2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

Exploring the Values of e-Governance to Citizens

Seyed Mohammadbagher Jafaria*, Noor Azman Alib a Graduate School of Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang Selangor 43400 UPM, Malaysia b Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang Selangor 43400 UPM, Malaysia *Corresponding Author: smjafari@mail.eng.upm.edu.my

ABSTRACT The rapid evolution of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has created challenges and opportunities for governments all over the world. Nowadays, e-government and e-governance are key issues on the agenda of various governments across the world. However, the success of e-governance initiatives is contingent upon designing these initiatives based on citizens values and needs. Nevertheless, the actual needs, values and objectives of citizens receive minor consideration in current e-governance design practice and a theory of the needs and values of citizens on e-governance is lacking. This study is one of the first steps to work on such a theory, constructing a tentative model that explains the citizens needs and values on e-governance. By providing the background of e-governance definitions, this study relies on the UNDP (2010) definition of e-governance that includes three core components of e-administration, e-service delivery and e-participation. Taking into account this definition, e-governance values were explored by utilizing the value-focused thinking (VFT) approach. As a result, this study proposed a list of 130 objectives, 98 means objectives and 32 fundamental objectives of citizens values on e-governance. This list can be considered as a set of the potential values of citizens on e-governance that are key elements of successful design of e-governance initiatives. Keywords: e-Governance, e-Administration, e-Services, e-Participation, Value-Focused Thinking 1. Introduction Over the past two decades, rapidly evolving information and communication technologies (ICTs) have penetrated nearly every aspect of government, business, and daily life (Dawes, 2008). The rapid evolution of new technologies has created challenges for all governments (Riley, 2003). Nowadays, e-government and e-governance are key issues on the agenda of various governments across the world (UNPAN, 2008). In fact, e-Governance is a technology mediated relationship between

1312

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

citizens and their government while e-government is the provision of routine government information and transactions using electronic means (Belwal & Al-Zoubi, 2008). Despite the worldwide diffusion of e-governance initiatives, the claimed benefits of e-governance has not been easily achieved for various technological as well as organizational reasons (Saxena, 2005) and the development of e-government projects has high risk at present (Hu, Xiao, Pang, & Xie, 2005). Many recent studies emphasized that the success of e-governance initiatives is contingent upon designing these initiatives based on citizens values and needs (Jaeger & Bertot, 2010; Rahman, 2009; Saxena, 2005; Shareef, Kumar, Kumar, Chowdhury, & Misra, 2010; Wang & Zeng, 2009) and digital government must be oriented towards the citizens (Asgarkhani, 2005). However, the actual needs, values and objectives of citizens receive minor consideration in current e-governance design practice (Bertot, Jaeger, & McClure, 2008; Heeks & Bailur, 2007; van Dijk, Peters, & Ebbers, 2008; Yildiz, 2007).This study tries to explore the values of e-governance to citizens through a systematic way using the Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) approach. In the following parts of this article, the notion and definition of e-governance is reviewed and then after introducing the VFT approach, its application for e-governance context is discussed. Finally the citizens values on e-governance are explored through a comprehensive literature review and the e-governance values are proposed. 2. e-Governance Definition The e-gov field (also called electronic government, digital government, electronic governance, and similar names) emerged in the late 1990s (Grnlund, 2005; Grnlund & Horan, 2005) and research into the phenomenon of e-government is relatively new (Coursey & Norris, 2008). Therefore, it will be obvious that the literature on this issue is very young and has not maturated yet (Grnlund & Horan, 2005). On the other hand, e-governance is a term that is actually used by scholars and practitioners from different fields because of its inter-disciplinary nature (Grnlund & Horan, 2005). This involvement form many disciplines pose a dispersed research agenda rather than a unified or hard-core research themes. Specifically, it appears to be a research domain suffering from methodological shortcomings, a lack of a common vocabulary, and a lack of commonly agreed issues/findings (Andersen & Henriksen, 2005). Therefore, explaining this field is still difficult (Grnlund & Horan, 2005). Like other concepts of contemporary, there are various definitions of e-governance (Dawes, 2008; Sriramesh & Rivera-Sanchez, 2006) among researchers, specialists and practitioners and they still have quite different understandings of what e-governance is (Finger & Pcoud, 2003). One reason for this issue is the multifaceted nature of e-governance. The notion of e-governance strictly depends on the

1313

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

perspective taken on governance (Ojo & Estevez, 2008) and the field that the definition comes from. Therefore, this concept has received various definitions depending on authors and contexts. Heeks (2001), who according to Dada (2006) has done a substantial amount of research in e-governance, has defined three main contributions of e-governance as: improving government processes (e-administration); connecting citizens (e-citizens and e-services); and building external interactions (e-society). One of the most cited definitions of e-governance was presented by UNESCO (2009) that refers to e-governance as: the public sectors use of information and communication technologies with the aim of improving information and service delivery, encouraging citizen participation in the decision-making process and making the government more accountable, transparent and effective. Based on this definition, e-governance involves new styles of leadership, new ways of debating and deciding policy and investment, new ways of accessing education, new ways of listening to citizens and new ways of organizing and delivering information and services. e-Governance is generally considered as a wider concept than e-government, since it can bring about a change in the way citizens relate to governments and to each other. e-Governance can bring forth new concepts of citizenship, both in terms of citizens needs and responsibilities. Its objective is to engage, enable and empower the citizens (UNESCO, 2009). However, one of the comprehensive definitions and typologies of e-governance has been provided by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) that is very similar to the UNESCO definition. Based on the extensive work that UNDP has done in this area in the last few years, the following typology has been developed for e-governance (UNDP, 2010). It has 3 core elements complemented by 3 cross-cutting components. These are described below: a) Core Components: e-Administration: Public ICT investments to foster transparency and accountability within public institutions, both national and local, to improve their functioning. This component is usually linked to Public Administration Reform (PAR) and state modernization programmes. e-Service Delivery: Public ICT investments to foster efficiency and transparency of public institutions in providing public services in all sectors. This component is related to PAR, local governance, and access to justice programmes. e-Participation: Public ICT investments to foster interaction between public institutions and citizens to promote better policies, services and public operations. It includes three levels: information provision to citizens,

1314

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

consultation with citizens, and dialogue between government and citizens. This component is usually linked to voice and accountability, civil society strengthening, and parliamentary development among others. b) Cross-cutting Components: The three cross-cutting components include: Policy Environment and Regulation: Public investments to support the creation and implementation of ICTD and e-governance policies, legislation and regulation as well as to build the internal institutional capacities of the public entities involved in policy design, implementation and oversight. In principle, such policies should be closely related to broader national development goals. Access to ICT and Connectivity: ICT investments in public and private information infrastructure, connectivity and equipment to foster wider use by people. A typical example is telecenters or, more generally, the deployment of public access points. This area of work is typical of the broader ICTD field.

Access to Information (A2I): Public ICT investments to promote the digitalization and dissemination of public information among the overall population. It is closely linked to the broader field of access to information (A2I) which, in UNDPs work, refers to promoting the creation of national legislation on A2I i.e., freedom of information acts. This typology is presented on figure 1.

Policy

e-Administratio n

e-Services
Access to Information

Democrati c

e-Participatio

Access and Connectivity Figure 1: e-Governance Typology (UNDP, 2010) For the purpose of this study, researchers relied on Heeks (2001) and UNESCO (2009) definition of e-governance and its recent development by UNDP (2010) as described

1315

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

above. This definition gives a clear understanding of the issue and is based on the latest knowledge accumulation in this field. 3. Theoretical Background Many recent studies emphasized that the success of e-governance initiatives is contingent upon designing these initiatives based on citizens values and needs (Jaeger & Bertot, 2010; Rahman, 2009; Saxena, 2005; Shareef et al., 2010; Wang & Zeng, 2009) and digital government must be oriented towards the citizens (Asgarkhani, 2005). However, the actual needs, values and objectives of citizens receive minor consideration in current e-governance design practice (Bertot et al., 2008; Heeks & Bailur, 2007; van Dijk et al., 2008; Yildiz, 2007). Therefore, it is no surprise that a theory of the needs and values of citizens on e-governance is lacking. This will have to be derived from a general theory of the users needs and values of new technologies and applied to the special context of the e-governance. This study, intends to begin working on such a theory, constructing a tentative model that explains the citizens needs and values regarding e-governance. Initially, this model will be very broad and will contain a large number of potential explanatory factors. On the other hand, Flak & Rose (2005) stated that the e-government/e-governance field, like most young fields, lacks a strong body of well-developed theories. Their recommendation for dealing with theoretical immaturity in this field is to import and adapt theories from other, more mature fields. Therefore, in order to use a systematic way to explore citizens needs and values on e-governance, the Value Theory or Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) approach by Keeney (1992) from Decision Analysis (DA) field was found as an appropriate theory that can be applied in this research. Keeney (1992) claimed that the VFT approach is a proven technique for identifying the values of an initiative and Siau, Sheng, & Nah (2004) and Sheng, Nah, & Siau (2005b) emphasized that this approach provides a systematic way to articulate and organize values. 4. The Value-Focused Thinking Approach Procedure Value-Focused Thinking Approach is a concept proposed firstly by Keeney in his book Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking in 1992. In this book, Keeney proposed the concept of value proposition: value-focused thinking that provides a framework for defining value to the customers (Keeney, 1992). Based on Keeneys viewpoint, values are fundamentally important in any decision situation. Actually, value is the most important object that is discussed about in VFT. So what is a value? According to Keeney (1992) values are expressed as objectives, goals, criteria, performance measures, weights, preferences, and/or objective functions in the

1316

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

discipline of operation research. To apply VFT approach on a certain domain, researchers use a predefined procedure to secure the correct application of this concept. This procedure includes a few steps (Nah, Siau, & Sheng, 2005) shown in figure 2.
Distinguish Convert Identify values values to objectives between means and fundamental objectives Build means-ends network

Figure 2: The Procedure of VFT Approach (Nah et al., 2005) A brief explanation of each step is presented below: Step 1, identify wishes, concerns, problems, and values: A value may be expressed or implied in various forms such as desired traits, characteristics of consequences that matter, guidelines for actions, and priorities (Keeney, 1999; Nah et al., 2005). Step 2, convert user input into objectives: A value is expressed in various ways and must be converted to a common form representing its corresponding objective. An objective consists of a decision context, an object, and a direction of preference that one wants to strive toward (Keeney, 1999; Sheng, Nah, & Siau, 2005a). As an example, in the case of Internet commerce, the decision context is whether or not to make purchases over the Internet. The object is a noun and the direction of preference is a verb. Therefore, quicker way to purchase as a value becomes minimize purchase time, security problems becomes assure system security," and "cost" becomes minimize cost.

Step 3, distinguish between fundamental and means objectives: At this stage, there will likely be a long list of objectives. The first thing to do in organizing objectives is to combine similar objectives into categories (Keeney, 1999). After it, to differentiate between means and fundamental objectives, Keeney (1999) suggested the Why it is important (WITI) test. He postulates two possible types of answers: o First, that the given objective is one of the essential reasons for interest in a given case. Such an objective is a fundamental objective. o Second, a given objective is important because of its implication for some other objective. This objective is a means objective. For means objectives, a response to the WITI question identifies another objective. Repeated application of the WITI test progressively identifies a single fundamental

1317

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

objective for a given decision context. Step 4, build a means-ends objective network: The purpose of this step is to link means objectives to each other as well as to fundamental objectives (Keeney, 1999; Nah et al., 2005).

5. The Steps Involved in Exploring the e-Governance Values In order to provide the basis for formulating a model of e-governance values from citizens viewpoint, the e-governance values and objectives will be identified here. To achieve this goal, the steps shown in figure 3 are followed. Each of these steps is explained as below: 1) Finding previous studies on the subject: the recent studies on VFT application in IS are reviewed to find the relevant values applicable for e-governance and generate the preliminarily list of e-governance values. 2) Reviewing the recent literature on e-governance: the recent studies mostly published in the leading refereed journals and conference proceedings during the 6-year period from 2005 to mid 2010 discussing the e-governance goals and objectives are reviewed to explore the relevant values and objectives of e-governance. 3) Converting the identified values to objectives: based on the VFT procedure, the identified values are converted to the objective format. An objective consists of a decision context, an object, and a direction of preference (Keeney, 1999; Sheng et al., 2005a). 4) Distinguishing between means and fundamental objectives: the converted objectives are classified into two types: means and fundamental objectives based on the WITI test proposed by Keeney (1994). 5) Combining the lists: two lists are combined and integrated to one comprehensive list of e-governance objectives. In this step the terms with the same concepts are unified with a common name.
Finding previous studies on the subject Combining the lists

Reviewing the recent literature on e-governance

Converting the identified values to objectives

Distinguishing between means and fundamental objectives

Figure 3: The Steps Involved in Exploring the Values of e-Governance

1318

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

5.1 Finding the previous studies related to VFT and e-governance To fulfill this step, it has been tried to find any previous study on e-governance values that utilized the VFT approach. However, even by using different search strategies based on the recommendations by Webster and Watson (2002) and different scientific sources, no study was found that directly discussed this subject. The search procedure resulted in a few studies that utilized VFT for other topic partially related to e-governance. Kenney (1999), as a pioneer researcher in applying VFT in IS study, used the VFT approach to generate a list of Internet commerce values to the customer. The result of his work was a 91-objective list of customers values on I-commerce. Torkzadeh and Dhillon (2002) followed Keeneys (1999) work and expanded the values generated by Keeney (1999) to 125 items and developed two instruments that measure the value of I-commerce to the customers. Torkzadeh and Dhillon (2002) used a quantitative approach and conducted a survey to validate the proposed instruments. As the result of their empirical work, a 5-factor, 21-item instrument for measuring means objectives and a 4-factor, 16-item instrument for measuring fundamental objectives that are important for Internet purchasing are suggested. Park (2008) used the result of Torkzadeh and Dhillons (2002) work as a basis to explore the e-government values to citizens. His work resulted in the identification of 76 items, 48 of which were the means objectives and the 28 were the fundamental objectives. Park (2008) conducted an empirical study through survey and collected data from e-government users. His study resulted in a 38-item list e-government values to citizens. e-Government, is defined as the provision of routine government information and transactions using electronic means (Belwal & Al-Zoubi, 2008), therefore, it is representing the same concept of e-services delivery in e-governance definition. Thus, for the purpose of this study and to identify the values of e-governance to citizens, the items identified by Park (2008) for e-government values to citizens that is based on previous empirical works are considered as a preliminary list of e-governance values. This list will be completed throughout the other steps of exploring the values of e-governance in this research. 5.2 Reviewing the recent literature on e-governance Webster and Watson (2002) suggest that literature reviews are an important part of the development of a research field. They offer the opportunity to synthesize and reflect on previous theoretical work, thus providing documented grounding for the advancement of knowledge. Therefore, in order to explore the relevant values and objectives of e-governance in literature, a structured approach based on the recommendations by Webster and Watson (2002) was chosen to find the relevant articles, and then these articles were reviewed and analyzed for extracting the values

1319

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

and objectives of e-governance. 5.2.1 Selecting the recent literature As Webster and Watson (2002) stated, a complete review covers the relevant literature on the topic and is not limited to one research methodology, one set of journals, or one geographic region. Referring to the previous section of this research regarding e-governance domain area, it was mentioned that e-governance is an interdisciplinary field spanning other disciplines. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the review was not limited only to leading journals in the IS discipline and instead of searching by journals, the focus was set for the search by topic across all relevant journals and also reputed conference proceedings. Moreover, to find more related source material for the review, the Go Backward and Go Forward strategy was taken into account as recommended by Webster and Watson (2002). In Go Backward step, by reviewing the citations for the key articles, prior articles important for review were determined. In addition, in the Go Forward step, by using the Google Scholar search engine, articles citing the most contributing articles were identified in the previous steps selected and included in the review. In searching for proper articles, the timeframe was set for a 6-year period from 2005 to mid 2010 to cover the recent developments on the issue. According to Keeney (1992) values are expressed as objectives, goals, criteria, performance measures, weights, preferences, and/or objective functions in the discipline of operations research. Therefore, the keywords for selecting related articles include e-governance, electronic governance, digital governance, e-governance goals, objectives, criteria, performance measures, weights and preferences. In some cases where search engine of one publisher, did not return any related articles, the broader keywords, like e-government, e-participation and e-democracys goals and objectives was selected to not miss the related articles in that publishers journals. This strategy accompanied with the previous described steps in selecting articles made secure a comprehensive source material for the purpose of analyzing and extracting e-governance values. The process of searching for related literature resulted in 74 articles from a wide spectrum of reputed scientific publishers. Table 1 depicts the publishers and their related selected articles regarding e-governance goals and objectives. The list of the selected articles is not included in this article due to space limitation; however, a copy of it is available upon request.

1320

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

Table 1: The Selected Articles by their Publishers

Publishers No of Articles

Blackwell Publishing Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS) Elsevier Emerald Group Publishing Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) Published by IEEE IEEE IGI Publishing IOS Press and the authors Cambridge University Press - Oxford University Press Sage Publications Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg Routledge - Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Total

6 4 13 11 3 2 15 2 4 3 7 4 74

It should be acknowledged that the choice of proper keywords affect the article sample. The indiscriminate use of e-Governance and e-Government in the literature and in articles keywords was obvious. Therefore, in these cases, a more detailed review was used to select the articles. As it stated by Sb, Rose, & Skiftenes Flak (2008) in the absence of an established field with agreed terms of reference, this problem is unavoidable. Moreover, establishing a core literature for an emerging research area is difficult (Rose & Sanford, 2007), because even though authors clearly write about e-governance, few of them currently use clearly this subject as a keyword for their work. Therefore, even by using all the proposed strategies for selecting a good article sample, missing some articles is unavoidable (Webster & Watson, 2002). A systematic search ensures that a relatively complete census of relevant literature accumulates (Webster & Watson, 2002). Therefore, while acknowledging the limitations of the literature selection process, researchers consider their sample to provide a good overview of the values of e-governance both because of the amount of papers analyzed and the quality of the papers (mostly refereed journal papers from top scientific publishers). 5.2.2 Analyzing the selected literature Webster & Watson (2002) suggested that the elements of a good literature review include a structured approach to identifying the source material and the use of a concept matrix or other analytical framework that leads to a coherent conceptual structuring of the topic. Following their recommendation, the concept-centric approach was selected for reviewing the selected source material. Based on this approach, the concepts determine the organizing framework of a review. Therefore, it was not concentrated that each author identified which concepts; otherwise it focused

1321

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

on finding the relevant concepts according to the pre-defined concept matrix. After reading each article, this matrix compiled gradually. This concept matrix developed on a logical approach for grouping and presenting the key concepts of review. Based on the selected definition of e-governance, three core components of e-governance namely e-Administration, e-Services Delivery and e-Participation and three cross-cutting components that are Policy Environment and Regulation, Access to Information (A2I) and Access to ICT and Connectivity were selected as the main categories of the concept matrix. During the review, it was determined if author(s) provided new value, objective, goal criteria, performance measure, weight and preference for e-governance and its sub-domains. In the case that authors just repeated or supported the previous works findings, it was not considered as a new value. However, as stated by Dawes (2008) the objectives of e-governance are interrelated. Therefore, as expected, in some cases choosing the appropriate category for some discovered objectives was not an easy task. Bearing in mind the selected definition of e-governance, researchers tried to distinguish between different categories and choose the best fitted one to the identified values. Webster & Watson (2002) stated that it can be determined that the review is nearing completion when there is no finding of new concepts in the article set. As it will be shown in the result of this literature review, the point was reached where that many concepts were repeated by different authors and no new concepts could be extracted from articles. Therefore, the search for new articles stopped. In summarizing the results, wherever necessary, a common name for the same concept named differently by the various authors was provided. The definition and explanation by each author has been considered in this unification. 5.2.3 Converting the identified values to objectives A value can be expressed in various ways. To develop some consistency in the expression of the identified e-governance values, the value must be converted to a common form representing its corresponding objective. Converting and grouping the e-governance objective items into general objectives required a structured process. Following Keeney (1999), to convert the identified e-governance value items, the decision context was set as whether to use e-governance. The object was a noun and the direction of preference is a verb. Thus, for example, making government operations cost-effective became minimize government operations cost, delivering of personalized services became maximize personalized services and availability of e-petitions became promote e-petitions. 5.2.4 The means and fundamental objectives of e-governance values In this step, first, the similar converted objectives obtained from the previous step

1322

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

were grouped into categories. For example, objectives such as Maximize information reliability, Maximize information relevance to citizens and Maximize accuracy and currentness of information and services were categorized as a part of a general objective of Maximize Information Quality. After it, these objectives were classified into two types: means and fundamental objectives using the Why it is important or WITI test proposed by Keeney (1994). The overall objective here is Maximize Citizens Satisfaction. The result of this step was the separated means and fundamental objectives of e-governance. 5.2.5 Combining the lists of objectives In this step, the e-governance objectives list derived from comprehensive literature review (previous step) was combined with the result of section 5.1. As it was mentioned before, the result of this section is a 38-item list identified by Park (2008) for e-government values to citizens. In this combination the terms with the same concepts are unified with a common name. The result of this integration is a comprehensive list of e-governance means and fundamental objectives. It contains 98 means objectives and 32 fundamental objectives. This list is presented in the appendix of this article. 6. The Proposed e-Governance Values Based on the result of the comprehensive literature review on e-governance values and VFT procedure, a 130-objective list containing 98 means objectives and 32 fundamental objectives of citizens values on e-governance was proposed. This list can be considered as the potential objectives of citizens on e-governance. It is believed that these two types of objectives are key elements of successful design of e-governance initiatives. These objectives can be applied by governments in both high level strategic planning and in a specific area development to improve the design of their e-governance initiatives based on their citizens actual needs and values. This will ensure a successful design of e-governance. The overall means and fundamental objectives of e-governance are illustrated in figure 4. 7. Conclusion and Recommendations To make e-governance initiatives successful, these initiatives have to be designed based on citizens needs and values. In order to cope with the absence of well-developed theories and models on citizens values on e-governance, this study tried to conceptualize the values of e-governance using the VFT approach. Following 4 steps, this research used a systematic way to explore the needs and values of citizens on e-governance. This results in finding a 130-objective list, including 98 mean

1323

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

objectives and 32 fundamental objectives. Initially, this model is broad and contains a large number of potential explanatory factors. This model can be validated using further empirical works on different contexts, regions and countries to explore the actual e-governance values to their citizens. Moreover, quantitative models of e-governance value can be developed based on this model. The result, if applied, will help governments, both in high level strategic planning and in specific area developments, to improve the design of their e-governance initiatives based on their citizens actual needs and values that will lead to the success of their initiatives.

Means Objectives of e-Governance

Fundamental Objectives of e-Governance Overall Objective Maximize Citizens Satisfaction Maximize Public Institutions Performance Maximize Resource Usage

e-Administration Maximize Government Information Quality Maximize Interactivity with Government Maximize Public Administration Accountability Maximize Public Administration Transparency Maximize Public Institutions Responsiveness Provide Modern Public Administration Facilitate Government Reformation

e-Services Delivery Maximize Ease of Services Maximize Service Presentation Maximize Service Quality Promote Citizen Relationship Management Maximize Information Quality Maximize Service Access Assure Security Maximize Transparency

Maximize Convenient Information and Services Maximize Enjoyment Maximize Economic Development Promote Public Management Maximize Citizens Empowerment Maximize Citizens Feelings of Engagement Minimize Environmental Impact

e-Participation Maximize Participation in Democratic Processes Promote e-Services Promote e-Voting Maximize Public Interaction with Government Maximize Public Trust Maximize Accountability Provide Policy Environment and Regulation Maximize Access to ICT and Connectivity Maximize Access to Information

Figure 4: The Means and Fundamental Objectives of e-Governance

1324

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

REFERENCES Andersen, K., & Henriksen, H. 2005. The first leg of e-government research: Domains and application areas 1998-2003. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 1(4): 26-44. Asgarkhani, M. 2005. Digital government and its effectiveness in public management reform. Public Management Review, 7(3): 465-487. Belwal, R., & Al-Zoubi, K. 2008. Public centric e-governance in Jordan: A field study of people's perception of e-governance awareness, corruption, and trust. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 6(4): 317-333. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & McClure, C. R. 2008. Citizen-centered e-government services: benefits, costs, and research needs, Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Digital government research. Montreal, Canada: Digital Government Society of North America. Coursey, D., & Norris, D. 2008. Models of e-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review, 68(3): 523-536. Dada, D. 2006. The failure of e-government in developing countries: A literature review. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 27(6): 1-14. Dawes, S. 2008. The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review, 68(s1): S86-S102. Finger, M., & Pcoud, G. 2003. From e-Government to e-Governance? Towards a model of e-Governance. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 1(1): 1-10. Flak, L., & Rose, J. 2005. Stakeholder governance: adapting stakeholder theory to e-government. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1): 31. Grnlund, A. 2005. State of the art in e-Gov research: surveying conference publications. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 1(4): 1-25. Grnlund, A., & Horan, T. A. 2005. Introducing e-gov: history, definitions, and issues. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15(1): 39. Heeks, R. 2001. Understanding e-Governance for Development. , i-Government Working Paper Series: Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester. Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. 2007. Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2): 243-265. Hu, Y., Xiao, J., Pang, J., & Xie, K. 2005. A research on the appraisal framework of

1325

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

e-government project success. Paper presented at the The 7th International Conference on Electronic Commerce, Xi'an, China. Jaeger, P. T., & Bertot, J. C. 2010. Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating User-centered and Citizen-centered E-government. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 6(2): 1-17. Keeney, R. 1992. Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decisionmaking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Keeney, R. 1994. Creativity in decision making with value-focused thinking. Sloan Management Review, 35: 33-33. Keeney, R. 1999. The value of Internet commerce to the customer. Management Science, 45(4): 533-542. Nah, F., Siau, K., & Sheng, H. 2005. The value of mobile applications: a utility company study. Communications of the ACM, 48(2): 90. Ojo, A., & Estevez, E. 2008. Strategic Planning for Electronic Governance. Center for Electronic Governance: Center for Electronic Governance, United Nation University. Park, R. 2008. Measuring Factors that Influence the Success of E-Government Initiatives. Paper presented at the the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008), Hawaii. Rahman, H. 2009. Local E-Government Management: A Wider Window of E-Governance. International Journal of Information Communication Technologies and Human Development, 1(2): 48-76. Riley, T. B. 2003. E-Government vs. E-Governance: Examining the Difference in a Changing Public Sector Climate. Ottawa: The Commonwealth Secretariat and Government Telecommunications and Information Services, Public Works and Government Services. Rose, J., & Sanford, C. 2007. Mapping eparticipation research: four central challenges. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 20(1): 55. Sb, ., Rose, J., & Skiftenes Flak, L. 2008. The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government information quarterly, 25(3): 400-428. Saxena, K. B. C. 2005. Towards excellence in e-governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(6): 498-513. Shareef, M. A., Kumar, V., Kumar, U., Chowdhury, A. H., & Misra, S. C. 2010. E-Government Implementation Perspective: Setting Objective and Strategy International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 6(1): 59-77. Sheng, H., Nah, F. F. H., & Siau, K. 2005a. Strategic implications of mobile technology: A case study using value-focused thinking. The Journal of

1326

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

Strategic Information Systems, 14(3): 269-290. Sheng, H., Nah, F. F. H., & Siau, K. 2005b. Values of silent commerce: A study using value-focused thinking approach. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eleventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, Omaha, NE. Siau, K., Sheng, H., & Nah, F. 2004. The value of mobile commerce to customers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Third Annual Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, Washington, D.C. Sriramesh, K., & Rivera-Sanchez, M. 2006. E-government in a corporatist, communitarian society: the case of Singapore. New Media & Society, 8(5): 707. Torkzadeh, G., & Dhillon, G. 2002. Measuring factors that influence the success of Internet commerce. Information Systems Research, 13(2): 187-204. UNDP. 2010. Mapping of UNDP e-governance Activities: United Nations Development Programme. UNESCO. 2009. E-Governance: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). UNPAN. 2008. United Nations e-Government Survey 2008: From e-Government to Connected Governance: United Nations Public Administration Network. van Dijk, J., Peters, O., & Ebbers, W. 2008. Explaining the acceptance and use of government Internet services: A Multivariate analysis of 2006 survey data in the Netherlands. Government information quarterly, 25(3): 379-399. Wang, J., & Zeng, T. 2009. Citizen-Centered E-Government Strategy Governance Framework: Case of China. Paper presented at the 2009 International Conference on Web Information Systems and Mining, Shanghai, China. Webster, J., & Watson, R. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2): 13-23. Yildiz, M. 2007. E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3): 646-665. APPENDIX Means Objectives of e-Governance e-Administration Maximize Government Information Quality Maximize information assimilation Facilitate dissemination of information between government and other parties Facilitate dissemination of information within government Maximize Interactivity with Government Promote interaction with business and industry

1327

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

Promote intra- and intergovernmental relations Maximize Public Administration Accountability Maximize accountability of roles and responsibilities of government Maximize accountability of structures and processes of government Maximize Public Administration Transparency Maximize transparency on roles and responsibilities of government Maximize transparency on structures and processes of government Promote surveillance over government Minimize corruption Maximize service allocation according to rules Maximize Public Institutions Responsiveness Maximize trust on roles and responsibilities of government Maximize trust on structures and processes of government Provide Modern Public Administration Provide reengineered and digitized government processes Minimize administrative burden Facilitate Government Reformation Minimize administrative arrogance Promote government culture reformation Promote reformation on public service perception of its role e-Services Delivery Maximize Ease of Services Facilitate choice in information and services selection Maximize control over the delivery of services Provide communication for offered services Maximize Service Presentation Maximize user-friendliness of websites Maximize Internet speeds during peak usage times Maximize service delivery in different languages Maximize Service Quality Maximize transaction accuracy Provide reliable delivery of services Maximize accuracy and currentness of services Maximize online exchange of money with government Maximize variety of services Maximize value-added services Maximize equality between citizens in service delivery Maximize integration of government services Promote Citizen Relationship Management Maximize personalized services

1328

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

Promote personal identity usage Minimize time in queries and complaints handling Minimize direct contacts with government for services Provide helpdesk (personal contact if necessary) Maximize Information Quality Maximize information reliability Maximize information relevance to citizens Maximize accuracy and currentness of information Maximize information on demand Minimize missing information Maximize integration of government information Provide appropriate content and services Promote information flow Maximize Service Access Facilitate one-stop-service counter Maximize accessibility to services Maximize delivery channels Provide 24 hours/7 days services Assure Security Assure privacy protection Assure security in transaction (PIN-enabled security) Discourage attacks Minimize errors Discourage fraud Discourage hacking Minimize misuse of credit card Minimize misuse of personal information Minimize sharing of personal information Maximize balance between customization and confidentiality (no usage of data for other purposes which the data is collected) Maximize Transparency Maximize transparency in public procurement process Maximize transparency in transaction Minimize malpractices e-Participation Maximize Participation in Democratic Processes Promote reach and range (inclusion) of democracy Promote participation in the making of social change Promote engagement of public in policy process (e-engagement) Maximize citizens inclusion in new digital government services planning/development Maximize citizens inclusion in some type of government reform planning/development Promote participation in party and group political processes (e-politics)

1329

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

Promote e-Services Promote e-petitions Promote online debate Promote online plebiscite Promote online opinion polls Promote policy forum: dialogues between citizens and policy makers on policy issues (e-discussion) Promote e-Voting Maximize e-voting reliability Maximize e-voting simplicity Promote electronic distance voting Maximize Public Interaction with Government Maximize interaction between public servants and the citizenry and interest groups (e-consultation) Facilitate public administration connection to citizens Promote ability to choose interaction manner with governments Promote government feedback to citizen input (e-decision making) Maximize reply/resolve of petitions Maximize Public Trust Maximize public confidence and trust Maximize transparency in policy-making Promote decision-making tracking Maximize Accountability Maximize democracy accountability Maximize accountability of elected officials and civil servants Maximize openness of elected officials and civil servants Policy Environment and Regulation Provide Policy Environment and Regulation Promote policies and protocols for individual privacy protection Promote regulating the ICT infrastructure Access to ICT and Connectivity Maximize Access to ICT and Connectivity Maximize building the ICT infrastructure Maximize broadband deployment Minimize digital divide Maximize access to information and services Maximize public access facilities (public Internet kiosks, telecenters, ) Access to Information (A2I) Maximize Access to Information Maximize online information provision of laws, regulations, and policies (e-information) Maximize openness of information to be accessible for all stakeholders

1330

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

Promote rules and conditions for gathering, protecting, sharing and using information Fundamental Objectives of e-Governance Overall Objective Maximize Citizens Satisfaction Maximize Public Institutions Performance Promote government operations quality Minimize government response time Minimize government operations cost Maximize government effectiveness Maximize government efficiency Maximize Resource Usage Optimize resource utilization Promote future resource planning Maximize Convenient Information and Services Provide hassle free services Maximize streamlined public services Maximize ease of information and service finding Maximize usefulness of information and service Maximize efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery Minimize service time Minimize service cost Minimize communication cost Maximize Enjoyment Make visiting online services a social event Inspire citizens to use online services Minimize regret of using online services Maximize Economic Development Promote public service excellence Maximize regional development Facilitate services for different groups of society Promote Public Management Promote public policies Promote democratic institutions and processes Promote government-citizen relationships Maximize Citizens Empowerment Promote addressing the needs and priorities of public Promote voicing comments and complaints about government programs and services Provide ability to publicize government misdeeds

1331

2011 e-CASE & e-Tech International Conference January 18-20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan

Promote challenging the distribution of political power Maximize Citizens Feelings of Engagement Maximize feelings of active contribution to democratic processes Maximize feelings of being listened to and the opinion are welcomed, valued and acted upon Minimize Environmental Impact Minimize environmental damages Minimize pollution

1332