Abstract
An emerging approach for assessing performance of public services is based on public value. Many existing studies have, however, measured public value in the context of online services. In India, most of the public services are still not fully e-governed. Due to the absence of an end-to-end IT-enabled service delivery mechanism, physical presence of citizens is still required to avail public services in many cases. A citizen during his visit to a public organization faces a ‘Situation’, interacts with ‘Actors’ and follows a ‘Process’ or a set of processes. It is conceptualized that citizens’ perception based on situation—actor—process (S–A–P)-related variables is expected to influence public value. In this article, S–A–P-related variables and their likely relationship with public value have been analysed based on a service of housing department of Delhi Development Authority. The study also aims to identify dominant actors who may be playing a critical role in the process of service delivery. It is expected that such actors may influence the service delivery time due to their dominance over the process. A dominance matrix showing ranking of different actors involved in the process of selected service has been presented by using an Interpretive Ranking Process method. The study is expected to benefit planners and implementers in terms of improved public value and delivery of public services on time.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agus, A., Barker, S., & Kandampully, J. (2007). An exploratory study of service quality in the Malaysian public service sector. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 24(2), 177–190.
Ahmad, S. A., & Latif, I. A. (2012). The effectiveness of public advisory services: What are the important factors? International Journal of Business and Management, 7(23), 19–30.
Al-Borie, M. H., & Damanhouri, S. M. A. (2013). Patients’ satisfaction of service quality in Saudi hospitals: A SERVQUAL analysis. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 26(1), 20–30.
Axelsson, K., Melin, U., & Lindgren, I. (2010). Exploring the importance of citizen participation & involvement in e-government projects; Practice, incentives, and organization. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 4(4), 299–321.
Belwal, R., & Zoubi, A. 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 & Ethics in Society, 6(4), 317–333.
Bharwani, S., & Jauhari, V. (2013). An exploratory study of competencies required to co-create memorable customer experiences in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(6), 823–843.
Bhattacharya, D., Gulla, U., & Gupta, M. P. (2012). E-service quality model for Indian government portals: citizens’ perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 25(3), 246–271.
Bidyarthi, H. M. J., & Srivastava, A. K. (2011). Citizens’ perspectives of e- governance. E-governance in practice. http://www.csi-sigegov.org/egovernance_pdf/9_69-76.pdf. Accessed 18 Sep 2017.
Bishwas, S. K. (2015). Achieving organization vitality through innovation and flexibility: An empirical study. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 16(2), 145–156.
Brown, G. L. (1990). Convenience in services marketing. Journal of Services Marketing, 4(1), 53–59.
Cavana, R. Y., Corbett, L. M., & Glenda Lo, Y. L. (2007). Developing zones of tolerance for managing passenger rail service quality. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 24(1), 7–31.
Charan, P. (2012). Supply chain performance issues in an automobile company: A SAP-LAP analysis. Measuring Business Excellence, 16(1), 67–86.
Chatzoglou, P., Chatzoudes, D., Vraimaki, E., & Diamantidis, A. (2013). Service quality in the public sector: The case of the Citizen’s Service Centers (CSCs) of Greece. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(6), 583–605.
Chauhan, G., & Singh, T. P. (2013). Resource flexibility for lean manufacturing: SAP-LAP analysis of a case study. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 4(4), 370–388.
Connolly, R., Bannister, F., & Kearney, A. (2010). Government website service quality: A study of the Irish revenue online service. European Journal of Information Systems, 19, 649–667.
Dash, B. C., & Sangita, S. N. (2011). Governance reforms in power sector: initiatives and outcomes in Orissa. http://www.isec.ac.in/WP%20262%20-%20S%20N%20Sangita.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2017.
DeitY. (2008). Impact assessment of e-government projects. http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/egov/documents/impact-assessment-of-egovernance-projects.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2017.
European Commission. (2006). Measurement framework final version: E-government economics project. http://www.epractice.eu/files/media/media1299.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2018.
Garg, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2010). Engineering support issues for flexibility in maintenance. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 22(2), 247–270.
Gauld, R., Goldfinch, S., & Horsburgh, S. (2010). Do they want? Do they use it? The “Demand –Side” of e-Government in Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 177–186.
Georgios, Z. (2004). Ethics versus corruption in globalization. Journal of Management Development, 23(7), 631–647.
Golubeva, A. A. (2007). Evaluation of regional government portal on the basis of public value concept. Case study from Russian Federation. In ACM international conference proceeding series. https://doi.org/10.1145/1328057.1328139.
Grimsley, M., & Meehan, A. (2007). E-government information systems: Evaluation-led design for public value and client trust. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 134–148.
Gupta, P. J., & Suri, P. K. (2017). Measuring public value of e-governance projects in India: Citizens’ Perspective. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11(2), 236–261.
Haldar, A., Rao, S. V. D. N., & Momaya, K. S. (2016). Can flexibility in corporate governance enhance international competitiveness? Evidence from knowledge-based industries in India. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17(4), 389–402.
Haleem, A., Sushil, Qadri, M. A., & Kumar, S. (2012). Analysis of critical success factors of world-class manufacturing practices: An application of interpretive structural modeling and interpretive ranking process. Production Planning & Control, 23(10–11), 722–734.
Harrison, T. M., Guerrero, S., Burke, G. B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., Helbig, N., Hrdinová, J., & Pardo, T. (2011). Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on digital government research. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-2012-0269.
Heeks, R. (2002). Failure, success and improvisation of information systems projects in developing countries. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015601.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2018.
Heeks, R. (2008). Benchmarking e-government: Improving the national and international measurement evaluation and comparison of e-government. Evaluating Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080570105.
Islam, R., Chowdhury, M. S., Sarker, M. S., & Ahmed, S. (2014). Measuring customer’s satisfaction on bus transportation. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 6(1), 34–41.
John, L., & Ramesh, A. (2012). Humanitarian supply chain management in India: A SAP-LAP framework. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 9(2), 217–235.
Jorgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values an inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.
Kakouris, A. P., & Meliou, E. (2010). New public management: promote the public sector modernization through service quality. Current experiences and future challenges. Public Organization Review, 11(4), 351–369.
Kalsi, N. S., & Kiran, R. (2013). E-governance success factors. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(4), 320–336.
Karkin, N., & Janssen, M. (2014). Evaluating websites from a public value perspective: A review of Turkish local government websites. International Journal of Information Management, 34(3), 351–363.
Karunasena, K., Deng, H., & Singh, M. (2011). Measuring the public value of e-government: A case study from Sri Lanka. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(1), 81–99.
Karunasena, K. (2012). An investigation of the public value of e-government in Sri Lanka. https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:160100/Thanthri_Waththage.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2017.
Kay, C., & Russette, J. (2000). Hospitality-management competencies: Identifying manager’s essential skills. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(2), 52–63.
Kearns, I. (2004). Public value and e-government. http://www.ippr.org/uploadedFiles/projects/Kearns_PublicValueandeGovenrment_ippr.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2016.
Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002). Creating public value: An analytical framework for public service reform. http://www.allamreform.hu/letoltheto/kozfeladatok/kulfoldi/public_value2.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2015.
Kumar, P., Bera, S., Dutta, T., & Chakraborty, S. (2018). Auxiliary flexibility in healthcare delivery system: An integrative framework and implications. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 19(2), 173–186.
Lindgren, I., & Jansson, G. (2013). Electronic services in the public sector: A conceptual framework. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 163–172.
Lovelock, C. H. (1983). Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights. Journal of Marketing, 47(9), 9–20.
Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Flexible decision modeling for evaluating the risks in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP and IRP methodologies. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 16(1), 19–35.
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. London: Harvard University Press.
Navarro, J. G. C., Perez, A. G., & Cegarraa, J. L. M. (2014). Technology knowledge and governance: Empowering citizen engagement and participation. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 660–668.
Osman, I. H., Anouze, A. L., Irani, Z., Ayoubi, B. A., Lee, H., Balc, A., et al. (2014). COBRA framework to evaluate e-government services: A citizen-centric perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 243–256.
Papadomichelaki, X., & Mentzas, G. (2012). e-GovQual: A multiple-item scale for assessing e-government service quality. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 98–109.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: Multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytical hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Salminen, A., & Norrbacka, R. I. (2010). Trust, good governance and unethical actions in Finnish public administration. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(7), 647–668.
Satapathy, S. (2014). An analysis for service quality enhancement in electricity utility sector of India by SEM. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 21(6), 964–986.
Saxena, K. B. C. (2005). Towards excellence in e-governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(6), 498–513.
Sharma, K., Sushil, & Jain, K. P. (2010). Revisiting flexibility in organizations: Exploring its impact on performance. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 11(3), 51–68.
Sharma, V., Dixit, A. R., & Qadri, M. A. (2016). Modeling lean implementation for manufacturing sector. Journal of Modeling in Management, 11(2), 405–426.
Singla, M., & Singh, S. (2018). Impact of institutional set-up on the responsiveness to change in a firm’s governance structure: A comparative study of public and private sector enterprises in India. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 19(2), 159–172.
Suri, P. K., & Sushil, (2006). E-governance through strategic alliances-a case of agricultural marketing information system in India. IIMB Management Review, 18(4), 389–401.
Suri, P. K., & Sushil, (2011). Multi-perspective analysis of e-governance performance: A study of select agriculture related projects in India. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4(3), 259–272.
Suri, P. K. (2014). Flexibility of processes and e-governance performance. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 8(2), 230–250.
Suri, P. K. (2016). Towards Linkage between Strategy Formulation and E-governance Performance. In Sushil, K. Bhal, & S. Singh (Eds.), Managing flexibility: Developing a framework of flexibility maturity model (pp. 43–59). New Delhi: Springer.
Suri, P. K., & Sushil, (2017). Strategic planning and implementation of e-governance. Singapore: Springer Science and Business Media.
Sushil, (2000). SAP-LAP models of inquiry. Management Decision, 38(5/6), 347–353.
Sushil, (2009a). SAP-LAP linkages: A generic interpretive framework for analyzing managerial contexts. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(2), 11–20.
Sushil, (2009b). Interpretive ranking process. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 10(4), 1–10.
Sushil, (2017a). Theory building using SAP-LAP linkages: An application in the context of disaster management. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2425-3.
Sushil, (2017b). Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2608-y.
United Nations (2016). United Nations E-Government Survey. http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN96407.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2018.
Vela, S. P., Martinez, I. G., Duhamel, F., Luna, D. E., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2015). Inter-organizational collaboration and value creation in digital government projects. https://doi.org/10.1145/2757401.2757403
Verdegem, P., & Verleye, G. (2009). User-centred e-government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly, 26(3), 487–497.
Ware, N. R., Singh, S. P., & Banwet, D. K. (2014). Modeling flexible supplier selection framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(3), 261–274.
Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2011). Transformational change and business process re-engineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 320–328.
Yusoff, W. Z. W., Ismail, M., & Newell, G. (2008). FM-SERVQUAL: A new approach of service quality measurement framework in local authorities. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 10(2), 130–144.
Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., & Zhou, G. (2014). Determinants of employee electricity saving: The role of social benefits, personal benefits and organizational electricity saving climate. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 280–287.
Websites
www.meity.gov.in. Accessed 15 February 2017.
www.dda.org.in. Accessed 18 February 2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Views expressed by the authors are personal.
Appendices
Appendix l
Exhibit l.1: List of activities performed by Actors
Sr.no. | Description of process | Central Diarist | Record room incharge | Applicant | Accounts Officer | Dealing Assistant | Assistant Director | NSK Staff | Bank Employees | Computer Department | Witnesses | Sub Registrar |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Count of activities per actor | 2 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
1 | Submission of application at NSK by applicant | √ | √ | |||||||||
2 | Receiving of files by Diarist from NSK Staff | √ | √ | |||||||||
3 | Diarist handover files to Dealing Assistant | √ | √ | |||||||||
4 | Record room incharge retrieve main file from the record room and handovers to Dealing Assistant | √ | √ | |||||||||
5 | Dealing Assistant sends the complete file to Accounts Officer to calculate the dues | √ | √ | |||||||||
6 | Accounts Officer calculates the dues and sends the file to Dealing Assistant | √ | √ | |||||||||
7 | Demand letter signed by Assistant Director is sent to Applicant by Dealing Assistant | √ | √ | |||||||||
8 | Applicant makes payment of dues in Branch located in DDA office and submits receipt to Assistant Director | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||
9 | Dealing assistant sends the file to Accounts Officer to issue ‘No dues certificate’ | √ | √ | |||||||||
10 | If dues amounts more than INR 5000 the Accounts Officer sends file to Computer Department to get the confirmation of payment | √ | √ | |||||||||
11 | Accounts Officer issues ‘No dues certificate’ and sends file to Assistant Director | √ | √ | |||||||||
12 | Dealing Assistant sends conversion letter and three conversion deed papers signed by Assistant Director to Applicant | √ | √ | |||||||||
13 | Applicant fills up forms and pay stamp duty in the bank. Further, he submits filled up forms, payment receipt and request letter of execution of conveyance deed to Assistant Director | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||
14 | Dealing Assistant sends call letter signed by Assistant Director for the execution of conveyance deed to Applicant | √ | √ | |||||||||
15 | Applicant visits NSK along with witnesses for the execution of conveyance deed | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||
16 | Applicant visits Sub Registrar’s Office along with Witnesses for the registration of conveyance deed | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||
17 | Applicant makes payment of registration fees through online mode and henceforth a date is given by Sub Registrar to the applicant to collect the registered conveyance deed | √ | √ | |||||||||
18 | Applicant visits Sub Registrar’s office to collect the registered conveyance deed | √ | √ |
Appendix ll
Exhibit ll.1: Cross-interaction binary matrix
Actor | |||||||||
A1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
A2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
A3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
A4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
A5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
A6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
A7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
A8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | ||
Process |
Exhibit ll.2: Cross-interaction interpretive matrix
Actor | A1 | Record of online and physical applications is maintained with Central Diarist | Diarist handovers files to Dealing Assistant | ||||||
A2 | Concerned record room incharge retrieve physical files from the record room | ||||||||
A3 | Applicant receives deficiency letter in case requirement of additional documents | Applicant submits pending documents to the Dealing Assistant | Applicant may have to pay additional amount in case of any deficit | ||||||
A4 | Accounts Officer receives the file for payment verification | Accounts Officer verifies payment made by applicant and issues ‘No Objection Certificate’ | Accounts Officer sends the file with NOC for further approvals and processing | ||||||
A5 | Dealing Assistant receives files from Central Diarist | Record room incharge hands over retrieved file to the Dealing Assistant | Dealing Assistant verifies the file and sends the deficiency letter to the Applicant | Dealing Assistant receives pending documents from Applicant | Dealing Assistant again verifies the documents and sends the file to Accounts Officer | ||||
A6 | Assistant Director signs the deficiency letter | Assistant Director signs the file for further processing | Approval of Assistant Director | ||||||
A7 | Approval of Deputy Director | ||||||||
A8 | Approval of Director | ||||||||
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | ||
Process |
Exhibit ll.3: Interpretive logic—knowledge base—ranking of actors w.r.t. processes
Paired comparison | Interaction with process | Interpretive logic |
---|---|---|
A5 dominating A1 | P2 | Dealing Assistant of housing department approaches Central Diarist to receive files |
A2 dominating A5 | P3 | Timely retrieval of file by record room incharge is important for further actions |
A5 dominating A3 | P4 | Proper verification of documents and raising correct requirement first time is crucial |
A6 dominating A5 | P4 | Assistant Director needs to sign the requirement before forwarding to the applicants |
A3 dominating A5 | P5 | Timely submission of pending documents from applicant is important for further actions |
A5 dominating A4 | P6 | Final verification by Dealing Assistant before forwarding the file to the Accounts Officer |
A6 dominating A5 | P6 | Assistant Director needs to sign the file before forwarding to the Accounts Officer |
A4 dominating A3 | P7 | Raising timely and correct requirement of pending dues by Accounts Officer is important |
A6 dominating A4 | P8 | Assistant Director approves the file received from Accounts Officer |
A7 dominating A6 | P8 | Deputy Director approves the file received from Assistant Director |
A8 dominating A7 | P8 | Director approves the file received from Deputy Director |
Exhibit ll.5: Dominance matrix—ranking of actors w.r.t. processes
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | A8 | No. dominating | Net dominance | Rank dominating | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 13 | − 4 | 5 |
A2 | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | − 10 | 7 |
A3 | 3 | 3 | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 3 | 3 |
A4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | – | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 1 | 4 |
A5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | – | 3 | 5 | 5 | 31 | 20 | 1 |
A6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | – | 2 | 2 | 19 | 8 | 2 |
A7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | 0 | 6 | − 10 | 7 |
A8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | 7 | − 8 | 6 |
No. being dominated | 17 | 17 | 15 | 15 | 11 | 11 | 16 | 15 | 117 |
Exhibit lll.1: Different types of dominance comparisons
Reference variables | Implicit dominance comparisons | Implicit Non-dominance comparisons | Transitive dominance comparisons | Interpretive dominance comparisons | Total comparisons | % Interpretive comparisons |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | 7 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 0 |
P2 | 12 | 15 | 0 | 1 | 28 | 9.09% |
P3 | 12 | 15 | 0 | 1 | 28 | 9.09% |
P4 | 15 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 28 | 18.18% |
P5 | 12 | 15 | 0 | 1 | 28 | 9.09% |
P6 | 15 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 28 | 18.18% |
P7 | 12 | 15 | 0 | 1 | 28 | 9.09% |
P8 | 16 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 28 | 27.27% |
Total | 101 | 107 | 5 | 11 | 224 | |
Percentage | 45.09% | 47.77% | 2.23% | 4.91% |
Appendix lll
Exhibit ll.6
Description of situation—actor—process-related variables | ||
---|---|---|
Macrovariables | Microvariables | Description |
Improved situation | Distance covered to reach service centre | It refers to the number of service centres available for service delivery |
Influence of middleman | Presence of middleman near the service centres to approach citizens | |
Queue to avail services | Time spent by citizens in the physical and electronic queues | |
Seating arrangements | Availability of sufficient chairs for citizens | |
Air conditioned environment | Availability and effectiveness of air conditioners at service centres | |
Cleanliness of work area and washrooms | Level of cleanliness maintained at public service centres | |
Drinking water | Availability of drinking water for citizens | |
Provision of feedback | Existence of feedback forms at the end of the service delivery | |
Capability level of actors | Communication skills | Capability of employees to provide information with effective communication skills |
Service orientation | Willingness of employees to deliver services | |
Fast execution of work | Speed of employees at service centre | |
Knowledge level about service delivery | Clarity of processes and updated information with employees | |
Respect for ethics and values | Employees providing services as per ethics and values of the public organization | |
Availability at service counters | Presence of employees at their counter to deliver services | |
Flexible process workflow | Flexibility in date and time of application submission | Providing options to citizens’ w.r.t. time and date of application submission |
Provision of uninterrupted services in case of technical fault | Arrangements of back up as per process in case of technical fault to continue with service delivery | |
Option of both manual and online applications | Availability of both manual and online options for citizens’ keeping their literacy level into consideration | |
Flexibility to apply from any service centre within the city | Availability of choice with applicants to submit application at any service centre within the city | |
Provision to avail services without visiting service centre | Provision for physically challenged applicants to submit application without visiting to service centre |
Appendix lV
Exhibit lV.1: Study variables and their observed mean value
Microvariables | Question items | Mean value |
---|---|---|
Quality of information | Accurate | 0.65 |
Up-to-date | 0.65 | |
Relevant | 0.68 | |
Detailed | 0.65 | |
Simple and understandable | 0.74 | |
System functioning | Easy to fill and submit application form | 0.62 |
Easy to make payment | 0.62 | |
Easy to get the application processed without any technical error | 0.67 | |
User orientation | Easy access for people having little or no formal education | 0.39 |
Facilities for differently abled, senior citizens, infants etc. | 0.45 | |
Cost savings | Lesser visits required to avail service | 0.19 |
Excess money is paid to avail service | 0.38 | |
Lesser efforts required to avail service | 0.24 | |
Charges paid to Intermediaries to avail service | 0.39 | |
Efficiency | Duplicate tasks are not performed during process | 0.53 |
Delivery of service is fast | 0.25 | |
Reach of service through service centres has increased | 0.64 | |
Openness | Display of information such as policies, expenses, agreements, tenders, etc. | 0.34 |
Display of organization charts, roles and responsibilities and contact lists of staff, etc. | 0.43 | |
Display of working hours, lunch timings, office addresses, applicable fees, etc. | 0.49 | |
Responsiveness | Response to inquires | 0.49 |
Response to complaints | 0.61 | |
Display citizen charter and RTI | 0.44 | |
Equity | Display of content in local language | 0.61 |
Same treatment to all applicants other than people with special needs | 0.76 | |
Trust | Security and privacy of personal information | 0.70 |
Initiatives to discourage role of middleman | 0.37 | |
Self-development | Awareness programmes for knowledge promotion | 0.21 |
Training programmes for non-Internet savvy people | 0.20 | |
Access through common service centres/Kiosk available | 0.56 | |
Citizens’ participation | Regular updates on policies and procedures | 0.25 |
The opportunity to participate in discussions, policy and decision-making | 0.22 | |
Provision for suggestions | 0.27 | |
Concern for environment | Reduction in paper printing | 0.60 |
Energy saving (electricity, manpower, etc.) | 0.57 | |
Improved situation | Lesser distance of service centre from home | 0.54 |
More influence of middleman | 0.51 | |
Long queue to avail services | 0.54 | |
Proper sitting arrangements | 0.63 | |
Air conditioned environment | 0.48 | |
Clean work area and washrooms | 0.51 | |
Availability of drinking water | 0.56 | |
Provision of feedback mechanism | 0.27 | |
Capability level of actors | Communication skills | 0.53 |
Service orientation | 0.53 | |
Fast execution of work | 0.28 | |
Knowledge level about service delivery | 0.66 | |
Respect for ethics and values | 0.58 | |
Punctuality and presence at service counters | 0.56 | |
Flexible process workflow | Flexibility in date and time of application | 0.44 |
Provision of uninterrupted service in case of any technical fault | 0.34 | |
Option of both manual and online applications | 0.27 | |
Flexibility to apply from any service centre within Delhi/NCR | 0.52 | |
Provision to avail service without visiting to service centre | 0.03 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gupta, P.J., Suri, P.K. Analysing the Influence of Improved Situation, Capability Level of Actors and Flexible Process Workflow on Public Value of E-Governance Projects in India. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 19, 349–372 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-018-0198-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-018-0198-4