Digital India pp 133-145 | Cite as

Assessing E-Government Project Outcome: A Service Provider’s Perspective

  • Harjit Singh
  • P. Vigneswara Ilavarasan
  • Arpan Kumar Kar
Part of the Advances in Theory and Practice of Emerging Markets book series (ATPEM)


The main purpose of this research study is to conceptualise a comprehensive framework for assessing the overall outcome of e-government projects in context multi-stakeholders with focus on service provider. There is a growing need especially in developing countries to know whether the e-government projects are comprehensively achieving their desired objectives and if each stakeholder of the initiative is performing its role as expected, especially the service provider under public-private partnership. We need tools and models to know and understand this domain more holistically. Most of the studies in the area of e-government performance assessment have been done considering citizens as stakeholder. The perspectives of other stakeholders are hardly part of literature available on e-government. A comprehensive framework for assessing the performance of e-government projects has been conceptualised as part of this research and would be empirically validated as part of the future scope of the research. This framework will have the competence to evaluate an e-government initiative from the perspective of service providers. The practical assistance we can get from framework would be to evaluate the impact of an e-government initiative by comparing with the earlier proposed objectives for it, so that the results can contribute to the subsequent decision-making related to the concerned projects and also to assist the government in making decisions for the future e-government initiatives.


Assessment E-government Framework Performance Service provider 


  1. Alryalat M, Dwivedi Y, Williams MD, Rana NP (2011) A systematic review of e-government research in developing countries. E-Governance Policies & Practices, 3–16Google Scholar
  2. Azhar K (2008) Strategic management. McGraw-Hill EducationGoogle Scholar
  3. Beldad A, De Jong M, Steehouder M (2010) How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust. Comput Hum Behav 26(5):857–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borek A, Parlikad AK, Woodall P, Tomasella M (2014). A risk based model for quantifying the impact of information quality. Computers in Industry, 65(2), 354–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chakrabarty T (2008) Towards an ideal e-governance scenario in India. Tata Consultancy Services, TrivandrumGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang IC, Li YC, Hung WF, Hwang HG (2005) An empirical study on the impact of quality antecedents on tax payers’ acceptance of internet tax-filing systems. Gov Inf Q 22(3):389–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen CW (2010) Impact of quality antecedents on taxpayer satisfaction with online tax-filing systems – an empirical study. Inf Manage 47(5):308–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen JV, Jubilado RJM, Capistrano EPS, Yen DC (2015) Factors affecting online tax filing – an application of the IS success model and trust theory. Comput Hum Behav 43:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dada D (2006) The failure of e-government in developing countries: a literature review. Electronic J Inform Syst Dev Countries 26(7):1–10Google Scholar
  10. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delone WH, McLean ER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manag Inf Syst 19(4):9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delone WH, Mclean ER (2004) Measuring e-commerce success: applying the DeLone & McLean information systems success model. Int J Electron Commer 9(1):31–47Google Scholar
  13. Esteves J, Joseph RC (2008) A comprehensive framework for the assessment of e-government projects. Gov Inf Q 25(1):118–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldkuhl G, Röstlinger A (2014) Intentions for simplicity and consequences of complexity: a diagnostic case study of an e-government portal and its back-office processes. In: The 11th Scandinavian Workshop on E-government, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  15. Heeks R, Bailur S (2007) Analyzing e-government research: perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Gov Inf Q 24(2):243–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klievink B, Janssen M (2009) Realizing joined-up government—dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Gov Inf Q 26(2):275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Layne K, Lee J (2001) Developing fully functional e-government: a four stage model. Gov Inf Q 18(2):122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luna-Reyes LF, Gil-Garcia JR, Romero G (2012) Towards a multidimensional model for evaluating electronic government: proposing a more comprehensive and integrative perspective. Gov Inf Q 29(3):324–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ozkan S, Kanat IE (2011) E-government adoption model based on theory of planned behavior: empirical validation. Gov Inf Q 28(4):503–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Palvia SCJ, Sharma SS (2007) E-government and e-governance: definitions/domain framework and status around the world. In: International Conference on E-governance, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  21. Rowley J (2011) E-government stakeholders – who are they and what do they want? Int J Inf Manag 31(1):53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sharma S (2007) Exploring best practices in public–private partnership (PPP) in e-government through select Asian case studies. Int Inf Libr Rev 39(3):203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh H, Kar AK, Ilavarasan PV (2017) Assessment of e-Governance Projects: an integrated framework and its validation. In: Proceedings of the special collection on eGovernment innovations in India. ACM, pp 124–133Google Scholar
  24. Theocharis SA, Tsihrintzis GA (2013) Open data for e-government the Greek case. In: Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA), 2013 Fourth International Conference on IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  25. Turner M, Kitchenham B, Brereton P, Charters S, Budgen D (2010) Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 52(5):463–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Venkatesh V, Chan FK, Thong JY (2012) Designing e-government services: key service attributes and citizens’ preference structures. J Oper Manag 30(1):116–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang YS, Liao YW (2008) Assessing eGovernment systems success: a validation of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success. Gov Inf Q 25(4):717–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yusof MM, Yusutf AYA (2013) Integrated socio-technical and fit approach. Inf Technol J 12(5):894–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harjit Singh
    • 1
  • P. Vigneswara Ilavarasan
    • 1
  • Arpan Kumar Kar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management StudiesIndian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations