User experience of e-government: the Nigeria Immigration Service

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify key considerations influencing the adoption and use of e-government services by providing insights into users’ views of their experience of an e-government service in a developing country, the website of the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS). Design/methodology/approach An online questionnaire-based survey was conducted to capture perceptions of the user experience with the NIS website. Descriptive statistics for each of the factors that contribute to the user experience are reported and discussed, with reference to open comments and previous literature. These factors are security and support, trust, ease of use, website quality, content and information, perceived benefits, convenience and perceived barriers. Findings There is strong evidence of concern in relation to the security of financial transactions, the use of personal data and trustworthiness, which is aggravated by inadequate user support. There is a lack of consensus regarding ease of use, website quality and content and information. In terms of barriers and benefits, there was a general agreement that the website offered greater convenience than alternative channels, but some concerns were identified regarding the reliability of technology, and, for users in Nigeria, the reliability of the electricity supply. Originality/value This paper adds to the very sparse literature on e-government in Nigeria, as well as extending consideration of the public value approach to e-government in developing countries.

Improving qualities of e‐government services in Rwanda: A service provider perspective

“…Papadomichelaki and Mentzas () consider navigation, personalization, and technical efficiency as ease of use constructs. Okunola and Rowley () associate ease of use and website quality with service quality. Several studies suggest that website quality influences service quality (Horan & Abhichandani, ; Kaisara & Pather, ; Verdegem & Verleye, ).…”

“…The quality of being reached and used by many users (Alawneh, Al-Refai, & Batiha, 2013;Al-Busaidy & Weerakkody, 2009;Anwer et al, 2016;Bertot & Jaeger, 2008;Kaisara & Pather, 2011;Okunola & Rowley, 2013;Papadomichelaki & Mentzas, 2012;Sigwejo & Pather, 2016) 2. Availability The quality of being at the users' disposal all of the time (Al-Busaidy & Weerakkody, 2009;Anwer et al, 2016;Papadomichelaki & Mentzas, 2012;Verdegem & Verleye, 2009) 3.…”

“…Availability The quality of being at the users' disposal all of the time (Al-Busaidy & Weerakkody, 2009;Anwer et al, 2016;Papadomichelaki & Mentzas, 2012;Verdegem & Verleye, 2009) 3. Information quality The degree to which information is ready, complete, clear, and accurate (Alanezi, Mahmood, & Basri, 2012;DeLone & McLean, 2003;Kaisara & Pather, 2011;Okunola & Rowley, 2013;Rasyid & Alfina, 2017;Verdegem & Verleye, 2009) 4. Awareness Knowledge of existing services (Ahmed et al, 2015;Alawneh et al, 2013;Anwer et al, 2016;Sharma & Mishra, 2017;Sigwejo & Pather, 2016;Verdegem & Verleye, 2009)…”

“…Gains from a service (Ahmed et al, 2015;Alias, Idris, Ashaari, & Kasimin, 2011;Horan & Abhichandani, 2006;Okunola & Rowley, 2013;Osman et al, 2014;Sigwejo & Pather, 2016) 6. Cost Price of a service (Andersen & Medaglia, 2008;Osman et al, 2014;Verdegem & Verleye, 2009) 7.…”

“…Cost Price of a service (Andersen & Medaglia, 2008;Osman et al, 2014;Verdegem & Verleye, 2009) 7. Information Security The quality of ensuring information confidentiality, integrity, and availability (Alanezi et al, 2012;Anwer et al, 2016;Kaisara & Pather, 2011;Okunola & Rowley, 2013;Papadomichelaki & Mentzas, 2012;Seyal, Tajuddin, Rahman, & Abidin, 2015;Sharma, 2015;Verdegem & Verleye, 2009)…”