Information Systems Security (ISS) of E-Government for Sustainability: A Dual Path Model of ISS Influenced by Institutional Isomorphism

Abstract

This study investigated information systems security (ISS) as one of the important issues of e-government for sustainable development. ISS is becoming increasingly important in the discourse on information technology-related organizational transformation, and governments need to undergo organizational transformation to establish an effective ISS system for advancing e-government capacity which plays a vital role in achieving sustainability. Furthermore, ISS breaches are becoming the norm rather than the exception, but ISS can only be achieved when employees fully and firmly embrace the concept by changing their behavior to comply with advanced ISS technologies. A research model is theoretically developed in this context based on institution theory, which proposes a dual path model consisting of legitimacy-leading organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) and organizational cynicism-causing counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) in the process of innovating ISS for e-government. This dual-path model is empirically tested against 388 data collected from information security managers in 30 departments and councils within Korea's central government. A structural model evaluation of the collected data principally validates the research model. The results indicate that the path through legitimacy, influenced by normative and coercive isomorphism, is stronger than that through organizational cynicism. The data largely supports the proposed research model, confirming the applicability of institutional theory in explaining the institutionalization processes in effective ISS compliance at the organizational and individual levels. The implications of these findings are then discussed in detail.

Education for Sustainable Development: Emerging Themes from Adopters of a Declaration

“…Masocha and Fatoki [20] find that coercive isomorphism, through policies, laws, standards, and regulations, is a significant driver of small businesses adopting, for example, initiatives related to sustainability. There are two other isomorphic types; one is mimetic, based on mimicking successful organizational structures and initiatives, and the other is normative, whereby expert views and influence become widely adopted [21].…”

“…It was the Talloires Declaration that signaled political engagement and subsequent strategic and structural aspects of organizational change. The latter comment about measurement as a way to build networks and effectively carry change through to multiple institutions is a further example of both normative and coercive isomorphism [21].…”

“…Adherence to standards, as indicated by the third comment, was a coercive influence [20], which also had elements of normative isomorphism, since expert opinion encouraged standardization and also mimetic isomorphism [21], due to many of the other universities aiming for star ratings on their buildings.…”

Component model of data transmission protection in e-government system

“…Вже зазаз деякі країни для електронних транзакцій через портал електронного самоврядування, такі як, наприклад, отримання водійського посвідчення, вимагають конфіденційної інформації та аутентифікації, хоча такі дані також можуть бути модифіковані. У роботі [8] пропонується хороше рішення, яке зберігає автентифікацію, конфіденційність, цілісність та незмінність даних на різних рівнях як найважливіші характеристики захищених даних, однак у дослідженні розглядається лише окремий додаток, який піддається ризику, і не розглядається можливість впливу на зазначені компоненти з боку інших компонентів інфраструктури.…”

A Adopção de Medidas Formais, Informais e Técnicas de Segurança da Informação e sua Relação com as Pressões do Ambiente Institucional

“…A abordagem institucional foi utilizada recentemente em trabalhos sobre o tema (Tejay & Barton, 2013;Anthony et al, 2014;Lopes & Sá-Soares, 2014;Alkalbani, Deng & Kam, 2015;Angst, Block, D'Arcy, & Kelley, 2017;Alkalbani et al, 2017;Hou et al, 2018;Choi, Lee, & Hwang, 2018), mas, se analisados em conjunto, esses trabalhos são inconclusivos quanto aos mecanismos institucionais que pressionam as organizações a adoptarem medidas de Segurança da Informação, pois apontam para pressões normativas e miméticas (Tejay & Barton, 2013), coercitivas (AlKalbani et al, 2015Hou et al, 2018), miméticas e coercitivas (Anthony et al, 2014;Alkalbani et al, 2017), e coercitivas e normativas (Kam et al, 2013;Lopes & Sá-Soares, 2014;Choi et al, 2018). Além disso, os trabalhos abordam principalmente medidas formais (Williams et al, 2013;Kam et al, 2013;Lopes & Sá-Soares, 2014;Anthony et al, 2014;Angst et al, 2017;Alkalbani et al, 2017;Hou et al, 2018;Choi et al, 2018), dando pouca atenção às medidas informais e técnicas.…”