legitimacy?  As expressed by 
Mintzberg (1996), in an article about customer-focus in government management, ?I am 
not a mere customer of my government?I expect something more than arm?s length 
trading and something less than the encouragement to consume?most important, I am a 
citizen with rights that go far beyond those of customers? (p. 77).  American citizens do 
not just receive services from its government, rather they constitute it and determine its 
membership.  Further, they express policy preferences, if not always directly, then at least 
indirectly through the electoral and lobbying process.  To keep their government 
accountable, citizens require access to information about their government. As noted by 
Jaeger (2007),  
Democracies are based on the presumption that citizens are sufficiently 
educated to play an intelligent role in participation and deliberation. 
Without access to adequate and appropriate information related to 
governance, such informed participation and deliberation are impossible. 
(p. 4) 
 
Legitimacy, then, is also founded upon the degree to which citizens are allowed to 
exercise their rightful oversight in an informed manner.  Easy online access to a vast 
array of government information and rapid lines of communication with government 
 
 10 
officials are just some ways this oversight can be better facilitated, and legitimacy further 
increased, within an E-government program that caters to both efficiency-based customer 
needs and democracy-based citizen needs.   
 
E-democracy and Other Potentially Revolutionary Orientations 
By 2002, the Pew Internet & American Life Project claimed that all 50 states had 
developed some degree of web presence, and reported survey results showing that 58% of 
American users (68 millions adults) had visited a government website (Larsen & Rainie, 
2002, p. 5).  Pew further asked users why they visited, and reported this list of top five 
uses: 
1) Get tourism and recreational information (77%) 
2) Do research for work or school (70%) 
3) Download government forms (63%) 
4) Find out what services a government agency provides (63%) 
5) Seek information about a public policy or issue of interest to you 
(62%) (Larsen & Rainie, 2002, p. 4) 
 
While uses one, three, and four seem to justify present federal efficiency-based initiatives 
as Recreation.gov, Forms.gov, and Benefits.gov, uses two?and especially five?imply 
that users also desire the sort of information, and level of accountability, beyond that 
found in a purely efficiency-based model.  If legitimacy is indeed a driving impetus 
behind American E-government implementation, then policy makers would do well to 
implement features that promote and better facilitate democratic participation, something 
E-government scholars have been urging all along. 
Coincident with the rapid expansion of E-government implementation, has been a 
growing body of E-government research and scholarship, often at least implicitly 
advancing opinions about the full possibilities of E-government.  Some scholars take a 
 
 11 
narrow view of E-government, noting that it may be ?nothing more than the existing 
government streamlined and automated? (Evans and Yen, 2005, p.367).  In this view, the 
Internet is the latest in a line of communication and information technologies (e.g. the 
printing press, the telegraph, the telephone) that have increasingly better facilitated 
government dissemination of information, administration of services, and communication 
with constituents without necessarily altering the fundamental nature of how a 
government operates or relates to constituents.  This view is in keeping with Fountain?s 
claim (2001) that, ?Organizations tend to patch information systems onto existing 
structures in ways that may enhance efficiency and capacity but that otherwise maintain 
the status quo? (p. 19).  In other words, some feel that E-government may just denote the 
next stage in the ongoing evolution of government administration.   
Alternately, some writers take a more transformative or revolutionary view of E-
government, casting a wider net over those things an E-government program is meant to 
accomplish for the good of its citizenry.  The National Research Council posits E-
government as,  
the application of information technology (IT) and associated changes in 
agency practices to develop more responsive, efficient, and accountable 
government operations while fostering a more informed and engaged 
citizenry. (National Research Council, 2002, p. vii; emphasis added) 
 
Put more simply, as in the words of scholar Darrell West, some think of E-government as 
the online delivery of ?services, information, and democracy itself? (West, 2005, p. 1).   
In current usage, it seems that the term E-government often specifically implies 
an efficiency-orientation, while E-democracy has become the preferred term, not only for 
the use of government websites as means of democratic information dissemination and 
accountability, but also to denote a new era of democratic possibility. Grossman posits E-
 
 12 
democracy as the third great democratic stage, coming after the direct democracy of 
ancient Greece, and the representative model of the modern age (Ferdinand, 2000, p.2).  
Darrell West elaborates, noting how the limitations of representative democracy, 
previously necessitated by the sheer geography and demographics of modern democratic 
countries, can now be overcome: 
One of the virtues of technology is that it long has been thought to be an 
ideal way of restoring direct democracy to large-scale societies.  In an era 
where it is physically impossible to bring together all citizens under one 
roof and have them participate in communal decisions, technology offers 
the prospect of electronic communication and participation in communal 
decision making. It overcomes the problem of geographic distance and 
disparity of interests in the representation of citizen viewpoints.  (West, 
2005, p. 104) 
 
Steven Clift, somewhat less grandly, describes E-democracy as use of the Internet ?to 
enhance our democratic processes and provide increased opportunities for individuals and 
communities to interact with government and for the government to seek input from the 
community? (Riley & Riley, 2003, p.11).   Ferber et al. (2004) notes that, ?Proponents of 
cyberdemocracy maintain that website design should encourage interaction with 
government officials and provide opportunities to provide input into the decision-making 
process? (p. 5).  These definitions show that hopes for E-democracy do not just focus on 
increased information access, but also on previously unprecedented levels of citizen input 
and government-citizen collaboration in policy making, uniquely possible through the 
nature of the Internet.  Whether or not E-democracy will?or should?lead to a 
revolution of pure, direct democracy in the United States, or simply maximize the 
possibilities of our representative model in an evolutionary sense, has yet to be seen or 
answered. 
 
 13 
 The literature also shows that revolutionary hopes have not been limited to a 
democracy focus. Recent publications, such as E-Government: The Next American 
Revolution and The Paradigm Shift attest to the revolutionary nature of efficiency-
oriented strategies in government administration as well (The Council for Excellence in 
Government, 2000; NIC, 2007).  President Clinton, in his 1996 State of the Union 
Address, proclaimed ?We know big government does not have all the answers?The era 
of big government is over? (Clinton, 1996).  Midway through the Clinton administration, 
federal policy thus began to focus on ways efficiency-oriented E-government might 
affect changes to the very makeup of the federal executive.  In 1997, Gore?s NPR 
released a report entitled Access America: Reengineering Through Information Policy. In 
the report, Gore notes that: 
The idea of reengineering through technology is critical. We didn't want to 
automate the old, worn processes of government. Information technology 
(IT) was and is the great enabler for reinvention. It allows us to rethink, in 
fundamental ways, how people work and how we serve customers. (Gore, 
1997) 
 
?Rethinking? became the key concept of the NPR, and in 1998 the entire enterprise was 
rechristened the National Partnership for Reinventing Government. 
Central to this rethinking has been a topical?not agency based?organization of 
Government information and services on the web, what Jane Fountain has termed ?virtual 
agencies.? Though traditional brick-and-mortar agencies?e.g. Education, Agriculture, 
Justice?all boast websites as well, the virtual agency,  
following the web portal model used in the economy, is organized by 
client?for example, students, seniors, small-business owners, or veterans; 
each site is designed to provide all of the government?s services and 
information from any agency as well as links to relevant organizations 
outside government. (Fountain, 2001, p. 4) 
 
 
 14 
Someone interested in starting a business could, for instance, go to virtual agency like 
Business.gov to find relevant information that otherwise would have to be gathered 
separately from the Small Business Administration, the Department of Labor, the Internal 
Revenue Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency.  Ideally, the prospective 
business owner could also download relevant forms, and eventually even apply directly 
through the site for needed permits and Tax IDs for a true ?one-stop? experience.  Hopes 
for this model often focus on a breakdown of strict agency silos of effort, resource use, 
and jurisdictional responsibility. This could lead to a government that, at first, 
increasingly begins to mirror this sort of digital organization in the brick-and-mortar 
world before finally becoming one and the same, a ?Virtual State? organized in terms of 
?virtual agencies, cross-agency and public-private networks whose structure and capacity 
depend on the Internet and web? (Fountain, 2001, p. 4).   
 A second element to government reorganization on the web is the combination of 
these virtual agencies into a single, centralized web portal. On December 17th 1999, 
President Clinton issued a memorandum announcing the creation by the General Services 
Administration (GSA) of a one-stop federal web portal to arrange online government 
information, ?by category of information and service?rather than by agency? in a way 
that meets people's needs.? Further, this website was meant to ?provide better, more 
efficient, government services and increased government accountability to its citizens,? 
and agency leaders were told, in order to increase efficiency, to identify and adopt ??best 
practices? implemented by leading public and private sector organizations? (Clinton, 
1999).   This website was launched on September 22, 2000 as Firstgov.gov and remains 
online today, re-launched as USA.gov on December 5, 2006.  The E-government Act of 
 
 15 
2002 further devoted funding to Firstgov and mandated that ?to the extent practible? 
federal websites provide integrated service delivery, directing government information 
and services towards, ?key groups, including citizens, business, and other governments, 
and integrated according to function or topic rather than separated according to the 
boundaries of agency jurisdiction? (P.L. 107-347, Title II, Sec. 204(a)(2)(A)). 
A revolutionary approach to E-government has thus been enshrined in law.  But, 
just as efficiency-based E-government can lead to an overly narrow recasting of political 
legitimacy, some authors have pointed out that a revolutionary approach can be equally 
problematic in terms of Constitutional standards rarely considered in discussion of E-
government policy. A discussion of the relevant Constitutional context is thus in order. 
 
Potential Policy Conflicts of a Revolutionary Orientation in E-government 
Regardless of how we may conceive of E-government in the abstract, the bounds 
of its possibilities are constrained by the same law that guides the brick-and-mortar 
institution for which it is a counterpart.  As Jaeger (2002) notes, 
The Federal E-government must be conceived and implemented in 
adherence with the constitutional principles that guide the Federal 
government.  A tremendous number of laws, at all levels of government, 
could have an impact on the design of Federal electronic government 
policies and on the implementation of those policies. (pp. 357-358) 
 
Authors have cited legal challenges that revolutionary implementation strategies at their 
most extreme may face, in both efficiency- and democracy-oriented contexts.  In short, 
hopes for widespread government reorganization may be frustrated by the Constitutional 
doctrines of Federalism and the Separation of Powers, while pure, direct democracy 
stands in opposition to the well-established American tradition of what we may term 
 
 16 
Madisonian Democracy.  Troublingly, it has been noted that ?discussions about E-
government usually do not even acknowledge that laws should be considered in the 
creation of E-government policies,? and such foundational American E-Government 
legislation as the E-Government Act ?does nothing to address these Constitutional 
issues? (Jaeger, 2002, pp. 357-8, 365). 
As has been shown, visions of government reorganization often focus on breaking 
down the strict lines of jurisdictional demarcation to mirror the fluid nature of the 
Internet. West (2005) notes, 
Unlike traditional bricks-and-mortar agencies that are hierarchical, linear, 
and one-way in their communications style, digital delivery systems are 
non-hierarchical, nonlinear, interactive, and available twenty-four hours a 
day, seven days a week?The fundamental nature of these advantages has 
led some to predict the Internet will transform government. (pp. 3-4) 
 
Arguably, such jurisdictional boundaries, however, are neither arbitrary nor a mere 
expedience necessitated by a now-outmoded form of government administration. Rather 
they follow from philosophical attitudes enshrined in the Constitution that mean to limit 
the potential threats to freedom posed by an overly centralized form of government.  
Such threats are diluted through a horizontal distribution of responsibility among 
independent branches of government (the ?Separation of Powers?), and a vertical 
distribution among independent tiers of state and Federal power (Federalism).  
Seifert (2002) of the Congressional Research Service notes that ?the advent of E-
government has the potential to effect significantly the power relationship between the 
national and state governments,? pointing out that USA.gov features links to state 
websites and services that are provided through ?some form of national, state, and/or 
local cooperation.?  He concludes that, ?these same efforts to improve the delivery of 
 
 17 
government services could also diffuse political responsibility and credit, making it less 
clear from where the funding and direction are originating? (pp. 2-3).  Jaeger (2002) also 
argues that, though an erosion of jurisdictional boundaries may be a boon to constituent 
experience online, 
This would present the information in a way that ignores the intentional 
divisions in the government structure. Similar problems could arise with 
the records of usage and of individuals maintained by such a website. 
Considerable imbalances of power within the government could occur if 
those controlling the government website had unequal access to or control 
of the information. (p. 360) 
 
In short, organizing government and its digital counterpart along incompatible lines could 
eventually cause severe policy and jurisdictional conflicts, as well as public confusion as 
to the true distribution of government power. 
Similarly, authors have pointed out that the Constitutional form of representative 
democracy envisioned by James Madison also remains relevant in the Internet age, 
despite the hopes of some for a more direct model. Applbaum (2002) notes that 
Madisonian democracy is based on ?enduring facts about human nature??passion, bias, 
faction?that the Internet, and our possibly more egalitarian and educated age, has 
arguably done nothing to change (Nye, 2002, p. 26).  As Madison himself wrote in the 
Federalist #55, ?Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; Every Athenian assembly 
would still have been a mob.?  
As previously noted, some proponents of E-democracy feel that the social 
networking possibilities of the Internet can overcome the great geographical dispersion of 
interests that has stood in the way of direct democracy. By making solid blocs out of a 
previously diffuse group of lone voices, various interests can have a more organized and 
powerful role in reasoned online deliberation and direct political action.  Conversely, 
 
 18 
other research has shown that ?for all of the potential to bring people together over great 
distances and to bridge differences, the Internet does not always foster inclusion of 
diverse perspectives,? and may encourage undesirable levels of ?group polarization? 
(Jaeger, 2005, pp. 705-6).  As such, there may yet be value in what Applbaum terms 
Madison?s ?institutional prescription? to dilute the power of majority rule: 
Representation, separation of powers, and an extended republic of 
sufficient size will diminish the chances that any one faction will gain a 
majority or be able to act in unison.  In short, the great evil is tyranny, the 
cause is faction, and the solution is an institutional design that deters the 
formation of majority factions by making ambition counteract ambition 
and mediates passion through representation. (Nye, 2002, p. 26) 
 
In sum, we would do well to remember that 1) the revolutionary possibilities of E-
government may neither be an inevitable?nor even necessarily desirable?outcome of 
E-government, and that 2) the present American conception of government organization 
and democracy is, at least in part, a result of deliberately instituted political values that 
have not, by definition, been rendered moot by the Internet.  As such, discussion of 
revolutionary approaches to E-government, and models that assess E-government 
progress must, at minimum, begin to take these Constitutional considerations into 
account. 
This overview of implementation and scholarship thus shows us that four distinct 
conceptual trends in E-government can be isolated: efficient, democratic, evolutionary, 
and revolutionary.  Efficiency-oriented E-government began within internal government 
efforts at reform, motivated by a desire to reduce profits and increase legitimacy among 
customers.  Alternately, democracy-oriented E-government has been discussed largely 
outside government, as scholars propose a wider and more legitimate scope in regards to 
the full possibilities of E-government, seeing possibilities for an increased role in 
 
 19 
political decision-making standing alongside needed efficiency gains.  Further, a 
revolutionary orientation to E-government, however desirable, must be balanced against 
the wisdom of long-established American political standards. These standards should be 
taken into account when measuring the revolutionary progress of E-government.  The rest 
of this study will focus on determining the degree to which these various orientations can 
be said to exist in state E-government policy, and recommending ways to proceed with 
future assessment. 
 
 20 
Chapter 3: A Framework to Assess Policy Orientation and Model Future Progress 
Potential Policy Orientations 
This study tests this author?s claim that state E-government policy can be said to 
exhibit either an evolutionary or revolutionary attitude towards affecting desired changes 
in efficiency, democracy, or both.  The validity of the claim will be assessed by 
attempting to determine state policy orientations through a content-based analysis of 
strategic plans, looking for terms and concepts that I argue to be indicative of efficiency, 
democracy, and revolutionary orientations.  Put another way, this study means to assess if 
this proposed framework can be said to accurately and systematically describe the holistic 
policy orientation of state E-government.  The potential orientations are visually 
represented below: 
TABLE 1: Potential Policy Orientations in E-government 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In sum, efficiency and democracy refer to the intended functions of E-government. 
For the purposes of this study, the primary purposes of E-government covered by these 
trends are defined as: 
1. improving government service delivery for the sake of bureaucratic efficiency, 
cost-savings and customer convenience, and/or  
 
 Evolutionary Revolutionary 
Efficiency ?New Public Management? ?Virtual Agencies?/ Executive Branch 
Reorganization 
 
Democracy 
 
Enhanced Citizen 
Oversight 
 
Direct Democracy 
 
 21 
2. enhancing and better facilitating democratic participation by citizens in the 
political process.  
 
Efficiency approaches can emphasize either the evolutionary nature of bureaucratic 
development, as E-government increases the efficiency of the status quo, or a 
revolutionary approach to government reorganization, as brick-and-mortar institutions are 
eventually reconfigured to mirror the cross-agency, topical arrangement of information 
and service delivery enabled by the Internet.  Similarly, a democratic orientation can also 
exhibit either an evolutionary or revolutionary bias, depending on the degree to which E-
government is meant to either enhance citizen oversight in a representative democracy, or 
to bring about a new phase of mass direct democracy.   
 After determining the holistic policy orientation of state E-government policy, it 
will be important for future research to continue identifying best practices and measuring 
progress in the actual implementation of E-government and E-democracy.  Particularly 
because, as I will show, there is much less of a holistic policy orientation in terms of 
democracy than efficiency, and because I could locate no model that focused solely on 
the measurement of E-democracy, this study proposes such a model to begin assessment 
of that democracy-oriented implementation that does exist.  An analysis of existing 
models, using the orientational perspective this study has outlined, with reference to 
relevant Constitutional considerations, has been undertaken to show their limitations for 
the assessment of E-democracy.  
 
A Critique of Existing E-government Development Models 
Since at least the initial years of the present decade, scholars have developed 
various multi-stage models through which the progress of an E-government program can 
 
 22 
be gauged.  These proposed models are useful for two reasons.  First, they create a 
standardized framework within which a given E-government program can be placed for 
the purposes of analysis, benchmarking, and performance evaluation.  An author of one 
such model noted, ?The stages are a method for quantifying progress. They are 
representative of the government?s level of development based primarily on the content 
and deliverable services available through official websites? (Ronaghan, 2002, p. 11). 
Such models can outline where an E-government program came from, is now, and is 
potentially headed toward.  Governments can use such models to think systematically 
about implementation and development based on defined benchmarks, while 
scholars can use such models to chart the relative progress and ideological purpose of 
different sites and programs.  Second, these models, outlining as they do an idealized 
final stage of e-government development, implicitly advance theories about the desired 
functions and essential nature of E-government. 
These models generally outline a government?s progression from developing a 
mere web presence, to leveraging IT to streamline existing processes and structures?
creating a virtual surrogate for traditional brick-and-mortar institutions, then finally 
reaching some sort of paradigmatic shift with which IT is inextricably linked.  As such, 
they can be said to presuppose a revolutionary outlook. Depending on the author, various 
intermediary stages are added, and the extent of proposed transformation accomplished 
by the final stage varies widely as well.  Three models in particular? Ronaghan (2002), 
Layne & Lee (2001), and West (2005)?are particularly illustrative of these similarities 
and differences.  I propose that these models can further be summarized as progressing 
 
 23 
through stages that are 1) information-focused, 2) services-focused, and 3) 
transformative.  A visual summary of this analysis is presented below. 
TABLE 2: Three Proposed Models of E-Government development 
Ronaghan (2002) 
 
Information Based 
1. Emerging Presence 
2. Enhanced Presence 
 
Services Based 
3. Interactive Presence 
4. Transactional 
Presence 
 
Transformative 
5. Seamless/  
                Fully Integrated  
Layne and Lee (2001) 
 
Information Based 
1. Catalogue 
 
Services Based 
2. Transaction 
 
Transformative 
3. Vertical Integration 
4. Horizontal 
Integration 
West (2005) 
 
Information Based 
1. Billboards 
 
Services Based 
2. Partial Service 
Delivery 
 
Transformative 
3. Portal Stage 
4. Interactive 
Democracy 
 
Ronaghan Model 
The Ronaghan model, outlined in a 2002 UN report assessing global E-
government progress among UN member states, is possibly the most straightforward. 
This is a five-stage model, focused on the level of sophistication of an E-government 
program?s online information and service delivery.  Stages one and two (?Emerging? and 
?Enhanced?) are information-focused, as the initial government webpage expands into a 
hyperlinked, frequently updated, multi-page source of both static and downloadable 
government ?publications, legislation, and newsletters? (Ronaghan, 2002, p. 13). Stages 
three and four (?Interactive? and ?Transactional?) are services-based, as downloadable 
and electronically submittable forms and applications take their place alongside purely 
informative documents.  Eventually, these applications give way to ?complete and secure 
transactions? for passports, visas, the paying of taxes, etc.  Further, the mere contact 
 
 24 
information for politicians and civil servants provided in stages one and two becomes a 
formal means of interactive communication, such as e-mail or comment posting 
(Ronaghan, 2002, p.14).  Finally, we reach stage five (?Seamless/ Fully Integrated?), 
where all of these electronic information and service applications are offered in a single, 
24/7 ?unified package? or portal.  Further, ?Ministerial/ departmental/ agency lines of 
demarcation are removed in cyberspace. Services will be clustered along common needs? 
(Ronaghan, 2002, p. 14). 
Ronaghan admits that the removal of such boundaries, ?presupposes a 
reorganization of internal administrative? structures, and, while ?sound strategic 
thinking? is nevertheless a ?perfect world scenario? (Ronaghan, 2002, p. 20). He notes 
that entrenched organizational culture within a government can prove a great barrier to 
this step (though not, apparently, the Constitutional challenges outlined above).  Finally, 
he assumes a hand-in-hand development of both efficiency-based (automated services) 
and democracy-based (legislation, comments posting) applications that prove an 
additional example of wishful thinking in the present environment.  Given the efficiency 
emphasis in American E-government, such a hand-in-hand development has not proven a 
natural progression. Further, because of the different types of information and services 
needed within an efficiency- or democracy-oriented program, separate development 
models are needed to deal sufficiently with each context. 
 Layne & Lee Model 
In contrast, Layne & Lee (2001) propose a model applicable specifically to 
countries with a ?multi-layering of governments among federal, state and local agencies? 
such as the United States (p. 124).  Less interested than Ronaghan in the specific content 
 
 25 
of websites, Layne & Lee have proposed a four-stage model which instead measures 
technological and organizational integration and complexity.  Stage one (?Catalogue?) 
and two (?Transaction?) account for the increase of technological complexity necessary 
when moving from the static online presentation of information to a transactional model 
of online service delivery.  Stages three (?Vertical Integration?) and four (?Horizontal 
integration?) outline more specifically the organizational changes needed for the fully-
integrated E-government spoken of by Ronaghan: 
At this stage, the focus is now moving toward transformation of 
government services, rather than automating and digitizing existing 
processes?What should and will be happening are permanent changes in 
the government processes themselves and possibly the concept of 
government itself. (Layne & Lee, 2001, p. 131; emphasis added) 
 
First, different levels of government jurisdiction would begin to work together to share 
information and provide a single point of contact and transaction for those functions 
shared vertically, such as law enforcement records.  Later, full integration is achieved by 
a single, centralized point of contact for all government services, arranged topically by 
?horizontally integrating government services across different functional walls (or 
?silos?).?   
This model?like Ronaghan?s?exhibits a revolutionary orientation, seeing 
drastic transformation as the desired end point of E-government implementation.  
Further, despite Ronaghan?s discussion of democracy-oriented information and services, 
both models essentially display an efficiency orientation as integrated, bureaucratic 
reform, rather than increased political participation, is posited as the key to final success. 
Finally, demonstrating that E-government scholarship does not take into sufficient 
account relevant Constitutional challenges, Layne & Lee?s stages merely imply 
 
 26 
?fundamental changes in the form of government? rather than address their ultimate 
wisdom or validity under the law (Layne & Lee, 2001, p. 123). 
West Model 
The West model (2005) is the only one that considers both efficiency and 
democracy features, and does so as least somewhat separately.  Further, while it also 
posits a desirable degree of revolutionary change without considering the potential 
Constitutional challenges, the desired degree of change varies between his account of 
efficiency and democracy contexts.  Outlining a four-stage model first emphasizing 
informational government ?billboards? and then initial efforts at interactivity and 
transactional services, the West model posits the most complete degree of transformation.  
First comes a portal stage with ?online services, integrated across agencies.?  West notes 
that,  
The limiting factor of this stage, however, is that it is characterized more 
by a service-delivery mentality than by a vision of transforming 
democracy?This stage ignores the central virtue of the Internet: its ability 
to enhance the performance of democratic institutions and improve the 
functioning of democracy. (West, 2005, pp.10-11; emphasis added) 
 
The final stage of the model accomplishes these democratic hopes, as E-government now 
boasts, ?accountability enhancing features and technology for public feedback and 
deliberation.?  Interestingly, however, this shows that West does not necessarily imply a 
full shift to direct democracy, focusing instead on improved accountability and citizen 
oversight.  Overall then, the West model simultaneously displays an orientation 
consistent with both a revolutionary, efficiency-based?and an evolutionary, democracy-
based?point of view.  Though efficiency and democracy features are not by definition 
incompatible, models that display varied attitudes to the degree of desired change given 
 
 27 
these separate contexts could ultimately lead to confused policy.  Additionally, E-
democracy is too complex and nuanced a concept to consider as a single, final stage.  As 
such, the West model further demonstrates the need to consider and measure E-
government and E-democracy separately. 
 
Implications for Future E-democracy Scholarship; 
A Proposed Model for Gauging E-democracy Progress 
 
Because of the unquestioned revolutionary bias and lack of sufficient democracy 
focus found in existing E-government models, the following recommendations and model 
framework is proposed for future research and further consideration: 
1. Future models need to assess not just the possibility?or assume the 
inevitability? of a transformational E-government stage, but rather consider its 
ultimate value and desirability in balance with long-established, Constitutional 
standards.  Such assessment needs to take into account more than sheer 
constituent convenience given expectations derived from the private-sector.  
Namely, efficiency-features should, at the least, be considered in tandem with 
issues of Federalism and the Separation of Powers.  Democracy-features, by 
contrast, should be at minimum considered in tandem with the tenets of 
Madisonian Democracy. 
 
2. Transformative stages must still remain a part of E-government models as, indeed 
they are still possibilities, however desirable and/or legal.  However, they should 
not be presented as the desired end of implementation, unless accompanied by a 
justification in terms, at least, of the minimum standards discussed in 
recommendation #1. 
 
3. E-government and E-democracy developmental stages need to be considered 
separately, due to varied citizen/ customer roles, differences in informational 
content and specific services offered, and separate legal/ Constitutional contexts. 
 
As previously noted, the three E-government models analyzed above can be 
summarized into three main stages: 1) information-focused, 2) services-focused, and 3) 
transformational.  This study suggests this as a basic outline for the beginnings of an 
independent E-democracy model, and means to test if E-democracy progress can be 
 
 28 
independently accounted for in a manner similar, then, to efficiency-oriented E-
government.  Like Layne & Lee, stages one and two indicate the varying levels of 
technological complexity required when moving from the static posting of information to 
interactive services and communication options.  Added to this is Ronaghan?s emphasis 
on content, as a list of desired informational sources, transactional services, and lines 
(and methods) of communication is compiled and compared against the offerings of 
websites.  Meeting the vision of the first two stages could be considered a maximization 
of the evolutionary status quo in terms of citizen participation and oversight in a 
representative democracy.  Achieving stage three would indicate reaching the desired 
level of revolutionary change?in terms of moving towards a more direct democracy?
that a model-maker would argue for, in light of, among other things, the supposed value 
of Madisonian estimations of democracy. 
 The usefulness of this model will be tested and discussed by applying it to the 
democracy-focused implementation of three states?Michigan, Kansas, and Nebraska?
chosen due to the democracy orientation of these state?s E-government strategic planning 
documents, as determined through a content-based analysis.  After accounting for the 
analytical methodology used in this study, results of both the holistic policy assessment 
and the E-democracy model test will be outlined and discussed. 
 
 29 
Chapter 4: Methodology 
Location and Selection of Strategic Planning Documents 
 
The data for the holistic analysis comes from E-government strategic planning 
documents for 37 of the 50 states (74%).  Strategic planning has been defined as ?a 
disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what 
an organization (or other entity) is, what it does, and why it does it? (Bryson, 2004, p. 6).   
Given this definition, and time constraints preventing the tracing of each state?s complete 
E-government paper trail, it was hypothesized that a state?s policy orientation could be 
surmised through an analysis of strategic discussion concerning what a state defines as E-
government and why it chooses to implement it. 
Because no comprehensive bibliography of such documents exists, a reliable 
method was needed that would not only locate these documents, but locate a sufficient 
number of them as to make up a significant sample.  The eventual finding and use of 37 
state E-government plans is consistent with a 2007 Congressional Research Service 
(CRS) survey of state E-government best practices.  This CRS study also provided a list 
of common document and author-types of these plans, which became the foundation for a 
systematic online search strategy (see below, Seifert & McLaughlin, 2007, p. 18).  
TABLE 3: Document and Author-Types Used in Search Strategy 
Document-Type 
Search Terms 
 
IT Strategic Plan 
Enterprise IT Plan 
E-government Strategic Plan 
Statewide IT Policy/ Policies 
Information Management Plan 
IT Business Plan 
 
Author-Type 
Websites Searched 
 
State Technology Council 
Office of the state CIO 
Office of the Governor 
State Information Technology Department 
 
 
 30 
State by state, the list of document types were searched for in tandem with the 
state name (Maryland IT Strategic Plan, Maryland Enterprise IT Plan, etc.) using the 
Google search engine.  ?Information Technology? was searched for as well as ?IT,? and 
E-government synonyms ?electronic/ digital government? were also employed.  This 
generally led to PDF document links from the authoring agency, office, or council.  If this 
led only to an agency website instead, the site was browsed for any downloadable policy 
statements.  When nothing turned up by this method, state names were then combined 
with the listed author-types in search of the websites of these offices or organizations, 
and these websites were then also browsed. 
As noted above, this method netted E-government policy documents for 37 states.  
The CRS study notes that of the 37 states who responded to their survey, 34% update E-
government strategic planning documents annually, 2% quarterly, and 31% on an ?other? 
basis (Seifert & McLaughlin, 2007, p. 19).  Accordingly, multiple documents for an 
individual state were often found, both in terms of successive editions of the same title, as 
well as of varying titles and formats.  In choosing which of a state?s documents to include 
in the study, I used criteria of currency, applicability, breadth, and authoritativeness.  
These criteria were used as follows.  
 Whenever possible, the most recent plan that could be found online was chosen 
(currency).  In the case, for instance, of Rhode Island, the only documents found were too 
old and vague to have relevance to a discussion of current E-government practices.  As 
most statewide IT plans are not solely E-government focused, but have ?E-government 
strategies and goals embedded in them,? (Seifert & McLaughlin, 2007, p. 5) prior plans 
were used if they spoke more directly to E-government goals than one propagated later 
 
 31 
(applicability).  Other aspects of applicability relate to documents that discussed only 
certain aspects of an E-government program (e.g. infrastructure security, state law 
enforcement database), or spoke in some other way to indicate state E-government 
implementation, but provided no policy data.  An Illinois pamphlet was thus excluded, 
despite being the only document for that state found.  Fully-outlined, departmentally-
focused plans were favored over such shorter, public-facing documents as pamphlets and 
fact sheets (breadth), as well as documents authored by the agency, department or office 
most directly responsible for the implementation and development of the state?s program 
(authoritativeness).  This process thus excluded some states from the study, not because 
documents did not exist, but because those that were found did not fit these criteria.  
Finally, the state of Connecticut was excluded because links to potentially relevant 
documents were broken.  A full list of states excluded from this study is found below. 
TABLE 4: States not Included in Study 
No Evidence of Strategic  
Planning Process Found Online 
 
 
? Alaska 
? Florida 
? Hawaii 
? New Jersey 
? South Dakota 
? West Virginia 
? Wyoming 
Documents Insufficient 
 
? Illinois 
? Rhode Island 
 
Documents Irretrievable 
 
? Connecticut 
 
Web-Based Data Only 
? Maine 
? Ohio 
? Oklahoma 
 
 
A final selection preference was for formal, freestanding, published documents, 
rather than mission statements or other policy declarations made on a state?s website.  
 
 32 
The assumption here is that a comprehensive, updated, formal strategic plan distributed to 
agency employees and stakeholders is evidence of a more fully considered and realized 
program, able to provide more useful answers to the questions this study poses. The CRS 
reports a wide variety of state attitudes toward the overall usefulness of the strategic 
planning process, and one should keep in mind that states which do not create these 
documents may, nevertheless, have a sophisticated approach, and clearly formulated 
attitudes toward E-government behind the scenes.  While many states put a ?great deal of 
effort into their strategy documents,?  
one Kentucky official said that it is not worth the time and effort required 
to write and maintain ?glossy? strategy documents when considering the 
quickness of new program innovation and implementation in real time 
(Seifert & McLaughlin, 2007, 19). 
 
It should be noted that Kentucky, nevertheless, does it anyway, and is one of the 37 states 
included in this study.  
 
Value of Strategic Planning Documents 
Kentucky?s comments, however, do beg the questions of how much these reports 
should be valued and the degree to which they mirror the true state of E-government 
thinking.  Might it have been more useful to analyze the content of state E-government 
websites themselves for evidence of policy orientation?  While content-based analysis is 
certainly useful for gauging important matters like accessibility, readability, or usability, 
cataloging what is on?or not on?an E-government website fails to answer the more 
fundamental question of why it is or is not there.  A strategically planned E-government 
program can meet many real-world limitations such as manpower, funding, technological 
know-how, agency resistance, and bureaucratic red tape (though the successful plan no 
 
 33 
doubt does much to foresee and account for such obstacles).  While it is very easy to 
make grand plans or express great hopes at the drawing table, the process of 
implementation is fraught with much greater complexity.  It is for this reason, however, 
that strategic plans are of great value to the policy researcher, as they can express a best-
case scenario for what a given program is meant to achieve. Just because a certain state 
portal fails to offer any features supporting E-democracy, we should not necessarily 
assume the state has failed to consider the possibility.   
Further, the CRS cites research that ?defined processes, strategies, and 
performance measures?are necessary to achieve E-government goals? (Seifert & 
McLaughlin, 2007, p. 5). Strategic plans can indicate complex thinking, foresight, and 
deeper understanding of a given issue, all leading to a greater potential for success in 
implementation, however measured.  Additional evidence for this can be gleaned from 
the data of two oft-updated efforts to rank state E-government programs?Darrell West?s 
State and Federal E-government in the United States, published annually by Brown 
University since 2001 (most recently in 2007), and the Center for Digital Government?s 
Digital States Survey, published bi-annually since 2000 (most recently in 2006).  At least 
in terms of the rather wide range of criteria they measure, these studies can be used to 
demonstrate a strong correlation between the existence of formal planning documents and 
successful, realized state E-government programs.  The 2006 Digital States Survey 
ranked the top 25 states in terms of ?improved service delivery, increased capacity, and 
lower costs? (Center for Digital Government, 2006, Pg. 4).  Only three of the 13 states 
excluded from this study?3rd place Ohio, 7th place South Dakota, and 19th place Illinois?
appear in this top 25.   
 
 34 
The most recent West study, concerned with online content, services offered, 
privacy and security, readability, accessibility, presence of ads and fees, and public 
outreach listed just six of these states?3rd place Maine, 9th place New Jersey, 14th place 
Oklahoma, 19th place Connecticut, 23rd place Ohio, and 25th place South Carolina?in its 
top 25.  Additionally, none of the remaining seven states excluded from this study placed 
higher than 29th on West?s comprehensive ranking of all 50 states, while West Virginia 
and Wyoming, respectively, come in 49th and 50th (West, 2006, p. 12).  Whatever the 
attitude of the states toward the strategic planning process, such plans are a strong 
indicator of success.  Finally, they demonstrate engaged consideration of the sort that 
allows us a window into state E-government policy thinking.  
 
Content Analysis of State Plans 
 As most state E-government programs are managed by that state?s IT department, 
whose duties extend far beyond that of just E-government, these documents often address 
E-government as only one of a number of ongoing goals or externally mandated 
responsibilities, and the department?s  E-government policy orientation is not often 
explicitly stated.  Mission and/ or vision statements, to the degree that they are present, 
focus on the organization?s role as a government-wide IT service provider and, as 
California?s strategic plan puts it, ?delivering consistent, cost-effective, reliable, 
accessible and secure services that satisfy the needs of its diverse customers? (p. 2).  
While all 37 reports indicate that such services include those of the transactional, G2C-
type, states do not often make a clear distinction between ?E-government? and the rest of 
their day-to-day responsibilities.  Only five of the 37 plans reviewed (13.5%) focus solely 
 
 35 
on E-government,3 while the term ?E-government? (and ?electronic/ digital government?) 
was entirely absent from eight of them.4  Rather, language denoting an implicit 
orientation in efforts that can be construed as E-government is often woven throughout 
the document.  
 A systematic determination of policy analysis, thus, demanded a content-based 
analysis using a set of objectively verified terms deemed sufficiently indicative of the 
policy orientations this study sought to measure.  Consistent with content analytic 
methods outlined in Kinicki, et al. (1986) these terms were derived both from the 
literature review of this study and engagement with the strategic plans themselves.  An 
initial set of terms, postulated pre-analysis, was added to as other terms were found that, 
in context, were deemed to indicate equivalent meaning.  A ?closed? card-sort of the 
variety outlined at Usability.gov (www.usability.gov/design/cardsort.html) was 
performed post-hoc by six test subjects to assess the objective validity of these terms.  
Subjects were asked to sort two piles of terms separately into categories labeled 
?efficiency? and ?democracy.?  The first pile represented terms used to assess efficiency 
and democracy policy orientations.  The second pile represented terms used to assess the 
existence of a revolutionary approach within an efficiency or democracy context.  An 
evolutionary approach was not coded for, under the assumption that discussion of the use 
of IT to enhance efficiency or democracy at all within a strategic plan (unless explicitly 
directed towards decreases in efficiency or political participation) is evidence of at least 
an evolutionary change in a state?s approach to efficiency or democracy.   
                                                 
3 Alabama, Delaware, Nebraska, Tennessee & Utah   
4 Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Washington & Wisconsin 
 
 36 
A full list of coded terms is found in table 5 below, with those terms added during 
analysis designated by italics.  Next to each term is the number of times, out of six 
sorters, a term was placed into the desired category during the post-hoc closed card sort.  
Grammatical derivations of terms and plural forms (e.g. Efficiency/ Efficient/ Efficiently; 
Citizen/ Citizens) were not tested separately during the card sort.  The initial list of terms 
drawn up pre-analysis used noun and singular forms only.  Grammatical derivations and 
plurals were coded when come across, and listed here.  Additionally, it should be noted 
that while content analytic procedures generally include the coding of texts by multiple 
independent parties to determine a measure of inter-rater reliability, this step was not 
undertaken.  The exploratory and evolutionary nature of the data collection precluded 
ease of initial replicability.  Further, the potential analytic impact of mis-coding in studies 
like this which assess ?both/ and? classifications (as plans could be deemed both 
efficiency and democracy focused) is less than in strictly ?either/or? based studies. 
TABLE 5: Terms Used to Code for Policy Orientation 
Efficiency 
Terms Characterizing the Enterprise 
Efficiency/ Efficient/ Efficiently (6/6) 
Cost-Efficiency/Efficient (6/6) 
 
Effectiveness/ Effective/ Effectively (6/6) 
Cost-Effectiveness/ Effective/ Effectively 
(6/6) 
 
Terms Characterizing Users 
Customer(s) (5/6) 
 
Customer-Service (6/6) 
Customer-Satisfaction (6/6) 
 
Terms Characterizing Benefits for Users 
Convenience/ Convenient/ Conveniently 
(6/6) 
 
24x7x365 Access (5/6) 
 
Democracy 
Terms Characterizing 
the Enterprise 
Democracy/ Democratic (6/6) 
 
eDemocracy (6/6) 
Digital Democracy (6/6) 
 
 
 
Terms Characterizing Users 
Citizen(s) (5/6) 
 
 
 
Terms Characterizing Benefits 
for Users 
Participation (5/6) 
 
Engagement/ Engage (5/6) 
 
Revolutionary 
 
 
Efficiency Context 
Web Portal(s) (6/6) 
 
Agency Collaboration (6/6) 
 
Agency Cooperation (6/6) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Democracy Context 
Direct Democracy (5/6) 
 
Increased Role in Decision 
Making (6/6) 
 
 37 
Santos (2006) notes different proposed margins for error when considering terms 
valid for content analysis after a card sort, ranging from 50% to a ?substantial portion? of 
times correctly sorted (p. 296).  Smith (2000) proposes a more rigorous threshold of 85%.  
All terms in this study received a perfect score except ?customer,? ?24x7x365 access? 
?citizen,? ?participation,? ?engagement,? and ?direct democracy,? each scoring 5/6, or 
83%.  Given the small test group (six subjects), and disagreement in the literature on an 
acceptable threshold, all terms were considered objectively verified despite falling just 
below the high standard advocated by Smith. 
 The initial terms postulated at the outset were suggested by the literature review 
of this study.  As mentioned, other terms indicative of the same meaning were accepted 
as equivalents.  For both the efficiency and democracy foci, terms were chosen that 
would indicate the overall nature of the E-government enterprise, describe the intended 
users, and indicate the intended benefits for users.  Concepts the literature shows to be 
indicative of a revolutionary approach to both efficiency and democracy were coded for 
as well.  A brief justification of this language follows. 
In the words of Al Gore and the NPR, the end goal of an efficiency approach, as 
defined by this study, is a government that ?works better and costs less? (Gore, 1994).  
Thus language designating the ?efficient? and/ or ?cost-efficient? nature of E-government 
was postulated to be indicative of an efficiency-based enterprise.  ?Effective/ cost-
effective? proved also to be commonly used terms describing the same notion.  
Conversely, plans were coded for the use of ?democracy? as a key indicator of that 
possible orientation. ?Democratic,? ?eDemocracy,? and ?digital democracy? were found 
in plans as well. 
 
 38 
Inherent tensions in the word choice between ?customer? and ?citizen? have been 
explored in the literature.  As government use of ?customer? is a recent phenomenon 
coinciding with New Public Management and efficiency-oriented E-government, might 
then ?citizen? be more indicative of a democracy-context?  Is  ?customer? used to the 
exclusion of ?citizen (or vice-versa)?  Were both used, and if so, were they used 
interchangeably, or in such a way to note the difference in meaning?  Although mixed 
results were seen in the card sort for the clear contexts these words might indicate, 
Constituent-facing E-government is meant ultimately for public users, and different state 
conceptions of who the public is, and what they might desire from C2G E-government is 
useful to tease out.  The terms ?customer service? and ?customer satisfaction? appeared 
as well in plans that didn?t explicitly refer to users as ?customers? but expressed the 
importance of a customer focus in E-government. 
 I thus also tried to isolate language that captured the planners? sense of why users 
would want to use E-government services.  What constituent needs are these departments 
attempting to meet?  If legitimacy is a root goal of E-government, what E-government 
offerings do states see as crucial to its accomplishment?  On the efficiency side, E-
government has been conceived of as a tool of ?convenience,? and this term was thus 
coded for.  Many plans discussed convenience specifically in terms of perpetual online 
availability of desired information and services.  As noted by Evans and Yen (2006), 
?Given that citizens throughout the world have come to expect twenty-four hours a day, 
seven days a week availability in their commercial interactions, it is only natural that they 
would expect the same from their government? (pp. 207-208).  As such, I felt that 
language denoting ?24x7x365 Access? should be considered equivalent to ?convenient.?  
 
 39 
On the democracy side, E-government has been defined as a potential boon to political 
participation.  I thus looked for ?participation? language, finding the use of ?engagement? 
as well. 
Consistent with previous sections of this paper, I deemed the orientation of a plan 
to be revolutionary-efficiency based if it discussed elements of government 
reorganization in at least the online environment, i.e. ?agency collaboration/ cooperation? 
and ?portal? development.  Similarly, the orientation was deemed revolutionary-
democracy based if the discussed purpose of E-government was to engender a more 
direct form of democracy.  Is thus the sort of ?democracy? discussed within a plan 
?direct,? or does it provide an ?increased role in decision making? to constituents?  
Again, if no evidence of desired change along these lines could be determined the 
orientation was deemed evolutionary.
 
 40 
Chapter 5:  State Policy Assessment 
 In terms of the orientations and language outlined in this study, analysis shows 
that state E-government policy is heavily oriented toward an efficiency orientation that 
tends towards revolutionary features.  Democracy orientation is decidedly less prevalent, 
with appropriate language appearing in only 8 of 37 state plans (22%) and indicating an 
evolutionary approach.  Democracy language never appeared in a plan that did not also 
express an efficiency focus.  Efficiency results will be presented first, followed by those 
of democracy.  Evolutionary and revolutionary orientations will be discussed within each 
context individually.  Page citations refer to the strategic plan of the state being 
discussed, unless otherwise indicated.  Bibliographic and online access data for state 
plans is found in Appendix A. 
 
Analysis of State Efficiency Orientation 
 All 37 state plans use ?efficiency/ effectiveness? language to characterize their E-
government enterprise.  36 use the word ?efficiency? and its grammatical derivates, while 
Delaware uses only ?effectiveness.? Language denoting ?cost-efficiency? is less 
prevalent, appearing in 23/37 plans (62%).  In these 23 plans, ?cost-effectiveness? and its 
grammatical derivatives are used more often, used in 14 plans, as opposed to the 9 states 
using ?cost-efficient.?   
Other language I have identified as efficiency oriented is used prevalently as well. 
Users of state E-government are referred to as ?customer? in 31/37 plans (84%).  Of the 
six states that do not use this designation, three still mention ?customer service,? and one 
discusses ?customer satisfaction.? 28/37 reports (76%) discuss the need for  
 
 41 
E-government implementation in terms of constituent ?convenience.?  Of these 28 
reports, six use the ?24x7x365 access? designation to the exclusion of ?convenience,? but 
a total of 19 out of these 28 plans (68%) discuss persistent access in these terms. 
With these results in mind, here is sampling of state language: 
? The state of Arizona?s ?IT Vision? includes the dictum that IT allows ?agencies 
with limited time, money, and personnel to deliver services more efficiently and 
more effectively? (p .5). 
 
? The vision statement of Iowa?s Department of Administrative Services is ?To be a 
world-class organization that is customer-focused, innovative and efficient? (p. 5).  
They also note that the top three goals of legislation that defined the current 
mission of the department were to ?Improve service to customers,? ?Save 
Money,? and ?Streamline? (p. 3). 
 
? Explicit strategic goals of Nevada include an increase in customer service and to 
be ?effective and efficient? (p. 6) 
 
? An ?objective? of South Carolina is to ?Obtain efficiencies through expanded use 
of common infrastructure and IT applications across South Carolina State 
government? (p. 12). 
 
? Tennessee promotes E-government because, ?Providing state government services 
online increases customer satisfaction and improves government efficiency? (p. 2) 
 
? A ?guiding principle? of Kentucky IT is that it will be ?efficiently managed to 
reduce costs and eliminate duplication, and will be continually simplified and 
modernized? (p. 6). 
 
? The simply stated vision of Nebraska?s E-government Strategic Plan is, ?The 
State of Nebraska will be open for business from any place and at any time 
through the use of e-government. ? (p. 2) 
 
?Efficiency,? therefore, is seen as beneficial to government and constituents alike and is a 
dominant impetus for E-government implementation.  From these statements, further, we 
can see the interwoven nature of an efficiency-orientation both with use by ?customers,? 
and with private-sector derived expectations of ?convenience.? 
 
 42 
States seem virtually unanimous in the determination that, as expressed by 
Louisiana CIO Rizwan Ahmed, ?In this technology era, all organizations, including state 
government will be judged by their ability to serve the needs of their customers? (p. 14). 
Indeed, the state of California aims to create a ?customer-focused government? (p. 23). In 
Georgia state government, ?Customer service has become a significant theme? (p. 3).  
Vermonters are called the ?ultimate customers? (p. 9).   Idaho means to sustain recent 
improvements in ?customer satisfaction? (p. 10).  Arkansas citizens are ?the state?s most 
important customers? (p. 6).  In Montana, citizens are ?government customers? (p. 3). 
Finally, Utah touts its status as the, ?first state to implement 24x7 customer support? (p. 
4).  In sum, a customer-service based efficiency-orientation can be seen as the state 
standard. 
 That said, where can this efficiency standard be located within evolutionary/ 
revolutionary hopes?  An easy answer to this question can be had by noting the mere fact 
that all 50 states currently boast an Internet portal linking to various degrees of cross-
agency and cross-governmental information and services.  The fact that only 29 of the 37 
plans analyzed (78%) mention the state portal may help to explain the wide variance in 
usability, design, and overall quality of these portals, as some states simply do not 
apparently put much emphasis on their planning.  However, it may also indicate that the 
implementation of a cross-functional portal is considered so obvious and commonplace 
that there is little need to mention its centrality to E-government.  Of those plans that do 
include portal management and implementation in their strategic planning, none question 
potential legal issues such as those this study has previously discussed.  The dominant 
attitude, as expressed by Arkansas, is that government services are now simply, 
 
 43 
?expected to be delivered at the convenience of the user without respect to internal 
government structures, organizations, or jurisdictions? (p. 4).  As such, the revolutionary 
approach, however potentially benign, has clearly taken hold in American E-government 
policy. 
 This estimation is further strengthened by the fact that 29 of 37 states (78%) also 
discuss the need for inter-/ intra-governmental collaboration/ cooperation. Many states?
for instance Minnesota?note how ?multi-agency cooperation and collaboration? along 
horizontal lines can lead to ?a significant increase in perception of government 
efficiency? (p. 161).  Hopes for vertical integration can also be found.  Oregon hopes 
their approach to ?geospatial data development, sharing, and stewardship will establish a 
new model for cross-jurisdictional collaboration, resulting in higher efficiency and 
greater effectiveness in delivering public services? (p. 23).  Meanwhile, the state of 
Washington similarly looks to integrate certain state activities ?with federal and local 
interests through enhanced collaboration and initiatives that cross jurisdictions? (p.11).  
While ?collaboration? and ?cooperation? are commonly used, a full list of the many 
phrases which I deemed to indicate ?inter-/intra-governmental? is provided in Appendix 
B. 
 
Analysis of State Democracy Orientation 
 In contrast, analysis shows, overall, that state strategic planning in the area of 
democracy is minimal.  Further, the presence in plans of key democracy-oriented 
language as defined by this study proves somewhat misleading.  In more plans even than 
the word ?customer,? ?citizen? and its derivatives appear throughout.  All states but 
 
 44 
one?New Mexico, which declines also to use ?customer? in favor of ?constituent??
refer to E-government users as ?citizens.? Vermont?s citizens are ?the sole reason State 
government uses technology? (p. 5).  In Minnesota, where E-government is an integral 
part of the state?s ?Drive to Excellence? reform initiative, all effort is directed at 
improvements which ?put the citizen first? (p. 2).  However, citizen benefits derived from 
E-government, as well as the assumed desired uses by citizens of E-government, are 
rarely conceptualized around those democratic activities which may differentiate a 
?citizen? from a ?customer.?  In other words, it is by and large unclear why a state uses 
?citizen? rather than ?customer? and further unclear the degree to which?if at all?states 
consider the different contexts these terms imply.  What is clear, however, is the 
predominance of the efficiency context in the final planning products these agencies 
produce. 
 The fact that only 8 plans (21 %)  use the other categories of democracy-oriented 
language looked for in this study makes clear the policy gap in American E-government.   
Only seven states Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, and 
Utah use a form of the word democracy (?democracy,? ?democratic,? ?eDemocracy,? 
?Digital Democracy?). Of these Michigan, Nebraska, and Kansas speak specifically of 
political ?participation? (with Kansas using ?engagement?).  One other state?South 
Carolina?speaks of political ?participation,? but not of ?democracy.?  Also, like 
?citizen,? ?participation? and ?engagement? proved problematic indicators of a 
specifically democratic context.  While a total of 24 plans mentioned ?participation/ 
engagement? only four meant it in a political sense.  However, because of the uncommon 
use of ?democracy? and the spare discussion of specifically political participation/ 
 
 45 
engagement, these results are still sufficiently clear in indicating a wide gap between 
efficiency and democracy in state policy. 
It should be noted that other states use language that may constitute a democracy 
focus, though it ultimately does not prove useful for this analysis. For instance: 
? ?Massachusetts? recent e-government initiative ? Mass.Gov ? has been 
tremendously successful in bringing the interaction between citizens and 
government much closer together.? (p. 175) 
 
? Oregon IT investment ?enables the citizens of Oregon to use their state 
government to shape their own future.? (p. 4) 
 
? Central to the mission statement of Kentucky IT is to ?improve decision making.? 
(p. 5) 
 
These statements prove vague.  For instance, ?interaction? with government does not 
necessarily denote ?participation? in democracy.  Also, we are not told whose ?decision 
making? IT is meant to improve.  These statements, further, give no indication that such 
goals are to be met in way consistent with democratic political participation.  While 
health information obtained efficiently from a government website may lead to decisions 
that ?shape one?s future,? this is not an explicitly political choice. 
The language of ?democracy? and ?participation? from the 8 states listed above, 
rather, attests to the more specifically democratic goals these states hope to accomplish 
through their strategic planning.  For example: 
? Kansas notes that ?Citizens are the owners of their government. Digital 
government can be used to tailor that ownership to the people.?  This can be 
accomplished through ?A rising-tide of online service offerings, including digital 
democracy.? (p. 18) 
 
? Michigan notes that E-government is a means, not only of efficient government, 
but to ?include all of our citizens in our democratic processes.? (p. 4) 
 
 
 46 
? Nebraska defines E-government as ?the use of technology to enhance information 
sharing, service delivery, constituency and client participation, and governance 
by transforming internal and external relationships.? (p. 1, emphasis added) 
 
? New Mexico includes E-democracy among its ?strategic objectives,? in order to 
?Improve the voting process (e.g., electronic voter registration, voting, and vote 
counting) and enable expanded participation in government (e.g., Virtual Town 
Halls).? (p. 7) 
 
? North Carolina?s Statewide IT Plan ?presents an action-driven and results-
oriented approach for aligning IT with government priorities? that include a desire 
to ?further the democratic process.? (p. 9) 
 
? South Carolina?s strategic IT vision is ?to be a recognized leader in the use of 
technology to deliver cost effective services desired by citizens, businesses and 
government organizations, while maximizing constituent participation in the 
government process.? (p. 2) 
 
? Texas addresses some of the previously mentioned cross-jurisdictional issues in 
E-government, noting ?Although open government is a cornerstone of democracy, 
confidential information must be protected when sharing data among cross-
jurisdictional programs and when fulfilling public information requests.? (p. 62) 
 
? Utah hopes that ?By using the best practices, technologies, and strategies, we will 
deepen democracy and ensure representation and citizen engagement in the 
information age.? (p. 6) 
 
Through these statements we see a generally vague?though, under the circumstances, 
encouraging?desire to implement features of  E-democracy to enhance citizen 
engagement and the democratic process.  Also, we see at least some recognition (Kansas, 
Texas) of citizen ownership of government and of open government standards that should 
be considered in all state E-government implementation.   
 Assessment of an evolutionary/ revolutionary approach to democracy in these 
plans in a democracy context proved difficult.  While none of the uses of ?democracy? in 
these plans was modified by ?direct,? the degree of citizen ?role in decision making? was 
never fully specified.  While six of these democracy-oriented states discussed ?decision-
making? or ?decision-makers? this language always referred to internal practices.  
 
 47 
Additionally, the above quoted language from state plans is vague in meaning. ?Including 
citizens? in democracy, ?furthering? or ?deepening? the democratic process, and 
?enhancing?/ ?expanding?/ ?maximizing? political participation, could mean anything 
from e-mailing a member of the state assembly to replacing that whole assembly with a 
direct vote.  However, given the lack of any explicit proposals for a profound shift in 
state democracy practice, it is reasonable to assess overall state democracy orientation as 
evolutionary in nature. 
 
Discussion 
 The preceding analysis thus bears out the validity of this author?s claim that state 
E-government policy can be said to exhibit either an evolutionary or revolutionary 
attitude towards affecting desired changes in efficiency, democracy, or both.  None of the 
policies assessed could be said to exhibit none of these orientations, and though the 
language chosen to code for democracy proved less than solidly indicative of that 
context, a clear holistic prevalence in favor of an efficiency-based focus can nevertheless 
be determined.  The orientational framework proposed by this paper, thus seems a useful 
way to categorize policies and assess holistic trends in a systematic, comparative manner. 
Alongside a categorical assessment of state attitudes towards the purpose and nature of E-
government, this analysis provides data in support of other important holistic trends as 
well.  Despite questions about the Constitutional wisdom of government reorganization, 
we can determine that nearly three-quarters of states (74%) are pursuing a cross-agency/ 
jurisdictional approach to E-government and service delivery.  Further, the persistent and 
equivocal usage of ?citizen? and ?customer? in these plans indicates that states may be 
 
 48 
unaware?or ultimately unconcerned?about different possible contexts, despite 
questions in the literature about the full legitimacy of a solely efficiency-oriented E-
government.   
Because the current models for E-government development all focus on 
efficiency, or at least do not consider E-democracy a goal until later stages, we may, 
however, surmise that states just have not gotten to this point.  This study focused on the 
most recent policies available, but a look back through past versions would provide a 
sense of where states are along the implementation path.  Analysis such as this study has 
undertaken considers policies as more or less equal, but possibly the eight states that have 
begun to discuss democracy are simply further along.  Also, 16 of the 37 reports looked 
at are at least three years old, indicating that they may not be the most accurate 
expression of current policy thinking.  In the end, comparison of expressed policy ideals 
with actual implementation may provide a truer picture than either one could separately. 
Nevertheless, the wide gap between efficiency and democracy foci in these reports 
provides a sense of the relative consideration of these contexts at the state level. 
Until states begin to express more specific hopes for E-democracy?the level of 
increased participation desired and the means to allow for this?state policy orientation 
will be hard to determine.  While strategic plans help to assess state thinking concerning 
the purpose of E-government, it nature, and its uses and users, they do not necessarily tell 
us why ultimately it ought to be implemented.  Some reports simply note the specific laws 
or executive orders that mandate the organization?s implementation and oversight of E-
government and leave it there.  For this reason, state legislative and/or executive 
documents could prove a rich source for further research.  Indeed, the job of these 
 
 49 
departments is not really to debate the deepest questions of ?why,? but simply to carry 
out their mandate.   
For this reason, efficiency may also be an easier route to take, or a more 
immediately obvious one for IT departments to focus on.  Radical shifts in democratic 
practice are policy issues?and, as discussed, Constitutional issues?that state IT 
departments have no control or jurisdiction over.  Automating services like tax payment 
or license applications is simply a more straightforward activity, with a more immediate 
reward, and more directly measurable results.  Providing various lines of communication 
with government officials or increased avenues for accountability may run into resistance 
from officials not used to new communication technologies, or complex legal issues that 
regulate access to government information.  Mastering the administrative and 
technological complexity required for online, transactional government services is 
difficult and costly enough without adding these additional considerations.  Finally, of 
course, because this technology costs money?ultimately taxpayer money?IT 
departments are responsible to the bottom line, and while E-democracy may lead to a full 
measure of E-government legitimacy in the future, whatever allows for the most cost-
effective management and implementation in these early stages of E-government will 
help to ensure that E-government has a future at all. 
 
 50 
Chapter 6: Use and Discussion of Developmental E-democracy Model 
Method 
 In light of the demonstrated policy gap between efficiency and democracy in state 
policy, future research should focus on the democracy-oriented implementation that does 
exist in order to assess best practices and suggest ways to move forward.  Further this 
should be done with a model that is uniquely focused on E-democracy, such as this study 
has proposed.  To reiterate, this is a three-stage model, progressing through 1) a static 
information-focused stage, 2) a dynamic/interactive services-focused stage, and 3) a 
transformational stage.  It is also content focused, in that it looks for a predetermined set 
of information and services determined by the author to be consistent with the type of E-
democracy being measured.  Usually, this would be couched in terms of the relative 
degree of representative versus direct democracy desired.  Full accomplishment of stages 
one and two would indicate a maximization of the evolutionary status quo by the 
measurer?s standards. A movement into stage three should be assessed and/or justified in 
light of established Constitutional standards.  
Of those states that exhibit a democracy focus in their plans, this study will 
evaluate three?Michigan, Nebraska, and Kansas?because they possess the most 
sophisticated and accessible degree of implementation.  By sophisticated, is meant a 
range of E-democracy specific information sources and services that have at least begun 
to exhibit some degree of dynamism, searchability, and interactivity.  By accessible, is 
meant that an independent webpage (or pages), or portion of a page, was clearly labeled 
as a state government-hosted source of democracy-oriented information and services, and 
 
 51 
was clearly accessible from the homepage of that state?s central portal.  Only Michigan, 
Nebraska, and, to a lesser degree of accessibility, Kansas met these criteria. 
As an example, three facets of democratic participation are proposed here which 
could be enhanced by state E-democracy implementation: 1) easy access to primary 
sources of legislative, executive, and financial information; 2) direct communication with 
government officials, and 3) voter?s registration information.  In the static/ information 
stage, states would provide: 
? links to recent laws and legislative history, executive decrees, and/ or 
agency expenditure reports,  
 
? phone and e-mail contact information for state officials and, 
 
? information on how to register to vote.  
 
In the dynamic/ services stage, states would provide: 
? searchable databases for bills and bill trackers divided by legislative 
session , 
 
? means of e-mailing state officials directly from the website at the 
minimum, and hopefully means of a more interactive contact (i.e. chat, 
etc.), 
 
? voting registration forms, downloadable at the minimum, and hopefully 
submittable online. 
 
With these criteria in mind, a closer look as the states will now follow. 
Michigan 
 Michigan is an acknowledged leader in American E-government, ranking 2nd by 
the most recent standards of Darrell West?s State and Federal E-government in the 
United States (West, 2007, p.12), and 1st on the Center for Digital Government?s Digital 
States Survey (CDG, 2006, p. 4).  The state strategic plan is unique in the explicitness and 
degree of expressed hopes for state E-democracy, urging an altogether new sort of ?E-
 
 52 
citizenship? (p. 21).  In short, the state desires to ?include all of our citizens in our 
democratic processes? (p. 4) through the implementation of E-democracy, defined as ?a 
virtual town hall for the exchange of citizen views? (p. 20).  The expressed vision for the 
state?s technology future is: 
A connected Michigan where access is just a click away, where services 
are streamlined and secure, and where citizens have an immediate voice in 
an open and energetic public square. (p. 9) 
 
As such, I expected much sophistication in its interactive communication features?
possibly chat rooms and/ or comment posting areas.   
 From the state?s portal (http://www.michigan.gov), a prominent link for 
?Michigan eCitizens? appears in the top right, and leads one to an independent page, 
noting that ?eCitizen is about expanding participation in government, encouraging 
community involvement, promoting a strong democracy, and improving government 
accountability? (http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,1607,7-192-29701_31713---,00.html).  
That said, the opportunities for communication fall short of the plan?s E-citizen ideal.  
From the eCitizen page a prominent link to ?Government Contacts?  leads to indeed a 
comprehensive list of such, where e-mail addresses can be found, for instance, for all 
state legislators, and will open a default e-mail editor to send a message.  Contact 
information for the Governor is limited to a phone number and physical address, and 
while a host of podcasts, RSS feeds, and weekly e-mail newsletters are available from the 
Governor?s website, utilizing many personalizable methods for information access, such 
technologies are not exactly interactive. 
 Despite this, the amount of information retrievable is impressive.  The ?Measure 
our Progress? link from eCitizen leads to a host of executive budgetary documents and 
 
 53 
agency strategic plans?including one used in this study.  The site demonstrates a state 
commitment to open government by offering links to state and federal Freedom of 
Information Act websites.  Further, links from the eCitizen page will lead to searchable 
bill trackers and online voter?s registration, suggesting dynamism and transactional 
interactivity.  Overall, while communication options could be improved to meet the 
expressed level of functionality, the democracy features of the site are solidly in stage 
two and future improvements could prove a maximization of needed functions for citizen 
oversight in a representative democracy.  Finally, it should be again noted that the state?s 
expressed vision?if not yet matching the full reality of its implementation?is 
commendable given the narrow efficiency focus of most state governments.  This, again, 
shows that policy documents are at least as important in assessing policy orientation as 
the analysis of state websites. 
Nebraska 
 The E-Government Strategic Plan for Nebraska State Government is only one of 
five documents from this study that boasts a sole E-government focus, and has a decided 
slant toward information, rather than service, delivery, citing Pew studies that show user 
preference for such (pp. 5-6).  This is consistent with a state definition of E-government 
that sees IT as a means for, among other things, enhanced ?constituency and client 
participation? (p. 1).  Though the state ranks lower than Michigan on the West and CDG 
rankings?18th and 14th respectively?the state portal (http://www.nebraska.gov) 
similarly features an explicit E-democracy area on its homepage (West, 2007, p.12; CDG, 
2006, p. 4). 
 
 54 
 Overall, the Nebraska ?Digital Democracy? homepage offerings are much like 
Michigan?s eCitizen features, although less comprehensive.  A few RSS feeds are the 
extent of Web 2.0  implementation, no interactivity with officials is enabled?although e-
mails to state elected officials, governor included, can be sent directly through an e-mail 
editor?and the extent of information offered is less.  That said, links to a legislative bill 
tracker and campaign finance filings have been implemented.  Voter?s registration 
information was not made immediately available, and the portal search feature had to be 
utilized to find it.  Further, registration could not be accomplished online.  Given that the 
state strategic plan did not lay out as comprehensive an E-democracy goal as did 
Michigan, a lesser degree of implementation was expected, and the state still goes farther 
than many.  In sum, the state has some work to do before stage two is accomplished. 
Kansas 
 Kansas was an early adopter of E-government, having launched their first web 
portal AccessKansas on January 1, 1996, four years before the arrival of the Federal 
portal USA.gov (Information Network of Kansas, 2001, p. 3).  Such experience shows in 
what is one of the more attractive state portals, one that has seemed to solve the spatial 
organization problems that plague many of them, that approaches the smooth professional 
look of many private-sector websites, and that offers a great deal of customizability. 
Despite this, Kansas is the lowest ranked state by West and the CDG?36th and 19th 
respectively (West, 2007, p. 12; CDG, 2006, p. 4). Like Nebraska, the E-democracy 
features of the Kansas portal (http://www.kansas.gov/government/) are not as plentiful or 
comprehensive as those found on Michigan?s.  Also Like Nebraska, Kansas does not go 
as far in its claims as Michigan. 
 
 55 
 The majority of the Kansas webpage is part of the customizable ?MyKansas? 
initiative, and does not indicate a specific E-democracy section.  However, arriving at the 
site as a non-signed in user, one sees the default MyKansas ?tiles? and thus notices what 
the state wants to emphasize as main features.  The Governor?s tile offers direct links to 
the ?State of the State? address and contact information?including a direct e-mail option 
that does not require an e-mail editor.  Similar tiles for other officials appear as well, 
including the state attorney general, to whom you can lodge a direct complaint online.  A 
further tile for the current legislative session allows you to track a bill right from the 
homepage, and offers links to ?current happenings,? including live audio feeds from 
legislative floor action. 
 A click on the ?Government? tab across the top of the main homepage window 
leads you to a wide array of government links, a great number of which are grouped 
under the heading ?Democracy.?  These include access to websites of important state and 
Federal officials, campaign finance information, lobbyist expenditure reports, the 
secretary of state?s office (where you can download your voter registration forms).  
Though the amount of Executive branch, budgeting, and Freedom of Information links 
found on the Michigan site is much greater, the usability and arrangement of the Kansas 
material is far superior.  
Overall, the two states share a reaching of stage two, having moved far past static 
information presentation and onto innovative, enhanced democracy-oriented services and 
features.  Combining the content and presentation style of both sites will make a strong 
template for other states to follow in the future, while more thought is given to how 
exactly Michigan?s vision of E-citizenship, ?strong democracy,? and collaborative, online 
 
 56 
?public squares? can be implemented in a way that can maximize citizen participation in 
government, while preserving foundational political ideals. 
 
Discussion 
 Uniquely among the documents assessed by this study, the strategic plan of 
Kansas, notes the legitimacy-building aspects of E-democracy as ?digital democracy will 
raise public support for digital government; therefore, Kansas must strive to offer a 
complete selection of services, not just high volume transactions? (p. 18).  As shown, 
research has found that information access is a prime benefit of the Internet in the minds 
of many users, conflicting, it seems, with much of what has become the conceptual 
foundations of E-government.  Concerned with public perceptions of inefficiency and 
waste, governments started implementing E-government to, among other things, increase 
legitimacy, but a truly legitimate E-government will need eventually to address all 
constituent roles, and meet a wider variety of needs than those accomplished in a sheer 
efficiency-oriented program. 
 While the legal and administrative contexts for democratically-oriented online 
information and services may potentially be more complex than those of an efficiency-
context, their independent measurement can be accomplished in similar ways.  This three 
stage model, derived from efficiency-based models, shows that an information-services-
transformation progression, each with increased levels of administrative and 
technological complexity, can account for democracy implementation as well.  Though 
the three states considered here do not indicate any trend towards revolutionary 
democratic practice, they show that the providing of certain kinds of information and 
 
 57 
services?in much the same manner and with the same underlying technologies that drive 
efficiency oriented E-government?can meet a greater number of citizen needs.  
Providing policy documents or allowing easier contact with certain officials may not be 
?high volume? transactions, but neither should they be particularly costly or difficult to 
provide for states that have reached a more sophisticated stage of development. 
 Admittedly, this paper has taken a rather simplistic, binary view of democracy, 
being either ?representative? or ?direct.?  It is worth noting, as have Riley & Riley 
(2003),  
Theories of democracy are as numerous as those thinkers who have 
written about it through the ages.  So too the concept of the citizen and 
exactly who is to be included within the term has changed dramatically 
since articulated in ancient Athens.  There are many conflicting 
interpretations of what constitutes a democracy, the meaning of political 
participation, representation, and scope of citizens? capacity to choose 
freely. (p. 6) 
 
As such, this model is not proposed to be final or definitive.  Certainly, refinements and 
mediating stages should be added to reflect necessary considerations given various 
technological, administrative, and political contexts not addressed by this study.  The 
model is meant, rather, to be a useful starting point for those with a greater expertise in 
the field of democratic theory, and to inspire contributions from the many disciplines E-
democracy touches?Political Science, American History, Constitutional Law, Public 
Policy, Information Science, and Computer Science, to name only some. 
 
 58 
Chapter 7: Conclusion 
This study has sought to test the proposition that state E-government policy can 
be said to exhibit either an evolutionary or revolutionary orientation towards affecting 
desired changes in efficiency, democracy, or both.  This orientational framework has 
proven a useful way to categorize individual state plans through a content-based analysis, 
and to systematically describe holistic trends in state E-government.  
 Terms used to code for policy orientation proved more clear for determining an 
efficiency focus than a democracy focus.  In terms of efficiency, this study has shown 
that state governments are unanimous in desiring efficiency gains, mostly think in terms 
of ?customer? uses and needs (84%), and focus somewhat less on creating conveniences 
(76%) and improving the cost-effectiveness of administration (62%) through E-
government.  Nearly three-quarters of states (74%) mean to accomplish all this through 
unprecedented levels of agency and jurisdictional collaboration, despite expressed 
Constitutional concerns.   
A democracy focus, rather, could be found in only 8 of 37 states assessed (22%). 
Although words like ?citizen? and ?participation? appeared more often, they did not 
usually appear in a specifically democratic context, and states can be said to generally 
equivocate ?customer? and ?citizen? despite discussion in the literature as to their 
separate meanings.  The full measure of democratic assessment in state plans was further 
frustrated by vaguely expressed desires for enhanced political participation, generally 
indicating neither a specific degree of enhancement nor the specific means for 
accomplishment.   
 
 59 
The list of language coded for in this study was developed partly through 
assessment itself, and while terms were verified through a post-hoc closed card sort, 
inter-rater reliability was not established due to the evolutionary and exploratory nature 
of the study.  However, this study represents the first systematic evidence of these 
findings, and the state policy gap in efficiency and democracy shown through this 
analysis remains clear.  While equivalent terms for an efficiency context were noted 
when found and later verified, clearer or more useful terms than those initially postulated 
to denote a democracy context simply were not there to be discovered. 
 Though none of the plans failed to express an orientation outlined by this 
framework, it should be noted that the categories of efficiency and democracy were 
narrowly drawn and may have excluded other possible orientations this study did not 
focus on.  For one, there may be crossover in these categories.  Is online voter 
registration, for instance, purely a democracy-oriented service?  While it promotes 
political participation it also potentially streamlines a bureaucratic process.  This study 
fills a research gap in determining holistic, policy-based trends, and acts as a baseline 
upon which greater complexity and sophistication in categories of orientation can be 
built.   
A recent E-government feature story in the Economist claimed that the ?most 
conspicuous feature? of E-government thus far ?has been a colossal waste of taxpayer?s 
money on big computer systems, poorly thought out and overpriced? (Economist, 2008, 
p. 8).  E-government has not proven the magic solution hoped for early on, solving issues 
of rising budgets and falling legitimacy in one fell swoop.  Bertot & Jaeger (2008) point 
out what they call an emerging ?E-government paradox:? namely that for E-government 
 
 60 
to achieve a cost-savings it must be used by citizens, for it to be used by citizens it must 
address citizen needs, and to address citizen needs governments must begin investing in 
costly needs assessments and usability studies.  In short, ?better customer service doesn?t 
necessary cost less? (pp. 1-5).  An efficiency approach, driven purely by cost-savings, 
may simply not prove viable.  As citizen needs become more of a known factor in state 
E-government implementation, the strict lines dividing categories such as efficiency and 
democracy may fade away.  Further, as E-government expands and matures, some 
important G2C E-government features may fall outside the parameters of efficiency and 
democracy. 
Many of these plans provide foundational data for a deeper, state-by-state look at 
the American E-government whole.  While the strategic plans are a good starting point 
for holistic research, their authors may not be the most qualified or relevant state officials 
to determine or drive E-democracy implementation.  More importantly, a clearer holistic 
assessment of state E-government will be determined by analyzing policy in tandem with 
implementation, and locating the point to which each state has developed individually.  
Considerations of what E-democracy is and of how we might measure it are important as 
this new stage of E-government emerges.  Particularly, deeper considerations of the 
Constitutional, legal, and societal impacts of the potentially transformative nature of E-
government are needed.  Change, however alluring, should not automatically be 
considered progress. 
 That said, we should beware thinking too conservatively about E-government and 
E-democracy.  As Marc Strassman, president of Citizens United for Excellence in E-
Government, testified before a Senate committee in 2002: 
 
 61 
So on top of all the discussions you?ve had already about ?stovepiping,? 
interagency cooperation and where to put the Federal CIO, there is also a 
more profound, even moral choice before you in the form of this bill. The 
essence of that choice is whether the Federal Government will embrace 
the Internet as a powerful tool to facilitate its work or merely relegate it to 
some peripheral role that fails to take full advantage of all it has to offer 
and then watch as its capabilities and energy are squandered on tasks 
much less worthwhile to the American people than upgrading the quality 
of their historical and unprecedented experiment in self-government. 
(S.hrg 107-148, pg. 257) 
 
E-government and the Internet are tools that will be what we make of them.  While they 
could provide us with easy access to tax forms, they could also help to affect an increase 
in the nation?s ability to foster an informed electorate and a healthy democracy.  Possibly, 
they could even do both. 
 
 62 
APPENDIX A: 
List of State E-government Strategic Planning Documents and Links 
 
 
1. Alabama: Electronic Government- Framework and Strategy (2002) 
http://www.alabama.gov/PDFs/egov_pdfs/e-govFrameworkandStrategy.pdf 
 
2. Arizona: Statewide Strategic IT Plan (FY 2008) 
http://azgita.gov/planning_inventory/FY2008/2007StrategicPlanSIGNED.pdf 
 
3. Arkansas: State of Arkansas Strategic Information Technology Plan (2006) 
http://www.arkansas.gov/dfa/igs/documents/state_it_plan.pdf 
 
4. California: California State Information Technology Strategic Plan (2006) 
http://www.cio.ca.gov/pubs/pdf/2006StrategicPlanFinal.pdf 
 
5. Colorado: Information Technology Strategic Plan (2007) 
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1165692953863&pagename=OIT
-New%2FOITXLayout  
 
6. Delaware: Strategic Plan for e-Government (2002) 
http://dti.delaware.gov/pdfs/strategicplan/Delaware_Statewide_IT_Strategic_Plan_20
07.pdf 
 
7. Georgia: State of Georgia Information Technology Strategic Plan (2007-2010) 
http://gta.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_11783501/85077228Georgia%20IT%20
Strategic%20Plan,%202007%20to%202010.pdf 
 
8. Idaho: State of Idaho Information Technology Strategic Plan (2004) 
http://www2.state.id.us/itrmc/plan&policies/idahoitplan.pdf 
 
9. Indiana: State of Indiana 2007 Information Technology Strategic Plan (2007) 
http://www.in.gov/iot/files/2007_State_of_Indiana_IT_Strategic_Plan.pdf  
 
10. Iowa: Iowa Department of Administrative Services Annual Report  
     (FY 2004-2006) 
http://www.das.iowa.gov/images/pdf/DAS_AnnualReport_FY04_FY06.pdf 
 
11. Kansas: State of Kansas Strategic Information Management Plan (2003) 
http://www.da.ks.gov/itec/Documents/SIMPLAN_2003doc.pdf 
 
12. Kentucky: Transforming Government Services With Technology- 
Commonwealth of Kentucky Strategic Plan for IT (2006-2008) 
https://gotsource.ky.gov/dsweb/Get/Document-
92334/Enterprise+Strategic+Plan+for+IT+2006-2008.pdf 
 
 
 63 
 
13. Louisiana: The State IT Master Plan (2008) 
http://doa.louisiana.gov/oit/docs/pdf/IT%20Master%20Plan_11052007.pdf  
 
 
14. Maryland: State of Maryland Information Technology Master Plan (FY 2009) 
http://dbm.maryland.gov/dbm_publishing/public_content/dbm_search/technology/pol
icyplanning/fy2009stateitmp.pdf 
 
15. Massachusetts: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Enterprise IT Strategy (2003) 
http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/final_report.pdf  
 
16. Michigan: Connections to the Future- A Vision of Action: Michigan?s 
Information Technology Strategic Plan 
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Strategic_Plan_-_Web_149279_7.pdf 
 
17. Minnesota: The State of Minnesota?s Drive to Excellence Transformation 
Roadmap (2005) 
http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/Excellence/Transformation_Roadmap_0328
05013545_Roadmapfullversion.pdf 
 
18. Mississippi: The 2007-2009 State of Mississippi Strategic Master Plan for 
Information Technology (2007-2009) 
http://www.its.state.ms.us/its/itsweb.nsf/872C554D294E67B48625727C0051201C/$
File/2007+-+2009+MasterPlan.pdf  
 
19. Missouri: Information Technology Strategic Plan (2002) 
http://www.oa.mo.gov/itsd/cio/archive/StrategicPlan2002.pdf  
 
20. Montana: State of Montana Strategic Plan for Information Technology  
     (2006-2007) 
http://itsd.mt.gov/stratplan/strategic_plan_v3_31_04_v1.pdf  
 
21. Nebraska: E-Government Strategic Plan for Nebraska State Government (2003) 
http://www.nitc.state.ne.us/sgc/documents/egovstrategy_20030313.pdf 
 
22. Nevada: Managing Information Technology: Nevada?s Department of 
Information Technology Strategic Plan (2005) 
http://doit.nv.gov/strategic_plan/2005/StrategicPlan_Jan2005.pdf  
 
23. New Hampshire: Information Technology Plan- Foundation for Transformation 
(2005-2009) 
http://www.nh.gov/oit/internet/documents/ITstrategicplanfinal.pdf  
 
24. New Mexico: New Mexico IT Strategic Plan- Strategies and Objectives  
      (FY 2003) 
 
 64 
http://cio.state.nm.us/content/cioPlans/CIO_Strat_Plan_Rev_ITC2003.pdf  
 
25. New York: New York State Information Technology Strategic Plan (2003) 
http://www.oft.state.ny.us/arcPolicy/policy/NYSInformationTechnologyStrategicPlan
.pdf  
 
26. North Carolina: North Carolina State Information Technology Plan- An Action 
Plan for Improved Citizen Services Through the Better Management of 
Information Technology (2007) 
http://www.scio.nc.gov/Statewide_IT_Plan/Statewide_IT_Plan.pdf  
 
27. North Dakota: North Dakota Statewide Information Technology Plan  
      (2007-2009) 
http://www.state.nd.us/ep/state/doc/2007/itd-2007-itPlan.pdf 
 
28. Oregon: Government Excellence- Enterprise Information Resources Management 
Strategy (2007) 
http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/docs/pdf/EIRMS_22_FINAL_20070626_V1.pdf  
 
29. Pennsylvania: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?s Keystone Plan:  
      The Evolution of Citizen Centric Government Services (2006-2009) 
http://www.oit.state.pa.us/oaoit/cwp/view.asp?Q=185825&A=182  
 
30. South Carolina: State of South Carolina Information Technology Strategic Plan 
(2005) 
http://www.cio.sc.gov/ITPlanning/StateStrategicPlan.pdf  
 
31. Tennessee: Tennessee Anytime- eGovernment Services 2003 Report (2003) 
http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/tnanytime/news/2003_annual_report.pdf  
 
32. Texas: Shared Success- Building a Better Texas through Shared Responsibilities: 
2005 State Strategic Plan for Information Resources Management (2005) 
http://www.dir.state.tx.us/pubs/ssp2005/ssp2005.pdf  
 
33. Utah: State of Utah e-Government Strategic Plan Summary (FY 2007-FY 2009) 
http://dts.utah.gov/main/egovernment/docs/index.html  
 
34. Vermont: State of Vermont Information Technology Strategic Plan: Charting the 
Course Toward Vermont State Government?s Information Technology Future  
      (FY 2007-2011) 
http://cio.vermont.gov/var/cio/storage/original/application/d02f43e32e67c30e8ff3a75
97b08c6fc.pdf  
 
35. Virginia: Commonwealth of Virginia Strategic Plan for Information Technology 
(2007-2011) 
 
 65 
http://www.vita.virginia.gov/uploadedFiles/Library/COVStrategicPlanInformationTe
chnology07.pdf  
 
36. Washington: Department of Information Services 2007-2009 Strategic Plan 
(2007-2009) 
http://www.dis.wa.gov/news/publications/07-09strategicplan.pdf  
 
37. Wisconsin: Enterprise IT Plan (2004) 
http://enterprise.state.wi.us/home/StratPlan/enterpriseITplan.pdf 
 
 66 
APPENDIX B: 
Coded Terms Indicating Inter-/ Intra-Governmental Collaboration 
 
cooperate/ collaborate with federal and local agencies 
cooperate/ collaborate with other entities, including the Federal government 
cooperate/ collaborate with other state agencies to reduce effort 
 
cooperation/ collaboration across agencies 
cooperation/ collaboration across boundaries 
cooperation/ collaboration across government boundaries 
cooperation/ collaboration across governmental agencies 
cooperation/ collaboration across state agencies 
cooperation/ collaboration across state government 
cooperation/ collaboration across state IT infrastructure 
cooperation/ collaboration among state agencies 
cooperation/ collaboration among state and local government agencies 
cooperation/ collaboration amongst all branches and levels of government  
cooperation/ collaboration between agencies 
cooperation/ collaboration between agencies and local governments 
cooperation/ collaboration between government agencies at all levels 
cooperation/ collaboration between political entities 
cooperation/ collaboration is critical to achieving the goals of E-government 
cooperation/ collaboration is needed to better serve the citizens 
 
cooperative/ collaborative approach to E-government 
cooperative/ collaborative approach to providing government services 
cooperative/ collaborative efforts by federal, state, and local agencies 
 
cross-agency cooperation/ collaboration 
cross-departmental cooperation/ collaboration 
cross-organizational cooperation/ collaboration 
 
increase efficiency and effectiveness of government through cooperation/ collaboration 
 
interagency cooperation/ collaboration 
interdepartmental cooperation/ collaboration 
intergovernmental cooperation/ collaboration 
 
multistate cooperation/ collaboration 
need to promote cooperation/ collaboration 
promote cooperative/ collaborative efforts 
state agencies will work together 
transforming services through cooperation/ collaboration 
 
 
 67 
WORKS CITED 
 
Bryson, J.M. (2004). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. San  
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  
 
Center for Digital Government. (2003). Citizen 2010: Leading through results, governing  
through technology. Available at: 
http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/center/media/Citizen2010_REPORT.pdf.  Accessed 
on April 20, 2008 
 
Center for Digital Government. (2006). Digital States Survey.  Available at:  
      http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/surveys.php?survey=states. Accessed on April  
      20, 2008. 
 
Clinton, B. (1993). Executive Order 12862.  Available at:  
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/direct/orders/2222.html. Accessed on April 
20, 2008. 
 
Clinton, B. (1996). State of the union address. Delivered January 23, 1996. Available at: 
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/New/other/sotu.html. Accessed April 20, 2008. 
 
Clinton, B. Memorandum dated December 17, 1999. Available at: 
      http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/12-1999/wh-1217.html.  Accessed April 20, 2008. 
 
Council for Excellence in Government. (2000). E-government: The next American  
revolution.  Available at: http://netcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/Bluecove.pdf.  
Accessed on April 20, 2008. 
 
Bertot, J. C., & Jaeger, P. T. (2008). The e-government paradox: Better customer service 
doesn?t necessarily cost less. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 149-154. 
 
E-Government Act of 2002, P.L. 107-347. Available at: 
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&
docid=f:publ347.107.pdf.  Accessed on April 20, 2008. 
 
Economist, The. (2008). ?The electronic bureaucrat: A special report on technology and 
government.?  February 16, 2008, pg. 8. 
 
Eschenfelder, K.R. & Miller, C.A. (2007). Examining the role of Web site information in 
facilitating different citizen-government relationships: A case study of state Chronic 
Wasting Disease Web sites. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 64-88. 
 
Evans, D., & Yen, D.C. (2005). E-government: An analysis for implementation: A 
framework for understanding cultural and social impact. Government Information 
Quarterly, 23 (3), 354-373. 
 
 
 68 
Evans, D., & Yen, D.C. (2006). E-government: Evolving relationship of citizens and 
government, domestic, and international development, Government Information 
Quarterly, 23 (3), 207-235. 
 
Ferber, P. , Foltz, F. and Pugliese, R. (2004, Sep) "Cyberdemocracy v. Egovernment: The 
Degree of Interactivity on State Legislature Websites" Paper presented at the annual 
meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hilton Chicago and the 
Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL  Available at: 
http://java.cs.vt.edu/public/projects/digitalgov/papers/Ferber.Cyberdemocracy.pdf.  
Accessed on April 20, 2008. 
 
Ferdinand, P., ed. (2000). The Internet, democracy, and democratization. London: Frank 
Cass. 
 
Fountain, J.E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional 
change. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 
 
Gore, A. (1993).  Reengineering through information technology: Accompanying report 
of the National Performance Review.  Available at: 
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/reports/it.html. Accessed on April 20, 2008. 
 
Gore, A. (1994).  Creating a government that works better and costs less: Status report, 
September 1994.  Available at: 
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/nprrpt/annrpt/wrkcst94/create.html.  
 Accessed April 20, 2008. 
 
Gore, A. (1997). Access America: Reengineering through information policy. 
Available at: http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS26397. Accessed April 20, 2008. 
 
Gore, A. (1997) Businesslike government: Lessons learned from America?s best  
companies. Available at: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/nprrpt/annrpt/vp-
rpt97/bg.html. Accessed April 20, 2008. 
 
Heeks, R., ed. (1999). Reinventing government in the information age: International 
practice in IT-enabled public sector reform. London: Routledge. 
 
Jaeger, P.T. (2002). Constitutional principles and E-government: An opinion about 
possible effects of Federalism and the separation of powers on E-government 
policies. Government Information Quarterly, 19, 357-368. 
 
Jaeger, P.T. (2005). Deliberative democracy and the conceptual foundations of electronic 
government. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 702-719. 
 
Jaeger, P. T. (2007). Information policy, information access, and democratic 
participation: The national and international implications of the Bush administration?s 
information politics. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 840-859. 
 
 69 
Kamarck, E.C. & Nye, Jr., J.S., eds. (2002). Governance.com: Democracy in the 
information age. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 
 
King, S. (2007). Citizens as customers: Exploring the future of CRM in UK local 
government. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 47-63. 
 
Kinicki, A.J., Heyl, J.E., Callarman, T.E. (1986). Assessing the validity of the Cox, 
Zmud, and Clark material-requirements-planning audit instrument. Academy of 
Management Journal, 29(3), 633-641. 
 
Kramnick, I., ed. (1987). The Federalist Papers/ James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, 
and John Jay. New York: Penguin. 
 
Larsen, E. and Rainie, L. (2002). The rise of the e-citizen: How people use government 
agencies? web sites. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & the American Life Project. 
 
Layne, K & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four state 
model. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 122-136. 
 
Mintzberg, H. (1996). Managing government, governing management. Harvard Business 
Review, 74 (3), 75-83. 
 
National Research Council. Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. (2002) 
Information technology, research, innovation, and E-government. Washington, D.C.: 
National Academy Press. 
 
NIC. (2007). The paradigm shift: In the information age eGovernment is helping the  
public sector redefine itself.  Available at: 
http://www.nicusa.com/pdf/EGOV_Paradigm_Shift-Jul07.pdf. Accessed on April 20, 
2008. 
 
Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial 
spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Addison-Wesley. 
 
Relyea, H.C. (2002). E-gov: Introduction and overview. Government Information 
Quarterly, 19, 9-35. 
 
Relyea, H.C. (2003). Executive branch reorganization and management initiatives. 
Congressional Research Service report #IB93026.  Available at; 
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-2726:1. Accessed on 
April 20, 2008. 
 
Riley, T.B. & Riley, C.G. (2003). E-governance to E-democracy: Examining the 
evolution. Commonwealth Centre for E-Governance. Available at: 
http://www.electronicgov.net/pubs/research_papers/tracking03/IntlTrackRptJune03no
5.pdf.  Accessed on April 20, 2008. 
 
 70 
Ronaghan, S.A. (2002). Benchmarking E-government: A global perspective. Available 
at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN021547.pdf.  
 Accessed April 20, 2008. 
 
Santos, G.J. (2006). Card sort technique as a qualitative substitue for quantitative 
exploratory factor analysis. Corporate Communications : An International Journal, 
11 (3), 288-302. 
 
Schedler, K., & Felix, J. (2000). Quality in public management: the customer perspective  
International Public Management Journal, 1(3), 125?143. 
 
Schedler, K., Schmidt, B. & Summermatter, L. (2004). Managing the electronic 
government: From vision to practice. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing. 
 
Schedler, K. & Summermatter, L. (2007). Customer orientation in electronic government:  
 Motives and effects. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 291-311. 
 
Seifert, J.W. (2002) A primer of E-government: Sectors, stages, opportunities, and  
challenges of online governance. Congressional Research Service report # RL31057. 
Available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31057.pdf. Accessed on April 20, 2008. 
 
Seifert, J.W. & McLoughlin, G.J. (2007). State E-government strategies: Identifying best  
 practices and applications. Congressional Research Service report # RL34104. 
Available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL34104.pdf. Accessed on April 20, 
2008. 
 
Smith, C.P. (2000) Content analysis and narrative analysis.  In Reis, H.T., and Judd, C.M. 
Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology.  Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press, pp. 313-335. 
 
United States Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. 
(2002) The President?s Management Agenda. Available at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf. Accessed on April 20, 
2008. 
 
United States Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. 
(2003) Implementing the President?s Management Agenda for E-Government. 
Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/2003egov_strat.pdf. Accessed on 
April 20, 2008. 
 
United States Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. 
(2006) Expanding E-Government: Making a Difference for the American People 
Using Information Technology.  Available at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/documents/expanding_egov_2006.pdf.  
 Accessed April 20, 2008. 
 
 71 
United States Government Accountability Office. (2004). Electronic Government: 
Federal Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing the E-Government Act of 2002 
(Publication number GAO-05-12). Available at: 
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0512.pdf.  Accessed April 20, 2008. 
 
United States House of Representatives. (2000). Firstgov.gov: Is it a Good Idea?: 
Hearing before the subcommittee on government, management, information and 
technology of the Committee on Government Reform. (Publication number H.hrg 106-
261). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
 
United States Senate. (2001). S. 803?E-government act of 2001: Hearing before the 
committee on governmental affairs (Publication number S.hrg 107-148). Washington, 
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
 
West, D.M. (2005). Digital government: Technology and public sector performance. 
Princeton: Princeton University Press. 
 
West, D.M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen 
attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15-27. 
 
West, D.M. (2007). State and Federal E-government in the United States. Available at: 
http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt07us.pdf. Accessed on April 20, 2008. 
 
Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and 
ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 646-665.