Volume 12, Issue 3 (12-2025)
Human Information Interaction 2025, 12(3): 23-48 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Heydarian S, Zahedi M H, Asghari S A, Jafari N. Designing E-Government Development Indicators in Universities and Higher Education Institutions: A Localized and Practical Approach. Human Information Interaction 2025; 12 (3)
URL: http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3216-en.html
URL: http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3216-en.html
Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (2416 Views)
Purpose: This study aims to formulate a set of indigenous indicators that align with global standards while addressing the specific needs of Iran’s higher education sector and contributing to the improvement of electronic service quality in this domain.
Method: To achieve the study's objective, a multi-phase approach was employed. Initially, both process-based and general models of e-government were comprehensively reviewed and analyzed. General models were selected due to their breadth and flexibility in evaluating university services. Subsequently, eight general e-government models from the period 2022 to 2024 were examined, leading to the identification of the United Nations E-Government Development Index (EGDI) as the optimal framework. The 2024 EGDI report was structurally analyzed to extract its key indicators and adapt them to the local Iranian context. To ensure alignment with Iran’s governance requirements, a set of national policy documents was reviewed. This step ensured that the developed indicator framework was not only consistent with international standards but also compliant with Iran’s legal and regulatory needs.
Findings: The findings from this comparative analysis facilitated the selection of a model tailored to the local context and the specific requirements of higher education, thereby providing a suitable foundation for leveraging international experiences and innovative approaches in developing academic e-government. Based on the 2024 UN report and the analysis of Iran’s status within it, existing challenges and deficiencies were identified and used as the foundation for indicator design. Ultimately, leveraging the conceptual framework of the EGDI model and referencing national strategic documents, the final structure was developed, comprising four major indicators and 62 components.
Conclusion: The study resulted in the identification of a model that not only aligns with global standards but is also adaptable to the unique needs of Iran’s higher education sector. The proposed model enables precise and consistent evaluation of electronic services, portals, and platforms while being attuned to Iran's local conditions. Future research can focus on validating these indicators and expanding their application to other educational domains.
Method: To achieve the study's objective, a multi-phase approach was employed. Initially, both process-based and general models of e-government were comprehensively reviewed and analyzed. General models were selected due to their breadth and flexibility in evaluating university services. Subsequently, eight general e-government models from the period 2022 to 2024 were examined, leading to the identification of the United Nations E-Government Development Index (EGDI) as the optimal framework. The 2024 EGDI report was structurally analyzed to extract its key indicators and adapt them to the local Iranian context. To ensure alignment with Iran’s governance requirements, a set of national policy documents was reviewed. This step ensured that the developed indicator framework was not only consistent with international standards but also compliant with Iran’s legal and regulatory needs.
Findings: The findings from this comparative analysis facilitated the selection of a model tailored to the local context and the specific requirements of higher education, thereby providing a suitable foundation for leveraging international experiences and innovative approaches in developing academic e-government. Based on the 2024 UN report and the analysis of Iran’s status within it, existing challenges and deficiencies were identified and used as the foundation for indicator design. Ultimately, leveraging the conceptual framework of the EGDI model and referencing national strategic documents, the final structure was developed, comprising four major indicators and 62 components.
Conclusion: The study resulted in the identification of a model that not only aligns with global standards but is also adaptable to the unique needs of Iran’s higher education sector. The proposed model enables precise and consistent evaluation of electronic services, portals, and platforms while being attuned to Iran's local conditions. Future research can focus on validating these indicators and expanding their application to other educational domains.
References
1. Al Marzooqi, A., & Zein, H. (2021). To improve competitiveness, build invisible government services. Strategy& (PwC Middle East).
2. Barlian, A., Nugraha, A., & Pratama, R. (2025). E-government and the metaverse: Opportunities, challenges and digital innovations. IJSTIAMI: International Journal of Social, Tax, Information, Administration, Management and Innovation, 1(1), 27–38.
3. Bekkers, V. (2003). Reinventing government in the information age: International practice in IT-enabled public sector reform. Public Management Review, 5(1), 133–139. [DOI:10.1080/714042647]
4. Bindu, N., Sankar, C. P., & Kumar, K. S. (2019). From conventional governance to e-democracy: Tracing the evolution of e-governance research trends using network analysis tools. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 385–399. [DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.005]
5. Claps, M., Yesner, R., & Likhari, R. (2021). From e-government to invisible government bureaucracy.
6. Deloitte Digital LLC. (2022). Deloitte’s digital government transformation services. Retrieved from https://www.deloitte.com/content/dam/assets-zone3/us/en/docs/industries/government-public-services/2024/digital-government-transformation-services-brochure.pdf
7. Dener, C., Nii-Aponsah, H., & Ghunney, L. (2021). GovTech maturity index: The state of public sector digital transformation (Vol. 2): Executive summary. World Bank. [DOI:10.1596/978-1-4648-1765-6]
8. Gil-García, J. R., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2006). Integrating conceptual approaches to e-government. In Encyclopedia of e-commerce, e-government, and mobile commerce (pp. 636–643). IGI Global. [DOI:10.4018/978-1-59140-799-7.ch102]
9. Haydari, S., & Montazer, G. A. (2021). A sub-national model for assessing e-government readiness in Iranian organisations (case study: Tarbiat Modares University). International Journal of Electronic Governance, 13(4), 408–441. [DOI:10.1504/IJEG.2021.121244]
10. He, J., & Ya, H. (2025). Evaluation method of e-government audit information based on big data analysis. Systems and Soft Computing, 200253. [DOI:10.1016/j.sasc.2025.200256]
11. ICT, Ministry of. (2024). Approvals of the National Information Technology Executive Council.
12. Kowalkiewicz, M., & Dootson, P. (2019). Government 5.0: The future of public services.
13. Law on the Seventh Five-Year Development Plan of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1403–1407). (2024). Retrieved from https://dotic.ir/news/16684
14. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136. [DOI:10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1]
15. Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2011). Open government implementation model: A stage model for achieving increased public engagement. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times. [DOI:10.1145/2037556.2037598]
16. LeHong, P., Iyer, B., & Andrews, W. (2021). Use Gartner’s digital business maturity model to plan your digital business acceleration. Gartner.
17. Lnenicka, M., Tomek, P., & Pospisil, J. (2024). Government in the metaverse: Requirements and suitability for providing digital public services. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 203, 123346. [DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123346]
18. López, M. A. (2020). Self-sovereign identity: The future of identity: Self-sovereignty, digital wallets, and blockchain.
19. Moon, M. J. (2023). Advancing Korea's digital government: The shift from digital government to digital platform government. In The Routledge international handbook of public administration and digital governance (pp. 62–78). Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781003458081-6]
20. Oni, A. A., Ayo, C. K., Oni, S., & Mbarika, V. (2016). Strategic framework for e-democracy development and sustainability. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 10(3), 457–477. [DOI:10.1108/TG-09-2015-0040]
21. Othman, M. H., & Razali, R. (2017). Electronic government systems interoperability model. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering, 9(3–4), 1–9.
22. Shkarlet, S., Dubyna, M., & Zhuk, O. (2020). Comparative analysis of best practices in e-government implementation and use of this experience by developing countries. Administratie si Management Public, (34), 118–136. [DOI:10.24818/amp/2020.34-07]
23. United Nations. (2001). Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective. United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration.
24. United Nations. (2024). United Nations e-government survey 2024. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
25. Vietnam Ministry of Science and Technology. (2024). Vietnam’s e-government architecture framework (Version 3.0).
26. West, D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00343.x]
27. Wirtz, B. W., & Daiser, P. (2018). A meta-analysis of empirical e-government research and its future research implications. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(1), 144–163. [DOI:10.1177/0020852315599047]
28. Zahedi, M. H. (2024). Digital transformation in higher education: Education as a service. [DOI:10.61838/kman.aitech.2.3.6]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
