Upload
jafari2000
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1313
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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,
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1314
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1315
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1316
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1317
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1318
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1319
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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.
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1320
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1321
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1322
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1323
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1324
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1325
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1326
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1327
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1328
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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)
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1329
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1330
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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
2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
1331
8/3/2019 2011 E Case SMJafari
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 & e-Tech International Conference
January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan