Developing Countries E-Government Services Evaluation Identifying and Testing Antecedents of Satisfaction Case of Algeria

Developing Countries E-Government Services Evaluation Identifying and Testing Antecedents of Satisfaction Case of Algeria

Djilali Idoughi, Djeddi Abdelhakim
Copyright: © 2018 |Pages: 23
DOI: 10.4018/IJEGR.2018010104
(Individual Articles)
No Current Special Offers


Because user's satisfaction is considered one of the most important factors in e-government success assessment, this study examines impacts of system quality, information quality, service quality, digital skills, access means, service awareness, trust, and perceived usefulness on expressed satisfaction about e-government services. Using survey, 1453 valid responses were collected from e-government services users across Algeria. The study empirical outcomes shows eight out of nine identified factors have significant impacts on users' satisfaction with e-government services.
Article Preview


Governments across the world have started their own e-government initiatives after they understood that it is a viable tool to help deliver efficient and cost effective services to citizenry, clients and partners. Still, such projects require large amounts of funding and pose heavy economical burdens especially in the case developing and low-income countries, yet because of hast and the leak of appropriate assessment frameworks (Heeks, 2003) about 20% to 25% of developed countries’ projects were either never implemented or abandoned just after implementation, farther 33% partially failed (Chen et al, 2006). As for developing countries, as many as 35% of their e-government projects were classified as total failures while 50% as partial failures. Thus, in order to ensure e-government success, it is essential to assess its success and effectiveness and take necessary measures based on assessment results (Gupta and Jana, 2003). However, since e-government is often viewed as an adaptation of e-commerce by public authorities (Coursey & Norris, 2008), it has been argued that previous evaluation research has focused on e-government’s supply side where users’ perspectives were not accounted for resulting in limited published work in this realm (Helbig et al., 2009). Although users’ aspects were the focus in many following studies (e.g., Floropoulos, Spathis, Halvatzis, & Tsipouridou, 2010; Rana, Dwivedi, & Williams, 2013a,; Rana, Dwivedi, Williams, & Lal, 2015; Rana, Dwivedi, Williams, & Weerakkody, 2015; Teo et al., 2008; Wang & Liao, 2008), most were conducted using IS success models (DeLone & McLean, 1992, 2003; Seddon, 1997) without many changes in the original structures and regarded users’ satisfaction as a secondary goal while mainly focused on net benefits government can get from developing the system. Gupta and Jana (2003) stressed that information and services related to e-government are mostly intangible resources, what makes it difficult to assess its cost and value. Therefore, such traditional methods will not provide a clear valid evaluation.

When attempting an evaluation of developing countries e-governments, more issues emerge, public administration is characterized by inefficiency, limited capacity, poorly trained personnel, a no trust in information and communication technologies added to the immature security of systems and venerability of information to intrusions as well as corruption, and the generally unstable political state. One could say that e-government was introduced to, in general, help solving administrative problems, nevertheless, because e-government and its related concepts were developed in and for developed countries, it should not be assumed that it will be appropriate for developing countries.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Volume 19: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 18: 4 Issues (2022): 2 Released, 2 Forthcoming
Volume 17: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 16: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 15: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 14: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2009)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2008)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2007)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2006)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2005)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing