The study has formulated the objective of synthesizing the extent to which technological barriers intervene in the transparency and effectiveness of public management (PM). Methodologically, the study was of a fundamental or basic nature, with a systematic review design, the databases of Scopus (369), SciELO (2), Web of Science (184) were explored, after the review process a set of 22 articles was available. The registration was made in an Excel table where the main data of the articles were included. 32% of the articles selected for the analysis of the evidence are from the period 2020, 27% were from 2022 and 18% from the year 2023; as far as origin is concerned, 14% of the articles come from Peru and 9% from Australia, Brazil, South Korea, Spain and Indonesia. In summary, the study points out that government institutions are making progress in digitizing and improving the citizen experience through electronic services, but they face challenges in areas such as resource management, the low adoption of advanced technologies such as blockchain and artificial intelligence, as well as the lack of transparency in PM. Despite this, it is highlighted that e-government improves citizen satisfaction, and the need to invest in digital innovation, training and overcoming technological barriers to achieve an effective transformation in state administration and promote a more inclusive and advanced society is emphasized.

1. Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological Guidance Paper: The Art and Science of Quality Systematic Reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352
2. Ashraf, M., Yang, M., Zhang, Y., et al. (2021). A systematic review of systematic reviews on blended learning: Trends, gaps and future directions. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 1525–1541. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S331741
3. Barragán, X. (2022). Postmodernity, public management and information and communication technologies in the public administration of Ecuador (Spanish). Estado y Costumbres: Revista de Políticas y problemas públicos, 14(1), 113–131.
4. Barragán, X., and Martínez, R. (2022). Technologies in social public policies in Latin America (Spanish). Estado and comunes, 2(15), 15–17. https://doi.org/10.37228/ESTADO_COMUNES.V2.N15.2022.266
5. Carolina, C. (2023). Open government, civic tech and digital platforms in Latin America: A governance study of Montevideo’s urban app ’Por Mi Barrio’. Information Systems Journal, 1(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ISJ.12468
6. Castro, C., and Lopes, C. (2022). Digital government and sustainable development. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(2), 880–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00749-2
7. Chen, Y., and Chang, T. (2020). Explaining government’s online transparency on collaborative policy platforms: Risk management and configurational conditions. Public Performance and Management Review, 43(3), 560–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1574591
8. Chu, J., Dai, Y. Y., Zhong, A. (2023). Factors influencing the effectiveness of open government data platforms: A data analysis of 61 prefecture-level cities in China. SAGE Open, 13(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244023119420
9. Criado, J. I., and Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2019). Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies: From digital services to artificial intelligence and beyond. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2019-0178
10. Curto-Rodríguez, R. (2023). Digital tools for communication of public data. International Visual Culture Review/Revista Internacional de Cultura Visual, 14(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.37467/REVVISUAL.V10.4606
11. Flach, L., Sallaberry, J. D., Dal Bem, L., et al. (2022). Public management of Brazilian smart cities and their effects on local education. Educación Políticas Análisis Archivos, 30(24), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6649
12. Franciskovic, J., Hamann, A., Miralles, F. (2020). ICT, an opportunity for citizen participation in subnational governments. Revista Republicana, 2020(29), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.21017/rev.repub.2020.v29.a85
13. García, G., Lescano, G. S., Quiñones, A. E., Morales, W. (2022). New technologies and public sector organizations in Peru (Spanish). Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 27(8), 806–818. https://doi.org/10.52080/RVGLUZ.27.8.5
14. García, J., and Sánchez, P. (2020). Theoretical research design: methodological instructions for the development of scientific research proposals and projects (Spanish). Información Tecnológica, 31(6), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07642020000600159
15. Guenduez, A. A., Mettler, T., Schedler, K. (2020). Technological frames in public administration: What do public managers think of big data? Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2019.101406
16. Hariri, R. H., Fredericks, E. M., Bowers, K. M. (2019). Uncertainty in big data analytics: survey, opportunities, and challenges. Journal of Big Data, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40537-019-0206-3/tables/2
17. Huamán, R. (2019). The optimization of electronic government as a key factor in the modernization of public management in the face of the current State of Emergency (Spanish). Revista de Derecho Administrativo, 1(18), 467–493.
18. Hurtado, F. (2020). Methodological Foundations of Research: The Genesis of New Knowledge (Spanish). Revista Scientific, 5(16), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.29394/Scientific.issn.2542-2987.2020.5.16.5.99-119
19. Indah, N. W., and Majid, N. (2022). Challenges of digital transformation on good governance for improving public services quality. Nusantara Science and Technology Proceedings, 2022(1), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.11594/nstp.2022.2307
20. Joukhadar, G., Jiang, R., Harrington, K., Thorogood, A. (2023). Promoting Digital innovation for sustainability in the public sector. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 53(1), 240–277. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05310
21. Kain, J. H., Zapata, P., De Azevedo, A., et al. (2022). Characteristics, challenges and innovations of waste picker organizations: A comparative perspective between Latin American and East African countries. PLOS ONE, 17(7), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265889
22. Kempeneer, S., and Heylen, F. (2023). Virtual state, where are you? A literature review, framework and agenda for failed digital transformation. Big Data and Society, 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/205395172311605
23. Lindquist, E. A. (2022). The digital era and public sector reforms: Transformation or new tools for competing values? Canadian Public Administration, 65(3), 547–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12493
24. Martins, J., and Veiga, L. G. (2022). Digital government as a business facilitator. Information Economics and Policy, 60(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2022.100990
25. Medina, Á. (2022). Digital transformation and COVID 19: contrasts in Latin America. Journal of Positive School Psychology , 6(2), 5592–5600.
26. Melati, C., and Janissek-Muniz, R. (2023). Intelligence in public management: an analysis from an institutional perspective. Revista de Administração Pública, 56(6), 721–744. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220220103X
27. Mensah, I. K., Zeng, G., Mwakapesa, D. (2022). Understanding the drivers of the public value of e-government: Validation of a public value e-government adoption model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.962615
28. Moon, M. J. (2020). Shifting from old open government to new open government: Four critical dimensions and case illustrations. Public Performance and Management Review, 43(3), 535–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1691024
29. Morillo, J., Morales, I., Tobar, L. (2020). Digital government in Latin America: a challenge for open government public management (Spanish)? FIGEMPA: Investigación y Desarrollo, 1(2), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.29166/revfig.v1i2.2467
30. Myeong, S., Ahn, M. J., Kim, Y., et al. (2021). Government data performance: The roles of technology, government capacity, and globalization through the effects of national innovativeness. Sustainability, 13(22), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212589
31. Osorio-Sanabria, M., and Barreto-Granada, P. (2022). Public transparency: analysis of its evolution and contribution to the development of open governments (Spanish). Innovar, 32(83), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v32n83.99884
32. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13643-021-01626-4
33. Park, C. H., Longo, J., Johnston, E. W. (2020). Exploring non-state stakeholder and community-Led Open Governance: Beyond the three pillars of open government. Public Performance and Management Review, 43(3), 587–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1677253
34. Pieterson, W., Baptista, D., Rosas-Shady, D., Franco, A. (2023). The digital transformation of public employment services across Latin America and the Caribbean. Available online: https://doi.org/10.18235/0005084 (accessed on 12 August 2024).
35. Quispe, E. (2022). Effectiveness of the implementation of electronic and digital government in the institutional management of regional governments (Spanish). Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 6(5), 2079–2094. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v6I5.3239
36. Sandoval-Almazán, R., Criado, J., Ruvalcaba-Gómez, E. A. (2021). Different perceptions, different open government strategies: The case of local Mexican public managers. Information Polity, 26(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-180100
37. Seok-Jin, E., and Jooh, L. (2022). Digital government transformation in turbulent times: Responses, challenges, and future direction. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 375–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0740-624x(01)00093-4
38. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104(2), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
39. Támara, S., and Espinoza, W. (2023). Electronic government in the management of public administration (Spanish). ReHuSo: Revista de Ciencias Humanísticas y Sociales, 8(1), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.33936/rehuso.v8i1.5438
40. Tejedo-Romero, F., Ferraz, J. F. (2020). E-government-enabled transparency: The effect of electoral aspects and citizen’s access to Internet on information disclosure. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 17(3), 268–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2020.1713958
41. Terreros, M., Salazar, J., Toala, A. (2019). Review article. Preparation and protocol phases (Spanish). Revista Científica Universidad Odontológica Dominicana, 7(1), 30–38.
42. Thøgersen, D., Waldorff, S. B., Steffensen, T. (2021). Public value through innovation: Danish public managers’ views on barriers and boosters. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(14), 1264–1273. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1750030
43. Vértiz, J., Buendia, A., Chilet, S., Massa, L. (2023). Online government and new trends in public management: Peruvian case (Spanish). Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 28(9), 580–594. https://doi.org/10.52080/rvgluz.28.e9.36
44. Waheduzzaman, W. (2019). Challenges in transitioning from new public management to new public governance in a developing country context. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(7), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-02-2019-0057
45. Xiao, J., Han, L., Zhang, H. (2022). Exploring driving factors of digital transformation among local governments: Foundations for smart city construction in China. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(22), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214980