Luca Tangi
email: ✉luca.tangi@polimi.itmichele.benedetti@polimi.itgiuliano.noci@polimi.it

Marijn Janssen

Michele Benedetti

Giuliano Noci

Barriers and Drivers of Digital Transformation in Public Organizations: Results from a Survey in the Netherlands

Keywords: organizational transformation, transformational government, sociotechnical theory, barriers and drivers, e-government

The introduction of ICT is requiring public administrations to transform their organizations to take advantage of these technologies. Despite its significance, no studies so far collected quantitative evidence on (i) how and the extent to which this transformation is currently underway and (ii) which drivers and barriers are hindering and leading this transformation process. This article aims at filling this gap by surveying Dutch public administrations. In total, 46 responses from different organizations were collected that provide insight into their transformation efforts. Findings show that digital transformation efforts had only a partial impact at the organizational level: processes, employees' duties and tasks and information systems are going through a deep transformation, whereas the social system seems to be less affected by the transformation process. Moreover, the analysis results suggest that external drivers are the main motivation for organizational transformation, and that expected internal barriers do not de facto result in digital transformation. These counterintuitive results suggest that in public administrations only exogenous input result in a sense of urgency and that the perceived barriers to transformation can be overcome if there is sufficient external pressure.

Introduction

New digital technologies promise a more efficient public administration as well as a more effective service provision [START_REF] Margetts | The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasiparadigm for government on the Web[END_REF], [START_REF] Dunleavy | New public management is dead -Long live digital-era governance[END_REF]. However, the achievement of this promise gets often stuck on embedded norms, bureaucracy, processes, and structure [START_REF] Nograšek | E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited?[END_REF]. The linkage between the introduction of ICT and the organizational transformation process is unavoidable: the pervasiveness of ICT in public affairs is forcing public agencies not to reduce the introduction of ICT to a mere dematerialization, i.e. substituting a physical means with digital ones, rather to pursue a necessary (and complex) process of organizational revision for letting the new digital technologies be institutionalized and routinized [START_REF] Fountain | Public Sector: Early Stage of a Deep Transformation[END_REF], [START_REF] Hughes | Public management and administration: an introduction[END_REF]. Newer technologies should mean newer management, newer competences, newer organizational and inter-organizational structures [START_REF] Yildiz | E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward[END_REF] and often they require a radical change, asking for a disruption of the status quo and the standard operating procedures, by experimenting and iterating with technologies that are not part of the standard toolkit of public administrations [START_REF] Pollitt | Advanced introduction to public management and administration[END_REF]. The latter is often referred as transformation. Transformation entails a change in the whole organization, i.e. processes, employees' duties and tasks, information systems, organizational culture and behaviors, and the hierarchical structure. ICT has the potential to impact all those elements [START_REF] Nograšek | E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited?[END_REF]. However, so far, the if, how and under which conditions the transformation took place is still unclear. Some studies explore transformational efforts being undertaken by governments on all levels [START_REF] Weerakkody | Moving from E-Government to T-Government: A Study of Process Reengineering Challenges in a UK Local Authority Context[END_REF]- [START_REF] Weerakkody | Egovernment implementation strategies in developed and transition economies: A comparative study[END_REF], while others highlight a lack of empirical evidence that real public sector transformation has taken place [START_REF] Coursey | Models of E-Government: Are They Correct? An Empirical Assessment[END_REF]. Moreover, all studies conducted so far are based on case studies, leaving a lack of understanding on the depth and the widespread of this ongoing transformation in the public sector. The cases often show that there are many impediments that complicate transformation as well as many drivers that foster it. Literature deeply investigates barriers and drivers, and categorizes them in different ways (see for example [START_REF] Moon | The Evolution of E-Government amoung Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality?[END_REF], [START_REF] Van Veenstra | Barriers and impediments to transformational government: insights from literature and practice[END_REF]). This literature suggests that these elements have an influence on transformation. However, despite such literature deploying consolidated claims, there is a lack of research that quantitatively test the extent to which they influence the transformation. A quantitative analysis will cast light on the topic exploring if and which of the barriers, drivers and transformation processes observed with case studies can be reliable on a large scale.

This article aims to understand the depth of technology-driven public sector transformation and if and the extent to which barriers and drivers condition this transformation. For this, we review the literature and develop a conceptual model. This model is used to conduct a survey. Finally, conclusions are drawn.

2

Literature review and conceptual model

Previous researches stated that organizational transformation is a necessary condition to realize ICT potential, as well as one of the main challenges public administrations are facing nowadays [START_REF] Nograšek | E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited?[END_REF], [START_REF] Pedersen | E-government transformations: challenges and strategies[END_REF]. On the other side, scholars so far identified several barriers and drivers that can foster or hinder this transformation process. However, only a few attempts have been made to construct and test a model that can explain this transformation [START_REF] Pedersen | E-government transformations: challenges and strategies[END_REF]. Therefore, we define a model (Fig. 1) that on the one hand aims at assessing the level of ICT-embedded transformation (dependent variables) and, on the other hand the drivers and barriers that can enable or block it (independent variables). In doing that, we rely on the existing literature for grounding on a solid theoretical background each element that feed the design of the overall model and the hypotheses statement.

Fig.1. Framework of analysis

Organizational transformation

Organizations are complex systems that can be considered as the ensemble of five different elements: process, people, culture, structure and information system [START_REF] Nograšek | E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited?[END_REF], [START_REF] Pedersen | E-government transformations: challenges and strategies[END_REF]. Scholars unanimously agree that those elements are interdependent, therefore a change in one of them can cause changes in the others [START_REF] Nograšek | E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited?[END_REF], [START_REF] Bostrom | MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-Technical Perspective[END_REF], [START_REF] Al-Emadi | Grounded Theory Analysis of Successful Implementation of E-Government Projects: Exploring Perceptions of E-Government Authorities[END_REF]. The five elements are described in Table 1. The Table provides also a list of examples on the impacts of ICT for each element.

According to the socio-technical theory those five elements can be grouped into two independent but interactive macro-systems that compose the organization [START_REF] Bostrom | MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-Technical Perspective[END_REF]:  the technical system, composed by those elements necessary to transform input into output (process, tasks, duties, information system).  the social system that is concerned with all those elements that are related to the environment the technical system in embedded in, the organizational culture and values, and the authority structure. The introduction of ICT has a direct effect on the technical system. However, previous studies demonstrate that the success of technology implementation is fastly tightened to a change also in the social system [START_REF] Nograšek | E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited?[END_REF]. In fact, when organizations design a project that pursues a change only in the technical system, they are more likely to encounter failure [START_REF] Bostrom | MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-Technical Perspective[END_REF]. Therefore, the introduction of ICT in an organization is supposed to have an impact on the organization as a whole [START_REF] Nograšek | E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited?[END_REF]. Hence, we collect evidence taking into consideration all the five elements that characterize it, without assuming any ex-ante hypothesis about the type of relation between them [START_REF] Nograšek | E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited?[END_REF], [START_REF] Weerakkody | Egovernment implementation strategies in developed and transition economies: A comparative study[END_REF], [START_REF] Al-Emadi | Grounded Theory Analysis of Successful Implementation of E-Government Projects: Exploring Perceptions of E-Government Authorities[END_REF], [START_REF] Weerakkody | A case analysis of E-government service delivery through a service chain dimension[END_REF]. Thus, we state the following proposition (we do not articulate it as a hypothesis due to the absence of a quantitative method to test it):

P1. Transformation results in changes in the whole organization, impacting all the five elements that ensemble it.

Process

The set of activities to transform an input in output and to manage and control the entire process.

[3], [START_REF] Al-Emadi | Grounded Theory Analysis of Successful Implementation of E-Government Projects: Exploring Perceptions of E-Government Authorities[END_REF], [START_REF] Weerakkody | A case analysis of E-government service delivery through a service chain dimension[END_REF] Element Description Literature examples People Employees' duties and tasks and, therefore, in the competences needed.

[3], [START_REF] Al-Emadi | Grounded Theory Analysis of Successful Implementation of E-Government Projects: Exploring Perceptions of E-Government Authorities[END_REF] Culture Endorsed values and personal and collective behaviors.

[3], [START_REF] Al-Emadi | Grounded Theory Analysis of Successful Implementation of E-Government Projects: Exploring Perceptions of E-Government Authorities[END_REF], [START_REF] Weerakkody | A case analysis of E-government service delivery through a service chain dimension[END_REF]

Structure

The organizational structure, i.e. the level of centralization/decentralization of responsibilities, the hierarchical structure and the degrees of flexibility.

[3], [START_REF] Al-Emadi | Grounded Theory Analysis of Successful Implementation of E-Government Projects: Exploring Perceptions of E-Government Authorities[END_REF] Information system

The technological systems employed for managing the activities, i.e. all the software, hardware and the integration between them.

[15]

When discussing organizational change, the first variable necessary to consider is the organization size. We intuitively expect that, as for other types of organizational change, bigger organizations are less flexible and more bureaucratic and therefore the transformation process is more complex and organizations are subject to minor changes.

H1. The size of the organization negatively influences the level of organizational transformation.

Barriers and drivers

When approaching a complex process of organizational transformation led by new digital technologies, several barriers can come about and hinder the change [START_REF] Van Veenstra | Barriers and impediments to transformational government: insights from literature and practice[END_REF]. Based on literature, barriers are divided into two categories: structural barriers and cultural barriers. Structural barriers comprehend organizational and managerial factors intrinsic to the characteristics of the organization, whereas cultural barriers comprehend behaviors of the employees that can hinder the change. Table 2 resumes the identified barriers.

Table 2. Barriers to ICT-embedded Organizational Transformation

Category

Barrier Literature examples Structural Barriers Lack of managerial support [START_REF] Fountain | Public Sector: Early Stage of a Deep Transformation[END_REF], [START_REF] Gascó | New technologies and institutional change in public administration[END_REF], [START_REF] Ashaye | The role of stakeholders in the effective use of e-government resources in public services[END_REF] Lack of political support [START_REF] Fountain | Public Sector: Early Stage of a Deep Transformation[END_REF], [START_REF] Gascó | New technologies and institutional change in public administration[END_REF], [START_REF] Ashaye | The role of stakeholders in the effective use of e-government resources in public services[END_REF] Lack of available skills [START_REF] Moon | The Evolution of E-Government amoung Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality?[END_REF], [START_REF] Ebrahim | E-government adoption: architecture and barriers[END_REF], [START_REF] Wirtz | Public Multichannel Management -an Integrated Framework of Off-and Online Multichannel Government Services[END_REF] Shortage of personnel [START_REF] Moon | The Evolution of E-Government amoung Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality?[END_REF], [START_REF] Ebrahim | E-government adoption: architecture and barriers[END_REF], [START_REF] Wirtz | Public Multichannel Management -an Integrated Framework of Off-and Online Multichannel Government Services[END_REF] Organizational complexity [START_REF] Van Veenstra | Barriers and impediments to transformational government: insights from literature and practice[END_REF], [START_REF] Eynon | Barriers to networked governments: Evidence from Europe[END_REF][13], [START_REF] Eynon | Barriers to networked governments: Evidence from Europe[END_REF] Lack of coordination among the departments/areas of the organization [START_REF] Weerakkody | A case analysis of E-government service delivery through a service chain dimension[END_REF], [START_REF] Ebrahim | E-government adoption: architecture and barriers[END_REF], [START_REF] Janssen | An enterprise application integration methodology for e-government[END_REF] Cultural Barriers

Resistance to change [START_REF] Al-Emadi | Grounded Theory Analysis of Successful Implementation of E-Government Projects: Exploring Perceptions of E-Government Authorities[END_REF], [START_REF] Weerakkody | A case analysis of E-government service delivery through a service chain dimension[END_REF] Bureaucratic culture [START_REF] Van Veenstra | Barriers and impediments to transformational government: insights from literature and practice[END_REF], [START_REF] Meijer | E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies[END_REF] Fear of innovation [START_REF] Meijer | E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies[END_REF] As stated by previous studies, the listed barriers block or hinder the transformation process [START_REF] Van Veenstra | Barriers and impediments to transformational government: insights from literature and practice[END_REF], [START_REF] Al-Emadi | Grounded Theory Analysis of Successful Implementation of E-Government Projects: Exploring Perceptions of E-Government Authorities[END_REF]. In order verify those statements on a large scale, we formulate the following hypotheses.

H2. Structural barriers negatively influence the depth of ICT-embedded organizational transformation H3. Cultural barriers negatively influence the depth of ICT-embedded organizational transformation

On the other side, literature identifies also several factors that encourage change. We divided the drivers into two categories: internal and external. On the one hand, internal drivers analyze the presence in the organization of elements (like a charismatic leader or some inefficiencies) that make the change more urgent. On the other hand, the urgency of change can come also from outside the organization (external drivers) for example from the pressure of external stakeholder or legal obligations. Table 3 summarizes the identified drivers.

Table 3. Drivers to ICT-embedded Organizational Transformation

Category

Barrier Literature examples Internal Drivers Strength of internal leadership [START_REF] Nograšek | E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited?[END_REF], [START_REF] Mohammad | E-Leadership: The Emerging New Leadership for the Virtual Organization[END_REF] Internal dissatisfaction about the status quo [START_REF] Moon | The Evolution of E-Government amoung Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality?[END_REF], [START_REF] Weerakkody | Moving from E-Government to T-Government: A Study of Process Reengineering Challenges in a UK Local Authority Context[END_REF] Expected benefits for the administration [START_REF] Wirtz | Public Multichannel Management -an Integrated Framework of Off-and Online Multichannel Government Services[END_REF] External Drivers

Expected benefits for external actors (stakeholders and/or final users) [START_REF] Meijer | E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies[END_REF] External pressure [START_REF] Pedersen | E-government transformations: challenges and strategies[END_REF], [START_REF] Mergel | Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews[END_REF] External legal obligations [START_REF] Pedersen | E-government transformations: challenges and strategies[END_REF] Following the same logic adopted for the barriers, we formulate the following hypotheses.

H4. Internal drivers positively influence the depth of ICT-embedded organizational transformation H5. External drivers positively influence the depth of ICT-embedded organizational transformation 3

Research approach

Survey design

For testing the hypotheses, a questionnaire was developed and delivered to Dutch public managers. Barriers, drivers and the transformation process are intangible factors, therefore can be assessed only directly asking them to public managers. The questionnaire was designed following the model presented in Fig. 1. The questionnaire had two sections to make it easier for reading and completing. Section A includes the questions related to the conceptual model. Three questions were defined (in Appendix I the questionnaire):

 questions 1 aims at measuring the dependent variable, i.e. the depth of organizational transformation (process, people, culture, structure, information system). For each element the level of agreement on the impact of ICT was questioned with a 5-point Likert scale.  question 2 measures the barriers. For each barrier the level of agreement on how this barrier hinders the transformation process that goes along with the introduction of ICT was questioned with a 5-point Likert scale.  question 3 measures the drivers. For each driver the level of agreement on how this driver pushes the transformation process that goes along with the introduction of ICT was questioned with a 5-point Likert scale. In section A the respondents were clearly asked to consider the characteristics and the changes in the whole organization over the past couple of years. Section B asked for demographic information in the form of multiple-choice questions. The section investigates the characteristics of the organization, such as type of administration, number of employees. The survey was circulated by the Dutch association of municipalities (VNG) and the innovation vehicle of the Dutch government (deDigiCampus.nl). Before sending the survey, a pilot test with a first round of interviews involving 4 public managers was conducted for verifying the intelligibility and the completeness of the questionnaire. After that, the questionnaire was revised and a second pilot test was run with the Dutch association of municipalities for ensuring the goodness of the changes. The survey was conducted between January and March 2020. At the beginning of February, a recall was made to increase the number of respondents. The Netherlands were selected for this study due to their high level of e-government maturity and the variety in approaches taken as a decentralized unitary state. This country is enumerated among the "fruitful eGovernment" countries with a high level of digitization and ICT penetration [START_REF]eGovernment Benchmark 2019: trust in government is increasingly important for people[END_REF]. The Netherlands is the constituent country of the Kingdom of Netherlands, which has also island territories located in the Caribbean. The major political institutions in the country are the monarchy, the parliament, the judiciary and the cabinet. Other levels of government include the municipalities, the provinces, and the water-board. These have their own elected council. Each of them decide on adopting their own technology. The municipalities collaborate in the association of municipalities to focus their efforts and share experiences. Nevertheless, each municipality can choose their own approach to digital transformation. Thanks to the stable relation of the authors with VNG and the deDigiCampus we had the opportunity to have a preferential communication channel for obtaining a large number of responses by public managers.

Sample and methods

In total 48 responses were collected, 2 of them were discarded due to incompleteness. Table 4 shows the characteristics of the sample. Firstly, some descriptive statistics were analyzed. Before testing the hypothesis, looking at all the items singularly allows the collection of some more qualitative insight for discussing P1 and identify the more relevant barriers and drivers. Next, a t-test was run for testing H1. Simple regression was run in order to test the hypotheses from 2 to 4. 4 Results

Organizational transformation

Before testing the hypotheses, exploratory analysis was conducted to explain and discuss the extent to which ICT is leading to a transformation. We firstly took into consideration the five elements that characterize an organization (process, people, culture, structure and information system) in order to understand which of the elements are more impacted by the introduction of ICTs. Table 5 shows the results in terms of mean and standard deviation. Table 5 offers some quantitative evidence that partially confirms P1: on average, respondents stated that ICTs are transforming the organizations in terms of processes, people and information systems (all the means above 3 out of 5). Moreover, ICTs seems on average less impactful on organizational culture and structure. The t-test for testing H1 was conducted including only the technical system, i.e. the elements that resulted impacted by the introduction of ICTs (process, people and information system). Those elements were aggregated into an overall indicator summing them together and dividing them by the maximum score achievable (15 out of 15). Appendix II shows the reliability test. The administrations were divided into two categories with respect to their number of employees. Due to the structural characteristics of the Netherlands, the threshold was identified as 2000 employees. The test confirms H1 for both categories. Table 6 and7 show the results of the test.

Organizational transformation barriers and drivers

For the correlation test we aggregated structural barriers, cultural barriers, external drivers and internal drivers into the four overall indicators. In this way summing the single items together and dividing them by the maximum score achievable. In order to be coherent with the previous analysis the depth of organizational transformation was calculated by taking into consideration only the technical system. However, similar results would have been achieved taking when taking into consideration the social system. Table 8 shows the descriptive statistics of the sample, Table 9 summarizes the results of the analysis. H2, H3 are rejected, H4 could not be tested, due to reliability issues of the overall indicator (see Appendix II), and H5 is confirmed.

The results show that the only independent variable having an impact on the depth of organizational transformation is the external drivers (except for the size of the administration). Public administrations that feel the pressure of an organizational transformation from outside are the ones that have recognized the most an organizational transformation led by the introduction of ICT.

Discussion

Firstly, our study quantitative tested and confirmed that the introduction of ICTs is often combined with a transformation of the whole organization (P1). Going deeper into this evidence, the results show that the technical system of an organization (process, people and IS) is the most impacted by introduction of ICT. On the other side, the social system (culture and structure) is less affected by this transformation. This evidence corroborates the validity of the socio-technical theory [START_REF] Bostrom | MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-Technical Perspective[END_REF] also in a digital setting. The social system is the one with a slower reaction time: change the organizational culture and the entire structure of a public administration it's a longer and more difficult process [START_REF] Williamson | Transaction Cost Economics: How It Works; Where It is Headed[END_REF]. We can therefore hypothesize a two-step ICTembedded organizational transformation: firstly, ICT transforms the technical system of an organization, secondly (temporarily speaking) the social one. The same phenomenon could be explained using the terminology suggested by Mergel et al. [START_REF] Mergel | Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews[END_REF]: digitalization to define the change that involves a transformation existing processes and forms and digital transformation for emphasizing cultural and organizational change.

Adopting this classification, the results shows that, in the Netherlands, i.e. one of the country with the highest level of e-government digital maturity, public administrations are going through the digitalization process (i.e. a change in the technical system), while the digital transformation one (i.e. a change in the social system) is still in an embryonic phase.

On the other side, the Netherlands are a country where, on average, public administrations have a high level of complexity, due in primis to their large size. The results show, confirming H1, that the size of the administration is correlated with the depth of organizational transformation: for big and complex administrations the transformation process is less clear than in the smaller ones.

The second step includes in the analysis drivers and barriers. Firstly, a descriptive look to the data collected confirm the existing literature on the presence of structural and cultural barriers that curb the transformation (both above 0.7). The size of the Dutch Public Administration can explain why a lack of coordination and organizational complexity are the ones with a higher score (respectively 4.2 and 4.0). Instead, between the cultural barriers, bureaucratic culture has been identified as the most relevant impediment to face (3.9).

However, the evidence from the correlation analysis (Table 9) denies that the presence of those barriers has a relation with the depth of organizational transformation, influenced instead only by external drivers (H5). This result is partially in contrast with previous studies: even if public managers recognize the presence of barriers that obstruct the transformation process [START_REF] Van Veenstra | Barriers and impediments to transformational government: insights from literature and practice[END_REF], [START_REF] Al-Emadi | Grounded Theory Analysis of Successful Implementation of E-Government Projects: Exploring Perceptions of E-Government Authorities[END_REF], the study demonstrates that the deepness of the transformation is not related with the strength of those barriers. We are aware that this result might be influenced by the limited number of observations and selfselection bias. However, this counterintuitive evidence gives room to some further considerations and hypotheses to explain the obtained results.

External factors have a positive effect on the depth of the transformation. Administrations that feel the pressure (or the obligation) to change are the ones who also declare a higher degree of organizational transformation. This evidence can be explained by the nature of the public sector itself. The absence of the need of and pressure for being profitable or the risk of going bankrupt might make public servants less sensitive for internal pressures, whereas a request from the outside the administration is viewed as urgent. A direct consequence of that the deployment of ICT as an instrument for improving services and participation, requests that come directly from the final users or from national and supra-national institutes, and less as an instrument to answer to internal needs and foster internal efficiency. Public servants initiate transformation due to outside pressures, and do not initiate this for solving internal issues or to obtain benefits for their own organization.

Conclusion and further research

Transformation in government to gain the benefits from digitalization is a key issue for most governments. Public Administrations are realizing that ICT cannot be reduced to a mere dematerialization of existing procedures and services, but, on the contrary, it must be combined with a change of the entire organization. Despite a general agreement among scholars on it, no studies quantitatively tested and analyzed the phenomenon so far. This article fills in this gap by conducting a survey in the Netherlands. The results show that ICTs are transforming organizations, and, in particular, they are transforming what the socio-technical theory defines as the technical system of an organization, i.e. processes, employees' duties and tasks, information systems. However, in contrary to the expectations this transformation is not hindered by those barriers that the existing literature identifies as an obstacle to the transformation process. Also transformation is not driven by internal organizational needs. Instead, external pressures towards change are the primary driver of organizational transformation. Such evidence gives room to several further research avenues. First of all, the study focuses on a single country, characterized by a high maturity in terms of ICT implementation in the public sector. Delivering the same survey to a different country will dive deeper into the phenomenon, understanding if the results can be generalized also in other contexts. Moreover, the counterintuitive evidence of no correlation between the barriers and the depth of organizational transformation calls for further analysis to better understand the reasons behind these results. Further studies should design a more complex and comprehensive model, including more elements to better explain the phenomenon.

─ Information Systems (IS) (introduction of new IS, replacing of the existing ones, integration amongst different IS, interoperability, IT infrastructure)

2. In your organization, the organizational transformation process that goes along with digitalization is hindered by: (1-strongly disagree; 5 -strongly agree) Appendix II -reliability test Note. ID_TOT where excluded from the regression analysis due to the low Cronbach's alpha. Cronbach's alpha higher than 0.6 where considered acceptable, due to the exploratory nature of the study.

8 .

 8 Lack of available skills ─ Shortage of personnel ─ Lack of political support ─ Lack of managerial support ─ Organizational complexity ─ Lack of coordination among the departments/areas of the organization ─ Resistance to change ─ Bureaucratic culture ─ Fear of innovation 3. In your organization the organizational transformation process that goes along with digitalization is pushed by: (1-strongly disagree; 5 -strongly agree) ─ Strength of internal leadership ─ Internal dissatisfaction about the status quo ─ Expected benefits for the administration ─ Expected benefits for external actors (stakeholders and/or final users) Years of work in the current organization: ─ Less than 2 years ─ More than 2 years

Table 1 .

 1 Elements of organizational transformation

	Element	Description	Literature
			examples

Table 4 .

 4 Descriptive statistics of the sample

	Element	Mean	Frequency Percent
	Size	<2000 employees	29	63,0
		>2000 employees	17	37,0
	Type of administration	Administrative Organization	8	17,4
		Ministry	4	8,7
		Municipality	27	58,7
		Other	1	2,2
		Other Government	4	8,7
		Regional Administration	2	4,3
	Role	Director	5	10,9
		Other	9	19,6
		Public manager	13	28,3
		Public servant	19	41,3
	Year of experience in the	< 5 years	2	4,3
	public sector	≥ 5 years	44	95,7
	Year of experience in the	< 2 years	3	6,5
	current administration	≥ 2 years	43	93,5

Table 5 .

 5 ICT-embedded organizational transformation -exploratory results

	Element	Mean	Std. Dev.
	Process	3,66	1,28
	People	3,39	1,08
	Culture	2,75	0,99
	Structure	2,82	1,10
	Information System	3,84	1,10

Table 6 .

 6 Organizational transformation and size of the administration -mean and std. dev.

	Category	N	Mean	Std. Dev.
	> 2000 employees	29	0,7586	0,18131
	≤ 2000 employees	17	0,6353	0,20438

Table 7 .

 7 Organizational transformation and size of the administration -t-test

		Levene's test	Levene's test	t	df	Sig. (2-
		F	Sig.			tailed)
	Equal variances assumed	0,449	0,506	2,132	44	0,039*

Table 8 .

 8 Barriers and drivers -descriptive statistics

		Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation
	SB_Skills	2,00	5,00	3,8261	0,87697
	SB_Personnel	1,00	5,00	3,4348	1,00338
	SB_PolSupport	1,00	5,00	3,5217	1,06956
	SB_ManagSupport	1,00	5,00	3,6087	1,14462
	SB_Complexity	1,00	5,00	4,0000	1,07497
	SB_Coordination	2,00	5,00	4,2391	0,84813
	SB_TOT	0,47	0,97	0,7543	0,12036

Table 9 .

 9 Organizational transformation -regression results

			,00	5,00	2,9565	1,11468
	ID_IntBenefit		1,00	5,00	3,6087	0,90623
	ID_TOT		0,20	0,87	0,6435	0,14888
	ED_ExtBenefit		1,00	5,00	3,5870	1,02363
	ED_Pressure		1,00	5,00	3,3913	0,99952
	ED_Obligation		1,00	5,00	3,5217	1,13017
	ED_TOT		0,20	1,00	0,7000	0,16375
		Unstandardized	Standardized
		Coefficients	Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
	(Constant)	0,345	0,252		1,370	0,178
	CB_TOT	-0,174	0,232	-0,107	-0,751	0,457
	SB_TOT	0,148	0,197	0,116	0,752	0,456
	ED_TOT	0,629	0,172	0,523	3,666	0,001***
	EMP2	-0,135	0,051	-0,336	-2,628	0,012*

Appendix I -questionnaire 1. From an organizational perspective, so far digitalization in your organization transformed: (1-strongly disagree; 5 -strongly agree):

─ Processes (reengineering of the existing processes, process management and control) ─ People (duties, tasks, complexity of work, competences) ─ Culture (endorsed values, personal and collective behavior) ─ Structure (standardization, centralization/decentralization, hierarchy, external relationships, flexibility)


Sara Hofmann
email: sara.hofmann@uia.no

Christian Østergaard Madsen

Bettina Distel

Developing an Analytical Framework for Analyzing and Comparing National E-Government Strategies

Keywords: E-government Strategy, Digital Government Strategy, Policy Analysis

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

Introduction

Digital technologies offer important opportunities for achieving efficiency gains and improving service levels in public sector administration [START_REF] Lindgren | Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services[END_REF][START_REF] Chadwick | Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: "e-government" in the United States, Britain, and the European Union[END_REF][START_REF] Sandoval-Almazán | Building Digital Government Strategies[END_REF]. Moreover, through the successful strategic implementation of emerging technologies, public digitalization can contribute to addressing societal issues such as an aging population, improving healthcare, and creating business opportunities [START_REF] Niehaves | Iceberg ahead: On electronic government research and societal aging[END_REF][START_REF] Bertot | Big data, open government and e-government: Issues, policies and recommendations[END_REF][START_REF] Heitmueller | Developing public policy to advance the use of big data in health care[END_REF]. However, digital technologies also bring challenges. For instance, governments must protect their information and citizens against hacker attacks and misinformation, and they must ensure that public employees and citizens have the necessary skills and are motivated to use the digital services offered [START_REF] Sandoval-Almazán | Building Digital Government Strategies[END_REF][START_REF] Bertot | The E-Government paradox: Better customer service doesn't necessarily cost less[END_REF]. Finally, the successful implementation of digital technologies requires attention to numerous other areas, i.e. the national context, technical and legal interoperability, and collaboration between public and private sector stakeholders [START_REF] Sandoval-Almazán | Building Digital Government Strategies[END_REF]. Digital strategies offer governments a framework to address these issues and promote their vision for utilizing digital technologies. The national digital strategies were not created for research purposes, but with the explicit purpose of promoting public sector digitalization. As policy documents, they are interesting, precisely because they are not neutral, but rather present a biased view on a specific topic [START_REF] Bryman | Social research methods[END_REF]. Thus, a comparative analysis of national digital strategies may yield important insight into these biases and different perspectives on public sector digitalization.

We find Denmark and Germany to be interesting countries for such a comparative analysis. On the one hand, the two countries have many similarities. They are neighbors, industrialized, wealthy, welfare states, with large public sectors. In terms of egovernment implementation and adoption, however, they are vastly different. Denmark is a frontrunner, while Germany continuously lacks behind in service offers and adoption rates despite having Europe's largest national economy [START_REF]The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)[END_REF]. German delegates regularly visit Danish e-government decision makers to learn from their experiences, and Denmark has even institutionalized a digitalization ambassador in the Danish embassy in Berlin.

There are numerous non-peer reviewed studies, which compare and rank e-government adoption in different countries [START_REF]The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)[END_REF][START_REF] Ayanso | E-Government readiness index: A methodology and analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Codagnone | Institutional isomorphism, policy networks, and the analytical depreciation of measurement indicators: The case of the EU e-government benchmarking[END_REF]. Similarly, several studies analyze e-government strategies from developing countries. However, there are few studies, which analyze and compare national e-government strategies in industrialized countries. Recently, a framework by Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF] has become popular for analyzing values in egovernment policy documents [START_REF] Persson | Value positions in e-government strategies: Something is (NOT) changing in the state of Denmark[END_REF][START_REF] Sundberg | Value Positions and Relationships in the Swedish Digital Government[END_REF][START_REF] Toll | Artificial Intelligence in Swedish Policies: Values, Benefits, Considerations and Risks[END_REF]. But, to the best of our knowledge, there is no recent widely recognized framework for analyzing and comparing other elements of national e-government strategies. To address these gaps in the extant literature, we have conducted a study, with two specific research goals:

1. Develop an analytical framework for comparing national e-government strategies. 2. Apply the framework to the Danish and German e-government strategies as a proof of concept.

This paper is structured as follows: The next section presents previous studies on egovernment and digital strategies and background information. Then we present the method we applied to develop the analytical framework, followed by the analytical framework itself. We then offer a proof-of-concept by briefly presenting our comparative analysis of the Danish and German e-government strategies. Finally, we offer concluding remarks, discuss the limitations of our study and suggest future studies.

2

Background on e-government strategies

E-government strategies

Sandoval-Almazán et. al distinguish between (national) digital government strategies, which operate at the societal level, and enterprise or e-government strategies, which operate at the organizational level [START_REF] Sandoval-Almazán | Building Digital Government Strategies[END_REF]. A national digital strategy is a framework for the use of digital technologies for governments and in society. It represents "a general vision of how information technology should be utilized to support social and economic development of the society as a whole, as well as focusing on benefitting specific subsets of the society" (p. 10). National digital strategies are linked to the UN millennium goals such as gender equality and literacy. When developing such strategies, representatives from the public and private sectors and from the civil society often collaborate. In contrast, a digital government, e-government, or enterprise strategy, deals with applying IT in the public sector. Such a strategy concerns "the internal use of information technologies aimed at creating more efficient government and improved delivery of government services." (p. 14). The 'internal' perspective can refer to one government organization, or a nationwide level, i.e., the whole public sector of a nation.

We searched for studies analyzing and/or comparing e-government strategies, in general, and from Germany and Denmark specifically. The search was conducted in May 2019 and updated in March 2020 using Publish and Perish with Google Scholar as search engine. The keywords used were Danish, Denmark, German Germany, digital government, e-government, strategy, policy analysis, and comparison.

Many of the identified studies include e-government strategies and similar policy papers in their analyses, but few present in-depth analyses of the national e-government strategies as texts. In 2003, Chadwick and May presented an analysis of policy documents on public sector digitalization comparing the US, EU, and the UK [START_REF] Chadwick | Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: "e-government" in the United States, Britain, and the European Union[END_REF]. We have not identified any recent studies, which analyze and compare national e-government strategies as texts through qualitative or quantitative content analysis. Rather, scholars have analyzed the strategies by other means, such as by interviewing and surveying policymakers [START_REF] Deakins | A Comparison between E-Government Practices in Taiwan and New Zealand[END_REF][START_REF] Weerakkody | E-government: A comparison of strategies in local authorities in the UK and Norway[END_REF], by describing the goals and key topics therein at a high level of abstraction (i.e. in headlines) [START_REF] Rodousakis | The development of inclusive e-Government in Austria and Portugal : a comparison of two success stories[END_REF], or indirectly by presenting data analyses from other sources [START_REF] He | Comparison of E-government Strategy Between Chinese and Foreign Nations: Content, Model and Characteristics[END_REF], such as consultancy companies and international rankings of countries according to the availability and diffusion of e-government services [START_REF]The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)[END_REF].

While such comparisons can be useful, they are unfit for our research purposes. The international e-government rankings are frequently criticized by scholars [START_REF] Bannister | The curse of the benchmark: An assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons[END_REF] because they have not been subject to peer-review, and because both methodology and the underlying data is often black-boxed and not available for closer inspection. According to Blaikie such tertiary data -which has been generated and analyzed by another researcher -should be treated with caution because of the risk for "unintentional or deliberate distortion" [START_REF] Blaikie | Designing Social Research[END_REF]. We also found that several of the identified studies merely reproduced the strategies' overtly optimistic presentation of e-government by repeating a list of benefits, without any form of critical reflection.

2.2

The Danish and the German e-government strategy

We consider Sandoval-Almazán et al.'s classification of strategies in the public sector as a continuum ranging from national digital strategies on the one end to e-government enterprise strategies on the other end. The strategies of Denmark and Germany we have analyzed can be classified in between the two extreme cases. Neither do they discuss the general use of digital technologies in a society as a whole nor are they limited to the internal use of digital technologies within the public sector or a public sector organization. Rather, both strategies deal with the use of digital technologies, its technical and social antecedents and consequences both within public sector organizations and beyond that, thus extending the understanding of e-government enterprise strategies. However, their focus is clearly limited to the interaction between public sector and further stakeholders, thus limiting the boundaries to public sector services and thereby staying below the general use of digital technologies as proclaimed in national digital strategies.

The Danish digitalization strategy 'A Stronger and More Secure Digital Denmark' is the fifth document in a row of strategies, with the first strategy being published in 2001, the penultimate in 2011. Although each of the strategies can be considered individually and sets new priorities, together they form a single digitalization program for Denmark. The latest strategy of 2016 was developed by the Danish Agency for Digitalization as a cooperation of all federal levels, i.e., the national government, the local government, and the Danish regions together authored the strategy. The strategy is 60 pages long, graphically prepared and follows a uniform design as a brochure.

It opens with an introductory section on the overall mission pursued with the strategy, a short outline of current developments that require further digitalization within the public sector, and a short positioning of the strategy within the overall Danish digitalization program. Afterwards, the vision and goals of the strategy are stated. Specifically, the Danish strategy aims i) for "digital solutions [that are…] easy-to-use, quick and [that] ensure high quality", ii) for "digitisation [that…] provide[s] good conditions for growth", and iii) for "security and confidence" [22, p. 15]. The strategy's main part divides each goal into three sub-goals and lists the specific initiatives and measures planned to achieve each goal. The strategy concludes with an outlook on how it can be further developed.

The German National E-Government Strategy was published in 2015 as an amendment of the original strategy of 2011 and is authored by the IT Planning Council. The council coordinates the digitalization efforts of all federal levels in Germany and, thus, coordinates e-government projects across the levels. Being an amendment to the original one, the current version of the German e-government strategy does not set a new focus but deepens and extends the program of its predecessor. The strategy is presented in text form, with one figure summarizing the strategy's main goals and related actions.

The German strategy starts with a foreword, highlighting the how and why of its development. The second section focuses on current developments that challenge the German public sector and that can be addressed through further digitalization. In addition, it also contains a separate section on its role for e-government activities and projects in Germany. Afterwards, the five guiding principles of the strategy are introduced, namely i) "Usefulness [of e-government] for citizens, businesses and public administrations", ii) "Cost-effectiveness, efficiency and performance [of e-government]", iii) "Information security and data protection", iv) ensuring "Transparency and participation in society", and finally, v) ensuring "Innovation and sustainability" [23, p. 7]. In the subsequent section, each of these principles is divided into several goals and a set of accompanying initiatives and measures to reach these goals. The strategy concludes with an exhaustive glossary of main terms and projects mentioned in the strategy.

Although there is a rich literature and many empirical studies of e-government from Germany, we have not identified studies, which analyze the national German e-government strategy as a policy document. The five Danish national e-government strategies from 2001-2016 have, however, been subject to several studies.

Jaeger & Löfgren present an in-depth, theoretically guided analysis [START_REF] Jaeger | The history of the future: Changes in Danish e-government strategies 1994-2010[END_REF]. They present direct quotes from the strategies to back up their claims, and find, that the democratic ideals, which initially informed e-government policies, have been sidelines in favor of managerial and efficiency ideals. This echoes Chadwick and May [START_REF] Chadwick | Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: "e-government" in the United States, Britain, and the European Union[END_REF], who found similar developments in e-government strategies from the US, UK and EU [START_REF] Chadwick | Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: "e-government" in the United States, Britain, and the European Union[END_REF]. Similarily, Scupola [START_REF] Scupola | A Case Study of Digital Transformation of Danish Public Services : Actors and Policies[END_REF], along with Meyerhof & Yasuka [START_REF] Meyerhoff | An analysis of the Danish approach to eGovernment benefit realisation[END_REF], present the historical development of e-government in Denmark based on analysis of policy document and interviews with key stakeholders. Jansen, Berger and Goldkuhl compare the three Scandinavian countries' e-government strategies with an emphasis on secure digital post [START_REF] Jansen | First Choice, Free Choice or No Choice -Differences in Secure Digital Post in the Scandinavian Countries[END_REF]. They find that the countries' strategies offer three remarkably different approaches to digital post adoption from coercion (Denmark), to nudging (Norway) to voluntary (Sweden). Joseph & Avdic compare EU fact-sheets of Nordic countries' egovernment policies [START_REF] Joseph | Where do the Nordic Nations' Strategies Take e-Eovernment?[END_REF]. Schou and Hjelholt have conducted several analyses of the e-government strategies, informed by a critical realist, post-marxist perspective [START_REF] Jannick | Digitalizing the welfare state: citizenship discourses in Danish digitalization strategies from 2002 to[END_REF][START_REF] Hjelholt | Digital lifestyles between solidarity, discipline and neoliberalism: On the historical transformations of the Danish it political field from 1994 to 2016[END_REF][START_REF] Hjelholt | Digital citizenship and neoliberalization: governing digital citizens in Denmark[END_REF]. Their studies revolve around the construction of the digital citizen, and how the strategies treat socially excluded groups. Persson et al. apply Rose et al.'s e-government value framework [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF] to guide their analysis of two e-government strategies from 1994 and 2016 [START_REF] Persson | Value Positions in E-Government Strategies: Something Is (not) Changing in the State of Denmark[END_REF]. They find little development over the years, although values concerning citizen engagement have declined.

Method for developing the analytical framework

The analytical framework for comparing national e-government strategies was developed in a two-stage process. First, we identified relevant prior literature (see section 2) on which the analytical framework and its specific categories is based. Second, the resulting framework was applied to the strategies (see section 5) and iteratively refined. The comparison of the national e-government strategies requires an interpretation of its contents, wherefore a qualitative content analysis was conducted. Commonly, three different types of (qualitative) content analyses are differentiated that serve specific purposes [START_REF] Hsieh | Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis[END_REF]. The conventional content analysis is used to inductively analyze the material, whereas the directed content analysis makes use of predefined categories when interpreting the data. Finally, the summative content analysis is used to understand the context in which words or concepts are used. For our purposes, the second variation, the directed content analysis, is most appropriate as several studies especially on the Danish e-government strategies already exist. The directed content analysis as presented by Hsieh & Shannon [START_REF] Hsieh | Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis[END_REF] widely corresponds to the structuring content analysis by Mayring [START_REF] Mayring | Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken[END_REF], who also proposes a detailed process model for this kind of content analysis, which we follow in our work (see Fig. 1). First, the analysis starts with deciding on the units of analysis, which in the present study are the written national e-government strategies of Denmark and Germany in their latest versions. Second, based on the above identified prior research, we derived a set of relevant categories for the strategies' assessment with a total of six overarching categories, namely contextualization and self-understanding of the strategy, goals of the strategy, actions of the strategy, stakeholders, public service areas and technologies, national context, and conditions and consequences of e-government. For each of these categories, we derived sub-categories either from prior literature or inductively through a first informal test coding. The third and fourth step in this process include compiling the preliminary category scheme and to decide on a first version of definitions, anchor examples, and coding instructions. In a first work-through (a) (see Fig. 1) of the strategies, this version of our coding scheme was used to code both strategies and re-define all categories, examples, definitions and coding instructions. This was done by identifying all relevant statements in the strategies and assigning them to one or more sub-categories according to the coding instructions. The results and all coded segments were discussed in a workshop with all three researchers, where differences in the coding strategy, unclear or imprecise definitions were discussed, and the category scheme was reworked (b). These steps were followed by another work-through and a second workshop during which the researchers agreed on a final coding scheme which, finally, was applied to both strategies by one researcher (c-e). During the processing of the results, the last step as proposed by [START_REF] Mayring | Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken[END_REF], the categories were re-grouped into five main categories (see section 4) although the content did not change any more (f). The final coding scheme is presented in the following section. Table 1 contains a summary of all categories and sub-categories and shows which sub-categories were derived from literature and which were derived inductively from the material.

Definition of units of analysis

Presentation of analytical framework for analyzing e-government strategies

As described above, we have iteratively developed the analysis framework, starting from literature and enhancing it by inductive development of further categories. Our main literature sources for developing the categories are the compendium "Building Digital Government Strategies" by Sandoval-Almazán et al. [START_REF] Sandoval-Almazán | Building Digital Government Strategies[END_REF] and the "Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies" published by the OECD [35]. Table 1 gives an overview of our coding categories. Contextualization and self-understanding of the strategy. The first main category describes how the strategy understands itself and how it is put into legal context. It is important that a responsible body is identified for ensuring the implementation of the overall strategy, which needs to be coordinated among different levels of the public sector. Furthermore, the relevant stakeholders and different levels of public sector organizations should deliver their input to the development of the strategy [35]. Since these roles are often difficult to comprehend from an outside perspective, it makes sense to identify the authors of the strategy (1a) as well as the audience of the strategy (1b). While the first are responsible for developing and publishing the strategy, the latter are those for whom the strategy is written. In an ideal case, an e-government strategy should be applied in every public sector decision and the interplay between this strategy and other public sector strategies should be taken into account and aligned [35]. Thus, it is important to identify the role of the strategy (1c), referring to any information that mentions how the strategy should be applied. During our coding, we added the category plan for further development of the strategy (1d) that explains how the strategy is supposed to be further developed in the future. An e-government strategy can be one in a row of several subsequent strategies or might need to be regularly revised. Since in egovernment processes, often several government agencies are involved, new forms of interaction require substantial institutional changes including laws, rules, and norms [START_REF] Sandoval-Almazán | Building Digital Government Strategies[END_REF]. Therefore, these regulations might need to be adjusted in order to implement an egovernment strategy, which can require reviewing existing legal and regulatory frameworks. The category legal activities/frameworks (1e) captures the legal framework that influence or are influenced by the e-government strategy. Finally, we added the category definition of main terms (1f), where important concepts are described, e.g. in a glossary. This can be relevant for understanding the terminology used in a strategy and it can give hints as to the audience of the strategy.

Goals and actions of the strategy.

The second main category describes the goals of the strategy and the actions required to reach the goals. The application of technology is no goal in itself. Before developing a roadmap for using technology, it is therefore crucial to understand and define the problems that need to be solved by e-government [START_REF] Sandoval-Almazán | Building Digital Government Strategies[END_REF]. These problems can then be formulated into strategic goals (2a), which are the overall high-level goals a strategy contains. The OECD, for example, defines main goals of an e-government strategy as "greater transparency, openness and inclusiveness of government processes and operations" [35, p. 6]. In addition to strategic goals, we also came across SMART goals (2b) in the strategies, which refer to operational goals including specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, or time-bound elements. Furthermore, we identified more operationalizable tasks. On the one hand, strategies can contain explicit tasks (2c), i.e., activities that according to the strategy need to be carried out to implement the goals. On the other hand, they can refer to implicit tasks (2d), which are implicitly indicated.

Stakeholders, public service areas and technologies. The third main category includes the stakeholders, the public service areas and the technologies that are mentioned in the strategy. For every e-government project, it is important to understand the involved or affected stakeholders (3a) because the success of e-government endeavors depends heavily on their support and adoption of the solutions [START_REF] Sandoval-Almazán | Building Digital Government Strategies[END_REF]35]. These stakeholders can be internal or external. During coding, we identified the category public service areas (3b), which categorizes specific domains or contexts that the strategy mentions. These areas indicate areas of prioritization for the years to come or show projects that have been successful during the past. In addition to stakeholders and service areas, technologies are acknowledged as important key driver to create and improve innovation and public service delivery [35]. Therefore, the final sub-category refers to the technologies (3c) that, according to the strategy, are used or to be used.

National context [START_REF] Niehaves | Iceberg ahead: On electronic government research and societal aging[END_REF]. The fourth category describes if the e-government strategy mentions a country-specific context. It is important to understand that e-government as such and e-government strategies are highly context-dependent and that it is not possible to transfer solutions from one country one on one to any other context [36]. E-government projects are, for example, highly dependent on the country's or municipality's economic situation as well as the political structures and environment [START_REF] Sandoval-Almazán | Building Digital Government Strategies[END_REF].

Conditions and consequences of e-government. The fifth and final main category describes the conditions and consequences of e-government that need to be considered according to the strategy. Using digital technologies in the public sector can evoke several risks such as security and privacy issues that need to be overcome by a strategy [35]. The first sub-category risks, considerations, barriers, requirements or challenges for e-government (5a), therefore, refers to aspects that need to be considered or overcome in order to increase and implement e-government. In addition to these specific individual, technical or organizational aspects, we identified societal challenges (5b), which describe society-wide challenges that influence or are influenced by e-government. Finally, we coded negative consequences (5c) and positive consequences (5d) of e-government that are mentioned by the strategy.

Application of analytical framework to the Danish and German e-government strategies

After developing the final set of categories, we coded the Danish and the German egovernment strategies to get a proof of concept of our analytical framework. This section contains an excerpt of the analysis. Besides the analysis of the content of both strategies, we also counted how often the categories were coded in each strategy in order to assess the importance given each category within the strategies.

Contextualization and self-understanding of the strategy. This category was coded 26 times in the Danish and 32 times in the German strategy. Both strategies clearly describe the role of the strategy (1a) but differ in how they do so. The statements coded in the Danish strategy integrate the current strategy into the overall Danish digitalization program. Thus, the role of the Danish strategy is not restricted to specific goals in a given timeframe but explicitly includes previous strategies and their goals as well. In contrast, the German strategy is more focused on itself. The statements show that the strategy's role is to underline the IT planning council's mandate to coordinate the development of e-government in Germany. In addition, some statements indicate that the strategy follows existing strategies of other organizations in structure and content. Rather than setting the course of digitalization for the upcoming years -as the Danish strategy -the German strategy is formulated as a guiding framework that aims at ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of administrative processes.

Goals and actions of the strategy. In the Danish strategy, 186 segments were coded, in contrast to 69 in the German strategy. The Danish strategy mentions several strategic goals (2a) such as the creation of growth and value, especially for businesses, through digitalization, ensuring and enhancing current security standards in order to safe-guard the strong confidence of the Danish society in the public sector digitalization, increasing and enhancing the user-friendliness of digital government services, and increasing the transparency of the public sector, for example, to disclose how sensitive data of citizens and businesses is processed. The German strategy has similar strategic goals, namely usefulness of e-services; cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and performance; information security and data protection; transparency and participation in society; innovation and sustainability. However, the themes running through all goals differ from those identified as underlying the Danish strategic goals and we only find two of these underlying themes. First, the strategy focuses on increasing user-friendliness for all users of public administrations, i.e. citizens, businesses, and public administrations, by providing e-services. This theme emerges in all specific goals of the strategy and is strongly focused on developing client-centric e-services and enabling democratic participation, without specifically addressing efficiency or effectiveness as can be seen in the Danish strategy. Second, the strategic goals focus on reaching and sustaining a high level of security and stability of technical infrastructures. This theme is focused on internal processes and the creation and maintenance of technical cooperation, i.e. interoperability of systems between the federal levels.

Stakeholder, public service areas, and technologies. In the Danish strategy, we coded 148 instances for the third category and 45 instances for the German strategy. Both strategies identify similar stakeholders (3a). These include stakeholders from the public sector such as public sector employees, ministries and agencies or the public sector in general, stakeholders from the private sector, and stakeholders from the civil society such as citizens or stakeholder organizations. In the Danish strategy, the stakeholders in the citizen category are sometimes concretized and referred to as 'Danes', 'parents', 'elderly' or even more concretely 'young people released from prison'. The German strategy further includes research organizations as potential stakeholders. In both strategies, especially the stakeholder groups from the public and the private sector are ascribed an active role in the sense that they need to cooperate or perform certain activities in order to increase e-government activities. Citizens, in contrast, are mainly presented as passive stakeholders who can benefit from digital services.

National context [START_REF] Niehaves | Iceberg ahead: On electronic government research and societal aging[END_REF]. We identified 31 instances of the national context in the Danish and one instance in the German strategy, showing a much stronger emphasis on context in the Danish strategy. Interestingly, these contextual factors cover quite different areas. Some areas, such as adoption rates, and the development of digital infrastructure, are generally objective and quantitative, while others such as the importance of high levels of trust, the nature of collaboration and pragmatism, are more subjective and qualitative. One of these sub-themes also, quite directly, concerns the importance of the history of the strategies and the iterative approach to digitalization. This, by extension, highlights the important role of the authors of the strategy, especially the Digitalization Agency. In contrast, the only point where the German strategy mentions a national context is a reference to Germany's federal structure.

Conditions and consequences of e-government.

The Danish e-government strategy contains two instances of negative consequences (5c) from digitalization. These concern the increased vulnerability, which digitalization entails, due to the interconnectedness of the IT systems and increased risk of cybercrime. The latter may not only lead to economic damage, but also to a loss of public trust in IT. The German strategy does not mention any negative consequences of e-government. In contrast, we coded 72 instances of positive consequences (5d) in the Danish e-government strategy, and seven instances of positive consequences in the German strategy. In terms of the number of instances coded, it is clear, that the strategies have a much stronger focus on the potentially positive than negative consequences.

Discussion and conclusion

In this article, we developed an analytical framework for national e-government strategies and applied this framework to the Danish and German e-government strategies as a proof of concept. Based on prior research on e-government strategies and amended by induction, we developed a framework of five overarching categories that describes the role, function and specific contents of (national) e-government strategies. We applied the analytical framework to the German and Danish national e-government strategies. Our analysis and comparison suggest that the strategies differ fundamentally but are both characterized by the respective national context: Denmark has a long tradition of digitalization and the strategy is part of an overarching vision of digitalization that spans decades. The German strategy is much more influenced by the status quo of digitalization and -conceived merely as an amendment of the original strategy -might be the beginning of a comparable development.

Our study offers several contributions to e-government practice. First, the framework highlights the context-sensitivity of e-government strategies. Therefore, policymakers should be cautious before attempting to transfer strategies and best practices from one context to another. Our study is -to the best of our knowledge -the first to analyze the national German e-government strategy as a policy document through content analysis and compare it to the Danish strategy. This comparison shows fundamental differences in how policymakers conceptualize e-government, and in how e-government strategies are used as tools to implement e-government. Further, we find that, systematically analyzing and comparing strategies with this framework can disclose otherwise hidden or only implicitly described conceptualizations of the functions of IT in the public sector, the roles the stakeholders play or should play, their duties and the bigger picture policy-makers actually aim for. We find that the framework is suitable to analyze strategies on all federal levels and allows for international comparisons. Our study also offers contribution to e-government research. We have developed a framework to analyze e-government strategies and tested it on two such strategies.

The focus of the study was on two wealthy, developed economies with differing levels of e-government adoption. While the chosen cases already provide rich insights into the development and implementation of e-government strategies, we suggest widening the scope of our framework by applying it to countries with lower e-government maturity. We would like to invite researchers to use our framework and apply it to other e-government strategies. Such additional analyses and comparison can add to the understanding of how e-government is perceived and developed across the world. Rather than focusing on one particular application area such as digital post or the presence of certain (public) values in the strategies, our approach is holistic, and seeks to describe the strategies as a whole through five large aspects. These aspects can be analyzed indepth on their own or be compared. By focusing on various aspects and their relation to one another, we can address the criticism by Jaeger & Löfgren that "literature tends to take on policy-makers' cognitive and normative positions as factual propositions, where these positions are treated as explicit and objective realities." [24, p. 253].

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Methodological process model based on[START_REF] Mayring | Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken[END_REF]

5 .

 5 Conditions and consequences of e-government a. Risks, considerations, barriers, requirements, and challenges What factors does the strategy mention that need to be considered to increase and promote the use of e-government? b. Societal challenges* What society-wide factors does the strategy mention that challenge or are challenged by e-government? c. Negative consequences of e-government* What negative consequences of e-government does the strategy mention? d. Positive consequences of e-government* What positive consequences of e-government does the strategy mention? * categories marked with an asterisk were added inductively during coding

Table 1 .

 1 Analytical framework

	Category	Description
	1. Contextualization and self-understanding of the strategy
	a. Authors	Who are the authors of the strategy?
	b. Audience of the strat-	Does the strategy explicitly mention the audience? Whom?
	egy
	c. Role of the strategy	What does the strategy say about how it should be applied?
	d. Plan for further devel-	Does the strategy mention how it will be expanded in the fu-
	opment of the strategy*	ture? How?
	e. Legal activities/frame-	What laws/legal frameworks are mentioned in the strategy
	work	that influence or are influenced by the strategy and its goals?
	f. Definition of main	Are main terms explicitly defined, e.g. in a glossary or in the
	terms*	text?

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by the German National Centre for E-Government (NEGZ). Christian Ø. Madsen's research is funded by the Research Centre for Government IT, which is a collaboration between the IT University of Copenhagen, the Danish Agency for Digitisation, and the self-owned institution ATP. The Research Centre's external funding partners were not involved in the development of the research questions presented herein, nor the analysis, discussion, or presentation of the study's results.