2011 E Case SMJafari

8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari

1/21

Exploring the Values of e-Governance to Citizens

Seyed Mohammadbagher Jafaria*, Noor Azman Alib

aGraduate School of Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia,

Serdang Selangor 43400 UPM, MalaysiabFaculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia,

Serdang Selangor 43400 UPM, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The rapid evolution of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has

created challenges and opportunities for governments all over the world. Nowadays,e-government and e-governance are key issues on the agenda of various governments

across the world. However, the success of e-governance initiatives is contingent

upon designing these initiatives based on citizens values and needs. Nevertheless, the

actual needs, values and objectives of citizens receive minor consideration in current

e-governance design practice and a theory of the needs and values of citizens on

e-governance is lacking. This study is one of the first steps to work on such a theory,

constructing a tentative model that explains the citizens needs and values on

e-governance. By providing the background of e-governance definitions, this study

relies on the UNDP (2010) definition of e-governance that includes three core

components of e-administration, e-service delivery and e-participation. Taking into

account this definition, e-governance values were explored by utilizing the

value-focused thinking (VFT) approach. As a result, this study proposed a list of 130

objectives, 98 means objectives and 32 fundamental objectives of citizens values on

e-governance. This list can be considered as a set of the potential values of citizens on

e-governance that are key elements of successful design of e-governance initiatives.

Keywords: e-Governance, e-Administration, e-Services, e-Participation,

Value-Focused Thinking

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, rapidly evolving information and communication

technologies (ICTs) have penetrated nearly every aspect of government, business, and

daily life (Dawes, 2008). The rapid evolution of new technologies has created

challenges for all governments (Riley, 2003). Nowadays, e-government and

e-governance are key issues on the agenda of various governments across the world(UNPAN, 2008). In fact, e-Governance is a technology mediated relationship between

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference

January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

1312


2/21

citizens and their government while e-government is the provision of routine

government information and transactions using electronic means (Belwal & Al-Zoubi,

2008). Despite the worldwide diffusion of e-governance initiatives, the claimed

benefits of e-governance has not been easily achieved for various technological as

well as organizational reasons (Saxena, 2005) and the development of e-government

projects has high risk at present (Hu, Xiao, Pang, & Xie, 2005). Many recent studies

emphasized that the success of e-governance initiatives is contingent upon designing

these initiatives based on citizens values and needs (Jaeger & Bertot, 2010; Rahman,

2009; Saxena, 2005; Shareef, Kumar, Kumar, Chowdhury, & Misra, 2010; Wang &

Zeng, 2009) and digital government must be oriented towards the citizens

(Asgarkhani, 2005). However, the actual needs, values and objectives of citizens

receive minor consideration in current e-governance design practice (Bertot, Jaeger, &

McClure, 2008; Heeks & Bailur, 2007; van Dijk, Peters, & Ebbers, 2008; Yildiz,2007).This study tries to explore the values of e-governance to citizens through a

systematic way using the Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) approach. In the following

parts of this article, the notion and definition of e-governance is reviewed and then

after introducing the VFT approach, its application for e-governance context is

discussed. Finally the citizens values on e-governance are explored through a

comprehensive literature review and the e-governance values are proposed.

2. e-Governance DefinitionThe e-gov field (also called electronic government, digital government, electronic

governance, and similar names) emerged in the late 1990s (Grnlund, 2005;

Grnlund & Horan, 2005) and research into the phenomenon of e-government is

relatively new (Coursey & Norris, 2008). Therefore, it will be obvious that the

literature on this issue is very young and has not maturated yet (Grnlund & Horan,

2005). On the other hand, e-governance is a term that is actually used by scholars and

practitioners from different fields because of its inter-disciplinary nature (Grnlund &

Horan, 2005). This involvement form many disciplines pose a dispersed research

agenda rather than a unified or hard-core research themes. Specifically, it appears to

be a research domain suffering from methodological shortcomings, a lack of a

common vocabulary, and a lack of commonly agreed issues/findings (Andersen &

Henriksen, 2005). Therefore, explaining this field is still difficult (Grnlund & Horan,

2005). Like other concepts of contemporary, there are various definitions of

e-governance (Dawes, 2008; Sriramesh & Rivera-Sanchez, 2006) among researchers,

specialists and practitioners and they still have quite different understandings of what

e-governance is (Finger & Pcoud, 2003). One reason for this issue is the multifaceted

nature of e-governance. The notion of e-governance strictly depends on the



1313


3/21

perspective taken on governance (Ojo & Estevez, 2008) and the field that the

definition comes from. Therefore, this concept has received various definitions

depending on authors and contexts. Heeks (2001), who according to Dada (2006) has

done a substantial amount of research in e-governance, has defined three main

contributions of e-governance as:

improving government processes (e-administration); connecting citizens (e-citizens and e-services); and building external interactions (e-society).

One of the most cited definitions of e-governance was presented by UNESCO (2009)

that refers to e-governance as: the public sectors use of information and

communication technologies with the aim of improving information and service

delivery, encouraging citizen participation in the decision-making process and making

the government more accountable, transparent and effective. Based on this definition,e-governance involves new styles of leadership, new ways of debating and deciding

policy and investment, new ways of accessing education, new ways of listening to

citizens and new ways of organizing and delivering information and services.

e-Governance is generally considered as a wider concept than e-government, since it

can bring about a change in the way citizens relate to governments and to each other.

e-Governance can bring forth new concepts of citizenship, both in terms of citizens

needs and responsibilities. Its objective is to engage, enable and empower the citizens

(UNESCO, 2009). However, one of the comprehensive definitions and typologies ofe-governance has been provided by the United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP) that is very similar to the UNESCO definition. Based on the extensive work

that UNDP has done in this area in the last few years, the following typology has been

developed for e-governance (UNDP, 2010). It has 3 core elements complemented by 3

cross-cutting components. These are described below:

a) Core Components: e-Administration: Public ICT investments to foster transparency and

accountability within public institutions, both national and local, to improve

their functioning. This component is usually linked to Public Administration

Reform (PAR) and state modernization programmes.

e-Service Delivery: Public ICT investments to foster efficiency andtransparency of public institutions in providing public services in all sectors.

This component is related to PAR, local governance, and access to justice

programmes.

e-Participation: Public ICT investments to foster interaction between publicinstitutions and citizens to promote better policies, services and public

operations. It includes three levels: information provision to citizens,



1314


4/21

e-Administratio

ne-Services

e-Participatio

Policy

Access and Connectivity

Access to

Information

Democrati

c

consultation with citizens, and dialogue between government and citizens.

This component is usually linked to voice and accountability, civil society

strengthening, and parliamentary development among others.

b) Cross-cutting Components:The three cross-cutting components include:

Policy Environment and Regulation: Public investments to support thecreation and implementation of ICTD and e-governance policies, legislation

and regulation as well as to build the internal institutional capacities of the

public entities involved in policy design, implementation and oversight. In

principle, such policies should be closely related to broader national

development goals.

Access to ICT and Connectivity: ICT investments in public and privateinformation infrastructure, connectivity and equipment to foster wider use bypeople. A typical example is telecenters or, more generally, the deployment of

public access points. This area of work is typical of the broader ICTD field.

Access to Information (A2I): Public ICT investments to promote thedigitalization and dissemination of public information among the overall

population. It is closely linked to the broader field of access to information

(A2I) which, in UNDPs work, refers to promoting the creation of national

legislation on A2I i.e., freedom of information acts.

This typology is presented on figure 1.

Figure 1: e-Governance Typology (UNDP, 2010)

For the purpose of this study, researchers relied on Heeks (2001) and UNESCO (2009)

definition of e-governance and its recent development by UNDP (2010) as described



1315


5/21

above. This definition gives a clear understanding of the issue and is based on the

latest knowledge accumulation in this field.

3. Theoretical Background

Many recent studies emphasized that the success of e-governance initiatives is

contingent upon designing these initiatives based on citizens values and needs

(Jaeger & Bertot, 2010; Rahman, 2009; Saxena, 2005; Shareef et al., 2010; Wang &

Zeng, 2009) and digital government must be oriented towards the citizens

(Asgarkhani, 2005). However, the actual needs, values and objectives of citizens

receive minor consideration in current e-governance design practice (Bertot et al.,

2008; Heeks & Bailur, 2007; van Dijk et al., 2008; Yildiz, 2007). Therefore, it is no

surprise that a theory of the needs and values of citizens on e-governance is lacking.

This will have to be derived from a general theory of the users needs and values ofnew technologies and applied to the special context of the e-governance. This study,

intends to begin working on such a theory, constructing a tentative model that

explains the citizens needs and values regarding e-governance. Initially, this model

will be very broad and will contain a large number of potential explanatory factors.

On the other hand, Flak & Rose (2005) stated that the e-government/e-governance

field, like most young fields, lacks a strong body of well-developed theories. Their

recommendation for dealing with theoretical immaturity in this field is to import and

adapt theories from other, more mature fields. Therefore, in order to use a systematicway to explore citizens needs and values on e-governance, the Value Theory or

Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) approach by Keeney (1992) from Decision Analysis

(DA) field was found as an appropriate theory that can be applied in this research.

Keeney (1992) claimed that the VFT approach is a proven technique for identifying

the values of an initiative and Siau, Sheng, & Nah (2004) and Sheng, Nah, & Siau

(2005b) emphasized that this approach provides a systematic way to articulate and

organize values.

4. The Value-Focused Thinking Approach Procedure

Value-Focused Thinking Approach is a concept proposed firstly by Keeney in his

book Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking in 1992. In this

book, Keeney proposed the concept of value proposition: value-focused thinking that

provides a framework for defining value to the customers (Keeney, 1992). Based on

Keeneys viewpoint, values are fundamentally important in any decision situation.

Actually, value is the most important object that is discussed about in VFT. So what is

a value? According to Keeney (1992) values are expressed as objectives, goals,

criteria, performance measures, weights, preferences, and/or objective functions in the



1316


6/21

discipline of operation research. To apply VFT approach on a certain domain,

researchers use a predefined procedure to secure the correct application of this

concept. This procedure includes a few steps (Nah, Siau, & Sheng, 2005) shown in

figure 2.

Figure 2: The Procedure of VFT Approach (Nah et al., 2005)

A brief explanation of each step is presented below: Step 1, identify wishes, concerns, problems, and values: A value may be

expressed or implied in various forms such as desired traits, characteristics of

consequences that matter, guidelines for actions, and priorities (Keeney, 1999;

Nah et al., 2005).

Step 2, convert user input into objectives: A value is expressed in variousways and must be converted to a common form representing its corresponding

objective. An objective consists of a decision context, an object, and a

direction of preference that one wants to strive toward (Keeney, 1999; Sheng,

Nah, & Siau, 2005a). As an example, in the case of Internet commerce, the

decision context is whether or not to make purchases over the Internet. The

object is a noun and the direction of preference is a verb. Therefore, quicker

way to purchase as a value becomes minimize purchase time, security

problems becomes assure system security," and "cost" becomes minimize

cost.

Step 3, distinguish between fundamental and means objectives: At thisstage, there will likely be a long list of objectives. The first thing to do in

organizing objectives is to combine similar objectives into categories (Keeney,

1999). After it, to differentiate between means and fundamental objectives,

Keeney (1999) suggested the Why it is important (WITI) test. He postulates

two possible types of answers:

o First, that the given objective is one of the essential reasons for interestin a given case. Such an objective is a fundamental objective.

o Second, a given objective is important because of its implication forsome other objective. This objective is a means objective.

For means objectives, a response to the WITI question identifies another objective.Repeated application of the WITI test progressively identifies a single fundamental

Identify

values

Convert

values to

objectives

Distinguish

between

means and

fundamental

objectives

Build

means-ends

network



1317


7/21

objective for a given decision context.

Step 4, build a means-ends objective network: The purpose of this step is tolink means objectives to each other as well as to fundamental objectives

(Keeney, 1999; Nah et al., 2005).

5. The Steps Involved in Exploring the e-Governance Values

In order to provide the basis for formulating a model of e-governance values from

citizens viewpoint, the e-governance values and objectives will be identified here. To

achieve this goal, the steps shown in figure 3 are followed.

Each of these steps is explained as below:

1) Finding previous studies on the subject: the recent studies on VFTapplication in IS are reviewed to find the relevant values applicable for

e-governance and generate the preliminarily list of e-governance values.2) Reviewing the recent literature on e-governance: the recent studies mostly

published in the leading refereed journals and conference proceedings during

the 6-year period from 2005 to mid 2010 discussing the e-governance goals

and objectives are reviewed to explore the relevant values and objectives of

e-governance.

3) Converting the identified values to objectives: based on the VFT procedure,the identified values are converted to the objective format. An objective

consists of a decision context, an object, and a direction of preference (Keeney,1999; Sheng et al., 2005a).

4) Distinguishing between means and fundamental objectives: the convertedobjectives are classified into two types: means and fundamental objectives

based on the WITI test proposed by Keeney (1994).

5) Combining the lists: two lists are combined and integrated to onecomprehensive list of e-governance objectives. In this step the terms with the

same concepts are unified with a common name.

Figure 3: The Steps Involved in Exploring the Values of e-Governance

Finding previousstudies on the

subject

Reviewing the

recent literature on

e-governance

Converting the

identified values

to objectives

Distinguishing

between means

and fundamental

objectives

Combining the

lists



1318


8/21

5.1 Finding the previous studies related to VFT and e-governance

To fulfill this step, it has been tried to find any previous study on e-governance values

that utilized the VFT approach. However, even by using different search strategies

based on the recommendations by Webster and Watson (2002) and different scientific

sources, no study was found that directly discussed this subject. The search procedure

resulted in a few studies that utilized VFT for other topic partially related to

e-governance. Kenney (1999), as a pioneer researcher in applying VFT in IS study,

used the VFT approach to generate a list of Internet commerce values to the customer.

The result of his work was a 91-objective list of customers values on I-commerce.

Torkzadeh and Dhillon (2002) followed Keeneys (1999) work and expanded the

values generated by Keeney (1999) to 125 items and developed two instruments that

measure the value of I-commerce to the customers. Torkzadeh and Dhillon (2002)

used a quantitative approach and conducted a survey to validate the proposedinstruments. As the result of their empirical work, a 5-factor, 21-item instrument for

measuring means objectives and a 4-factor, 16-item instrument for measuring

fundamental objectives that are important for Internet purchasing are suggested. Park

(2008) used the result of Torkzadeh and Dhillons (2002) work as a basis to explore

the e-government values to citizens. His work resulted in the identification of 76 items,

48 of which were the means objectives and the 28 were the fundamental objectives.

Park (2008) conducted an empirical study through survey and collected data from

e-government users. His study resulted in a 38-item list e-government values tocitizens. e-Government, is defined as the provision of routine government information

and transactions using electronic means (Belwal & Al-Zoubi, 2008), therefore, it is

representing the same concept of e-services delivery in e-governance definition. Thus,

for the purpose of this study and to identify the values of e-governance to citizens, the

items identified by Park (2008) for e-government values to citizens that is based on

previous empirical works are considered as a preliminary list of e-governance values.

This list will be completed throughout the other steps of exploring the values of

e-governance in this research.

5.2 Reviewing the recent literature on e-governance

Webster and Watson (2002) suggest that literature reviews are an important part of the

development of a research field. They offer the opportunity to synthesize and reflect

on previous theoretical work, thus providing documented grounding for the

advancement of knowledge. Therefore, in order to explore the relevant values and

objectives of e-governance in literature, a structured approach based on the

recommendations by Webster and Watson (2002) was chosen to find the relevant

articles, and then these articles were reviewed and analyzed for extracting the values



1319


9/21

and objectives of e-governance.

5.2.1 Selecting the recent literature

As Webster and Watson (2002) stated, a complete review covers the relevant literature

on the topic and is not limited to one research methodology, one set of journals, or one

geographic region. Referring to the previous section of this research regarding

e-governance domain area, it was mentioned that e-governance is an interdisciplinary

field spanning other disciplines. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the review was

not limited only to leading journals in the IS discipline and instead of searching by

journals, the focus was set for the search by topic across all relevant journals and also

reputed conference proceedings. Moreover, to find more related source material for

the review, the Go Backward and Go Forward strategy was taken into account as

recommended by Webster and Watson (2002). In Go Backward step, by reviewingthe citations for the key articles, prior articles important for review were determined.

In addition, in the Go Forward step, by using the Google Scholar search engine,

articles citing the most contributing articles were identified in the previous steps

selected and included in the review. In searching for proper articles, the timeframe

was set for a 6-year period from 2005 to mid 2010 to cover the recent developments

on the issue. According to Keeney (1992) values are expressed as objectives, goals,

criteria, performance measures, weights, preferences, and/or objective functions in the

discipline of operations research. Therefore, the keywords for selecting related articlesinclude e-governance, electronic governance, digital governance, e-governance goals,

objectives, criteria, performance measures, weights and preferences. In some cases

where search engine of one publisher, did not return any related articles, the broader

keywords, like e-government, e-participation and e-democracys goals and objectives

was selected to not miss the related articles in that publishers journals. This strategy

accompanied with the previous described steps in selecting articles made secure a

comprehensive source material for the purpose of analyzing and extracting

e-governance values. The process of searching for related literature resulted in 74

articles from a wide spectrum of reputed scientific publishers. Table 1 depicts the

publishers and their related selected articles regarding e-governance goals and

objectives. The list of the selected articles is not included in this article due to space

limitation; however, a copy of it is available upon request.



1320


10/21

Table 1: The Selected Articles by their Publishers

Publishers No of Articles

Blackwell Publishing 6

Communications of the Association for Information Systems(CAIS)

4

Elsevier 13Emerald Group Publishing 11

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) Published by IEEE

3

IEEE 2

IGI Publishing 15

IOS Press and the authors 2

Cambridge University Press - Oxford University Press 4

Sage Publications 3

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 7

Routledge - Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 4

Total 74

It should be acknowledged that the choice of proper keywords affect the article

sample. The indiscriminate use of e-Governance and e-Government in the

literature and in articles keywords was obvious. Therefore, in these cases, a more

detailed review was used to select the articles. As it stated by Sb, Rose, & Skiftenes

Flak (2008) in the absence of an established field with agreed terms of reference, this

problem is unavoidable. Moreover, establishing a core literature for an emerging

research area is difficult (Rose & Sanford, 2007), because even though authors clearly

write about e-governance, few of them currently use clearly this subject as a keyword

for their work. Therefore, even by using all the proposed strategies for selecting a

good article sample, missing some articles is unavoidable (Webster & Watson, 2002).

A systematic search ensures that a relatively complete census of relevant literature

accumulates (Webster & Watson, 2002). Therefore, while acknowledging the

limitations of the literature selection process, researchers consider their sample to

provide a good overview of the values of e-governance both because of the amount of

papers analyzed and the quality of the papers (mostly refereed journal papers from top

scientific publishers).

5.2.2 Analyzing the selected literature

Webster & Watson (2002) suggested that the elements of a good literature review

include a structured approach to identifying the source material and the use of a

concept matrix or other analytical framework that leads to a coherent conceptual

structuring of the topic. Following their recommendation, the concept-centric

approach was selected for reviewing the selected source material. Based on this

approach, the concepts determine the organizing framework of a review. Therefore, itwas not concentrated that each author identified which concepts; otherwise it focused



1321


11/21

on finding the relevant concepts according to the pre-defined concept matrix. After

reading each article, this matrix compiled gradually. This concept matrix developed

on a logical approach for grouping and presenting the key concepts of review. Based

on the selected definition of e-governance, three core components of e-governance

namely e-Administration, e-Services Delivery and e-Participation and three

cross-cutting components that are Policy Environment and Regulation, Access to

Information (A2I) and Access to ICT and Connectivity were selected as the main

categories of the concept matrix. During the review, it was determined if author(s)

provided new value, objective, goal criteria, performance measure, weight and

preference for e-governance and its sub-domains. In the case that authors just repeated

or supported the previous works findings, it was not considered as a new value.

However, as stated by Dawes (2008) the objectives of e-governance are interrelated.

Therefore, as expected, in some cases choosing the appropriate category for somediscovered objectives was not an easy task. Bearing in mind the selected definition of

e-governance, researchers tried to distinguish between different categories and choose

the best fitted one to the identified values. Webster & Watson (2002) stated that it can

be determined that the review is nearing completion when there is no finding of new

concepts in the article set. As it will be shown in the result of this literature review, the

point was reached where that many concepts were repeated by different authors and

no new concepts could be extracted from articles. Therefore, the search for new

articles stopped. In summarizing the results, wherever necessary, a common name forthe same concept named differently by the various authors was provided. The

definition and explanation by each author has been considered in this unification.

5.2.3 Converting the identified values to objectives

A value can be expressed in various ways. To develop some consistency in the

expression of the identified e-governance values, the value must be converted to a

common form representing its corresponding objective. Converting and grouping the

e-governance objective items into general objectives required a structured process.

Following Keeney (1999), to convert the identified e-governance value items, the

decision context was set as whether to use e-governance. The object was a noun and

the direction of preference is a verb. Thus, for example, making government

operations cost-effective became minimize government operations cost,

delivering of personalized services became maximize personalized services and

availability of e-petitions became promote e-petitions.

5.2.4 The means and fundamental objectives of e-governance values

In this step, first, the similar converted objectives obtained from the previous step



1322


12/21

were grouped into categories. For example, objectives such as Maximize information

reliability, Maximize information relevance to citizens and Maximize accuracy

and currentness of information and services were categorized as a part of a general

objective of Maximize Information Quality. After it, these objectives were

classified into two types: means and fundamental objectives using the Why it is

important or WITI test proposed by Keeney (1994). The overall objective here is

Maximize Citizens Satisfaction. The result of this step was the separated means and

fundamental objectives of e-governance.

5.2.5 Combining the lists of objectives

In this step, the e-governance objectives list derived from comprehensive literature

review (previous step) was combined with the result of section 5.1. As it was

mentioned before, the result of this section is a 38-item list identified by Park (2008)for e-government values to citizens. In this combination the terms with the same

concepts are unified with a common name. The result of this integration is a

comprehensive list of e-governance means and fundamental objectives. It contains 98

means objectives and 32 fundamental objectives. This list is presented in the appendix

of this article.

6. The Proposed e-Governance Values

Based on the result of the comprehensive literature review on e-governance valuesand VFT procedure, a 130-objective list containing 98 means objectives and 32

fundamental objectives of citizens values on e-governance was proposed. This list

can be considered as the potential objectives of citizens on e-governance. It is

believed that these two types of objectives are key elements of successful design of

e-governance initiatives. These objectives can be applied by governments in both high

level strategic planning and in a specific area development to improve the design of

their e-governance initiatives based on their citizens actual needs and values. This

will ensure a successful design of e-governance. The overall means and fundamental

objectives of e-governance are illustrated in figure 4.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

To make e-governance initiatives successful, these initiatives have to be designed

based on citizens needs and values. In order to cope with the absence of

well-developed theories and models on citizens values on e-governance, this study

tried to conceptualize the values of e-governance using the VFT approach. Following

4 steps, this research used a systematic way to explore the needs and values of citizens

on e-governance. This results in finding a 130-objective list, including 98 mean



1323


13/21

objectives and 32 fundamental objectives. Initially, this model is broad and contains a

large number of potential explanatory factors. This model can be validated using

further empirical works on different contexts, regions and countries to explore the

actual e-governance values to their citizens. Moreover, quantitative models of

e-governance value can be developed based on this model. The result, if applied, will

help governments, both in high level strategic planning and in specific area

developments, to improve the design of their e-governance initiatives based on their

citizens actual needs and values that will lead to the success of their initiatives.

Figure 4: The Means and Fundamental Objectives of e-Governance

Means Objectives of e-Governance Fundamental Objectives of e-Governance

Overall Objective

Maximize CitizensSatisfaction

Maximize PublicInstitutionsPerformance

Maximize ResourceUsage

Maximize Convenient

Information andServices

Maximize Enjoyment

Maximize EconomicDevelopment

Promote PublicManagement

Maximize CitizensEmpowerment

Maximize CitizensFeelings ofEngagement

MinimizeEnvironmental Impact

e-Administration

Maximize Government Information QualityMaximize Interactivity with GovernmentMaximize Public Administration AccountabilityMaximize Public Administration TransparencyMaximize Public Institutions ResponsivenessProvide Modern Public AdministrationFacilitate Government Reformation

e-Services Delivery

Maximize Ease of Services

Maximize Service PresentationMaximize Service QualityPromote Citizen Relationship ManagementMaximize Information QualityMaximize Service AccessAssure SecurityMaximize Transparency

e-Participation

Maximize Participation in Democratic ProcessesPromote e-Services

Promote e-VotingMaximize Public Interaction with GovernmentMaximize Public TrustMaximize Accountability

Provide Policy Environment and Regulation

MaximizeAccess to ICT and Connectivity

Maximize Access to Information



1324


14/21

REFERENCES

Andersen, K., & Henriksen, H. 2005. The first leg of e-government research:

Domains and application areas 1998-2003.International Journal of

Electronic Government Research, 1(4): 26-44.

Asgarkhani, M. 2005. Digital government and its effectiveness in public management

reform.Public Management Review, 7(3): 465-487.

Belwal, R., & Al-Zoubi, K. 2008. Public centric e-governance in Jordan: A field study

of people's perception of e-governance awareness, corruption, and trust.

Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 6(4):

317-333.

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & McClure, C. R. 2008. Citizen-centered e-government

services: benefits, costs, and research needs,Proceedings of the 2008

international conference on Digital government research. Montreal, Canada:Digital Government Society of North America.

Coursey, D., & Norris, D. 2008. Models of e-government: Are they correct? An

empirical assessment.Public Administration Review, 68(3): 523-536.

Dada, D. 2006. The failure of e-government in developing countries: A literature

review. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing

Countries, 27(6): 1-14.

Dawes, S. 2008. The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance.Public

Administration Review, 68(s1): S86-S102.Finger, M., & Pcoud, G. 2003. From e-Government to e-Governance? Towards a

model of e-Governance.Electronic Journal of e-Government, 1(1): 1-10.

Flak, L., & Rose, J. 2005. Stakeholder governance: adapting stakeholder theory to

e-government. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,

16(1): 31.

Grnlund, A. 2005. State of the art in e-Gov research: surveying conference

publications.International Journal of Electronic Government Research,

1(4): 1-25.

Grnlund, A., & Horan, T. A. 2005. Introducing e-gov: history, definitions, and issues.

Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15(1): 39.

Heeks, R. 2001. Understanding e-Governance for Development. , i-Government

Working Paper Series: Institute for Development Policy and Management,

University of Manchester.

Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. 2007. Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives,

philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information

Quarterly, 24(2): 243-265.

Hu, Y., Xiao, J., Pang, J., & Xie, K. 2005.A research on the appraisal framework of



1325


15/21

e-government project success. Paper presented at the The 7th International

Conference on Electronic Commerce, Xi'an, China.

Jaeger, P. T., & Bertot, J. C. 2010. Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating

User-centered and Citizen-centered E-government.International Journal of

Electronic Government Research, 6(2): 1-17.

Keeney, R. 1992. Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decisionmaking.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Keeney, R. 1994. Creativity in decision making with value-focused thinking. Sloan

Management Review, 35: 33-33.

Keeney, R. 1999. The value of Internet commerce to the customer. Management

Science, 45(4): 533-542.

Nah, F., Siau, K., & Sheng, H. 2005. The value of mobile applications: a utility

company study. Communications of the ACM, 48(2): 90.Ojo, A., & Estevez, E. 2008. Strategic Planning for Electronic Governance. Center for

Electronic Governance: Center for Electronic Governance, United Nation

University.

Park, R. 2008.Measuring Factors that Influence the Success of E-Government

Initiatives. Paper presented at the the 41st Annual Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008), Hawaii.

Rahman, H. 2009. Local E-Government Management: A Wider Window of

E-Governance.International Journal of Information CommunicationTechnologies and Human Development, 1(2): 48-76.

Riley, T. B. 2003. E-Government vs. E-Governance: Examining the Difference in a

Changing Public Sector Climate. Ottawa: The Commonwealth Secretariat and

Government Telecommunications and Information Services, Public Works and

Government Services.

Rose, J., & Sanford, C. 2007. Mapping eparticipation research: four central challenges.

Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 20(1): 55.

Sb, ., Rose, J., & Skiftenes Flak, L. 2008. The shape of eParticipation:

Characterizing an emerging research area. Government information quarterly,

25(3): 400-428.

Saxena, K. B. C. 2005. Towards excellence in e-governance.International Journal of

Public Sector Management, 18(6): 498-513.

Shareef, M. A., Kumar, V., Kumar, U., Chowdhury, A. H., & Misra, S. C. 2010.

E-Government Implementation Perspective: Setting Objective and Strategy

International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 6(1): 59-77.

Sheng, H., Nah, F. F. H., & Siau, K. 2005a. Strategic implications of mobile

technology: A case study using value-focused thinking. The Journal of



1326


16/21

Strategic Information Systems, 14(3): 269-290.

Sheng, H., Nah, F. F. H., & Siau, K. 2005b. Values of silent commerce: A study using

value-focused thinking approach. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the

Eleventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, Omaha, NE.

Siau, K., Sheng, H., & Nah, F. 2004. The value of mobile commerce to customers.

Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Third Annual Workshop on HCI

Research in MIS, Washington, D.C.

Sriramesh, K., & Rivera-Sanchez, M. 2006. E-government in a corporatist,

communitarian society: the case of Singapore.New Media & Society, 8(5):

707.

Torkzadeh, G., & Dhillon, G. 2002. Measuring factors that influence the success of

Internet commerce.Information Systems Research, 13(2): 187-204.

UNDP. 2010. Mapping of UNDP e-governance Activities: United NationsDevelopment Programme.

UNESCO. 2009. E-Governance: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO).

UNPAN. 2008. United Nations e-Government Survey 2008: From e-Government to

Connected Governance: United Nations Public Administration Network.

van Dijk, J., Peters, O., & Ebbers, W. 2008. Explaining the acceptance and use of

government Internet services: A Multivariate analysis of 2006 survey data in

the Netherlands. Government information quarterly, 25(3): 379-399.Wang, J., & Zeng, T. 2009. Citizen-Centered E-Government Strategy Governance

Framework: Case of China. Paper presented at the 2009 International

Conference on Web Information Systems and Mining, Shanghai, China.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a

literature review.MIS Quarterly, 26(2): 13-23.

Yildiz, M. 2007. E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and

ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3): 646-665.

APPENDIX

Means Objectives of e-Governance

e-Administration

Maximize Government Information QualityMaximize information assimilationFacilitate dissemination of information between government and other partiesFacilitate dissemination of information within government

Maximize Interactivity with GovernmentPromote interaction with business and industry



1327


17/21

Promote intra- and intergovernmental relations

Maximize Public Administration AccountabilityMaximize accountability of roles and responsibilities of governmentMaximize accountability of structures and processes of government

Maximize Public Administration TransparencyMaximize transparency on roles and responsibilities of governmentMaximize transparency on structures and processes of governmentPromote surveillance over governmentMinimize corruptionMaximize service allocation according to rules

Maximize Public Institutions ResponsivenessMaximize trust on roles and responsibilities of governmentMaximize trust on structures and processes of government

Provide Modern Public AdministrationProvide reengineered and digitized government processesMinimize administrative burden

Facilitate Government Reformation

Minimize administrative arrogancePromote government culture reformationPromote reformation on public service perception of its role

e-Services Delivery

Maximize Ease of ServicesFacilitate choice in information and services selectionMaximize control over the delivery of servicesProvide communication for offered services

Maximize Service PresentationMaximize user-friendliness of websitesMaximize Internet speeds during peak usage timesMaximize service delivery in different languages

Maximize Service Quality

Maximize transaction accuracyProvide reliable delivery of servicesMaximize accuracy and currentness of servicesMaximize online exchange of money with governmentMaximize variety of servicesMaximize value-added servicesMaximize equality between citizens in service deliveryMaximize integration of government services

Promote Citizen Relationship ManagementMaximize personalized services



1328


18/21

Promote personal identity usageMinimize time in queries and complaints handlingMinimize direct contacts with government for servicesProvide helpdesk (personal contact if necessary)

Maximize Information QualityMaximize information reliabilityMaximize information relevance to citizensMaximize accuracy and currentness of informationMaximize information on demandMinimize missing informationMaximize integration of government informationProvide appropriate content and servicesPromote information flow

Maximize Service Access

Facilitate one-stop-service counterMaximize accessibility to servicesMaximize delivery channelsProvide 24 hours/7 days services

Assure SecurityAssure privacy protectionAssure security in transaction (PIN-enabled security)Discourage attacksMinimize errorsDiscourage fraudDiscourage hackingMinimize misuse of credit cardMinimize misuse of personal informationMinimize sharing of personal informationMaximize balance between customization and confidentiality (no usage ofdata for other purposes which the data is collected)

Maximize TransparencyMaximize transparency in public procurement processMaximize transparency in transactionMinimize malpractices

e-Participation

Maximize Participation in Democratic ProcessesPromote reach and range (inclusion) of democracyPromote participation in the making of social changePromote engagement of public in policy process (e-engagement)Maximize citizens inclusion in new digital government servicesplanning/developmentMaximize citizens inclusion in some type of government reformplanning/developmentPromote participation in party and group political processes (e-politics)



1329


19/21

Promote e-ServicesPromote e-petitionsPromote online debatePromote online plebiscitePromote online opinion polls

Promote policy forum: dialogues between citizens and policy makers onpolicy issues (e-discussion)

Promote e-VotingMaximize e-voting reliabilityMaximize e-voting simplicityPromote electronic distance voting

Maximize Public Interaction with GovernmentMaximize interaction between public servants and the citizenry and interestgroups (e-consultation)

Facilitate public administration connection to citizensPromote ability to choose interaction manner with governmentsPromote government feedback to citizen input (e-decision making)Maximize reply/resolve of petitions

Maximize Public Trust

Maximize public confidence and trustMaximize transparency in policy-makingPromote decision-making tracking

Maximize AccountabilityMaximize democracy accountabilityMaximize accountability of elected officials and civil servantsMaximize openness of elected officials and civil servants

Policy Environment and Regulation

Provide Policy Environment and RegulationPromote policies and protocols for individual privacy protectionPromote regulating the ICT infrastructure

Access to ICT and ConnectivityMaximizeAccess to ICT and Connectivity

Maximize building the ICT infrastructureMaximize broadband deploymentMinimize digital divideMaximize access to information and servicesMaximize public access facilities (public Internet kiosks, telecenters, )

Access to Information (A2I)

Maximize Access to Information

Maximize online information provision of laws, regulations, and policies(e-information)Maximize openness of information to be accessible for all stakeholders



1330


20/21

Promote rules and conditions for gathering, protecting, sharing and usinginformation

Fundamental Objectives of e-Governance

Overall Objective

Maximize Citizens Satisfaction

Maximize Public Institutions PerformancePromote government operations qualityMinimize government response timeMinimize government operations costMaximize government effectivenessMaximize government efficiency

Maximize Resource Usage

Optimize resource utilizationPromote future resource planning

Maximize Convenient Information and ServicesProvide hassle free servicesMaximize streamlined public servicesMaximize ease of information and service findingMaximize usefulness of information and serviceMaximize efficiency and effectiveness of service deliveryMinimize service timeMinimize service costMinimize communication cost

Maximize EnjoymentMake visiting online services a social eventInspire citizens to use online servicesMinimize regret of using online services

Maximize Economic DevelopmentPromote public service excellence

Maximize regional developmentFacilitate services for different groups of society

Promote Public ManagementPromote public policiesPromote democratic institutions and processesPromote government-citizen relationships

Maximize Citizens EmpowermentPromote addressing the needs and priorities of public

Promote voicing comments and complaints about government programs andservicesProvide ability to publicize government misdeeds



1331


21/21

Promote challenging the distribution of political power

Maximize Citizens Feelings of EngagementMaximize feelings of active contribution to democratic processesMaximize feelings of being listened to and the opinion are welcomed, valued

and acted upon

Minimize Environmental ImpactMinimize environmental damagesMinimize pollution



2011 E Case SMJafari

Documents

Transcript of 2011 E Case SMJafari