Digital transformation of administrative processes in public management: A systematic literature review (2015–2025) (#581)

Authors

Ñiquen-Levy, Randolf

Bustamante-Pimentel, Jordin

Abstract

This systematic review brings together evidence from seventeen peer‐reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2025 to offer a comprehensive portrait of how administrative processes in public management are evolving under the pressure of digital transformation. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we conducted an exhaustive search across Scopus, SciELO and Dialnet, narrowing an initial pool of forty‐seven records to seventeen articles that met our methodological and temporal criteria. Through these works, we explored four interrelated dimensions: the enabling factors and critical barriers that shape digital adoption in public institutions; the ways in which citizens experience and evaluate online services; the strengths and shortcomings of existing measurement frameworks; and the patterns of international collaboration that drive knowledge exchange and innovation. Our findings reveal that successful digital initiatives hinge on clear regulatory frameworks, strong leadership, technical interoperability and expanding mobile connectivity, even as they struggle with infrastructure gaps, limited budgets and cultural resistance. Citizens appreciate the speed and reach of digital platforms but lament usability flaws and opaque information flows that undermine trust. We also show that current indices—such as DESI, e‐Government rankings and recovery‐plan metrics—capture only slices of the transformation, lacking sectoral granularity and user‐centric outcomes. Finally, transnational networks and funding programs (PNRR, H2020, CEPAL/OAS forums) emerge as critical engines for shared standards and capacity building. Building on these insights, we propose an integrated evaluation framework that couples infrastructure and competency indicators with measures of user satisfaction, transparency and operational efficiency, all governed by unified methodological standards and disaggregated by sector.