Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Government Process Capability Model: An Exploratory Case Study

  • Conference paper
Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (SPICE 2014)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 477))

Abstract

The customization of software process capability/maturity models to specific domains/sectors or development methodologies represents one of the most critical challenges of the process improvement domain. As a result of the literature review, it is observed that there is a lack of a guideline for how to improve process quality in governmental institutions. Therefore, in this study, development of a government process capability model based on ISO/IEC 15504 is aimed in order to ensure that processes are consistently applied, managed, and controlled across a governmental institution. Towards this goal, a government business process classification framework consisting of management of government resources and support processes and government specific processes is constructed. As a government specific process; public investment management process is defined and assessed as a case study to explore the applicability of this framework. Initial findings of the study indicate the usefulness and adequacy of the proposed approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Teicher, J., Hughes, O., Dow, N.: E-government: a new route to public sector quality. Managing Service Quality 12(6), 384–393 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hutton, G.: Business process re-engineering a public sector view. In: Armistead, C., Rowland, P. (eds.) Managing Business Processes BPR and Beyond. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Indihar Stemberger, M., Jaklic, J.: Towards E-government by business process change—A methodology for public sector. Int. J. of Information Management 27(4), 221–232 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Acar, M., Kumaş, E.: Türkiye’ninDönüşümSürecindeAnahtarBirMekanizmaOlarak E-Devlet, E-DönüşümVeEntegrasyonStandartları (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Isomäki, H., Liimatainen, K.: Challenges of government enterprise architecture work – stakeholders’ views. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, H.J., Ferro, E. (eds.) EGOV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5184, pp. 364–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Hjort-Madsen, K., Gotze, J.: Enterprise Architecture in Government – Towards a multi-level framework for managing IT in government. In: Proceedings of European Conference on e-Government, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 365–374 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bradford Rigdon, W.: Information Management Directions: The Integration Challenge. In: Architecture and Standards, ch. 17 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  8. ISO/IEC 15504: composed of seven parts (15504-1 to 15504-7) Parts: Under the general title Information technology — Process assessment (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Software Engineering Institute (SEI): CMMI Product Team, CMMI® for Development, Version 1.3, Improving processes for developing better products and services (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cass, A., et al.: SPICE for SPACE trials, risk analysis, and process improvement. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 9(1), 13–21 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Automotive, S.: Automotive SPICE - Process Assessment Model (2007), http://www.itq.ch/pdf/AutomotiveSPICE_PAM_v23.pdf

  12. McCaffery, F., Dorling, A.: Medi SPICE Development, Software Process Maintenance and Evolution. Improvement and Practice Journal 22(4), 255–268 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibrahim, L.: Improving Process Capability Across Your Enterprise. In: 4th World Congress on Software Quality (4WCSQ), Bethesda/USA (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  14. ISO 9001, Quality management systems – Requirements (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Deming, E.: Out of the Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Üstüner, Y., Coşkun, S.: Quality management in the Turkish public sector: a survey. Public Administration and Development 24(2), 157–171 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Swiss, J.: Adopting TQM to government. Public Administration Review 52(4), 352–356 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rago, W.: Adopting Total Quality Management (TQM) to government: another point of view. Public Administration Review 54(1), 61–64 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Saner, R.: Quality assurance for public administration: a consensus building vehicle. Public Organization Review 2(4), 407–414 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. EIPA: The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) Improving An Organization Through Self-Assessment, European Institute of Public Administration (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cappelli, L., Guglielmetti, R., Mattia, G., Merli, R., Renzi, M.F.: Peer evaluation to develop benchmarking in the public sector. Benchmarking: An International Journal 18(4), 490–509 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pollitt, C., Bouckaert, G.: Public Management Reform. Oxford University Press (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Saha, P.: A Methodology for Government Transformation with Enterprise Architecture. In: Advances in Government Enterprise Architecture, pp. 1–29 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. IFEAD: Extended Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model (E2AMM) v2.0 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  25. TOGAF Architecture Capability Maturity Model, in TOGAF Version 9 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. NASCIO.: NASCIO Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model, Version 1.3 (2003), http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/nascio-eamm.pdf

  27. United Nations and American Society for Public Administration Global Survey of E-government (2001), http://www.unpan.org/egovernment2.asp

  28. Baum, C., Di Maio, A.: Gartner’s Four Phases of E-Government Model, Gartner Group, Research Note (2000), http://aln.hha.dk/IFI/Hdi/2001/ITstrat/Download/Gartner_eGovernment.pdf

  29. Siau, K., Long, Y.: A stage model for e-government implementation. Paper Presented at the 15th Information Resource Management Association International Conference (IRMA 2004), New Orleans, LA, May 23-26, pp. 886–887 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Saha, P.: A Methodology for Government Transformation with Enterprise Architecture. In: Advances in Government Enterprise Architecture, pp. 1–29 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Deloitte, Touche: The citizen as customer. CMA Management 74(10) (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Layne, K., Lee, J.: Developing fully functional e-government: a four stage model. Government Information Quarterly 18(2), 122–136 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Andersen, K.V., Henriksen, H.Z.: E-Government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government information quarterly 23(2), 236−248 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hiller, J., Bélanger, F.: Privacy Strategies for Electronic Government. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Endowment for the Business of Government, E-Government Series (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Moon, M.J.: The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review 62(4), 424–433 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Council, C. I. O., Federal Enterprise Architecture Consolidated Reference Model Document. Version 2.3 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  37. American Productivity & Quality Center (APQC)., Process Classification Framework, APQC, Washington, DC (2012), http://www.apqc.org/free/framework.htm

  38. Gokalp, E.: Technical Report of Public Investment Management Process Assessment (2014), http://smrg.ii.metu.edu.tr/smrgp/index.php?option=com_jresearch&view=publication&task=show&id=718&Itemid=54

  39. GAO. Informatıon Technology Investment Management (2004), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04394g.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Informatics Institute, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

    Ebru Gökalp & Onur Demirörs

Authors
  1. Ebru Gökalp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Onur Demirörs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Antanas Mitasiunas

  2. Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Terry Rout

  3. Dublin City University, Ireland

    Rory V. O’Connor

  4. InterSPICE Ltd, Cambridge, UK

    Alec Dorling

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gökalp, E., Demirörs, O. (2014). Government Process Capability Model: An Exploratory Case Study. In: Mitasiunas, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds) Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. SPICE 2014. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 477. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13036-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13036-1_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-13035-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-13036-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation