Short Stories

COBRA framework to evaluate e-government services: A citizen-centric perspective

COBRA framework to evaluate e-government services: A citizen-centric perspective
of 14
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  COBRA framework to evaluate e-government services:A citizen-centric perspective Ibrahim H. Osman a, ⁎ , Abdel Latef Anouze a , Zahir Irani b , Baydaa Al-Ayoubi e , Habin Lee b , As ı m Balc ı  c ,Tunç D. Medeni d , Vishanth Weerakkody b a  American University of Beirut, Olayan School of Business, Lebanon b Brunel Business School, Brunel University, UK  c Türksat, Selçuk University, Turkey d Y  ı ld ı r  ı m Beyaz  ı t University, Turkey e Faculty of Science I, Lebanese University, Lebanon a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o Available online 6 April 2014 Keywords: COBRAE-government serviceUsers' satisfactionStructured equation modellingScale developmentPerformance measurement E-governmentservicesinvolvemanystakeholderswhohavedifferentobjectivesthatcanhaveanimpactonsuc-cess.Amongthesestakeholders,citizensaretheprimarystakeholdersofgovernmentactivities.Accordingly,theirsatisfactionplaysanimportantroleine-governmentsuccess.Althoughseveralmodelshavebeenproposedtoas-sessthesuccessofe-governmentservicesthroughmeasuringusers'satisfactionlevels,theyfailtoprovideacom-prehensive evaluation model. This study provides an insight and critical analysis of the extant literature toidentify the most critical factors and their manifested variables for user satisfaction in the provision of e-government services. The various manifested variables are then grouped into a new quantitative analysisframework consisting of four main constructs: cost; bene fi t; risk and opportunity (COBRA) by analogy to thewell-known SWOT qualitative analysis framework. The COBRA measurement scale is developed, tested, re fi nedandvalidatedonasamplegroupofe-governmentserviceusersinTurkey.Astructuredequationmodelisusedtoestablish relationships among the identi fi ed constructs, associated variables and users' satisfaction. The resultscon fi rmthatCOBRAframeworkisausefulapproachforevaluatingthesuccessofe-governmentservicesfromcit-izens' perspective and it can be generalised to other perspectives and measurement contexts.Crown Copyright © 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction E-government services in fl uence many stakeholders including citi-zens, government employees, information technology developers, andpolicy makers. Each stakeholder has different interests and objectivesthat may have an impact on the success and take-up of e-governmentservices (Osman, Anouze, Irani, Lee, & Weerakkody, 2011; Lee, Irani,Osman, Balci, Ozkan, & Medeni, 2008; Osman et al. (2013); Osman,Anouze, Hindi, Irani, Lee and Weerakkody, 2014). In the literature,there have been a large number of models and frameworks to evaluatee-government service success for different purposes or from differentperspectives ( Jaeger & Bertot, 2010). Although, these models aim tohelppolicymakersandpractitionerstoevaluateandimprovetheprovi-sionofe-services,littleefforthasbeenmadetodevelopaholisticmodelto evaluate e-government services and their interactions with users(Wang, Bretschneider, & Gant, 2005). However, the success of  e-government services is a complex concept, and its measurementshould consider beingmulti-dimensional factors(Irani, Elliman,&Jack-son,2007;Irani,Love,&Jones,2008;Wang&Liao,2008;Weerakkody& Dhillon, 2008). Therefore, in this study, a new conceptual model tomeasure e-service success from diverse stakeholders' perspectives isproposed.The model development methodology follows a grounded theoryapproach in which an extensive literature review on existing e-serviceassessmentmodelsisconductedtoidentifythevariousfragmentedsuc-cess factors (or key performance indicators, KPIs). The identi fi ed KPIsarethenclassi fi edintofourmaingroups: cost  ; bene  fi t  ; risk ;and opportu-nity . Accordingly, users' satisfaction is measured in terms of the cost – bene fi t and risk – opportunity analysis for engaging with an e-service.This analysis has its roots in social science theories, and is in line withthe recent e-service evaluation literature (Millard, 2008; Osman,Anouze et al., 2011; Weerakkody, Irani, Lee, Osman, & Hindi, 2013).Thus, the objectives of this paper are threefold. Firstly, the paper de-velops a comprehensive model to evaluate users' satisfaction with Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 243 – 256 ⁎  Corresponding author. Fax: +961 1750214. E-mail address: (I.H. Osman). Copyright © 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Government Information Quarterly  journal homepage:  e-government services; secondly, the paper develops tests, re fi nes andvalidates a scale to evaluate users' satisfaction; and  fi nally, it validatestherelationshipsbetweenconstructsintheproposedmodel,associatedmanifest variables and users' satisfaction. By doing so, this researchwill open up new directions for future research in evaluating ane-government services.In the following sections, we  fi rst present a theoretical backgroundon the evaluation of e-service success and introduce a new conceptualmodel along with associated assessment components. Section 3discusses the model scale development stages that include datacollection and data analysis on a selected sample of e-governmentservices in Turkey. The  fi nal section concludes with theoretical andmanagerial implications, limitations, and suggestions for furtherresearch directions. 2. Theoretical background and model development  2.1. Theoretical background There have been numerous attempts by e-government researchersand practitioners alike to present comprehensive models to assess thesuccessofe-governmentservicesfromauserperspective.Aninvestiga-tionoftheliteratureonconceptualmodels/frameworkstoevaluateusersatisfaction with e-government services reveals a number of studies[see for example Irani et al. (2008); Jaeger and Bertot (2010); Rowley (2011); Verdegem and Verleye (2009); Carter and Weerakkody (2008); Venkatesh (2006)]. However, these models are adapted ver- sions of Information Systems (IS) or e-commerce adoption models. Inparticular,  SERVQUAL  (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988), the National Customer Satisfaction Indices  ( NCSI  ), the  Information Systems ( IS  )  success model  (DeLone & McLean, 1992, 2003) and the  ValueMeasurement Model  ( VMM  ) serve as anoutlinefor thesemodels. None-theless, the e-government services evaluation process differs signi fi -cantly from the traditional IS or e-commerce process (Osman, Anouzeet al., 2011). Thus, the proposed existing models, as illustrated inTable 1, are insuf  fi cient for comprehensivelyassessingthe multidimen-sionalandmulti-stakeholderin fl uencesthate-governmentservicesen-capsulate. Furthermore, the limitedscopeof analysis (e-service quality,IS success constructs) and the resulting context-speci fi city signi fi cantlyreduces the possibility of generalizability of these models in an e-government service context. Consequently, there is an urgent need todevelop a model that systematically and psychometrically measures e-government service success from a user perspective, as theSERVQUAL, NCSI, and IS success models do for e-commerce. Academicresearchers in different  fi elds (IT, operations management, and publicadministration) have attempted to identify criteria to be used in evalu-atinge-services.Onthebasisofasynthesisoftheextantliterature,thesecriteria are reviewed as follows.  Table 1 Summary of previous literature. Study  Measurement type Performed methodology Models and associated variablesAlanezi, Kamil, and Basri (2010) Service quality Conceptual model Modi fi ed version of SERVQUAL that includes seven dimensions and 26 items. The sevendimensions in this scale are: website design, reliability,responsiveness, security/privacy, personalisation, information and ease of use.Batini, Viscusi, and Cherubini(2009)GovQual considers a wide set of quality dimensions: ef  fi ciency; effectiveness; accessibility;and accountabilityHenriksson, Yi, Frost,and Middleton (2007)Conceptual model The instrument questions in the e-government website (eGwet) are grouped into sixcategories to evaluate the quality of government websites: security/privacy; usability;content; services; citizen participation; and features (the presence of commercialadvertising, external links and advanced search capabilities)Horan and Abhichandani(2006)Structured equationmodelEGOVSAT model consists of: utility; ef  fi ciency, customisation, reliability (whether thewebsite functions appropriately in terms of technology as well as accuracy of thecontent) and  fl exibility.Kaisara and Pather (2011) Descriptive statistics The e-service quality (eSQ) model includes factors (Information quality,security/trust, communication, site aesthetics, design, access)Lee, Kim, and Ahn (2011) Logistic regression The model includes: tangible factors (i.e. equipment); reliability; responsiveness;assurance; empathy; promptness of service and overall satisfaction with the  fi lingprocess to measure the of  fl ine service quality. They include 6 control variables.Lin, Fofanah, andLiang (2011)Structured equationmodelTAMMagoutas andMentzas (2010)Two-sample Z-test SALT model includes the following factors: Portal's usability, Forms interaction,Support mechanisms and SecurityMagoutas, Schmidt,Mentzas, andStojanovic (2010)Two-Sampleone-tailed Z-testModel for Adaptive Quality Measurement (MAQM): The model includes 6 qualityfactors and 33 quality dimensions.Papadomichelaki andMentzas (2012)Structured equationmodele-GovQual: Includes 21 quality attributes classi fi ed under four quality dimensions:ef  fi ciency; trust; reliability; and citizen support.Rotchanakitumnuai(2008)Content analysis E-GOVSQUAL-RISK model includes service quality (service design; website design;technology support; and user support) perceived risk (performance risk; privacy risk;social risk; time risk and  fi nancial risk)Papadomichelak andMentzas (2009)Structured equationmodele-GovQual model includes 25 quality variables (55 questions) classi fi ed under4 quality factors: reliability, ef  fi ciency, citizen support and trust.FreshMinds (2006) Traditional NationalSatisfaction IndexSurveys and statisticalanalysisACSI: American customer satisfaction indexKim, Im, andPark (2005)Statistical reportingand toolsg-CSI model is based on customer satisfaction index of e-government model. It isan integrated model of customer satisfaction index in Korea and Americancustomer satisfaction index. It is based on perceived quality (information, process,customer service, budget execution, and management innovation) and userexpectation to contribute to user satisfaction as a moderator for subsequent usercomplaints and trust and re-use.Shyu and Huang (2011) E-governmentSuccessCase study Perceived enjoyment; Perceived e-government learning value; Perceivedusefulness; Perceived ease of use; Attitude; Behavioural intention; and Actual usageVerdegem and Verleye (2009) Structured equationmodelE-government acceptance model; Communication about services; currency of information; security; help or guidance; personal contact and centralisation/integration. The indicators are clustered into three groups: 1) access to service;2) use of service; and 3) impact of service.244  I.H. Osman et al. / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 243 –  256   First, the SERVQUAL model was developed to measure e-servicequality (Papadomichelaki & Mentzas, 2009). It consists of 22 servicequality measures that are organised in  fi ve dimensions:  tangibles (appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communi-cation materials);  reliability  (ability to perform the promised servicedependably and accurately);  responsiveness  (willingness to help cus-tomersandprovidepromptservice); assurance (knowledgeandcourte-sy of employees and ability to convey trust and con fi dence); and empathy  (provision of caring, individualised attention to customers).Based on this model, the quality of these dimensions is the main driverof user satisfaction. User satisfaction is de fi ned as the difference be-tween perceived quality and expected quality (Papadomichelaki &Mentzas,2009).Thismodelwasexpandedandupdatedbydifferentre-searchers and new models were proposed to measure user satisfactionwith e-services. For example: Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra(2005) proposed the E-SQUAL model; Balog, Bàdulescu, Bàdulescu,and Petrescu (2008) proposed e-ServEval; and Papadomichelaki andMentzas (2009) proposed the e-GovQual model.The Customer satisfaction index (CSI), on the other hand, wasdeveloped to assess customer satisfaction with the provision of privateand public sector services. It consists of a set of causal relationshipsthat link  user expectation ,  perception of quality  and  perceived value  asantecedents of   user satisfaction , and  outcomes  and  user complaints as consequences. Consequently, this model was developed to mea-sure user satisfaction with government services (Fornell, Johnson,Anderson, Cha, & Bryant, 1996). Then, the outcomes component of the CSI model was modi fi ed to measure user satisfaction with theprovision of e-government services (Kim et al., 2005; Van Ryzin, Muzzio, Immerwahr, Gulick, & Martinez, 2004). The outcome of usertrust replaces the price-related outcomes found in the private sectormodel. Also, in the private sector, maintaining customer loyalty and re-ducingcustomercomplaintsisanimportantgoalinmaintainingpro fi ts,whereas the main goals of government services is to gain customertrust.Third, Chen, 2010; Floropoulos, Spathis, Halvatzis, & Tsipouridou,2010,and Jang,2010,amongothers,adoptedtheISsuccessmodeltoas- sess e-services success. In the IS success model, the  qualities  of   system , information , and  service  serve as motivators to use the e-service thatwill ultimately affect user satisfaction.Information quality involvesfea-tures such as accuracy, relevancy, precision, reliability, completeness,and currency; whereassystem quality refersto ease of use, user friend-liness, system  fl exibility, usefulness and reliability. Accordingly, thequalities of information, system, and service will affect the subsequentuse of e-services. As a result of using the e-service, certain bene fi tswill be achieved, which will positively or negatively in fl uence user sat-isfaction and further use of the e-service.Finally, the VMM model (U.S. Federal CIO Council, 2002) is a cost – bene fi t and risk analysis tool designed to capture the dimensions thatare hard to quantify in a traditional  fi nancial return-on-investmentstudy (Foley & Alfonso, 2009). It perceives e-service success as atrade-offbetween value ( bene  fi t  )and costandrisk .Therefore,theassess-mentbasedon this model involves multidimensional analysis of valuessuch as  direct user value ,  social /  public value ,  government   fi nancial value ,  government operational /  foundational value , and  strategic  /  political value .Thesevaluesarequantitativelymeasuredthroughasetofelements.Ac-cordingly, it becomes possible to make a decision for each element.Hence, it is not only about attaining bene fi t or reducing cost; it is butalso about doing both in an objective manner. Such a VMM modelwould allow comparison between different values (cost; risk; return)amonge-services.Moreover,itwouldprovidepolicymakerswithqual-itative data that would help in assessing the potential bene fi ts of usinge-government services. However, none of the VMM published studiesconsidered monitoring and evaluating performance at an individuale-service level or across number of e-services. For a recent analysis of methodologiesutilisedine-governmentresearchfromausers'satisfac-tion perspective, we refer to Irani et al. (2012).  2.2. Motivation to propose a new model Theultimateobjectiveofe-governmentisnotonlytoobtaininforma-tion, but also to encourage frequent and recurring use of the e-servicesbycitizens(users).Thus,satisfyingusers'needsprovidestheservicepro-viderswithausefulexplanationaboutthere-useandthesuccessoftheire-governmentservices.Effortsto fi ndoutthemostsigni fi cantfactorsaf-fecting user satisfaction and the success of e-government services havebeen evolving many years since itsinceptionas service delivery methodin the public sector (Carter & Belanger, 2005; Morgeson, VanAmburg, &Mithas, 2011; Rai, Lang, & Welker, 2002; Venkatesh, 2006). Yet, the  gap between users (citizen) adoption and the efforts made by the serviceproviders (government) to diffuse e-government services has been aconcern for many governments. Therefore,  ‘ knowhow ’  factors affectinguser satisfaction and the development of a new model to measuree-government service success is necessary (Wang & Liao, 2008).To discern how various factors affect user satisfaction, the availablemethods such as SERVQUAL and e-government satisfaction indexmodelsonly account for the e-service quality that includessome bene fi tand risk, but ignores cost and opportunity aspects. Whereas, the IS suc-cess model accounts for user bene fi ts and part of opportunity aspectsbut overlooks cost and risk. Hence, these models, among others, do notcapturethefullspiritofusersatisfaction.Therefore,thereisaneedtorec-tifytheshortcomingsof those modelsand propose aholisticassessmentframework for e-government services evaluation based simultaneouslyon bene fi ts, costs, and risks to users of using e-government services.  2.3. The proposed model To develop a new evaluation model that measures user satisfactionwith e-government services, proposed KPIs in the extant literature areanalysed to understand how they affect user satisfaction. Based on thisanalysis, the observed performance indicators are grouped into foursetsofconstructs:cost,bene fi t,risk,andopportunity.Thecostandben-e fi tvariablesare mostlytangibleandareofteneasytomeasure,where-asriskandopportunitiesaremostlyintangible.Theexpecteddirectionsof the hypothesised causal – effect relationships among the four con-structs of the new framework called COBRA: Costs, Opportunities, Ben-e fi ts, Risks Analysis are presented in Fig. 1.Fig.1showstherelationshipsbetweenthemodelconstructs.Theex-pected relationships between user satisfaction with both bene fi t andopportunity constructs are positive, whereas it is negative with bothcost and risk constructs. Also, based on theoretical causal – effect rela-tionships between the cost – bene fi t analysis and the risk – opportunityanalysiswithusersatisfaction,itisexpectedtohavesomerelationshipsbetween these constructs. These proposed relationships betweenmodel constructs have their roots in social science theories such as: social exchange theory  ( SET  ),  expectation - con  fi rmation theory  ( ECT  ) andstrategic management theories such as  SWOT analysis theory . Giventhese relationships, user satisfaction can be achieved through abalancing of users' cost and risk with bene fi t and opportunity. Thus,e-government service success is largely shaped by the extent to whichthe government can provide such balance. It can be seen that theCOBRA framework can provide a strategic quantitative measurementanalysis that complements the strategic qualitative approach of SWOTstrategic management analysis. Short term cost – bene fi t economic and fi nancialvaluesand can be integrated withlongtermriskand opportu-nity societal and impactful values to provide a thorough analysis tomeasure public and private organisation shared values beyondclassicalmeasurement approaches. For more details on COBRA issues related toe-government implementation, we refer to the comprehensive reviewin Weerakkody et al. (2013).  2.3.1. Social exchange theory (SET) SET was proposed by Blau (1964) to explain social relationships(exchange) using economic concepts such as cost and value (bene fi t). 245 I.H. Osman et al. / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 243 –  256   According to the theory, people invest in their social interaction, if andonly if their input (cost) into such an interaction is less than the value(bene fi t) they may get out of it. The greater the value is, the more aperson is satis fi ed and thus invests more in an individual relationship.Fundamentally, within the e-service context, SET explains the role of:cost, bene fi t, risk and opportunity in a user satisfaction formulation.Consequently, the cost and risk would represent the user's inputswhen using an e-service interaction, whereas the bene fi t and opportu-nity would represent the value of such interaction. By analogy, if thebene fi tandopportunityvaluesaregreaterthanthecostandriskvalues,then an e-service user would be more satis fi ed and more likely tocontinue using such e-service; otherwise the user will not re-use.  2.3.2. Expectation-con  fi rmation theory (ECT) ECT was proposed by Oliver (1980) to study consumer satisfaction,repurchase intention and behaviour. Based on this theory, consumerscompare their initial expectation prior to purchase with the actualperformance after a period of initial consumption. Accordingly, theconsumers are satis fi ed if their initial expectation matches theactual perceived performance. In an e-service context, users have aninitial expectation about cost, bene fi t, risk and opportunity, and if they fi nd evidence that the actual e-service ful fi ls their expectation, thenusers' satisfaction level will be high and they will probably re-use theservice.  2.3.3. SWOT theory Finally,SWOTanalysiswasintroducedintheearly50'sasastrategicplanningtoolto evaluate anycompany, service or productcompared totheir competitors,other services or products,( Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt,2003).Thistheoryconsidersbothinternalandexternalfactorsthatmayhaveanimpactoncompanydecisions.Simultaneously,companiesneedto assess their internal environment ( Strengths  and  Weaknesses ) withtheir external environment ( Opportunities  and  Threats ) to identify andexploit new opportunities before their competitors. In our analogy,e-servicestrengths correspondto bene fi ts,weaknesses to costs,threatstorisksandopportunitiesarethesame.Normally,thecostsandbene fi tsareinternalfactorstothee-service,whereastheopportunitiesandrisksareexternalfactors.Userstendtousee-servicesiftheobtainedbene fi tsand opportunities from usingonline serviceare higher than those fromtraditional government services.  2.4. Model constructs 2.4.1. Cost  Although cost, in termsof money and time, is reported asoneof themost important factors in the use of e-services (Medeni et al., 2011),there are only fewprevious studies in theextantliterature that directlyinvestigatetheimpactofcostonusersatisfaction.Forexample,Whitsonand Davis (2001) de fi ned e-government as:  “ . . .  implementing cost  - effective models for citizens ,  industry ,  federal employees ,  and other stakeholderstoconductbusinesstransactionsonline ” .Thismeansthaten-gagingusersinane-servicesuggestsprovidingitathighqualityandlowcost. Thus, e-services will result in signi fi cant cost savings to govern-ments and citizens alike (Kumar, Mukerji, Butt, & Persaud, 2007). E-commerceliterature,ontheotherhand,recognisedtheimportanceof the construct; hence operational ef  fi ciency is de fi ned in terms of thecosts and time savings of using online service (Ancarani, 2005;Verdegem & Hauttekeete, 2007). Similarly, perceived usefulness is de- fi nedbytheextenttowhichtheuserbelievesthatextractingonlineinfor-mationwillsavehis/hertime(Kumaretal.,2007);andreducecost(Shih, 2004).Furthermore,ine-commerceliterature,itisarguedthatuserscom-pare the value provided bytheonlineservicewiththecostsof searching,ordering, and receiving products and services (Keeney, 1999).To the best of our knowledge, this is the fi rst study that has focusedsolelyontheimpactofcostonusersatisfaction.Cost,whichisoftentan-gible, is measured through two sub-constructs:  money  and  time  costs.Monetarycostincludesauthorisationcostforauthenticationandonlineregistration with the (web) site cost, whereas time costinvolves accesstime(numberof attemptsto fi ndtherequested serviceonthesite)andpost-interaction time (time to receive con fi rmation of submission orwaiting time to receive the requested service).  2.4.2. Bene  fi t  There is a growing agreement of the need to address the notion of  “ bene  fi t to the user  ”  in any e-government service evaluation (Irani,Love, Elliman, Jones, & Themistocleous, 2005). One of the challenges insuch evaluations is in having a proper evaluation of tangible and intan-gible bene fi ts (Gupta & Jana, 2003) and in identifying and quantifyingsuch bene fi ts (Alshawi & Alalwany, 2009). Also, it is dif  fi cult to deter-mine the precise bene fi ts associated with e-government (Beynon-Davies, 2005). Therefore, there is a need to develop success measuresthat accurately capture user bene fi ts. Fig. 1.  The COBRA model for user satisfaction.246  I.H. Osman et al. / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 243 –  256   Few attempts, in an e-government and e-commerce context, havebeen made to address user bene fi ts; Scott, DeLone, and Golden (2009)suggested a set of factors that range from ef  fi ciency gains suchas fasterresponse times, to improvement in services such as greater control of the service. Shareef, Kumar, Kumar, and Dwivedi (2011) identi fi edmore e-service bene fi ts such as: effectiveness; ef  fi ciency; availability;accessibility from anywhere; comfort in use; time savings; cost savingsand convenience. Conversely, Gilbert, Balestrini, and Littleboy (2004)proposed a differentset of bene fi ts including: avoidance of personal in-teraction;controloverthedeliveryofthee-service;convenience;savedmoney;personalisation;andsavedtime.VerdegemandVerleye(2009)categorisedthepreviousbene fi tsintothreegroups:accesstotheservice(the service is easily located, easily accessible and cost friendly); use of theservice(clearinformation,comprehensible,reliableandup-to-date;safety issues); and impact of the service (customer-friendly services,one central contact point). Recently, Rowley (2011) and Millard (2008) provided a list of suggested e-service bene fi ts.In the e-commerce context; both the IS success and SERVQUAL models directly and indirectly measured the  ‘ bene fi t ’  construct. In theSERVQUALmodel,studyingthegapbetweenusers'expectationsandex-periences leads to improving service quality such as: improved websitedesign, reliability, responsiveness, security/privacy, personalisation, in-formation, and ease of use (Alanezi et al., 2010). Compared with tradi-tional services, such an improvement in service quality is a potentialbene fi t users may perceive in using e-government services. The IS suc-cessmodel,ontheotherhand,treatstheuserbene fi tconstructasanout-come of satisfaction, which goes against the previously discussedtheories such as SET and ECT, in which user satisfaction is the resultantoutput of user cost – bene fi t analysis. However,  perceived usefulness  and ease of use  (Adams, Nelson, & Todd, 1992; Segars & Grover, 1993) in the IS success model could be considered as a direct potential bene fi tof using e-services.Basedontheabovementionedstudies,e-servicebene fi titemsinthisstudy are grouped into two categories;  tangible  and  intangible  bene fi ts.Tangiblebene fi tsinvolvesavingtimeandsavingmoney,whereasintan-gible bene fi ts include the quality of information, service, and system.Information quality is concerned with the information provided by ane-servicewebsiteinvolvingaccuracy,currency,andeaseofunderstand-ing(Alanezietal.,2010;Gilbertetal.,2004;Raietal.,2002),timeliness, consistency, relevance and completeness (DeLone & McLean, 2003).Service quality is the overall support provided by the service provider(DeLone & McLean, 2003), or the degree to which a provided servicemeets the requirements of customers or users (Parasuraman et al.,1988).Thisincludesef  fi ciency,ful fi lment,systemavailabilityandpriva-cy (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Malhotra, 2002). Finally, system qualityrepresents the user's perception of the technical performance of thewebsite in information retrieval and delivery. Therefore, it is the inter-face that connects the users and the government. System quality isrelatedtotheperformanceofaninformationsystemintermsofreliabil-ity, ease of use, convenience and functionality (Alanezi et al., 2010;Petter, DeLone, & McLean, 2008); stability,  fl exibility, usefulness anduser-friendly interface (Rai et al., 2002; Yusuf, Gunasekaran, &Abthorpe, 2004).  2.4.3. Risk In several e-service applications it is impossible to complete therequested service without the acquisition of necessary information(personal or/and  fi nancial) from the user. Such applications may leadto higher levels of uncertainty (Pavlou, 2003; Suh & Han, 2003). Personal/ fi nancial data can be misused either by the agency collectingsuch data or by external third parties; hence, the online sharing of suchdataishardlyconsideredsafe(Bannister&Connolly,2011).Accordingly,safety,trustandsecurityareconsideredasimportantfactorsthatexplainusers' acceptance of e-services (Featherman & Pavlou, 2003; Pavlou,2003). However, safety, trust and security are one side of risk, hence;researchers need to pay more attention to analysing this construct.Rowe (1977) de fi ned it asa ‘  potentialfortherealization ofunwanted , negative consequences of an event  ’ . More speci fi cally, Dowling andStaelin (1994) and Mitchell, Davies, Moutinho, and Vassos (1999) de- fi ned risk in terms of consumers' perceptions of both uncertainty andmagnitude of the possible adverse consequences. Given this broad andspeci fi c de fi nition of risk means it is a multidimensional construct(Tsaur, Tzeng, & Wang, 1997) which is dif  fi cult to measure objectively.Thus, online service literature has focused on users' risk perceptions asa measurementof risk. Perceived risk is de fi ned as theuser's subjectiveexpectation of suffering a loss in pursuit of a desired outcome(Warkentin, Gefen, Pavlou, & Rose, 2002). Numerous studies have ex-plored the role of perceived risk in e-commerce (e.g., Gefen, 2002;Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub, 2003; Van Slyke, Belanger, & Comunale,2004). Cunningham (1967) suggests certainty and consequences as two components of perceived risk. Moutinho (1987) divided perceivedrisk into  fi ve categories: functional, physical,  fi nancial, social and psy-chological risks. Later, Featherman and Pavlou (2003); Pires, Stanton, andEckford(2004)andUeltschy,Krampf,andYannopoulos(2004)fur- ther analysed Moutinho's (1987) categories and proposed time risk asan additional dimension of perceived risk. Miyazaki and Fernandez(2001) broke down perceived risk into privacy and security concerns.SuhandHan(2003)identi fi eddifferentsourcesof riskincluding:infor-mation theft, theft of service, data corruption or information integrityproblems, possibility of fraud, and privacy problems. Yang, Jun, andPeterson (2004) proposed different source of risks in any e-servicetransaction;sendinformationelectronically,andsortthemelectronical-ly. Milne, Rohm, and Bahl (2004) identi fi ed three sources of risk:hacking of stored data, interception of online transferred data, and ille-gal access to stored data in organisational electronic databases.However, risk perception is signi fi cantly different in e-governmentservices as users perceive less risk (Bélanger & Carter, 2008). Also, ine-commerce,lossofmoneyandlossofinformationprivacyaretwoprom-inentrisksthatmaybeexpected.Meanwhile,ine-services,thepossibilityof losing one's information privacy is the most crucial risk that can beincurred since government agencies may be required by law to shareusers' information with other agencies or with public of  fi cers (Yangetal.,2004).Anadditionalsourceofperceivedriskinane-servicecontextmay include imposing additional taxes (Bannister & Connolly, 2011).Researchers are just beginning to empirically explore the role of trust and perceived risk in e-services (Gefen et al., 2003; Welch,Hinnant, & Moon, 2005). Some studies have included trust or securityin broader adoption models, such as the technology acceptance modeland the diffusion of innovation theory (Gefen, 2002; Pavlou, 2003;Warkentin et al., 2002). Few, have focused solely on the implicationsof risk on user satisfaction with e-service provision (Kertesz, 2003;Rotchanakitumnuai, 2008; Udo, Bagchi, & Kirs, 2008; Xiaoni &Prybutok, 2005).Thesestudies,amongothers,havehighlightedtheim-portanceofensuringthatuserscantransactonlineservicessecurelyandthat their personal information will be kept con fi dential to increaseusers' satisfaction levels and e-service adoption rates.In line with the previous literatures, i.e. Featherman and Pavlou(2003); Pires et al. (2004) and Ueltschy et al. (2004), this study mea- sured six categories of perceived risk:  fi nancial ,  performance ,  social ,  pri-vacy ,  personal , and  time risks . The sources of   fi nancial risk include:keeping records for a long time, wrong payments that need correction,asking for additional payments, and being easy to audit. Performanceriskinvolves:datathatcanbeinterceptedbyhackers,incorrectsubmis-sion meaning that more documents or additional payment is neededand slow service. Personal and privacy risks include: safety of personalinformation and fewer interactions with people. Finally, the source of time risk includes: the perception of e-government services as a wasteof time, and/or more training and help is needed.  2.4.4. Opportunity The decision to use e-government services is also in fl uenced by op-portunity (Lee, Kim, & Ahn, 2011). Opportunities are presented by the 247 I.H. Osman et al. / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 243 –  256 
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!