Direct vs indirect e-government adoption: an exploratory study

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors that influence direct and indirect adoption of e-government services in India. Design/methodology/approach A conceptual model has been proposed by integrating the factors influencing adoption of e-government services from extant literature. A quantitative technique is used for the purpose of the study. Findings The study classifies e-government adoption in two types: direct adoption and indirect adoption. The study has found that there is some difference between the factors influencing direct and indirect e-government adoption. Perceived awareness, perceived usefulness, trust in internet, trust in government and social influence are found to be positively correlated to direct and indirect e-government adoption. Availability of resources, computer self-efficacy, perceived ease-of-use, perceived compatibility, multilingual option and voluntariness are positively correlated to direct e-government adoption and negatively correlated to indirect e-government adoption. Perceived image is found to be significant for direct e-government adoption but non-significant for indirect adoption. Trust in intermediary is found to be significant only for indirect e-government adoption. Research limitations/implications The sample size of 382 may not be a proper representation of a country like India, which has huge diversity and is densely populated. The study has been conducted in India, which is a developing country. The result might not be significant for developed countries. Practical implications The findings of this study provide useful insights into the decision-making process of e-government users in India and similar emerging economies. These findings can be important for government officials tasked with providing e-governance services. Originality/value Despite the digital divide, how the government is expecting its citizens to access e-government services and derive benefits and how the needy will be able to cope with the mandatory e-government services is an interesting topic to study. This leads to a new concept of indirect adoption.

Examining the impact of e-government service process on user satisfaction

“…As this study empirically supports, there is more to e-government adoption and use than suggested in TAM (Davis, 1989) and other e-government adoption literature (e.g. Sahu and Gupta, 2007; Gupta et al , 2008; Liu et al , 2014; Venkatesh et al , 2014; Rana et al , 2016; Kumar et al , 2017, 2018).…”

“…E-government refers to the delivery of public services and information through the internet or other digital means (Affisco and Soliman, 2006; Becker et al , 2006; Kumar et al , 2007; Calista and Melitski, 2012; Kumar et al , 2017). E-government enhances the transparency, efficiency and accessibility of the public services and is increasingly recognized as a key facilitator for transforming public governance (Affisco and Soliman, 2006; Akkaya et al , 2012; Kumar et al , 2018). Governments across the world are making an effort in making their services and information available to the public through the internet (Kumar et al , 2007).…”

“…Despite diffusion and substantial growth and development of e-government universally, it is not clear whether citizens are ready to embrace those services in developing countries (Carter and Belanger, 2005; Kumar et al , 2018). Despite huge investments, most government initiatives are often faced with acceptance problems (Akkaya et al , 2012; Kumar et al , 2018), and a large number of e-government project especially in developing countries fail due to its non-acceptance by citizens (Danish, 2006; Al-Sobhi et al , 2010; Singh Kalsi and Kiran, 2013). The success of e-government initiatives depends, to a great extent, on how well the targeted users for such services, citizens in general, make use of them (Kumar et al , 2007).…”

An examination of the e-government service value chain

“…As with traditional government offices, service quality plays a crucial role in the success of e-government (Kumar et al , 2018, 2007; Parasuraman et al , 2005; Sachan et al , 2018). Many studies highlight the benefits of e-government in both developed and least developed countries, such as United Kingdom, Estonia, China, India, Indonesia, Oman and so on and suggest that the quality of government services is an important factor, which influences the success of e-government (Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012; Sachan et al , 2018; Sharma, 2015).…”

Digitalisierungsfortschritt föderaler Einheiten: Ein Vergleich der Ausgestaltungen kantonaler ePlattformen in der Schweiz

“…Das Modell der Übernahmekategorien findet auch in neuerer Zeit noch Beachtung, indem das Modell etwa in Zusammenhang mit Marktübernahmen von Innovationen bei Energietechnologien angewendet (Wüstenhagen, Wolsink, & Bürer 2007) oder im Bereich von Influencern und Meinungsführern referenziert wird (Geber 2019;Casaló, Flavián & Ibáñez-Sánchez 2018;Zhang, Fam, Goh & Dai 2018). Zudem wurde die Theorie der «Innovationsdiffusion» von Rogers (1995) vom Privatsektor auf die öffentlichen Verwaltungen übertragen und in der Forschung über die Adoption und Diffusion von eGovernment respektive eServices angewendet (Kumar, Sachan & Mukherjee 2018;Zhang, Xu, Xiao 2014;Mahadeo 2009;Carter & Weerakkody 2008;Tung & Rieck 2005;Carter & Belanger 2003;Henriksen 2006;Muhdi & Boutellier 2010). Dabei werden die Herausforderungen hinsichtlich der Diffusion von eGovernment und deren Einflussfaktoren im Kontext der Diffusion von Innovationen erläutert (Al-Hadidi & Rezgui 2010).…”