Exploring citizens' perception of government to citizen services

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of undertaking a systemic view of evaluating the success of government to citizen (G2C) services and identifying the salient factors related with citizens' low adoption of G2C services.Design/methodology/approachThe paper adopts a quantitative case perspective and derives a conceptual research model that encompasses various dimensions of e‐government that relate to citizen adoption behaviour within the framework of theory of planned behaviour (TPB). The model is empirically tested for validity and reliability.FindingsQuantitative findings have been presented, which will be valuable for academics and practitioners doing research in identifying factors for e‐government adoption.Research limitations/implicationsFurther research efforts should explore new dimensions or test the causal relationships among proposed factors within the boundary of e‐government. In that, the paper is limited contextually where attention should be made not to generalise the findings beyond the empirical findings within the case analysis.Practical implicationsThe paper supports a practitioner perspective through a consideration of a holistic approach to e‐government adoption that relate to citizen adoption behaviour. e‐Government system developers may find the findings useful when designing and implementing an e‐government system.Originality/valueThe paper is original and is the first phase of a research study. It provides an innovative approach to e‐government adoption based on TPB.

Cross-country determinants of citizens' e-government reuse intention: empirical evidence from Kuwait and Poland

“…• Perceived effectiveness (AL Athmay et al, 2016) • Efficiency • Government efficiency services (Mirchandani et al, 2008) • Reliability Sharma & Mishra, 2017; • Perceived services response (Shareef et al, 2011) • Demonstrability (Hussein et al, 2011) • Accessibility • Access to speed (Gupta et al, 2017) • Responsiveness Sharma & Mishra, 2017; • Empathy Sharma & Mishra, 2017) • Assurance Sharma & Mishra, 2017) • Communication • Physical facilities (Sharma & Mishra, 2017) • One-stop shop (Sharma & Mishra, 2017) Channel characteristics (Venkatesh et al, 2016)  Convenience  Personalization Behavior of intermediary (Sharma & Mishra, 2017)  Responsiveness  Empathy  Assurance Transaction of the service [Trust] • Trust in/for/of Internet (Abu-Shanab & Al-Azzam, 2012;Alomari et al, 2014;Carter, 2008;Carter & Belanger, 2004;Carter et al, 2016;Emrah Kanat & Özkan, 2009;Hussein et al, 2011;Kumar et al, 2018;Kurfali et al, 2017;Lallmahomed et al, 2017;Li, 2021;Mansoori et al, 2018;Ozkan & Kanat, 2011;Rehman et al, 2012;Schaupp et al, 2009;Verkijika & De Wet, 2018;Wang & Lo, 2012;…”

“…• Information quality Abu-Shanab & Al-Azzam, 2012;Carter & Belanger, 2004;Carter & Weerakkkody, 2008;Emrah Kanat & Özkan, 2009;Hussein et al, 2011;Kumar et al, 2018;Kurfali et al, 2017;Lallmahomed et al, 2017;Li, 2021;Mansoori et al, 2018;Mensah & Adams, 2020;Ozkan & Kanat, 2011;Pappas et al, 2018;Rehman et al, 2012;Srivastava & Teo, 2009;Verkijika & De Wet, 2018;Wang & Lo, 2012;Zhang & Zhu, 2020;  Internal political self-efficacy (Hussein et al, 2011)  External political self-efficacy (Hussein et al, 2011) • Trust in intermediary (Al-Sobhi et al, 2012;Kumar et al, 2018;Weerakkkody et al, 2013) • Trust in e-Government services Karavasilis et al, 2016;Pappas et al, 2018; • Trust in e-Government organization • Trust in channels that provide e-government services • Trust (with no further conceptualization) (Abdel-Fattah, 2015;Alryalat et al, 2012;Carter & Weerakkkody, 2008;Emrah Kanat & Özkan, 2009;Moreno et al, 2013;Samuel et al, 2020;Deden Witarsyah et al, 2017; • Trust in technology/Internet (Al-Sobhi et al, 2012; • Trust in Internet technology (Srivastava & Teo, 2009) • Trust in technology (Gupta et al, 2017)  Trust in data storage and management  Trust in technical infrastructure • Trust of the system Schaupp et al, 2009) • Trustworthi...…”

“…• Years of internet experience Colesca & Liliane, 2008;Hussein et al, 2011;Ojha et al, 2009;Reddick, 2005;Samuel et al, 2020; • Years of MS Excel experience (Ojha et al, 2009) • Familiarity with the Internet Sawalha et al, 2019) • Computer self-efficacy/experience Hussein et al, 2011;Kumar et al, 2018;Lallmahomed et al, 2017;Shareef et al, 2011;Verkijika & De Wet, 2018; • Technological expertise (Dimitrova & Chen, 2006) • Technologies owned • Internet experience (Al-Awadhi & Morris, 2008;Kumar et al, 2007) • Internet and computer skills confidence (Alomari et al, 2014;Alomari et al, 2012) • Time spent on Internet/computer usage AL Athmay et al, 2016;Hussein et al, 2011;Ojha et al, 2009;Ozkan & Kanat, 2011;Rehman et al, 2012;Rodrigues et al, 2016; • Internet/computer skill Emrah Kanat & Özkan, 2009;Gupta et al, 2017;Ozkan & Kanat, 2011) • Perceived awareness Karavasilis et al, 2016;Kumar et al, 2018;Lallmahomed et al, 2017;Rehman et al, 2012;Rehman et al, 2016;Shareef et al,…”

The Role of Social Influence and Prior Experience on Citizens' Intention to Continuing to Use E-Government Systems

“…email vs. fax use in traditional systems) and the second stage of adoption; the first can then be compared with the second. In this manner, there is a change in citizens' perception while continuing to use e-government (the transition from the first adoption to the second adoption stage of e-government, and so on), depending on the quality of service or information, and this change is subject to trust in the Internet or government, the user's skills or accessibility-related issues (Kanat and Ozkan, 2009). There appears then to be acceleration in the growth of citizen's experience on how difficult the innovation is to use, comparing it with their own needs and how others think about it.…”

A Study of Collaborative Governance and Its Effect on Tourism Sector during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia

“…Collaborative governance explains that managers and public representatives working in local government agencies need to develop a customer-oriented approach to delivering services (Ciborra & Navarra, 2005;Jones et al, 2007). They need a clear idea of the new government's intentions (Emrah Kanat & Özkan, 2009) and what they are doing to achieve that new government (Hope, 2009;Jones et al, 2007). On the other end, local communities need to come forward to share knowledge and concerns with public managers and representatives to develop holistic efforts to achieve the best possible outcome of development projects (Bozeman, 2002;Dollery, 2003;Lahat & Sher-Hadar, 2020).…”