Skip to main content
Log in

Analysing the Influence of Improved Situation, Capability Level of Actors and Flexible Process Workflow on Public Value of E-Governance Projects in India

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

(Source: Sushil 2000)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. L. (1990). Convenience in services marketing. Journal of Services Marketing, 4(1), 53–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charan, P. (2012). Supply chain performance issues in an automobile company: A SAP-LAP analysis. Measuring Business Excellence, 16(1), 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgios, Z. (2004). Ethics versus corruption in globalization. Journal of Management Development, 23(7), 631–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values an inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalsi, N. S., & Kiran, R. (2013). E-governance success factors. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(4), 320–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, I., & Jansson, G. (2013). Electronic services in the public sector: A conceptual framework. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 163–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, C. H. (1983). Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights. Journal of Marketing, 47(9), 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadomichelaki, X., & Mentzas, G. (2012). e-GovQual: A multiple-item scale for assessing e-government service quality. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 98–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytical hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxena, K. B. C. (2005). Towards excellence in e-governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(6), 498–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, V., Dixit, A. R., & Qadri, M. A. (2016). Modeling lean implementation for manufacturing sector. Journal of Modeling in Management, 11(2), 405–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suri, P. K. (2014). Flexibility of processes and e-governance performance. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 8(2), 230–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Suri, P. K., & Sushil, (2017). Strategic planning and implementation of e-governance. Singapore: Springer Science and Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2000). SAP-LAP models of inquiry. Management Decision, 38(5/6), 347–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2009a). SAP-LAP linkages: A generic interpretive framework for analyzing managerial contexts. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(2), 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2009b). Interpretive ranking process. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 10(4), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Websites

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Parul Jain Gupta or Pradeep Kumar Suri.

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

figure cfigure c

Exhibit ll.4: Pair-wise dominance of actors for different processes

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-018-0198-4

Keywords

Navigation