Digital government transformation as an organizational response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Many public organizations struggle to adapt to digital transformation. Whereas previous research has identified internal drivers of change, an unpredictable factor from the external environment such as the COVID-19 pandemic can trigger public innovation. In this study, we aim to investigate if and how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the digital government transformation. In more detail, we explore how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected different organizational aspects that are expected to be affected by a digital transformation. Findings from case studies of ten organizations from the Austrian federal administration indicate that the pandemic has not only led to an increased use of technological means but also influenced various organizational aspects such as employees' attitudes toward technology and organizational culture toward innovation. In particular, organizations heavily affected by the pandemic have benefited from a greater degree of digital transformation. Consequently, the pandemic has influenced a spirit of innovation and accelerated the speed of digital transformation.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has enormously influenced the lives of individuals and organizations at the global level. Lockdowns and related social distancing measures have tremendously changed the working practices in almost all sectors. Many organizations asked their employees to work from home or had to reduce employees' working hours as production or service delivery was restricted due to social distancing measures. In crises such as pandemics, public authorities play a significant role in coordinating the response, minimizing the extent of damage, and enabling recovery (Boin, Hart, Stern, & Sundelius, 2016).

The pandemic can be understood as an unpredictable factor from the external environment that has put pressure on organizations to change, like a sudden shock or a disaster (Danielsen, 2021; Gabryelczyk, 2020; Reina, Ventura, Cristofaro, & Vesperi, 2022). This factor has affected not just certain organizational levels or aspects but the organization as a whole. In many cases, the government's response to the pandemic was a digital one (Lee-Geiller, Lee, & David, 2022; Park, Richards, & Reedy, 2022; Polzer & Goncharenko, 2021; Wanckel, 2022). For example, citizens were requested to collaborate with the government to trace contacts via digital apps (Lin, Carter, & Liu, 2021), governments organized civic hackathons to face associated challenges together with citizens (Gama, 2021; Vermicelli, Cricelli, & Grimaldi, 2021), and social media apps were used to inform and engage citizens (Criado, Guevara-Gómez, & Villodre, 2020; Sandoval-Almazan & Valle-Cruz, 2021). Apart from that, public employees were asked to continue their tasks from home, which changed their working practices within a few days, resulting in significant consequences for public service delivery (Edelmann, Schossboeck, & Albrecht, 2021; Garcia-Contreras, Munoz-Chavez, Valle-Cruz, Ruvalcaba-Gomez, & Becerra-Santiago, 2021). Considering that service delivery in many public organizations is not as technologically advanced as in other service organizations, the sudden change in working practices has resulted in pressure to innovate and find new ways of organizing in a short period.

Previous research identified external drivers as “the main motivation for organizational transformation” (Tangi, Janssen, Benedetti, & Noci, 2020), triggered by the pressure and sense of urgency to change. However, we lack an understanding of how crises drive innovation adoption in general (e.g., De Vries, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2016) and how the COVID-19 pandemic as an external factor has influenced the organizational transformation toward a digital government in particular. A digital government is related to “new styles of leadership, new decision-making processes, different ways of organizing and delivering services, and new concepts of citizenship” (Gil-Garcia, Dawes, & Pardo, 2018, p. 634). Accordingly, the use of modern information and communication technologies should not only improve the quality of service delivery but also stimulate citizen participation and increase government accountability through transparent information.

Taking an organizational perspective, we aim to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the digital government transformation and, therefore, investigate how organizations have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. In more detail, we investigate different organizational aspects that are expected to be affected by a digital transformation. We thereby build on the digital transformation literature (Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020; Mergel, Edelmann, & Haug, 2019; Tangi, Janssen, Benedetti, & Noci, 2021) and argue that digital transformation does not only involve the implementation of digital technology but refers to changes in both the technical and social systems. Accordingly, we study government transformation as a holistic process that involves changes in all organizational aspects. Based on these results, we explore if and how the COVID-19 crisis has impacted the digital government transformation.

To examine digital government transformation, we draw on the Austrian public sector and conduct ten case studies representing different organizations in the Austrian federal administration. Austria's response to the COVID-19 outbreak is particularly interesting to study, as the country was one of the “First Mover” countries that introduced strict measures relatively early (Shields, 2020). Due to a sharp increase in infected cases, a strict lockdown was introduced on March 16th, 2020, several weeks earlier than in many other European countries. Unlike in other federal countries, the Austrian federal government has taken a unified public health response due to epidemic laws prioritizing the central level in such circumstances (Czypionka & Reiss, 2021). At the same time, despite Austria's progress in digital transformation, several European countries outperform the country's digital performance (European Commission, 2022). Consequently, there is a need to advance toward a digital government.

By understanding the influence of the pandemic on digital government transformation, we contribute threefold to previous literature: First, we contribute to research on governance in the digital age and the determinants of digital government transformation by illustrating how external pressure makes organizations transform (Gil-Garcia et al., 2018). Previous research has already investigated the factors explaining organizational transformation (Tangi, Janssen, Benedetti and Noci, 2020, Tangi, Janssen, Benedetti and Noci, 2021), and there are some first studies shedding light on the changes in a public organizational context attributed to the pandemic such as remote working practices (Garcia-Contreras et al., 2021; Reina et al., 2022) and their effects on organizational and digital culture (Edelmann et al., 2021). We contribute to this literature stream by exploring how the pandemic has caused changes in different organizational aspects.

Second, we provide insights into the process of digital transformation projects using an organizational lens, thereby responding to a call by Mergel et al. (2019). We identify the organizational aspects that have been changed in response to the pandemic and investigate how the pandemic has influenced the progress made in digital government transformation (Gabryelczyk, 2020). In addition, by comparing the level of digital transformation in different Austrian organizations, we can analyze how the organizational context and environment affect the progress in digital transformation. From an analytical perspective, we thus explain the success of digital government by examining government organizational practices rather than citizens' adoption of digital government.

Third, we provide empirical insights into the organizational responses to a crisis by studying different organizations of the Austrian public administration. The Austrian public administration is especially interesting, as Austria can be described as a Neo-Weberian state model of administration, which is characterized by the adoption of managerial elements and a performance orientation (Korac, Saliterer, Sicilia, & Steccolini, 2020). At the same time, the legalistic Rechtsstaat (« rule of law ») tradition with bureaucratic governance is of ongoing relevance (Leixnering, Schikowitz, & Meyer, 2016). While the implementation of management practices in the public sector is in accordance with the ideas of New Public Management (NPM), Austria is categorized as a “latecomer” in terms of NPM-type reforms (Polzer & Seiwald, 2021). Whereas the willingness to change can be considered contained within the context of Austrian public administration, it is particularly interesting to study innovative behavior in times of crisis.

2. Theoretical background

Modern information and communication technologies provide new possibilities for government at different levels to innovate service delivery, intensify relationships with citizens, and integrate external actors in the co-production of public services (Ingrams, Kaufmann, & Jacobs, 2020; Mergel, 2015; Moon, 2020), resulting in the emergence of government digitalization at different degrees at the national and international level (Edelmann & Mergel, 2021; Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020; Ingrams, Manoharan, Schmidthuber, & Holzer, 2020). This transformation process triggered by the potential of digital technologies is summarized under the term “digital transformation.”

At the organizational level, the transformation comprises reorganizing existing processes, procedures, structures, and services (Tangi et al., 2021). The concept of “digital transformation” has to be distinguished from the concept of “e-government,” as the transformation goes beyond adopting new technologies toward redesigning organizational aspects, including structures, operations, and the culture of government (Omar, Weerakkody, & Daowd, 2020; Tangi et al., 2021). Digital transformation involves a change in the technical system and changes in the social system involving cultural and organizational aspects (Mergel et al., 2019). Digital transformation is thus to be distinguished from digitization, in which switching from analog to digital services involves a 1:1 change in the delivery mode and the addition of a technological channel of delivery, and digitalization, i.e., “potential changes in the processes beyond mere digitizing of existing processes and forms” (Mergel et al., 2019, p. 12).

The status of digital government greatly varies across countries (Ingrams, Manoharan, et al., 2020), within countries, and between departments (Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020). This indicates that the success of implementing digital government is multifactorial, as already shown by previous research (Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020). For example, managerial activities can drive the transformation of digital government (Tangi et al., 2021); political support improves the success of digital government projects (Danielsen, 2021); the availability of IT infrastructure facilitates the digitalization of information and services; and individuals' perception of the perceived usefulness and ease of use of the technology is decisive for technology adoption (Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020). Investigating the digital transformation process of Dutch public administration, Tangi et al. (2020) found that the main motivation for organizational transformation is external drivers such as external pressure, legal obligations, or expectations from external actors. In the Italian context, Tangi et al. (2021) highlighted the importance of support from politicians in organizational transformation, whereas cultural factors did not impact digital government transformation.

Next to organizational characteristics and in line with the Technology Enactment Framework (Gil-Garcia, 2012), the organizational environment such as political, social, and economic conditions can affect government activities and institutional arrangements, which directly influence the success of digital government (Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020). In 2020, the coronavirus disease pressured governments worldwide at different levels to take measures (Eom & Lee, 2022; Kim, 2021; Polzer & Goncharenko, 2021). Several case studies have highlighted the significant role of digital governance in helping to meet these challenges (Lee, Lee, & Liu, 2021; Lee-Geiller et al., 2022). Beyond this necessity to respond to the crisis and find responses to urgent problems, we argue that this urgency in implementing digital solutions will likely have multiplier effects on different organizational aspects.

In line with the comprehensive and integrative view of government transformation, digital transformation is not only characterized by adopting new technological tools but by a change throughout all organizational aspects (Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020; Tangi et al., 2021). Digital government transformation can thus be understood as “second-order organizational changes enabled by digital technologies transforming the way organizations are structured and organized and resulting in a new state, from the point of view of processes, culture, roles, relationships, and possibly all aspects of the organization” (Tangi et al., 2021, p. 2). While transformation is triggered by technological means, it also influences organizational and social elements, which is why we understand organizations as complex socio-technical systems (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977; Tangi et al., 2021). To capture the depth and width of digital government transformation, all elements that characterize digital transformation must be considered, so it is essential to cover changes in all these organizational aspects (Tangi et al., 2021).

Table 1 gives an overview of the organizational aspects that are expected to be affected by a digital transformation (Eom & Lee, 2022; Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020; Mergel et al., 2019; Tangi et al., 2021; Vial, 2019). First, this concerns the tasks and processes that can be specified by the type, technology, and competencies needed to perform the task. Second, an individual such as a public employee, is responsible for carrying out the task. This person can be characterized by their attitudes toward the tasks, motivation to work, experience, and competencies. Third, the employee's work process is influenced by organizational resources and structures such as technological and financial resources and a strategy for digital transformation. Fourth, resource availability relates to organizational culture such as organizational regulations, relationships, and pressures.

Table 1.

Organizational aspects influenced by digital government transformation.

Organizational aspects	Definition	Examples
Tasks & Processes	Characteristics of the tasks and processes	Level of client interaction, level of standardization, type of task
Individual	Characteristics of the individual's duties and competences needed to perform the task	Attitudes toward using technology, technological knowledge, experience with digital services
Resources & Structures	Characteristics of the organizational resources and structures available to perform the task	Availability of infrastructure, management and political support, financial resources, strategy for digital transformation, system integration
Culture	Organizational regulations and values	Communication within and between government units, leadership culture, internal pressure

Sources: Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020; Tangi et al., 2021.

3. Research design

To investigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on digital government transformation, we conducted ten case studies representing different organizations in the Austrian federal administration. A case study approach allows for connecting theory and empirical evidence (Yin, 2009), where we can explore the phenomena that emerge from the data at hand and incorporate useful concepts from previous research. A multiple case study research approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009) allows for comparing and contrasting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the different cases against each other and against the theoretical background. We apply a qualitative research approach to obtain accounts from those experiencing the phenomenon of theoretical interest, thereby following an interpretive paradigm that focuses on subjective perceptions and meanings assigned to them by individuals (e.g., Kidd, 2002).

3.1. Research context

The Austrian federal administration was chosen as a research context, which is an interesting case due to three reasons: First, the Austrian federal government has taken a significant role in responding to the pandemic (Czypionka & Reiss, 2021) and is also responsible for coordinating the digital transformation of the public sector. As the ten organizations are part of the Austrian federal administration, we refer to the characteristics of the Austrian federal administration. Second, as a “First Mover” country, Austria took early and strict COVID-19 measures (Shields, 2020). The COVID-19 situation in Austria is described in this section. Third, Austria has already progressed in digital transformation. However, several European countries especially recently outperformed the country's digital performance (European Commission, 2022), which illustrates the need to advance toward a digital government.

3.1.1. Characteristics of the Austrian federal administration

According to the Austrian constitution, Austria is a federal state. The federal government is in charge of the judicial system, responsible for the police and military, and in control of public accounts and the administration of public funds on all levels of government (Bußjäger & Schramek, 2020). The nine state governments (Vienna is both state and local government) exercise power within their own legislative and administrative autonomy and on behalf of the federal government (Hammerschmid & Meyer, 2005).

More than 361,000 employees (full-time equivalent) are working at the federal (135,840), state (146,695), or local (78,865) government level (BMKÖS, 2022), which is about 17% of total employment. The Austrian public administration is challenged by demographic change, as more than 35% of central government employees are 55 years of age or older and thus will retire within the next 10 years (OECD, 2021).

3.1.2. COVID-19 situation in Austria

As was the case with other European countries, Austria was affected by the coronavirus from March 2020 onwards. As illustrated in the online supplementary material, the first confirmed COVID-19 case was reported in Austria at the end of February 2020. In mid-March 2020, the Austrian government introduced the first lockdown measures, including restrictions on outdoor activities, social distancing measures, and recommendations for telework. First shops were reopened in mid-April, and measures were eased in mid-May. Summer 2020, with a few cases, was followed by the second wave, with a sharp increase in infections in autumn 2020. Consequently, the government has introduced several measures over the winter months. At the start of 2021, citizens were offered a free COVID-19 vaccination, which was accepted in the beginning. However, the vaccination rate stagnated at around 60% in the summer of 2021. In addition to the vaccination campaign, the Austrian government extended the offer to be tested for COVID-19. Citizens could test regularly and free of charge using both anti-gene and PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests until spring 2022, when the offer was restricted to a certain number of free monthly tests. Using the green pass app, individuals needed to show their test, vaccination, or recovery certificates when entering a restaurant or their workplace (from November 2021 to March 2022). Additional information on the COVID-19 situation in Austria and details on the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases over time are illustrated in the online supplementary material.

3.1.3. Status of digital government in Austria

Austria is ranked 15^th in the 2020 E-Government Development Index of the United Nations (United Nations, 2020) and 6^th among 36 European countries according to the eGovernment Benchmark (European Commission, 2021). Austria is described as a country where citizens and businesses can complete almost all public services online and rarely need to visit a government building (European Commission, 2021). “Digital public services” is the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) dimension that Austria performs best in and ranks 10^th among EU countries (European Commission, 2022). The Austrian federal administration has an official web portal (österreich.gv.at), which is an interagency platform where citizens can find information on administrative topics and complete selected public services online. Another platform, particularly for businesses, is the Business Service Portal (usp.gv.at), and one for financial administration services is the “FinanzOnline” portal (see also Edelmann & Mergel, 2021; Scholta, Mertens, Kowalkiewicz, & Becker, 2019). Responsible for digital government is the Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs (responsibilities changed mid-2022), which cooperates with different actors and groups such as the BRZ (Austrian Federal Computing Center, a privatized IT service provider), Chief Digitalization Officers Taskforce (installed in every ministry), coordination boards for digital administration, and DIA (digitalization agency).

3.2. Case description

We conducted ten case studies of organizations in the Austrian federal administration. For choosing the ten organizations, we followed a polar-type approach where extreme cases were selected. Thus, the cases are useful for illuminating changes in different organizational aspects, and we expected a contribution to our research aim (e.g., Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Organizations were selected based on their varying involvement or roles during the pandemic, differing number of services for stakeholders, and differing levels of face-to-face contact.

Table 2 provides an overview of the organizations analyzed, their organizational characteristics, and the extent to which they were affected by the pandemic. In analyzing how the COVID-19 pandemic influences different organizational aspects, we first have to understand the context of these organizations, as situational opportunities and constraints “affect the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior as well as the functional relationships between variables” (Johns, 2006, p. 386).

Table 2.

Overview on case studies.

Case	Name of the organization	Organizational characteristics (pre-COVID)				Role during pandemic
		Infrastructure	Telework culture	Services to stakeholders	Face-to-face contact with stakeholders
A	Federal Chancellery	On-site	Uncommon	Low	Low	Citizen-government communication; COVID vaccination
B	Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology	Partly mobile	Common	Low	Low	Special regulations in terms of traffic
C	Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs	Partly mobile	Uncommon	Intermediate (responsible for offering e-services)	Low	Supporting businesses
D	Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research	On-Site (Education)/ mobile (Science and Research)	Partly common (in central administration)	High	High	COVID-related measures in schools; corona bonus
E	Federal Ministry of Finance	Mobile	Uncommon	High	Intermediate	COVID-related benefits for businesses (‘Ausfallbonus’, ‘Corona Hilfsfonds’)
F	Federal Ministry of Interior	Mobile (police), on-site (central administration)	Pilot project	High	High	Police to control measures; demonstrations; entry regulations
G	Federal Ministry of Labour	Partly mobile	Uncommon	Low	Low	High number of unemployed, COVID-related short-time working
H	Public Employment Service	Partly mobile	Uncommon	High	High	Registering high number of unemployed people; Registering COVID-related short-time working (‘Kurzarbeit’)
I	Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection	Mobile (social affairs), on-site (health care)	Partly common	Intermediate	Low	Reporting of COVID infections, COVID-related measures, COVID anti-gene and PCR test infrastructure, COVID vaccination, contact tracing, mask mandate, vaccine mandate, bonus for health workers
J	Austrian Court of Audit	Mobile	Common	Low	Low	Providing information on as well as auditing of financial aid measures

Sources: Websites of the ministries and organizations, Interview data.

The external context refers to political and environmental variables such as a pandemic that is related to political decisions (Mergel, 2019). The ten cases, however, vary in the degree to which they were responsible for facing challenges and being affected by the pandemic. The Federal Chancellery (Case A) communicated COVID-related topics to citizens and coordinated the vaccination campaign. The Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology (Case B) was working partly remotely already before the pandemic and was responsible for developing specific COVID-related regulations in terms of traffic. The Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs (Case C) was supporting businesses in facing the challenges related to the pandemic, and the Federal Ministry of Finance (Case E) was dealing with COVID-related benefits for businesses. The Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (Case D) organized measures for schools and educational institutions. The Federal Ministry of Interior (Case F) and the police were concerned with controlling citizens' adherence to rules and standards. Furthermore, the increasing workload of the police was also related to the high number of demonstrations against COVID-related measures and vaccination policies. The Federal Ministry of Labour (Case G) was confronted with a large volume of unemployed people and had to register for COVID-related short-time work (“Kurzarbeit”). Especially the Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection (Case I) and the Public Employment Service (Case H) were greatly involved in organizing measures to protect individuals from health risks and unemployment. Finally, the Austrian Court of Audit (Case J) that was used to remote work was responsible for providing information and auditing financial aid measures.

Next to the organizations' role in tackling the challenges of the pandemic, we provide some more internally contextual information on the organizations' infrastructure, telework culture, number of services to stakeholders, and degree of face-to-face contact with stakeholders in Table 2 (additional information on the cases can be found in online supplementary material). Although telework was already possible pre-COVID according to public service law, it was only used by a small proportion of employees (Gabmayer, Dohnal, & Luczensky, 2019), which is also reflected in the interview data regarding telework culture.

3.3. Data collection

The case studies are built on document analysis and semi-structured interviews with 17 public managers (such as Chief Information Officers, Chief Digitalization Officers, and department heads) in the selected case organizations, one representative of the Federal Ministry for Arts, Culture, the Civil Service and Sport, and one representative of a privatized IT service provider who have expertise and experience in the area of digitalization at the federal administration level. In total, 19 interviews were conducted.

The interviewees are highly knowledgeable informants with positions at higher levels of the hierarchy “who view the focal phenomena from diverse perspectives” (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007, p. 28) and are thus able to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic. The five interviewees of the Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs, in particular, provided information not only about their own ministry but about all ministries since they were involved in the formulation and implementation of digitalization projects in the whole federal administration. Information about the federal administration as a whole was also provided by the interviewees of the Federal Ministry for Arts, Culture, the Civil Service and Sport, the privatized IT service provider, and the Austrian Court of Audit. This allowed not only to get the view from inside the respective case organization and the outside perspective but also to cross-check the answers given by interviewees (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2009).

Potential interviewees were identified through directories on the websites of the respective departments and were contacted by email. The head of the department was asked first since, in most cases, approval must be given by this official anyway. In some cases, the head of the department was available for an interview; in others, a team member was referred to. To identify further experts within the federal administration, snowball techniques (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981) were used, i.e., respondents were asked for other people they knew who could provide information on the questions posed.

The interviews with the 19 experts were conducted in German using online video tools (Zoom and Skype for Business) between July and November 2021 and lasted, on average, 44 min. The open-ended questions were derived from the literature in the field (e.g., Clement, Esposito, & Crutzen, 2022; De Vries et al., 2016; Fischer, Heuberger, & Heine, 2021; Mergel et al., 2019), and following the aim of this study, they covered the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on digital government transformation. First, more generic questions about the interviewee and the respective organization were asked, followed by questions regarding drivers and barriers to digitalization. After going into more detail about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on, e.g., barriers, objects, and digitalization strategy, as well as if digital solutions were used to solve problems caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the questionnaire ended with questions regarding the future of a digitally transformed public sector (the full questionnaire can be found in the supplementary materials). In addition, field notes were made for each interview to capture any impression that emerged during the conversation; this overlap of data collection with data analysis allowed us to add questions to following interviews for cross-checking answers and obtaining more insights when necessary (Eisenhardt, 1989). An informed consent form was signed by the interviewer and the interviewee beforehand, with information on the purpose of the study, data protection, and confidentiality, declaring that the actual identity of the interviewee would not be revealed.

The interviews are blended with data collected online—articles in newspapers and news and blogs on government websites. This included reports and strategy documents like the digitalization report and the digital action plan for Austria from the website Digital Austria for information on the overall federal administration but also documents from the specific case organizations such as the “8-Point Plan for Digital Learning” from the website of the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research. In addition to interviewing experts in different positions, the triangulation of primary and secondary data helped build the cases from different perspectives.

3.4. Data coding and analytical method

With the permission of the interviewees, all interviews were recorded, full transcriptions were produced, and they were coded using MAXQDA qualitative analysis software. Our method was a qualitative content analysis of the interview transcripts; therefore, the coding scheme was derived from the theoretical background following a deductive approach (Mayring, 2014). We chose a deductive approach, since there is relevant previous research on digital transformation (e.g., Mergel et al., 2019), digital government, and organizations as complex socio-technical systems (e.g., Tangi et al., 2021) that can be used to operationalize our research aim into categories.

Consequently, we followed the steps of deductive category assignment (Mayring, 2014) and defined the main categories and subcategories prior to the analysis based on the theoretical background and previous literature. The main categories are the organizational aspects that can be influenced by digital government transformation (i.e., tasks and processes; individuals; resources and structures; and culture), for which we have derived subcategories based on previous literature. In order to capture the progression of the categories, a simple scale with two values (change, no change) and three values (more/increased, less/decreased, the same) for every subcategory was developed. After a material run-through and preliminary coding of half of the transcripts, we discussed and revised the coding scheme; since we started with very detailed subcategories, we merged some of them and, where necessary, specified coding rules for an unambiguous assignment to a particular subcategory. The final coding scheme with example quotes was used to code all transcripts and is presented in the online supplementary material, with the literature from which we derived the code. For consistency, each transcript was coded by two researchers; the coding was discussed, and an agreement on the codes were reached. In total, 33 codes and 481 codings related to the theoretical background were defined.

4. Findings

The findings of our case study analyses are presented as follows: In the first part of the section, we provide an overview of the results on how the pandemic has influenced the different organizational aspects (i.e., tasks and processes, individuals, resources and structures, and culture). In the second part of this section, we aggregate these level-specific findings and conclude the degree of digital transformation of the ten organizations that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted.

4.1. Case analysis

4.1.1. Tasks and processes

Following the theoretical background, we assessed the role of the COVID-19 pandemic in digitalizing tasks and processes. The first factor we examined was the use of technological means, i.e., the level of digitalization. Although some emphasized that the employees had already always worked digitally, with the exception of one interviewee, all agreed that the use of technological means and the level of digitalization in performing tasks and processes increased during the pandemic.

Due to the pandemic, this digitalization of tasks and processes led to the reengineering of existing processes and was less of a 1:1 translation of analog to digital ones. To implement certain tasks and processes to fight the pandemic, collaboration between different levels of government increased but also posed a barrier to implementation. Also, the level of standardization increased when it came to using communication tools.

The pandemic caused an increase in the duration or frequency of certain tasks related to fighting the pandemic, e.g., monitoring systems for COVID-19 cases and financial support for families, where the organizations applied digital technologies to process the high number of applications.

But yes, that was also one of the things that was quite deliberately initiated by Corona, that is, that work was done here with comprehensive tools and very modern approaches to artificial intelligence in order to achieve rapid results so that the people who really urgently needed the money in this phase could have their applications processed positively as quickly as possible. (Case G, Federal Ministry of Labour; Interviewee 3).

Furthermore, a digital identity (“Handy-Signatur”) was required to access the green pass. Due to the high frequency of the task and the increasing level of client interaction, chatbots were implemented to help citizens with their inquiries. The level of client interaction decreased in areas that were characterized by a lot of face-to-face contact before the pandemic, e.g., applying for unemployment benefits. These processes were handled online during the pandemic through email or the online portal (e-AMS). As the complexity of the task increased in some cases, applying digital tools, e.g., artificial intelligence to knowledge management or combining different register data in the background to provide applications like the mobile phone signature, was necessary.

In most cases, task accomplishment was perceived as unchanged, with some exceptions, e.g., one interviewee perceived the output of the employees as higher while they were working from home, while another highlighted that those tasks where someone had to be in the office, e.g., reconstruction, were delayed.

Skills and competencies to perform the task did increase. This relates to the proper use of video conferences and, thereby, different codes of behavior (e.g., not whispering with colleagues so that those online cannot hear them) and how to collaborate and lead via video conferences and at a distance. In addition, different online courses were offered to increase digital competencies.

4.1.2. Individual

On an individual level, job satisfaction and motivation increased as employees experienced that digital tools functioned well, as well as because employees were highly motivated to avoid going to the office due to a computer problem. Some interviewees indicated that particularly those areas and departments, which already performed well before the pandemic, got an extra motivation boost.

In other words, the pandemic did not drive us into innovation; the pandemic activated the resources we already had and, with an incredible activation also of intrinsic motivations, drove employees forward. (Expert from the Federal Ministry for Arts, Culture, the Civil Service and Sport; Interviewee 16).

Most interviewees noted that as their experience with digital services increased, they learned about the well-functioning tools that exist, particularly in the area of digital collaboration and communication. Other interviewees also emphasized that employees were forced to work with digital tools. With this experience, their technological knowledge also increased in most cases. Some areas, e.g., the police, were used to working remotely and with digital tools. For them, technological knowledge did not change due to the pandemic.

When it comes to perceived risks and barriers, they are twofold: On the one hand, most interviewees reported that perceived barriers to adopting digital tools decreased as employees lost their fear of using digital tools.

[…] I think people have understood that the opportunities it [digitalization] offers far outweigh what might once have been seen as a danger. I think that understanding has set in, yes. (Case C, Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs; Interviewee 6).

Only one interviewee reported that the problems and challenges did not change. But another interesting aspect that an interviewee mentioned was that the pandemic made employees claim digitalization. This, however, also means that those incapable of using digital tools are increasing under pressure, and their fear has increased enormously. On the other hand, risk awareness for cyber security and information security increased among employees. They learned that connecting their laptop to any public network and sharing content in video calls is different from meeting people in person.

[…] that one becomes clearly more aware of the dangers, where perhaps before the focus was not on it. (Case C, Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs; Interviewee 6).

Changes in the perceived ease of use were mentioned only rarely by the interviewees. Two mentioned that employees liked that tasks were getting easier, faster, and more efficient. In contrast, perceived usefulness was mentioned by almost all interviewees, as they observed a change in perception among the employees in almost all cases (except for two, where interviewees did not mention this aspect). So, by being forced to work remotely,

[…] you've seen how much is actually possible and works online or remotely because you might not even be aware in the office of what's already being done electronically. (Case F, Federal Ministry of Interior; Interviewee 13).

And that has led to a change in the mindset regarding digitalization as useful for the employees, as one interviewee emphasized:

The pandemic has triggered a change in the mindset of many people, and many aspects have been understood and implemented more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.

(Case G, Federal Ministry of Labour; Interviewee 3)

4.1.3. Resources and structures

While one interviewee mentioned that the number of services and products increased constantly and was less triggered by the pandemic, many others brought up examples of internal services (e.g., digital communication, monitoring systems for COVID-19 cases, or dashboards) and external services (e.g., the green pass or financial support for families) implemented due to COVID-19. At the same time, the number of people working in the IT organization remained broadly unchanged during the pandemic due to the natural fluctuation, except in two cases where they formed an expert team for video conferences to ensure online communication for the ministers.

Some interviewees reported that political support for digitalization increased during the pandemic. Politicians were aware of the necessity of investing in IT infrastructure for internal applications, but the focus was not on newer technologies. In addition, the parliament was keen to monitor data protection during the pandemic. However, the increased public awareness of technological failure by the state made political decision-makers more risk-averse, as one interviewee highlighted.

When it comes to financial resources, interviewees reported that partly more budget became available to modernize and keep operating during the pandemic.

Corona has certainly enabled us to expand our digital services even further, and we have also been given the budget to do so. (Case C, Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs; Interviewee 7).

Not all organizations have a written strategy for digital transformation, but some at least have a plan or roadmap. These strategies were partly affected by COVID-19 as priorities have changed; only in two cases were no effects perceived by the interviewees. On the one side, less time was available for not immediately necessary projects, which resulted in a delay. On the other hand, the adoption, implementation, or concretization of other projects important during the pandemic were accelerated.

The strategy is always based on this [government program], and it is also very flexible, changes, of course, and must be able to adapt. And it's quite clear that this digitalization boom, which Corona has now triggered, is now accelerating many products if I can describe it that way. (Case C, Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs; Interviewee 7).

In all cases, interviewees reported that more technology was available to their organizations. This was mainly triggered by teleworking, which meant that employees needed to work remotely and organizations had to provide laptops, mobile phones, and software for video conferences. This shift toward mobile workplaces with docking stations was related to a procurement challenge:

So, that was one of the big challenges, making people ready for mobile work and also equipping them with correspondingly IT-secure devices. (Case I, Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection; Interviewee 15).

Nevertheless, the situation remained unchanged in areas of newer technologies (artificial intelligence, robotics) or for departments or organizations with laptops and licenses for video conferences before the pandemic.

Furthermore, institutional arrangements, particularly laws and regulations, have changed to enable teleworking or offering services online. As a country governed by the rule of law, every management change taking place necessitates a legal change; thus, interviewees reported that, e.g., the public service law was changed quite quickly to allow working from home.

The aspects of system integration were only rarely mentioned by interviewees. They stated that new infrastructure (laptops and mobile phones) needed to be integrated into the existing architecture, video conferences needed to be hosted constantly and with different systems, and data architecture in the background was needed to set up processes.

4.1.4. Culture

Pressure from inside (from employees) to digitalize increased. An interviewee reported that there was a high interest in digitalizing additional processes. Furthermore, interviewees reported that the organizational culture became more innovative:

And I would say that the Austrian federal administration is a tanker, a really ponderous tanker, in which innovations are initiated at some point through the laborious, repeated turning of the wheel and only really become apparent at some point very, very late. The pandemic has already acted as a trigger here that has led to a change in mindset on the part of many people, and many aspects have simply been understood and implemented more quickly than would otherwise have been the case. (Case G, Federal Ministry of Labour; Interviewee 3).

Due to remote work, the communication within and between administrative units has changed. As interviewees emphasized, most changes due to the pandemic occurred in digital communication and collaboration, but the administration started collaborating remotely.

[…] we now conduct hybrid meetings as standard, and I believe that this is very positive. And especially in an environment that has grown historically like the public sector, this is a change that has happened in a relatively short time […] (Case C, Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs; Interviewee 6).

Also, communication with stakeholders has changed in some areas, as video conference tools and chatbots were used for interaction. Additionally, a real change to the digital opening hours for the public was discussed.

Interviewees perceived pressure from the public as expectations for faster implementation of digital services have increased. An example is the green pass app, accessible through a mobile phone signature. While the demand for this tool increased rapidly, citizens started to show interest in other digital services as stated here:

And that helps us a lot, which is, of course, a driver in digitization, that people have found all these e-government services via the green pass. (Case C, Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs; Interviewee 7).

Yet, with increased demand comes an increased awareness of the public and its critical eye. In offering the green pass, interviewees perceived that small technical malfunctions were scandalized and considered a failure of the state in digitalization efforts.

When it comes to information security, interviewees indicated that working remotely and holding video conferences was a challenge at the beginning of the pandemic. In addition to an increased awareness of information security among employees, from a technical perspective, the organizations were able to get safe systems to connect laptops and safe video conference tools conforming to the general data protection regulation (GDPR).

Regulations such as government-wide standardization of solutions for digital information and services have slowly increased, and the pandemic has highlighted the need for IT consolidation in the federal administration.

4.2. Case evaluation

Table 3 provides a summary of findings and indicates whether and how these organizational aspects have changed since March 2020, the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria. Based on the interviews, subcategories were classified as change or no change to represent increase/decrease or no change, respectively. In some cases, for example, interviewees reported that one aspect of a subcategory changed while another did not, which is indicated as a change or no change in Table 3. The aggregation of the findings allows one to assess the level of digital government transformation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. We distinguish between four levels of digital government transformation: A low level of digital transformation is defined as changes in single elements of a few organizational aspects only. A medium level points to changes in a few elements of a few organizational aspects, whereas a high level refers to changes in elements of all organizational aspects. An advanced level of digital transformation refers to changes in all organizational aspects.

Table 3.

Summary of findings.

Organizational Aspects / Code	J	B	E	I	A	C	D	F	G	H
Digital government transformation	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium	High	High	High	High	High	High
Tasks & Processes
Complexity			Increase			Increase			Increase
Client interaction						Increase		Decrease		Decrease
Collaboration with others necessary
Duration/frequency				Increase		Increase			Increase
Level of standarization							Increase
Reengineering of the existing processes	Change/no change	Change/no change	Change/no change	Change	Change/no change	Change		Change	Change	Change/no change
Task accomplishement		No change	No change	No change	No change	No change			Increase	No change
Level of digitalization	Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase/no change	Increase	Increase
Skills and competences necessary to perform the task							Increase	Increase	Increase
Individual
Perceived usefulness	Increase		Increase		Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase
Perceived ease of use			No change		Increase				Increase	Increase
Perceived risks and barriers		Decrease	Decrease		Increase/decrease/no change	Increase/decrease/ no change	Decrease	Increase/decrease	Increase	Decrease
Technological knowledge		Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase/no change	Increase	Increase
Experience with digital services		Increase	Increase		Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase/no change	Increase	Increase
Motivation					Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase
Resources & Structures
Availability of technology to an organization	Increase/no change	Increase/no change	Increase/no change	Increase/no change	Increase/no change	Increase/no change	Increase/no change	Increase/no change	Increase	Increase
Management support			Increase		Increase	Decrease
Political support		No change	Increase		Decrease	Increase/decrease	Increase
Financial resources			Increase	Increase		Increase	Increase		Increase
System integration				Change			Change	Change
Strategy for digital transformation	Change	No change	No change	Change/no change	Change/no change	Change	Change	Change/no change	Change/no change	Change
People working in the IT organization		Increase	No change	Increase	No change	No change	No change	No change
Number of services/products offered			Increase	Increase	Increase	Increase		No change	Increase	Increase
Institutional arrangements				Change	Change	Change	Change/no change	Change		Change
Culture
Regulations	No change			Increase		Increase/no change
Communication within and between government units	Change	Change	Change			Change	Change		Change	Change
Communication with stakeholder	Change	Change				Change		Change/no change		Change
Leadership							Change	Change	Change	Change
Understanding of employees' / citizens' roles
Information security		Increase			Increase/decrease	Increase/decrease/no change	Increase	Increase	Increase/decrease	Increase
Perceived internal pressure		Increase						Increase
Perceived external pressure		Increase			Increase	Increase				Increase
Innovative organizational culture			Change	Change	Change	Change			Change	Change

In general, all organizations experienced a certain level of digital transformation during the pandemic. Organizations can be divided into three groups based on maturity levels: One organization experienced a low level of digital transformation characterized by changes in individual skills and competencies, resources, and communication channels only. In this organization, mobile infrastructure was already available, and a teleworking culture was established, combined with a low degree of face-to-face services (Case J, Austrian Court of Audit).

The pandemic has initiated a medium-scale digital transformation in three organizations (Cases B, E, and I), including major changes in individual attitudes, resources, and structure. These organizations had at least partly a mobile infrastructure, and some had an established telework culture pre-COVID (Cases I, Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection, and B, Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology). However, they offered only a low to intermediate number of face-to-face services, either because they offered a low number of services in general or because their services were available online (e.g., Case E, Federal Ministry of Finance). These differences might explain why the three cases in this group do not show any patterns in terms of changes in the organizational aspects. For example, three different levels of change in terms of resources and structures are observed, which might relate to the differences in mobile infrastructure, telework culture, and the number of face-to-face services pre-COVID.

Finally, six organizations generated a high level of digital transformation described by partial changes in all four organizational aspects. Comparing these findings with the characteristics of sample organizations pre-COVID shows that although those organizations (Cases A, C, D, F, G, and H) had a partly mobile infrastructure, a teleworking culture was not established, and the degree of face-to-face services was high. All six organizations in this group show advanced levels of change at the individual level and some changes with regard to resources and structures. In general, organizations show varying changes with regard to organizational aspects of culture as well as tasks and processes. Apart from that, there is no advanced level of digital government transformation in any of the analyzed organizations.

Thus, organizations that were used to providing several services and a high degree of face-to-face contact with different groups of stakeholders have experienced a high level of digital transformation. Also, cases with a low degree of face-to-face contact with stakeholders show a high level of digital transformation when they did not have a complete telework infrastructure and an established telework culture and were highly involved in fighting the pandemic. For example, the Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs (Case C) was responsible for the digitalization of the administration, and the Federal Ministry of Labour (Case G) was responsible for the labor market during the pandemic. These two cases also reported increased complexity and duration/frequency of tasks and processes. While other cases with almost complete telework infrastructure (Cases E and J) and/or an established telework culture (Cases B, I, and J) show a low to medium digital transformation during the pandemic. This indicates that the urgency of adapting to the new situation has triggered public innovation.

5. Discussion and implications

5.1. Discussion

This study aims to understand the digital transformation of organizations in the Austrian federal administration during the COVID-19 pandemic and comes up with three key findings: First, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the digital transformation of organizations to a different extent. The pandemic has influenced a high level of digital transformation in six of ten organizations. Consequently, this study shows that an unpredictable factor from the external environment has accelerated the speed of organizational change toward digital government in several organizations of the federal administration (Danielsen, 2021; Gabryelczyk, 2020; Reina et al., 2022; Tangi et al., 2020). Although the pandemic has impacted digital transformation, no advanced level of digital transformation can be observed. This may be explained by the time required to reorganize existing processes, procedures, structures, and services (Tangi et al., 2021) and finally move toward an advanced level of transformation. Beyond that, digital government encompasses changes in the technical system and in the social system (Mergel et al., 2019). However, both systems were constrained during the time of the pandemic. Providing adequate resources was restricted by supply shortages, and introducing a new organizational culture was restricted by staff shortages due to, e.g., sick or care leave.

Second, the pandemic has impacted different organizational aspects. Accordingly, the external pressure to change has translated to an increase in the level of digitalization (see Mergel et al., 2019). Beyond that, however, the perceived urgency has also influenced the individual level so that technological knowledge and the perceived usefulness of leveraging technology have increased, whereas perceived risks and barriers have been lowered. Furthermore, substantive changes are found in terms of resources and structures such as the availability of technology and a strategy for digital transformation. Consequently, the pandemic seems to have initiated a more holistic change. This could be due to the increased awareness of the benefits and the dependence on technological means in society during social distancing. Public administrators did not have to convince their employees to adopt a new digital way of working; instead, using innovative technological tools was the only way to communicate and complete tasks—both in the office and at home. Consequently, the pandemic has triggered organizations to overcome structural barriers such as financial resources and technological infrastructure and resources, and cultural barriers such as a lack of awareness about the value of a digital government (Wilson & Mergel, 2022).

Third, organizations show varying degrees of digital transformation during the crisis, depending on their pre-COVID organizational characteristics and responsibilities. Those organizations that were greatly affected by the pandemic in their face-to-face service delivery showed a high level of digital government transformation during the crisis. For example, in Case D, the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research has already partly implemented mobile infrastructure and established a teleworking culture. However, their face-to-face service delivery was highly affected by the pandemic (school closure). In contrast, organizations with many services but a lower degree of face-to-face contact due to offering e-services report only medium digital transformation (e.g., Case E, the Federal Ministry of Finance). However, even those organizations with few face-to-face services show a high degree of digital transformation when they have little telework infrastructure and culture and are involved in crisis management (e.g., Case A, the Federal Chancellery). Consequently, the urgency to adapt due to organizational responsibilities put pressure on the ministries and accelerated the speed of digital transformation.

5.2. Implications

This study has several implications for research on digital government transformation and public innovation in general. First, we added qualitative evidence on the effect of environmental conditions as an explaining factor for the success of digital government. Previous research has focused on the internal drivers of change and identified the factors stimulating or hindering organizational change (e.g., Wilson & Mergel, 2022). For example, we know from research on technology acceptance that employees' perceptions of usefulness, ease of use, and risks significantly influence the use of technological means (Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020; Oschinsky, Stelter, & Niehaves, 2021). In contrast, this study shows how the pandemic, as a sudden exogenous shock, has triggered an organizational change. To be more specific, we have analyzed ten organizations that share a similar external context (i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic) but vary in terms of organizational context characteristics and their specific role during the pandemic. Findings indicate that the more the organization was affected by the pandemic, the greater the transformation toward digital government, lending support to previous literature on the significant influence of different environmental variables on digital government success (Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020; Ingrams, Manoharan, et al., 2020; Tangi et al., 2020).

These external pressures have then triggered a change regarding internal organizational aspects. Building on the literature on public organizations' adoption of digital technology (Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020; Tangi et al., 2021), we found that the pandemic has not only affected the mode of working due to social distancing measures but has influenced all organizational aspects by different degrees. Consequently, existing processes were not just translated from analog to digital, but a change involving organizational aspects such as tasks and processes, individual employees, resources and structures, and organizational culture has been triggered (Gabryelczyk, 2020). While previous research has shown that digital technology changes the technical system of the organization before the social system (Tangi et al., 2020), our findings indicate that the pandemic has influenced both systems to some degree, meaning that organizations have moved beyond the digitization of services and the digitalization of processes (see Mergel et al., 2019). Despite the fact that technologies are used for providing information, communicating, and collaborating more intensively, findings do not indicate a digital transformation toward AI-augmented public administration (Ahn & Chen, 2022).

Second, this study contributes to the literature on organizational responses to a crisis (Comfort, Yeo, & Scheinert, 2019; Eom & Lee, 2022; Phillips, Roehrich, & Kapletia, 2021). The pandemic has suddenly shocked a sector that is known for a culture of risk aversion and resistance to change (De Vries et al., 2016; Feiock, Lee, Park, & Lee, 2010), resource constraints, and small innovation budgets (Borins, 2001). The COVID-19 pandemic, as a high-velocity situation, has led to organizational changes in digital practices. For example, there was a virtually immediate increase in the use of digital technology, which facilitated the production and dissemination of information and coordination among organizations and citizens. Digital transformation was especially prevalent in organizations greatly affected by the pandemic and those offering several services to stakeholders or those without a teleworking culture. Consequently, both the urgency and feasibility of using digital technology have influenced the digital government transformation of the Austrian federal administration. The crisis thus seems to not only expose organizational shortcomings but also motivate organizations to enable organizational learning and reveal the unrealized potential of digital transformation (Christianson, Farkas, Sutcliffe, & Weick, 2009; Meyer & Simsa, 2018; Phillips et al., 2021).

5.3. Limitations and directions for future research

Some studies' limitations are worth mentioning. First, some limitations stem from the methodological approach. In general, case studies have certain limitations such as the tendency of interviewees to show socially accepted behavior or the limited generalizability due to the context-bound nature of the results (Yin, 2009). Consequently, the findings should be interpreted with these limitations in mind. In addition, the number of interviews is relatively limited due to the informants' central and unique role. Nevertheless, we are confident that triangulating interview data from respondents inside and outside the cases with secondary data allowed us to achieve a rich data set to understand the focal phenomenon.

Second, in analyzing the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the digital transformation of the public sector, we rely on the perspective of representatives of the federal administration about one year after the pandemic started. Although our research approach allows comparing influencing factors across organizations, a more detailed look into the transformation process of single organizations and intra-organizational dynamics would be pertinent. Furthermore, we cannot capture the dynamics of digital government over the years, from the start to the end of the pandemic in 2023, so some further research is needed.

Third, whereas understanding the perspective of the supply side of digital government is important to learn about internal challenges, success in transforming toward digital government also depends on the perspectives of the demand side. Future research is recommended to combine this research with the service users' perspective (Gil-Garcia & Flores-Zúñiga, 2020) such as perceptions toward digital government, public critique of COVID-19-related measures, and citizens' trust in the political-administrative system. In addition, future research might focus on adding contextual factors to the analysis (Castelnovo & Sorrentino, 2018).

Forth, we aim to examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic right after. This means that we cannot conclude whether organizations still adhere to these practices or have already reverted to the original practices. Consequently, exploring organizational practices over time and understanding their long-lasting effects might be an interesting area for future research (Gabryelczyk, 2020).

Finally, whereas we emphasize on if and how the pandemic has influenced digital government transformation, it is beyond the scope of this study to evaluate how desirable the associated changes are perceived by organizational members, citizens, and society at large. As Eom and Lee (2022) put it, a pertinent research area would be to analyze “challenges, dilemmas, paradoxes, and ambiguities” associated with the digital government transformation.

6. Conclusion

The federal administration played a significant role in coordinating the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to the introduction of lockdown and social distancing measures, governments worldwide have offered citizens digital solutions to trace contacts and face challenges together. Although online platforms, new apps, and intensive discussion on social media channels provide some indications for governments' digitalization, there is scant empirical research about how the pandemic has affected the digital government transformation and, thus, government transformation beyond the technical system, including the social system.

By taking the Austrian federal administration as a research context, this study has shown that the pandemic has not just led to increased use of technological means among individuals but has also influenced various organizational aspects of the federal administration; in particular, individual aspects such as attitudes toward applying new technological means and competencies have improved. The sudden shock has changed people's mindset, meaning that the benefits of using digital means became clear, and perceived risks were reduced. Furthermore, findings indicate that organizations heavily affected by the pandemic without a telework infrastructure and culture or offering several face-to-face services have benefited from a greater degree of digital transformation. Beyond that, we observe transformation processes to a lower but comparable degree in organizations unaffected by the pandemic. The pandemic has therefore influenced a spirit of innovation and accelerated the speed of digital transformation. Consequently, the pandemic can be seen as an incentive from an organizational perspective to take measures that would not have been considered at another time.

Author statement

Birgit Moser-Plautz made a substantial contribution to this article with respect to conceptualization, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing. Lisa Schmidthuber made a substantial contribution to this article with respect to conceptualization and manuscript writing.

Funding

This work was supported by the Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation [Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation Fellowship 2021].

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Biographies

Birgit Moser-Plautz is assistant professor at the Department of Public, Nonprofit & Health Management of the University of Klagenfurt, Austria. She holds a Ph.D. in business administration from the University of Klagenfurt. Her research interests include digital transformation, innovation and change management as well as budgeting and accounting reforms in the public sector.

Lisa Schmidthuber is an assistant professor in the Institute for Public Management and Governance, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria. She obtained her doctoral degree in business administration from Johannes Kepler University Linz in 2018 with a paper-based dissertation on open government and the exploration and exploitation of external knowledge in the public sector. Her research interests include public innovation management (open government, citizensourcing, open data), digital transformation, and accounting innovation (IPSAS & EPSAS).

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary material