Designing a Maturity Assessment Model for Governmental E-Procurement Systems Based on Key Performance Indicators

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Information Technology Management, Faculty of Industrial Management and Technology, College of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Prof., Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Prof., Department of Information Technology Management, Faculty of Industrial Management and Technology, College of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

4 Prof., Department of Information Technology Management, Faculty of Industrial Management and Technology, College of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

10.22059/jipa.2025.388421.3630

Abstract

Objective
This research aims to design and introduce key performance indicators (KPIs) for a comprehensive maturity model tailored to the objectives of e-government, based on the performance of its stakeholders.
Methods
This applied research employs a mixed-methods approach. The initial design of the maturity model utilized an innovative methodology to ensure both robustness and applicability by combining qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques. To identify the preliminary indicators for the maturity model, a qualitative content analysis was conducted on relevant academic articles. Subsequently, qualitative interviews were carried out with 25 key system managers and users to strengthen and validate the indicators. Based on these inputs, the initial model was developed. To evaluate the model, a structured questionnaire was distributed to all users, yielding responses from 2,425 system users. In the first part of the questionnaire, respondents rated the selected initial indicators using a Likert scale. Additionally, open-ended questions about desired indicators generated a total of 800 responses, which were qualitatively analyzed to update and confirm the final model. The use of a mixed-methods approach provided a comprehensive understanding of both qualitative and quantitative data, ensuring a well-rounded and reliable evaluation.
Results
The final maturity model consists of four levels: Initial, Electronic Transactions, Integrated Transactions, and Optimized. At each level, specific indicators have been identified to assess system performance corresponding to that stage:

Initial Level: At this stage, systems are in the early phases of implementation, focusing on basic technical capabilities such as accessibility and usability. Primary business criteria, including user registration numbers and transaction volume per system, serve as evaluation metrics.
Electronic Transactions Level: At this stage, systems are capable of systematically managing electronic transactions. Key indicators include the number of simultaneous transactions, transparency in request specifications, and the timely processing of payments.
Integrated Transactions Level: This level reflects comprehensive integration of procurement processes and information flows. Indicators include process documentation, support for local suppliers, and transparency toward stakeholders.
Optimized Level: At the highest level, systems operate at maximum efficiency and incorporate advanced criteria such as environmental sustainability, data sharing, and protection of personal information. Social and environmental considerations are emphasized, including the reduction of administrative resource consumption and compliance with environmental standards.

Conclusion
This research presents a maturity model in which indicators at each level can be used to evaluate stakeholder performance. Stakeholders demonstrating strong performance at each stage, and successfully institutionalizing the level-specific indicators into their operations, are better positioned to meet the criteria for higher levels. In the early stages, technical and economic indicators are more prominent. As stakeholder performance improves and lower-level indicators become institutionalized, social and environmental indicators gain greater relevance, ultimately supporting and advancing the goals of sustainable development.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

 
Aho, M. (2012, July). What is your PMI? A model for assessing the maturity of performance management in organizations. In Proceedings of Performance Management: From Strategy to Delivery Conference (PMA 2012). University of Cambridge, UK.
Almuftah, H., Weerakkody, V. & Sivarajah, U. (2016). Comparing and contrasting e-government maturity models: A qualitative-meta synthesis. Electronic Government and Electronic Participation, 69-79.
Altundag, A. & Wynn, M. (2024). Advanced Analytics and Data Management in the Procurement Function: An Aviation Industry Case Study. Electronics, 13(8), 1554.https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/8/1554
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R. & Pöppelbuß, J. (2009). Developing Maturity Models for IT Management. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(3), 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5
Bititci, U. S., Garengo, P., Ates, A. & Nudurupati, S. S. (2015). Value of maturity models in performance measurement. International Journal of Production Research, 53(10), 3062-3085. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.970709
Bulut, C. & Yen, B. P. (2013). E-procurement in public sector: a global overview. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 10(2), 189-210.
Concha, G., Astudillo, H., Porrúa, M. & Pimenta, C. (2012). E-Government procurement observatory, maturity model and early measurements. Government Information Quarterly, 29, S43-S50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.08.005
Dawood Gani, A. B. & Fernando, Y. (2021). The cybersecurity governance in changing the security psychology and security posture: Insights into e-procurement. International Journal of Procurement Management, 14(3), 308-327. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPM.2021.115038
Ebadi, N. (2016). The Maturity Level of E-Governance in Iran Ministry Portals. Journal of Public Administration, 8(3), 487-510. doi: 10.22059/jipa.2016.60765 (in Persian)
Farzaneh Kondori, N. & Rouhani, S. (2021). Presenting a conceptual framework for digital judicial transformation for digital governance. Journal of Public Administration, 13(3), 593-620. doi: 10.22059/jipa.2021.317608.2891 (in Persian)
Ferreira, I. & Amaral, L. A. (2016, March). Public e-procurement: Advantages, limitations and technological" pitfalls". In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance (pp. 9-12).
Ghaffari, P., Pourezzat, A. A., Araei, V. & Alvani, S. M. (2023). Designing a Model of Smart Urban Governance Using a Synthesis Approach. Journal of Public Administration, 15(3), 400-438. doi: 10.22059/jipa.2023.358375.3323 (in Persian)
Hochstetter, J., Diaz, J., Dieguez, M., Espinosa, R., Arango, J. & Cares, C. (2022). Assessing Transparency in eGovernment Electronic Processes. IEEE Access, 10, 3074-3087. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3137799
Javadi, H. & Amin, F. (2024). Designing a Conceptual model for Evaluating the Performance of Software Developers in Fintech Organizations. Journal of Public Administration, 16(4), 876-898. doi: 10.22059/jipa.2024.373088.3476 (in Persian)
Maleki, M., Karimi, M., Reyan, H. & Cruz-Machado, V. (2016). E-Procurement Platform Implementation Feasibility Study and Challenges: A Practical Approach in Iran (Vol. 502). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1837-4_70
Pergioudakis, V., Miliotis, P. & Doukidis, G. (1998). Electronic Public Procurement: From the International Experience to the Reality of the Mediterranean Region. In Doing Business Electronically: A Global Perspective of Electronic Commerce (pp. 103-120). Springer.
Poeppelbuss, J., Niehaves, B., Simons, A. & Becker, J. (2011). Maturity models in information systems research: literature search and analysis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 29(1), 27.
Pourezzat, A. A., Abbasi, T., Maghsoodi Kenari, S. & Namdar Joybari, M. M. (2024). Investigating the Role of the basic Components of Smart Governance in Realizing a Smart City with the ISM Method (Case Study: Tehran). Journal of Public Administration, 16(3), 535-561. doi: 10.22059/jipa.2024.376694.3505 (in Persian)
Rendon, R. G. (2015). Benchmarking contract management process maturity: a case study of the US Navy. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 22(7), 1481-1508. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2014-0096
Safari, H., Khoshsima, Gh., Mohammadian, A., Moslehi, A., Hakey, K., Farazmand, E. & Tamizi, A. (2003). The e-Government Maturity Model of the Iranian Ministry of Commerce. Quarterly Journal of Management Knowledge, 1(16), 53-78. (in Persian)
Saraee, H., Mohammadian, A. & Khani, N. (2022). A Systematic Review of Intra-organizational Factors Affecting Open Government Data to Achieve Innovation in Government Services. Journal of Public Administration, 14(3), 479-501. doi: 10.22059/jipa.2022.341714.3143 (in Persian)
Shahkooh, K. A., Saghafi, F. & Abdollahi, A. (2008, April). A proposed model for e-Government maturity. In 2008 3rd International conference on information and communication technologies: From theory to applications (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Suliantoro, H., Ghozali, I. & Wibowo, M. A. (2015). E-procurement adoption in government institution: Predicting social values effect on intention and usage behavior of e-procurement. International Journal of Business and Society, 16 (2).
Supriyanto, A. & Mustofa, K. (2016, 26-27 Oct. 2016). E-gov readiness assessment to determine E-government maturity phase. 2016 2nd International Conference on Science in Information Technology (ICSITech).
Taghavifard, M. T. & Hejazinia, R. (2021). Introducing e-Government 2.0 Maturity Model: Focusing on Developing Countries. Business Intelligence Management Studies, 10(37), 1-36. doi: 10.22054/ims.2021.61644.1993 (in Persian)
Trautmann, L. (2021). MAP 4.0–Proposal for a Prescriptive Maturity Model to Assess the Digitalization of Procurement. In Logistics Management: Contributions of the Section Logistics of the German Academic Association for Business Research, 2021, Dresden, Germany (pp. 90-104). Springer International Publishing.
Uhrenholt, J. N., Kristensen, J. H., Rincón, M. C., Adamsen, S., Jensen, S. F. & Waehrens, B. V. (2022). Maturity Model as a Driver for Circular Economy Transformation. Sustainability, 14(12), 7483. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7483
Versendaal, J., Van Den Akker, M., Xing, X. & De Bevere, B. (2013). Procurement maturity and IT-alignment models: overview and a case study. Electronic Markets, 23, 295-306.
Zautashvili, D. (2017). E-government maturity model by growth level of e-services delivery. Journal of Technical Science and Technologies, 6 (2).
Journal of Public Administration
Volume 17, Issue 2
2025
Pages 408-429

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics