sustainability

Article
Digital Transformation and Knowledge Management
in the Public Sector
Ana Alvarenga 1 , Florinda Matos 2, * , Radu Godina 3 and João C. O. Matias 4,5
1 Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal; [email protected]
2 Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), DINÂMIA’CET-ISCTE, 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal
3 UNIDEMI, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, NOVA School of Science and Technology,
Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, 2829–516 Caparica, Portugal; [email protected]
4 DEGEIT—Departamento de Economia, Gestão, Engenharia Industrial e Turismo, Universidade de Aveiro,
Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810–193 Aveiro, Portugal; [email protected]
5 GOVCOPP—Unidade de Investigação em Governança, Competitividade e Políticas Públicas,
Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810–193 Aveiro, Portugal
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 26 June 2020; Accepted: 17 July 2020; Published: 20 July 2020


Abstract: Digitizing public services is, at the moment, an essential necessity for numerous governments
around the world. An improved government through digitization will not only have a growing effect
on businesses, but it will also be able to intensify citizen engagement and push for economic growth.
During the last 10 years more countries have progressively begun to provide digital services to their
citizens. Therefore, in order to address this development, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the
evolution of the digital government literature in order to describe the aspects of digital transformation
in the public sector and how it is related to knowledge management. In this study the methodology
is quantitative and it is based on a review and a survey made with the main goal being the estimation
from several collected data on how the digital transformation process in the Public Administration
takes place and what its relationship is with knowledge management. The review study is based on
articles found on Scopus database and it addresses the role that digital government research plays
in the theory and practice of knowledge management. In the survey study, 54 employees working
for the services of the two governmental areas of the Portuguese Ministry of the Environment were
surveyed. The results show that the research on the theme is still at an exploratory stage due to the
lack of studies relating digital government to knowledge management effectiveness in the public
sector. The results also show that the success of digital government seems to be related with the
quality of the organizations’ knowledge management, complementing each other for significant
improvements in the public sector. In terms of originality, this study aims to contribute and stimulate
data-driven discussions regarding the impacts of the digital transformation in the public sector and
their relation with the implementation of knowledge management practices. The results offer insights
into future research needs.

Keywords: digital transformation; knowledge management; digital government; public sector;

public administration

1. Introduction
Digital transformation is a necessity for the modern enterprise, whether public or private, due
to the strength and vertiginous speed with which digitalization has entered and has taken over our
lives, which has meant that many organizations have not been able to adapt to it yet. The main and
most important reason for this state of affairs in organizations is the lack of knowledge or trained

Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824; doi:10.3390/su12145824 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 2 of 24

personnel, which could allow them to understand how to cope with this change. While many public
administration services have made great progress, the full potential of digital adaptation remains
untapped. The digital government panorama changes continually to reflect how the government tries
to find innovative digital solutions in social, economic, and political areas and how it could transform
the decision-making process [1–3].
The current rising necessity of organizational change is altering, through digital transformation,
the way governments look at knowledge management practices to address social needs or improve
service delivery effectively. Understanding and predicting these changes is extremely important for
policymakers, government executives, researchers, and all those who prepare, devise, implement, or
evaluate digital government decisions [4].
In [5], three benefits of knowledge management in digital governance were identified: the
enhancement of government competence, the increase in quality of government service, and the
promotion of a healthy government development. Thus, this supports the idea that the success of
digital government depends heavily on knowledge management.
Knowledge management came to the forefront due to the need for public and private
organizations to make more rational and effective use of their knowledge [6]. As the authors
state in [7], knowledge management “may potentially offer a competitive advantage and help develop
knowledge-intensive economies”.
Therefore, knowledge management is an important and specific issue in the research context of
the public sector. The authors in [8] affirm that “the public sector is influenced by a growing need
for: competition, performance standards, monitoring, measurement, flexibility, emphasis on results,
customer focus and control”. It seems that “knowledge management for government is no longer a
choice, but an imperative if economies are to survive in the era of privatization, liberalization, and
globalization” [9]. According to the authors in [10], knowledge management “has the potential to
greatly influence and improve public sector renewal processes”. Indeed, within the public sector,
knowledge management “is a powerful facilitator in the current push for greater efficiency in all
areas” [11].
Nevertheless, in [10] it is argued that “the development of a knowledge management culture
within the public sector is more challenging than in the private sector”. The study in [12] supports
this argument by highlighting that “organizational goals in public organizations are typically more
difficult to measure and more conflicting than in private organizations and are affected differently by
political influences”.
According to [13], knowledge management has been an object of attention of the academic
community, public decision-makers, consultants, and business people since the beginning of the 1990s.
A study published in the Journal of Knowledge Management, reports that the importance of knowledge
management in the public sector is growing as a research area. It points out that the low level of
international cooperation between the authors and the small number of comparative case studies show
that the literature is fragmented [14].
Deliberately, systematically, and holistically managing knowledge can increase awareness of the
benefits to individuals and organizations. However, there seems to be a lack of knowledge management
awareness in the public sector. This can be severely detrimental in the process of digital transformation
and in the effective implementation of knowledge management initiatives in organizations seeking to
increase performance.
One of the purposes of this paper is to present a structured literature review of the digital
government and knowledge management in public administration. In addition, as this article
consolidates a body representative of the digital government literature, it can also be used to define and
integrate future research in the area. The scientific literature review was carried out in support of an
exploratory research, which consisted of analyzing the effect of digital transformation on knowledge
management practices in Portuguese Public Administration.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 3 of 24

Thus, the study has the following objectives: to verify if the digital transformation has changed the
way the public organization carries out the knowledge management processes and to effectively identify
knowledge management practices related to the digital transformation process. Therefore, the research
question was: what is the relationship between the implementation of digital transformation and the
use of knowledge management practices in public organizations?—and the research hypothesis is: the
digital transformation process has an impact on knowledge management practices and, knowledge
management, in turn, is a critical factor in the success of digital transformation.
Furthermore, to fulfill the objectives and hypothesis defined by the exploratory research, in the
literature review are analyzed several studies in order to understand the definitions, origins, and
peculiarities of digital transformation and knowledge management in the public sector. The literature
review reveals who has already written and what has been published on the subject, what aspects
have already been addressed, and which aspects are least addressed on the research topic.
This paper is composed of several sections: Section 2 presents the literature review methodology
and Section 3 addresses the questionnaire methodology; Section 4 presents the literature review results
and their analysis. Section 5 presents the results and the analysis of the survey and, finally, in Section 6
a conclusion that offers a future research agenda and limitations is presented.

2. Literature Review Methodology

2.1. The Structured Literature Review

This article employs a variant of a structured literature review to answer the research
question addressed in the introduction. The methodology is similar to other recent reviews of
the literature [14–18]. A structured review of the literature critically identifies, selects, and evaluates
the research in order to answer a formulated question [19]. Performing a literature review is a formal
way of synthesizing available information from available primary studies relevant to a set of research
questions. It involves planning a well-thought-out research strategy that has a specific focus and
answers those questions.
The literature review follows a clearly defined protocol where the criterion is prominently stated
before the review is made. It is a comprehensive and transparent survey based on databases and grey
literature that can be replicated and reproduced by other researchers. The review identifies the type
of information researched, criticized, and reported within known time frames. Search terms, search
strategies (including database names, platforms, search dates), and thresholds are all included in the
review. As stated in [20], “greater clarity about the terminology and methods surrounding literature
reviews will help researchers identify when and how such revisions can be made”.
In this article the methodology of structured literature review is applied in order to share the
results of other studies that are within the scope of the research, relate a study to the broader current
dialogue in the literature on a topic, filling gaps and expanding previous studies, and finally, provide
a framework to establish the importance of the study and an indicator to compare the results of the
study with other outcomes.
According to the methodology of structured literature review, several authors [15,17,18] formulated
the following main steps:

1. Define the research questions.

2. Write a research protocol for the review.
3. Determine the articles to include and carry out a comprehensive bibliographic search.
4. Develop a coding framework.
5. Code the articles and ensure reliability.
6. Analyze critically and discuss results.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 4 of 24

Therefore, this article presents a comprehensive review of digital government articles published
in the Scopus database from 2000 until the beginning of 2019. The following subsections describe the
methods applied to the development of the literature review.

2.2. Research Protocol

A research protocol provides a step-by-step guide for conducting literature reviews, which may
include systematic reviews, scope reviews, and meta-analyses. According to the authors in [21], “it is
essential to write a protocol stating the review question, the methods to be used, the types of study
and projects that the reviewer intends to find, and by what means and how studies will be evaluated
and synthesized”.
Therefore, research protocols are essential to ensure high-quality literature reviews. However,
defining a protocol comprises many aspects, such as the formulation of research questions, definition of
a search strategy and the adequate sources where to find primary studies, specification of the inclusion
and exclusion criteria to be used in the selection of studies, and characterization of the process to be
used to extract, synthesize, describe, and categorize the selected studies, extracting data and making
quality evaluations.
The protocol should contain specific guidelines for identifying and selecting articles relevant to
the review as well as outlining review methods for the entire process.
Following these suggestions, a written protocol was developed, describing the identification of
the keywords, the source of information, the support tools and the main information searched in the
documents. In this way, steps were defined in the research protocol, such as the construction of the
collection of articles (Sample I); filtration process; scientometric analysis; content analysis (Sample II),
and finally, the construction of gaps and research opportunities. A manual coding procedure was
also developed, which indicated which information to recover from each paper, since “manual coding
has advantages compared to computer-aided coding because when words with similar meanings like
‘human capital’ and ‘employees’ are found, they can be understood in their real sense and encoded
accordingly” [15].
Thus, the review protocol is essential to reduce bias in the review process and limit overlap with
existing reviews. It also provides an outline for the review process that helps plan and anticipate
challenges that may arise during the review.

2.3. Literature Research

For the paper selection, a bibliographic research methodology was adopted based on the analysis
of the already published literature, in the form of books, articles, and grey literature, which included
knowledge management, digital government, and public administration as the primary research areas.
For the identification of the keywords, several attempts and searches were made in advance
until the correct constructions could be chosen. More than 15 research builders were researched and
interrelated. It was verified that with the term “digital transformation” the research in the databases
returns few studies, detecting a gap in the literature. Alternatively, constructions with terms with
similar meaning as “e-government” and “Digital Government” were made.
Regarding the search through keywords, it was carried out in January 2019 in the Scopus database,
and a manual coding procedure was adopted to ensure that no articles were lost during the research.
Based on the data set, the titles, abstracts, and keywords of all articles published in the periods from
2000 to the beginning of 2019 were examined, and articles containing knowledge management and
digital government aspects from a public administration perspective were selected. During the search
of documents in the database, a low number of results were observed. Only articles published in the
English language were selected.
From this research, an initial group of 69 relevant articles was selected and, of these articles, a final
group of 30 articles was used, which are depicted in Table 1.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 5 of 24

Table 1. The 30 found articles addressing digital transformation.

Reference Title
A multi-methods study exploring the role of stakeholders in the digital preservation
[22]
environment: The case of Ghana.
Preserving the digital heritage of public institutions in Ghana in the wake of
[23]
electronic government.
What lessons can be learned from the US archivist’s digital mandate for 2019 and is there
[24]
potential for applying them in lower resource countries?
[25] The issues and considerations associated with BIM integration.
[26] Transnational digital government research collaborations: Purpose, value, challenges.
Public sector readiness for digital preservation in New Zealand: The rate of adoption of an
[27]
innovation in records management practices.
Information sharing in and across government agencies: The role and influence of scientist,
[28]
politician, and bureaucrat subcultures.
[29] Technology as a tool of transformation: E-cities and the rule of law.
[30] Document logistics in the public sector: Integrative handling of physical and digital documents.
[31] Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads
[32] Archivists 2.0: Redefining the archivist’s profession in the digital age.
[33] Government workers say goodbye to paper
Creating value through managing knowledge in an e-government to constituency
[34]
(G2C) environment
[35] Success factors for public sector information system projects: Qualitative literature review
[36] Solon: A holistic approach for modelling, managing, and mining legal sources
Knowledge brokering in the web 2.0 era: Empirical evidence of emerging strategies in
[37]
government agencies
The fourth industrial revolution, agricultural, and rural innovation, and implications for public
[38]
policy and investments: A case of India
[39] Exploitation and exploration strategies to create data transparency in the public sector
[40] Ensuring interoperability of geographic information in local government and inspire
Knowledge management in the public sector: Communication issues and challenges at local
[41]
government level
[42] E-governance in agriculture: Digital tools enabling Filipino farmers.
[43] Digital records keeping to information governance in Estonian local governments
[44] Integrating knowledge management tools for government information
[32] Organizational learning from service innovation in the public sector of Dubai
[45] Case studies on digital government
Knowledge management system for governance: Transformational approach creating
[46]
knowledge as product for governance
[47] A conceptual framework for effective appropriation of proactive public e-services
[48] E-government initiatives and information management in two local government authorities
The e-governance concerns in information system design for effective e-government
[49]
performance improvement
[50] ICT and PA: A marriage made in heaven?
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 6 of 24

According to [20], “rapid growth literature reviews have resulted in an infinity of terminology to
describe approaches that, despite their different names, share certain characteristics, namely, collecting,
evaluating, and presenting evidence of available research”.
According to this research, the term “digital transformation” consists of organizational change
that uses digital technologies and business models to improve the organization’s performance and
customer experience. The term e-government consists of the use of information technologies in the
internal processes of government, in the delivery of state products and services to both citizens and
industry, and in the use of electronic tools and information technologies to approximate government
and citizens. The view of e-government as a resource rationalizer seems to be linked to an older,
more generalist
Sustainability conception
2020, 12, x FOR PEERof what digital government is today. For this reason, the search strategy
REVIEW 6 of 25
used the terms “Digital Government”, “Knowledge Management”, and “Public Sector” as keywords.
From the search of those those keywords
keywords in thethe Scopus
Scopus database, 69 results showed up, 39 of which
excluded:
were excluded: 6 because they were in duplicate and 33 because they were outside the scope of the
investigation, as it can be seen in Figure 1. The filtering process resulted in sample I, which included
articlesof
30 articles ofstudies
studieson ondigital
digital government,
government, andand in sample
in sample II, which
II, which is composed
is composed of 10of 10 articles
articles that
that were
were analyzed
analyzed according according to the criterion
to the criterion of the ofexistence
of the existence of a with
a relationship relationship
knowledgewithmanagement.
knowledge
management.
In order to obtain In order
sampleto obtain sample
II, the final II, the final
30 selected 30 selected
articles from thearticles fromwere
databases the databases were
filtered using a
filtered using aanalysis,
scientometric scientometric
followedanalysis,
by a followed by a detailed
detailed analysis of the analysis
contentofofthethe
content of by
articles thecategories,
articles by
categories,
selecting selecting
those those
that were that were
within within
the scope of the
the scope of the investigation.
investigation. This sample is This sample is
composed of composed
10 articles
of 10contain
that articlesaspects
that contain aspects ofmanagement
of knowledge knowledge management
within the digitalwithin the digitalstudies.
government government studies.

Figure 1. Flow diagram representing the collection of articles in databases and filtering
filtering process.
process.

2.4. Developing a Coding Framework

2.4. Developing a Coding Framework
The coding framework is based on advanced research frameworks developed by several
The coding framework is based on advanced research frameworks developed by several authors
authors [14–16,18,51]. A formal and systematic approach was adopted by adapting the analytical
[14–16,18,51]. A formal and systematic approach was adopted by adapting the analytical framework
framework to the data set in order to extract the relevant information. As a result, seven categories
to the data set in order to extract the relevant information. As a result, seven categories were created
were created to systematize the coding, as it can be observed in Table 2.
to systematize the coding, as it can be observed in Table 2.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 7 of 24

Table 2. Research framework and main results.

Category Variables Articles %

Authors, institution, year Authors 61
Institution 40
Years 2000–2019
Document type Conference Paper 15 50.0
Article 10 33.3
Review 2 6.7
Book 1 3.3
Book Chapter 1 3.3
Editorial 1 3.3
Totals 30 100.0
Jurisdiction Central government 19 63.3
State/regional 2 6.7
Local government 7 23.3
Public business enterprise (PBE) 1 3.3
Other 1 3.3
Totals 30 100.0
Location Europe/UK 14 46.6
Australasia 1 3.3
North America 7 23.3
South America 0 0.0
Africa 2 6.7
Asia/China 4 13.3
Other 2 6.7
Totals 30 100.0
Research method Quantitative cross-sectional 1 3.3
Case study 7 23.3
Literature review–normative 3 10.0
Action research 1 3.3
Qualitative study 9 30.0
Quantitative study 2 6.7
Mixed methods 4 13.3
Other 3 10.0
Totals 30 100.0
Framework No framework-model used 2 6.7
Applies or considers previous framework-model 27 90.0
Proposes a new framework-model 1 3.3
Totals 30 100.0
Theme Digital preservation 3 10.0
Information technology 8 26.7
knowledge management strategy 4 13.3
Knowledge innovation 3 10.0
Management of elements and processes 3 10.0
Personal and organizational learning 1 3.3
Organizational culture 1 3.3
Information management 6 20.0
Other 1 3.3
Totals 30 100.0

By looking at Table 2 it is possible to observe that the first category classifies them by journal.
The main goal is to analyze the evolution of literature: citation scores were used to measure the impact
of articles, authors, and journals.
The second category is a division of the sample by type of document that has been most used in
the digital government literature since the year 2004.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 8 of 24

The third category is jurisdiction based on different levels of government, rather than the broader
organizational types found in [15]. In general terms, government jurisdictions are country-specific,
while public organizations are comparable across countries. Therefore, by analyzing government
jurisdictions, the goal is to understand publication standards and find out if differences in national
contexts and data accessibility exist.
The fourth category is the location. Thus, when analyzing a location, the objective is to
understand the extent to which the literature supports the development of digital evolution as
well as knowledge-intensive economies.
The fifth category is the search method used. Digital government research is still reaching an
epistemological consensus among the authors since the main strategies lead to the development
of multiple research methods. The goal is to understand what methods have been used in digital
government research.
The sixth category is framework-model. This category is derived from [52]. The main objective of
the analysis of the framework used is to understand if the literature is proposing new specific models
and if it applies or considers the previous framework-models, or if it does not use framework-models
for the public sector at all.
The seventh category is the research theme. By analyzing the themes of the selected articles,
it was possible to identify areas of interest for other scholars, new research opportunities, and to better
understand the scientific dialogue.
After analyzing the articles in sample I and, according to the objective of the development of
the review, the category “Focus” used by [14] was removed and the category “Research Theme” was
added, giving a clearer information on the evolution and focus of the digital government literature.
The classification for this category is similar to that of [52].

3. Results of the Literature Review and Discussion

The following subsections present results that attempt to answer the following research
questions: the first—research question 1—“What is the evolution and focus of the digital
government literature?”; the second—research question 2—“What is the future of research in digital
government?”; and, the third,—research question 3—“How does digital government literature relate
to knowledge management?”.
To do this, gross counts were used, as shown in Table 2. In addition, when issues were found that
needed more research and criticism, a more in-depth analysis was conducted based on the combination
of the descriptive results, deepening specific questions found in the articles.

3.1. Authors, Institution, Year

Analyzing the evolution of articles on digital government in public administration, the results
show an increase. The literature search identified 30 relevant articles, of which 73.3% were published
after 2010, suggesting a growing trend. The years included ranged between 2000 and 2019, but in
the interval 2000–2003, as well as for the years 2006, 2008, 2013, and 2015, no relevant articles were
found for the study as shown in Figure 2. The year that has the highest number of publications is 2018
(5 articles) and it is also worth mentioning the years 2017 (3 articles) and 2016 (4 articles). This shows,
once again, the growing tendency for studies on digital government. Nevertheless, despite the increase
in the number of publications per year, the reduced number of documents and a significant shortage of
literature about digital government is still evident.
Thus, by observing Figure 2, some of the more recent articles are from 2018 to 2019 [22,31,42,53]
and some of the oldest are from 2004 to 2007 [28,33,44].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 9 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 25

Figure2.2.Representation
Figure Representation of the
the total
totalpublications
publicationsby
byyear.
year.

Thus, by observing
Regarding Figure
the analysis of 2, some ofas
authors, theshown
more recent articles
in Table are30
2, in from 2018 tothere
articles, 2019 [22,31,42,53]
are a total of
and some of the oldest are from 2004 to 2007 [28,33,44].
61 authors/coauthors, showing a significant number of authors who participated in the digital
Regarding
government the analysis
literature. However, of authors, as to
according shown
Tablein1, Table 2, inof30these
only two articles, therehave
authors are more
a totalthan
of 61 one
authors/coauthors,
publication, showing few showing a significant
dominant authors innumber of government
the digital authors whoresearch.
participated in the
The most digital
prolific ones
aregovernment
Kofi Korantengliterature.
Adu However,
[22], withaccording to Table
two articles 1, onlyintwo
published 2016of and
these2018,
authors
andhave more than
Gil-García one
et al. [31],
publication, showing few dominant authors
with two articles published in the years 2011 and 2018. in the digital government research. The most prolific
ones
Theare Kofireason
main Koranteng Adu [22], with
for examining two
these articlesand
authors published in 2016 and
their citations is to2018, and
verify theGil-García
superstareteffect
al.
[31], with two articles published in the years 2011 and 2018.
that sometimes occurs when a small fraction of researchers or institutions produce the highest number
The main reason for examining these authors and their citations is to verify the superstar effect
of studies and attract a disproportionate number of quotations [54–56]. Although there is a significant
that sometimes occurs when a small fraction of researchers or institutions produce the highest
fraction of 61 researchers and 40 institutions, there is not a large number of studies led by the same
number of studies and attract a disproportionate number of quotations [54–56]. Although there is a
authors or institutions. Thus, in this analysis, the evidence of disproportionately influential individuals
significant fraction of 61 researchers and 40 institutions, there is not a large number of studies led by
was not studied. As an alternative, it opted for the articles with the highest number of publications
the same authors or institutions. Thus, in this analysis, the evidence of disproportionately influential
and their respective
individuals was not authors,
studied.according to Table 3.it opted for the articles with the highest number of
As an alternative,
publications and their respective authors, according to Table 3.
Table 3. The 12 most cited public sector digital government articles.

Paper Table 3. The 12 most cited public

Titlesector digital government articles. Citations
Paper Creating value through managing knowledge Title in an e-government to constituency Citations
[34] 65
Creating value through managing (G2C) environment
knowledge in an e-government to constituency (G2C)
[34] 65
Information Sharing in and Acrossenvironment
Government Agencies: The Role and Influence
[28] Information Sharing in and Across Government Agencies: The Role and Influence of 40
of Scientist, Politician, and Bureaucrat Subcultures
[28] 40
Scientist, Politician, and Bureaucrat Subcultures
[44] Integrating knowledge management tools for government information 25
[44] Integrating knowledge management tools for government information 25
Public Publicreadiness
sector sector readiness
for for preservation
digital digital preservation
in New in New Zealand:
Zealand: The rateThe
of rate of of an
adoption
[27] 13
[27] adoption of an innovation in records management practices 13
innovation in records management practices
[29]
[29] Technology as
Technology as aa tool
tool of
of transformation:
transformation: e-Cities
e-Cities and
and the
the rule
rule of
of law
law 1111
[43]
[43] Digital records keeping to information governance in Estonian local governments
governments 9 9
[32]
[32] Archivists 2.0: Redefining the archivist's profession in the
Archivists 2.0: Redefining the archivist’s profession in the digital agedigital age 8 8
[45] Case studies on digital government 6
[45] Case studies on digital government 6
[31] Digital government and public management research: finding the crossroads 4
[31] What lessons
Digital government
can be learned and public
from themanagement
US archivist’sresearch: finding the
digital mandate crossroads
for 2019 and is there 4
[24] 3
What lessonspotential for applying
can be learned from thethem in lower resource
US archivist’s countries?
digital mandate for 2019 and is
[24] 3
Preserving the digital
there heritage
potential of public them
for applying institutions in Ghana
in lower resource incountries?
the wake of electronic
[23] 3
government
Preserving the digital heritage of public institutions in Ghana in the wake of
[23]
[25] The Issues and Considerations Associated with BIM Integration 3 2
electronic government
[25] The Issues and Considerations Associated with BIM Integration 2
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 10 of 24

The article with the most significant number of citations (65) was written by Koh, C.E. et al. [34]
and was published in the Journal of Computer Information Systems in 2005. This article, from the
University of North Texas, uses as research method a case study about central government focused
on information technology and knowledge management. The case study focuses on government
agencies due to their challenges in the progression of digitalization, caused by the size and complexity
of government structures and the large amount of information these government agencies maintain.
Thus, the article proposes that government agencies should go through an evolutionary path as they
progress from an introductory digital presence to more complex forms of interaction with constituents.
It highlights key facilitators that enable a steady progress by changing how citizens interact with
government, increase accessibility to information, and increase efficiency in the public sector.
The article with the second highest number of citations (40), written by Drake, D.B. et al. [28],
was published in the Social Science Computer Review in 2004. This article uses an exploratory method
and an interdisciplinary study on central government, focusing on issues related to information sharing
within and between three public bodies. The study illustrates key points about information sharing
among subcultures and some implications for research and practice.
The article written by Prokopiadou, G., et al. [44] has the third highest number of citations (25)
and was published in the Government Information Quarterly in 2004. This article uses as research
method a qualitative study regarding central government in which it introduces a digital library
architecture for the management and delivery of information produced or disseminated through
public services. The study notes the lack of advanced information standards and tools and emphasizes
public sector challenges such as the presence of fragmented and dispersed information, legislative
and administrative diversity, administrative hierarchy, and discrepancies in the implementation of
policies at central, regional, and local levels. Furthermore, the study aims to highlight the importance
of government information for business transactions, decision-making, and for providing information
about organizations to citizens.
The articles with a number of citations ranging between 10 and 15 can be found in [27,29] and were
published in Government Information Quarterly and Information Systems: People, Organizations,
Institutions, and Technologies, respectively. These articles use, as a qualitative research method, studies
about central government and local government, with a focus on digital preservation, information
technology, and information and knowledge sharing.
With less than 10 citations, there were seven documents published between 2007 and 2018.
The article of [43], through a qualitative study, provides an overview of the developments in local
governments of Estonia in the last 10 years with the objective of introducing the Electronic System
of Document and Records Management as the central governance system. This article describes
the development of the digital governance model, the first results in terms of implementation of its
modules, and other plans on the introduction of information governance in local governments.
In addition, the articles of [24,32], both published in the Records Management Journal, study local
and central government in Sweden and in the USA and their focus is on the professional practice of
archivists involving information technology and the archivist’s digital mandate. The research methods
used were mixed and included empirical studies, interviews, literature review, and case studies.
The article in [31], published in the Public Management Review in 2018, is the most recent article
appearing in Table 3 of the most cited in sample I. This article analyzes previous studies on the digital
government community along with a systematic review of recent articles, published in leading US and
European public administration journals, in order to identify and compare the key characteristics of
these academic communities, including their top researchers, theories, topics, and methods. From
a perspective of public management, digital government could be considered an essential aspect of
innovation, coproduction, transparency, and the generation of public value.
From the remaining articles, several research methods were identified, such as case studies,
literature review, quantitative cross-sectional, and mixed methods. The studies involve, mostly,
central governments and focus on information technology and information management, covering
 Sustainability 2020,
Sustainability 2020, 12,
12, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 11 of
11 of 25
25
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 11 of 24
central governments
central governments and and focus
focus on on information
information technology
technology and and information
information management,
management, covering
covering aa
several number of themes, such as project management, which studied the Building Information
aseveral
severalnumber
numberofofthemes,
themes,suchsuchas as project
project management,
management, which studied the
which studied the Building
Building Information
Information
Modeling
Modeling (BIM)(BIM) methods
(BIM) methods
methods for for storing
for storing data
storing data
data andand asset
and asset information
asset information
information using using object-oriented
using object-oriented modelling
object-oriented modelling
modelling of of
of
Modeling
infrastructure [25],
infrastructure [25], digital
[25], digital preservation,
digital preservation,
preservation,and and digital
anddigital community.
digitalcommunity.
community.
infrastructure
Additionally, after
Additionally, after the
the analysis,
analysis, it it was
was also
also possible
possible to to conclude
conclude that that sixsix of
of the
the documents
documents in in
Additionally, after the analysis, it was also possible to conclude that six of the documents in
Table 33 are
Table are conference
conference papers,
papers, andand some
some of of them
them werewere published
published in in the
the same
same papers:
papers: two
two articles,
articles,
Table 3 are conference papers, and some of them were published in the same papers: two articles,
written
written by by [27,44],
by[27,44],
[27,44],were were
were published
published in the Government
in Government
the Government Information
Information Quarterly
Quarterly and another
and another two
two
written published in the Information Quarterly and another two articles,
articles, written
articles, written by by [24,32],
[24,32], were
were published
published in in the
the Records
Records Management
Management Journal. Journal.
written by [24,32], were published in the Records Management Journal.
Regarding
Regarding the the summation of the number of citations per year, the years from 2015
2015 toto 2019
2019 were
were
Regarding the summation
summationofofthe thenumber
number of of
citations
citations perper year, the the
year, years from
years from 2015 to 2019
considered.
considered. It was verified
It wasItverified that the
that thethat number
number of citations
of citations of sample
of sample I has a higher incidence in the years
were considered. was verified the number of citations of Isample
has a higher
I has aincidence in the years
higher incidence in
2017 and
2017years 2018
and 2017
2018 andwith
with201820 citations
20 citations in each of the years. In addition, 2019 already has three citations,
the with 20 in each ofinthe
citations each years.
of theIn years.
addition, 2019 already
In addition, 2019has three has
already citations,
three
showing that
showing that since
since 2017
2017 there
there seems
seems to to have
have been been aa growing
growing interest
interest in in the
the research of of digital
digital
citations, showing that since 2017 there seems to have been a growing interest in theresearch
research of digital
government.
government. The The years 2015 (14 citations) and 2016 (16 citations) have a similar number of citations.
government. The years
years 2015
2015 (14
(14 citations)
citations) and and 2016
2016 (16(16 citations)
citations) havehave aa similar
similar number
number of of citations.
citations.
The set
The set of
set of articles
of articles contain
articles contain
contain 7373 citations
73 citations
citations in in total
in total since
totalsince 2015,
since2015,
2015,as as it can
asititcan
canbe be seen
beseen
seenin in Figure
inFigure
Figure3.3.3.
The

Figure3.
Figure
Figure 3. Citations
3. Citations by
Citations by year
by year (2015–2019)
year (2015–2019)of
(2015–2019) ofmost
of mostcited
most citedpublic
cited publicsector
public sectorDG
sector DGarticles.
DG articles.
articles.

3.2.
3.2. Document
Document Types
Types
3.2. Document Types
The
Thedocuments
documentsselected
selectedininsample
sampleI IIhave
havedifferent
differenttypes:
types:1515
15are
areconference
conferencepapers, 1010
papers, are articles,
are 2
articles,
The documents selected in sample have different types: are conference papers, 10 are articles,
are books or book chapters, and 1 is an editorial. As shown in Figure 4, the most significant percentage
22 are
are books
books oror book
book chapters,
chapters, andand 11 is
is an
an editorial.
editorial. As
As shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 4,
4, the
the most
most significant
significant
belongs to conference articles (50%), followed by followed
articles (33.3%), both(33.3%),
of which show a trendshow
in the
percentage belongs to conference articles (50%), followed by articles (33.3%), both of which show aa
percentage belongs to conference articles (50%), by articles both of which
type of
trend indocuments
in the
the type
type ofof the digital
of documents
documents of government
of the
the digital literature.
digital government
government literature.
literature.
trend

Figure4.
Figure
Figure 4. Classification
4. Classificationof
Classification ofdocuments
of documentsby
documents bytype.
by type.
type.
3.3.
3.3. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
3.3. Jurisdiction
According
Accordingto toTable
Table2,2,the
themain
mainfocus
focusofofthe
thedigital
digitalgovernment
governmentliterature
literatureis iscentral
centralgovernments
governments
According to Table 2, the main focus of the digital government literature is central governments
(63.3%), followed
(63.3%), followed by
followed by the local
by the governments
the local (23.3%).
local governments
governments (23.3%). There are also
(23.3%). There other
There are attributes
are also
also other such as state/regional
other attributes
attributes such
such asas
(63.3%),
and public business
state/regional and enterprise
public (PBE)enterprise
business in 10% of (PBE)
documents.
in 10% However,
of in coding
documents. the articles,
However, in the lines
coding the
state/regional and public business enterprise (PBE) in 10% of documents. However, in coding the
between what
articles, the is a central
the lines
lines between government
what is functiongovernment
is aa central
central and a state/regional
functionfunction are sometimes
and aa state/regional
state/regional blurredare
function or
articles, between what government function and function are
nonexistent becauseor
sometimes blurred
blurred different countries
nonexistent becausehavedifferent
differentcountries
structures.
have different
different structures.
structures.
sometimes or nonexistent because different countries have
3.4. Location
3.4. Location
3.4. Location
Analyzing the criterion location, the results show that Europe/UK is the most studied region, with
Analyzing the
Analyzing the criterion
criterion location,
location, the
the results
results show
show that Europe/UK
Europe/UK is is the
the most
most studied region,
region,
19 articles representing 46.6% of the studies, followed bythat
the North American regionstudied
with 7 articles
with 19 articles
with 19 articles representing
representing 46.6% of
46.6%The the
of the studies, followed
studies, followed by the
by the North American
North American region with 77
representing 23.3% of the studies. Asia/China region, with 4 articles, representsregion
13.3% with
of the
articles representing
articles representing 23.3%
23.3% of
of the
the studies.
studies. The
The Asia/China
Asia/China region,
region, with
with 44 articles,
articles, represents
represents 13.3%
13.3% ofof
sample. No articles were found regarding South America. Digital government research articles include
the sample. No articles were found regarding South America. Digital government
the sample. No articles were found regarding South America. Digital government research articles research articles
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 12 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25

various
includecountries, such as the
various countries, such Philippines, Estonia, Estonia,
as the Philippines, Australia, China, USA,
Australia, China,Greece, India, Ghana,
USA, Greece, India,
Sweden,
Ghana, Sweden, Germany, Norway, and New Zealand. According to this analysis, a greatofvariety
Germany, Norway, and New Zealand. According to this analysis, a great variety countriesof
that study digital government in different contexts can be highlighted. With the
countries that study digital government in different contexts can be highlighted. With the emergenceemergence of articles
from severalfrom
of articles countries,
severalthe possibility
countries, theofpossibility
international comparisonscomparisons
of international regarding differences
regardingand common
differences
guidelines of digital government research is growing.
and common guidelines of digital government research is growing.
The
Themost
mostsignificant
significantnumber
number of of articles
articles was
was identified in the
identified in the Europe/UK
Europe/UK region,
region, covering
coveringthe the
years 2009 to 2018, with Sweden being the most analyzed country. The US
years 2009 to 2018, with Sweden being the most analyzed country. The US is also the country thatis also the country that
continues
continuestotoproduce
producemore morearticles
articlesregarding
regarding thethe North
North American region. The Theresults
resultsalso
alsoshow
showthat,
that,
since
since2017,
2017,the
theAsia/China
Asia/Chinaregion
regionisisgrowing
growing in in published
published studies (13.3%),
(13.3%), which
which may maybe bedue
dueto tothe
the
growing importance of Asia in terms of the global
growing importance of Asia in terms of the global economy. economy. In addition, studies about India
addition, studies about India are are
increasing
increasingandand focus mainly on
focus mainly onuniversities
universitiesand andresearch
research centers.
centers. Locations
Locations like like Australia,
Australia, where where
one
one study
study waswas
foundfound in 2018,
in 2018, SouthSouth America,
America, which which
has nohasstudies
no studies and Africa,
and Africa, with studies
with studies from
from 2016
2016
and and
2018,2018,
are are under-represented
under-represented andand under-researched.
under-researched. Finally,
Finally, a astudy
studyfrom fromNew
New Zealand
Zealand
addressing
addressingOceania
Oceania region
region was
was published
published in in 2009. Figure 55 represents
2009. Figure represents the
the articles
articles published
publishedper per
location.However,
location. However,nine ninestudies
studieswere
were left
left out
out of this classification, due to to the
the fact
factthat
thatthey
theywere
wereeither
either
theoreticalororthe
theoretical thelocation
locationwaswasnot
notdisclosed.
disclosed.

Figure5.5. Classification
Figure Classification of
of the published articles by location.
location.

3.5.
3.5.Research
ResearchMethodology
Methodology
Qualitative
Qualitative approaches
approaches represent
represent 30.0%
30.0% ofof sample
sample II (9(9 articles)
articles) and
and areare the
the most
most used
used and
and
representative
representativeapproaches
approachesinindigital
digitalgovernment
government research.
research. The
The case studies are
case studies are the
the second
secondmostmostused
used
approach, with seven articles representing 23.3% of the sample. In the analysis of the
approach, with seven articles representing 23.3% of the sample. In the analysis of the research method research method
ofofthe
thearticles,
articles,ititwas
wasdifficult
difficulttotoclassify
classifythem
thembybyspecific
specificattributes
attributesdue
duetotothe
theexistence
existenceofofa mixture of
a mixture
methods.
of methods. FromFrom2009 2009
until until
2018, 2018,
the articles contained
the articles four mixed
contained four methods and three
mixed methods andother methods,
three other
highlighting the existence of a significant fraction of studies that do not use a specific
methods, highlighting the existence of a significant fraction of studies that do not use a specific research method.
According
research method. to Table 2, approaches such as quantitative cross-sectional and action research represent
only 6.7% of the sample
According to Table(only 1 article per such
2, approaches research method). Thecross-sectional
as quantitative quantitative studies represent
and action 6.7%
research
with two articles, and the literature review represents 10% with three articles.
represent only 6.7% of the sample (only 1 article per research method). The quantitative studies
represent 6.7% with two articles, and the literature review represents 10% with three articles.
3.6. Framework
The digital government literature focused mainly on the use of existing frameworks (90%).
The development of new frameworks concentrated only 3.3% of the studies and 6.7% of the articles
did not use specific frameworks. Thus, this can be an evidence of the interest of researchers in the issue
of digital government.
 The digital government literature focused mainly on the use of existing frameworks (90%). The
development of new frameworks concentrated only 3.3% of the studies and 6.7% of the articles did
not use specific frameworks. Thus, this can be an evidence of the interest of researchers in the issue
of digital government.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 13 of 24

3.7. Themes
3.7. Themes
The analysis of the results of the research themes shows that eight articles (26.7% of the sample)
focusThe onanalysis
information technology
of the results of theand six articles
research (20% of
themes shows thatthe sample)
eight articlesfocus
(26.7%on information
of the sample)
management.
focus The third
on information most analyzed
technology issue(20%
and six articles is the knowledge
of the sample) focusmanagement strategy,
on information with four
management.
articles
The third representing
most analyzed13.3% issue isofthethe sample. management
knowledge The subjectsstrategy,
“digitalwith
preservation”, “knowledge
four articles representing
innovation”,
13.3% and “management
of the sample. of elements
The subjects “digital and processes”
preservation”, have three
“knowledge articles and
innovation”, each“management
and together
represent
of elements10.0% of the sample.
and processes” Lessarticles
have three analyzed
each themes, like “organizational
and together represent 10.0% of learning”
the sample.and
“organizational culture”, represent the remaining 10% of the studies.
Less analyzed themes, like “organizational learning” and “organizational culture”, represent the
The distribution
remaining of themes shows that the topics are scattered. Analyzing the evolution over
10% of the studies.
time,The
thedistribution
results show ofthat
themesthe theme
shows of “information
that the topics are technology” has been approached
scattered. Analyzing the evolution between the
over time,
the results show that the theme of “information technology” has been approached between the yearsis
years 2004 to 2019 with a higher incidence in the articles from the year 2018. This growing trend
due to the
2004 2019importance of information
with a higher incidence intechnology
the articles in thethe
from process of transformation
year 2018. This growingintrend
the public
is due sector.
to the
From 2012 until 2017, the research focused more on the theme of “knowledge
importance of information technology in the process of transformation in the public sector. From 2012management strategy”.
To complement
until 2017, the research the themesmore
focused of theonselected
the theme articles, the articlesmanagement
of “knowledge of the samplestrategy”.
were also analyzed
according to the research
To complement the themesareasofaddressed.
the selected Table 4 and
articles, theFigure
articles6ofshow that the
the sample areas
were alsoofanalyzed
research
“Computer Science” and “Social Sciences” were included 27 times representing
according to the research areas addressed. Table 4 and Figure 6 show that the areas of research 44% of the sample,
followed byScience”
“Computer “Business,
and Management and Accounting”
“Social Sciences” were included and 27“Decision Sciences”, which
times representing 44% ofwere
theincluded
sample,
14 times,by
followed representing 28%. The remaining
“Business, Management areas wereand
and Accounting” included
“DecisioneightSciences”,
times, representing
which were18% of the
included
sample.
14 times, representing 28%. The remaining areas were included eight times, representing 18% of
the sample.
Table 4. Documents by subject area.
Table 4. Documents by subject area.
Subject Area Number
Computer Science
Subject Area 15
Number
Social Sciences
Computer Science 12
15
Business, Management and
Social Sciences Accounting 128
Decision Sciences
Business, Management and Accounting 86
Decision Sciences
Engineering 63
Engineering 3
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1
Chemistry
Chemistry 11
Earthand
Earth andPlanetary
Planetary Sciences
Sciences 11
Economics, Econometrics
Economics, Econometrics andand Finance
Finance 11
Mathematics
Mathematics 11

Figure6.6. Documents
Figure Documentsby
bysubject
subjectarea.
area.

3.8. Content Analysis (Sample II)

Sample II, as seen in Table 5, was constructed with 10 studies from the content analysis of sample
I, in order to answer the third question in the study—How does digital government literature relate to
knowledge management?
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 14 of 24

Table 5. Documents by keyword “knowledge management”.

Year Author(s) Title Jurisdiction Location Research Method Themes Ref.

Organizational learning, organizational
Rahman and Al Organizational learning from service Asia/China culture, service innovation, transformation,
2018 Local government Case study [53]
Joker innovation in the public sector of Dubai (Dubai) intelligent government, politics,
strategic learning
Knowledge Management system for knowledge management strategy,
Shilohu Rao,
Governance: Transformational Central knowledge management, transformational
2017 Goswami and Asia/China (India) Qualitative study [46]
approach creating knowledge as government growth, multidimensional
Chaudhary
product for Governance aspects, transformation
Exploitation and exploration strategies
Matheus and Central Innovation, Ambidexterity, data
2016 to create data transparency in the Other Case study [39]
Janssen government transparency, efficiency
public sector
Information Technology, Methods Building
Bataw, Kirkham The Issues and Considerations Central Europe/UK Information Modeling (BIM), Storage,
2016 Mixed methods [25]
and Lou Associated with BIM Integration government (United Kingdom) Information Management,
Project Management
Knowledge brokering in the web 2.0 knowledge innovation, digital innovation,
Lamari and Public business North America
2012 era: Empirical evidence of emerging Mixed methods knowledge brokers, government agencies, [37]
Belgacem enterprise (PBE) (EUA)
strategies in government agencies knowledge management strategies
Information Technology, Electronic
Digital records keeping to information
Pappel and Document and Records Management
2012 governance in Estonian Local government Europe/UK Qualitative study [43]
Saarmann System, process and workflow management,
local governments
knowledge management, effectiveness
Knowledge management in the public
Europe/UK Knowledge management, communication,
2010 Ndlela sector: Communication issues and Local government Qualitative study [41]
(Norway) knowledge transfer, organizational culture
challenges at local government level
Document logistics in the public sector: Quantitative study |
Eiermann and Europe/UK Document logistics, information
2010 Integrative handling of physical and Local government qualitative approach | [30]
Walter (Germany) management, communication
digital documents Case study
Creating value through managing
Koh, Ryan and Central North America Digital presence, accessibility to information,
2005 knowledge in an e-government to Case study [34]
Prybutok government (EUA) government agencies, key facilitators
constituency (G2C) environment
Information Sharing in and Across
Drake, Steckler Government Agencies: The Role and Central Exploratory and Organizational culture, information sharing,
2004 Other [28]
and Koch Influence of Scientist, Politician, and government interdisciplinary study communication, organizational culture
Bureaucrat Subcultures
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 15 of 24

For the article selection, criteria for title and abstract analysis was used along with the application
of keyword filtering to knowledge management. The objective was to analyze the content by verifying
how knowledge management is present in studies of digital government and how they are related,
comparing the main characteristics of knowledge management approach in digital government
research, theories, topics, and methods. Their similarities and differences present opportunities for
more dialogue between digital government and knowledge management scholars, who can produce
synergies to increase the production and dissemination of knowledge.
From this analysis, it was verified that the authors in [53] have published a study that addresses
organizational learning and citizen-centered service innovation in the federal and local governments
of Dubai. This case is presented in the context of the rapid transformation of the Dubai eGovernment
into a smart government that began in 2013. The goal was to outline possible policy and strategic
learning more driven by demand and service improvement initiatives.
The authors in [46] have published an article that addresses knowledge management as a
phenomenon established and applied in various disciplines for transformational growth. The study
focuses on the India Digital Program, launched in 2015, which had the vision of “turning India into a
digitally empowered society and knowledge economy”. The document highlights the multidimensional
aspects of the implementation of knowledge management for digital government, such as the need for
knowledge management in a Federal Government system, along with its main objectives, with the
main resources moving from structure to implementation.
The article of [39] analyses ambidexterity, which is the ability of an organization to be able to
develop new products and innovate while continuing to provide and update its existing services.
A case study, to understand better how the combination of exploitation and exploration can enable
data transparency, was used.
In [25] the Building Information Modeling (BIM) methods in the UK government are studied as a
critical aspect in the notion of “interoperability” between various software applications used in the
design process and construction and a common data format for the efficient exchange of information.
A mixed methods approach was used: questionnaire analysis and a secondary case study analysis.
The research presented in [37] is based on a representative sample of knowledge brokers from
government agencies. The study goes beyond the rhetorical and hermeneutical analyses on this
subject, to outline an empirical and factual view of emerging practices and strategies in knowledge
intermediation within Québec’s government agencies known for their wide use of Web 2.0 platforms
and digital innovation.
The authors in [43] conducted a study that provides an overview of developments in local
governments in Estonia over the last 10 years intending to introduce the Electronic Records and
Records Management System as the central system of governance. It is emphasized that information
systems have as their main objective in the public sector to store, manipulate, diffuse, and preserve
knowledge to achieve the effectiveness of electronic governance.
In [41] the authors examined the major communication challenges, namely those faced by small
municipalities in their efforts to implement knowledge management programs. The study data was
extracted from a survey collected in a small municipality of Norway. The article highlights the role
of appropriate and inadequate communication behavior patterns for knowledge transfer at local
government levels.
In [30] the authors address the current state of document logistics in the public sector and
identified current needs and potential trends for the near future using a quantitative study. In addition,
a qualitative approach was chosen to further examine the findings of the study, gaining greater insight
by conducting a case study with the federal state of Bremen, Germany. The related documents and
information are considered an essential basis for communication in the public sector.
In [34] the authors propose that government agencies should go through an evolutionary path
as they progress from an introductory digital presence to more complex forms of interaction with
constituents. A path of progression is described, and its key facilitators are highlighted.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 16 of 24

Finally, the authors in [28] present an exploratory and interdisciplinary study of issues related
to information sharing within and between three public bodies, to illustrate the key points about
information sharing among subcultures and some of its implications for research and practice.
After this analysis, it was verified that most of the articles do not present a research approach
directly related to knowledge management but approach themes that can indirectly improve knowledge
management practices within the public sector. The success of digital government depends on the
quality of the organization’s knowledge management and how they simultaneously complement
each other. There is a lack of studies that relate digital government to the direct or strategic effect of
knowledge management effectiveness in the public sector.

4. Quantitative Research Questionnaire Methodology

In the first phase of the research, an analysis of the literature was carried out, with the purpose
of analyzing the digital transformation process and its relationship with knowledge management in
public administration. To support the research hypothesis and meeting what is intended with this
research, the choice of the scientific method fell on a quantitative study, which the authors considered
more appropriate to answer the problem. Thus, through quantitative research the problem was
quantified by generating numerical data, which can be transformed into usable statistics, to understand
the behaviors, attitudes, opinions, and other actions of the sample and to generalize the results to a
population. Therefore, with this quantitative method, it was intended to verify the effect of digital
transformation on knowledge management practices in Portuguese public administration.

4.1. Sample
The research was carried out in two governmental areas, the General Secretariat of the Ministry of
Environment (SGMAMB) and the Office of the Minister for the Environment and Energy Transition
(MATE) belonging to the Ministry of the Environment of the Portuguese Government, which was
chosen because it is part of the project Fujitsu’s SmartDOCS® in the Portuguese Public Administration,
which consists of the implementation and procedural management platform.
In the selection of the target audience, characteristics considered interesting within the scope of
this study were analyzed. Collaborators directly involved in the process of implementing the digital
transformation were selected, as this is a probabilistic convenience sample.
The target population has a total of 213 employees belonging to the services of the two governmental
areas of the Ministry of the Environment, of which 54 employees constitute the sample of the study,
which represents 25.35% of the target population.
At SGMAMB, comprising 113 employees, questionnaires were distributed to 37 employees, and at
MATE, comprising 101 employees, questionnaires were distributed to 17 employees, corresponding to
a percentage of 33.04% and 16.83% of the target population of each of the respective government areas.
Questionnaire respondents were asked to indicate their gender, age, educational qualifications, years
of work, function, and areas of work, in order to use these elements as characteristics of the sample,
as it can be seen in Table 6.
The sample presented in Table 6 is composed of mainly females (75.93%), aged between 35
and 49 years (48.15%), and with more than 30 years of work in the studied organization (33.33%).
The most frequent educational qualifications correspond to secondary education (10th to 12th years,
42.59%) and graduation (42.59%). SGMAMB integrates a greater number of employees (68.42%), the
“administrative” function is the most frequently performed (46.30%), and, finally, the work areas
with the highest incidence correspond to the advisory area (20.37%) and the administrative support
area (18.52%).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 17 of 24

Table 6. Research framework and main results.

Government Areas SGMAMB MATE Total

Nr % Nr % Nr %
Male 9 24.32% 4 24.53% 13 24.07%
Gender
Female 28 75.68% 13 76.47% 41 75.93%
From 18 to 24 years 0 0.00% 1 5.88% 1 1.85%
From 25 to 34 years 0 0.00% 2 11.76% 2 3.70%
Age From 35 to 49 years 18 48.65% 8 47.06% 26 48.15%
From 50 to 64 years 18 48.65% 5 29.41% 23 42.59%
Over 65 years 1 2.70% 1 5.88% 2 3.70%
1st to 4th year of EB 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
5th to 6th year of EB 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
7th to 9th year of EB 1 2.70% 0 0.00% 1 1.85%
Literary abilities High school (10th to 12th year) 13 35.14% 10 58.82% 23 42.59%
Bachelor 1 2.70% 0 0.00% 1 1.85%
Graduation 19 51.35% 4 24.53% 23 42.59%
masters 2 5.41% 2 11.76% 4 7.41%
PhD/Post Doc 1 2.70% 1 5.88% 2 3.70%
Less than 1 year 0 0.00% 1 5.88% 1 1.85%
Between 1 and 5 years 1 2.70% 1 5.88% 2 3.70%
Between 5 and 10 years 2 5.41% 2 11.76% 4 7.41%
Between 10 and 15 years 4 10.81% 3 17.65% 7 12.96%
Years of work
Between 15 and 20 years 7 18.92% 1 5.88% 8 14.81%
Between 20 and 25 years 5 13.51% 2 11.76% 7 12.96%
Between 25 and 30 years 6 16.22% 1 5.88% 7 12.96%
More than 30 12 32.43% 6 35.29% 18 33.33%
Administrative 14 37.84% 11 64.71% 25 46.30%
Advisor 2 5.41% 4 24.53% 6 11.11%
Senior Technician 13 35.14% 2 11.76% 15 27.78%
Function
Computer Specialist 4 10.81% 0 0.00% 4 7.41%
Computer Technician 1 2.70% 0 0.00% 1 1.85%
Division Supervisor 3 8.11% 0 0.00% 3 5.56%
Administrative-financial area 12 32.43% 0 0.00% 12 22.22%
Advisory area 3 8.11% 8 47.06% 11 20.37%
Training area 1 2.70% 0 0.00% 1 1.85%
Areas of job International Relations Area 4 10.81% 0 0.00% 4 7.41%
IT area 5 13.51% 0 0.00% 5 9.26%
Human resources area 7 18.92% 0 0.00% 7 12.96%
Legal Advisory Area 4 10.81% 0 0.00% 4 7.41%
Administrative support area 1 2.70% 9 52.94% 10 18.52%

4.2. Questionnaire
After the literature review and with a better perception of the state of the art and the importance
of digital transformation and knowledge management in public organizations, next is the design phase
of the issues that would be the basis of the questionnaires that were made available to a group of
employees of the Ministry of the Environment.
The questionnaire focuses on estimating, from the collected data, how the digital transformation
process in the Portuguese Public Administration takes place and what its relationship is with
knowledge management.
In the elaboration of the questionnaire, an introductory note was added which displays the context
of the request for collaboration, the guarantee of anonymity of participation, and the confidentiality of
the provided information.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 18 of 24

The questionnaire consists of 47 closed-answer questions constructed and organized in two groups
allowing the assessment of the perceptions, opinions, attitudes, and behaviors of employees concerning
the process of digital transformation and concerning knowledge management in the organization.
Therefore, the questionnaire structure consists of two parts, the first consisting of seven questions
regarding the characterization of the sample and the second with 47 questions regarding digital
transformation and knowledge management.
The questions address issues such as the state of knowledge management or how the organization
fosters the importance of digital transformation and knowledge management. Questions were also
elaborated to show the relationship between digital transformation and knowledge management.
The choice of the most appropriate response format considered its advantages, such as ease of
application, process, and analysis; ease and speed in the act of responding; presenting a low possibility
of errors and working with several alternatives.
Thus, the answer to this questionnaire is based on a 5-point psychometric scale—the Likert scale.
A response rate was applied that varies consecutively using scores from 1 to 5. The scale used in the
questionnaire presents a series of five answer options, of which the respondent must select one of the
following:

1. Totally disagree,
2. Disagree,
3. Neither Agree nor Disagree,
4. Agree,
5. Totally agree.

Additionally, in order to safeguard the bias of the collected responses, an option of “0–Don’t
Know” was created and added.
For the analysis and validation of the items, considering the respective meaning of each of the
identified issues, they were structured in two representative groups of each of the identified dimensions:

1. Issues regarding digital transformation

2. Issues related to Knowledge Management practices

The data collection procedure was carried out in June 2019, and the questionnaire was made
available in person at the organization’s facilities and a response rate of 25.35% of the target population
was obtained.

4.3. Methods
The data were treated using descriptive and inferential statistics, using the SPSS program (Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences, Version 26.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and the effects with p < 0.05
were considered statistically significant.
In the first phase, the set of collected data was submitted and transformed operationally to a basic
uniformly varied descriptive analysis.
The results obtained regarding the dimensions of Minimum, Maximum, Average, Standard
Deviation, and Asymmetry regarding the totality of the variables observed in the two groups
considered were analyzed: Digital Transformation and Knowledge Management.
The homogeneity of the basic variables of each of the groups of identified questions was analyzed
to validate whether they demonstrate significant correlations with each other to proceed with the
representation of this set of variables by a single variable, that is, one variable for each one of the
groups—calculation of Cronbach’s alpha index.
After validating the internal coherence expression of the set of responses for the variables in each
group, the average response was calculated for all the variables in that group, in order to present, in a
first approximation, the unit value underlying that group.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 19 of 24

In addition, the main component analysis was carried out by calculating for each group the main
component analysis in order to validate whether, with a variability of approximately 50%, it will make
sense to represent the group of variables by the first component.
Additionally, the linear regression methodologies were applied to verify the existence of
relationships between the created average variables.

5. Result Analysis

5.1. Statistical Characterization of Groups of Variables

After applying basic descriptive analysis methodologies to the two conceptual groups of variables
that make up the questionnaire, taking into account their meaning, it was intended to validate the
possibility of replacing each of these groups by a single variable, that is, one variable for every group,
expressing their meaning.
However, as for the dispersion around the averages, only in exceptional cases does this value
exceed 1, so it is possible to infer a remarkable homogeneity in terms of the obtained responses.
The correlations between pairs of variables in the two groups were positive, although some of these
values are not significant.
Therefore, it was possible to verify the high values of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (>0.7) for both
groups of variables, which could improve if some variables were eliminated. These values are also
supported by the percentage of total variance obtained for the global variables of each conceptual
group, expressed in the analyzes of the first and second main components. It was also found that in
both groups, the first component absorbs a large part of the total variability, as depicted in Table 7.

Table 7. Analysis of internal coherence and variance, explained by the first two main components, for
each group.

% of Variance
Variable Group Cronbach Alfa
1st CPP 2nd CPP
Digital Transformation 0.878 27.0 15.9
Knowledge Management 0.785 27.6 19.0

Thus, it was possible to verify that, underlying each of the two groups of variables, there is a
variable that these observed variables are manifestations, which can be approximated either by the
average value of the variables of each group (in the first approximation) or by the first main component
respectively—both are linear combinations of group variables.
Furthermore, for reasons of interpretation, it was chosen to proceed with the representation of
groups of variables by calculating the average.

5.2. Study by Regression of the Relationships Between Groups of Variables

Therefore, after validating the behavior of each of the groups of variables through a linear
combination in order to represent each of the groups, the mean was used to represent the groups.
Thus, in this study it is attempted to estimate by linear regression, the possible linear relationships
between the two mean variables representative of the respective groups of questions: DT_med and
KM_med, as depicted by Table 8.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 20 of 24

Table 8. Analysis of linear relationships, for each group.

Explanatory Variables
Model Cte. B1 B2 R2
KM_med DT_med
1 X (N.S) 0.510 (S) - 0.66
2 X (N.S) 0.856 (S) - 0.66
Legend: (N.S.)—Not significant, (S.)—Significant.

Therefore, it was possible to observe that both Digital Transformation (on average) and knowledge
management (on average) present significant values (S.) of the respective coefficients.
The results show that R2 values are reasonable, namely: 0.66 when considering the explanatory
variable DT_med and also 0.66 when considering the explanatory variable KM_med. The regression
model whose objective was to verify whether the model explains knowledge management as a function
of Digital Transformation showed reasonable average results in the order of 60%, so it can be concluded
that the introduction of digital transformation in the Ministry of the Environment has increased
knowledge management.

5.3. Overall Discussion

The methodology applied in the exploratory research allowed us to prove the existence of a
cause–effect relationship between variables related to digital transformation and variables related to
Knowledge Management practices.
Based on the methods of multivariate data analysis, it was possible to validate the hypothesis of
the work, in which, in the opinion of the respondents, the Digital Transformation process has a relevant
effect on Knowledge Management practices. Furthermore, in turn, it was validated that knowledge
management is a critical factor in the success of digital transformation.
For both groups of variables, it was possible to verify a positive asymmetry, meaning that
respondents tend to choose high response values, generally above the central value (3), of the chosen
Likert response scale—graded from 1 to 5, which corroborates this analysis.
Knowledge management proved to be a critical factor in the success of digital transformation in
the public organization. According to literature, knowledge management is the process of creating,
capturing, and using knowledge from an organization’s intangible assets to improve [57]. Knowledge
management, considering it as an intangible and precious asset of an organization, has gained relevance
in the strategic positioning of organizations. Within Public Administration, knowledge management
“is a powerful facilitator in the current drive for greater efficiency in all areas [11]”. In this way,
the authors in [10] states that knowledge management “has the potential to greatly influence and
improve the renewal processes of the public sector”.
Thus, it is concluded that the use of technology combined with the systematic use of knowledge
increases efficiency, improves efficiency, and facilitates competence, creativity, and innovation in
the studied public organization. In addition, knowledge management proved to be a process of
leveraging and articulating the skills and knowledge of employees with the support of information
technology [58].
The results of the study show the growing importance of digital government (DG) in the public
administration, as measured by the increasing number of published papers and the identification of
several key issues. However, there is low specialization because few authors write extensively about
the public sector. This lack of cohesive literature is evidenced by the low citation rates.
Furthermore, the low levels of international cooperation between authors contribute to the
fragmentation of literature. Some research themes and some geographic areas within the public
sector theme are overanalyzed, and others are under-researched. Finally, researchers must rethink
methodological approaches to make meaningful contributions to the literature to develop more
critical approaches.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 21 of 24

6. Conclusions
As a field of research, the digital government has emerged from several disciplines, including
public administration, knowledge management and innovation, information technology, information
management, element and process management, communication and organizational culture,
among others. There have been several efforts in the last decade to outline this emerging academic
community, assessing the growing body of research represented by new, revised publications each year.
In this study a review and survey were made with its main focus on estimating, from the collected
data, how the digital transformation process in the Public Administration takes place and what its
relationship is with knowledge management. The review study aimed to understand the role that
digital government research plays in the theory and practice of knowledge management. In the survey
study, 54 employees belonging to the services of the two governmental areas of the Portuguese Ministry
of the Environment were surveyed.
Knowledge management could provide the overall strategy and techniques for eloquently
managing digital government content in order to make knowledge more usable and accessible and keep
it current. For the success of digital government, more studies should be carried out using appropriate
methods and proposals for new research models, which include the knowledge management approach
in the digital government literature. From a perspective of knowledge management, the digital
government could be considered an essential aspect of innovation, coproduction, transparency, and the
generation of public value.
With the intent to understand the relationship between the implementation of digital
transformation and the use of knowledge management practices in public organizations and based
on the methods of multivariate data analysis, it was possible to validate the hypothesis of the work,
in which, in the opinion of the respondents, the digital transformation process has a relevant effect on
knowledge management practices. Furthermore, in turn, it was validated that knowledge management
is a critical factor in the success of digital transformation. The regression model disclosed that
knowledge management as a function of digital transformation showed a reasonable average outcome
in the order of 60%, so it can be concluded that the introduction of Digital Transformation in the
Portuguese Ministry of the Environment increased Knowledge Management.
Furthermore, it has been found that the terms used in digital governance studies diverge from other
terms that have the same meaning as e-government, which makes bibliographic research challenging.
In addition, studies with the term digital transformation are scarce, so digital transformation studies
and studies of the terms to be used in the digital government literature may be a possible direction
for researchers.
As a result of this study, some research agenda topics were found, such as: studies on knowledge
management in the process of digital transformation in public administration; case studies in
public organizations that have a high impact on the improvement of public services; studies with
methodological approaches that contribute significantly to the digital government literature; structured
literature reviews on the topic, including research in more databases in order to perform a more
in-depth analysis of the literature of digital government; and international comparative studies.
Several limitations can be highlighted. Firstly, the public sector documents were found only in
the Scopus database, which could potentially ignore, involuntarily, some relevant articles on digital
government and knowledge management studies. Nevertheless, the selection is a comprehensive and
representative sample of the digital government literature.
In addition, this study was based on the analysis and interpretation of results, which can
sometimes be subjective. Other researchers using the same data may present different interpretations
and conclusions.

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, F.M. and R.G.; supervision, F.M. and J.C.O.M.; writing—original draft,
A.A. and F.M.; writing—Review and editing, F.M., R.G. and J.C.O.M. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 22 of 24

Funding: This work was also financially supported by the research unit on Governance, Competitiveness and
Public Policy (UID/CPO/04058/2019), funded by national funds through FCT—Fundacão para a Ciência e a
Tecnologia. Radu Godina acknowledges Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT—MCTES) for its financial
support via the project UIDB/00667/2020 (UNIDEMI).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Al-Ruithe, M.; Benkhelifa, E.; Hameed, K. Key issues for embracing the cloud computing to adopt a digital
transformation: A study of saudi public sector. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 130, 1037–1043. [CrossRef]
2. Weerakkody, V.; Omar, A.; El-Haddadeh, R.; Al-Busaidy, M. Digitally-enabled service transformation in the
public sector: The lure of institutional pressure and strategic response towards change. Gov. Inf. Q. 2016, 33,
658–668. [CrossRef]
3. Omar, A.; Weerakkody, V.; Sivarajah, U. Digitally enabled service transformation in UK public sector: A case
analysis of universal credit. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 350–356. [CrossRef]
4. Lee, J.; Kim, B.J.; Park, S.; Park, S.; Oh, K. Proposing a value-based digital government model: Toward
broadening sustainability and public participation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3078. [CrossRef]
5. Zhou, Z.; Gao, F. E-government and knowledge management. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur. 2007, 7,
285–289.
6. Araújo, R.P.; Mottin, A.P.; Rezende, J.F.D.C. Gestão do conhecimento e do capital intelectual: Mapeamento
da produção acadêmica brasileira de 1997 a 2011 nos encontros da ANPAD. Organ. Soc. 2013, 20, 283–301.
[CrossRef]
7. Serenko, A.; Bontis, N.; Booker, L.; Sadeddin, K.; Hardie, T. “A scientometric analysis of (1994–2008)”,
knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature. J. Manag. Knowl. 2010, 14, 3–23.
[CrossRef]
8. De Angelis, C.T. Models of governance and the importance of KM for public administration. J. Knowl.
Manag. Pr. 2013, 14, 1–18.
9. Misra, D.C. Ten guiding principles for knowledge management in e-government in developing countries.
In First International Conference on Knowledge Management for Productivity and Competitiveness; National
Productivity Council: New Delhi, India, 2007.
10. Edge, K. Powerful public sector knowledge management: A school district example. J. Knowl. Manag. 2005,
9, 42–52. [CrossRef]
11. Mcadam, R.; Reid, R. A comparison of public and private sector perceptions and use of management. J. Eur.
Ind. Train. 2000, 24, 317–329. [CrossRef]
12. Amayah, A.T. Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector organization. J. Manag. Knowl. 2013, 17,
454–471. [CrossRef]
13. Hislop, D. Knowledge Management in Organizations: Acritical Introduction; Oxford University Press: Oxford,
UK, 2013.
14. Massaro, M.; Dumay, J.; Garatti, A. Public sector knowledge management: A structured literature review.
J. Knowl. Manag. 2015, 19, 530–558. [CrossRef]
15. Guthrie, J.; Ricceri, F.; Dumay, J. Reflections and projections: A decade of intellectual capital accounting
research. Br. Account. Rev. 2012, 44, 68–82. [CrossRef]
16. Dumay, J.; Garanina, T. Intellectual capital research: A critical examination of the thirdstage. J. Intellect. Cap.
2013, 14, 10–25. [CrossRef]
17. Dumay, J. 15 years of the journal of intellectual capital and counting: A manifesto for transformational IC
research. J. Intellect. Cap. 2014, 15, 2–37. [CrossRef]
18. Dumay, J.; Cai, L. A review and critique of content analysis as a methodology for inquiring into IC disclosure.
J. Intellect. Cap. 2014, 15, 264–290. [CrossRef]
19. Dewey, A.; Drahota, A. Introduction to systematic reviews: Online learning module Cochrane Training.
Available online: https://training.cochrane.org/interactivelearning/module-1-introduction-conducting-
systematic-reviews (accessed on 16 July 2020).
20. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol.
2005, 8, 19–32. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 23 of 24

21. Petticrew, M.; Roberts, H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A. Practical Guide; John Wiley & Sons:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; p. 354.
22. Adu, K.K. A multi-methods study exploring the role of stakeholders in the digital preservation environment:
The case of ghana. Electron. Libr. 2018, 36, 650–664. [CrossRef]
23. Adu, K.K.; Ngulube, P. Preserving the digital heritage of public institutions in Ghana in the wake of electronic
government. Libr. Hi Tech 2016, 34, 748–763. [CrossRef]
24. Baron, J.R.; Thurston, A. What lessons can be learned from the US archivist’s digital mandate for 2019 and is
there potential for applying them in lower resource countries? Rec. Manag. J. 2016, 26, 206–217. [CrossRef]
25. Bataw, A.; Kirkham, R.; Lou, E. The issues and considerations associated with BIM integration. In MATEC
Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2016; Volume 66.
26. Dawes, S.S.; Burke, G.B.; Gharawi, M. Transnational digital government research collaborations: Purpose,
value, challenges. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference
on Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011.
27. Dorner, D. Public sector readiness for digital preservation in New Zealand: The rate of adoption of an
innovation in records management practices. Gov. Inf. Q. 2009, 26, 341–348. [CrossRef]
28. Drake, D.B.; Steckler, N.A.; Koch, M.J. Information sharing in and across government agencies: The role
and influence of scientist, politician, and bureaucrat subcultures. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2004, 22, 67–84.
[CrossRef]
29. Eger, J.M.; Maggipinto, A. Technology as a tool of transformation: E-cities and the rule of law.
In Information Systems: People, Organizations, Institutions, and Technologies; AD0 Atri, S., Ed.; Physica-Verlag
HD: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 23–30.
30. Eiermann, L.; Walter, S. Document logistics in the public sector: Integrative handling of physical and digital
documents. Int. J. Netw. Virtual Organ. 2010, 7, 240–256. [CrossRef]
31. Gil-García, J.R.; Dawes, S.S.; Pardo, T.A. Digital government and public management research: Finding the
crossroads. Spec. Issue Digit. Gov. Public 2018, 20, 633–646. [CrossRef]
32. Rahman, M.H.A.A.J. Archivists 2.0: Redefining the archivist’s profession in the digital age. Rec. Manag. J.
2012, 22, 98–115.
33. Kammerer, S.C. Government workers say goodbye to paper. DB2 Mag. 2004, 9, 38–40.
34. Koh, C.E.; Ryan, S.; Prybutok, V.R. Creating value through managing knowledge in an e-government to
constituency (G2C) environment. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2005, 45, 32–41.
35. Kolasa, I. Success factors for public sector information system projects: Qualitative literature review.
In Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Government, ECEG, Lisbon, Portugal, 12–13 June 2017;
Volume Part F129463, pp. 326–335.
36. Koniaris, M.; Papastefanatos, G.; Anagnostopoulos, I. Solon: A holistic approach for modelling, managing
and mining legal sources. Algorithms 2018, 11, 196. [CrossRef]
37. Lamari, M.; Belgacem, I. Knowledge brokering in the web 2.0 era: Empirical evidence of emerging strategies
in government agencies. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Education and e-Learning
Innovations, Sousse, Tunisia, 1–3 July 2012.
38. Lele, U.; Goswami, S. The fourth industrial revolution, agricultural and rural innovation, and implications
for public policy and investments: A case of India. Agric. Econ. 2017, 48, 87–100. [CrossRef]
39. Matheus, R.; Janssen, M. Exploitation and exploration strategies to create data transparency in the public
sector. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Delft, The Netherlands, 1–3
March 2016; pp. 13–16.
40. Müller, H.; Würriehausen, F. Ensuring interoperability of geographic information in local government and
inspire. In Proceedings of the 14th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2014,
Albena, Bulgaria, 17–26 June 2014; Volume 3, pp. 559–566.
41. Ndlela, M.N. Knowledge management in the public sector: Communication issues and challenges at local
government level. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Famalicão,
Portugal, 2–3 September 2010; Volume 2, pp. 711–716.
42. Panganiban, G.G.F. E-governance in agriculture: Digital tools enabling filipino farmers. J. Asian Public Policy
2019, 12, 51–70. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5824 24 of 24

43. Pappel, I.; Pappel, I.; Saarmann, M. Digital records keeping to information governance in Estonian local
governments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Society (i-Society 2012), London,
UK, 25–28 June 2012; pp. 199–204.
44. Prokopiadou, G.; Papatheodorou, C.; Moschopoulos, D. Integrating knowledge management tools for
government information. Gov. Inf. Q. 2004, 21, 170–198. [CrossRef]
45. Rocheleau, B. Case Studies on Digital Government; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-1-59904-177-3.
46. Shilohu Rao, N.J.P.; Goswami, D.; Chaudhary, R. Knowledge management system for governance:
Transformational approach creating knowledge as product for governance. In Crowdsourcing and Knowledge
Management in Contemporary Business Environments; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017; Volume 2,
pp. 742–751.
47. Sirendi, R.; Mendoza, A.; Barrier, M.; Taveter, K.; Sterling, L. A conceptual framework for effective
appropriation of proactive public e-services. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Digital
Government, Santiago, Spain, 25–26 October 2018; Volume 2018, pp. 213–221.
48. Svärd, P. E-Government Initiatives and Information Management in Two Local Government Authorities; Academic
Publishing International: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 429–436.
49. Vat, K.H. The E-governance concerns in information system design for effective e-government performance
improvement. In Handbook of Research on E-Government Readiness for Information and Service Exchange: Utilizing
Progressive Information Communication Technologies; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2010; Chapter 3, pp. 48–69.
50. Vivo, M.C.D.; Polzonetti, A.; Tapanelli, P. ICT and PA: A marriage made in heaven? In Proceedings of the
European Conference on Information Systems Management, Verona, Italy, 8–10 June 2009; pp. 119–125.
51. Jane Broadbent, J.G. Public sector to public services: 20 years of ‘contextual’ accounting research.
Account. Audit. Account. J. 2008, 21, 129–169. [CrossRef]
52. Alexander Serenko, J.D. Knowledge management journal. Part II: Studying research trends and discovering
the Google Scholar Effec. J. Knowl. Manag. 2015, 19, 1335. [CrossRef]
53. Rahman, M.H.; Al Joker, A.S. Organizational learning from service innovation in the public sector of Dubai.
In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management &
Organisational Learning, Cape Town, South Africa, 29–30 November 2018; Volume 2018, pp. 261–267.
54. Merton, R.K. Social Structure and Social Theory; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1968.
55. Merton, R.K. The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual
Property. Isis 1988, 79, 606. [CrossRef]
56. Merton, R.K. On market timing and investment performance. I. An equilibrium theory of value for market
forecasts. J. Bus. 1981, 54, 363–406.
57. Liao, S. Knowledge management technologies and applications—Literature review from 1995 to 2002.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2003, 25, 155–164. [CrossRef]
58. Bennet, A.; Bennet, D. The Partnership between Organisational Learning and Knowledge Management.
In International Handbooks on Information Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).