e-Government Adoption Model (GAM): Differing service maturity levels Mahmud Akhter Shareef a , Vinod Kumar b , Uma Kumar b , Yogesh K. Dwivedi c, ⁎ a DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada b Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada c School of Business and Economics, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK abstract article info Available online 20 October 2010 Keywords: e-Government (e-Gov) Information and communication technology (ICT) Adoption Citizens Service maturity levels This research has as its objective the discovery of the critical factors that enable citizens to adopt e- Government (e-Gov) at different stages of service maturity. To accomplish the objective, this research has explained the related concepts and theories and developed a research framework grounded on a strong theoretical and literature review background. The empirical study was conducted in Canada, which is a leader in providing mature e-Gov services. From our results, we have observed two ontological differences from the present literature in the adoption behavior of e-Gov where organizational and financial perspectives have distinct implications over parsimonious technology adoption behavior. First, technology adoption model (TAM), diffusion of innovation theory (DOI), and theory of planned behavior (TPB) cannot capture and specify the complete essence of e-Gov adoption behavior of citizens. Second, e-Gov adoption behavior also differs based on service maturity levels, i.e., when functional characteristics of organizational, technological, economical, and social perspectives of e-Gov differ. Our findings indicate the critical factors that enable citizens to adopt e-Gov at different stages of service maturity. Public administrators and policy-makers have potential implications from the findings of the adoption behavior of e-Gov at different maturity levels. Crown Copyright © 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction As a new and rapidly growing field, the concepts and theories of e- Government (e-Gov) are still in a premature stage. Researchers from different disciplines address this phenomenal theme from their respective speculations and conceptualize it in a scattered fashion (Heeks & Bailur, 2007). e-Gov has several aspects, including social, technical, economic, political, and public administrative. However, most dominating concepts of e-Gov arise from the technical perspective and a combination of the socio-economic and public administrative perspectives. Nevertheless, all the definitions are headed towards a single notion and encompass a generic and unique mission of e-Gov—presenting government systems using information and communication technology (ICT) to serve citizens better (Al- Mashari, 2007; Evans & Yen, 2006; Gil-Garcia & Martinez-Moyano, 2007; Reddick, 2006; Shareef, Kumar, Kumar, & Dwivedi, 2009; Sprecher, 2000). Though different countries' e-Gov implementations extensively differ in setting common missions and objectives, all of them contain the similar fundamental essence of e-Gov value: it should be citizen focused. Therefore, it may be significant to observe that the most important tool for implementation of e-Gov is the willingness of citizens to adopt it (Evans & Yen, 2006; Shareef et al., 2009). While there is evidence for substantial growth, development, and diffusion of e-Gov universally, it is not clear whether citizens of all developed and developing countries are ready to embrace those services (Carter & Bélanger, 2005). The acceptance, diffusion, and success of e-Gov initiatives are contingent upon citizens' willingness to adopt these services. Reviewing the existing literature on e-Gov adoption by citizens and business organizations (Al-Adawi, Yousafzai, & Pallister, 2005; Chen & Thurmaier, 2005; Ebrahim & Irani, 2005; Gilbert, Balestrini, & Littleboy, 2004; Klievink & Janssen, 2009; Kumar, Mukerji, Butt, & Persaud, 2007; Phang, Sutanto, Li, & Kankanhalli, 2005; Reddick, 2004; Sakowicz, 2007; Schedler & Summermatter, 2007; Shareef et al., 2009; Tung & Rieck, 2005; Wang & Liao, 2008), we can infer that the adoption models offered so far in the academic literature are mainly conceptual. Extensive empirical studies among the actual users to validate and generalize the models are absent. Most of those who have attempted to validate their models did not rigorously review the literature and integrate discourses from technical, social, organiza- tional, political, and cultural perspectives to develop their ontological and epistemological paradigms of model validation doctrine. As identified by Heeks and Bailur (2007) through an extensive literature review of e-Gov, methodologically these models are not grounded on a strong theoretical framework. While developing those models of adoption, the generalization aspect is heavily ignored (Heeks & Bailur, 2007). Government Information Quarterly 28 (2011) 17–35 ⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: + 44 1792 295626. E-mail addresses: mahmud_akh@yahoo.com (M.A. Shareef), ykdwivedi@gmail.com (Y.K. Dwivedi). 0740-624X/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.006 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Government Information Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf