CLIAMS:1. An e-governance maturity evaluation system (100) comprising:
a processor (110); and
a maturity determination module (130), coupled to the processor (110), to
receive user inputs corresponding to a plurality of parameters for each of a plurality of maturity determination factors, wherein e-governance maturity is characterized by the plurality of maturity determination factors, the plurality of maturity determination factors comprising at least two of finance, revenue systems, capital projects, inventory, assets, human resource management, security, and citizen services;
compute a factor score for each maturity determination factor based on corresponding user inputs and scoring rules, wherein the factor score is indicative of maturity of an organization for a given maturity determination factor; and
determine a final maturity score based on the factor score for each maturity determination factor, the final maturity score being indicative of an e-governance maturity level of the organization, wherein the e-governance maturity level is indicative of an extent of maturity of the organization regarding automation of operations and services corresponding to the plurality of maturity determination factors.
2. The e-governance maturity evaluation system (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the maturity determination module (130) further
receives, after predetermined time intervals, updated user inputs corresponding to the plurality of parameters for each of the plurality of maturity determination factors; and
re-computes the final maturity score of the organization.

3. The e-governance maturity evaluation system (100) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a maturity analysis module (135) coupled to the processor (110) to:
select a plurality of organizations based on benchmarking parameters;
obtain final maturity scores of the plurality of organizations; and
rank the plurality of organizations based on respective final maturity scores to identify a benchmark organization and a corresponding benchmark maturity score, wherein the benchmark organization is an organization with highest rank and benchmark maturity score is a final maturity score of the of the benchmark organization.

4. The e-governance maturity evaluation system (100) as claimed in claim 3, wherein the benchmarking parameters include a geographic region of the organization, size of the organization, nature of the operations performed by the organization, and complexity of services provided by the organization.
5. The e-governance maturity evaluation system (100) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a maturity improvement module (140) coupled to the processor (110) to:
ascertain whether an improvement plan is to be provided, based on improvement criteria; and
provide, based on the ascertaining, the improvement plan to improve the e-governance maturity level of the organization based on benchmarking parameters and improvement data (155), the improvement data (155) including a list of improvement plans for enhancing the e-governance maturity.
6. The e-governance maturity evaluation system (100) as claimed in claim 5, wherein the maturity improvement module (140) compares the final maturity score with a threshold maturity score to ascertain whether the improvement plan is to be provided.
7. The e-governance maturity evaluation system (100) as claimed in claim 5, wherein the maturity improvement module (140) further:
identifies one or more maturity improvement factors, from the plurality of maturity determination factors, based on improvement factor identification rules, wherein a maturity improvement factor is a factor for which the e-governance maturity level is to be improved; and
determines the improvement plan for the one or more maturity determination factors based on the benchmarking parameters and the improvement data (155).

8. The e-governance maturity evaluation system (100) as claimed in claim 6, wherein the maturity improvement module (140) further:
compares the factor score of each of the maturity determination factor with a corresponding threshold factor score; and
determines the one or more maturity improvement factors based on the comparison, wherein the improvement plan is provided to enhance e-governance maturity of the one or more maturity identification factors.

9. A computer implemented method for evaluating e-governance maturity of an organization, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor (110), user inputs corresponding to a plurality of parameters for each of a plurality of maturity determination factors, wherein the e-governance maturity is characterized by the plurality of maturity determination factors, the plurality of maturity determination factors comprising at least two of finance, revenue systems, capital projects, inventory, assets, human resource management, security, and citizen services;
computing, by the processor (110), a factor score for each maturity determination factor based on corresponding user inputs and scoring rules, wherein the factor score is indicative of maturity of an organization for a given maturity determination factor; and
determining, by the processor (110), a final maturity score based on the factor scores for each maturity determination factor, the final maturity score being indicative of an e-governance maturity level of the organization, wherein the e-governance maturity level is indicative of an extent of maturity of the organization regarding implementation of technology with respect to the plurality of maturity determination factors.

10. The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the method further comprises:
selecting, by the processor (110), a plurality of organizations based on benchmarking parameters;
obtaining, by the processor (110), final maturity scores of the plurality of organizations; and
ranking, by the processor (110), the plurality of organizations based on respective final maturity scores to identify a rank of the organization.

11. The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the method further comprises:
ascertaining, by the processor (110), whether an improvement plan is to be provided, based on improvement criteria; and
providing, by the processor (110), based on the ascertaining, the improvement plan to improve the e-governance maturity level of the organization based on benchmarking parameters and improvement data (155), the improvement data (155) including a list of improvement plans for enhancing the e-governance maturity.
12. The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the method further comprises comparing, by the processor (110), the final maturity score with a threshold maturity score to ascertain whether the improvement plan is to be provided.

13. The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the providing comprises
identifying, by the processor (110), one or more maturity improvement factors, from the plurality of maturity determination factors, based on improvement factor determination rules, wherein a maturity improvement factor is a factor for which maturity level is to be improved; and
determining, by the processor (110), the improvement plan for the one or more maturity determination factors based on the benchmarking parameters and the improvement data (155).

14. The method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the method comprises:
comparing, by the processor (110), the factor score of each of the maturity determination factor with a corresponding threshold factor score; and
determining, by the processor (110), the one or more maturity improvement factors based on the comparison.
15. The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the processor (110), after predetermined time intervals, updated user inputs corresponding to the plurality of parameters for each of the plurality of maturity determination factors; and
re-computing, by the processor (110), the final maturity score of the organization.
16. A non-transitory computer readable medium having embodied thereon a computer program for executing a method for evaluating e-governance maturity of an organization comprising:
receiving user inputs corresponding to a plurality of parameters for each of a plurality of maturity determination factors, wherein the e-governance maturity is characterized by the plurality of maturity determination factors, the plurality of maturity determination factors comprising at least two of finance, revenue systems, capital projects, inventory, assets, human resource management, security, and citizen services;
computing a factor score for each maturity determination factor based on corresponding user inputs and scoring rules, wherein the factor score is indicative of maturity of an organization for a given maturity determination factor; and
determining a final maturity score based on the factor scores for each maturity determination factor, the final maturity score being indicative of an e-governance maturity level of the organization, wherein the e-governance maturity level is indicative of an extent of maturity of the organization regarding implementation of technology with respect to the plurality of maturity determination factors.
,TagSPECI:

TECHNICAL FIELD
[001] The present subject matter relates, in general, to e-governance and, in particular, to
evaluation of e-governance maturity of an organization.
BACKGROUND
[002] Generally, organizations, such as government organizations, perform multiple
operations to provide services to public. With recent advancements in technology, such
organizations are increasingly adopting information technology to enhance the efficiency of the
organizations. The implementation of information technology to enhance the performance of
traditional government operations and services is generally referred to as electronic-governance
(e-governance).
[003] Government organizations are increasingly using e-governance as a tool to enhance
their operational efficiency, improve the way the services are delivered to citizens and change
the way citizens interact with their governments. However, various studies have shown that
while most of the developed countries have efficiently employed e-governance, developing
countries are still in the early stages of e-governance deployment.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS.
[001] The detailed description is described with reference to the accompanying figures. In
the figures, the left-most digit(s) of a reference number identifies the figure in which the
reference number first appears. The same numbers are used throughout the drawings to reference
like features and components.
[002] Fig. 1 illustrates an e-governance maturity evaluation system, in accordance with an
embodiment of the present subject matter.
[003] Fig. 2 illustrates a method for evaluation e-governance maturity of an organization,
in accordance with an implementation of the present subject matter
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[004] Method(s) and a system(s) to determine e-governance maturity of an organization
are described herein. The systems and methods described herein can be implemented on
3
computing devices, such as a server, a desktop, a mobile device, a notebook or a portable
computer.
[005] Generally, organizations, such as government organizations, use e-governance as
a tool to improve effectiveness, efficiency, and service delivery. E-governance is the use of
information technology or information and communication technology to automate and
transform government operations. Thus, e-governance may be adopted to effectively deliver
government services to citizens, to enhance internal efficiency and have transparency of
government operations and at the same time improve active participation of citizens to realize
socio-economic development. However, many organizations, for example, the organizations in
the developing countries, are yet to realize the full potential of e-governance. For example,
organizations have so far generally focused on improving internal efficiency through egovernance
and have not focused on service delivery to the citizens.
[006] Further, often times, the organizations are unaware of the improvement areas,
which may be worked upon to enhance the overall efficiency of the organization. Moreover, the
organizations may not have the requisite knowledge, which may help in improving egovernance.
Thus, unavailability of required guidance and the knowledge may prevent the
organizations and the citizens from realizing the benefits of e-governance.
[007] According to an embodiment of the present subject matter, systems and methods
for determining e-governance maturity of an organization are described herein. E-governance
maturity may be understood as a degree of implementation of the information technology in the
organization. The e-governance maturity may be categorized into a predetermined number of
maturity levels, where the lower most level indicates that the organization is not e-governance
mature and an increase in level indicates an increase in e-governance maturity, such that a
highest level indicates that the organization is fully mature according to current standards of egovernance.
Further, the e-governance maturity may be characterized by a plurality of maturity
determination factors. The maturity determination factors reflect various aspects of egovernance,
which affect functioning of the organizations. In other words, the maturity
determination factors may represent those aspects of the organization, which can be
computerized or automated. For example, process of generation of utility bills, process for
4
crediting salaries, process for computing leaves and process for computing taxes can be
automated. Examples of the maturity determination factors include, but are not limited to,
finance, revenue systems, capital projects, inventory, assets, human resource management,
security, and citizen services.
[008] In order to determine the e-governance maturity of the organization, e-governance
maturity for each of the maturity determination factors may be determined. In an
implementation, for each of the maturity determination factors, a user, say an IT manager having
information pertaining to IT services implemented by the organizations, may be requested to
provide inputs to a plurality of parameters. The parameters, which may be in form of questions,
aid in determining an extent to which a maturity determination factor has been developed. Thus,
the parameters may indicate attributes, which are to be automated to achieve a given level of egovernance
maturity for the corresponding maturity determination factor. Further, each
parameter may be arranged in a hierarchical manner. In an example, in case a negative input for
a parameter is received, the user may not be requested to provide inputs to the parameters higher
in hierarchy and a factor score for a maturity determination factor may be computed based on the
parameters lower in hierarchy than the parameter with the negative input. The negative input
may indicate that the computerization as indicated by the parameter has not been implemented,
while a positive input may indicate that the computerization has been implemented.
[009] Based on the inputs provided by the user and scoring rules, a factor score for each
of the maturity determination factors may be computed. The scoring rules may include rules to
compute a score based on weight associated with each of the parameter corresponding to
maturity determination factor. In an example, the more the number of positive inputs for the
parameters, the higher is the score computed. Using the factor scores of the maturity
determination factors, a final maturity score may be determined. The final maturity score is
indicative of an e-governance maturity level of the organization. Based on the final maturity
score, the organization may be categorized into one of the predetermined levels.
[0010] In an implementation, if the user has provided a benchmarking request, the
ranking of the organization may be performed with respect to other similar organizations, which
are selected based on benchmarking parameters. The benchmarking parameters include, for
5
example, geographic region of the organization, size of the organization, nature of the operations
performed by the organization, and complexity of services provided by the organization.
[0011] Further, it may be determined whether an improvement plan is to be provided
based on improvement criteria. For example, based on the ranking, a user may request for the
improvement plan. Alternatively, the final maturity score may be compared with a threshold
maturity score to determine if an improvement is required. The threshold score indicates a
minimum level of e-governance maturity that an organization should have to efficiently perform
the operations and services. Accordingly, the improvement plan may be provided based on the
benchmarking parameters and improvement data. The improvement data may include a list of
improvement plans for enhancing the e-governance maturity.
[0012] Further, the improvement plan may function as a roadmap for improving the egovernance
maturity for one or more improvement factors. The improvement factors may be
understood as maturity determination factors, which have a factor score less than a threshold
factor score. Thus, one or more improvement factors may be determined to identify the
improvement area that should be focused on to enhance the overall efficiency of the
organization. Further, the improvement plan includes suggestions that may be implemented to
increase the factor scores of the improvement factors. For instance, suggestion may include IT
solutions implemented by a similar organization having higher or at least threshold factor score
for a given improvement factor. Additionally, the improvement plan may also provide other
auxiliary details for implementing the suggested IT services, for example, a preferred vendors for
implementing the suggested IT services.
[0013] Thus, the organizations, based on the present e-governance maturity analysis, can
have clarity on the extent of maturity of each maturity determination factor and instead of
traditional approach of focusing on only certain aspects of e-governance, the organizations may
now have a holistic picture of the level of e-governance maturity. Further, the present subject
matter not only provides for identification of focus areas in an organization but also provides a
roadmap to enhance the e-governance maturity.
[0014] The above systems and methods are further described in conjunction with the
following figures. It should be noted that the description and figures merely illustrate the
6
principles of the present subject matter. It will thus be appreciated that various arrangements that
embody the principles of the present subject matter, although not explicitly described or shown
herein, can be devised from the description and are included within its scope. Moreover, all
statements herein reciting principles, aspects, and embodiments of the present subject matter, as
well as specific examples thereof, are intended to encompass equivalents thereof.
[0015] Fig. 1 illustrates an e-governance maturity evaluation system 100, according to an
embodiment of the present subject matter. The e-governance maturity evaluation system 100 can
be implemented using devices that include, but are not limited to, desktop computers, hand-held
devices, such as mobile phones, smart phones, touch phones tablets and the like, multiprocessor
systems, personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptops, network computers, cloud servers,
minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like.
[0016] In an implementation, the e-governance maturity evaluation system 100,
hereinafter referred to as system 100, includes interface(s) 105 and one or more processor(s) 110.
The interfaces 105 may include a variety of software and hardware interfaces, for example,
interfaces for peripheral device(s), such as a keyboard, a mouse, and, a touch pad. Further, the
interfaces 105 may enable the system 100, to communicate with other computing systems, such
as web servers, external databases, and other computing devices. The interfaces 105 can facilitate
multiple communications within a wide variety of networks, and protocol types, including wired
networks, for example, local area network (LAN), cable, etc., and wireless networks, such as
Wireless LAN (WLAN), cellular, or satellite. For the purpose, the interfaces 105 may include
one or more ports for connecting a number of computing systems to each other or to another
server computer.
[0017] The processor 110 may be implemented as one or more microprocessors,
microcomputers, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, central processing units, state
machines, logic circuitries, and/or any devices that manipulate signals based on operational
instructions. Among other capabilities, the processor 110 fetches and executes computerreadable
instructions stored in a memory.
[0018] The functions of the various elements shown in the figure, including any
functional blocks labeled as “processor(s)”, may be provided through the use of dedicated
7
hardware as well as hardware capable of executing software in association with appropriate
software. When provided by a processor, the functions may be provided by a single dedicated
processor, by a single shared processor, or by a plurality of individual processors, some of which
may be shared.
[0019] In an embodiment, system 100 may include a memory 115. The memory 115 may
be communicatively coupled to the processor 110. The memory 115 may include any nontransitory
computer-readable medium known in the art including, for example, volatile memory,
such as static random access memory (SRAM) and dynamic random access memory (DRAM),
and/or non-volatile memory, such as read only memory (ROM), erasable programmable ROM,
flash memories, hard disks, optical disks, and magnetic tapes.
[0020] Further, the system 100 may include module(s) 120 and data 125. The modules
120 and the data 125 may be coupled to the processor 110. The modules 120, amongst other
things, include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc., which perform
particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. The modules 120 may also be
implemented as, signal processor(s), state machine(s), logic circuitries, and/or any other device
or component that manipulate signals based on operational instructions.
[0021] Further, the modules 120 can be implemented in hardware, instructions executed
by a processing unit, or by a combination thereof. The processing unit can comprise a computer,
a processor, a state machine, a logic array or any other suitable devices capable of processing
instructions. The processing unit can be a general-purpose processor which executes instructions
to cause the general-purpose processor to perform the required tasks or, the processing unit can
be dedicated to perform the required functions.
[0022] In another aspect of the present subject matter, the modules 120 may be machinereadable
instructions (software) which, when executed by a processor/processing unit, perform
any of the described functionalities. The machine-readable instructions may be stored on an
electronic memory device, hard disk, optical disk or other machine-readable storage medium or
non-transitory medium. In one implementation, the machine-readable instructions can be also be
downloaded to the storage medium via a network connection.
8
[0023] Further, the data 125 serves, amongst other things, as a repository for storing data
processed, received, and generated by one or more of the modules 120. The modules 120 further
include, for example, a maturity determination module 130, a maturity analysis module 135, a
maturity improvement module 140, and other module(s) 145. The other modules 145 may
include programs that supplement applications on the system 100, for example, programs in the
operating system. It will be understood that the certain modules may be provided on separate
devices, which in combination may form the system 100. The data 125 includes, for example,
scoring data 150, improvement data 155, and other data 160. The other data 160 may include
data generated as a result of the execution of one or more modules in the other modules 145.
[0024] In an implementation, to determine e-governance maturity of an organization, the
maturity determination module 130 may request a user, such as, an IT administer, of the
organization to provide inputs to a plurality of parameters corresponding to each of maturity
determination factors. The maturity determination factors help characterize the concept of egovernance
maturity. In other words, to evaluate the e-governance, maturity of the organization
with respect to each of these factors may be determined. Examples of the maturity determination
factors include, but are not limited to, finance, revenue systems, capital projects, inventory,
assets, human resource management, security, and citizen services.
[0025] Finance may cover all budgeting and accounting functions. The accounting
functions may include for example, chart of accounts, budgeting process, and book of accounts,
which includes general ledger, accounts receivable, and accounts payable.
[0026] Revenue systems may include revenue earned from various taxes and services, for
example, property tax, rents from estates, billing of utility mains, and revenues from issue of
certificates, permissions, and licenses.
[0027] Capital projects may include projects for building and improving infrastructure,
for example, projects for water delivery, water filtration, sanitation, development of roads,
setting up of plants, such as power plants, and purchase of machinery.
[0028] Inventory may include a record of various services and goods. For example,
insurance spares for plant and machinery, purchase of consumables, inventory for maintenance
of workshops.
9
[0029] Assets may include assets that are created out of capital projects, which ear
revenue for the organization.
[0030] Human resource management may include, for example, recruitment process,
learning and development programs, loans and leave records and policies, appraisal and
promotion processes, transfer process and record, suspension process and record, retrials, and
full and final settlements.
[0031] Security may include identity management and document trials.
[0032] As mentioned before, based on a level of maturity of the organization with respect
to the maturity determination factors a level of e-governance maturity of the organization may be
determined. In an example, the e-governance maturity may be categorized into predetermined
number of maturity levels, say, five levels. Each level of the e-governance maturity may have
specific characteristics with respect each of the maturity determination factors. For the purpose
of explanation and not as a limitation, the categorization of e-governance maturity in various
levels are in indicated in table 1 provided below:
Table 1
5 Real time
MIS
Accept M
Wallet
Real time
MIS
Real time
MIS
Real time
MIS
All citizen
interaction
through
web/Cyber
Cafes
All employees
have access to
Employee Self
Service
RDBMS
Vault
4
Integrated
Finance +
Revenue
Systems
Self
assessmen
t of P Tax
Real time
Bill passing
Real time
Material
Issues
Automatic
Capitaliza
tion
Rule based nondiscretionary
decisions
All HR
payments
through ECS
Biometric for
all key
e- transactions
Procurement
3
Real time
revenue
collections
Web
enabled
collections
Electronic
Measureme
nt Book
Real time
receipts /
GRN
Transfer
to Finance
B/S
All citizen
interaction
through CFCs
Online
transfers /
rosters / other
MIS
Access to
system only
thru Digital
Signatures
2
Real time
Expense
control/
Budgeting
Real time
integration
with
Finance
Electronic
Purchase
Order with
budget
control
Indenting
/PO-pre
audit
Valuation
Automated back
end linked to
front end
Online payroll
/ pension / PF
processing
Secure Socket
Layer on
Server Access
1
Disparate
Databases,
Back end
IT only
Collection
s + Bill
printing
System
based
Estimation
Common
coding
Structure
Codificati
on
+Verificat
ion
Static Portal
HR Database
real time
access to all
stakeholders
User id +
complex
passwords
changed
regularly
Level Finance
Revenue
Systems
Capital
Projects Inventory Assets
Citizen
Services
Human
Resources Security
10
[0033] Referring to table 1, it can be observed that, at first level, which may be taken to
be lowermost level, finance, as the maturity determination factor, is characterized by disparate
data basis and computerization at the back-end only using a stand-alone low end software
package. Similarly, revenue system is characterized by computerization of printing and
collections of bills; albeit in batch mode. As we go up to the higher levels, it can be observed that
level of implementation increases. For example, at level two, for finance, in addition to
implementation of disparate data basis and computerization at the back-end software, real time
control on bill passing is already available. Further, a detailed chart of accounts would have been
established with annual budgets. For the organization at level two and above, a vendor bill or
expense voucher is cleared only if it meets certain criteria, such as whether the Purchase Order
(PO) exists, whether the PO has the relevant Bill of Material (BoM), whether the BoM quantity
has not been exceeded, whether the overall value of the PO has not been exceeded, and whether
the user is authorized to approve the bill.
[0034] Further, as mentioned before, to determine a level of e-governance maturity, the
maturity determination module 130 may request the user to provide inputs to a plurality of
parameters. The parameters aid in determine maturity of a maturity determination factor. In an
example, the parameters may be in the form of questions. Further, the parameters may be
provided to the user in a predetermined hierarchical order. The parameters and the predetermined
hierarchical order may be stored in the scoring data 150.
[0035] For example, the parameters referring to basic a level of computerization and
automation may be provided lower in the hierarchical order and the ones with higher level of
sophistication and computerization may be provided at the top of the hierarchical order. For
instance, consider parameters for finance as the maturity determination factors. For finance, a
first parameter may be ‘whether computerization in the organization is restricted to back end IT
only?’, a second parameter may be ‘Does the organization has have separate Databases for
revenue and expenditure?’. Further, a third parameter may be ‘whether the organization has real
time expense control’. It can be observed that third parameter indicates a higher level of
11
computerization as compared to the first and second parameter; and therefore may be provided
after the first two parameters.
[0036] Further, the user may provide an input to a parameter as in affirmation, i.e.,
positive input, computerization as indicated by the parameter has been implemented; and
conversely, in case organization has not be computerized as indicated by the parameter, the user
may provide a negative input. In an example, in case a negative input is received for a parameter,
the maturity determination module 130 may not provide higher parameters. Based on the
received inputs and scoring rules, which may be stored in the scoring data 150, a factor score of
the maturity determination factor may be computed. The scoring rules may indicate rules to
compute a score based on weight associated with each of the parameters, such that an overall
factors score is not greater than predetermined value 5. Thus, the factor score of 5 indicates that
e-governance maturity for the corresponding maturity determination factor has been fully
achieved by the organization. The scoring rules may be understood with help of table 2, which
indicates parameters for computing e-governance maturity with respect to revenue systems.
Table 2- Scoring Rules
Parameter number
(in hierarchical
order)
Parameter Parameter weight
6
Does the
organization
accept M-Wallet
payments?
1
5
Does the
organization have
real time
integration with
Finance?
1
4
Is self assessment
of Property Tax
provided?
1
12
3
Does the
organization
provide Web
enabled
collections?
1
2
Has the collection
of revenues been
computerized?
0.5
1
Is the printing of
bills
computerized??
0.5
[0037] Referring to table 2, it can be gathered that the parameters ranked higher indicate
a higher level of computerization as compared to the ones ranked lower in the order. Further, the
first two parameters have a weightage of 0.5, while rest of the parameters have a weightage of 1.
Considering that each positive input is given a score of 1, the maximum score that can be
achieved is 5.
[0038] Thus, based on the user inputs and the scoring rules, the factor score for each of
the maturity determination factor may be computed. The factor score may indicate a level of egovernance
maturity achieved by the organization with respect to a given maturity determination
factor. For example, the scoring rules may indicate that if the score is greater than one and less
than two, then the level of e-governance maturity is one, if the score is greater than or equal to
two and less than three, then the level of e-governance maturity is two, and so forth.
[0039] Based on the factor scores for each maturity determination factor, a final maturity
score of the organization is determined. In an example, the final maturity score may be an
average of the computed factor scores. For example, consider that the factor score for finance is
4.5, for revenue system is 2, for capital projects is 3, for inventory is 2, for assets is 4, for human
resource management is 3, for security is 1, and for citizen services is 3. In said example, total
factor score can be computed to be 22.5 and the final maturity score can be determined to be 2.8.
Further, the scoring rules may indicate that the e-governance maturity level is 2.
13
[0040] Upon determining the final maturity score, or to say, the e-governance maturity of
the organization, it may be determined whether benchmarking is to be performed or not.
Benchmarking may be understood as a comparison of the e-governnace maturity of the
organization with that of similar organizations. The similar organizations may be identified
based on benchmarking parameters. The benchmarking parameters include for example,
geographic region of the organization, size of the organization, nature of the operations
performed by the organization, and complexity of services provided by the organization.
[0041] In an example, the maturity analysis module 135 may determine whether a
benchmarking request is received from a user. Alternatively, the mature analysis module 135
may check whether the final maturity score is less than a threshold maturity score and if so, the
mature analysis module 135 may perform benchmarking. In an implementation, to perform
benchmarking, the maturity analysis module 135 may select a plurality of similar organizations,
based on the benchmarking parameters. Further, final maturity scores of the organizations may
be obtained from the scoring data 150. For instance, the system 100 may interface with a central
system having information pertaining to e-governance maturity of various organizations to
obtain the final maturity scores and factor scores, which may then be stored in the scoring data
150. In another example, the final maturity scores may already be available in the scoring data
150.
[0042] Based on the final maturity scores, the similar organizations along with the
present organization may be ranked to identify a benchmark organization and a corresponding
benchmark maturity score. The benchmark organization can be considered to be an organization
with highest rank and benchmark maturity score is a final maturity score of the of the benchmark
organization. Further, the maturity analysis module 135 may provide a rank of the present
organization to the user.
[0043] In an implementation, the maturity improvement module 140 may determine
whether an improvement plan is to be provided, based on improvement criteria. The
improvement criteria may be stored in the improvement data 155. The improvement criteria
provide rules based on which it is determined whether the improvement plan is to be provided.
For example, the improvement criteria can be to determine whether a request from the user to
14
determine the improvement plan has been received. For instance, if the rank of the organization
is determined to be in at bottom, the user may request to receive the improvement plan. In
another example, the improvement criteria can be to compare the final maturity score with a
threshold maturity score. The threshold maturity score can be the benchmark score or may be a
predetermined score, which may set to achieve a given level on e-governance maturity. If it is
determined that final maturity score is substantially lower than the threshold maturity score, it
may be ascertained that the improvement plan is to be provided. For instance, it may be
determined whether the difference between the final maturity score and the threshold score is in
a predetermined range.
[0044] Based on the improvement criteria, the improvement plan to improve the egovernance
maturity level of the organization is determined. The improvement plan is
determined based on the benchmarking parameters and the improvement data 155. The
improvement data 155 includes a list of improvement plans for enhancing the e-governance
maturity. Further, the list of improvement plans may be categorized based on the benchmarking
parameters. In an example, the improvement plan provides steps to reach highest level or a next
higher level. Thus, if an organization is at Level 2 in Finance, the improvement plan may
indicate the IT services that are implemented by the organizations at Level 3, 4 and 5.
[0045] To determine the improvement plan, the maturity improvement module 140 may
identify one or more maturity improvement factors, from the plurality of maturity determination
factors, based on improvement factor identification rules. The maturity improvement module 140
may compare the factor score of each of the maturity determination factor with a corresponding
threshold factor score. Further, it may be determined whether the difference between each of the
factor scores and a corresponding threshold factor is within a predetermined range as indicated
by the improvement factor identification rules. If the difference is determined to be in the
predetermined range, the corresponding maturity determination factor may be identified as a
maturity improvement factor.
[0046] Upon identification of the maturity improvement factors, the improvement plan
for improving the e-governance maturity of the organization may be determined. The
improvement plan may include suggestions indicating the IT services implemented by the
15
benchmark organization for the one or more improvement factors. Alternatively, the organization
having a maximum factor score for a given maturity improvement factor may be identified and
the IT services implemented by this organization may provided in the improvement plan. Thus,
the organizations are made aware of the improvement factors to enhance the e-governance
maturity. Further, the organizations may also benefit from the progress and the IT services
implemented by other similar organizations.
[0047] In an implementation, the maturity determination module 130, may periodically
re-compute the final maturity score to assess the progress of the organization, for instance, to
determine the effectiveness of the improvement plans adopted by the organization. In an
example, the user may be requested to provide updated inputs for the plurality of parameters for
each of the maturity determination factors. Based on the updated user inputs, the new or revised
improvement plans may be provided to enhance the overall efficiency of the organization.
[0048] Figure 2 illustrates a method 200, for evaluating e-governance maturity of an
organization, according to an embodiment of the present subject matter. The order in which the
method is described is not intended to be construed as a limitation, and any number of the
described method blocks can be combined in any order to implement the method 200 or any
alternative methods. Additionally, individual blocks may be deleted from the method without
departing from the spirit and scope of the subject matter described herein. Furthermore, the
method can be implemented in any suitable hardware, software, firmware, or combination
thereof.
[0049] The method may be described in the general context of computer executable
instructions. Generally, computer executable instructions can include routines, programs, objects,
components, data structures, procedures, modules, functions, etc., that perform particular
functions or implement particular abstract data types. The method may also be practiced in a
distributed computing environment where functions are performed by remote processing devices
that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment,
computer executable instructions may be located in both local and remote computer storage
media, including memory storage devices.
16
[0050] A person skilled in the art will readily recognize that steps of the method 200 can
be performed by programmed computers. Herein, some embodiments are also intended to cover
program storage devices or computer readable medium, for example, digital data storage media,
which are machine or computer readable and encode machine-executable or computerexecutable
programs of instructions, where said instructions perform some or all of the steps of
the described method. The program storage devices may be, for example, digital memories,
magnetic storage media, such as a magnetic disks and magnetic tapes, hard drives, or optically
readable digital data storage media. The embodiments are also intended to cover both
communication network and communication devices to perform said steps of the method(s).
[0051] At block 202, user inputs corresponding to a plurality of parameters are received.
In one implementation, the user inputs are received for each of a plurality of maturity
determination factors. The plurality of maturity determination factors may include finance,
revenue systems, capital projects, inventory, assets, human resource management, security, and
citizen services. In one implementation, the maturity determination module 130 may receive
inputs from a user.
[0052] At block 204, a factor score for each maturity determination factor is computed
based on corresponding user inputs and scoring rules. The factor score is indicative of maturity
of an organization for a given maturity determination factor. In an example, the maturity
determination module 130 may compute the factor score for each maturity determination factor
based on corresponding user inputs and the scoring rules.
[0053] At block 206, a final maturity score is determined based on the computed factor
scores. In one implementation, the final maturity score indicate an e-governance maturity level
of the organization. The e-governance maturity level is indicative of an extent of maturity of the
organization regarding implementation of information technology with respect to the plurality of
maturity determination factors. In an example, a maturity determination module 130 may
determine the final maturity score based on the factor score for each maturity determination
factor.
[0054] At block 208, it is determined whether a benchmarking request is received or not.
If the benchmarking request is not received, the method 200 branches to (‘No’ branch) block
17
210. At block 210 the output, which is the final maturity score is stored for future analysis. For
instance, for benchmarking by other organizations or to assess the progress of the organization.
[0055] In case at block 208 it is determined that the benchmarking request is received,
the method 200 proceeds to (‘Yes’ branch) block 212. At block 212 the benchmarking is
performed based on benchmarking parameters. Upon benchmarking, a rank of the organization
with respect to similar organizations may be provided. In an example, the maturity analysis
module 135 may perform the benchmarking.
[0056] At block 214 it is ascertained whether an improvement plan is to be provided,
based on improvement criteria. The improvement criteria can be for example, whether a request
to provide improvement plan has been received. In another example, the improvement criteria
may indicate a comparison of the final maturity score with a threshold maturity score to
determine whether the improvement plan is to be provided or not. In an implementation, the
maturity analysis module 135 may ascertain whether the improvement plan is to be provided or
not.
[0057] If it is ascertained that the improvement plan need not be provided, the method
200 branches to (‘No’ branch) block 210, where the output, which is rank of the organization,
may be stored for future analysis. However, if at block 214 it is determined that the improvement
plan is to be provided, the method 200 may proceed to (‘Yes’ branch) block 216.
[0058] At block 216, one or more maturity improvement factors are identified, from the
plurality of maturity determination factors, based on improvement factor identification rules. In
one example, the maturity improvement module 140 may identify the maturity improvement
factors.
[0059] At block 218, the improvement plan for the one or more maturity improvement
factors is determined. In one implementation, the improvement plan is determined based on
benchmarking parameters and improvement data. For example, the maturity improvement
module 140 may obtain the improvement plan from the improvement data 155 based on the
benchmarking parameters.
[0060] Although embodiments for the described systems and methods have been
described in language specific to structural features and/or methods, it is to be understood that
18
the invention is not necessarily limited to the specific features or methods described. Rather, the
specific features and methods are disclosed as exemplary embodiments for the described systems
and methods.