20th International Symposium INFOTEH-JAHORINA, 17-19 March 2021
Information Systems Success Models in the
E-Government
Context: A Systematic Literature Review
2021 20th International Symposium INFOTEH-JAHORINA (INFOTEH) | 978-1-7281-8229-2/20/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/INFOTEH51037.2021.9400653
Darko Stefanovic, Andjela Milicevic, Sara Havzi, Teodora Lolic, Aleksandar Ivic
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad
Novi Sad, Serbia
andjela.milicevic@uns.ac.rs
Abstract— In their work to date, researchers around the world
have faced the serious challenge of measuring and evaluating the
success of information systems. The increasing development and
use of e-government systems in the last decade leads to the need to
research models of IS success in the context of e-government. This
paper uses systematic research and literature review to identify
several different approaches to measuring IS success in the context
of e-government. The results show that in most cases the success
of the e-government system was examined using the Davis success
model DeLone and McLean IS, the Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM), as well as the proposed new hybrid models, which are a
combination of several models. The results of this study will add
existing knowledge from past studies that have integrated IS
success in the context of e-government.
Keywords- Information Systems Succes Measurement; E-
Government; Systematic Literature Review;
I. INTRODUCTION
Many types of research are focused on only one dimension
of success, such as customer satisfaction, including the use of an
information system (IS) as an indicator of that system's success
and efficiency. However, research to date has shown that there
is a mismatch between system performance measures and its
use. What complicates a measurement process are a number of
factors that affect the use of that IS. Laboratory experiments
have shown that, depending on the task, the choice of the
necessary measure of use is actually necessary [1]. The research
data also show that variable information about perception and
behaviour system evaluation should be considered separately to
determine the level of IS performance [1].
Great technological leaps and new ideas and discoveries on
a monthly basis lead to the need to use information systems in
all parts of people's work and lives. The use of digital
technologies in everyday life is increasing and according to the
conducted literature research [2] the use of digital technologies
in the process of e-learning is positively assessed. Special
emphasis is placed on the growth and development of
technologies applied in the context of e-government systems.
Special emphasis is placed on the growth and development of
technologies applied in the context of e-government systems.
In the last twenty years, in order to keep pace with others,
bring closer and facilitate access to services to their citizens,
modernize and improve the state system, governments and
administrations of many advanced countries are developing e-
978-1-7281-8229-2/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Raytheon Technologies. Downloaded on May 26,2021 at 05:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
government and information systems. Governments and
administrations worldwide are working to develop e-
government and improve information systems to provide their
citizens with easier access to services, maintained
competitiveness, optimization and modernization of
government systems.
For such systems to be successful, to develop and be
advanced, they need to be evaluated. Researchers face a great
challenge in measuring and evaluating the success of
information systems. One of the papers dealing with this topic
obtained results that can be used to assess the success of the e-
government system [3]. Different models for measuring IS
performance have been proposed.
This paper uses a systematic literature review by the
guidelines of Kitchenham [4] to examine different ways of
measuring the success of information systems (IS) in the context
of e-government.
This study is organized as follows. Measuring the success of
an information system and the concept of e-government are
described in Section 2. The Systematic Literature Review (SLR)
methodology, as well as the planning and implementation of the
review phase used in the current study, is presented in Section 3.
Subsequently, the results of the SLR are reported in Section 3,
and their discussion is given in Section 4. Section 5 concludes
the study, its limitations, and suggests future research.
II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK
According to Zhiyuan Fang [5], e-government can be
defined as an initiative to use new technologies and
communication systems based on the internet, in order for
governments to provide their citizens with simpler, more
convenient and faster access to their services.
"E-government presents a tremendous impetus to move
forward in the 21st century with higher quality, cost-effective,
government services and a better relationship between citizens
and government."[5]. The introduction of e-government
provides an opportunity for citizens to participate in the
decision-making process that directly or indirectly affects them.
Thus, citizens are no longer just passive participants in the
process.
Research on the success of information systems began with
the success model of DeLone and McLean IS [6]. The model
was developed in 1992, and since then, the number of studies on
the topic of success has significantly increased. The D&M
model has six dimensions - system quality, information quality,
usage, customer satisfaction, individual impact and
organizational impact [7].
Over the years, scientists have proposed changes and
opportunities to improve this model. Based on these
considerations, DeLone and McLean published an improved
model in 2003 in which individual and organizational measures
of influence are placed in a single variable called "Net Benefits"
[8].
In the last ten years, the number of conducted research in the
field of e-government has increased significantly. Scientists and
researchers who have dealt with this topic have used different
measurement models. Publications that have been selected
according to the appropriate criteria (more on the criteria in the
next section) will be presented in this paper.
Two systematic literature review were found on the topic of
the Information systems success model. In these papers, the
authors also touched the topic of the success of information
systems in e-government, but this is not their primary goal of
research. Maria Antonopoulou concluded in her paper that user
satisfaction is one of the most important factors affecting ISs
success [9]. Mahmoud Khaled Al-Kofahi included in his work
studies that used only the IS model of success of DeLone and
McLean and suggested using Google Scholar as a good source
of data for future studies to expand their material sources [10].
III. METHODOLOGY
Barbara Kitchenham's [4] procedure for systematic literature
reviews was used to assembling this systematic literature
review. According to Kitchenham, a systematic literature review
can be summarized into three main phases: Planning the Review,
Conducting the Review and Reporting the Review. The
literature review is focused on a set of research questions, as well
as inclusion and exclusion criteria.
A. Planning the Review
In the planning phase of the literature review, it is necessary
to identify the needs for making the review itself for a certain
topic. The need for a systematic literature review can be
established by reviewing existing literature reviews in that
particular research area, following the guidelines proposed by
Kitchenham [4]. No systematic review of the literature has been
found that measures the success of an information system in the
context of e-government.
Last year, research was done on the topic of the information
systems success models in the e-learning [11]. This systematic
review of the literature was done according to this research
model but in the field of e-government. Based on the guidelines
from Kitchenham [4], the following research questions are
formulated:
RQ1: Which models are the pillars in the field of measuring
e-government information system success?
RQ2: Are there any proposed new models and approaches
that can be applied?
Authorized licensed use limited to: Raytheon Technologies. Downloaded on May 26,2021 at 05:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
RQ3: Are there any studies that examine the success of
different e-government information systems?
For this literature review, the following databases were
searched:
● Scopus and
● Web of Science
Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-
reviewed literature: scientific journals, books and conference
proceedings. Delivering a comprehensive overview of the
world's research output in the fields of science, technology,
medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities, Scopus
features smart tools to track, analyze and visualize research [12].
Web of Science is a rich collection of citation indexes
representing the citation connections between scholarly research
articles found in the most globally significant journals, books,
and proceedings in the sciences, social sciences, art and
humanities.
Search terms defined for search in these databases are
presented below:
("Information system success"
OR
"Information system success model"
OR
"Information system success measurement model")
AND
(e-government
OR
"Digital government"
OR
"Online Government")
AND
PUBYEAR>2010
AND
Language=" English"
The inclusion criteria defined for this review are:
IC1: The paper must present a study in which are used one
of the models for determine the success of information systems
in the context of e-government or developed a new model of IS
success that measures the success of e-government systems.
IC2: The publication has to include detailed information
about the developed model or procedure.
IC3: The publications have to be published in the previous
ten years.
Exclusion criteria defined for the review are:
EC1: Duplicate papers found in different databases should
be removed.
 EC2: If one author has more than one paper regarding the TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF PRIMARY STUDIES PER YEAR
same approach, only one paper should be included in the Number of
review. Year Primary studies %
studies
2010 [13], [14], [15] 3 11
EC3: If a paper is focused only on information system 2011 [16],[17] 2 7,4
success, but not in the context of e-government, the paper 2012 [18], [19], [20], [21] 4 15
should be removed. 2013 [22], [23] 2 7,4
2014 [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] 5 18,5
EC4: If the source type of paper is a systematic review of 2015 [29] 1 3,7
the literature 2016 [30] 1 3,7
2017 [31], [32] 2 7,4
For this literature review, the data extraction strategy was 2018 [33], [34] 2 7,4
developed. 2019 [35], [36], [37] 3 11
For each primary study, the following features will be 2020 [38], [39] 2 7,4
extracted in order to answer the research questions:
1. Publication year and source type;
Number of primary studies per year
2. Used/adjusted/developed model;
6
3. Feasibility and applicability of the approach; 5
4. Genericity of the approach and information 4
systems; and 3
2
5. Applicability for non-experts.
1
B. Conducting and Reporting the Review 0
The primary studies that met the inclusion and exclusion 20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020
criteria in the literature review phase are presented in Table 1. Figure 1 Visual representation of distribution of primary studies per year
TABLE 1 FLOW OF THE EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION PROCESS The types of primary study sources are presented in Table 3,
Results Duplicated Initial Final
showing that most papers (52%) were published as journal
Resource articles, the rest are conference papers (37%), and book section
found content selection selection
Scopus 45 1 38 21 (11%).
Web of
13 1 10 6
Science TABLE 3 SOURCE TYPES OF PRIMARY STUDIES
Number
Source type Primary studies %
The previous chapter defined the inclusion and exclusion of studies
criteria, as well as the database search string. After applying the [38], [39], [31],[26], [22], [23],
Journal article [20], [21], [17], [13], [14], [36], 14 52
previously defined sequence, a total of 58 results were obtained. [37], [27]
In the screening phase, the first step was to remove duplicate Conference [35], [33], [34], [30], [29], [25],
records from different databases, where 2 duplicates were found, 10 37
paper [19], [32], [28], [15]
and they were excluded from further research. With the initial Book Section [24], [18], [16] 3 11
selection, we received 38 works. At this stage, papers whose
content was not closely related to the topic of e-government
Table 4 presents the primary studies observed from the
were removed. Based on further exclusion criteria, 12 papers
aspect of the type of research on the one hand and the used
were excluded, then 10 and in the last step 6. In the end, in the
methodology, on the other hand. In the appropriate sample that
final selection, we get the number of selected papers was 27.
met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, only two theoretical
C. Data extraction and compression studies stand out ([25], [19]) We can notice that these two studies
Using data extraction, the studies selected in the previous did not use either qualitative or quantitative methods. The
stages of a systematic review of the literature were summarized remaining 24 papers (89%) were defined as empirical research.
and then presented in the next section. Tables and graphs provide According to the results, 78% of studies used quantitative
a visual presentation of selected primary papers based on the methodology and only 11% of research was conducted as mixed
criteria for data extraction. All reviewed baseline studies have research (both qualitative and quantitative methods were used).
been conducted in the last ten years. As shown in Tables 2, the
largest number of papers was published in 2014. We can single
out 2012 as year with a larger number of papers. These data are
visually presented in Figure 2.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Raytheon Technologies. Downloaded on May 26,2021 at 05:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE 4 RESEARCH TYPES OF PRIMARY STUDIES TABLE 6 THE PERCENTAGE SHARE OF EACH MODEL IN COMBINED
MODELS
Primary studies by
Research methodology Number of Primary
% ISSM TAM UTAUT TPB TRA Seddon’s
type studies study
Quantitative Mixed N/A
[38], [39], [38] X X
[35], [33], [39] X X
[31], [29],
[24], [26], [33] X X
[22], [23], [34],
[34] X X X X X
Empirical [18], [20], [16], 24 89
[21], [17], [32] [25] X X
[13], [14],
[36], [37], [22] X X
[27], [28], [19] X X
[15]
[25], [21] X X
Theoretical 2 8
[19]
[36] X X
Mixed [30] 1 3
[27] X X X
Number
9 8 3 2 1 1
Distribution of papers according to the type model used to of studies
test the performance of the information system is shown in Table % 38 33 13 8 4 4
5. The updated success model of the DeLone and McLean
information systems (ISSM) was introduced in 2003 [8]. As in
and research in the context of e-learning [11] this model was
applied in more than half of the conducted studies, exactly 4% 4%
55,5%. One study is based on the TAM (Technology 8%
Acceptance Model) introduced by Davis in 1989 [40] and 41% 38%
study was based on a combined model. Through these data, we 13%
can conclude that almost half of the studies were based on the
DeLone and McLean models while the other half of the primary
studies proposed a new model that combines variables and
factors from different pillar models to overcome the limitations
of these models. One paper has been identified that proposes a 33%
new model in its entirety.
ISSM TAM UTAUT TPB TRA Seddon's
TABLE 5 DISTRIBUTION OF PRIMARY STUDIES BASED ON THE TYPE OF
MODEL THAT WAS USED
Figure 2 Visual representation of the percentage share of each model in
Number of combined models
Primary studies %
studies
[35], [31], [29], [24],
[20], [37], [32], [28], North…
ISSM 15 55
[15], [30], [23], [14],
[18], [16], [13] Asia
TAM [17] 1 4
Africa
[38], [39], [33], [34],
Combined model [25], [26], [22], [19], 11 41 Europe
[21], [36], [27]
New model [26] 1 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 3 Review based on continents
Seven papers propose a combined model which is a
combination of Information systems success model or Delone Studies from North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe
and McLean IS success model and Technology Acceptance account for 7.5%, 70%, 7,5%, and 15%, respectively, of the total
Model (TAM). UTAUT (the Unified Theory of Acceptance and number of selected studies. A total of 18 countries from these
Use of Technology) is also combined with the ISSM model (3 continents appear. Indonesia is in first place with 4 studies
papers) and TAM (1 paper). These models are followed by TPB (15%), followed by Taiwan with 3 (11%) and Malaysia with 3.
(Theory of Planned Behavior), with the participation of 8%, Table 7 shows the geographical distributions of the studies.
TRA (Theory of Reasoned Action) with the participation of 4%
and Seddon's model (4%).

Authorized licensed use limited to: Raytheon Technologies. Downloaded on May 26,2021 at 05:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE 7 REVIEW BASED ON COUNTRY published professional papers has a noticeable growth until
Country No. % of 27 Country No. % of 27 2014, and then there is a decline and stagnation.
Indonesia 4 15 Pakistan 1 4
Taiwan 3 11 Thailand 1 4
Various researchers use different methods and ways to
Malaysia 3 11 Greece 1 4 examine the measurement of IS success for e-government.
Saudi There is a need for a systematic presentation of publications that
2 7 England 1 4 use available models for this purpose.
Arabia
China 1 4 Kuwait 1 4
USA 2 7 Turkey 1 4 At the beginning of this paper, research questions were
South formulated and answers were given during the paper. After the
1 4 Belgium 1 4
Africa process is completed, the conclusion is that the current situation
Brunei
1 4 Germany 1 4 is such that it is possible to use several different models to
Darussalam measure the success of information systems in the context of e-
United government. Mostly, researchers use ISSM, TAM, UTAUT,
Arab 1 4 Egypt 1 4
Emirates TPB, TRA and Seddon’s, although each of these models has its
own inherent limitations. The most important limitation of each
of the models is insufficient detail, which prevents general
applicability to all IS related to e-government. Through hybrid
IV. DISCUSSION
models, many researchers have tried to overcome the
In this section, the obtained results of a systematic review limitations of individual models but none of these solutions has
of the literature will be presented and analyzed. By analyzing been accepted as a sufficiently thorough, reliable, and
Table 2, we can conclude that in 2014 there was the most universally applicable model to all e-government systems.
research and that after that the number of papers by year
decreases. This can be attributed to the development of e- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
government at the international level in the previous period, This research has been supported by the Ministry of
which caused a decrease in the need to write papers on this Education, Science and Technological Development through
topic. We can also draw a parallel with Table 7 and Figure 3, the project no. 451-03-9/2021-14/ 200156: “Innovative
where we can conclude that most of the selected research comes
scientific and artistic research from the FTS domain”.
from developing countries while developed countries have
already reached some advanced levels in terms of organizing
and providing effective and efficient services to their REFERENCES
citizens[41].
[1] B. Szajna, “Determining information system usage: Some issues and
In response to RQ1, we can conclude that of the 27 selected examples,” Inf. Manag., vol. 25, no. 3, 1993, doi: 10.1016/0378-
7206(93)90037-T.
primary studies, 24 are at least partially based on ISSM, which
means that this model is mostly used to measure the success of [2] T. Lolic, D. Stefanovic, R. Dionisio, D. Dakic, and S. Havzi, “Learning
Environment Digital Transformation : Systematic Literature Review,”
government. It is followed by TAM which was used as a basis Inf. Syst. Conf., pp. 1–9, 2020.
for 9 studies. In response to question RQ2, we can say that [3] D. Stefanovic, U. Marjanovic, M. Delić, D. Culibrk, and B. Lalic,
almost half of the selected primary studies use a combined “Assessing the success of e-government systems: An employee
model to examine government performance. This can be perspective,” Inf. Manag., vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 717–726, 2016, doi:
attributed to the fact that a large number of scientists claim that 10.1016/j.im.2016.02.007.
an individual model cannot cover all the necessary aspects for [4] Barbara Kitchenham, Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews.
testing and return quality results. Aldholay et al. [42] claim that Keele University, 2004.
individual technical skills or facilitating conditions are [5] Z. Fang, “e-Goverment in digital era : concept, practice and
development,” Int. J. Comput. Internet Manag., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–22,
important factors that are not covered by ISSM. In the end, as 2002.
the answer to the last question (RQ3) we can say that there are [6] W. H. Delone and E. R. McLean, “The quest for the dependent variable.
several studies that examine the success of different e- Information Systems Research,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 60–95,
government information systems. 1992.
[7] W. D. & E. M. Stacie Petter, “Measuring information systems success:
Measuring customer satisfaction is a challenging task that a models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships,” 2008.
large number of researchers from these studies have addressed.
[8] W. H. DeLone and E. R. McLean, “The DeLone and McLean model of
The results of these studies should show the cultural, technical information systems success: A ten-year update,” J. Manag. Inf. Syst., vol.
and organizational factors that influence government success 19, no. 4, pp. 9–30, 2003, doi: 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748.
and serve as guidelines for governments around the world to [9] M. Antonopoulou and T. Kotsilieris, “A literature review of user
build or improve their e-government applications to better satisfaction models towards information system success,” Int. J. E-
communicate with their citizens and provide better services. Services Mob. Appl., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 71–87, 2019, doi:
10.4018/IJESMA.2019040105.
V. CONCLUSION [10] M. K. Al-Kofahi, H. Hassan, and R. Mohamad, “Information systems
success model: A review of literature,” Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang., vol.
There is an obvious increase in the use of e-government 12, no. 10, pp. 104–128, 2020.
services, in many countries, both the most developed ones and [11] D. Stefanovic, I. Spasojevic, S. Havzi, T. Lolic, and S. Ristic,
those on the African and Asian continent. The number of “Information systems success models in the e-learning context: A
systematic literature review,” Ann. DAAAM Proc. Int. DAAAM Symp.,

Authorized licensed use limited to: Raytheon Technologies. Downloaded on May 26,2021 at 05:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 555–564, 2020, doi:
10.2507/31st.daaam.proceedings.077.
[12] “Scopus: Access and use Support Center,” [Online]. Available:
https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/15534/supporthub/s
copus/p/10965/.
[13] C.-L. Jang, “Measuring Electronic Government Procurement Success and
Testing for the Moderating Effect of Computer Self-efficacy.,” 2010.
[14] J. Floropoulos, C. Spathis, D. Halvatzis, and M. Tsipouridou, “Measuring
the success of the Greek Taxation Information System,” Int. J. Inf.
Manage., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 47–56, 2010, doi:
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.03.013.
[15] M. Janssen, W. Lamersdorf, J. Pries-Heje, and M. Rosemann, E-
Government, E-Services and Global processes: Joint IFIP TC 8 and TC 6
international conferences EGES 2010 and GISP 2010 held as part of WCC
2010 Brisbane, Australia, September 20-23, 2010 Proceedings, vol. 334.
2010.
[16] C.-P. Hsiao, N., Chu, P.-Y., Lee, “Impact of E-Governance on
Businesses: Model Development and Case Study,” .
[17] F. Lin, S. S. Fofanah, and D. Liang, “Assessing citizen adoption of e-
Government initiatives in Gambia: A validation of the technology
acceptance model in information systems success,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 28,
no. 2, pp. 271–279, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.09.004.
[18] H. Abdelsalam, “Success and failure of local e-government projects:
Lessons learned from Egypt ( Book Chapter),” 2012.
[19] M. S. Akram and A. Malik, “Evaluating citizens’ readiness to embrace e-
government services,” ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser., pp. 58–67, 2012,
doi: 10.1145/2307729.2307740.
[20] V. Khayun, P. Ractham, and D. Firpo, “Assessing e-Excise sucess with
Delone and Mclean’s model,” J. Comput. Inf. Syst., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 31–
40, 2012, doi: 10.1080/08874417.2012.11645556.
[21] M. M. Ayyash, K. Ahmad, and D. Singh, “A hybrid information system
model for trust in e-government initiative adoption in public sector
organisation,” Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 162–179, 2012,
doi: 10.1504/IJBIS.2012.048889.
[22] M. M. Ayyash, K. Ahmad, and D. Singh, “Investigating the effect of
information systems factors on trust in e-government initiative adoption
in palestinian public sector,” Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 5, no.
15, pp. 3865–3875, 2013, doi: 10.19026/rjaset.5.4447.
[23] V. Hollmann, H. Lee, H. Zo, and A. P. Ciganek, “Examining success
factors of open source software repositories: The case of OSOR.eu
portal,” Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2013, doi:
10.1504/IJBIS.2013.055544.
[24] M. M. Komba, “An Empirical Application of the DeLone and McLean
Model to Examine Factors for E-Government Adoption in the Selected
Districts of Tanzania,” 2014.
[25] L. Van Cauter, M. Snoeck, and J. Crompvoets, “PA meets is research:
Analysing failure of intergovernmental information systems via is
adoption and success models,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including
Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), vol. 8653
LNCS, pp. 72–83, 2014, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-44426-9_6.
[26] Ö. Sebetci and G. Aksu, “Evaluating e-government systems in Turkey:
The case of the ‘e-movable system,’” Inf. Polity, vol. 19, no. 3–4, pp. 225–
243, 2014, doi: 10.3233/IP-140341.
[27] R. Danila and A. Abdullah, “User’s Satisfaction on E-government
Services: An Integrated Model,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 164, pp.
575–582, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.148.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Raytheon Technologies. Downloaded on May 26,2021 at 05:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[28] L. W. L. H. Q. V, I. Eivx, and H. G. X. Fq, “$ 6Wxg\ Ri * & (
*Ryhuqphqw &Lwl]Hq¶V 6Dwlvidfwlrq,” pp. 3–7.
[29] Z. A. and S. T. Afzaal H. Seyal, Mohd Noah Abd Rahman, “Evaluating
User Satisfaction with Bruneian E-Government Website: A Case of e-
Darussalam,” 2015.
[30] N. Gorla and A. Chiravuri, “Developing electronic government success
models for G2C and G2B scenarios,” Proc. 2016 Int. Conf. Inf. Manag.
ICIM 2016, pp. 12–15, 2016, doi: 10.1109/INFOMAN.2016.7477527.
[31] B. W. Wirtz, L. Mory, R. Piehler, and P. Daiser, “E-government: a citizen
relationship marketing analysis (IRPN-D-16-00005),” Int. Rev. Public
Nonprofit Mark., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 149–178, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s12208-
016-0164-9.
[32] A. H. Hassan, Nazhatul Shahima; Seyal, “Measuring Success of Higher
Education Centralised Administration Information System: An e-
Government Initiative,” 2017.
[33] R. Priskila, D. B. Setyohadi, and A. J. Santoso, “An investigation of
factors affecting the success of regional financial management
information system (case study of Palangka Raya Government),” 2018
Int. Semin. Res. Inf. Technol. Intell. Syst. ISRITI 2018, pp. 253–258,
2018, doi: 10.1109/ISRITI.2018.8864479.
[34] R. Y. Fahrianta, G. Chandrarin, and E. Subiyantoro, “The Conceptual
Model of Integration of Acceptance and Use of Technology with the
Information Systems Success,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 407,
no. 1, pp. 0–6, 2018, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/407/1/012144.
[35] T. Hariguna, U. Rahardja, Q. Aini, and Nurfaizah, “Effect of social media
activities to determinants public participate intention of e-government,”
Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 161, pp. 233–241, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.119.
[36] D. W. Jacob, M. F. M. Fudzee, M. A. Salamat, and T. Herawan, “A review
of the generic end-user adoption of e-government services,” Int. Rev.
Adm. Sci., vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 799–818, 2019, doi:
10.1177/0020852319861895.
[37] Y. C. Chen, L. T. Hu, K. C. Tseng, W. J. Juang, and C. K. Chang, “Cross-
boundary e-government systems: Determinants of performance,” Gov.
Inf. Q., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 449–459, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.001.
[38] A. I. Alkraiji, “Citizen Satisfaction with Mandatory E-Government
Services: A Conceptual Framework and an Empirical Validation,” IEEE
Access, vol. 8, pp. 117253–117265, 2020, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3004541.
[39] A. I. Alkraiji, “An examination of citizen satisfaction with mandatory e-
government services: comparison of two information systems success
models,” Transform. Gov. People, Process Policy, 2020, doi:
10.1108/TG-01-2020-0015.
[40] G. Lala, “The Emergence and Development of the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM),” 2014, [Online]. Available:
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=48800.
[41] S. A. Nawafleh, R. F. Obiedat, and O. K. Harfoushi, “E-Government
between Developed and Developing Countries,” pp. 8–13, 1887.
[42] A. H. Aldholay, Z. Abdullah, T. Ramayah, O. Isaac, and A. M. Mutahar,
“Online learning usage and performance among students within public
universities in Yemen,” Int. J. Serv. Stand., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 163–179,
2018, doi: 10.1504/IJSS.2018.091842.