Unveiling Barriers for eGovernment Services: A Case Study Framework

Abstract

In today’s fast-paced digital age, eGovernment is at the forefront of change. Given the diversity of systems and stakeholders within eGovernment, its complexity defies a one-size-fits-all methodological approach in either integration or evaluation. This research explores the dynamic landscape of eGovernment services and proposes a practical framework to uncover and understand the hurdles preventing their smooth implementation. The proposed methodology is based on a case-study approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methods in a two-phase iterative cycle. Throughout the process, a strong emphasis on the context is maintained, seeking to understand the relationships and causal mechanisms at play to refine the conceptual description and research questions of interest. The approach is devised for practical use through a real-world deployment representing the case-study environment, illustrating the practical value of the framework. This allows for a nuanced understanding of the overall landscape, showcasing the interrelations among the separate actors and factors, as well as their implications on the public sector digital transformation. The objective is to achieve a holistic understanding of the challenges and opportunities in the innovation and digitalization process through a reusable approach that can be adopted and upgraded by other researchers, practitioners, and initiatives.

1. Introduction

This study presents a framework for the detection and classification of barriers hindering the implementation and adoption of eGovernment services across European Union (EU) member states. It was developed in the context of the EU initiative Digital Europe for All (DE4A),¹ financed by the Horizon 2020 European Program, which involved 27 partners from 11 Member States and lasted from January 2020 to September 2023. The aim of DE4A was to straighten the path toward a completely working Digital Single Market, effectively enabling the cross-border exercise by citizens and businesses of their Single Market rights. In order to achieve its primary objective of fostering the digital transformation of the public sector in Europe, on both a national and cross-border scale, the project performed a preliminary study to explore the challenges and issues pertaining to the eGovernment landscape and to understand the reasons behind the different level of maturity of eGovernment in Europe. This study aims at gaining a comprehensive understanding of the implementation, challenges, and impact of digital government initiatives, exploring the potential value and benefits of emerging technologies for the public sector.

Although the researchers had identified a wide range of factors spanning technical, legal, social, and institutional dimensions as barriers or enablers, there was a lack of consensus about all of them, as each research considered only a limited number of factors and some of them did not agree about the relevance or the role of each factor. In addition, a critical gap emerged in both literature and practice concerning the methodological steps taken to investigate the barriers that hamper the introduction of these technologies.

Based on the results stemming from this analysis of the eGovernment landscape in Europe (presented in greater detail in Section 6), two challenges emerged:

1. The identification of barriers and enablers for innovation shall be considered a complex and hidden phenomenon, as those are deeply nested within a wide range of factors spanning technical, legal, social, and institutional dimensions and, moreover, they are often intertwined with patterns that are difficult to detect;

2. The practical objectives posed by the DE4A project required not only a clear overview of these factors and how to detect them, but also some practical directions and recipes to overcome the barriers and leverage the enablers.

The first element needed to deal with these challenges was a conceptual model that could be used as an epistemological tool to orient the research and practice throughout the project. Such models help to analyze and define an action plan for improvement or system modifications, helping to outline the processes or strategies useful to achieve the goal.

The conceptual space, which takes the form of a taxonomy, paves the way for the definition of an empirical framework that will enable the practical effectuation of the conceptual framework. Moreover, it enables a complete risk management cycle, by categorizing and analyzing the barriers and challenges in a systematic way, yielding concrete recommendations to overcome the barriers to the benefit of all stakeholders. This study employs a holistic approach that integrates surveys, interviews, and an exhaustive literature review to compare and integrate findings, thus providing a robust understanding of the barriers and enablers within the broader European context.

In its essence, the proposed approach performs a complete two-phase risk analysis and management cycle, based on a soft system methodology in order to devise a conceptual space for the extraction of a comprehensive list of factors that hinder or enable the digitalization of public services and using this epistemological tool to orient the real-world assessment cycle and to devise practical guidelines for the stakeholders.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the theoretical background that helps understand the main concepts used in the paper. It is followed by a literature review of related works, presenting the relevant approaches for barriers analysis within the context of eGovernment. This establishes the basis for the conceptual framework presented in Section 4, which is verified and applied through an empirical framework in Section 5. The practical viability of the overall approach is demonstrated through its application to a real-world use case in Section 6, yielding a comprehensive list of detected barriers for the digital transformation of the European eGovernment landscape, as well as a set of relevant policy recommendations as pertinent enablers to address the detected barriers. Finally, Section 7 gives conclusive remarks that reflect on the implications and contributions of our research and points to future research directions.

2. Theoretical background

Although we may intuitively understand the concepts of barriers and enablers, a clear definition of these terms is necessary to differentiate between them. In our context, a “barrier” and an “enabler” refer to two opposing factors that can either hinder or facilitate the achievement of a particular goal or outcome. For the purposes of this research, barriers are hindrances or challenges that impede progress, while enablers are supportive factors or resources that help facilitate progress toward a specific goal or outcome.

Closely related to the concept of barrier is the concept of risk. As defined by the international standard for risk management ISO 31000²: risk is the effect of uncertainty on the objectives. A risk management process, thus, consists of the following elements: Communicating and consulting; Establishing the scope, context, and criteria; Risk assessment—recognizing and characterizing risks, and evaluating their significance to support decision-making; Risk treatment—selecting and implementing options for addressing risk; Monitoring and reviewing; Recording and reporting. The general approach used in this work entirely adheres to these guidelines, acting as a risk management framework for the digital transformation of public services.

The emerging challenges of digitalization are deeply interconnected and shall not be considered in isolation. For example, the requirements for interoperability have a direct impact on both legal and technical complexities, which, in turn, affect data privacy and information security. These factors influence compliance with national and EU-level systems, creating a complex web of dependencies. Similarly, barriers often have multifaceted effects, serving as hurdles in one context and enablers in another. Regulatory and technological changes, for instance, may initially deter the adoption of a service, but eventually streamline procedures and interactions. This intricate interplay between causes and effects makes it challenging to distinguish them clearly.

As the detection and classification of barriers hindering digitalization or an innovation process is still unstructured, it requires a stable conceptual framework to understand the relevant dimensions that could drive the analysis. To address this, it is essential to develop a rigorous conceptual framework for understanding and identifying the barriers and enablers, establishing a first taxonomy of barriers and enablers. Such a taxonomy would represent a conceptual space to organize the identified barriers but also to ensure the repeatability of methodological steps. This approach will also facilitate the extraction of policy recommendations and practical guidelines for a wide range of stakeholders involved in the process.

In order to draft a first taxonomy, during the DE4A project we followed a soft system approach to define a conceptual model that describes the root definition of the relevant factors for eGovernment [1]. The Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) was derived from numerous systems engineering processes, primarily from the fact traditional “hard” systems thinking is not able to account for larger organizational issues, with many complex relationships. SSM has a primary use in the analysis of these complex situations, where there are divergent views about the definition of the problem [2]. These complex situations are known as “soft problems.” They are usually real-world problems where the goals and purposes of the problem are problematic themselves, such as: How to improve the delivery of health services? or How to manage homelessness of middle-aged people? Clearly, “How to improve digital transformation of public services?” belongs to this type of problem.

3. Related work

To understand the reasons for the complex and multifaceted landscape of eGovernment in Europe, it is essential to categorize and analyze the multitude of factors influencing the provision of digital public services. Many studies have explored the challenges and issues pertaining to the eGovernment landscape, and have also proposed approaches for improvement of the digital services offered to citizens. One such framework classifies these factors into five key categories: information and data, information technology, organizational and managerial, legal, institutional, and environmental [3]. While the first two categories primarily address data and technology availability and quality, the latter three extend beyond technological considerations, taking into account the broader organizational, legal, and institutional contexts that can either facilitate or hinder the provision of digital services. Another thorough literature overview detected critical planning and implementation issues with significant effects on the success of eGovernment initiatives [4]. The authors propose a conceptual framework to help the theoretical understanding of eGovernment initiatives’ planning and implementation, focusing on the organizational and business aspects of the process. Their insights are aimed at informing the implementers of the initiatives on the success factors that influence the decision-making process. Thus, they account for a small subset of the stakeholders relevant to eGovernment. A study known as the e-GovQual model [5] investigates the ability of eGovernment services to cater to citizens’ needs and devised a scale for measuring service quality of governmental sites where citizens seek either information or service along four dimensions: Reliability, Efficiency, Citizen Support, and Trust. It determines 21 evaluation criteria serving diagnostic purposes across the 4 dimensions and provides a list of 10 recommendations for improving service quality.

The variance in the progress toward digitalization across the EU Member States is documented in various studies [6, 7, 8]. Despite the presence of a common regulatory framework and the launch of large-scale cross-border projects, these reports consistently reveal stark differences in electronic identity (eID) adoption rates and the availability of cross-border public services. The electronic identity infrastructure is foundational to all eGovernment endeavors, making it crucial to gain insights into these disparities.

While these frameworks provide a foundational understanding of factors affecting eGovernment, specialized studies have delved deeper into specific domains [9, 10, 11]. Notably, these studies have identified unique challenges using the so-called Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework. TOE examines three dimensions: technological, organizational, and environmental/contextual challenges. These studies have consistently found that the primary challenges often stem from human and contextual issues. These include stakeholder behavior, leadership, training, resistance to change, and regulatory frameworks. The principles underpinning the TOE framework have been integrated into the organizational aspect of the conceptual framework in this study. However, it’s important to note that the TOE framework, while valuable, is considered too generic for direct application in the specific context under investigation [12].

Beyond the TOE framework, other models have been developed to identify and elucidate success factors within organizations. The supply chain practice view (SCPV) framework explores the precursors for supply chain partners adopting inter-organizational digital procurement practices and the performance outcomes resulting from such adoption [9]. In a different vein, the Critical Success Factors (CSF) framework identifies relevant variables that should be part of a comprehensive CSF model [11]. In contrast to [10], the CSF framework places a greater emphasis on organization and management factors as the most critical category for achieving success in digitalization. Further research in the organizational domain has uncovered domain-specific studies [13, 14], though these tend to be narrowly focused and may not readily apply to broader contexts.

While studies have explored the potential of digital technologies in both private and public sectors, these investigations often focus on specific subsets of factors or employ particular methodologies. For instance, studies have delved into the role of digital technologies through interviews, literature reviews, or surveys but within specific contexts [15, 16, 17]. Yet, there remains a critical gap in the literature on understanding the barriers introduced by digital advancements within public services.

Finally, in the context of eGovernment, stakeholders play a pivotal role in shaping the landscape. Public sector organizations, in particular, are accountable to a multitude of stakeholders and are highly susceptible to political goals and tensions. Simultaneously, the modernization of public services is contingent upon the demands and willingness of both public and business sectors to adopt eGovernment services, rendering citizens, businesses, and their behaviors critical within the eGovernment landscape [18].

4. Conceptual framework

From the desk research outlined above, it becomes clear that it is essential to establish in first place a taxonomy of barriers and enablers to digitalization, as a conceptual framework for understanding and identifying them. Such a taxonomy would not only organize the identified barriers, but it will ensure the reproducibility of the methodological steps used to construct it. Ultimately, it will facilitate the extraction of recommendations and practical guidelines for a wide range of stakeholders involved in the process.

In order to draft a first taxonomy, we follow a soft systems approach to define the conceptual space that describes the root definition of the relevant eGovernment factors. As a first result, whether examining the provision of e-services, the adoption of information and communication technologies (ICTs), or the maturity of eGovernment initiatives, we are able to extract a consistent set of factors, emerging from existing frameworks. These factors are described in detail in Section 6.1 and encompass: technical, organizational, legal, business, political, and human determinants. Recognizing the stability and relevance of these dimensions across diverse contexts, this study adopts them as the foundational structure for analyzing and discussing the barriers and enablers to digital transformation of the public sector. This strategic choice allows for systematic exploration, assessment, and the generation of valuable insights into the intricate network of influences on the eGovernment initiatives across Europe. Moreover, it establishes a framework for the integration of the relevant factors into a comprehensive approach for analyzing eGovernment landscapes.

Given the vast diversity of systems and stakeholders within the eGovernment landscape, its complexity defies a one-size-fits-all methodological approach. Experimental research, which establishes causal relationships through controlled interventions, may not be well-suited for the study of eGovernment initiatives, particularly those in progress, since controlled interventions may modify the state of the system. On the other hand, survey research can provide a broad quantitative perspective by gathering data from huge samples, but it may fall short in capturing the depth of understanding context-specific insights required for the complex eGovernment landscape. Quantitative analysis can offer valuable statistical insights, but the availability of extensive eGovernment datasets is rare. Furthermore, such data can often be incomplete and subjective, rendering the repeatability of analysis impossible. In contrast, qualitative analysis offers a wealth of insights, but it may lack the empirical evidence needed to facilitate actionable and practical results. Therefore, a mixed-method research combining qualitative with quantitative methods should be used to provide the needed comprehensive view. Such an approach is offered by case-study research, which is particularly useful for addressing operational research questions from multiple angles [19]. Despite being an extremely effective tool for developing theory out of practice, case-study research has also been proven as an evaluation method, with the ability to:

• Adapt to any context and governance structure;

• Yield useful results with small (even single) number of cases;

• Capture process and outcomes by causal logic model, providing useful feedback;

• Adapt to the availability of different types of evidence;

• Develop lessons generalizable to the major themes in a field.

Case-study research has widely been found “appropriate and essential where either theory does not yet exist or is unlikely to, where theory exists but the environmental context is different, or where cause and effect are vague or involve time lags” [20]. In its most general case, the process of conducting case-study research is shown in Figure 1. The entire process is a systematic and in-depth investigation of a particular case, whether it is an individual, organization, project, event, or phenomenon, within its real-life context. In fact, the distinguishing characteristic of the case study is that “…it attempts to examine a phenomenon in its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” [21].

Figure 1.

Case study methodology.

The process begins by defining the research questions and objectives, followed by the selection of appropriate cases that represent the phenomenon of interest. Relevant data is then gathered through various methods, such as interviews, observations, document analysis and surveys, focusing on capturing both qualitative and quantitative information. Throughout the research process, a strong emphasis on the case’s context is maintained, seeking to understand the relationships and causal mechanisms at play. The findings from the case study are presented and discussed comprehensively, through rich descriptions, observations, quotes, or illustrative examples, allowing for a nuanced understanding of the case and its implications.

5. Empirical framework

According to the conceptual framework, and as part of its multi-method approach, case-study research strongly encourages triangulation of findings for the purpose of building useful theory out of practice, which is precisely the requirement for our effort.

As eGovernment encompasses a broad range of activities, from digital service delivery to data sharing and governance, it is influenced by many factors. Thus, one may choose to focus on a particular effort for public services digitalization, analyzing the context, decision-making processes, and technological solutions involved. Alternatively, one could study the implementation, adoption, and impact of eID systems in different countries to compare strategies and outcomes. By examining such real-world cases, a set of barriers can be uncovered that yield more narrowly defined enablers, providing valuable insights for policymakers, practitioners, and scholars alike.

Performing case-study research in this context implies selecting specific projects, initiatives, and/or countries as cases and investigating them in-depth through the following types of analysis:

Comparative analysis, where multiple eGovernment cases in different countries are analyzed to identify patterns and differences in digitalization practices. This allows for pinpointing variations in adoption and outcomes and enables the crafting of a unifying strategy.

Longitudinal studies, to track eGovernment developments over time and assess evolution, impacts, and sustainability of digitalization efforts, allowing to understand the dynamic nature of the problem.

Action research, which includes: experts’ interviews, stakeholders’ consultation, and dedicated workshops to collaborate with practitioners and policy-makers to address real-world problems for actively improving eGovernment practices.

Survey research, to collect data from a diverse set of eGovernment stakeholders to analyze satisfaction, perceptions, behaviors, and hurdles. This provides direct feedback based on experiential data.

Content analysis, analyzes documents, reports, academic literature, and online content to identify policy trends, public sentiment, and correct framing of the problem.

Based on these principles, Figure 2 shows a generic methodology for the analysis the eGovernment landscape.

Figure 2.

Application of case-study research to eGovernment.

In the next section, we describe how this approach can be practically applied to the case of analyzing the barriers to digital transformation in the European context. The reusability of the framework allows to introduce the use cases of each next project and to continue the evolution of the theory. This is especially useful for policymakers and practitioners, as it allows informed decision-making, wise resource allocation, improved service delivery, stimulated economic growth, and enhanced stakeholder engagement.

6. Use case: The digital Europe for all (DE4A)

In this section, we apply the presented approach to the real-world use case of the DE4A project, encompassing the detection and classification of barriers hindering the implementation and adoption of EU eGovernment services. We show how the empirical framework can complement the concept by gathering empirical evidence from country-specific nuances and broader perspectives on eGovernment digitalization.

The geographical scope of the research encompassed the 31 EU and EFTA countries. Responses were received from 18 countries (17 EU and 1 EFTA): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Hungary, and the Czech Republic—amounting to a representativeness of 58% of all countries, or 63% of the Member States. Once the scope of the analysis was defined, the work continued with a thorough and extensive analysis of the landscape. To do that, we delve into key areas relevant to the current landscape of eGovernment in Europe, namely: Electronic Identification, Authentication, and Trust Services (eIDAS), the Once-Only Principle (OOP), as well as the Single Digital Gateway Regulation (SDGR), all of which are intertwined in an intricate manner and aimed at fostering the digital transformation of the public sector in Europe. The SDGR strives to simplify online access to public services for both citizens and businesses by establishing a single point of access for all digital services. This is made possible through the implementation of eIDAS, which sets forth a unified framework for electronic identification and trust services. The success of EU digital services hinges on the effective implementation of the Once Only Principle Technical Systems (OOP TS), which aim to eliminate redundant data entry and information duplication. Throughout our analysis, Digital Service Infrastructures (DSIs) serve as the central thread connecting these topics.

This was partially reported in the related work, where it became clear that the detection and classification of barrier hindering the digital transformation of public services was still unstructured and lacking a stable conceptual framework. Moreover, there was no convergence in the definition of factors relevant to the eGovernment sector. For instance, researchers identified factors from multiple categories, including technical and legal aspects, as well as social and institutional [22], but there was no research covering all the factors at once. Furthermore, some studies emphasized the significance of managerial-organizational and political-institutional factors for the adoption of eGovernment services [23] while others explored the “outer” barriers stemming from wider environmental factors, like economic, social, and political conditions, and those rooted in “inner” factors, like organizational dynamics [24].

6.1 Overview of the relevant factors in the DE4A context

Based on the above considerations, the first step to creating a taxonomy of the barriers and enablers to digitalization relevant for DE4A is to devise the underlying dimensions in the form of key factors driving innovation and digitalization within the eGovernment context. In order to define an exhaustive set of factors, we draw not only upon relevant literature but also on focus groups, to define the relevance of each factor within the context of eGovernment. This provides systematization of the literature to yield and justify the choice of relevant factors.

Next, we define and describe each of the barriers composing the DE4A barriers’ taxonomy relevant to the analysis of the eGovernment landscape.

6.1.1 Technological factors

Digitalization is intrinsically linked to machine-to-machine communication and the integration of physical, digital, and biological realms through digital technologies [25]. The transformative aspect of digitalization lies in the fact that networked machines can interact independently, eliminating the need for human intervention in favor of harnessing machine-to-machine interfaces. In the eGovernment context, technological factors are crucial due to the reliance on heterogeneous information types and sources, as well as varied organizational models. Technical issues, especially those related to interoperability, are perceived as the most challenging hurdles of contemporary socio-technical systems, which can include multiple organizations and cross-border information systems [26]. Interoperability, the capability of organizations to interact with each other in order to achieve mutually beneficial goals, entails exchange of data between different organizations and their systems, which is a central component of the OOP technical system [27]. This semantic aspect is especially important in cross-border cooperation between different countries. In addition to interoperability, the OOP cross-border context introduces other relevant factors such as data quality, unique database or information systems characteristics, and the overall e-government architecture/infrastructures of participating countries. This involves compliance with legal and administrative requirements, ensuring secure data exchange between information systems, agreement on common data formats, and the development of vocabularies to enable communicating systems to interpret data in a consistent manner. In the EU, the European Interoperability Framework (EIF) [28] serves as the foundational model for the EU approach. Therefore, all its relevant factors are integrated into our conceptual framework.

6.1.2 Organizational factors

The organizational dimension is critical in accommodating the changes introduced by the implementation of regulatory and technical frameworks within organizational structures and workflows, requiring a high level of collaboration and coordination among diverse organizations [29]. Notable barriers observed in this regard at the national level include governmental silos and insufficient communication between government departments, the intricacy of altering organizational structures, work practices, and cultures, and the substantial costs associated with implementation [30]. Similarly, at a cross-border level, organizations encounter barriers such as adaptability, transformation capabilities, and innovation potential, influenced by elements like organizational structure and culture, which can also be regarded as human-oriented factors [31]. Moreover, an organization’s financial and human resources are fundamental determinants for the adoption and successful execution of electronic services or the utilization of ICT infrastructures [32]. Reforms in this context have fostered improvements extending to both private and public sectors, enhancing efficiency, transparency, and accountability in governance, judicious utilization of public resources, and promoting balanced development and fair competition among companies [24, 33]. These achievements facilitate citizens’ trust in public administration and democracy, enabling the government to pursue its political objectives in a rational, efficient, and transparent manner [34].

6.1.3 Legal factors

The third dimension of factors affecting digitalization (and automation) of eGovernment services pertains to legislative and institutional aspects. This dimension encompasses the rules, laws, and principles that may influence the development of the eGovernment landscape [3]. It is widely acknowledged that public sector organizations are heavily affected by factors external to their own operations, including the legal culture and administrative traditions of a given state. While these factors lie outside the control of individual organizations and are typically more stable or change at a slower pace, regulations can play a decisive role in driving change and fostering innovation. For instance, regulations may impose legal obligations on administrations to adopt innovative practices [31]. Furthermore, despite the adoption of certain directives and regulations aimed at promoting interoperability at the EU level, such as the SDGR, the eIDAS, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), there remains a pressing need to establish a unified legal framework at both the national and EU levels.

6.1.4 Business factors

The business dimension, while closely intertwined with the organizational dimension in terms of its conceptual backbone, introduces its own unique factors. It encompasses private companies and their operational models, which predominantly involve the fusion of technology and human resources to sustain these models. In the context of eGovernment, businesses can serve as catalysts for innovation and technological advancements. They can also offer incentives for the adoption of eGovernment services. However, it is important to acknowledge that businesses can also introduce risks and pose challenges to digitalization, particularly in cases where their business models are disrupted. With the emergence of eGovernment platforms, many public sectors embarked on their journey of digital transformation. For instance, in the realm of e-procurement, there was a shift from traditional price-based and isolated procurement methods to data-driven approaches that leveraged e-procurement and digital process management during the initial stages of digitalization. Consequently, these digitalized systems began to operate and interact with data beyond their own environments, expanding the options available for making business decisions [11, 34].

6.1.5 Political factors

The political environment is another critical aspect, with factors like political stability exerting a positive influence on the advancement of eGovernment [35]. In the context of digital transformation, institutional and legal regulations play a pivotal role in delineating boundaries for data sharing and safeguarding personal data protection systems. For instance, the resolution of legal impediments and the establishment of a robust legal foundation rank are among the top strategic imperatives for OOP implementation [30]. Furthermore, transparency and accountability toward citizens and stakeholders serve as primary catalysts for the development of public e-procurement systems that operate within the constraints of laws, regulations, rules, and various oversight mechanisms. Fostering competition among public vendors can simplify procurement processes, reduce costs, and yield better outcomes. Finally, the role of intergovernmental and supranational institutions is pivotal. Whether they act as facilitators within national contexts or promoters of national practices on the international stage, governments can play a dual role as both enablers and inhibitors of the desired transformations.

6.1.6 Human factors

Humans are at the core of all systems, deeply interwoven into all other dimensions. Regulatory advancements driving Europe’s digital agenda are inherently user-centric, relying heavily on citizens’ inclusion and their openness to embrace new eGovernment services. Beyond apparent factors like user awareness and digital readiness for e-service adoption, the human factor exerts significant influence over organizational changes, political will, and the choice of regulatory models supporting digitalization. However, our research reveals divergence between citizens’ perceptions and actions and institutional interests, leading to disparate trajectories among citizens, businesses, and institutions. Efforts to enhance digital literacy among employees and cultivate capabilities and skills are crucial success factors in navigating technological changes and digitalization. Human resource management programs aimed at nurturing these competencies stand as paramount in achieving digital transformation success [36, 37]. Moreover, the availability of skilled human capital significantly correlates with a dynamic and open economy, shaping how (public) organizations manage digital transformation [38].

6.2 Applying the empirical framework to DE4A

As a next step, we apply the empirical framework to the particular context of the DE4A project. This process is depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Application of the conceptual framework to the DE4A scenario.

The Theory under development revolves around the main barriers to digital transformation in eGovernment. At the beginning of the project, the initial set of barriers is correlated with the four EIF interoperability layers: Legal, Organizational, Semantic, and Technical. These are investigated in the first phase of the data collection.

The Data collection protocol envisaged by the conceptual framework corresponds to the Survey Design on the figure (integrating the devised barriers), while the relevant cases for our purpose are: eIDAS, OOP, SDGR and DSIs. As part of the data collection and the data modification protocols, the empirical framework accounts for the insights from the comprehensive desk research, as well as from the internal and external expertise and stakeholder input. Thus, the theory modification (through the internal Feedback loop) is carried out several times between the 1st and 2nd phase of data collection. This helps to identify and revise the initial set of relevant barriers and theories, iteratively analyzing data obtained during project lifetime.

The analysis during and at the end of the project allows for the development of cross-case conclusions, which in turn lead to a set of recommendations (representing the Policy implications from the case-study research), proposed as enablers for eGovernment. At the end of the first phase, through the outer feedback loop, the theory of relevant barriers is revised, leading to a more granular set of barriers: Technical, Organizational, Legal, Business, Political, and Human. Furthermore, based on the insights from the ModifyData protocol, the barriers are analyzed for both their nature and their level of criticality.

6.2.1 Data collection

Following the mixed-method approach defined by the empirical framework, the study used the following data sources:

6.2.1.1 Survey

A dedicated survey³ was designed, targeted at defining the current eGovernment advancement of European states regarding eIDAS, SDGR, DSIs, and OOP. The survey was distributed to the Chief Information Officers of the EU and EFTA countries. Data was collected in two phases: first, from 1.4.2020 to 2.4.2020, and second, from 31.3.2022 to 22.8.2022, providing insights into the state of eGovernment at the beginning and at the end of the project, respectively.

6.2.1.2 Desk research

The insights derived from the data are supplemented by the analysis of the existing literature, policies, and reports relevant to comprehension of the general eGovernment domain, as well as its advancements along the four topics of interest. These were all also guidelines for the initial choice of relevant barriers, as well as the adequate practice of survey design and analysis. While processing the survey feedback, data was also complemented and contextualized with insights from the relevant national strategies and legislative frameworks.

6.2.1.3 Semi-structured expert interviews

One of the distinguishing traits of this research is the ability to analyze eGovernment phenomena in their real-world context. In the specific case of DE4A, this information came from several sources: the DE4A piloting activities, the architecture implementation, the contextual know-how obtained from the shared experiences with related initiatives (TOOP, SEMPER, BRIS, mGov4EU, EBSI/ESSIF),⁴ and the semi-structured experts’ interviews with experts from DG DIGIT, DG GROW, DG CNECT, mGov4EU, TOOP, EBSI/ESSIF and The National Interoperability Framework Observatory (NIFO).⁵ The study iteratively analyzed the eGovernment aspects in the relevant national contexts through the triangulation of data sources coming from: the semi-structured expert interviews, the desk research, and the dedicated survey. In addition, the desk research and the experts’ interviews were also useful for the development of the survey.

6.2.2 Results and analysis

The results of the study prompted fundamental inquiries into the reasons behind the relatively low implementation levels of the OOP. The Human factor emerged as the most critical, with 40% of responding countries identifying it as such. Close behind were Legal barriers, deemed critical by 31%, and Organizational barriers, rated critical by 33% of the respondents. The distribution of barriers to the eIDAS implementation revealed that, while eIDAS implementation does not encounter highly critical barriers, substantial room for improvement exists, particularly at the national level. Although the technical system is mature enough to mitigate critical risks, enhancements, particularly in identity matching and harmonized data formats are recommended. When assessing the barriers to SDGR implementation, a notable observation was the elevated levels of criticality associated with these barriers, surpassing those related to other facets of eGovernment. These levels corresponded to the OOP case, indicating the deep interdependence between OOP and SDGR. However, differences arise in the significance accorded to the Human factor, deemed critical in 40% of OOP cases compared to only 14% for SDGR. Similar disparities were observed concerning Technical barriers, with 30% for SDGR compared to 17% for OOP. Finally, examining barriers related to Digital Service Infrastructures (DSIs), Legal and Human factors resulted as critical, albeit identified by only a small subset of respondent countries.

Table 1 reports the concrete barriers to digital transformation, as provided by respondents for all four cases. The table presents the state of affairs as provided by national representatives, allowing readers to draw their conclusions. The order of barriers does not imply prioritization or grading. Interdependence among these factors adds complexity to the analysis, as recommendations for addressing one barrier may impact others.

Factor	Description of barrier
OOP-related barriers
Legal	1. GDPR (data protection) issues on identity matching; 2. The adoption of the regulation was delayed by a year. This is a critical issue, suggesting that the system will not be developed in the required timeline; 3. Legal certainty of security measures; 4. Some national laws overlap in their jurisdiction.
Organizational	5. No active implementation coordination mechanism yet; 6. Issues with available resources to use and support the OOP TS; 7. Scarce human resources; 8. Administrative procedures are too demanding for government bodies.
Technical	9. Lack of standardization; 10. Legacy technical resources; 11. Inconsistent technical platforms in use (no standardization), old technology, vendor lock.
Business	12. Scarce economic resources; 13. Lack of user involvement in the creation of IT services.
Political	14. Poor understanding of the importance of digitization; 15. Insufficient number of public servants involved in DSI; 16. Fluctuation of employees, lack of incentives, lack of IT skills.
Human factor	17. Lack of awareness of the existence of e-services; 18. Lack of awareness of the benefits of the e-services; 19. Data strategy has not been launched yet; 20. Some barriers are yet to be identified since both the technical system and the implementation strategy are in progress.
eIDAS related barriers
Legal	21. Regulatory issues (e.g., private SPs cannot access eIDAS node); 22. Lack of technical standards for interoperability; 23. Lack of specific national legislation regarding the requirements for the private sector eID providers; 24. Regulation requires amendments; 25. Restrictions on sharing of national identifiers; 26. Lack of knowledge of the Regulation by legal experts; 27. Inconsistency of national law with the eIDAS Regulation during first 3 years of its implementation; 28. Technological eID development is not properly followed by regulation.
Organizational	29. Coordination structure does not fit into business requirements; 30. Many organizations are not aware of eIDAS regulation; 31. Lack of business model to offer solution and support for authentication to the private sector; 32. Relying parties are reluctant to recognize eIDs from other Member States, due to difficulties with identity matching; 33. Lack of awareness of the use and legal value of trust services; 34. Divided competence over the regulation.
Technical	35. The eIDAS node requires specific expertise and effort to be maintained; 36. eIDAS does not mandate countries to provide a unique and persistent id.; 37. The eIDAS data set is too small and insufficient for service providers; 38. Systems often do not accept the use of digital signatures; 39. Insufficient interoperability rules for cross-border business eIDs.
Business	40. Lack of human resources; 41. Protracted public procurement process; 42. Too few attributes available through eIDAS authentication nodes; 43. Lack of prioritization of cross-border eGovernment services.
Political	None reported
Human factor	44. Lack of specific expertise; 45. IT expert scarcity due to non-competitive payments in the public sector; 46. Lack of user awareness on availability and use of eGovernment services; 47. Poor user experience with cross-border eIDAS authentication;
SDGR-related barriers
Legal	48. Problems with OOTS legislative acts; 49. Delay in accepting OOTS regulation implementation leads to loss of trust in the national capacities; 50. Non-adjusted national legislation;
Organizational	51. Lack of clarity in the scope of the procedures for public administrations; 52. Lack of cooperation between competent authorities; 53. No implementation coordination mechanisms, leading to issues with available resources to use and support the OOTS; 54. OOTS is considered as a low priority; 55. Lack of resources; 56. Reluctance to change management;
Technical	57. Delay in adopting the implementation act; 58. Technical specification documents are not finalized; 59. Problems in reconciling different systems, even within same environment; 60. Not all services are connected to the national OOP infrastructure; 61. OOTS or services are not integrated to the desirable extent; 62. Lack of technical personnel; 63. Poor national implementation strategy.
Business	64. Low awareness of user-centricity in services; 65. Difficulty in contracting proper means for cross-border payment; 66. Some OOP aspects constrain the use of digital public services.
Political	67. Non-existing digital strategy for public inclusion in the digital transformation.
Human factor	68. Insufficiently qualified resources for use of new technologies; 69. Lack of human resources; 70. Low user awareness and acceptance of new services; 71. Scarce technical expertise on SDG.
DSI-related barriers
Legal	72. Impossible to follow what is allowed to be exchanged from what is actually being exchanged as information; 73. Improper implementation of Data Protection Laws; 74. Lack of legislation to enable data sharing between agencies; 75. Lack of technical specifications crystallized in laws; 76. Blockchain cannot be used for electronic identity means; 77. Constraints with data location and use of cloud services related to GDPR application in the international transfer of personal data; 78. Poor implementation of the eIDAS regulation; 79. Some national laws overlap in their jurisdiction.
Organizational	80. Lack of incentives for data exchange; 81. Complex bureaucratic procedures required for exchanging data; 82. Not all administrative authorities are digitally-enabled; 83. Lack of resources; 84. Administrative procedures are too demanding for government bodies.
Technical	85. Lack of common framework for DSIs; 86. Lack of legacy infrastructures; 87. Lack of interoperability, cross-border and cross-domain; 88. Lack of standardization, old technology, vendor lock-in.
Business	89. Data protectionism in the business models of the public sector hinders wider data exchanges; 90. Old business models for public services constrain the use of digital media; 91. Lack of resources; 92. Lack of user involvement in the (co)creation of IT services.
Political	93. Lack of collaboration at a national level; 94. Lack of campaigns to improve the use of digital services by citizens to understand the importance of digitalization.
Human factor	95. Lack of interest in available e-services and their use; 96. Lack of qualified resources for the use of new technologies; 97. Poor digital literacy; 98. Insufficient number of public servants involved in DSI: fluctuation of employees, lack of IT skills.

Table 1.

Inventory of barriers to digital transformation.

This data sheds light on the entrenched nature of OOP and data sharing in legislation across several jurisdictions. Concerns persist regarding data protection, often deferred to larger competent authorities for resolution. Overlapping national laws further complicates matters, with only a minority of cases (20%) not identifying Business and Political factors as barriers to OOP implementation.

Challenges related to data protection extend beyond national level, notably affecting SDGR procedures. Ensuring the legal basis for evidence transfer, particularly concerning personal data, emerges as a primary challenge, especially in light of recent regulatory emphasis on user-controlled data flows. The observed barriers not only hinder OOP system implementation, but also impede the adoption of the SDGR and the revised eIDAS, affecting the overall performance of cross-border public services. The challenge is exacerbated by low readiness for changes and data sharing across public and private entities and citizens. Furthermore, the impact of legal instruments on citizens’ trust and public authorities’ trust, shaped by varying laws and progress levels in implementing EU regulatory guidelines, remains critical.

6.3 Discussion

The analysis presented above uncovered a range of barriers affecting both national and cross-border digitalization, each classified based on its significance in hindering or propelling eGovernment progress. These barriers were identified across all relevant dimensions: Legal, Organizational, Technical, Business, Political, and Human. Additionally, each barrier type was examined within the context of the cases covered by the DE4A Survey: eIDAS, OOP and data strategy, SDGR, and DSIs.

A relatively uniform distribution of barriers can be observed across cases, which is somewhat anticipated, given the high degree of interdependence among all cases. Examination of barrier types reveals Organizational and Legal barriers as the most prevalent, constituting nearly half of the responses. They are followed by the Human factor, which, despite its lower quantitative representation, emerges as the most critical aspect across all eGovernment dimensions. The human factor’s significance lies in its inherent connection to all other factors, as humans are pivotal in driving digital transformation and fostering willingness to embrace necessary changes. Finally, while political barriers are perceived as least impactful, this does not discount their critical role as enablers of change, as evidenced in highly federated states where political factors significantly influence digital service implementation and adoption.

While primarily qualitative, the analysis lays a robust groundwork for further exploration of each barrier, revealing a plethora of barriers significantly impeding progress in the European eGovernment landscape and its digital evolution. The sheer volume and severity of identified barriers underscore the absence of a functional governance structure for overseeing and ensuring interoperability.

Given the low levels of OOP implementation and the challenges of cross-border integration, it is evident that cross-border services are not a top priority for many European governments, highlighting the need for additional incentives and coordinated efforts at various governance levels. Organizational inertia and resource constraints signal the necessity for support in addressing ongoing, substantial, and resource-intensive challenges. Several factors contribute to this reluctance, including limited cross-border interactions, a lack of urgency in prioritizing cross-border services, and a misunderstanding of the importance of citizen inclusion. Furthermore, abandoning the traditional bottom-up approach is imperative to prevent data and service silos and to tackle domain-specific issues effectively. Although this shift carries inherent risks, maintaining the status quo may pose even greater risks, jeopardizing the local support crucial for a successful implementation.

The gap between the ambitions of European initiatives and the actual implementation levels across EU countries raises the question: Can the formulation and negotiation of new initiatives yield more favorable outcomes through a multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary approach? While this aspect falls beyond the scope of this study, further research is warranted to devise methods for bridging this gap to all stakeholders’ benefit.

6.4 Recommendations for addressing the barriers

The analysis presented here, while drawn from a limited dataset, offers insights from various experts and draws upon diverse data sources to establish a robust methodological framework. Consequently, it highlights the need to address urgent and current challenges in eGovernment’s digital transformation. Based on the discussions and findings outlined earlier, Table 2 consolidates recommendations for each identified barrier, which serve as actionable points for stakeholders to drive meaningful change.

Factor	Recommendations
Legal	1. Align policy and practice, especially in terms of implementation timelines of the efforts; 2. Make incremental amendments to national laws following the state of technological advancement, independent of the pace of revising Union Laws; 3. Detect all interdependencies between SDGR, GDPR, eIDAS to enable better coordination through federated registry of authorities’ competencies; 4. Increase focus on legal policies to accept digital evidence; 5. Guarantee data protection in the SDGR by legal means; 6. Ensure legal basis for reuse of consent implemented by development of standardized notification mechanisms with the option for revocation of the given consent; 7. Ensure legal basis and easy access for users to revoke consent; 8. Provide means for implementation of standardized evidence.
Organizational	9. Increase accountability and transparency through (self)monitoring and (self)evaluation mechanisms, including auditability of the data exchanges; 10. Establish coordination networks of initiatives with consistent objectives to prevent information and resource silos; 11. Ensure that interoperability frameworks provide productive feedback allowing revision of the principles and requirements for future efforts; 12. Reconsider the scope of implementation to minimize operational risks and ensure effective change management; 13. Ensure cross-border digitization builds upon national digitalization efforts; 14. Enable implementation of interrupted procedure; 15. Ensure legal value of data retrieved from authoritative data sources; 16. Reduce cross-border transaction fees for public data; 17. Implement governance structures to support components and services lifecycle management and better specifications of interfaces and processes; 18. Determine and implement measures and standards to monitor and manage data quality; 19. Ensure alignment of policies and deployment of frameworks with focus on cross-border interoperability; 20. Reuse digital infrastructures to reduce implementation and operational costs; 21. Establish open data repositories with documented good practices, lessons learned, and recommendations to explicate and mitigate different barriers.
Technical	22. Ensure reuse and implementation of architecture building blocks; 23. Improve resilience and increase availability of ICT resources; 24. Increase the use of building blocks, standards, and generic infrastructure services under cross-sector governance; 25. Implement standardized generic cross-border infrastructure services; 26. Interconnect national infrastructures with standard interfaces to enable cross-border transactions for national systems; 27. Develop solutions with clear responsibility roles and user-friendly interfaces; 28. Establish a transitional model for revising national eID means that supports current mobile solutions, but complies with the eIDAS revision; 29. Provide a system to match criteria to evidences, and data services to data sources; 30. Ensure a common data format for structured and unstructured documents; 31. Use canonical forms or common data models based on European Core Vocabularies; 32. Enable mapping between domain-agnostic vocab. and sector ontologies; 33. Ensure that data requests contain sufficient verified information to match the citizen identity and facilitate “real-time” identity matching; 34. Implement functional and available payment solutions.
Business	35. Incentivize eGovernment initiatives to strive for a positive return on invest.; 36. Enable inclusion of the private sector in both national and cross-border implementation and developments; 37. Invest in new technology and infrastructure to lower operational costs and the resources for non-digital (physical) support; 38. Craft strategies for change management that do not interrupt business models; 39. Determine perceived risks that inhibit the process of digital transformation and cause isolated design of proprietary digital solutions.
Political	40. Shape new models for public services without constraining the use of digital public services; 41. Enable multi-stakeholder dialog that is timely and inclusive; 42. Encourage active cooperation between all levels of government; 43. Promote and adopt policies supporting this process at a transnational level.
Human factor	44. Establish coherent dissemination efforts to raise user awareness of available e-services to improve service adoption; 45. Setting both national and cross-border digitalization issues as a common interest and goal for public and private sectors to increase trust; 46. Organize trainings and campaigns to inform and support the digital readiness of administrative workers and the general public; 47. Establish incentive schemes within organizations to ensure that digital expertise is not a scarce resource; 48. Provide guidelines to build human capital as an investment in digital future.

Table 2.

Recommendations for enablers per barrier type.

An important caveat to consider is the context-specific nature of the topics explored in this study and the intricate relationships among different types of facilitators, which preclude the formulation of universal conclusions and recommendations for applying a specific facilitator to address a particular barrier. Consequently, while the use of the presented approach by other initiatives or projects would involve the same procedural steps, the outcomes and the lessons gleaned will hinge on the specific context of their implementation and will be aligned with the objectives unique to that particular context.

7. Conclusion and future work

This study delved into the European eGovernment landscape, with the aim of establishing a generic framework for assessing barriers and extracting enablers and recommendations for digital transformation. We adopted a soft systems approach that allowed us to encompass both the theory and the practice of the eGovernment landscape. As part of the approach, an extensive exploration of the eGovernment landscape was carried out, enabling the design of a conceptual framework consisting of six layers pertaining to the relevant factors for digital transformation: legal, technical, organizational, business, political, and human. Based on the conceptual framework, an empirical framework was devised to capture the contextual and cultural nuances of the analyzed eGovernment sectors and countries, from both national and cross-border perspectives and to provide practical directions for the stakeholders. This process relied on case-study principles as part of the overall soft systems methodology.

To demonstrate the practical viability of the proposed approach, the methodology was applied to a real-world use case represented by the Digital Europe for All project. In the DE4A context, the framework proved effective in detecting and delineating a total of 98 barriers spanning the 6 conceptual layers. For each type of barrier, a collection of enablers in the form of policy recommendations was compiled, resulting in 48 enablers aimed at various eGovernment stakeholders. The results showed that the prevailing types of barriers encountered by EU countries in the digital transformation of public services are of legal and organizational nature. However, the most critical barrier demanding immediate attention is the human factor. Organizational hurdles were exemplified by resource scarcity and a lack of expertise, while legal challenges centered on non-harmonized legislation. The findings also highlight significant issues related to the lack of awareness regarding the availability of services and reluctance to embrace change and adoption.

As a future work, the authors will explore the potential formalization of the proposed framework into a semi-automatic model for barrier identification and enabler proposition, through an AI-driven approach. Such a model would be instrumental for architects and policy analysts in crafting suitable models and policies, facilitating productive dialog on the common challenges that arise during digital transformation.

Funding declarations

The independent research activities on methodology development and refinement were supported by the Slovenian Research Agency, Grant No. P2-0037.

The practical work was carried out as part of the Digital Europe for All (DE4A) project under Grant Agreement No. 870635.