Digital maturity index for public administration: a multi-level assessment framework
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3846/bm.2026.2508Abstract
Digital transformation came in a focus for public administration, yet existing international digital maturity indices primarily operate at the national level, offering limited insight into institutional-level digital maturity. This paper introduces the D-index – a structured digital maturity assessment framework designed to evaluate digital maturity at the institutional level and extend to sectoral and national levels. The D-index comprises 5 dimensions, 14 categories, and 30 indicators. Using standardized scoring, normalization, and aggregation methodology, the index enables evidence-based strategic planning and systematic monitoring of digital transformation progress. The main contribution lies in bridging the gap of policy-implementation interaction between national level and institutional level performance.
Keywords:
digital maturity, digital maturity model, digital transformation, digital maturity index, digital public governance, digital gap, digital maturity measurement framework, institutional assessment, policy of digital transformation, evidence based strategic planningHow to Cite
Addo, A., & Senyo, P. K. (2021). Advancing e-governance for development: Digital identification and its link to socioeconomic inclusion. Government Information Quarterly, 38(2), Article 101568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101568
Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.008
Aras, A., & Büyüközkan, G. (2023). Digital transformation journey guidance: A holistic digital maturity model based on a systematic literature review. Systems, 11(4), Article 213. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11040213
Balodis, A., Neimanis, M., & Caune, J. (2026). Digitālā brieduma indeksu lietojums publiskās pārvaldes digitālā brieduma mērīšanai [The use of digital maturity indices to measure the digital maturity of publisc administration]. Rīgas Tehniskā universitāte. https://doi.org/10.7250/9789934372469
Bandura, R. (2008). A survey of composite indices measuring country performance: 2008 update (UNDP/ODS Working Paper). Office of Development Studies, United Nations Development Programme.
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., & Gallagher, M. (2001). An evolutionary model of continuous improvement behaviour. Technovation, 21(2), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(00)00023-7
Bharosa, N., Janssen, M., van Wijk, R., de Winne, N., van der Voort, H., Hulstijn, J., & Tan, Y. H. (2013). Tapping into existing information flows: The transformation to compliance by design in business-to-government information exchange. Government Information Quarterly, 30, S9–S18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.08.006
Campmas, A., Iacob, N., & Simonelli, F. (2022). How can interoperability stimulate the use of digital public services? An analysis of national interoperability frameworks and e-Government in the European Union. Data & Policy, 4, Article e19. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2022.11
Chanias, S., Myers, M. D., & Hess, T. (2019). Digital transformation strategy making in pre-digital organizations: The case of a financial services provider. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2018.11.003
Cordella, A., & Paletti, A. (2019). Government as a platform, orchestration, and public value creation: The Italian case. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), Article 101409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101409
Dechamps, S., Simonofski, A., & Burnay, C. (2025). Citizen-centricity in digital government: A theoretical and empirical typology. Government Information Quarterly, 42(1), Article 102005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.102005
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance: IT Corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296194.001.0001
Dwivedi, Y. K., Wade, M. R., & Schneberger, S. L. (2012). Information systems theory: Explaining and predicting our digital society (Vol. 1). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9707-4
European Commission. (2024). Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2024. European Commission.
Gottschalk, P. (2009). Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.03.003
Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001
Janssen, M., van der Voort, H., & Wahyudi, A. (2017). Factors influencing big data decision-making quality. Journal of Business Research, 70, 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.007
Janssen, M., Zhang, H., Ojo, A., Nikiforova, A., Loukis, E., Viale Pereira, G., Scholl, H. J., Liu, H. K., Durkiewicz, J., Hughes, L., Zheng, L., Anthopoulos, L., Panagiotopoulos, P., Janowski, T., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2025). Reflections on the nature of digital government research: Marking the 50th anniversary of Government Information Quarterly. Government Information Quarterly, 42(4), Article 102086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102086
Kalogirou, V., Stasis, A. & Charalabidis, Y. (2022). Assessing and improving the National interoperability frameworks of European Union Member States: The case of Greece. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), Article 101716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101716
Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1
Lee, J. (2010). 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-government: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.12.009
Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003
Lindgren, I., & van Veenstra, A. F. (2018). Digital government transformation: A case illustrating public e-service development as part of public sector transformation. In dg.o ’18: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age (pp. 1–6). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209302
Lips, M. (2019). Digital government: Managing public sector reform in the digital era. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315622408
Lněnička, M., Luterek, M., & Majo, L. T. (2024). Analysis of e-government and digital society indicators over the years: A comparative study of the EU member states. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 26(5), 560–582. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-07-2023-0103
Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2014). Digital government transformation and internet portals: The co-evolution of technology, organizations, and institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.001
Matheus, R., Janssen, M., & Maheshwari, D. (2020). Data science empowering the public: Data-driven dashboards for transparent and accountable decision-making in smart cities. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), Article 101284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.01.006
Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2013). Methods for constructing composite indices: One for all or all for one. Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, 67(2), 67–80.
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), Article 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
Miller, M., & Ghaffarzadegan, N. (2025). Dynamic capabilities in the public sector: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 38(6), 717–734. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-05-2024-0154
Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffmann, A., & Giovannini, E. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing.
Pang, M. S., Lee, G., & DeLone, W. H. (2014). IT resources, organizational capabilities, and value creation in public-sector organizations – public-value management perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 29(3), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.2
Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., & Weber, C. V. (1993). Capability maturity model, version 1.1. IEEE Software, 10(4), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.219617
Stavytskyy, A., Kharlamova, G., & Stoica, E. A. (2019). The analysis of the digital economy and Society Index in the EU. Baltic Journal of European Studies, 9(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2019-0032
Szedmák, B., Varga, L. & Szabó, R. Z. (2025). Digital transformation of public services: The case of the document management application. International Journal of Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2025.2520522
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). Digital Government Index. In Government at a glance 2025. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0efd0bcd-en
Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of e-government: A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
UK Government. (2024). Digital and data continuous improvement assessment framework (GovS 005: Digital). HM Government.
Vavura, D., & Matei, A. (2024). Digital transformation in the public sector: Conceptualization and measurement through digital maturity. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 67E, 102–118.
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Downloads
CrossMark check
Published
Conference Event
Section
Copyright
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
