نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

استادیار مطالعات بین‌الملل علم و فناوری پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری، تهران، ایران.

10.22054/tssq.2025.75064.1444

چکیده

امروزه ترکیب فناوری‌های نوظهور حوزه ICT و حکمرانی انواع و اشکال نوینی از دولت را ایجاد کرده که مهم‌ترین آن‌ها به لحاظ سطح توسعه و تحول «دولت الکترونیک»، «دولت تحولی»، «دولت چابک» و «حکمرانی باز» هستند. اهمیت تحول دیجیتالی دولت در دگرگون ساختن نقش‌ها و کارکردهای بنیادین دولت‌ها و ایجاد مزایا و ارزش‌آفرینی در اداره امور عمومی است. افزایش چابکی روندها، ارتقای شفافیت، افزایش نوآوری و کارآفرینی بخش خصوصی، تعامل دوسویه و مشارکتی شهروندان و حکومت، کاهش تصدی‌گری دولت، کاستن از هزینه‌های جاری و مدیریت مشارکتی بحران‌های اجتماعی، اقتصادی و فرهنگی در خلال این تحول نهادینه می‌شود. اما هم‌نشینی فناوری‌های جدید و حکمرانی معضلات و مسائل خود را دارد و دولت‌ها در کوتاه‌مدت و بلندمدت نیاز دارند با پیامدهای بالفعل و بالقوه این فناوری‌ها بر نحوه حکمرانی آشنا شده و هم‌زمان نظام مسائل آن‌ها بررسی و حل نمایند. در این پژوهش مسئله اصلی آن است که نظام مسائل تحول دیجیتالی دولت در ایران کدام است و چگونه می‌توان از معضلات موجود عبور نمود؟ در این راستا ضمن بررسی اشکال مختلف تحول دیجیتالی دولت و نظریات موجود؛ تلاش شد با استفاده از روش تحلیل سیستم‌های نرم و نظرات نخبگان کشور در خصوص، فضای مفهومی تحول دیجیتال و  نظام مسائل تحول دیجیتالی دولت در ایران احصا و شناسایی شود و راهکارهای عبور از معضلات موجود نیز تبیین گردد.  این روش تحلیل برای فهم پدیده‌های پیچیده و چندبعدی به کار می‌رود که تعارض منافع و تفاوت دیدگاه ذی‌نفعان در آن بسیار است. این روش کمک می‌کند پدیده تحول دیجیتال در موقعیت مسئله‌زای آن در ایران شناسایی و نظام مسائل و کاستی‌های آن برجسته و تغییرات موردنیاز احصا گردد. نتایج این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد به دلیل گستردگی حوزه اثر تحول دیجیتال در دولت، این پدیده نیازمند تنظیم‌گری فرا دستگاهی است تا ضمن قانون‌گذاری مناسب به روند اجرا و حل‌وفصل انبوه مسائل آن کمک شود. حرکت ایران از دولت الکترونیک به سطوح توسعه‌یافته حکمرانی دیجیتال در صورتی به دست خواهد آمد که تحول دیجیتال دولت و نظام مسائل این پدیده موردتوجه سطوح بالای حاکمیت و در اولویت قرار گیرد. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis of the System of Problems in Digital Government Transformation in Iran Using the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Razieh Mehrabi Koushki
  • Mohammadreza Hamidi

Assistant Professor, Department of International Studies of Science and Technology, Institute for Science and Technology Studies, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Problem Statement & Background
With the advent of the digital era and the rapid advancement of ICT technologies such as cloud computing, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and IoT, the foundational structures and governance mechanisms of governments are undergoing profound transformation. This change, often encapsulated under the term "digital transformation of government," encompasses shifts not just in technology but also in institutional behavior, public service delivery, legal frameworks, and citizen expectations. The global move from e-government to more integrated models like agile government, transformational government, and open governance illustrates the growing complexity of digital-era governance.
Iran, like many other developing countries, faces multifaceted challenges in adapting to these paradigms. Issues such as political resistance, fragmented data governance, outdated legal frameworks, insufficient financial and technical resources, and a lack of coordinated planning hinder effective transformation. The central question this research addresses is: What are the systemic issues hindering digital government transformation in Iran, and how can these challenges be identified and addressed through structured methodologies?
Research Objective
The primary aim of the study is to investigate and articulate the system of problems ("Nizam-e-Masael") surrounding the digital transformation of government in Iran. Using a structured interpretive methodology—Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)—the research seeks to:

Identify key conceptual and operational barriers to digital transformation.
Capture perspectives of key stakeholders and experts within Iran’s digital ecosystem.
Develop conceptual models that reflect stakeholder understandings and identify actionable changes.
Suggest institutional, legal, managerial, and technological reforms necessary to achieve transformative digital governance.

 
Methodology
This study employs Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), a qualitative, interpretive method developed by Peter Checkland, suitable for analyzing complex, ill-structured, human-centered problems where multiple stakeholders and perspectives exist.
Key steps included:
- Unstructured Problem Exploration – through semi-structured interviews with 11 national experts from government, academia, private sector, and civil society.
- Stakeholder Identification – mapping all key actors, including executive bodies (ministries, councils), judiciary, parliament, private tech sector, and citizens.
- Root Definitions using CATWOE – structured definitions of the situation from multiple perspectives using the CATWOE tool (Customers, Actors, Transformation process, Worldview, Owners, Environmental constraints).
- Conceptual Model Building – building models to represent ideal systems based on each major stakeholder’s worldview.
- Real-World Comparison – comparing models with current practices to identify gaps.
- Feasible and Desirable Changes – suggesting policy and structural changes.
Findings
The study identifies that Iran’s digital transformation is constrained by challenges across four domains:

Political Challenges:


Resistance to structural change due to fear of transparency and loss of control.
Political factionalism causing instrumental use or obstruction of large-scale digital projects.
Data silos and institutional security-centric data ownership models obstructing integration.


Economic Challenges:


Severe underfunding and lack of financial prioritization due to broader fiscal crises.
Lack of digital infrastructure, such as cloud platforms and broadband access.
No coherent roadmap or leadership for multi-sectoral funding and execution.


Social Challenges:


Concerns about the societal effects of digital technologies (e.g., on family, youth).
Mixed perceptions of ICT’s impact, with some blaming digitalization for rising divorce or unemployment, while others cite benefits like transparency and remote work.


Legal and Regulatory Challenges:


Outdated laws incompatible with emerging technologies (e.g., AI, Metaverse).
Lack of enabling legislation for cross-agency digital integration.
No prioritization of digital transformation in high-level legislative or strategic documents.

SSM-Based Stakeholder Findings:

Executive Branch: Lacks coherent leadership and budget alignment. Coordination across ministries is absent or fragmented.
Judiciary: Digitization efforts are sporadic and lack systemic support or coordination.
Parliament: Limited awareness of digital transformation imperatives. Legislative inertia blocks innovation.
Supreme Cyberspace Council: Weak coordination authority; recommendations often lack enforcement power.

Conceptual Models: Each of these stakeholder groups had tailored conceptual models reflecting:

Key activities (e.g., legislation drafting, budget allocation, program implementation).
Ideal vs. actual performance assessments.
Interdependencies and feedback loops.

Identified Gaps:

Lack of central vision: No unified national transformation roadmap exists.
Ineffective coordination mechanisms: Overlapping mandates and institutional silos dominate.
No performance tracking: There are no KPIs, monitoring tools, or learning systems.

________________________________________
Conclusion and Recommendations
Digital transformation of government is not a choice but a necessity for countries facing socio-economic, demographic, and political pressures. Iran’s journey from basic e-government toward full digital governance is impeded by structural, political, economic, and cultural barriers. While technologies are available, their adoption is hindered by outdated processes, limited awareness, and fragmented leadership.
The study recommends:

National Strategy Formulation: Develop and ratify a high-level digital transformation policy endorsed by all three branches of power.
Legal Overhaul: Revisit all major legal codes (data privacy, cybersecurity, digital services) with digital transformation in mind.
Institutional Reform: Designate a lead digital transformation agency with executive authority.
Capacity Building: Train government staff and lawmakers in digital governance principles.
Public Participation and Transparency: Establish feedback mechanisms to involve citizens and civil society in shaping digital policies.
Performance Measurement: Develop a national digital governance index and integrate it into annual government performance reports.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Digital transformation
  • Emerging technologies
  • Digitization
  • E-government
  • T-government
  • O-government
فارسی
 
 
توکلی‌راد رضا، زرگران خوزانی و فاطمه (1401) الگوی تحول دیجیتال سازمانی، موفق کنفرانس بین‌المللی مطالعات بین‌رشته‌ای در مدیریت و مهندسی،  دوره 6  در : https://www.sid.ir/paper/1032356/fa
حسینی نسب، سید مهدی و شامی زنجانی، مهدی و قلی پورف آرین (1400) ارائه چارچوب وظایف مدیر ارشد دیجیتال به‌عنوان حکمران تحول دیجیتال در سازمان، مطالعات منابع انسانی, 11(1), 1-25.
خنیفر, حسین و غفرانی. عاطفه (1399). تحول دیجیتال در فرایند یاددهی-یادگیری: سنجش صلاحیت دیجیتال دانشجو معلمان. مطالعات آموزشی و آموزشگاهی, 9(3), 23-47.
دقتی عادله؛ یعقوبی نورمحمد، کمالیان امین رضا، دهقانی مسعود، مرادی ابراهیم (1398) ارائه الگوی استقرار و توسعه حکمرانی الکترونیک با استفاده از رویکرد فراترکیب، چشم‌انداز مدیریت دولتی، دوره 10، 4، ص 89-120
صالحی پور باورصاد ، سجاد و پوریان، کاظم. (1400). ره نگاشتی نوین برای تحقق تحول دیجیتال. سیاست‌نامه علم‌وفناوری, 11(1), 5-17.
فرزانه کندری، نرگس؛ روحانی، سعید (1399) ارائه چارچوب مفهومی تحول دیجیتال قضایی در راستای حکمرانی دیجیتال، مدیریت دولتی، دوره ،12 شماره  4 ص 695-722
موسوی, سیدامیرمحسن و شامی زنجانی.مهدی (1402). چرخه حیات تحول دیجیتال چابک: مرور نظام‌مند ادبیات. مدیریت فرهنگ سازمانی،  10.22059/JOMC.2023.345999.1008479
References
Alvarenga, A., Matos, F., Godina, R., & CO Matias, J. (2020). Digital transformation and knowledge management in the public sector. Sustainability, 12(14), 5824.‏
Checkland, P. (2000) soft systems methodology: A Thirty-year Retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral science 17:11-58
Eaves and Lombardo, L. (2021), 2020 State of Digital Transformation, Ash Center Harvard Kennedy School.
Eaves, D. & Clement, G. (2020), 2019 State of Digital Transformation, Ash Center Harvard Kennedy School
Griffith, C. & Terence, P & Alan, D. (2013). New models for digital government: the role of service brokers in driving innovation. NSW: NICTA
Harsh A. & Ichalkaranje, N. (2015): Transforming e-Government to Smart Government: A South Australian Perspective. In: Jain L. Patnaik S. Ichalkaranje N. (eds.) Intelligent Computing, Communication and Devices. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 308. Springer: New Delhi, pp.9–16.
Heeks, R (2003). Most eGovernment-for-Development Projects Fail: How Can Risks Be Reduced. Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester
Janssen, M. & Estevez, E. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance-Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2013), 1–8.
Jouanjean, M. A., Casalini, F., Wiseman, L., & Gray, E. (2020). Issues around data governance in the digital transformation of agriculture: The farmers’ perspective.‏
Katsonis, M. (2015). Digital Government: A Primer and Professional Perspective. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(1), 42–52.
Khitskov, E. A., Veretekhina, S. V., Medvedeva, A. V., Mnatsakanyan, O. L., Shmakova, E. G., & Kotenev, A. (2017). Digital transformation of society: problems entering in the digital economy. Eurasian Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 12(5), 855-873.‏
Kuldosheva, Gulnoza. (2021). Challenges and opportunities of digital transformation in the public sector in transition economies: examination of the case of Uzbekistan. No.1248
Lemke, F. (2018). From eGov to sGov: Super-Applications as a Driver for eGov, Transformation – a Case Study Research. Tallin University, Tallin, Estonia.
Loosemore, T. [@tomskitomski] (2016, May 10). Digital: Applying the culture, practices, processes & technologies of the Internet-era to respond to people’s raised expectations [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/tomskitomski/ status/729974444794494976
Maio, A. Di (2013) Digital Government is Little Else than Making E-government Work. Available from http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2013/09/18/digital-government-is-littleelse-than-making-e-government-work/ (lastaccessed 21th December 2022).
Matt, Ch. & Hess, T. & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital Transformation Strategies, Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57: 339-43.
Millard, J. (2015). Open governance systems: Doing more with more. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 77–87.
Millard, J. (2017). European Strategies for e-Governance to 2020 and Beyond. In Government 3.0 - Next Generation Government Technology Infrastructure and Services (Vol. 32, pp. 1–26). Springer International Publishing AG 2017
NIEIR.(2013). Reinventing Australian Enterprises for the Digital Economy. Executive summary, Available from http://docplayer.net/38013306-Reinventing-australian-enterprises-for-the-digital-economy-executive-summary.html (lastaccessed 20th November 2022).
O’Reilly, T (2005). What is Web 2.0? Available from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/whatis- web-20.html (last accessed 20th December 2014).
OECD (2014) Recommendation of the Council onDigital Government Strategies. Paris: OECD Publishing
Paavola, R., Hallikainen, P., & Elbanna, A. (2017). Role of middle managers in modular digital transformation: The case of Servu. In Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2017 (pp. 887-903). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2017_rp/58/
Schallmo, A, and R Daniel. (2018) Digital Transformation Now! Guiding the Successful Digitalization of Your Business Model (Springer).
Shenkoya, T. (2023). Can digital transformation improve transparency and accountability of public governance in Nigeria? Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 17(1), 54-71.‏
Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M., & Dwivedi, Y. (2011). Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 4(4), 1–16.
 
 
 
Translated References into English
Tavakkoli Rad, R., & Zargaran Khozani, F. (2022). A model of organizational digital transformation. 6th International Conference on Interdisciplinary Studies in Management and Engineering. https://www.sid.ir/paper/1032356/fa
 
Hosseini-Nasab, S. M., Shami Zanjani, M., & Gholipour, A. (2021). Developing a framework for the Chief Digital Officer's responsibilities as a digital transformation leader. Human Resources Studies Quarterly, 11(1), 1–25.
 
Khonifar, H., & Ghofrani, A. (2020). Digital transformation in the teaching-learning process: Assessing digital competence of student-teachers. Educational and School Studies, 9(3), 23-47.
 
Deghati, A., Yaghoubi, N. M., Kamalian, A. R., Dehghani, M., & Moradi, E. (2019). A model for establishment and development of e-governance using meta-synthesis approach. Public Management Outlook, 10(4), 89-120.
 
Salehipour Bavarsad, S., & Pourian, K. (2021). A new roadmap for achieving digital transformation. Science and Technology Policy Letter, 11(1), 5-17.
 
Farzaneh-Kondori, N., & Rouhani, S. (2020). A conceptual framework for judicial digital transformation towards digital governance. Public Administration, 12(4), 695-722.
 
Mousavi, S. A. M., & Shami Zanjani, M. (2023). Agile digital transformation lifecycle: A systematic literature review. Journal of Organizational Culture Management. https://doi.org/10.22059/JOMC.2023.345999.1008479