2012
DOI: 10.1007/s40171-013-0021-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Critical Factors for Successful Implementation of E-governance Programs: A Case Study of HUDA

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…-organization and institutional forms for public innovation support (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2010;EUFP 2013;Goel et al 2012;Luke et al 2010;Minogue 2005;Fung, Wright 2001;Gavin, Muers 2002;MacPherson 2001;Straits 2002;Sherwood 2002); -the role and models of public innovation support in fostering innovation in business (Naštase 2013; Noor Al-Jedaiah 2010; Barrett, Hill 1984;Braczyk et al 1998;Miles 2004;Earl 2004;Tan 2004;Melnikas 2005);…”
Section: Previous Research Of Public Innovation Support Impact Assessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…-organization and institutional forms for public innovation support (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2010;EUFP 2013;Goel et al 2012;Luke et al 2010;Minogue 2005;Fung, Wright 2001;Gavin, Muers 2002;MacPherson 2001;Straits 2002;Sherwood 2002); -the role and models of public innovation support in fostering innovation in business (Naštase 2013; Noor Al-Jedaiah 2010; Barrett, Hill 1984;Braczyk et al 1998;Miles 2004;Earl 2004;Tan 2004;Melnikas 2005);…”
Section: Previous Research Of Public Innovation Support Impact Assessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some scientific research has been made to identify the effects of public innovation support measures nevertheless this research remains fragmented. By referring to the current state of art in supporting innovation by different public actions the main research areas are as follows: − organisational and institutional forms for public innovation support (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010;EUFP, 2013;Goel, 2012;Luke, 2010;Minogue, 2005;Fung & Wright, 2001;Gavin & Muers, 2002;MacPherson, 2001;Straits, 2002;Sherwood, 2002); − the role and models of public innovation support in fostering innovation in business (Naštase, 2013;Noor, 2010;Barrett & Hill, 1984;Braczyk, Cooke, & Heidenreich, 1998;Miles, 2004;Earl, 2004;Tan, 2004;Melnikas, 2005); − public sector as a main developer of innovations. The paradigm of full governmental involvement for the generation and dissemination of innovation (Pacharapha & Ractham, 2012;Rutkauskas & Račinskaja, 2013;Bhatta, 2003;Cainelli, Evangelista, & Savona, 2004); − provision of innovation support services in line with other public measures.…”
Section: Literature Review Previous Research Of Public Innovation Supmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a direct impact of the economic crisis, the innovation gap in the EU risks to be widened again. The need of new approaches for the assessment of public innovation support is caused by: − limited understanding on how to assess the relevance of public innovation support schemes and their adjustment to the needs of businesses and public interest (EUFP, 2013;Goel, 2012); − limited effectiveness of public innovation support (Luke, 2010); − lack of an indicator systems suitable for the comparative analysis of complex public innovation support systems at national levels and at EU level; − absence of theoretical background which could justify the creation and development of complex public innovation support systems relevant to the national socio-economic challenges.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results from the analysis of internal and external factors can be used for the targeted fostering of innovations and their application in several ways. In the broadest sense, innovations can be applied in four ways (Huang et al, 2009;Savaya et al, 2009;Goel et al, 2012;Alam et al, 2013): statically (transferring the existing knowledge); dynamically (learning collectively); formally (according to the rules and regulations); informally (communication ways).…”
Section: The Value Of Clustering Of Knowledge Innovation and Technolmentioning
confidence: 99%