Potential for Improving Public Services by Exploring Citizens’ Communication to Public Organizations

  • Eriks SneidersEmail author
  • Lasith Gunawardena
  • Said Rutabayiro Ngoga
  • Rasika Darayathna
  • Jean Claude Byungura
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 947)


While the purpose of public organizations is to serve citizens, the citizens themselves are not always consulted in order to develop better public services. We argue that the direct communication from citizens to public organizations contains a wealth of information on how the organizations could improve their services, and this information is worth exploring. In order to prove our argument, we have interviewed 19 public organizations in Rwanda and Sri Lanka, identified 26 issues raised by the citizens, and mapped these issues into four solution domains: availability and timeliness of information, policy development, business process development, availability and design of e-services.


Citizen-centered E-government Participatory governance Bottom-up policy making Co-creation of public services 



The authors would like to express their gratitude to the people in Rwanda and Sri Lanka who made this research possible. Thanks a lot to Sri Lanka Institute of Development Administration, without you we would never reach those 12 organizations.


  1. 1.
    Osborne, S.P., Radnor, Z., Strokosch, K.: Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment? Public Manag. Rev. 18(5), 639–653 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nambisan, S., Nambisan, P.: Engaging Citizens in Co-creation in Public Services: Lessons Learned and Best Practices. IBM Center for the Business of Government (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Linders, D.: From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Gov. Inf. Q. 29(4), 446–454 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scherer, S., Wimmer, M.A., Strykowski, S.: Social government: a concept supporting communities in co-creation and co-production of public services. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, pp. 204–209. ACM, New York, USA (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raikov, A.: Accelerating technology for self-organizing networked democracy. Futures (2018). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sneiders, E., Byungura, J.C., Henkel, M., Perjons, E.: Potential of language technology to support public organizations and their communication channels in a developing country. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 236–244. ACM, New York, USA (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruthven, I., Kelly, D. (eds.): Interactive Information Seeking, Behavior and Retrieval. Facet Publishing, London (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pabarskaite, Z., Raudys, A.: A process of knowledge discovery from web log data: systematization and critical review. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 28(1), 79–104 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sneiders, E.: Review of the main approaches to automated email answering. New Advances in Information Systems and Technologies. AISC, vol. 444, pp. 135–144. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P.A., Rose, G.M.: Encouraging citizen adoption of e-government by building trust. Electron. Mark. 12(3), 157–162 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seckler, M., Heinz, S., Bargas-Avila, J.A., Opwis, K., Tuch, A.N.: Designing usable web forms: empirical evaluation of web form improvement guidelines. In: Proceedings of CHI 2014, pp. 1275–1284. ACM, New York, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pappel, I., Pappel, I., Saarmann M.: Digital records keeping to information governance in Estonian local governments. In: Proceedings of i-Society 2012, pp. 199–204. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weerakkody, V., El-Haddadeh, R., Al-Sobhi, F., Shareef, M.A., Dwivedi, Y.K.: Examining the influence of intermediaries in facilitating e-government adoption: an empirical investigation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 33(5), 716–725 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scholl, H.J.: Interoperability in e-Government: more than just smart middleware. In: Proceedings of HICSS 2005, pp. 123–123. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boyne, G.A.: Sources of public service improvement: a critical review and research agenda. J. Public Admin. Res. Theor. 13(3), 367–394 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Skelcher, C.: Public-private partnerships, pp. 347–370. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karnani, A.: Fighting Poverty Together: Rethinking Strategies for Business, Governments, and Civil Society to Reduce Poverty. Springer, New York (2016). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crié, D.: Consumers’ complaint behavior: taxonomy, typology and determinants: Towards a unified ontology. J. Database Mark. Cust. Strat. Manag. 11(1), 60–79 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee, S., Cude, B.J.: Consumer complaint channel choice in online and offline purchases. Int. J. Cons. Stud. 36(1), 90–96 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meik, J., Brock, C., Blut, M.: Complaining customers as innovation contributors: stimulating service innovation through multichannel complaint management. In: Proceedings of SRII Global Conference 2014, pp. 125–132. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    CIA: The World Factbook. Sri Lanka. Accessed 02 May 2018
  22. 22.
    Fields, G.S.: Working Hard, Working Poor: A Global Journey. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robbins, M.D., Simonsen, B., Feldman, B.: Citizens and resource allocation: improving decision making with interactive web-based citizen participation. Public Admin. Rev. 68(3), 564–575 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Charalabidis, Y., Triantafillou, A., Karkaletsis, V., Loukis, E.: Public policy formulation through non moderated crowdsourcing in social media. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., Sæbø, Ø. (eds.) ePart 2012. LNCS, vol. 7444, pp. 156–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ferro, E., Loukis, E.N., Charalabidis, Y., Osella, M.: Policy making 2.0: from theory to practice. Gov. Inf. Q. 30(4), 359–368 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bekkers, V., Edwards, A., de Kool, D.: Social media monitoring: responsive governance in the shadow of surveillance? Gov. Inf. Q. 30(4), 335–342 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stamati, T., Papadopoulos, T., Anagnostopoulos, D.: Social media for openness and accountability in the public sector: cases in the Greek context. Gov. Inf. Q. 32(1), 12–29 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kamateri, E., et al.: A comparative analysis of tools and technologies for policy making. In: Janssen, M., Wimmer, M.A., Deljoo, A. (eds.) Policy Practice and Digital Science. PAIT, vol. 10, pp. 125–156. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mergel, I.: A framework for interpreting social media interactions in the public sector. Gov. Inf. Q. 30(4), 327–334 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Loukis, E., Charalabidis, Y., Androutsopoulou, A.: Promoting open innovation in the public sector through social media monitoring. Gov. Inf. Q. 34(1), 99–109 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Michels, A., De Graaf, L.: Examining citizen participation: local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Gov. Stud. 36(4), 477–491 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eriks Sneiders
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lasith Gunawardena
    • 2
  • Said Rutabayiro Ngoga
    • 3
  • Rasika Darayathna
    • 4
  • Jean Claude Byungura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Information TechnologyUniversity of Sri JayewardenepuraNugegodaSri Lanka
  3. 3.College of Science and TechnologyUniversity of RwandaKigaliRwanda
  4. 4.University of Colombo School of ComputingColomboSri Lanka

Personalised recommendations