Robin Effing
email: r.effing@saxion.nl

Bert Groot

Social Smart City: Introducing digital and social strategies for participatory governance in smart cities

Keywords: Smart City, Electronic Participation, Governance, Participatory Governance

Cities increasingly face challenges regarding participatory governance in order to become a "smart city". The world's best cities to live in are not the ones with the most advanced technological layers but cities that create an atmosphere where citizens, companies and government together build a vital and sustainable city. This study compares various definitions of smart cities and integrates current insights from the field of e-participation. Five best-practice examples from over the world illustrate the various ways participation can be developed from various leadership perspectives. A new conceptual framework, the Social Smart City framework, is derived from both e-participation theory and these best-practice examples. The framework comprises of a set of digital strategies for participatory governance in smart cities.

Introduction

What is the city but the people? Today, nearly 4bn people live in cities and it is expected that this number will increase by 2.5bn in the year 2050 according to The Economist [1]. People increasingly prefer to live and work in urban environments. Cities face enormous challenges in terms of attractiveness, social cohesion, safety, city marketing and so on [START_REF] Gil-Garcia | What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization[END_REF]. One of the related challenges is citizen participation [START_REF] Caragliu | Smart Cities in Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Mellouli | Smart government, citizen participation and open data[END_REF]. Life in cities tends to become more and more individualistic and citizens often lack interest in taking part in city debate or local politics [START_REF] Latour | Reassembling the social[END_REF]. As a result, the social cohesion is affected and cities cannot make use of the full potential of the capabilities of their citizens. The rise of online tools could contribute to address these challenges [START_REF] Townsend | Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia[END_REF][START_REF] Jorna | Setting Up Smart Cities Ecosystems, Essential Building Blocks[END_REF][START_REF] Sivarajah | Evaluating the use and impact of Web 2.0 technologies in local government[END_REF]. Particularly, the rise of web2.0 and social media provides cities with enhanced digital opportunities to reshape the relationship with their inhabitants [START_REF] Schaffers | Smart Cities and the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation[END_REF].

In the near future, co-creation in the city by governments, companies and cities will be of increased importance [START_REF] Granier | How are citizens involved in smart cities? Analysing citizen participation in Japanese Smart Communities[END_REF]. In many cases, the local government will become part of a network of stakeholders instead of the leading authority [START_REF] Gil-Garcia | What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization[END_REF][START_REF] Dawes | Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach[END_REF]. Partnerships and cooperation strategies among main stakeholders are required in order to reach full potential of research and innovation [START_REF] Schaffers | Smart Cities and the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation[END_REF]. Therefore, more research regarding effective strategies for the participatory governance of cities, including smarter ways to use the potential of citizens and companies, is necessary. However, to our knowledge, there is currently a lack of knowledge regarding these effective smart city participation strategies.

Therefore the main question of this article is; By using what digital strategies can cities effectively involve citizens and companies in the policy and development process of the city in order to become a smarter city?

The main aim of this article is to develop a "Social Smart City Framework", to create a more comprehensive theoretical understanding of the participatory governance aspect with regard to smart cities. The starting point of the analysis in the assumption that the best cities of the world to live in are not the ones with the most advanced technological layers but cities that create an atmosphere were citizens, companies and government build a vital and sustainable city in close collaboration.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. In section 2, we will introduce a theoretical background including definitions of smart cities and a literature review. Second we will propose the theoretical framework that can be useful to derive various participation strategies in relation to digital participation ambitions. Section 3 contains a discussion of several best-practices. Finally, we will present both a conclusion and discussion section.

Theoretical Background

There is currently a large body of literature addressing the concept of smart city. Yet little consensus consists among researchers about the exact definition, scope and meaning of a smart city [START_REF] Townsend | Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia[END_REF][START_REF] Jorna | Setting Up Smart Cities Ecosystems, Essential Building Blocks[END_REF]. In this section we will pay attention to definitions and key concepts from literature. We will elaborate upon the key related concepts of participation ladders, digital divide and network participation.

Definitions

Early definitions of smart cities were largely technology-driven [START_REF] Jorna | Setting Up Smart Cities Ecosystems, Essential Building Blocks[END_REF]. For example, Hall et al. defines smart city as: "a city that monitors and integrates conditions of all of its critical infrastructures" [START_REF] Hall | The vision of a smart city[END_REF]. The big system integrator companies such as IBM, Siemens and Cisco were eager to jump quickly on the bandwagon of smart cities to present their ICT solutions. IBM played an important role in the first years of smart cities and contributed significantly to the thinking behind smart cities [START_REF] Nam | Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions[END_REF][START_REF] Paroutis | A strategic view on smart city technology: The case of IBM Smarter Cities during a recession[END_REF]. IBM defines smart city as an: "instrumented, interconnected and intelligent city" [START_REF] Harrison | Foundations for Smarter Cities[END_REF]. It goes without saying that ICT companies like IBM and Siemens focus largely on delivering the ICT infrastructures enabling cities to be smart. However, when we only address a smart city from the technological perspective there is a risk that the city is not becoming smart at all. Just introducing technology is not enough to become a smart city.

There are also authors that take a more integrated view on smart cities. For example, Caragliu, Del Bo and Nijkamp [START_REF] Caragliu | Smart Cities in Europe[END_REF] provide us with a comprehensive definition of smart cities: "We believe a city to be smart when investments in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance." On top of ICT technology as an enabler for city development it is emphasized that smart cities should contribute to better quality of life and stronger economies. Additionally, various authors stress that participatory governance is also an essential part of smart cities [START_REF] Caragliu | Smart Cities in Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Kennedy | E-regulation and the rule of law: Smart government, institutional information infrastructures, and fundamental values[END_REF].

As Neirotti et al. made clear, a smart city can only be really smart when the city is capable of addressing real-life challenges and when it is able to bear the fruit of the social capital of the people involved in that city [START_REF] Neirotti | Current trends in smart city initiatives: Some stylised facts[END_REF]. In recent years we have seen a development in definitions of smart cities towards more integral ones including the social factor of people, quality of life and economic benefits [START_REF] Saunders | Rethinking Smart Cities From The Ground Up[END_REF]. ITU-T, a telecom think tank from the United Nations with experts from over the world, investigated a list of more than 100 definitions in 2014 and introduced the term of Smart Sustainable City. As a result of analysis, they provide us with the following definition:"a smart sustainable city (SSC) is an innovative city that uses information and communication technologies (ICTs) and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social and environmental aspects" [START_REF] Kondepudi | Smart Sustainable Cities Analysis of Definitions[END_REF]. The involvement of citizens and other non-governmental actors is essential. Smart citizens play a crucial role in smart cities by their participation in smart governance [START_REF] Granier | How are citizens involved in smart cities? Analysing citizen participation in Japanese Smart Communities[END_REF].

Key concepts related to smart cities and participatory governance

As Caragliu, Del Bo and Nijkamp [START_REF] Caragliu | Smart Cities in Europe[END_REF] made clear in their definition, participatory governance is one of the essential aspects of smart cities. The electronic support of participatory governance has received a considerate amount of attention in the field of electronic participation. In its body of literature there has been emphasis on frameworks and models to understand the various levels of citizen participation in relationship to governmental tasks. First, we will discuss existing theories about so called Participation Ladders as firstly introduced by Sherry Arnstein [START_REF] Arnstein | A Ladder Of Citizen Participation[END_REF][START_REF] Granier | How are citizens involved in smart cities? Analysing citizen participation in Japanese Smart Communities[END_REF]. Various theories were developed from the foundations of Arnstein to measure and compare electronic forms of citizen participation. A selection of them will be discussed below. Additionally, we will pay attention to the concepts of digital divide and network-based participation.

e-Participation Ladders

In general, electronic participation ladders are theoretical models or frameworks to define and categorize various levels of citizen participation by electronic means. Many authors address the issue of defining and measuring e-participation.

From our literature selection, 11 different e-participation ladders were identified but no consensus exists within them [START_REF] Anadiotis | Facilitating Dialogue -Using Semantic Web Technology for eParticipation[END_REF][START_REF] Conroy | E-participation in planning: an analysis of cities adopting on-line citizen participation tools[END_REF][START_REF] French | e-Participation and Decision Analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Grnlund | ICT Is Not Participation Is Not Democracy eParticipation Development Models Revisited[END_REF][START_REF] Hansen | The Citizens in E-Participation[END_REF][START_REF] Koh | Encouraging Participation[END_REF][START_REF] Loureno | Incorporating citizens views in local policy decision making processes[END_REF][START_REF] Loukis | Evaluating Parliamentary e-Participation[END_REF][START_REF] Medaglia | Measuring the diffusion of eParticipation : A survey on Italian local government[END_REF][START_REF] Sb | eParticipation : Designing and[END_REF][START_REF] Sommer | Participation 2.0: a Case Study of e-Participation within the New Zealand Government New Zealand New Zealand Abstract[END_REF]. As the overview in Table 1 makes clear, the e-participation ladders include levels of participation from low to high. Because of the inconsistent and various ways of defining and measuring participation (as Table 1 shows) in the literature, it is difficult to measure and compare levels of e-participation. A problem with existing e-Participation models is that central concepts are not clearly defined and measurement scales are, consequently, not clear and often confuse different measures [START_REF] Grnlund | ICT Is Not Participation Is Not Democracy eParticipation Development Models Revisited[END_REF]. In general the evaluation of e-participation is not well developed [32]. Macintosh [START_REF] Grnlund | ICT Is Not Participation Is Not Democracy eParticipation Development Models Revisited[END_REF] created a comprehensive participation ladder with three stages of online participation, which is useful to understand levels of participatory governance in smart cities. Macintoshs model seems most suitable for describing participation levels in a smart city environment. The borders between the steps on the ladder are relatively clear in comparison to other models and it is capable of distinguishing the levels for various stages of participation within electronic tools. Firstly, there is e-Enabling. This stage is mainly about providing access to existing data and information for citizens and companies. The second stage is e-Engaging. During this stage, people can interact with the organization and start a dialogue. People being consulted for certain projects, decisions or activities for instance with forums and polls. The third stage is e-Empowering. This stage is about working together with citizens and companies; Empowering them with responsibilities, tasks and options to allow them to collaborate with the local government.

While these e-participation ladders help to understand the extent to which citizens can take part in government decision making and its ownership, the current ladders predominantly focus on a two-way relationship between citizen and government. However, as we saw in the discussion of the definitions of smart cities, smart city challenges are not only a case of governments and citizens. Companies, nonprofit organizations and other city stakeholders such as schools and institutions in the city also are part of the network of influencers [START_REF] Dawes | Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach[END_REF][START_REF] Schaffers | Smart Cities and the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation[END_REF]. Therefore, we argue that the current e-participation ladders have shortcomings for effectively describing various forms of participatory governance in smart cities. The European Union has introduced the concept of Gov 3.0 where the city government is one of the partners in the city and this breaks the paradigm of the government that should always lead and control the future of a city in solitude [START_REF] Both | OpenGovEU project: Handbook Best Practices[END_REF]. As a result, we should consider whether the current e-participation ladders have to be updated to meet these new reality in smart cities.

Digital Divide

Another concept in literature that is strongly related to participatory governance by using digital tools, is the concept of digital divide. Online participation is not representing all groups from society equally. Certain groups of people take more interest in working together with the government while others are more difficult to reach such as young people [START_REF] Bridges | Young adults online participation behaviors : An exploratory study of web 2.0 use for political engagement[END_REF]. According to various authors, those active on the web and willing to participate in government tasks are well-educated males with relatively high incomes and high age [START_REF] Lilleker | Political Parties and Web 2 . 0 : The Liberal Democrat Perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Hibberd | E-Participation, Broadcasting and Democracy in the UK[END_REF][START_REF] Moreira | E-Society and E-Democracy[END_REF]. Another aspect of the divide is the knowledge and accessibility necessary to participate. There is some evidence available to show that the digital divide is reducing, levering potential engagement of citizens with an increased participation of women and younger people [START_REF] Holt | Age and the effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: Do social media function as leveller?[END_REF] but the divide is still something to take into account when deploying digital tools for participation.

Network-based participation

Governments and citizens are not completely isolated from other organizations and institutions in local society. Castells' terminology of the network society is increasingly relevant in contemporary cities: as an historical trend, dominant functions and processes in the Information Age are increasingly organized around networks [START_REF] Castells | The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture[END_REF]. Feedback of multiple stakeholders is essential in a network approach [START_REF] Dawes | Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach[END_REF]. This marks an important shift in contemporary societies including life in cities. Increasingly, people take part in various communities and networks.

Just like what we discussed in the previous section, this makes that participatory governance should not be reduced to the government and citizen relationship [START_REF] Gil-Garcia | What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization[END_REF]. A more complete way of addressing the participation of networks of partners in cities is the Quadruple Helix: The Triple Helix innovation model focuses on university-industry-government relations. The Quadruple Helix embeds the Triple Helix by adding as a fourth helix the media-based and culture-based public and civil society [START_REF] Carayannis | The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation[END_REF].

Preliminary study of best practices

To illustrate various digital strategy examples we have conducted preliminary study. The main objective was to identify best-practice examples from the world, where different forms of participatory governance where applied with remarkable outcomes.

As part of a project in collaboration with a municipality, partner universities and selected business partners we started identifying leading examples of smart city projects from a participation perspective. This exploratory part of the project was conducted in the period November 2015 until January 2016. We retrieved 20 examples from literature after an extensive, multi-disciplinary literature review. We have also used the snowball method to find additional resources. The following selection criteria were used to select five best-practice examples:

-Description of the example in literature where it received the verdict of best practice, good example, leading example or similar recommendation.

-The city is well-known worldwide and one of the top 5 largest cities of the country.

-There was a significant impact of the project as demonstrated by recognizable effects on the city life.

We did not strive for completeness here but we focused on five examples that highlight various strategies behind participatory smart city projects. While we could have chosen for another selection, we believe that these five projects work best as illustration here. The five best practice examples of Beijing, Seoul, Berlin, Reyjavik, and Krakow will now be presented below.

Bejing: Participatory Airbox

The PiMi Airbox is a small sensor box developed by the Chinese Tsinghua University of Beijing [START_REF]PiMi Airbox: A low-cost air quality monitor which creates a crowdsourced map of indoor air pollution in Beijing[END_REF]. The box is an instrument that measures the quality of the air in the surroundings in which it is placed. An advantage of individual measuring instruments like the PiMi Airbox is that they achieve a high level of accuracy.

The PiMi airbox was provided to citizens of Beijing on a voluntary basis. In the first day of availability already five hundred households volunteered. For the volunteers the PiMi-boxes provide information about the indoor air quality in the interior of their houses. The data as collected by the boxes generate an accurate map of air quality by the process of crowdsourcing. The map is a powerful and low-cost tool for the local government to access air quality data and adjust policies.

The project is developed by a university and enables new data that could enable people to take part in active policy making and social movements. It could therefore be placed in the category of e-Enabling.

Seoul: Sharing City

In 2012, the South Korean capital Seoul declared itself a "sharing city". The Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) developed the Seoul Metropolitan Government Act for Promoting Sharing and translated this in a comprehensive project called Share Hub. The Share Hub project aims to stimulate as much sharing activities as possible.

According to the 2014 annual report this initiative already resulted in the designation and support of 57 sharing organizations and aims to promote 300 businesses in the years to 2018 [START_REF]Sharing City Seoul Annual Report[END_REF].

Due to the comprehensive character of the project, it reaches a wide variety of people and stakeholders who are stimulated to start new sharing initiatives. For example, sharing initiatives in sharing cars, knowledge, clothing, parking lots, public buildings, and business ideas were created in the past few years. The government intends to further stimulate sharing initiatives and also invests in education about sharing, to create an adaption of the concept of sharing from childhood on.

The Share Hub project itself is operated in a cooperation of the SMG and Creative Commons Korea. Due to the cooperation and the wide variety of initiatives generated by the project, the project can be characterized as a network-driven initiative. The project empowers citizens to create new initiatives and co-create and co-work in more efficient and sustainable environment. It therefore can be characterized as an e-empowering initiative.

Berlin: Open Data Portal

In 2013, the City of Berlin introduced a new web portal (Berlin Open Data) on which open data sets of the city of Berlin are gathere an freely shared. Most of these data sets were released under some form of the Creative Commons license. This warrants that interested parties including citizens and companies can freely access these open data sets and work on them. The data sets are gathered from nine governmental organizations in Berlin [START_REF] Seibel | Open Data in der Praxis[END_REF].

As of March 2016, 934 data sets, divided in 22 categories, are published on the dataportal. This resulted in 32 new applications, initiated by non-governmental parties (daten.berlin.de). The organizations that developed applications using the data form the dataportal vary from individual citizens, universities, businesses and startups and contains parties of all four helixes in the Quadruple Helix approach.

The initial initiative to create the data portal came from the local government of Berlin. The availability of the portal resulted in initiatives from a wider range of actors. Those initiatives sometimes generate other new initiatives or strengthen each other mutually as an open data ecosystem [START_REF] Seibel | Open Data in der Praxis[END_REF]. This initiative has all the characteristics of a networked form of development. The platform enables several new initiatives and parties to create new tools and could therefore be categorized as e-enabling.

Reykjavik: Better Reykjavik agenda setting

In 2010, the platform Betri Reykjavk (Better Reykjavik) was launched. Better Reykjavik is a website where the citizens of the Icelandic capital can propose policy ideas and proposals to the local government. Since the opening of the website, it generated the participation of over 70,000 people. This is a large share of the total inhabitants of the approximately 120,000 headed city.

Ideas that are posted to the website can be reviewed by inhabitants of the city and can be voted in favor or against. The municipality of Reykjavik uses this platform to feed the policy agenda and political agenda, therefore providing a citizen generated policy agenda.

Remarkably, since the founding of the website, 256 new ideas of citizens were officially accepted and executed by the city council (betrireykjavik.is).

The project was started by the local government itself, but it currently largely drives on initiatives from local citizens.. The city council uses the content on the website to engage the inhabitants of the city to generate ideas to create a better Reykjavik. This initiative could therefore be categorized as e-Engaging.

Krakow: Participatory budgeting

In 2013, the Polish city of Krakow introduced a pilot project to create an open and participatory way of budgeting. By doing this, the city gathered information about civic priorities, set by their inhabitants whilst at the same time giving citizens more power in allocating the city budgets.

This project gave the inhabitants of various districts in the city the possibility to decide how parts of the local budget should be spent. By choosing the district as the governmental scale of the project, the project created possibilities for local administrators to gain insight in the desires and needs of inhabitants. Furthermore, the local administration came in close touch with their citizens.

This participatory form of governance resulted in more efficient and effective public spending and a growing understanding of the needs and priorities of Krakows civic society [START_REF] Both | OpenGovEU project: Handbook Best Practices[END_REF].

The pilot project was an initiative of the municipality of Krakow and empowered citizens to set parts of the local budget. It could therefore best be characterized as a form of e-Empowering.

Introducing digital and social strategies for participatory governance in smart cities

We noticed that a comprehensive conceptual framework to study and compare participatory governance strategies in smart cities was lacking. Therefore we propose a new framework here in Fig1. The Social Smart City framework is derived from both the theoretical findings and the example cities as described in this article. The framework can be used to have a more systematic way of studying current practices in cities. Furthermore the framework can be used to describe and compare the participatory governance progress of various cities towards becoming a smart city. We draw upon the e-participation ladder of Macintosh [START_REF] Grnlund | ICT Is Not Participation Is Not Democracy eParticipation Development Models Revisited[END_REF] to distinct various levels of participation. This is the horizontal axis in Fig1. On the vertical axis we display the aspect of leadership and control by government, citizens or networks. Each field in the matrix comprises of a different example of a digital participation strategy. The bottom right corner of the matrix is considered to be the highest ambition for cities who aim to be smart in terms of participatory governance. However, as the matrix makes clear also the top left corner still needs a considerate amount of attention for governments to open up their information resources (e.g. open data sets) for the public and meet transparency goals. The data can be opened in order to meet open government transparency policies [START_REF] Janssen | Big and Open Linked Data (BOLD) in government: A challenge to transparency and privacy?[END_REF][START_REF] Scholl | Five trends that matter : Challenges to 21st century eGov[END_REF] Open government as a phenomenon is one of the approaches to inform the people and enable citizens and companies to participate [START_REF] Dawes | Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach[END_REF]. Moreover, opening up government data potentially increases participation, interaction and social inclusion [START_REF] Zuiderwijk | Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison[END_REF]. Fig1 also shows various possible digital strategies for each combination of leadership and level of participation.

Conclusion

The Social Smart City framework provides us with a refined way to look at digital strategies for participatory governance in cities that aim to become smart cities. This framework provides us with an overview of various digital strategies for participatory governance in smart cities. However, the overview has to be further developed and refined in future studies. In addition to the known participation ladders, the framework gives a broader perspective on participatory governance than a two-way relationship between citizen and government. The framework shows various examples of digital strategies within smart cities. Although the framework provides us with an refined way to look at digital strategies for smart cities, it should be used with care as a tool to assess smart city progress. A city probably has to support several e-empowering initiatives to become smart in that respect. Also, the framework should be further applied and validated in studies to refine its contents. Additional strategies could be added that are not yet present within our overview. Potentially, the framework could be extended to become a benchmarking tool for participatory initiatives various smart cities. Validation in future empirical comparative studies could help to assess the completeness and validity of the framework.

Discussion

This study has several limitations that should be addressed in future studies. First, it is necessary to underpin the various possible strategies in our framework with empirical data. For example, the proposed framework could be employed in comparative case studies. Secondly, there could have been other best practices of participatory governance in smart cities that were not yet identified. Other examples could enhance the explanatory function of our framework. In the near future we will continue studying the various innovative ways of participatory governance in smart cities. We have designed the framework from the perspective of governmental users. As a result the network initiatives in the framework show examples of strategies that governments could employ. We have deliberately designed the framework in such a way.

In the end, even with solid digital strategies from local governments, the future of cities is largely an outcome of a set of decisions of multiple stakeholders in an open network. We follow the words of Castells since there will be open structures, able to expand without limits, integrating new nodes as long as they are able to communicate within the network, namely as long as they share the same communication codes [START_REF] Castells | The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture[END_REF]. The complexity of the ownership, leadership and decision making processes in our future cities will be tremendously high. People increasingly make short-term commitments in changing communities of interest and changing goals that meet their expectations (e.g. Latour, Reassambling the social [START_REF] Latour | Reassembling the social[END_REF]). The time has come to explore new effective participatory strategies using digital tools in order to really become a smart city that benefits from it's human capital.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Social Smart City framework

Table 1

 1

	. e-Participation ladder theories
	Stages/Theory IAP2/Tambouris[24, 30] Macintosh[24, 29, 31] OECD[24, 29, 31, 28]
	1. e-Informing	1. e-Enabling	1. Information
	2. e-Consulting	2. e-Engaging	2. Consultation
	3. e-Involving	3. e-Empowering	3. Active participation
	4. e-Collaborating
	5. e-Empowerment

Acknowledgements This study was supported and partly funded by the Province of Overijssel in the Netherlands as part of a research project: "Tech For Future Brid.ge". http://www.smartcitystrategy.eu


Catherine G Mkude
email: catherine.mkude@out.ac.tz

Maria A Wimmer
email: wimmer@uni-koblenz.de

E-Government Challenges: Methods Supporting Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis

Keywords: E-government strategy planning, PESTELMO, DEMATEL, ANP, E-government challenges, Interdependencies, Qualitative / quantitative analysis

des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Governments around the world strive for sustainable development of their economy, societies and welfare, and of their environments. The contributions of e-government to support governments in transforming towards better public service delivery, greater interaction between their citizens and government, and improving the efficiency of public organisations while saving taxpayers' money are well received [START_REF] Gauld | Do they want it? Do they use it? The demandside of e-government in Australia and New Zealand[END_REF][START_REF] Karunasena | Critical factors for evaluating the public value of e-government in Sri Lanka[END_REF]. The new eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020 of the EU commits the Member States to continue investments in e-government to modernise public administrations, to promote open data and to enhance cross-border and cross-sector interoperability. 1 With this Action Plan, the EU and the Member States continue to deploy innovative measures to reduce administrative burdens to citizens and businesses. For administrative burdens reduction, the Action Plan will include the implementation of the Once-Only principle, and in turn generate saving at EU level of approx. 5 billion Euro per year by 2017. 2 Hence, e-government is expected to help resolve the complex and multi-faceted challenges embodied with achieving above ultimate goals.

To continue leveraging on the advantages of implementing e-government, governments in developed and developing countries make significant investments to develop and implement e-government strategies. E-government strategy planning and analysis form necessary and fundamental steps to ensure that the investments yield the expected outcomes. Responsible authorities need to ensure they formulate well-grounded, robust and achievable e-government strategies. To do this, the responsible authorities need to be aware of their countries' context and, in particular, about the challenges that might hinder realisation of the strategies.

Several studies on e-government challenges exist, which look into challenges encountered at different levels of government in developed countries (see e.g. [START_REF] Angelopoulos | Emerging barriers in egovernment implementation[END_REF][START_REF] Anthopoulos | Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the Healthcare.gov website[END_REF][START_REF] Asogwa | Electronic government as a paradigm shift for efficient public services: Opportunities and challenges for Nigerian government[END_REF], [START_REF] Bhuiyan | E-Government in Kazakhstan: Challenges and its role in development[END_REF], [START_REF] Zhao | Key issues and challenges in e-government development: An integrative case study of the number one eCity in the Arab world[END_REF]) and in developing countries (see e.g. [START_REF] Mkude | Studying Interdependencies of E-government Challenges in Tanzania along a PESTEL Analysis[END_REF], [START_REF] Nkohkwo | Challenges to the successful implementation of e-government initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa: A literature review[END_REF][START_REF] Rashid | An Investigation into Critical Determinants of e-Government Implementation in the Context of a Developing Nation[END_REF], [START_REF] Schuppan | E-Government in developing countries: Experiences from sub-Saharan Africa[END_REF]). Two important weaknesses are observed in these studies (see detailed analysis of the studies in section 2). The first weakness is a lack of a systematic structuring of the challenges. This way of representing the challenges, i.e. without any systematic structuring, does not inform decision makers about the challenges in depth. For example, some challenges are political and others are economic, which need to be understood and dealt with differently. Some challenges may be interdependent, such as the lack of available telecommunication infrastructure may be based on a weak economy and the lack of financial resources. Second, the existing studies in e-government challenges do not include a quantitative analysis of the challenges. In lacking a quantitative analysis, the studies do not provide insights into how the challenges could be measured in order to determine their weights and importance (of the challenges).

From these weaknesses, we argue that it is not sufficient for decision makers to only be aware of e-government challenges in their countries. The decision makers also need to know about existing interdependencies among these challenges, which can be identified through a systematic structuring of the challenges. Furthermore, the decision makers need to be able to quantitatively evaluate the interdependencies among the challenges. Therefore, the existing mere representation of the challenges needs to be extended to include qualitative and quantitative analyses.

In this paper, we introduce a novel methodical mix of analysing e-government challenges through qualitative and quantitative methods. By combining the two types of empirical analyses, the decision makers' understanding of e-government challenges will be deepened, and this can enhance their decision making processes during strategy formulation. Additionally, the analyses will support decision makers in developing sustainable and better solutions for addressing the challenges through a better understanding of their interdependencies. In consequence, decision makers can make more informed and grounded decisions on what might or might not work in long term considering the existing challenges and, especially, the interdependencies among them. Accordingly, the contribution is directed towards e-government strategy planners and analysts to support them in making more informed decisions when formulating e-government strategies. The paper also demonstrates the value-add of using the different methods and the complementarity needed for a comprehensive understanding of e-government challenges. The paper is exploratory and it applies literature review and the lessons learned from previous research work to achieve its objectives.

The remainder of the paper is as follows: section 2 sets the grounds of the research and provides insights into existing analysis of e-government challenges. Based on this, section 2 elaborates the need for methods to support qualitative and quantitative analysis of e-government challenges. Section 3 presents the selected methods for qualitative and quantitative analysis of e-government challenges and explains their application and combination. The value-add of the presented methods is reflected in the discussion of the findings in section 4. Section 4 also concludes the paper and provides directions for future research.

Setting the grounds and related work

An e-government strategy defines a set of actions that are to be carried out in programmes and projects in order to realise the vision set by a government [START_REF] Mkude | Strategic Framework for Designing E-Government in Developing Countries[END_REF], [START_REF] Scherer | Studying eParticipation in Government Innovation Programmes: Lessons from a Survey[END_REF], [START_REF] Wimmer | A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGOV project[END_REF]. E-government strategy development involves processes through which decision makers derive strategic actions. For effective development of an e-government strategy, decision makers need to have a good understanding of their countries' context, i.e. of aspects such as politics and democracy, economy, culture, people, infrastructure etc. For example, the decision makers need to take into account the political sphere and existing democratic processes when developing an e-government strategy and its objectives. In analysing the context of their countries, the decision makers need to particularly identify and analyse e-government challenges that exist in their countries ( [START_REF] Mkude | Framework for E-Government Systems Design and Implementation for Developing Countries[END_REF] p. 123). Only then, it is possible to develop a strategy that is robust and achievable and to invest in egovernment solutions that are sustainable. Scanning the literature reveals that e-government challenges are either categorised in certain groups or mentioned without any categorisation. This section reviews and compares eleven studies in order to identify any pattern, in which e-government challenges are analysed. The aims are to provide insights into the existing analysis of egovernment challenges in literature and to identify research gaps. From these gaps, the section emphasises the need for using different methods to support systematic qualitative and quantitative analyses of e-government challenges.

Table 1 presents the eleven studies that investigate e-government challenges in developed and developing countries and that are published in 2009 or later. Table 1 also provides insights into the number of challenges mentioned by each of the studies and whether any scheme has been applied to categorise the challenges. Six out of eleven studies mention less than ten challenges, and among them, the one by Belachew [START_REF] Belachew | E-government initiatives in Ethiopia[END_REF] has categorised the challenges. The other five studies list between eleven and thirty-two challenges. Among these, only Saebø [START_REF] Saebø | E-government in Tanzania: Current Status and Future Challenges[END_REF] does not provide a systematisation through categories. Among the common categories shown in Table 1, the following occur at minimum 3 times: organisational (institutional), technological (infrastructure), social, political, legal and economic. The results depict a lack of a common scheme for categorising the challenges. This gap is contributed by a lack of a systematic method to qualitatively analyse and structure e-government challenges.

In addition, the studies investigated in Table 1 do not investigate the interdependencies among the challenges, except the study of Mkude [START_REF] Mkude | Framework for E-Government Systems Design and Implementation for Developing Countries[END_REF] (see also [START_REF] Mkude | Studying Interdependencies of E-government Challenges in Tanzania along a PESTEL Analysis[END_REF]). The investigation of the interdependencies among e-government challenges is a nascent subject in e-government literature, which is conceptualised in [START_REF] Mkude | Framework for E-Government Systems Design and Implementation for Developing Countries[END_REF][START_REF] Mkude | Studying Interdependencies of E-government Challenges in Tanzania along a PESTEL Analysis[END_REF] embarking on Yüksel's PESTEL method [START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF] and grounded in the mutual influence of challenges. In this regard, the authors also argue that a holistic analysis of e-government challenges is needed to enhance our understanding of the challenges. Through such an analysis, it is possible to assess whether the challenges influence each other and to measure the interdependencies. It is also possible to determine any causal relationships among the challenges. As a step forward towards addressing this weakness, the authors propose the use of PESTEL [START_REF] Mkude | Studying Interdependencies of E-government Challenges in Tanzania along a PESTEL Analysis[END_REF], which is amended with managerial and organisational challenges to PESTELMO ( [START_REF] Mkude | Framework for E-Government Systems Design and Implementation for Developing Countries[END_REF] p. 72), to analyse, identify and structure e-government challenges in a holistic way so to support the assessment of the interdependencies (cf. section 3.1 for more details on the method).

A third weakness identified is that none of the studies investigated in Table 1 provides means to quantitatively analyse the challenges identified therein. None of the eleven studies indicates any metrics to evaluate and weigh the challenges in order to prioritise them in decision making. Accordingly, we identify the need to add quantitative aspects in the analysis of e-government challenges.

To tackle the identified weaknesses towards a comprehensive analysis of e-government challenges, we propose a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis methods as introduced in the next section.

Methods supporting qualitative and quantitative analysis of e-government challenges

The analysis of e-government challenges forms a crucial part in e-government strategy planning and development (cf. section 2). Decision makers need to go beyond being aware of existing political and legal challenges. They need to have a profound understanding, if such challenges influence one another, and what will be the impacts of any interdependencies among these challenges. To achieve such an understanding, we propose a mix of the PESTELMO (Political, Economic, Socio-cultural, Technological, Environmental, Legal, Managerial and Organisational) analysis method [START_REF] Mkude | Framework for E-Government Systems Design and Implementation for Developing Countries[END_REF], DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) [START_REF] Tzeng | Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL[END_REF], [START_REF] Yang | A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Combined with DEMATEL and ANP with Applications[END_REF][START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF] and ANP (Analytic Network Process) [START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF]. This methodical mix supports in carrying out a comprehensive analysis of e-government challenges to better inform decision making in e-government strategy development. The rationale for this combination is driven by the research aim, which is to provide means for comprehensive and more meaningful analysis of e-government challenges (see sections 1 and 2).

Based on a literature review, insights from the authors' previous work (see [START_REF] Mkude | Framework for E-Government Systems Design and Implementation for Developing Countries[END_REF][START_REF] Mkude | Studying Interdependencies of E-government Challenges in Tanzania along a PESTEL Analysis[END_REF] and the objective of this research, the above three methods were identified as most appropriate to ensure the complementarity needed to achieve the aim of the research. The methodical mix combines qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. Qualitative analysis involves a systematic identification and structuring of e-government challenges encountered in a country. We propose the PESTELMO analysis method for this as the first step of analysing e-government challenges. Then, the structured challenges are analysed quantitatively to investigate interdependencies and to weigh the challenges and interdependencies. First, the interdependencies among the challenges are analysed using the DEMATEL method. Second, the weights of the challenges and the interdependencies among them are calculated using the ANP. The methods DEMATEL and ANP are widely used to solve complicated problems in Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) [START_REF] Yang | A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Combined with DEMATEL and ANP with Applications[END_REF][START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF]. The methods allow decision makers to determine and measure the interrelations among different criteria/alternatives with respect to their effects in decision making. The methods have been used to solve many problems in different fields such as project selection, product planning, development of marketing strategies and safety problems [START_REF] Lee | Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection[END_REF][START_REF] Meade | R&D project selection using the analytic network process[END_REF], [START_REF] Tzeng | Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL[END_REF], [START_REF] Yang | A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Combined with DEMATEL and ANP with Applications[END_REF]). Subsequently, the objectives of the methods and their functions in the analysis of e-government challenges are described.

PESTELMO analysis method: identifying and structuring challenges

To identify and structure e-government challenges in a systematic way, the PESTELMO analysis method is proposed. PESTELMO embarks on PESTEL [START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF] and extends the method with managerial and organisational categories (MO), therewith stressing the importance of these two aspects in holistic e-government strategy development and implementation. In relying on the PESTEL method, organisations and decision makers are supported in analysing their internal and external environments in which they operate [START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF] and in determining the context, in which the e-government strategy is expected to be implemented. The steps for the application of the PESTELMO analysis method are as follows:

1. Identify e-government challenges. In this step, decision makers identify challenges that might hinder successful implementation of an e-government strategy. To identify the challenges, qualitative analysis methods such as interviews, surveys and desk research are used. In this step, the research can already be designed in line with the eight categories of PESTELMO (political, economic, socio-cultural, technological, environmental, legal, managerial and organisational). Following these three steps, the decision makers will have a hierarchical model of systematically structured e-government challenges. These steps complete a qualitative analysis of the challenges.

Categorise the challenges into PESTELMO (if not yet categorised after step 1). 3. Form a hierarchical model of PESTELMO to depict the challenges in PESTELMO's categories as shows in

Fig. 1. PESTELMO hierarchical model of e-government challenges

Next, the quantitative analysis follows using DEMATEL and ANP in order to determine existing interdependencies among the identified challenges and to provide decision makers the priority values of the challenges and the interdependencies.

DEMATEL: analysing interdependencies among e-government challenges

DEMATEL is a method to identify interdependencies and interrelations among the criteria/alternatives being studied through a causal diagram and to determine the degree of influence of the criteria [START_REF] Tzeng | Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL[END_REF][START_REF] Yang | A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Combined with DEMATEL and ANP with Applications[END_REF], [START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF]. DEMATEL supports in handling the inner dependencies within a set of criteria through a visual structural model [START_REF] Tzeng | Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL[END_REF], [START_REF] Wu | Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach[END_REF]. We propose DEMATEL to support a comprehensive assessment of the interrelations, interdependencies and causal relations among e-government challenges and to determine the degree of influence of the challenges. The method is widely used in different applications in MCDM (see e.g. [START_REF] Tzeng | Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL[END_REF], [START_REF] Wu | Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach[END_REF][START_REF] Yang | A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Combined with DEMATEL and ANP with Applications[END_REF][START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF]). In e-government strategy development, the method supports decision makers to make more informed strategy decisions and to find sustainable solutions for the challenges to be resolved. The proposed steps for using DEMATEL are as follows (cf. [START_REF] Tzeng | Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL[END_REF], [START_REF] Wu | Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach[END_REF][START_REF] Yang | A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Combined with DEMATEL and ANP with Applications[END_REF][START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF]):

1. Calculate the initial average matrix. This step requires evaluation of the degree of direct influence between the identified e-government challenges by experts on a scale 0-4, where the higher value indicates greater influence. The results from each respondent then produces a matrix stated as

X k =[Xij k ],
where k is the number of experts involved in the study with 1≤k≤H, and i and j are different challenges. The average matrix is then produced through the mean of the same challenges in the various matrices of the experts. The average matrix A is represented as the following equation:

𝑎 𝑖𝑗 = 1 𝐻 ∑ 𝑥 𝑖𝑗 𝑘 𝐻 𝑘=1
(1) 2. Calculate the normalised initial direct-relation matrix. The initial direct matrix D is normalised by D=AxS, where S is:

(2) Where 3. Derive the direct and indirect influence matrix T by T=D(I-D) -1 , where I is the nxn identity matrix. In T, the sum of rows and the sum of columns are represented by vectors r and c, respectively. ri denotes the row sum of the i th row of matrix T and shows the sum of direct and indirect effects of challenge i on the other challenges.

Similarly, cj denotes the column sum of the j th column of matrix T and shows the sum of direct and indirect effects that challenge j has received from the other challenges. When i = j, (ri+ci) provides an index of the strength of influences given and received, that is (ri+ci) shows the degree of the central role that challenge i plays in the problem. If (ri+ci) is positive, then challenge i is affecting other challenges, and if (ri+ci) is negative, then challenge i is being influenced by other challenges [START_REF] Tzeng | Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL[END_REF], [START_REF] Wu | Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach[END_REF][START_REF] Yang | A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Combined with DEMATEL and ANP with Applications[END_REF][START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF]. 4. Set a threshold value to obtain a digraph. Matrix T provides information on how one challenge affects another. Hence, a threshold value needs to be set to filter out negligible effects. Effects greater than the threshold value are chosen and shown in the digraph. The digraph can be acquired by mapping the dataset of (r+c, r-c).

At DEMATEL

ANP method: supporting quantitative evaluation of the challenges and the interdependencies among the challenges

In 1996, Saaty proposed the use of Analytical Network Processing (ANP) to overcome the restrictions of the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) by including analysis of dependencies among different criteria/alternatives ([20] cited in [START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF]). AHP was developed by Saaty [START_REF] Saaty | The analytic hierarchy process[END_REF] to support MCDM [START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF]. In AHP, the general assumption is that the criteria exist in independence of each other and can be structured hierarchically; hence, lacking considerations of the interdependencies, which is added in ANP [START_REF] Saaty | Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks[END_REF]. To complement the analysis of e-government challenges with PESTELMO and DEMATEL, we propose the use of ANP to quantitatively analyse the interrelations, independencies and interdependencies among e-government challenges. The proposed steps for using ANP are proposed as follows, basing on Yüksel [START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF]:

1. Determine the local weights of the independent PESTELMO categories by forming a pairwise comparison matrix. Here, experts respond to questions such as "which challenge should be emphasized more in a macro environment, and how much more?" [START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF], and the responses are assessed using Saaty's 1-9 scale [START_REF] Saaty | Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process[END_REF]. Then, the local weight vector w1 is computed as follows:

𝐴 𝑤1 = 𝜆 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑤1 (3)
2. Where, λmax is the largest eigenvalue of the pairwise comparison matrix A. The obtained vector is further normalized by dividing each value by its column total to represent the normalized local weight vector w2 [START_REF] Yüksel | Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL Analysis[END_REF]. 3. Determine the inner dependence matrix of PESTELMO's main categories based on the digraph derived using DEMATEL (see step 4). The inner dependence matrix of PESTELMO's main categories is then formed according to the weights of the inner dependence of the factors. 4. Calculate the interdependent weights of the PESTELMO categories by multiplying the local weights calculated in step 1 by the inner dependence matrix from step 2. 5. Determine the weights of the PESTELMO challenges. The weights are determined by forming a pairwise comparison matrix of the challenges, evaluating each matrix using the scale 1-9 (according to the evaluation provided by the experts in step 1), calculating local weights and determining consistent ratio. This step calculates the weight of each challenge in PESTELMO. 6. Compute the global weights of the PESTELMO challenges by multiplying the interdependent weights of the challenges from step 3 by the local weight of challenges obtained from step 4.

At the end of step 5, decision makers are provided with a quantitative evaluation and measurement of the PESTELMO challenges identified for a given context. They are informed about the interdependent weights of PESTELMO categories, and the local and global weights of the PESTELMO challenges. These insights inform decision makers about the extent of the interdependencies among the challenges and the weights of the challenges. Accordingly, decision makers will be able to make more informed and well-grounded decisions during strategy development and in finding solutions for the challenges.

The proposed methodical mix of PESTELMO, DEMATEL and ANP supports in comprehensively analysing e-government challenges. In the next section, we reflect on the proposed methodical mix of analysing e-government challenges and discuss the findings.

4

Reflection of findings and outlook for further research E-government challenges are widely known and documented in literature. However, the challenges are only either listed or categorised following a certain scheme (cf. Table 1 in section 2). These studies have left out key and valuable aspects that need to be included in analysis of e-government challenges. First, the studies do not take into account the interdependencies among the challenges. The assumption is that the challenges are independent, which is not the case in the real world. Second, they do not include methods to measure and evaluate the challenges and the interdependencies.

A combination of the PESTELMO analysis method, of DEMATEL and of ANP has been proposed in this study to analyse e-government challenges in a more comprehensive way to better inform decision makers in e-government strategy development and implementation. These methods are proposed to enhance the current research in which e-government challenges are investigated (cf. Table 1). Extending from a mere representation of e-government challenges that is found in most studies, this study goes a step further to include systematic qualitative and quantitative analyses of the challenges and their interdependencies.

To identify the challenges encountered in a country, the widely applied research methods such as interviews, surveys and desk research are used. From here, the identified challenges still need to be systematically represented and analysed in order to provide more valuable insights during strategy development. Particularly, the interdependencies among the challenges need to be identified and measured. For instance, if the legal challenges are highly influenced by the political challenges, then a more comprehensive approach is needed to tackle the legal challenges while taking into account the political ones. Even so, the possibility of tackling the political challenges first and assessing the resulting impacts on the legal challenges can also be examined. The research methods that are currently used to identify the challenges do not support such an analysis. Accordingly, the proposed combination of the three methods adds value to e-government research.

In a qualitative analysis, PESTELMO systematically categorizes e-government challenges. This holistic approach can also be used to highlight potential interrelations and interdependencies among the challenges as depicted in Fig. 1. Yet, PESTELMO does not construct the interrelations and interdependencies among the challenges in a structural and visual way. To complement PESTELMO in this regard, DEMATEL is proposed.

In quantitative analysis, first the DEMATEL method is used to identify and structure the potential interdependencies among the challenges through its four steps outlined in section 3.2. DEMATEL identifies and structures the interdependencies among e-government challenges. Therewith, decision makers are better able to understand the complexity of e-government challenges in terms of existing interdependencies and how the challenges influence one another. However, for more comprehensive and accurate results, the interdependencies and the challenges need to be measured and evaluated with metrics. Accordingly, the ANP method is proposed to measure the local and global weights of the challenges (see steps 1, 4 and 5 in section 3.3), to resolve the matrices resulting from DEMATEL (see step 2 in section 3.3), and to measure the weight of the interdependencies (see step 3 in section 3.3).

To sum up, the proposed combination of PESTELMO, DEMATEL and ANP is expected to provide valuable results that will deepen the decision makers' understanding of the challenges of a country's (or organisation's) context, in which an e-government strategy is to be defined and implemented. With this understanding, decision makers get help in developing more robust, achievable and sustainable e-government strategies.

The paper at hand proposes a methodical mix for qualitative and quantitative analysis of e-government challenges. It also explains the rationale for proposing the methods and their expected contributions in e-government strategy planning and development.

Fig. 1 .

 1 The first level of the model contains a title of the model (the decision makers specify in (N) the name of a country or an organisation). The second level of the model contains the main categories of PESTELMO. The third level contains the challenges identified in step 1. This level depicts the work done in step 2 graphically.

Table 1 .

 1 Literature studies on e-government challenges with insights into the number of challenges mentioned and categorisation of the challenges

	Literature sources (sorted alphabetically)	Year of publica-tion	No. of key challenges mentioned	Are the challenges categorised? (Yes/No), and if Yes, what categories are used?
	Angelopoulos et al.[2]	2010	6	No
	Anthopoulos et al. [3]	2015	9	No
	Asogwa [4]	2012	8	No
					Infrastructure; Human resources;
	Belachew [5]	2010	7	Yes	Standards, guidelines and legal is-sues; Leadership commitment;
					Public-private partnership
	Bhuiyan [6]	2010	7	No
	Mkude [12] (embarking on Yüksel's PESTEL method [27]) 3	2016	32	Yes	Political; Economic; Socio-cul-tural; Technological; Environ-mental; Legal; Managerial and or-ganisational
					Financial; Organisational; Politi-
	Nkohkwo & Islam [15]	2013	20	Yes	cal; Socio-economic; Human re-
					sources; Infrastructure
	Rashid and Rahman [16]	2010	11	Yes	Institutional; Resource-related; Access-related; Legal
	Saebø [17]	2012	11	No
					Political; Social and demo-
	Schuppan [22]	2009	20	Yes	graphic; Economy; Infrastruc-ture;
					Institutional/ organisational
	Zhao et al. [28]	2012	4	No

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/egovernment-action-plan-2016-2020-public-consultation-faq [Last accessed

on 22 February 2016] 2 Ibid.

An earlier version is published in Mkude and Wimmer[START_REF] Mkude | Studying Interdependencies of E-government Challenges in Tanzania along a PESTEL Analysis[END_REF], which is not yet including the category 'managerial and organisational' challenges.

However, future research will need to exemplify the methods in case study research. The lessons learned will help to streamline and improve the application of the methods. Moreover, it will be interesting to investigate how the decision makers benefit from case study results and how the results are fed into the decision making processes in egovernment strategy development.