DEVELOPING A MODEL OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF
E-GOVERNMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND
THEIR ATTAINED BENEFIT
Shatha Al-Haddad and Peter N. Hyland
School of Information Systems & Technology, University of Wollongong, NSW, Wollongong, Australia
Keywords: e-Government, e-Government evaluation, Net benefit, User satisfaction, Tangible benefits.
Abstract: Governments world wide have been, increasingly, implementing e-government initiatives for their potential
significant benefits; among which is delivering better services to citizens through increasing citizens’
convenience, satisfaction, and independency; and saving their time, effort, and cost. Achieving each benefit
is an objective to these governments; and fulfilling each objective is considered a critical success factor.
Hence, governments need to assess whether they were able to obtain their preset goals, and to which degree
they were able to do so. This study merely focuses on the citizens’ perspective of the evaluation. However,
the relevant literature seem to lack adequate studies that propose such evaluation tool that is sufficient and
has been reliably validated. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to fill this gap by proposing a conceptual
model which measures the e-government performance from citizens’ perspective and their psychological
and tangible benefits. While developing the model we also consider the attributes which impact citizens’
perceptions and obtained values which, in turn, influence their adoption.
1 INTRODUCTION
The concept of e-government is rather fluid and has
been defined in diverse ways (Yildiz 2007;
Verdegem and Verleye 2009) largely dependent on
the objectives that are set as priorities by a particular
government, on the various contexts in which it has
been discussed, or on the discipline in which the
research has been carried out. The different
definitions of e-government are also influenced by
the regulatory environment, the dominance of a
group of actors in a given situation, and the different
priorities in government strategies (Yildiz 2007). In
the earlier stages of e-government research,
definitions of e-government focused primarily on e-
government as an “inter-networked government”,
utilizing ICT and serving different stakeholders
(Tapscott 1996; Layne and Lee 2001; Whitson and
Davis 2001). More recently, e-government
definitions place more emphasis on the utilization of
Web-based Information System (WIS) as means of
this interaction (Moon and Welch 2004; Akman et
al. 2005; Evans and Yen 2005; Wang and Liao
2008; Luk 2009).
Since the current notion of E-Government
Systems (EGS) focuses mainly on internet
utilization, we define an EGS as a Web-Based
Information System (WIS) providing:
1- an online interaction channel, including the e-
government portal and/or government agencies’
websites,
2- which provides sufficient information and diverse
e-service options that meet the needs of all
stakeholders, and
3- the government employees in the “back office”
who perform the necessary business processes, such
as updating the system with the necessary
information about each citizen’s or business’s status,
and completing the business processes associated
with any submitted e-service request.
By implementing EGS, governments aim to
achieve benefits for both internal and external
perspectives. The internal perspective refers to the
benefits obtained by, government employees,
government agencies and the government as a
whole. The strategic value that the government
would gain from EGS is mainly enhancing
performance and increasing efficiency by facilitating
a better working environment for employees;
reducing costs; and integrating the government
agencies to ease information sharing and reduce
447
Al-Haddad S. and N. Hyland P..
DEVELOPING A MODEL OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF E-GOVERNMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND THEIR ATTAINED BENEFIT .
DOI: 10.5220/0003335504470456
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST-2011), pages 447-456
ISBN: 978-989-8425-51-5
Copyright
c
 2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

redundancy and inconsistency, and so forth (Akman
et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2005; Gil-Garcia 2006).
The external perspective refers to the benefits
that citizens and private businesses gain. In general,
these benefits include providing better services to
the public, facilitating a good quality online channel,
offering diverse kinds of information and e-service
options that meet citizens’ various needs and
requirements, and increasing their independence and
efficiency. With such “good-quality” systems, users
would save time and effort by not having to
physically visit government agencies, wait in long
queues, perform tedious administrative work, etc.
(Akman et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2005;
Wangpipatwong et al. 2005; Kumar et al. 2007)
Evaluating the success and the performance of an
EGS depends on the perspective from which it is
being assessed (e.g., employees’ efficiency,
financial performance (cost/benefit), customers’
satisfaction, etc). (Gupta and Jana 2003; Grimsley
and Meehan 2008 ) presented the alternative
approaches to evaluate a particular e-government
initiative and can be generally classified into three
groups:
 economic (e.g., cost/benefit analysis, Net
Present Value (NPV), Return on Investment
(ROI), etc);
 tangible (WIS characteristics such as
benchmarks, readiness and maturity stages),
and
 psychometric (e.g., individuals’ satisfaction,
behavior and behavioral intention).
In the next section of this paper, we will present
the literature review focussing on the citizen-centric
studies in the e-government domain, the adopted
evaluation models, and their backgrounds, while
shedding the light on the shortcoming of the
evaluation approaches in these studies. This is
followed by the methodology where we present our
proposed conceptual model, the guidelines for
which it was developed and how it going to be
validated.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The most widely-used success measures in the IS
literature employ “system use” (Swanson 1974;
Davis et al. 1989) and “user satisfaction” (US) (Ives
et al. 1983; DeLone and McLean 1992) as proxies
for the system success.
Considering EGS is a form
of an IS and shares similar characteristic with e-
commerce in terms of utilizing WIS as a service and
an interaction channel and being directed mainly to
external users (customers and citizens); almost all
citizens-centric evaluation studies in the e-
government domain borrow their models from the IS
and e-commerce contexts (Devaraj et al. 2002;
Wang and Liao 2008; Palvia 2009). These studies
basically focus on measuring user satisfaction,
behavior and behavioral intention to utilize the
system as proxies to the system’s success. However,
there remains an underlying issue of whether these
models or evaluation tools are appropriate to be
applied the e-government domain. Indeed, there is
obviously a distinction between the nature of e-
government context and the other two contexts (i.e.,
IS and e-commerce). For example:
1- the models presented in the IS context were
originally developed for the internal user context
where the system use is mandatory (Davis 1989;
DeLone and McLean 2003), while it is not the
case in the e-government context.
2- Despite the similarity between the e-commerce
and e-government contexts, as mentioned earlier,
they still differ significantly. In e-commerce, the
strategic objective for private organizations’ is
profit-oriented. They are mostly interested in
providing good services and products so that
they have a competitive advantage, and
subsequently attract more customers. Otherwise,
customers would turn to competitors and choose
those who provide better services and products
(Wang et al. 2005). Hence, customers’
satisfaction, in this case is an important indicator
for measuring the success of an e-commerce
application (DeLone and McLean 2004; Wang et
al. 2005). On the other hand, in the e-
government context, government agencies don’t
compete with each other as each has it own
specialty. They offer a variety of free public
services targeting a bigger and more
heterogeneous population (i.e., having, different
characteristics, like literacy, gender, income,
etc.) than that of e-commerce (Wang et al. 2005;
Conklin 2007). In addition, there are various
government agencies and each provides a variety
of services to the public. Hence, the purpose for
which citizens use the EGS varies widely from
that of an e-commerce system. In essence, it is
important to consider the success determining
factors that are appropriate for the e-government
domain.
Since the core objective of adopting EGS is to
help citizens increase their convenience and task
efficiency, by performing their required tasks while
saving time and effort; investigating citizens’
adoption of EGS or their satisfaction as an
indication to the success of the system is not
reliable. DeLone and McLean (2003) suggest that
WEBIST 2011 - 7th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
448

the use of US to measure the success and increased
efficiency of task performance is insufficient.
Similarly, we agree with the authors and argue that
using the notion of US as a proxy for measuring the
success in the e-government context, is insufficient
on its own for assessing the degree to which was the
government able to increase citizens’ efficiency in
performing their tasks. Citizens might use the EGS,
simply, because it is a better option than the
traditional face-to-face channel; for example, to
avoid the burden of physically visiting an actual
government agency’s location, but not necessarily
because it is of high quality. Alternatively, citizens
may not have another option but to use it, due to
some personal constraint such as a health issue or
being overseas.
Therefore, we propose that it is imperative to
incorporate the notion of users’ (citizens) obtained
tangle benefits, in addition to the psychological
benefit (satisfaction), when evaluating the success
and the consequences of adopting an EGS. By
explicitly measuring citizens’ efficiency in
performing their tasks, governments will be able to
assess whether they were able to fulfill their preset
objectives and to what degree they were able to do
so. Nonetheless, we believe that there are certain
important aspects that need to be, additionally,
taken into account when assessing the success in
fulfilling the government’s intermediate objectives
(i.e., providing high-quality system), and
fundamental objectives (i.e., providing values to
citizens).
In order for citizens’ to obtain both these
psychological and tangible benefits, utilizing the
EGS is a prerequisite (Wang et al. 2005; Kumar et
al. 2007; Wangpipatwong et al. 2008). However,
citizens’ behavior and behavioral intention to adopt
the e-government system is dependent on some
factors:
1- System’s attributes output quality, which impact
individual’s perception and impression of the online
system characteristics (Aladwani and Palvia 2002;
DeLone and McLean 2003; Wixom and Todd 2005;
Petter et al. 2008):
 Information quality, e.g., comprehensive, up-
to-date, clear to understand, relevant, etc.
 E-service, e.g., the diversity of e-services that
citizens can use to complete the entire task
independently online, or place an online
request for a job to be completed by
government servants (such as passport or ID
renewal).
 Technical quality of the website/s (website
characteristics) such as loading time,
availability 24/7 (accessibility), the
acknowledged security and privacy standards,
and easiness and clarity of the website in terms
of the design, navigation, consistency of
layout, etc.
The high quality system performance is considered
as an intermediate objective that governments aim to
accomplish in order to attract individuals to utilize
the system and adequately rely on it, which will
presumably fulfill the fundamental objective of
increasing individuals’ efficiency (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: The relationship between the intermediate and
the fundamental objectives.
2- Individual’s attributes, which are related to their
perceptions and cognitive beliefs about what they
have received from the system, and what they would
expect in the future.
 Individuals’ trust
- Trusting the information of being sufficient
and reliable (Nicolaou and McKnight
2006).
- Trusting the operational competency of the
government, i.e., receiving the online
requests and completing them adequately
and in the assigned time frame
(Balasubramanian et al. 2003).
- Trusting the security and privacy standards,
i.e., trusting that the system is secure and
that their confidential information, such as
financial, credit card, and personal
information are well protected from being
accessed (viewed or manipulated) by an
unauthorized person (Balasubramanian et
al. 2003; Cullen and Reilly 2007).
 Perceived Usefulness (PU): Individuals’
believe that by using the online system, they
will be able to obtain positive consequences,
such as conducting the task in an easier
manner, save time or effort, etc. (Davis et al.
1989; van Dijk et al. 2008; Verdegem and
Verleye 2009). PU is very much related to
individuals’ circumstances, such as the
DEVELOPING A MODEL OF CITIZENS' PERCEPTION OF E-GOVERNMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND
THEIR ATTAINED BENEFIT
449

environmental and physical factors, e.g.,
having a commitment at work or other
engagements, physical or health conditions,
being overseas, and other inconveniences or
barriers.
Accordingly, we propose a model that measures
the fulfillment of governments’ intermediate and
fundamental objectives should incorporate the
following aspects:
1. The system’s attribute.
2. The individuals’ attributes that impact their
cognitive believes about the system and
subsequently their intention and usage
behavior.
3. The obtained psychological and tangible
benefits.
4. Individuals’ intentions and behavioral
intentions that are prerequisites for obtaining
the final values.
(see Figure 2 for clarification)
Figure 2.
While considering the aspects which we believe
need to be incorporated in our suggested prospective
model, we reviewed the relevant literature, in
particular e-government, to find a model that
complies with these considerations. We found that
most studies were limited to certain aspects where
they considered some attributes and discarded
others. For example, in WIS literature, we found
that the models introduced to measure a system
success, mostly, focused on US (psychological
benefit) rather than explicitly exploring the tangible
benefits such as those presented in e-commerce.
In the e-government citizen-centric literature,
few citizen-centric models have been introduced to
evaluate the EGS. These models varied in terms of
the dependent variable that was measured. The
studies mostly focused on citizens adoption (i.e.,
intention and behavioral intention), e.g., (Carter and
Belanger 2005; Hung et al. 2009; Lean et al. 2009;
Wangpipatwong et al. 2009). Few studies explored
and added, only, users psychological benefit (i.e.,
satisfaction) in their models, e.g., (Kumar et al.
2007; Cenfetelli et al. 2008; Teo et al. 2008; Bwalya
2009; Chae-Eon et al. 2009; Mohamed et al. 2009;
Sung et al. 2009; Verdegem and Verleye 2009). Yet,
these studies lacked some aspects that made them
incomprehensive, and not very reliable. For
instance, some of them focused on certain aspects
and did not include other important ones that
determine US or NB, e.g., system’s attributes or
individual’s trust (Prybutok et al. 2008;
Wangpipatwong et al. 2008). Others, lacked
appropriate methodological instruments that are
reliable and comprehensive enough to reflect the
nature of the latent variable, such as (Kumar et al.
2007); or had inconsistent clustering of variables,
e.g., (Sung et al. 2009).
In addition, very few researchers attempted to
measure the net benefit (NB) (citizens obtained
values) in the e-government context incorporating
both psychological and tangible benefits (Wang and
Liao 2008; Chae-Eon et al. 2009). These studies
considered the realized benefits as indicators of the
EGS success. However, these studies did not
consider all the aspects we believe important to be
included in the assessment instrument when
evaluating EGS success from citizens’ perspective.
On the other hand, the studies that did consider these
aspects were very few (i.e., (Wang et al. 2005; Park
2008; Alshawi and Alalwany 2009)). Moreover,
they had methodological issues, such as, lack of
depth in the evaluation criteria, redundancy of
presenting similar notions in multiple variables, or,
ambiguity of the proposed evaluation criteria. These
studies are discussed in more detail in the next few
paragraphs.
Wang et al. (2005) attempted to form a citizen-
centric model that evaluates the e-government
service delivery (output) and the level of
improvement of the performance (outcome/
consequences). They suggest that an improvement in
citizens’ task performance, when deploying the
online service channel, implies an improvement in
government performance.
The authors argue that, due to the variety of
online services provided by the different
government agencies and the variation in the
population they serve, thus, it is difficult to identify
all the possible factors that influence the
performance and include them in one model.
Hence, the generalizability, in the case, would be
invalid. Accordingly, the authors formed a generic
model; yet, cannot be directly used to assess a
specific web-based e-government service. Their
model was:
P = f (C, T, S, C×T, C×S, T×S, C×T×S) (1)
Where P is a measure of the performance of WIS
WEBIST 2011 - 7th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
450

information seeking; C refers to citizens’
characteristics; T refers to information task
characteristics; and S refers to government website
characteristics.
Though the idea of their model seems to be
comprehensive and worthy, yet, the model had some
obvious shortcomings. The model lacks clarity of
the components that should be taken into account.
Wang et al. (2005) base their model on possible
attributes. Nonetheless, they are not identified and
defined clearly for the purpose of the model.
Consequently, the choice of selecting the
appropriate components to measure citizens’
performance is subjective to the evaluator, which
can vary from one person to another. In addition,
because the chosen attributes for the generic model
may differ in each time the study is conducted, the
validity and reliability of the model can not be
ensured. Moreover, the notion of service quality was
not taken into account as a dimension of the system
and a determinant of the individual task performance
efficiency.
Furthermore, Park (2008) conducted his study to
identify the factors that influence value judgment of
citizens. His research question was based on what
citizens valued most in e-government services. In
other words, his study focused on identifying
specific criteria that is supposed to serve as
benchmarks, from citizens’ perspective, and that
need to exist in order to obtain a successful e-
government initiative.
The author used a structured online survey to
assess citizens’ perspectives for the important
aspects that lead to obtaining the means/intermediate
objectives, and subsequently obtaining the
fundamental objectives. However, his study lacked
some important aspects that were found in the
literature to be significantly important, such as the
measurement of service quality. In addition, there
were redundant concepts in multiple variables.
Additionally, the concept of trust was limited to
security and privacy issues though in the literature it
also incorporates another dimension related to the
operational competency. Further, the concept of
environmental impact, which was included as an
important aspect, is obviously not a short term
benefit and is not relevant to individuals’
performance efficiency or satisfaction.
Alshawi and Alalwani (2009) proposed an
evaluation framework for EGS by developing
evaluation criteria, and empirically validating the
evaluation instrument. Similar to the previously
presented two studies, their study also suffered from
some shortcomings, including a lack of details in
exploring the technical aspect, and using an
unconventional notion of perceived usefulness as
that used in the literature. In addition, there was no
measurement of service quality, and there were
redundant concepts in multiple variables. In essence,
the measuring instrument is generally brief, and
their model requires more investigation and
validation.
Table 1 below exhibits a summary of the
attributes investigated in the citizen-centric studies
in e-government literature. In this table we named
the attributes, which we propose to be important and
should be incorporated in the evaluation model. The
studies presented in this table are classified in terms
of the attributes explored.
Table 1: Investigated attributes in the citizen-centric studies in the e-Gov literature.
Suggested Dimensions Dimension used Studies in which used
A- System factors
B- Individual attributes
C- Behavioral intention
D- Use behavior
E- Satisfaction
F- Tangible benefits
A & C (Wangpipatwong et al. 2009)
A & E (Mohamed et al. 2009)
A & C & E (Sung et al. 2009)
A & B & C (Tan et al. 2008; Alsaghier et al. 2009)
A & B & C & D (Hamner and Qazi 2009)
A & C & D & E (Verdegem and Verleye 2009)
A & B & C & E (Teo et al. 2008)
B & C
(Carter and Belanger 2004; Fu et al. 2006; Hung et al. 2006;
Horst et al. 2007; Bélanger and Carter 2008; Wangpipatwong
et al. 2008; Lean et al. 2009)
B & C & D
(AlAwadhi and Morris 2008; van Dijk et al. 2008; Hamner and
Al-Qahtani 2009; Mahadeo 2009)
A & D & F (Wangpipatwong et al. 2005)
A & D & E & F (Wang and Liao 2008)
A & B & D & E (Kumar et al. 2007; Bwalya 2009)
A & E & F (Prybutok et al. 2008)
B & E & F (Chae-Eon et al. 2009)
A & Total quality (Barnes and Vidgen 2003; Gil-Garcia 2006)
A & F (Kolsaker and Lee-Kelley 2008)
DEVELOPING A MODEL OF CITIZENS' PERCEPTION OF E-GOVERNMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND
THEIR ATTAINED BENEFIT
451

3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Guidelines to Developing the
Citizen-centric e-Government
Evaluation Model (CEM)
In order to avoid bias or choosing one model or
theory over another, guidelines were imposed to
determine the path of the formulation of this model.
The core focus of our study is to identify citizens’
perception of the EGS’s output and performance,
and their attained benefits from utilizing that
particular corresponding quality of the EGS.
Naturally, individuals’ perception of the system’s
output is reflected by their satisfaction. Since US,
which reflects the psychological benefit, is
determined by both the system’s output quality, and
the tangible benefits (consequences) from utilizing
the EGS. Therefore, we considered US as the most
important criterion of interest.
Accordingly, a systematic literature review on
US was conducted covering the empirical studies in
three top ranking journals, namely, MISQ, JMIS,
and ISR, for the period between 1995 and 2010.
- First, the significant antecedents to US were
identified and clustered such that similar variables
were integrated together.
- Second, a comprehensive and exhaustive literature
review was conducted on all the variables that were
found to be significant determinants of US. This
required reviewing multiple disciplines, such as IS,
marketing and e-commerce, business administration
and management, psychology, and e-government)
In addition, it was important to take into
consideration the individuals’ behavior of utilizing
the system in order for them to obtain the final
values (Wang et al. 2005; Kumar et al. 2007;
Wangpipatwong et al. 2008). Hence, a great
emphasis was put in exploring and thoroughly
reviewing the literature of individual’s intention and
behavioral intention, in the relevant disciplines, in
particular, WIS and e-government contexts.
While constructing the model, there were also
some guidelines that we used to obtain a valid and
reliable model. That is:
a. Constructing the model to fit the e-government
domain, and the scope of this study;
b. Taking into account the different dimensions
and factors that influence individuals’ behavior
and behavioral intentions;
c. Adding the variables that were found in
empirical studies to be significantly correlated
with the other variables in the model; and
d. Ensuring the logical interrelations between the
constructs in the conceptual model.
3.2 The Proposed Model
Based on the literature, the empirical studies, and
the previously presented discussions, we present our
conceptual model (CEM) with the net benefit as a
higher (second) order construct that composite both
the psychological and tangible benefits. The higher
order concept is a multidimensional measure/factor
that involves more than one dimension and can
explain all the co-variation among the lower order
factors (e.g., second order construct comprises
several first order constructs) (Chin 1998; Pavlou
and Fygenson 2006; Wetzels et al. 2009). The
approach of aggregating the first order components
into a higher-order conceptualization , to provide a
better model fit and explain a particular perspective
of the phenomena (e.g., perceived overall quality or
user satisfaction) has been supported (Turel et al.
2010) and applied in numerous studies in the
literature, e.g., (Pavlou and Fygenson 2006;
Mohamed et al. 2009; Wetzels et al. 2009; Turel et
al. 2010)
.
The lower (first) order constructs in our model are
the information, technical, and service qualities; and
the tangible and psychological benefits. The higher
(second) order constructs are the perceived system
performance and net benefits. We were inclined to
merge, both, the psychological and tangible benefits,
for two main reasons:
1- Our study is focused on measuring the
consequences of utilizing the EGS (i.e., the
final values) given a particular system output/
performance quality. Both aspects of benefits,
i.e., psychological and tangible, reflect this
notion. (Sedera et al. 2004)
2- As suggested by Sedera et al. (2004), we
believe that, by aggregating both psychological
and tangible benefits in a higher order
(reflective) construct, we can obtain a more
explanatory power (explained variance) of the
investigated phenomenon.
Notwithstanding, we would also like to
investigate the CEM while using first order
constructs of the NB in order for us to be able to:
1- Clearly visualize the interrelations between the
NB components and the other constructs in the
model.
2- Have a better insight of the interrelations
between the model constructs.
3- Accurately base the interrelations between the
NB components and the other constructs in the
model on the literature.
WEBIST 2011 - 7th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
452

Figure 3: CEM with a higher order construct of net benefit.
Figure 4: CEM with lower (first) order constructs of net benefit.
4- In which case, both versions of the conceptual
model need to be validated, such that the
results for both versions are compared. We
perform this comparison to identify whether
both models are similar and alternative to each
other; or whether either provides a better fit
than the other. However, with the adaptive
feedback loops, it is vital that the model be
validated in a longitudinal study.
3.3 Validating the Model - Operational
Approach
To validate the model we chose to do the following:
First, we consider the case of developing
countries, and choose the state of Kuwait as a case
study. It is well known that most government
services in developing countries are tedious,
problematic, and have many shortcomings such as
corruption, nepotism, unmotivated government
servants reluctant to work professionally and
efficiently, and long routine processes which also
requires a lot of administrative work, etc. As a
result, citizens of those countries are very
dissatisfied from the services they receive while
interacting with their government. Therefore, if
implementing an e-government system would have a
positive impact; it will be mostly obvious within this
group of societies.
Second, use the survey method because the
constructs are well defined and the context that
needs to be examined is well structured. Given the
nature of the constructs of mostly being perceptual
measures, closed ended questions using a seven
likert scale is deployed with. Many questions were
extracted from the literature, and the questions that
reflect the notion of the constructs and were deemed
to be important were added accordingly to provide
better understanding for each variable. An open
ended question is also introduced to provide the
opportunity for the respondents to provide any extra
comments. In addition, due to the nature of multi-
facet services among and within each government
agency, the survey was controlled for the type of
agency and the type of tasks for which users utilized
the EGS, e.g., find information, lodge a request
online, complete entire task like online payment or
downloading forms, check status. The survey is
developed electronically using “SurveyGizmo”,
targeting respondents online using a random email
campaign while requesting from the receivers to
assist in distributing it further which will ultimately
ensure the collected data is more randomized. An
English and Arabic version of the survey is available
for non-Arabic speaking users as an attempt to
increase the response rate while considering the
reaction of non-citizens of the perception. A pilot
study was conducted to ensure the suitability and
easiness to understand the questions.
DEVELOPING A MODEL OF CITIZENS' PERCEPTION OF E-GOVERNMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND
THEIR ATTAINED BENEFIT
453

4 CONCLUSIONS
The significance of the e-government projects, and
the huge implications involved with implementing
such initiatives, require critical analysis and
evaluation of the level of their success. This can be
accomplished by assessing each objective as a
success factor. Since one core objective of
implementing an EGS is to provide an accessible
tool which better serves the public, it is imperative
to assess citizens’ perception of what they receive
and the consequences of using this particular system
on them. Using a reflective and reliable evaluation
instrument is vital for governments in order to assess
their ongoing progress, performance, and service
quality while using the online system. A model has
been presented in this paper to serve this purpose,
and is currently in the process of being
quantitatively validated by the authors.
REFERENCES
Akman, I., A. Yazici, A. Mishra and A. Arifoglu (2005).
"E-Government: A global view and an empirical
evaluation of some attributes of citizens." Government
Information Quarterly 22(2): 239-257.
Aladwani, A. M. and P. C. Palvia (2002). "Developing
and validating an instrument for measuring user-
perceived web quality." Information & Management
39(6): 467-476.
AlAwadhi, S. and A. Morris (2008). The Use of the
UTAUT Model in the Adoption of E-Government
Services in Kuwait. Proceedings of the 41st Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS).
Alsaghier, H., M. Ford, A. Nguyen and R. Hexel (2009).
"Conceptualising Citizen's Trust in e-Government:
Application of Q Methodology." Electronic Journal of
e-Government (EJEG) 7 (4).
Alshawi, S. and H. Alalwany (2009). "E-government
evaluation: Citizen's perspective in developing
countries." Information Technology for Development
15(3): 193-208.
Balasubramanian, S., P. Konana and N. M. Menon (2003).
"Customer Satisfaction in Virtual Environments: A
Study of Online Investing." Management Science
49(7): 871-889.
Barnes, S. J. and R. Vidgen (2003). "Measuring Web site
quality improvements: a case study of the forum on
strategic management knowledge exchange."
Industrial Management & Data Systems 103(5-6):
297-309.
Bélanger, F. and L. Carter (2008). "Trust and risk in e-
government adoption." The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems 17(2): 165-176.
Bwalya, K. J. (2009). "Factors affecting adoption of e-
government in Zambia " The Electronic Journal on
Information Systems in Developing Countries
(EJISDC) 38(4): 1-13.
Carter, L. and F. Belanger (2004). Citizen adoption of
electronic government initiatives. Proceedings of the
37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS).
Carter, L. and F. Belanger (2005). "The utilization of e-
government services: citizen trust, innovation and
acceptance factors." Information Systems Journal
15(1): 5-25.
Cenfetelli, R. T., I. Benbasat and S. Al-Natour (2008).
"Addressing the What and How of Online Services:
Positioning Supporting-Services Functionality and
Service Quality for Business-to-Consumer Success."
Information Systems Research 19(2): 161-181.
Chae-Eon, L. E. E., G. I. M. Gwangyong and Y. O. O.
Boonghee (2009). "The effect of relationship quality
on citizen satisfaction with electronic government
services." Marketing Management Journal 19(2): 118-
129.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and Opinion on Structural
Equation Modeling. MIS Quarterly: 1-1.
Conklin, W. A. (2007). Barriers to Adoption of e-
Government. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS).
Cullen, R. and P. Reilly (2007). Information privacy and
trust in government: a citizen-based perspective from
New Zealand. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.
Waikoloa, HI.
Davis, F. D. (1989). "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived
Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information
Technology." MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319-340.
Davis, F. D., R. P. Bagozzi and P. R. Warshaw (1989).
"User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A
Comparison of Two Theoretical Models."
Management Science 35(8): 982-1003.
DeLone, W. H. and E. R. McLean (1992). "Information
Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent
Variable." Information Systems Research 3(1): 60-95.
DeLone, W. H. and E. R. McLean (2003). "The DeLone
and McLean Model of Information Systems Success:
A Ten-Year Update." Journal of Management
Information Systems 19(4): 9-30.
DeLone, W. H. and E. R. McLean (2004). "Measuring e-
Commerce Success: Applying the DeLone & McLean
Information Systems Success Model." International
Journal of Electronic Commerce 9(1): 31-47.
Devaraj, S., F. Ming and R. Kohli (2002). "Antecedents of
B2C Channel Satisfaction and Preference: Validating
e-Commerce Metrics." Information Systems Research
13(3): 316-333.
Evans, D. and D. C. Yen (2005). "E-government: An
analysis for implementation: Framework for
understanding cultural and social impact."
Government Information Quarterly 22(3): 354-373.
Fu, J.-R., C.-K. Farn and W.-P. Chao (2006). "Acceptance
of electronic tax filing: A study of taxpayer
intentions." Information & Management 43(1): 109-
126.
WEBIST 2011 - 7th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
454

Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2006). Enacting State Websites: A
Mixed Method Study Exploring E-Government
Success in Multi-Organizational Settings. Proceedings
of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS).
Grimsley, M. and A. Meehan (2008 ). "Attaining Social
Value from Electronic Government " Electronic
Journal of e-Government (EJEG) 6(1): 31-42.
Gupta, M. P. and D. Jana (2003). "E-government
evaluation: a framework and case study." Government
Information Quarterly 20(4): 365-387.
Hamner, M. and F. Al-Qahtani (2009). "Enhancing the
case for Electronic Government in developing nations:
A people-centric study focused in Saudi Arabia."
Government Information Quarterly 26(1): 137-143.
Hamner, M. and R.-u.-R. Qazi (2009). "Expanding the
Technology Acceptance Model to examine Personal
Computing Technology utilization in government
agencies in developing countries." Government
Information Quarterly 26(1): 128-136.
Horst, M., M. Kuttschreuter and J. M. Gutteling (2007).
"Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk
perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-
government services in The Netherlands." Computers
in Human Behavior 23(4): 1838-1852.
Hung, S.-Y., C.-M. Chang and T.-J. Yu (2006).
"Determinants of user acceptance of the e-
Government services: The case of online tax filing and
payment system." Government Information Quarterly
23(1): 97-122.
Hung, S.-Y., K.-Z. Tang, C.-M. Chang and C.-D. Ke
(2009). "User acceptance of intergovernmental
services: An example of electronic document
management system." Government Information
Quarterly 26(2): 387-397.
Ives, B., M. Olson, H. and J. Baroudi, J. (1983). "The
measurement of user information satisfaction."
Communications of the ACM 26(10): 785-793.
Kolsaker, A. and L. Lee-Kelley (2008). "Citizens'
attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: a
UK study." International Journal of Public Sector
Management 21(7): 723-738.
Kumar, V., B. Mukerji, I. Butt and A. Persaud (2007).
"Factors for successful e-government adoption: a
conceptual framework." Electronic Journal of e-
Government (EJEG) 5(1): 63 - 76.
Layne, K. and J. Lee (2001). "Developing fully functional
E-government: A four stage model." Government
Information Quarterly 18(2): 122-136.
Lean, O. K., S. Zailani, T. Ramayah and Y. Fernando
(2009). "Factors influencing intention to use e-
government services among citizens in Malaysia."
International Journal of Information Management
29(6): 458-475.
Luk, S. C. Y. (2009). "The impact of leadership and
stakeholders on the success/failure of e-government
service: Using the case study of e-stamping service in
Hong Kong." Government Information Quarterly
26(4): 594-604.
Mahadeo, J. D. (2009). "Towards an Understanding of the
Factors Influencing the Acceptance and Diffusion of
e-Government Services " Electronic Journal of e-
Government (EJEG) 7(4).
Mohamed, N., H. Hussin and R. Hussein (2009).
"Measuring Users' Satisfaction with Malaysia's
Electronic Government Systems." Electronic Journal
of e-Government (EJEG) 7(3): pp283 - 294.
Moon, M. J. and E. W. Welch (2004). Same bed, different
dreams?: a comparative analysis of citizen and
bureaucrat perspectives on e-government. Proceedings
of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS).
Nicolaou, A. I. and D. H. McKnight (2006). "Perceived
Information Quality in Data Exchanges: Effects on
Risk, Trust, and Intention to Use." Information
Systems Research 17(4): 332-351.
Palvia, P. (2009). "The role of trust in e-commerce
relational exchange: A unified model." Information &
Management 46(4): 213-220.
Park, R. (2008). Measuring Factors that Influence the
Success of E-Government Initiatives. Proceedings of
the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS).
Pavlou, P. A. and M. Fygenson (2006). "Understanfing
and Prediction Electronic Commerce Adoption: An
Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior." MIS
Quarterly 30(1): 115-143.
Petter, S., W. Delone and E. McLean (2008). "Measuring
information systems success: models, dimensions,
measures, and interrelationships." European Journal of
Information Systems 17(3): 236-263.
Prybutok, V. R., X. Zhang and S. D. Ryan (2008).
"Evaluating leadership, IT quality, and net benefits in
an e-government environment." Information &
Management 45(3): 143-152.
Sedera, D., G. Gable and T. Chan (2004). A factor and
structural equation analysis of the enterprise systems
success measurement model Proceedings of the
Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Information
Systems Washington, DC, USA, Association for
Information Systems.
Sung, Y.-H., S.-H. Liu, H.-L. Liao and C.-M. Liu (2009).
"Service Quality between e-Government Users and
Administrators." I-Ways 32(4): 241-248.
Swanson, E. B. (1974). "Management Information
Systems: Appreciation and Involvement."
Management Science 21(2): 178-188.
Tan, C.-W., I. Benbasat and R. T. Cenfetelli (2008).
Building Citizen Trust towards E-Government
Services: Do High Quality Websites Matter?
Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
Tapscott, D. (1996). Digital Economy. New York,
McGraw-Hill.
Teo, T. S. H., S. C. Srivastava and L. I. Jiang (2008).
"Trust and Electronic Government Success: An
Empirical Study." Journal of Management Information
Systems 25(3): 99-131.
Turel, O., A. Serenko and N. Bontis (2010). "User
acceptance of hedonic digital artifacts: A theory of
consumption values perspective." Information &
Management 47(1): 53-59.
DEVELOPING A MODEL OF CITIZENS' PERCEPTION OF E-GOVERNMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND
THEIR ATTAINED BENEFIT
455

van Dijk, J. A. G. M., O. Peters and W. Ebbers (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.
Verdegem, P. and G. Verleye (2009). "User-centered E-
Government in practice: A comprehensive model for
measuring user satisfaction." Government Information
Quarterly 26(3): 487-497.
Wang, L., S. Bretschneider and J. Gant (2005). Evaluating
Web-Based E-Government Services with a Citizen-
Centric Approach. Proceedings of the 38th Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS)
Wang, Y.-S. and Y.-W. Liao (2008). "Assessing
eGovernment systems success: A validation of the
DeLone and McLean model of information systems
success." Government Information Quarterly 25(4):
717-733.
Wangpipatwong, S., W. Chutimaskul and B. Papasratorn
(2005). A Pilot Study of Factors Affecting the
Adoption of Thai e-Government Websites.
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Applied
Information Technology (IAIT’05).
Wangpipatwong, S., W. Chutimaskul and B. Papasratorn
(2008). "Understanding Citizen’s Continuance
Intention to Use e-Government Website: a Composite
View of Technology Acceptance Model and
Computer Self-Efficacy." Electronic Journal of e-
Government (EJEG) 6(1): 55-64.
Wangpipatwong, S., W. Chutimaskul and B. Papasratorn
(2009). "Quality enhancing the continued use of e-
government web sites: evidence from e-citizens of
Thailand.(Report)." International Journal of Electronic
Government Research 5(1): 19(17).
Wetzels, M., G. Odekerken-Schröder and C. v. Oppen
(2009). "Using PLS Path Modeling for Assessing
Hierarchial Contruct Models: Guidlines and Empirical
Illustration." MIS Quarterly 33(1): 177-195.
Whitson, T. L. and L. Davis (2001). "Best practices in
electronic government: Comprehensive electronic
information dissemination for science and
technology." Government Information Quarterly
18(2): 79-91.
Wixom, B. H. and P. A. Todd (2005). "A Theoretical
Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology
Acceptance." Information Systems Research 16(1):
85-102.
Yildiz, M. (2007). "E-government research: Reviewing
the literature, limitations, and ways forward."
Government Information Quarterly 24(3): 646-665.
WEBIST 2011 - 7th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
456