Digital Government Maturity as a Technologically New
E-Government Maturity Model: Experience of Kazakhstan
Gul Jussupova Baurzhan Bokayev
Academy of Public Administration Academy of Public Administration
under the President under the President
of the Republic of Kazakhstan of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan, Astana, Kazakhstan Kazakhstan, Astana, Kazakhstan
33 Abay str., 010000 33 Abay str.,010000
+77017106365, +77756080680,
g.jussupova@apa.kz b.bokayev@apa.kz
ABSTRACT
This article discusses recent e-Government maturity models,
presents the principles and levels of development of Digital
Government, and conducts a comparative analysis of the concepts
of Digital and e-Government. This article will also present the e-
Government maturity models of Kazakhstan using the Gartner
model, as well as problems and prospects for the development of
digitalization of Public administration in the social sphere of
Kazakhstan. The purpose of the article is to identify differences in
the concepts of e-Government and Digital government, to present
the latest Digital government maturity model and the possibility
of its application in practice to assess Digital government maturity
of Kazakhstan.
CCS Concepts
• Social and professional topics ➝ Computing / Technology
policy
Keywords
Public administration, e-Government, Digital Government, e-
Government Maturity model
1. INTRODUCTION
Developed and developing countries have advanced far in socio-
economic terms, paying great attention to the introduction of
digital technologies in most areas of human activity, including in
public administration. e-Government mechanisms are
implemented in many countries and are at different levels of their
maturity. Modern researchers in the field of digitalization of
public administration in 2014 summarized over 25 e-Government
maturity models. Maturity is understood as the level of
implementation of e-Government, which is assessed according to
indicators, principles, and characteristics developed in each model
[5].
In Kazakhstan, e-Government has been implemented, and since
2004, two State programs for the creation of Digital Kazakhstan
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for
components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored.
Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to
post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org.
ICEEG 2019, June 18–21, 2019, Lyon, France
© 2019 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6237-5/19/06…$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3340017.3340021
10
Dauletbay Zhussip
New Economic University
named after T.Ryskulov
Kazakhstan, Almaty, Kazakhstan
55 Zhandossova str., 050035
+77017272066,
daulet@smarttec.kz
have been adopted. There were periods of active implementation
of e-Government, but there were also periods of stagnation of
public sector digitalization.
This article analyzes the e-Government and Digital Government
maturity models and provides a literary review of the terminology
of e-Government and Digital Government as well as their
distinctive properties. In addition, a retrospective analysis of the
implementation levels of the e-Government of Kazakhstan, taking
into account the positive and negative aspects of the digitalization
of public administration, is presented. The problems of
implementation of e-Government in Kazakhstan, such as weak
horizontal and vertical integration of government databases, the
presence of unreliable data, and the lack of a systematic approach
to automating and optimizing business processes of social systems,
are also considered. In addition, problems and prospects for the
development of Digital Government as a tool for ensuring
transparency, accessibility of social services, as well as building
systems for planning and forecasting public administration in the
social sphere of Kazakhstan using the technologies of big data
analysis are laid out.
In the second part, several common e-Government maturity
models are considered and the recent developed Digital
government maturity model by the Gartner Group is described,
which was used to assess Digital government maturity of
Kazakhstan. The third part presents a comparative analysis of the
concepts of e-Government and Digital government, and an
analytical review of these concepts by various authors was
conducted. The fourth part presents a chronological analysis of the
implementation of e-Government in Kazakhstan, its positive and
negative aspects. The conclusion presents the main
recommendations for more effective implementation of the
Digital government, taking into account the experience of
Kazakhstan. In addition, open questions are voiced for further
research.
2. REVIEW OF E-GOVERNMENT
MATURITY MODELS
Since 2000, researchers have been working on the issue of
determining the level of implementation of e-Government. One of
the first models in this respect was introduced by Gartner Group
in 2000 [2]. In 2014, researchers in Morocco and Canada
summarized all of the models by conducting a comparative
analysis of 25 e-Government maturity models [5]. At the same
time, according to the group of researchers Agron Chaushi, Blerta
Abazi Chaushi, Florije Ismaili, the higher models can be grouped
by similar signs and characteristics and identify the main five e-
Government maturity models [3].
After conducting analytical studies of e-Government maturity
models, several models can be distinguished, which forms the
basis of the methodology for assessing the digitization of public
administration in most countries. One of the first e-Government
maturity model is Layne & Lee’s (2001), which includes the four
stages and the final stage of e-Government development is the
vertical and horizontal integration of databases and information
systems [7], [8]. In their article, Danish researchers Kim Viborg
Andersen and Helle Zinner Henriksen present their theory of the
extension of Layne and Lee’s Maturity Model, the proposed
Public Sector Process Rebuilding (PPR) maturity model [1].
Exponentially developing digital technologies have complicated
the integration processes, and horizontal and vertical integration
have already been insufficient characteristics describing the final Figure 1. Digital Government Maturity Model
stages of the development of e-Government. New features, (Source – Gartner (2017), Digital Government,
principles and technologies of integration, big data analysis, What it means and how to succeed for society)
information interaction of information ecosystems, and According to this model, the stage of development of the digital
components of e-Government have appeared. government is divided into 5 levels:
According to the results of the research, the European 1. Initial (Initial, e-Government). Information portals for online
Commission, the consulting company International Data public services, information, information, etc. in an electronic
Corporation (IDC), Sogeti, and the Milan Research Institute format;
Politecnico di Milano developed their principles and indicators for
e-Government maturity. This model is based on the 2. Developing (Developing, Open Government). This level does
implementation of four basic principles, such as user centricity, not necessarily follow the first, as it can be implemented in
transparency, cross border mobility and key enablers (Table 1). parallel. Open Government provides more opportunities and
Each principle includes indicators for assessing the maturity of e- preferences for users of e-Government to work with information
Government, according to the methodology developed by an services. In addition, an Open Government contributes to an
expert group for conducting a desk review and assessing the increase in the transparency of public administration, attracting
maturity of e-Government [4]. the attention and trust of citizens.
Table 1. Indicators of e-Government maturity model (Sourse 3. Defined (Defined, Data-centric). At this level, the focus is on
– eGovernment Benchmark 2017 of European Commission) the needs of citizens. Due to the use of analytical systems, users
should be predetermined by a list of information services with
USER Online Online Usability of
which he or she may be interested, which may be useful to him or
CENTRICITY availability availability services-
her, etc.
INDICATORS of basic of extended support &
services services feedback 4. Managed (Managed, Fully Digital). The main goal of this level
TRANSPARENC Transparenc Transparenc Transparency is to improve public administration through making the most
Y INDICATORS y of service y of of public effective use of huge information resources for making high-
delivery personal administratio quality and timely management decisions. Using the principles of
data ns open data, it provides an opportunity for easy integration to
CROSS- Online Usability of Cross-border improve services not only to the government but also to other
BORDER availability services- eID and organizations. At the same time, there are risks of dissatisfaction
INDICATORS of services support & eDocuments of users regarding the use of their information, but the issue of
feedback protection and confidentiality of personal data must be addressed.
KEY eID, Single Sign online At this stage, new big data analysis technologies should be used.
ENABLERS eDocuments On availability,
5. Optimized (Smart). At this level, digital innovations are used
INDICATORS eSafe
huge databases and open data to build deeper analytical systems.
The government should not only monitor, but form forecasts,
EU countries use a common methodology for assessing the
proposals for the development of individual areas, build a sound
maturity of e-government using a system of composite and
system of strategic planning and forecasting (“[Gartner,
synthetic indicators to determine the level of development of
Introducing the Gartner Digital Government Maturity Model
public sector digitalization. This allows one to see the progress of
2.0.]”).
the development of electronic services, increase the efficiency of
public services in electronic format, and assess the effectiveness This model is relevant for assessing the current state of
of the use of funds for the development of e-Government of EU e-Government, as it also allows one to assess the complexity of
countries. integration not only vertically and horizontally, but the depth of
information interaction and the stage of big data analysis, building
The last decade was marked by the revolutionary development of
analytical systems for generating predictive solutions and
innovative technologies and approaches, such as Big Data
generating automatic operational responses to incoming user
analysis, robotization, artificial intelligence, the Internet of things.
requests e-Government. Gartner experts believe that with the
New e-Government maturity models are emerging. In 2017,
implementation of new technological solutions, the term e-
Andrea Di Maio and Neville Cannon presented a vision Digital
Government does not meet the general trends of digitalization,
government maturity model (Figure 1).

11
complex search engines, processing and presentation of
information, the development of social networks, and others, and
therefore it is necessary to evaluate the maturity of the digital
government, and not only in the electronic sense. In his digital
government maturity model, Andrea Di Maio does not use the
term e-Government but instead digital government.
3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
DEFINITION OF E-GOVERNMENT AND
DIGITAL GOVERNMENT
To conduct a comparative analysis, researchers and public
associations developed a set of performance indicators and
indicators that were presented in e-Government maturity models.
At the same time, there are difficulties in e-Government maturity
models, since in some models, the term e-Government is used, in
others digital, mobile, and smart government, as many experts use
various indicators and the semantic content of these terms [6], [9].
The e-Government is considered the government, which, through
the use of web applications, provides access, information and
services to different target groups of users [7]. Russian researchers
distinguish a narrow and broad approach in defining e-
Government. The first approach is e-government as an activity of
the government through information and communication
technologies (ICT) by the government and the public. A broad
view of e-Government is in the information interaction of the
government, citizens, and businesses using digital technologies,
the internet at a more qualitatively new level, ensuring public
participation in processes of public administration.
The terminology in this area is constantly reviewed by experts and
researchers in the field of public sector digitalization and is very
controversial. According to researcher Michael E. Milakovich, e-
Government can be divided into several categories, where the
final level is digital governance, which provides for deeper
electronic participation of the population and extensive use of the
internet and of social networks [10]. According to the American
researcher Darell M. West, e-Government used traditional means
of access to information based on personal visits, phone calls, and
mail deliveries. Digital government uses all sorts of means of
access and collection of information (contextual search, social
networks, interests and other means of access to information) [15].
OECD experts in the developed Recommendations for the Digital
government strategy define Digital government as the government
using digital technologies to create a single integrated space,
implement the single sign on concept, and, most importantly,
create public value. e-Government is a tool to improve the
functioning of the government through the use of ICT [11], [12].
Summarizing the above, with the development of digital
technologies, new forms of representation, storage and processing
of information using complex search engines, information
aggregation, and the formation of an integrated space, we can
conclude that the next stage of e-Government is digital
government. e-Government, with its traditional approach of
transactional portals and simple principles for identifying users
becomes defunct. Digital government is an advanced model of e-
Government, which uses new digital technology solutions for
collecting, processing, storing, and transmitting information.
Subsequently, as a result of the functioning of information
systems, database management systems, integration of
information resources and databases of the Digital government, a
huge pool of structured information is formed, the processing and
analysis of which allows for the building of complex analytical
12
forecasting systems. The use of new technologies for analyzing
big data will allow one to plan, prevent, and make timely
informed political decisions. In the case that huge databases are
used in analytical systems in the process of making managerial
decisions, to conduct preventive measures, and to form forward-
looking studies, this kind of digital government can be called
proactive. This is one of the ultimate goals of public sector
digitalization.
4. IMPLEMENTATION OF E-
GOVERNMENT IN KAZAKHSTAN
e-Government in Kazakhstan began to be introduced since 2004,
when the head of state made regulatory decisions on the
development of the e-Government portal. Evaluating the
implementation of the e-Government of Kazakhstan, we can say
that we are at the third level of the digital government maturity
model, according to the Gartner model. We will analyze the
implementation of the previous stages and the negative and
positive aspects of the implementation of e-Government to the
present.
As a result of the completion of the first stage (2004-2010), the
e-Government portal was created, electronic document
management system was introduced in central government
agencies, and the registration databases of individuals and legal
entities were digitized.
Kazakhstan initially began implementing e-Government with
automating business processes of central authorities, digitizing
registration databases, through implementing the principles of
“top-down” automation, which had some success, but did not
bring any actual optimization of end user business processes.
Information collection continued to be carried out manually,
which caused collisions and inconsistency of data. That is, there
were no information systems that would allow the automation of
input of primary data, to ensure a single input of information. This
stage was carried out slowly due to various reasons (lack of
formalization of business processes, weak ICT literacy, poor
infrastructure, and lack of funding).
The second stage of the development of e-Government (2011-
2016) was difficult, as there was a need to create state information
systems, formalize business processes, conduct analytical and
consulting research, allocate funds for their development,
certification, solving problems of ensuring information security,
protecting personal data, the creation of a unique system of
identification of citizens, electronic digital signature, and so on.
These processes were implemented in central government
agencies and financial structures, but there was the problem of
implementation at the local level, where direct data collection
took place. In fact, information was collected on paper, social
services independently collected information without regard to
migration, and the problems of data unreliability remained. In
addition, this stage was complicated by several processes of
restructuring the government and the consequences of the
financial crisis.
The result of the second stage was the creation of an open and
mobile government, the automation of business processes of
financial structures, government procurement and tax services.
Most state registration services, such as issuing certificates,
registering financial transactions and tax accruals, were
transferred to electronic format. Automation of the social sphere
was postponed, but separate projects on informatization of
education and health were initiated. They had a pilot character,
were implemented in several regions, and there was no systematic
vision of the integration of information systems. The main task of
e-Government was to create an information society and automate
public services. The problem of the provision of state services in
an electronic format remained the lack of information systems
directly from social service users, which caused difficulties in
providing most of the services in electronic format for the
population.
The third stage of the implementation of e-Government (2017
onward) is associated with the need for deep automation of all
spheres of vital activity of the population (social sphere) and
economic processes as well. There is a need to create and
integrate information systems for education, health, culture,
housing and utilities, the industrial sector, the transport industry,
and infrastructure development. In 2017, the State Program
“Digital Kazakhstan” was launched, the goal of which is to
improve the quality of life of the population and increase the rate
of economic growth through the introduction of digital
technologies.
The negative aspects of the implementation of e-Government in
Kazakhstan are the automation of central authority business
process and not directly the business processes of users who
actually carry out the input of primary information, the collection
and processing of this information. In fact, digitalization was
carried out “top-down”, as there was no reduction and
optimization of business processes, so the problem of citizen
involvement remained.
At this stage, special attention is paid to the digital transformation
of society, the creation of a digital industry, infrastructure, and the
development of the social sphere. In fact, only at this stage begins
the process of deep digitalization of the education system, health
care, and other areas of the social sphere and the implementation
of the principle “bottom-up” automation. Due to the presence of
disparate databases and the lack of integration of information
systems, there is a problem of inconsistency of information in
government databases.
Since 2012, the activity of using e-government services has
increased, the population has received many advantages in
obtaining public services in electronic format, such as reducing
the time, the number of documents and the quality of public
services provided [13]. According to official data, 67.3 percent of
state services were automated, the terms for providing these
services were reduced by 40 percent. The problem of developing
digital infrastructure in rural areas is solved through the
implementation of joint projects of internet providers and
government. At present, the level of coverage of households in
broadband internet access is 79 percent, 1530 settlements of small
settlements with a population coverage of over 13.4 million
people are connected, which in general is about 72.8 percent. In
general, the implementation of e-Government has ensured the
transparency of state administration, the availability of state
functions, the openness of the government’s work, the reduction
of corruption violations, and the increase in public confidence in
the government [14].
5. CONCLUSION
The revolutionary development of digital technologies has
changed the overall view of the quality of human life and has
changed the priorities of socio-economic development.
Approaches and technologies of digitalization of public
administration are reviewed annually, and new challenges for the
development and use of new technologies are set. In June 2018, at
13
the Astana Economic Forum, experts from South Korea presented
the concept of Intelligent government (I-Government), which
opens new frontiers for the development of Digital government
and the implementation of digital transformation of the economy
of world powers.
Based on the results of the implementation of the Digital
government in Kazakhstan, it is possible to draw conclusions that
it is necessary to use the “bottom-up” automation principle, to
reengineer (optimize) and automate business-processes directly
from end users, to ensure a single input of information to
eliminate duplication and collisions, maximum integration of
information systems and databases and build analytical systems
using Big Data technology.
In conclusion, we would like to note that with the development of
technologies, the e-Government maturity models require research
and updating. The introduction of new concepts like Digital,
Smart, Intelligent and Agile government causes different
interpretations and requires scientific substantiation and research.
The use Digital government maturity models in practice does not
always unambiguously determine the stage of development of
digitalization of public administration, since these parameters and
indicators are not always accurate.
This opens up new directions of scientific and analytical research,
revision of criteria, characteristics, principles, and approaches in
the implementation and Digital Government maturity.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Andersen, K. V., and Henriksen, H. Z. 2006. E-government
maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model,
Government Information Quarterly 23 (2006) 236–248.
[2] Baum, C., and Di Maio, A. 2000. Gartner’s four phases of e-
government model. Gartner Group.
https://www.gartner.com/doc/317292/gartners-phases-
egovernment-model
[3] Chaushi, A., Chaushi, B., and Ismaili, F. 2015. Measuring e-
Government Maturity: A meta-synthesis approach. SEEU
Review. DOI= https://doi.org/10.1515/seeur-2015-0028
[4] Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content
and Technology (European Commission), IDC, Politecnico
di Milano, Sogeti. 2017. E-Government Benchmark 2017.
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/7f1b4ecb-f9a7-11e7-b8f5-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en
[5] Fath-Allah, A., Cheikhi, L., Al-Qutaish, R.E. and Idri, A.
2014. e-Government maturity models: a comparative
study, International Journal of Software Engineering &
Applications, 5(3), 71- 91. DOI= 10.5121/ijsea.2014.5306
[6] Kim, D.-Y., and Grant, G. 2010. E-government maturity
model using the capability maturity model integration.
Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 12(3), 230–
244.
[7] Layne, K. and Lee, J. 2001. Developing fully functional e-
government: a four stage model, Government Information
Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136.
[8] Lee, J. 2010. 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-
Government: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Government
Information Quarterly, 27(3), 220–230.
[9] Maranny, E. 2011. Stage Maturity Model of m-Government
(SMM m-Gov): Improving e-Government performance by
 utilizing mGovernment features. University of Twente.
Retrieved from http://essay.utwente.nl/62691/
[10] Milakovich M. E. 2012. Digital Governance. New
Technologies for Improving Public Service and Participation
// Taylor and Francis Group, New York
[11] OECD. 2014. Recommendation of the Council on Digital
Government Strategies // www.oecd.org/gov/digital-
government/Recommendation-digital-government-
strategies.pdf.
[12] OECD. 2017. Towards an Open Government in Kazakhstan.
OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264279384-en
14
[13] OECD. 2017. Towards a More Effective, Strategic and
Accountable State in Kazakhstan, OECD Public Governance
Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264284005-en
[14] OECD. 2018. Benchmarking Civil Service Reform in
Kazakhstan, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD
Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264288096-
en
[15] West D. M. 2005. Digital Government. Technology and
Public Sector Performance // Princeton University Press,
New Jersey