| EL Bahdaoui Safaa PhD Student National School of Commerce and Management of Tangier, Abdelmalek Essaâdi University |
| Reklaoui Asmae Senior Lecturer National School of Commerce and Management of Tangier, Abdelmalek Essaâdi University |
ABSTRACT
Digital maturity has emerged as a critical concept for evaluating the progress of public organisations in their digital transformation journey. Yet, despite growing scholarly interest, the literature remains fragmented across disciplines, concepts, and assessment approaches. This article provides a bibliometric review of the academic literature on digital maturity in the public sector, covering the period 2006-2026 and drawing on publications retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. A PRISMA guided screening produced a final corpus of 135 unique documents. Using Bibliometrix (R) and VOSviewer, we combined performance analysis, thematic mapping, co-citation analysis, and bibliographic coupling to map the evolution, intellectual foundations, and emerging research fronts of the field. The results reveal an emerging phase until the mid-2010s followed by a sharp acceleration after 2018, with output spread accross 97 sources and no dominant research school. Three thematic clusters structure the field : maturity models (diagnosis and measurement), digital transformation and e-governement (implementation), and organisational readiness (culture ans skills). Co-citation analysis identifies three knowledge communities centred on e-governement, public governance frameworks, and international standards.
Keywords : digital maturity; digital transformation; public sector; maturity models; bibliometric analysis.
LA MATURITÉ NUM É RIQUE DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC : REVUE BIBLIOMETRIQUE ET AGENDA DE RECHERCHE
| EL Bahdaoui Safaa Doctorante École nationale de commerce et de gestion de Tanger, Université Abdelmalek Essaâdi |
| Reklaoui Asmae Enseignante chercheuse École nationale de commerce et de gestion de Tanger, Université Abdelmalek Essaâdi |
ABSTRACT
La maturité numérique s’est imposée comme un concept essentiel pour évaluer la progression des organisations publiques dans leur transformation digitale. Pourtant, la littérature demeure fragmentée entre disciplines, concepts et approches d’évaluation. Cet article propose une revue bibliométrique de la littérature scientifique sur la maturité numérique dans le secteur public (2006-2026), à partir de Scopus et Web of Science Core Collection. Une sélection guidée par PRISMA a abouti à un corpus de 135 documents uniques. A l’aide de Bibliometrix (R) et de VOSviewer, nous combinons analyse de la performance, cartographie thématique, co-citation et couplage bibliographique. Les résultats révèlent une phase émergente jusqu’au milieu des années 2010, puis une forte accélération après 2018, avec une production dispersée entre 97 revues et sans école de recherche dominante. Trois clusters thématiques structurent le champ : modèles de maturité, transformation digitale et administration électronique, préparation organisationnelle. L’analyse de co-citation identifie trois communautés de connaissances.
Mots-clés : maturité numérique ; transformation digitale ; secteur public ; modèle de maturité ; analyse bibliométrique.
REFERENCES
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.008
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., & Pöppelbuß, J. (2009). Developing maturity models for IT management. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(3), 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5
Bigliardi, B., & Filippelli, S. (2022). Sustainability and open innovation: Main themes and research trajectories. Sustainability, 14 (11), 6763. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116763
Bretas, V. P. G., & Alon, I. (2021). Franchising research on emerging markets: Bibliometric and content analyses. Journal of Business Research, 133, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.067
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Du, K., Harness, D., & Zhu, J. (2024). A bibliometric analysis of bibliometric studies in business and management: Trends, patterns and future directions. Journal of Business Research, 172, 114413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114413
Gaur, A., & Kumar, M. (2018). A systematic approach to conducting review studies: An assessment of content analysis in 25 years of IB research. Journal of World Business, 53(2), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.11.003
Gökalp, E., & Martinez, V. (2021). Digital transformation capability maturity model enabling the assessment of industrial manufacturers. Computers in Industry, 132, 103522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2021.103522
Hassan, S. U., Imran, M., Iqbal, S., Aljohani, N. R., & Nawaz, R. (2018). Deep context of citations using machine-learning models in scholarly full-text articles. Scientometrics, 117(3), 1645–1662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2944-y
Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1
Lezama-Nicolás, R., Rodríguez-Salvador, M., Río-Belver, R., & Bildosola, I. (2018). A bibliometric method for assessing technological maturity: The case of additive manufacturing. Scientometrics, 117(3), 1425–1452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2941-1
Lindgren, I., Madsen, C. Ø., Hofmann, S., & Melin, U. (2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
OECD. (2020). Digital government index: 2019 results. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/4de9f5bb-en
Oliveira, O. J., da Silva, F. F., Juliani, F., Barbosa, L. C. F. M., & Nunhes, T. V. (2019). Bibliometric method for mapping the state-of-the-art and identifying research gaps and trends in literature: An essential instrument to support the development of scientific projects. In S. Kunosic & E. Zerem (Eds.), Scientometrics recent advances (pp. 47–66). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85856
Öztürk, O., Kocaman, R., & Kanbach, D. K. (2024). How to design bibliometric research: An overview and a framework proposal. Review of Managerial Science, 18(11), 3333–3361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0
Schou, J., & Hjelholt, M. (2018). Digitalizing the welfare state: Citizenship discourses in Danish digitalization strategies from 2002 to 2015. Critical Policy Studies, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2017.1333441
Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of e-government: A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
United Nations. (2022). UN e-government survey 2022: The future of digital government. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2022
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.