The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-3845.htm

An examination of the E-government

service value
e-government service value chain chain
Rajiv Kumar
Indian Institute of Management Kashipur, Kashipur, India and
Amrita School of Business, Coimbatore, India
Ritu Kumar Received 30 September 2018
Mukhyamantri Laghu Evam Kutir Udyam Vikas Board, Ranchi, India Revised 28 March 2019
6 March 2020
Amit Sachan Accepted 8 May 2020
Indian Institute of Management Ranchi, Ranchi, India, and
Piyush Gupta
Fortune Institute of International Business, New Delhi, India

Abstract
Purpose – E-government quality (e-GovQual) and e-government user value (e-GUV) are multidimensional
concepts. While previous studies have identified apparent factors influencing e-government satisfaction
(e-GovSat) and e-government adoption intention (e-GovAI), such as e-GovQual and e-GUV, but they have
neglected to explain the influence of the dimensions of these two concepts. The purpose of this research is to
study e-government service value chain (e-GSVC) one-GovQual dimensions, e-GUV dimensions, e-GovSat and
e-GovAI.
Design/methodology/approach – The study employs a quantitative method to test the hypotheses and
validate the proposed model. Data are collected from 378 e-government users across different parts of India
comprising of different demographic characteristics. The model is analyzed using structural equation
modeling.
Findings – The findings highlight the impact of the dimensions of e-GovQual (efficiency, trust, reliability and
citizen support) on the dimensions of e-GUV (functional, economic, social and emotional value) as e-GUV
dimensions affect e-GovSat, which in turn influences e-GovAI. The results validate the e-GSVC and also stress
the partial mediating role of the dimensions of e-GUV on the relationship between the dimensions of e-GovQual
and e-GovSat.
Research limitations/implications – The sample size of 378 may not be a proper representation of a
country like India, which has huge diversity within its vast population.
Practical implications – The study offers practitioners a clear picture and a useful guide to better
understand the drivers of value, satisfaction and adoption in the case of e-government users.
Originality/value – This study is probably the first attempt toward demonstrating the process influencing
e-GovSat via e-GUV dimensions originating from excellent e-GovQual dimensions to ultimately trigger
e-GovAI.
Keywords E-Government, E-Government quality, Value chain, Satisfaction, Quantitative, Adoption, India
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The increasing use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) by institutions has
also dramatically impacted public services and their delivery via Internet websites and
portals, smartphones, social media and kiosks situated in places accessible to the public
(Nations, 2018). The world over, countries are taking several initiatives to promote
e-governance, mainly to build a direct online connection with the common people and other
stakeholders (Alzahrani et al., 2017; Bertot et al., 2010). E-government is defined as
government’s use of web-based technologies and applications, or e-services, that enhance the
access and delivery of governmental services and information to the government’s citizens, Information Technology & People
residents, business, governmental and other relevant entities (Layne and Lee, 2001). A report © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-3845
by the United Nation in 2018 (Nation, 2018) highlights a persistent positive global trend DOI 10.1108/ITP-09-2018-0438
ITP toward higher levels of e-government development. E-government occupies a position of
ever-increasing importance on the public service delivery landscape. Most developed
countries currently have already adopted e-government services while the developing
countries are beginning to embrace them (Nation, 2018).
Like other countries, India is witnessing increasing use of ICT in the delivery of public
services through multichannels, such as websites, portals, smartphones, social media and
kiosks (Rana and Dwivedi, 2015). The- e-governance initiative in India is given a name
National E-Governance Plan (NeGP), which got its approval from the Government of India on
May 18, 2006 (MeiTY, n.d.; Mishra and Fatmi, 2015). The NeGP started with 27 Mission Mode
Projects (MMPs), and four more MMPs were added in 2011. E-government in India has
developed from the introductory stage, in which the public is informed of the existence of
government websites and their usefulness as an information source, to the stage of focusing
on the transactional and political participation type services. In 2014, the government of India
announced INR approx. 1 lakh crore investment for the digital India program (Today, 2015;
Vijayan, 2019). However, despite the extensive investment in the ICT component of the public
sector projects, a high failure rate of these projects was widely reported (Bhatnagar and
Singh, 2010; Bhattacharya et al., 2012; Danish, 2006; Twizeyimana and Andersson, 2019).
Despite the huge investment in the e-government projects, the government agencies have not
been able to ensure the adoption of public services by the Indian citizens (Bhattacharya et al.,
2012; Mishra and Fatmi, 2015). Many studies have highlighted that the adoption,
implementation and the success of e-government initiatives depend on the citizens’
willingness to use the services (Barua, 2012; Bhattacharya et al., 2012; Carter and Belanger,
2005; Evans and Yen, 2006; Shareef et al., 2009, 2011). It has been highlighted that even
though online delivery of public services is growing significantly, many e-government
websites do not always meet citizens’ expectations and, therefore, fail to fulfill their needs
(Danish, 2006; Egov4dev, 2008; Kumar et al., 2017). Bressolles et al. (2015) suggested that
having an online presence is not enough to ensure success because it does not guarantee
service quality. Some users consider online transactions unnecessarily complex and prone to
risk. Then there are other factors such as service failure and lack of response to e-mails and
lack of sufficient information provided that demotivate citizens from using these services
(Bressolles et al., 2015). These factors, therefore, have a negative impact on user’s perceived
value, satisfaction and behavioral intention with the online experience.
Even though the e-government is fully functional in developed countries, the developing
countries are still facing challenges in the design, implementation and success of e-
government initiatives (Twizeyimana and Andersson, 2019). As highlighted by Mittal and
Kaur (2013), these challenges are categorized as environmental and social challenges,
economical challenges and technical challenges. In India, these challenges include but are not
limited to huge digital divide, low literacy rate, diversity in culture, religion and language,
low-income levels, lack of e-infrastructure and traditional mind-set. These drawbacks hurdle
individuals’ experiences with technology and create roadblocks in the implementation of
e-government projects in India (Venkatesh et al., 2014). In a country like India, where the
average literacy rate is low, the computer literacy rate is also low (less than 18% of the total
population was computer literate in the year 2014) (NSSO, n.d.). Also, the Internet penetration
rate was around 50% as in 2019 (Statista, 2019), and so under such conditions, getting a
population to participate in the digital environment is not an easy task.
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). It is highlighted that e-government websites do not always meet citizen’s expectations E-government
and therefore, fail to fulfill their needs (Danish, 2006; Egov4dev, 2008; Kumar et al., 2017). service value
Citizens will be discouraged from adopting an e-government system if they experience poor
service quality and find that it is not providing value. This situation gives rise to the need to
chain
understand the various dimensions of service quality and the antecedents of e-government
service user value, the irrelevance and their impact on satisfaction and adoption intention.
The increasingly systematic use of Internet in users’ decision-making processes, coupled
with the development of e-government services, has led researchers and practitioners to
examine the relationships between service quality, user value, user satisfaction and adoption
in an e-government context (Alawneh et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2009; Halaris et al., 2007;
Ishmatova and Obi, 2009; Sharma, 2015; Wang, 2014). In any e-service context (e.g.
e-commerce, e-government, e-banking), the best way to generate user satisfaction, and
ultimately intention to adopt, is to deliver superior value originating from excellent service
quality (Bressolles et al., 2015; Chang et al., 2009; Kumar et al., 2020; Papadomichelaki and
Mentzas, 2012; Yang and Peterson, 2004). In the e-government context, government must
design and deliver a value proposition that is appealing to the citizens. Quality of
e-government services is an essential factor that needs to be further investigated. Past
research has focused on the relationship between service quality, customer value, customer
satisfaction and customer intention (Bressolles et al., 2015; Dodds et al., 1991). However, no
empirical study to date has investigated these constructs in a single framework in the
e-government context. The complicated interrelationships among these constructs have not
been fully uncovered and understood. Additionally, researchers have proposed that
e-government service quality (e-GovQual) (Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012) and
e-government user value (e-GUV) (Sheth et al., 1991; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001) are
multidimensional constructs. However, the majority of e-government literature has
considered e-GovQual and e-GUV as a one-dimensional concept.
The present study attempts to explore the e-government service value chain (e-GSVC)
between e-GovQual dimensions, e-GUV dimensions, e-government satisfaction (e-GovSat)
and e-government adoption intention (e-GovAI). It also attempts to reduce the existing gap by
investigating the interrelationships between the two multidimensional constructs (e-GovQual
and e-GUV) and two one-dimensional constructs (e-GovSat and e-GovAI) in the setting of
government-to-citizen type e-government service. Examining the e-GSVC, this study aims to
contribute to the body of e-government knowledge in several ways. The findings will assist
government and related agencies to better understand the dynamics of e-government user
relationships and the implications for user satisfaction and ultimately their adoption.
Understanding the e-GVSC is important from both theoretical and managerial points of view.
As more government services migrate from the traditional mode to online service delivery,
government and related agencies need to better understand the drivers of online access to
public services, satisfaction and adoption intention.
The paper is organized as follows. The next section presents the conceptual framework
and the proposed hypotheses. Section 3 presents the methodology, and subsequent sections
present the results, discussion and contributions of the study. The paper concludes with
limitations and some future avenues for research.

2. Conceptual framework
In response to the growing importance of e-government worldwide, many researchers have
highlighted the problems associated with the successful implementation of e-government
services (Bhatnagar and Singh, 2010; Danish, 2006; Egov4dev, 2008). Researchers have
attempted to highlight the factors affecting adoption of e-government services (Carter et al.,
2016; Carter and Weerakkody, 2008; Dwivedi et al., 2017; Gilbert et al., 2004; Rana et al., 2016;
ITP Shareef et al., 2011). Considering the online environment, some researchers have suggested
that superior websites can make consumer transactions easier and thus encourage
consumers to revisit or make repeat use (Chang and Wang, 2011). Therefore,
understanding the dynamics of the influence processes on user satisfaction can assist
government and related agencies in making better decisions regarding different users’ public
service access behaviors. Based on these elements, this work tests the e-GSVC and extends
the existing knowledge by introducing the mediating role of e-GUV between e-government
service quality and e-GovSat and their impact on e-GovAI.
This study draws on social science literature and adopted the belief–attitude–intention–
behavior model to investigate how perceived service quality of e-government services leads
to favorable value attitude and, in turn, positive value appraisals enhance satisfaction, which
finally turns into a behavioral intention (Xu et al., 2013). In the following subsections, we
explain how we identify e-government service quality dimensions and user value dimensions
in our model, describe the characteristics of each dimension and develop our hypotheses.

2.1 E-government service quality

Research over the past two decades has focused upon e-government adoption, experience and
evaluation (Barnes and Vidgen, 2004; Kumar et al., 2017, 2018; Papadomichelaki and Magoutas,
2006; Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012). Over the last 15 years, research on website quality
in the context of predicting the behavior and use–reuse of the website has provided a greater
understanding of this concept (Loiacono et al., 2002; Webb et al., 2004). Over the past decade,
there has been a growing body of work focusing on conceptualizing, measuring and managing
service quality and its effects in electronic environments (the dimensions, antecedents and
consequences) (Carlson and O’Cass, 2011; Field et al., 2004; Gajendra and Lijuan, 2015; Hosseini
et al., 2012; Lee and Lin, 2005; Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012; Parasuraman et al., 2005;
Santos, 2003). While service quality has been widely studied in e-government literature, there
has been limited focus on quality as a multidimensional concept. With regard to e-GovQual,
Papadomichelaki and Mentzas (2012) propose a comprehensive, multidimensional e-GovQual
concept. This concept comprises the following four main dimensions, which we have integrated
into our proposed model (see Figure 1):
Efficiency. It refers to the ease of use, the time required to search for information and the
quality of information provided by the website (Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012;
Sharma, 2015). Efficiency takes into account the clear and easy-to-follow structure; the
effectiveness of its search engine; how well the site map is organized; how well the site can be
customized to an individual user’s needs; whether the information displayed is appropriately
detailed and up to date; and whether there is enough information on how to complete the
required forms (Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012). Efficiency is also considered as a
prominent attribute when modeling service quality (Sharma, 2015).
Trust. Trust is defined as “perception of confidence in the electronic marketer’s reliability
and integrity” (Carter and Belanger, 2005). It is the degree to which the citizen believes the site is
safe from intrusion and is able to protect personal information (Papadomichelaki and Mentzas,
2012). Trust consists of privacy and security and is defined as the citizen’s confidence toward
the website in terms of freedom from risk of danger or doubt during the e-service process
(Fakhoury and Aubert, 2015; Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012). The importance of trust is a
critical aspect of e-service and citizens must have confidence in both the government and the
enabling technologies (Belanger and Carter, 2008; Carter and Belanger, 2005).
Reliability. Reliability is defined as the citizen’s confidence in the e-government site in
terms of accurate and on-time delivery of the service (Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012).
This dimension is linked to the ability of online service providers to keep their promises, fulfill
the terms of the exchange and deliver the service as requested while meeting service
 E-government E-government E-government
Quality User Vlaue service value
chain
Social
Efficiency
Value

Functional
Trust
Value

e-GovSat e-GovAI

Economic
Reliability Value

Citizen Emotional
Support Value Figure 1.
E-government service
value chain (e-GSVC)

requirements and respecting the delivery timetable (Collier and Bienstock, 2006; Cristobal
and Flavia, 2007; Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Citizen support. Citizen support (CS) refers to the help provided by the organization to
assist citizens in their quest for information during their transactions (Papadomichelaki and
Mentzas, 2012).

2.2 E-government user value

Perceived value is considered as the difference between perceived benefits (e.g. ease of use)
and costs incurred (e.g. time, effort, money) (Bressolles et al., 2015; McDougall and Levesque,
2000). Perceived value has attracted interest in the literature because authors find it to be a
key predictor of consumer satisfaction and loyalty (Bressolles et al., 2015; Chang and Wang,
2011; Kumar et al., 2020; McDougall and Levesque, 2000; Wang, 2014; Yang and Peterson,
2004). Also, perceived value may be used by users to “bundle” various aspects of the service
relative to competitive offerings (McDougall and Levesque, 2000). Sheth et al. (1991) and
Sweeney and Soutar (2001) identify and define four main dimensions of user value, in which
we too adopt in our study.
Social value. Social values (SVs) are defined and measured in terms of the weights that
individuals assign to their own and to others’ outcomes (McClintock and Allison, 1989). SVs
are the utility derived from the website’s ability to enhance social self-concept in terms of its
capacity to be associated with a social class, social status or social group (Bressolles et al.,
2015; Lai, 1995).
Functional value. Functional value (FV) is defined as “the perceived utility acquired from
an alternative’s capacity for functional, utilitarian, or physical performance (Sheth et al.,
1991).” It is the utility derived from the perceived quality and expected performance of the
website (Bressolles et al., 2015).
ITP Economic value. Economic value is defined as “the utility derived from the web site
through the reduction of it’sperceived short-term and long-term costs (Bressolles et al., 2015). ”
It is driven by elements such as economic value for money (Bressolles et al., 2015; Zeithaml,
1988), convenience (Bressolles et al., 2015; Seiders et al., 2007) and time savings (Anthopoulos
et al., 2007; Bressolles et al., 2015).
Emotional value. Emotional value is defined as “the utility derived from the feelings or
affective states that a website generates (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001).”
Service quality is an important antecedent of user value perception, and many studies
have validated a strong, positive and significant effect of a service’s quality on user value
perception (Dodds et al., 1991; Heskett et al., 1994; Kim, 2014; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001;
Zeithaml, 1988). Studies on online contexts show that user value is the link between online
purchase/repurchase and perceived e-service quality (Bauer et al., 2006; Bressolles et al., 2015;
Chang et al., 2009; Chang and Wang, 2011; Parasuraman et al., 2005). However, these
researchers have, for the most part, addressed the overall relationship between e-service
quality and user value. In this study, we focus on the effects of e-GovQual dimensions on user
perceived value dimensions and propose the following hypotheses:
H1.1. Efficiency (H1.1a), trust (H1.1b), reliability (H1.1c) and CS (H1.1d) are positively
related to SV.
H1.2. Efficiency (H1.2a), trust (H1.2b), reliability (H1.2c) and CS (H1.2d) are positively
related to FV.
H1.3. Efficiency (H1.3a), trust (H1.3b), reliability (H1.3c) and CS (H1.3d) are positively
related to economic value.
H1.4. Efficiency (H1.4a), trust (H1.4b), reliability (H1.4c) and CS (H1.4d) are positively
related to emotional value.

2.3 E-government satisfaction

Satisfaction is an ex-post evaluation of user experience or consumption of the service and is
captured as a positive, indifferent or negative feeling (Bressolles et al., 2015). Oliver (1981)
defines satisfaction as an affective state arising from a process of affective and cognitive
evaluation of a specific transaction. E-GovSat, as a construct, has gained increasing
importance in the e-service literature (Alawneh et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2009; Gajendra and
Lijuan, 2015; Hosseini et al., 2012). Deng et al. (2010) find a positive link between functional
and emotional value and satisfaction for people using mobile instant messages in China.
Although the authors had studied this relationship in an online context at a macro level (e.g.
Chang et al., 2009; Hosseini et al., 2012; Jain and Aggarwal, 2018), the perceived user value
dimension’s effect on user satisfaction in the e-government context still needs further
attention. To address this, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H2. SV (H2.1), FV (H2.2), economic value (H2.3) and emotional value (H2.4) are positively
related to e-GovSat.
Delivering superior service quality is considered to be important for satisfying users’ needs
(Bressolles et al., 2015; Parasuraman et al., 2005). E-service quality is found to be a
determinant of user satisfaction (Carlson and O’Cass, 2011; Chang et al., 2009; Hosseini et al.,
2012; Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012). Researchers (Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2003) have
determined the significance of e-service quality dimensions (design, reliability, security/
privacy, customer service) on e-GovSat. Lee and Lin (2005) highlight the significance of the
dimensions of website design (reliability, responsiveness, trust) on customer satisfaction. It is
also found that four (reliability, functionality/design, process and responsiveness) of the five
dimensions of the eTransQual scale have an impact on satisfaction (Bauer et al., 2006). E-government
Bressolles et al. (2015) highlight the impact of the dimensions of e-service quality service value
(information, aesthetics, ease of use, security/privacy and reliability) on the dimensions of
online customer value (functional, economic and social value) as they affect e-GovSat, which,
chain
in turn, influences e-loyalty. Their study also reveals the direct impact of the dimension of e-
service quality on e-GovSat. In summary, the literature informs us that service quality
dimensions have a significant relationship with user satisfaction. In order to verify this
relationship, in this study, we formulate the following hypotheses:
H3. Efficiency (H3.1), trust (H3.2), reliability (H3.3) and CS (H3.4) are positively related to
e-GovSat.

2.4 E-government adoption intention

Past studies have found a positive relationship between e-GovSat and intention to adopt e-
government services (DeLone and Mclean, 2003; DeLone and McLean, 1992; Wang and Liao,
2008). Iivari (2005) argues that user satisfaction influences the intention to use an information
system. Wu and Wang (2006) also strengthen the relationship between satisfaction and
actual system use. E-GovAI is the outcome variable of our proposed model (see Figure 1) and
in order to test the last step of the e-GSVC, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H4. There is a positive relationship between e-GovSat and e-GovAI.
Figure 1 represents the conceptual model for e-government service value chain (e-GSVC).

3. Research methodology
The methodology used in the current study follows three steps. Firstly, we develop a
conceptual model after a comprehensive literature review, as discussed in the previous
section. Second, the study uses a quantitative method using survey questionnaires for data
collection. Third, data is analyzed and the final report is prepared. A review of the literature is
conducted to develop an understanding of the e-GSVC. While most of the literature is
reviewed at the initial stage, the activity is continued throughout the study for further
refinement. The conceptual model guiding this study is presented in Figure 1. Based on the
literature review, the authors postulate 25 hypotheses associated with the model. These
hypotheses focus on the interrelationships between e-GovQual dimensions, e-GUV
dimensions, e-GovSat and e-GovAI. The research is conducted between September 2017
and January 2018 in India. The following section outlines the research methodology in detail.

3.1 Study setting

In the past two decades, governments at all levels (central, state and local body) in India have
undertaken huge e-government initiatives that encompass not only general goals of
efficiency, effectiveness and economy but also political and social goals of greater
transparency, improved service delivery and easier public participation. The Government
of India launched its flagship Digital India program with a vision to transform the country
into a digitally empowered country (Nedungadi et al., 2018). Also, Common Services Centre
(CSC) program is an initiative of the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY), Government of
India. CSCs are the access points for the delivery of various electronic services to villages in
India, working toward making the country a digitally and financially inclusive society.
Despite these advances, India’s e-government is still in its early stage and struggling with low
levels of citizen usage. Based on how e-governance strategies are implemented, the United
Nations ranked India at 96 among the 193 member states of the UN (Nation, 2018). As per the
latest UN report (Nation, 2018), India has scored 0.4637 on e-Government Development Index
ITP (EGDI), well below the global average of 0.4922. Notably, compared to India, performance of
the other BRICS nations, that is, Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa, are significantly
better. In India, e-government adoption is still at a premature stage and conditions, such as
language problems (22 official languages), diverse culture, knowledge and income divide are
making e-government initiatives difficult to implement (Bhattacharya et al., 2012). Overall,
India’s e-government is still in its early stage and struggling with a low adoption rate (Yadav
et al., 2019).

3.2 Measurement scale

A questionnaire is the main instrument of this exploratory study and is adopted from the
extant e-commerce (Bressolles et al., 2015) and e-government (Papadomichelaki and Mentzas,
2012; Shareef et al., 2011) literature. Measurement scales are modified for the e-government
context. A list of the measurement items is provided in Table 1. Each item is rated on a Likert
scale of 1–5 (Strongly Disagree to Neutral to Strongly Agree). A series of sociodemographic
and Internet behavior questions are also included in the questionnaire.

3.3 Data collection

The final questionnaire was distributed to e-government users from the north, south, east,
west and central part of India. This was done to ensure a representative national sample of e-
government users and as well as to ensure that the results are not linked to only one part of
the country. The participants were approached in offices, academic institutions and trains.
The questionnaires were distributed to respondents through one-to-one and group
interactions. The respondents were briefed and provided a demonstration of e-government
services. They were also briefed on the purpose of the study, its benefits and so on.
The majority of the respondents filled the questionnaires on the spot. In some cases, they were
given some time (maximum one week) to complete it. Participants were recruited using
convenient sampling. However, utmost care was taken to recruit participants across all
demographic groups including gender, education, Internet experience and e-government
experience. The respondents were requested to indicate the extent to which they agree or
disagree, based on recent e-government experience, by checking the appropriate response to
the questionnaire items regarding the key constructs of the study. All participants
voluntarily participated in the survey. Pen and paper-based survey was conducted to collect
the data. To collect the data, we administered the survey instrument to 500 e-government
users in India. Collected data were entered manually into the spreadsheet. We received a total
of 405 responses, out of which 378 (effective response rate 5 75.6%) were complete and used
for the analyses.

3.4 Sample profile

The sample profile consists of 43.92% females and 56.08% males. The age of respondents
varied from 19 to 56, with an average age of 34. The respondents had prior experience in
accessing e-government websites. The average experience of accessing e-government
website is five years. About 87% of the respondents used Internet on a daily basis. It was
discovered that 24.07% of respondents were from North India, 17.99% from South India,
26.98% from East India, 15.87% from West India and the remaining 15.08% were from
Central India. Table 2 shows the sample profiles of the respondents.

3.5 Reliability and construct validity

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is used to verify the factorial structure of each construct.
We use maximum likelihood analysis as the extraction method and Promax rotation as the
Constructs Measuring items Source
E-government
service value
Efficiency (1) The e-government site’s structure is clear and (Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012) chain
easy to follow – Adopted and modified
(2) The e-government site’s site map is well
organized
(3) The information displayed in this e-government
site is appropriate detailed
(4) The information displayed in this e-government
site is fresh
(5) The layout of the e-government site is clear and
simple
Trust (6) Acquisition of username and password in this e- (Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012)
government site is secure – Adopted and modified
(7) Only necessary personal data are provided for
authentication on the e-government site
(8) Data provided by users in this e-government
site are archived securely
(9) Data provided in this e-government site are used
only for the reason submitted
Reliability (10) Forms in this e-government site are (Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012)
downloaded in short time – Adopted and modified
(11) This e-government site is available and
accessible whenever you need it
(12) This e-government site performs the service
successfully upon first request
(13) This e-government site provides services in
time
(14) E-government site’s pages are downloaded
quickly enough
(15) This e-government site works properly with
your default browser
Citizen (16) Employees showed a sincere interest in solving (Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012)
support users’ problem – Adopted and modified
(17) Employees give prompt replies to users’
inquiries
(18) Employees have the knowledge to answer
users’ questions
(19) Employees have the ability to convey trust and
confidence
Economic (20) The overall cost of accessing services through (Bressolles et al., 2015) – Adopted and
value e-government is lower/competitive than modified
accessing traditional way of accessing public
services
(21) The service charge of services proposed on the
e-government website is particularly
reasonable
(22) Cost saving is an important benefit of e-
government
Social value (23) Visiting e-government site gives me something (Bressolles et al., 2015) – Adopted and
good to talk about with my friends modified
(24) My family and friends will definitely approve
of me visiting e-government site
Table 1.
(continued ) Measurement scale
ITP Constructs Measuring items Source

Functional (25) E-government saves my time (Bressolles et al., 2015; Shareef et al.,
value (26) I find that it is convenient to access services on 2011) – Adopted and modified
e-government
(27) E-government site helps me in making the
right choice
Emotional (28) Navigating the e-government site is a pleasant (Bressolles et al., 2015) – Adopted and
value experience modified
(29) I like navigating e-government site
E-satisfaction (30) I am satisfied with my decision to explore e- (Bressolles et al., 2015) – Adopted and
government site modified
(31) My choice to explore e-government website is
a good one
(32) I am confident it is the right thing to explore e-
government website
E-adoption (33) I would use e-government services again in the (Bressolles et al., 2015) – Adopted and
intention future modified
(34) I would recommend friends to access e-
government services
(35) I will continue accessing e-government
Table 1. services

rotation method. The structure of the e-GovQual scale is identified as having four dimensions:
efficiency (EFF), trust (TRUST), reliability (REL) and CS. Three items (REL5, CS4, CS5) out of
19 were dropped because of cross-loading or loading below 0.4. The results of the EFA of the
e-GUV scale reveal only two factors. Both the items of emotional value (EMV) were cross-

Demographic variables Category Frequency %

Gender Female 166 43.92

Male 212 56.08
Age 18–24 92 24.34
25–34 106 28.04
35–44 125 33.07
45–60 55 14.55
Education High school 32 8.47
Undergraduate 73 19.31
Graduate 134 35.45
Postgraduate 139 36.77
Internet experience <1 year 29 7.67
1–3 years 51 13.49
3–5 years 85 22.49
5–7 years 110 29.10
>7 years 103 27.25
E-government experience <1 year 13 3.44
1–3 years 52 13.76
3–5 years 103 27.25
5–7 years 143 37.83
>7 years 67 17.72
Region North India 91 24.07
South India 68 17.99
East India 102 26.98
Table 2. West India 60 15.87
Sample profile Central India 57 15.08
loaded; hence, this construct was dropped. This is consistent with the result of the previous E-government
study (e.g. Bressolles et al., 2015) in which the emotional value construct was dropped. Due to service value
the dropping of the construct emotional value, corresponding hypotheses H1.4a, H1.4b, H1.4c,
H1.4d and H2.4 were dropped from further analysis. FV and SV are loaded into the same
chain
component. Although the items for FV and SV were identified separately by the researchers
(McClintock and Allison, 1989; Sheth et al., 1991), all the items for these two constructs loaded
together. This may mean that while FV and SV are conceptually different, they are being
viewed as identical by respondents. Therefore, we consider both as a single construct and
rename it as sociofunctional value. The corresponding hypotheses H1.1a and H1.2a now
become H1.1-2a; H1.1b and H1.2b now become H1.1-2b; H1.1c and H1.2c now become H1.1-2c;
H1.1d and H1.2d now become H1.1-2d; and H2.1 and H2.2 now become H2.1-2. These
hypotheses are stated as follows:
H1.1-2a. There is a positive relationship between efficiency and sociofunctional value.
H1.1-2b. There is a positive relationship between trust and sociofunctional value.
H1.1-2c. There is a positive relationship between reliability and sociofunctional value.
H1.1-2d. There is a positive relationship between CS and sociofunctional value.
H2.1-2. There is a positive relationship between sociofunctional value and e-GovSat.
After discarding and merging, a total of 15 hypotheses remain for further analysis.
E-GovSat is revealed as a one-dimension structure with three items. Table 3 shows the
factor loadings for all constructs retained after EFA. We use Cronbach’s alpha and composite
reliability (CR) to assess the reliability of the scale. Cronbach’s alpha is ranged from 0.764 to
0.910 (see Table 3) and CR is ranged from 704 to 898 (see Table 3), which suggests a good
internal consistency among the items in each dimension (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). In
this data analysis, the average variances are extracted (AVE) for almost every factor and
their measures all exceed 0.50 or near 0.50 (see Table 4); hence, convergent validity is achieved
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics and factor correlations.
The mean value and standard deviations indicate the variance in the data and are in the
ranges expected. Discriminant validity measures the extent to which different constructs
diverge from one another (Hair et al., 2006; Jung and Jung, 2019). In Table 4, the diagonal
elements represent the square root of AVE, providing a measure of the variance shared
between a construct and its indicators (Hair et al., 2006; Sachan et al., 2018). The square root of
AVE is required to be larger than the correlations between constructs (Fornell and Larcker,
1981), and our data meets the requirement.

3.6 Fit indices for the measurement model

Convergence of the factors retained after EFA is also verified using confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA). CFA is implemented to test the measurement models of the multidimensional
constructs (e-GovQual and e-GUV) using AMOS 18. Relative Chi-square (χ 2/df), goodness-of-
fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit
index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) are the measures used to
assess goodness of fit of the measurement model. Thresholds for a good fit are deemed to
exist when the values of GFI, NFI and CFI are greater than 0.90 (Bentler, 1990), AGFI is
greater than 0.8 and RMSEA is less than 0.07 (Enry and Stone, 1994). A relative Chi-square
value of less than 3 is considered adequate (Carmines and McIver, 1981). The statistics
reported in Table 5 are consistent with those suggested for both e-GovQual and e-GUV (Gefen
and Straub, 2000). The measurement model is found to be a good fit as all the required values
ITP Construct Factor loadings Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) Composite reliability (CR)

EFF1 0.688 0.910 0.887

EFF2 0.807
EFF3 0.883
EFF4 0.785
EFF5 0.736
TRUST1 0.929 0.910 0.898
TRUST2 0.903
TRUST3 0.751
REL1 0.758 0.766 0.832
REL2 0.622
REL3 0.783
REL4 0.490
CS1 0.951 0.834 0.809
CS2 0.781
CS3 0.527
SV1 0.776 0.829 0.872
SV2 0.715
FV1 0.612
FV2 0.762
FV3 0.761
EV1 0.701 0.764 0.766
EV2 0.702
EV3 0.764
ESAT1 0.577 0.861 0.704
ESAT2 0.895
ESAT3 0.492
Table 3. Note(s): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood
Factor loadings and Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization
reliability a. Rotation converged in five iterations

are within threshold limits. All four dimensions of e-GovQual and two dimensions of e-GUV
are confirmed.

3.7 Analysis of the structural model

Following the measurement model assessment, the structural model is evaluated to test the
relationships between the constructs proposed in the model (see Figure 2). We remove the
nonsignificant (P > 0.05) paths between the constructs and test the revised model again. We
find the path from trust to economic value (H1.3b) and trust to e-GovSat (H3.2) as
nonsignificant (P > 0.05), and hence, remove it from the model. Figure 2 shows the structural
path diagram of the revised model. Table 5 presents the fit indices for the revised model. Fit
indices of NFI, GFI, AGFI, χ 2/df and RMSEA are within the specified threshold limits, which
indicates a good model fit. Fit indices are improved after removing nonsignificant paths.
AMOS 18.0 yields two critical pieces of information, which indicate how well the structural
model predicted the hypothesized relationships (Lee, 2013). The first piece of information is
the squared multiple correlations (R2) for each endogenous construct in the model (see
Figure 2). This number measures a construct’s percentage variation explained by the model
(Lee, 2013; Wixom and Watson, 2001). The R2 value shows that 66% (R2 5 0.66) of the
variance in e-GovSat and 59% (R2 5 0.59) of the variance in e-GovAI are accounted for by the
relationships in the model (see Figure 2). The second key piece of information, that is, AMOS
18.0 generated, is the calculation of the path coefficients (see Figure 2), which indicates the
Constructs Mean SD Efficiency Trust Reliability Citizen support Economic value Sociofunctional value E-Satisfaction

Efficiency 3.49 0.91 0.783

Trust 3.71 1.02 0.469** 0.865
Reliability 3.57 0.80 0.310** 0.367** 0.674
Citizen support 3.49 0.87 0.260** 0.452** 0.116** 0.773
**
Sociofunctional value 3.45 0.87 0.386** 0.420 0.351** 0.213** 0.728
**
Economic value 3.46 0.92 0.436** 0.450 0.487** 0.465** 0.270* 0.723
E-satisfaction 3.41 0.93 0.296** 0.477** 0.323** 0.328** 0.260** 0.232 0.677
Note(s): **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Diagonal elements are the square root of average variance extracted (AVE)
E-government
chain
service value

correlations and
Descriptive statistics,
Table 4.

explained (AVE)
average variance
ITP strength of the relationship between the two constructs (Lee, 2013; Wixom and Watson, 2001).
The next section discusses the results in more detail.

4. Results and discussion

This study examines an e-GSVC by exploring the interrelationship between e-government
service quality, user value, satisfaction and adoption of e-government services. The proposed
hypotheses are tested empirically by employing structural equation modeling on the collected
data. Out of the eight possible positive relationships between the four dimensions of
e-GovQual and the two dimensions of e-GUV, seven positive relationships are validated (at
p < 0.05) (see Figure 2). All relationships, except the relationship between trust and economic
value (H1.3b), are found to be significant. Therefore, the corresponding path is deleted from
the proposed model. This partially validates the significance of e-GovQual to e-GUV. The four
dimensions of e-GovQual explain 61% (R2 5 0.61) and 33% (R2 5 0.33) variance to the
sociofunctional value and economic value, respectively. This paper goes further than past
research in the e-government context by studying the relationships between e-GovQual
dimensions and the e-GUV dimensions. A detailed analysis of the results reveals that at least
one e-GovQual quality dimension influences the e-GUV dimensions. Sociofunctional value is

Table 5. Model NFI GFI AGFI CFI χ 2/df RMSEA

Summary of overall fit
indices for the Measurement Model (e-GovQual) 0.913 0.914 0.888 0.932 1.979 0.059
measurement and Measurement Model (e-GUV) 0.935 0.947 0.899 0.949 1.343 0.044
structural model Structural Model 0.901 0.906 0.878 0.911 1.913 0.067

E-government
Quality E-government User
Value
Efficiency 0.47
Socio-
0.48
Functional
0.27 Value
0.58
Trust 0.19
R2 = 0.61
0.42 0.48
e-GovSat e-GovAI
0.38 0.39

Reliability R2 = 0.66 R2 = 0.59

0.24
0.23
Economic
0.39 Value
0.22
Citizen
R2 = 0.33
Figure 2. Support
SEM test of the
revised model
influenced by efficiency (0.47), trust (0.27), reliability (0.42) and CS (0.38). When users E-government
positively evaluate the efficiency, trust, reliability and CS of e-government portal, they are service value
more willing to talk about their experience and share it with their peers. Economic value is
influenced by efficiency (0.19), reliability (0.23) and CS (0.22). This result is consistent with the
chain
previous studies that efficiency, reliability and CS of a web portal lead to adopting the website
and users value it economically (Bhattacharya et al., 2012; Chang et al., 2009; Chang and
Wang, 2011; Sharma, 2015).
The two dimensions of e-GUV, sociofunctional value and economic value have a positive
impact on e-GovSat. These results validate the significance of e-GUV to the e-GovSat and are
consistent with previous findings in the e-government context that showed that
e-government user value is a key antecedent of e-GovSat (Chang et al., 2009; McDougall
and Levesque, 2000). E-GovSat is influenced by both e-GUV dimensions and more strongly
by sociofunctional value (0.58) compared to economic value (0.24). This study provides a
better understanding of the link between e-GUV and e-GovSat, as the results not only confirm
the strong positive relationship between e-GUV and e-GovSat in an e-government context but
also show that sociofunctional value and economic value are essential drivers to satisfy users
who access government services electronically. As cost remains an important criterion for
accessing e-government services, economic value also has a significant effect on e-GovSat. As
accessing e-government websites has various benefits – economic and sociofunctional value,
they also have a significant impact on e-GovSat. It is not only a question of creating a unique
experience during accessing e-government services but also that this experience should be
cultivated by creating postaccess strategies. If the experience is strong and pleasant, the user
will be satisfied and could be interested in repeating it.
The results also demonstrate that out of four dimensions of e-GovQual, three, that is,
efficiency, reliability and CS, are positively related to e-GovSat, which partially validates H3.
The direct relationship between trust and e-GovSat (H3.2) is not found to be significant; hence,
the corresponding path is deleted from the proposed model. The results also confirm that
service quality dimensions have a positive impact on user satisfaction in the e-government
context. E-GovSat is also directly influenced by efficiency (0.48), reliability (0.39) and CS (0.39)
dimension of e-GovQual. As trust is not found to be influencing e-GovSat directly, the
significance of e-GovQual on e-GovSat is partially validated by the result and is consistent
with past research, which has generally found that e-service quality dimensions have an
impact on e-GovSat (Bhattacharya et al., 2012; Sharma, 2015).
Finally, e-GovSat has a strong and positive impact on e-government adoption intention
(0.48), which confirms H4. This result validates the last step of the e-GSVC and is consistent
with previous studies (e.g. DeLone and Mclean, 2003; DeLone and McLean, 1992; Iivari, 2005;
Wang and Liao, 2008; Wu and Wang, 2006), who found that satisfaction has a strong and
positive impact on e-government adoption. The predictive validity of e-GovAI is 0.59, that is,
the model explains overall 59% variance of e-government adoption. The results of this study
extend our understanding that quality and user value dimensions in e-government influence
user satisfaction and their behavioral intention. The implications of the findings from this
study are broadly classified into two categories – theoretical implications and practical
implications, which are discussed further.

4.1 Theoretical implications

As a theoretical contribution, this paper adopts belief–attitude–intention–behavior
framework to develop a chain model of e-GovQual, perceived value, satisfaction and
behavioral intention. Unlike other studies, this study does not consider e-GovQual as a single
dimension, rather a multidimensional concept. The findings suggest that citizens’ intention
toward adopting e-government services can be engendered by improving customer
satisfaction and offering high service value through improved service quality.
ITP Our study confirms the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and technology adoption model
(TAM) by demonstrating the impact of different dimensions of e-GovQual on the customer
attitude, such as satisfaction, and ultimately on their behavioral intention. The study
demonstrates that improvement of various dimensions of the e-GovQual can enhance
customer attitude toward e-services directly or through perceived value that will ultimately
result in their behavioral intentions. The e-GovQual in our study has four dimensions, namely
efficiency, trust, reliability and customer support. Perceived value has four dimensions: FV,
economic value, emotional value and SV. In this way, our findings extend the impact of
e-government service quality and perceived value by extant research (Ba and Johansson,
2008; Sachan et al., 2018) on attitude and behavior intention by adding various e-GovQual and
perceived value dimensions as drivers for behavioral intention.
The study also demonstrates that some of the dimensions of e-GovQual have a direct and
indirect impact on customer satisfaction while some have only indirect effect via perceived
value. For example, the results show that there is no direct effect of trust on satisfaction, but
has an indirect effect via sociofunctional values. On the other hand, efficiency has a direct
effect on satisfaction and also an indirect effect via sociofunctional value. Overall, the study
reveals that e-GovQual and perceived value dimensions play an important role in influencing
customer satisfaction, which ultimately results in behavioral intention.

4.2 Practical implications

As practical implications, the results of this study will help government and related e-
government agencies in the effective implementation of e-government services and providing
enhanced user experience. Government and related agencies need to appreciate the fact that
enhanced service quality dimensions give an improved experience, which is appreciated
by users.
Managers also need to appreciate the fact that e-GovQual and perceived value are
multidimensional constructs, and each dimension of these constructs significantly influences
behavioral intention via satisfaction. Therefore, e-retailers need to focus on each dimension of
e-GovQual to ensure positive customer attitude and behavioral intentions. Managers can use
the e-Gov service value chain framework used in this study to assist them in conducting an
audit of their services.
To satisfy e-government users, the government may focus on four key e-GovQual
dimensions identified by the current study. The first is to provide efficient e-government
services. The service information and content should be well organized and structured and
not difficult to follow. Also, the process to access e-government services should be simple.
The second is trust, which is essential in the e-service environment. For example, an e-
government service provider should adopt measures to assure users that their personal
information will be kept confidential and that their online transactions will be safe. The third
dimension is to provide reliable services electronically. It is vital to perform the service
correctly by executing transactions accurately, maintaining user records without error,
delivering service requests promptly and providing correct information. The fourth
dimension is the provision of quality CS. Specifically, government representatives should
have knowledge, including basic technology skills related to e-government, rules and
regulations, and Internet, to answer users’ questions. They should understand user-specific
needs, have the capacity to handle problems that arise and address user complaints in a
friendly manner.
The current findings demonstrate that perceived value is a key driver of citizen intention
to adopt e-government services through improved citizen satisfaction. The improved service
quality results in enhanced user value. Therefore, it is important to consider all quality
dimensions while designing an e-government service. Citizens make comparisons of both
online and offline access to government services. Obtaining desired services is, of course, a E-government
primary reason for a citizen to choose Internet as an alternative public service access channel. service value
Therefore, the findings of this study can be important for government officials tasked with
providing e-governance services. E-government service providers may develop a suitable
chain
strategy based on the service quality considerations for better perceived value and improved
satisfaction to attract more users to switch from traditional public service delivery channel to
electronic mode and also to retain their existing users. This will help them receive better
returns from their investments in e-government infrastructure.

5. Conclusion
This study sets out to better understand e-government adoption behavior with an emphasis
on the role of e-GovQual and e-GUV. Previous studies have found apparent factors
influencing e-GovSat and e-GovAI, such as e-government quality and e-government user
value, but have neglected to explain the influence of the dimensions of those concepts. This
study develops a chain model of e-government service quality dimensions, perceived value
dimensions, satisfaction and citizens’ continuous-use intention to fill the gap.
From an academic perspective, this study demonstrates that the process of achieving
user adoption of e-government services is e-GovQual→e-GUV→e-GovSat→e-GovAI.
The proposed e-GSVC framework is validated, and the partial mediating role of the
dimensions of e-GUV between e-GovQual dimensions and e-GovSat are demonstrated. E-
GovQual may lead to improved e-GUV that leads to e-GovSat, which turns into e-GovAI. These
variables are key factors of success for an e-government project. The dimensions of e-GovQual
(efficiency, trust, reliability and CS) have an impact on e-GUV dimensions (social, functional and
economic values), which, in turn, influence e-GovSat that leads to e-GovAI. Past researchers
have studied the relationship between these concepts without looking at the impact of e-
GovQual dimensions on the dimension of e-GUV, which is the prime focus of this study. Finally,
it stresses the role of economic, social and functional values as drivers for e-GovSat.
From a managerial point of view, e-government practitioners require frameworks and
models that enable them to better understand citizens’ behavior in the e-government
environment. The model proposed and tested in this study offers practitioners a clear picture
and a useful guide to better understand the drivers of value, satisfaction and adoption in the
case of e-government users. The insights as to why citizens are attracted to an e-government
service encounter and how they react within the government-to-citizen Internet environment
are proposed.
The results of this study provide several implications for managers’ understanding of
intentions to access e-government websites. In order to increase e-GUV (social, functional and
economic values), e-GovSat and e-GovAI, the government needs to improve the key
dimensions of the e-GovQual identified, efficiency, trust, reliability and CS. Overall, if e-
government service design is of a professional standard with high quality, this will be valued
by the user that will promote user satisfaction and facilitate adoption. At the same time,
academicians and information systems researchers can use these findings for further
research.

6. Limitations and directions for future research

The present study has several limitations that indicate the possible routes for future research.
First, the sample size of 378 cannot be a representation of a country as huge and diverse as
India. Though we have considered a sample that is representative of the target population,
however, certain inherent bias could not be avoided despite best efforts. This study focuses
on citizens who are the major users of government websites, but nonprofit organizations,
business organizations and even public/private sector organizations are also important
target groups for e-government services. Future research can be extended to these
ITP stakeholders to explore the e-GSVC. Future research could also take into account other
variables that may influence e-GSVC including personal characteristics such as gender, age,
education, Internet experience and e-government experience of the respondents. The
moderating effect of demographic variables may also be examined in future studies. For
example, future research can take gender-specific samples given that the beliefs generated by
male and female customers are different. This will help managers to personalize their
offerings and process by segmenting the customers on a gender basis. The current research
focuses on direct adoption of citizens and exploring e-GSVC for them but in case of
developing countries, many citizens are using e-government services through indirect
adoption (Kumar et al., 2018). It would be interesting to explore the e-GSVC in the event of
indirect adoption. Though India, being an emerging economy, is a good place to study the e-
government adoption behavior, this study can be replicated in several other countries to
generalize the study and to validate the theory.

References
Alawneh, A., Al-refai, H. and Batiha, K. (2013), “Measuring user satisfaction from e-Government
services: lessons from Jordan”, Government Information Quarterly, Elsevier, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 277-288.
Alzahrani, L., Al-karaghouli, W. and Weerakkody, V. (2017), “Analysing the critical factors in fl
uencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens ’ perspective: a systematic review and a
conceptual framework”, International Business Review, Vol. 26, pp. 164-175.
Anthopoulos, L.G., Siozos, P. and Tsoukalas, I.A. (2007), “Applying participatory design and
collaboration in digital public services for discovering and re-designing e-Government
services”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 353-376.
Ba, S. and Johansson, W.C. (2008), “An exploratory study of the impact of e-service process on
online customer satisfaction”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 107-119.
Barnes, S.J. and Vidgen, R.T. (2004), “Interactive e-government services: modelling user perceptions
with eQual”, Electronic Government, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 213-228.
Barua, M. (2012), “E-governance adoption in government organization of India”, International Journal
of Managing Public Sector Information and Communication Technologies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-20,
doi: 10.5121/ijmpict.2012.3101.
Bauer, H.H., Falk, T. and Hammerschmidt, M. (2006), “eTransQual: a transaction process-based
approach for capturing service quality in online shopping”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 59 No. 7, pp. 866-875.
Belanger, F. and Carter, L. (2008), “Trust and risk in e-government adoption”, Strategic Information
Systems, Vol. 17, pp. 165-176.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107
No. 2, p. 238.
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T. and Grimes, J.M. (2010), “Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-
government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies”, Government
Information Quarterly, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 264-271.
Bhatnagar, S. and Singh, N. (2010), “Assessing the impact of E-government: a study of projects in
India”, Information Technologies and International Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, p. 109.
Bhattacharya, D., Gulla, U. and Gupta, M.P. (2012), “E-service quality model for Indian government
portals: citizens’ perspective”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 246-271.
Bressolles, G., Durrieu, F. and Deans, K.R. (2015), “An examination of the online service-profit chain”, E-government
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 727-751.
service value
Carlson, J. and O’Cass, A. (2011), “Developing a framework for understanding e-service quality, its
antecedents, consequences, and mediators”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 21 No. 3,
chain
pp. 264-286.
Carmines, E.G. and McIver, J. (1981), Unidimensional Scaling, Sage, California.
Carter, L. and Belanger, F. (2005), “The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust innovation
and acceptance factors”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 5-25.
Carter, L. and Weerakkody, V. (2008), “E-government adoption: a cultural comparison”, Information
Systems Frontiers, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 473-482.
Carter, L., Weerakkody, V., Phillips, B. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2016), “Citizen adoption of E-
government services: exploring citizen perceptions of online services in the United States
and United Kingdom”, Information Systems Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 124-140.
Chang, H.H. and Wang, H.-W. (2011), “The moderating effect of customer perceived value on online
shopping behaviour”, Online Information Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 333-359.
Chang, H.H., Wang, Y. and Yang, W. (2009), “The impact of e-service quality , customer satisfaction
and loyalty on e-marketing: moderating effect of perceived value”, Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 423-443.
Collier, J.E. and Bienstock, C.C. (2006), “Measuring service quality in E-retailing”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 260-275.
Cristobal, E. and Flavia, C. (2007), “Perceived e-service quality (PeSQ)”, Managing Service Quality.
Danish, D. (2006), “The failure of E-government in developing countries: a literature review”, The
Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1-10.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (1992), “Information systems success: the quest for the dependent
variable”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60-95.
DeLone, W.H. and Mclean, E.R. (2003), “The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success:
a ten-year update”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 9-30.
Deng, Z., Lu, Y., Wei, K.K. and Zhang, J. (2010), “Understanding customer satisfaction and loyalty: an
empirical study of mobile instant messages in China”, International Journal of Information
Management, Elsevier, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 289-300.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., Grewal, D., Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effects of
price , brand , and store information on buyers ’ product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-319.
Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Janssen, M., Lal, B., Williams, M.D. and Clement, M. (2017), “An empirical
validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (UMEGA)”, Government
Information Quarterly, Elsevier Inc., Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 211-230.
Egov4dev. (2008), “Success and failure in eGovernment projects”, available at: http://www.egov4dev.
org/success (accessed 12 December 2016).
Enry, J.W. and Stone, R.W. (1994), “A structural equation model of end-user satisfaction with a
computer-based medical information system”, Information Resources Management Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 21-33.
Evans, D. and Yen, D.C. (2006), “E-Government: evolving relationship of citizens and government,
domestic, and international development”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 207-235.
Fakhoury, R. and Aubert, B. (2015), “Citizenship , trust , and behavioural intentions to use public e-
services: the case of Lebanon”, International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 346-351.
ITP Field, J.M., Heim, G.R. and Sinha, K.K. (2004), “Managing quality in the e-service system: development
and application of a process model”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 291-306.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Gajendra, S. and Lijuan, W. (2015), “The effects of online service quality of e-commerce Websites on
user satisfaction”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 468-485.
Gefen, D. and Straub, W.D. (2000), “Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for
research for research practice”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 2-79.
Gilbert, D., Balestrini, P. and Littleboy, D. (2004), “Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-
government”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 286-301.
Hair, J.E., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
6th ed., Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Halaris, C., Magoutas, B., Papadomichelaki, X. and Mentzas, G. (2007), “Classification and
synthesis of quality approaches in e-government services”, Internet Research, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 378-401.
Heskett, B.Y.J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. and Schlesinger, L.a. (1994), “Putting the
service-profi t chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 164-174.
Hosseini, M., Rahmani-nejad, L. and Seyed-HasanHosseini (2012), “The effects of E - service quality
dimensions on online customer satisfaction case study in Iran”, Australian Journal of Basic and
Applied Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 9, pp. 236-241.
Iivari, J. (2005), “An empirical test of the model of information system success”, The DATA BASE for
Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 8-27.
Ishmatova, D. and Obi, T. (2009), “M-government services: user needs and value”, I-WAYS-The
Journal of E-Government Policy and Regulation, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 39-46.
Jain, P. and Aggarwal, V.S. (2018), “Developing a service quality scale in context of organized grocery
retail of India”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 9, pp. 1969-1990.
Jung, E. and Jung, E.J. (2019), “Service-oriented architecture of environmental information systems to
forecast the impacts of natural disasters in South Korea”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 16-35.
Kim, G.J. (2014), “Applying service profit chain model to the Korean restaurant industry”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Elsevier, Vol. 36, pp. 1-13.
Kumar, V., Mukerji, B., Butt, I. and Persaud, A. (2007), “Factors for successful e-government
Adoption: a conceptual framework”, The Electronic Journal of E-Government, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 63-76.
Kumar, R., Sachan, A. and Mukherjee, A. (2017), “Qualitative approach to determine user experience of
e-government services”, Computers in Human Behavior, Elsevier, Vol. 71, pp. 299-306.
Kumar, R., Sachan, A. and Mukherjee, A. (2018), “Direct vs. indirect E-government adoption: an
exploratory study”, Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 149-162.
Kumar, R., Sachan, A. and Kumar, R. (2020), “The impact of service delivery system process and
moderating effect of perceived value in internet banking adoption”, Australasian Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 24, pp. 1-22.
Lai, A.W. (1995), “Consumer values, product benefits and customer value: a consumption behavior
approach”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 381-388.
Layne, K. and Lee, J. (2001), “Developing fully functional E-government: a four stage model”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 122-136.
Lee, G.-G. and Lin, H.-F. (2005), “Customer perceptions of e-service quality in online shopping”, E-government
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 161-176.
service value
Lee, S. (2013), “An integrated adoption model for e-books in a mobile environment: evidence from
South Korea”, Telematics and Informatics, Elsevier, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 165-176.
chain
Loiacono, E.T., Watson, R.T. and Goodhue, D.L. (2002), “WebQual TM: a measure of web site quality”,
Marketing Theory and Applications, Vol. 13, pp. 432-438.
McClintock, C.G. and Allison, S.T. (1989), “Social value orientation and helping behavior”, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 353-362.
McDougall, G.H.G. and Levesque, T. (2000), “Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived
value into the equation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 392-410.
MeiTY (n d), “National E-governance plan”, available at: http://meity.gov.in/divisions/national-e-
governance-plan (accessed 9 June 2016).
Mishra, U. and Fatmi, S.N. (2015), “E-readiness of India with reference to national e-governance plan”,
International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol. 123 No. 8, pp. 21-26.
Mittal, P. and Kaur, A. (2013), “E-Governance-A challenge for India”, International Journal of Advanced
Research in Computer Engineering and Technology (IJARCET), Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 1196-1199.
Nations, U. (2018), United Nation E-Government Survey 2018, available at: https://publicadministration.
un.org/egovkb/portals/egovkb/documents/un/2018-survey/e-government survey 2018_
finalforweb.pdf.
Nedungadi, P.P., Menon, R., Gutjahr, G., Erickson, L. and Raman, R. (2018), “Towards an inclusive
digital literacy framework for digital India”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 516-528.
NSSO (n d), “National sample survey office (NSSO)”, available at: http://www.mospi.gov.in/national-
sample-survey-office-nsso (accessed 29 October 2017).
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Oliver, R.L. (1981), “Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 25-48.
Papadomichelaki, X. and Magoutas, B. (2006), “A review of quality dimensions in e-government
services”, International Conference on Electronic Government, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
pp. 128-138.
Papadomichelaki, X. and Mentzas, G. (2012), “e-GovQual: a multiple-item scale for assessing e-
government service quality”, Government Information Quarterly, Elsevier, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 98-109.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “Servqual: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailling, Vol. 64 No. 1, p. 12.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Malhotra, A. (2005), “E-S-QUAL: a multiple-item scale for
assessing electronic service quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7, February, pp. 1-21.
Rana, N.P. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2015), “Citizen’s adoption of an e-government system: validating
extended social cognitive theory (SCT)”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 32,
pp. 172-181.
Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., Williams, M.D. and Weerakkody, V. (2016), “Adoption of online public
grievance redressal system in India: toward developing a unified view”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Elsevier, Vol. 59, pp. 265-282.
Sachan, A., Kumar, R. and Kumar, R. (2018), “Examining the impact of e-government service delivery
process on user satisfaction”, Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Outsourcing, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 321-336.
Santos, J. (2003), “E-service quality: a model of virtual service quality dimensions”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 233-246.
ITP Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Godfrey, A.L. and Grewal, D. (2007), “SERVCON: development and validation
of a multidimensional service convenience scale”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 144-156.
Shareef, M.A., Kumar, U., Kumar, V. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2009), “Identifying critical factors for adoption
of e-government”, Electronic Government: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 70-96.
Shareef, M.A., Kumar, V., Kumar, U. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2011), “e-Government Adoption Model (GAM):
differing service maturity levels”, Government Information Quarterly, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 17-35.
Sharma, S.K. (2015), “Adoption of e-government services: the role of service quality dimensions and
demographic variables”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 207-222.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), “Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption
values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-171.
Statista (2019), “Digital Population in India as of January 2019”, available at: https://www.statista.com/
statistics/309866/india-digital-population (accessed 20 February 2020).
Sweeney, J. and Soutar, G. (2001), “Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item
scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Today, I. (2015), “Digital India week to bring investment worth billions of dollars”, June, available at:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/technology/story/billions-of-dollars-to-be-invested-at-india-digital-
weekprasad/1/448064.html (accessed 15 June 2016).
Twizeyimana, J.D. and Andersson, A. (2019), “The Public Value of E-Government – A Literature
Review”, Government Information Quarterly, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001.
Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T.A. and Venkatraman, S. (2014), “Understanding e-Government portal use in
rural India: role of demographic and personality characteristics”, Information Systems Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 249-269.
Vijayan, A. (2019), “Digital India – a roadmap to sustainability”, International Journal of Innovative
Technology and Exploring Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 571-576.
Wang, Y.-S. and Liao, Y.-W. (2008), “Assessing eGovernment systems success: a validation of the
DeLone and McLean model of information systems success”, Government Information
Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 717-733.
Wang, C. (2014), “Antecedents and consequences of perceived value in Mobile Government
continuance use: an empirical research in China”, Computers in Human Behavior, Elsevier,
Vol. 34, pp. 140-147.
Webb, H.W., Webb, L.A. and Webb, L.A. (2004), “SiteQual: an integrated measure of Web site quality”,
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 430-440.
Wixom, B.H. and Watson, H.J. (2001), “An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data
warehousing success”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 17-41.
Wolfinbarger, M. and Gilly, M.C. (2003), “eTailQ: dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting etail
quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 183-198.
Wu, J.H. and Wang, Y.M. (2006), “Measuring KMS success: a respecification of the DeLone and
McLean’s model”, Information and Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 728-739.
Xu, J., Benbasat, I.B. and Cenfetelli, R.T. (2013), “Integrating service quality with system and
information quality: an empirical test in the E-service context”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 777-794.
Yadav, J., Saini, A.K. and Yadav, A.K. (2019), “Measuring citizens engagement in e-Government
projects – Indian perspective”, Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 327-346.
Yang, Z. and Peterson, R.T. (2004), “Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of
switching costs”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 799-822.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of E-government
evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
service value
chain
Corresponding author
Rajiv Kumar can be contacted at: rajiv.kumar@iimkashipur.ac.in

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com