2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101780
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A taxonomy for proactive public services

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Predictions and evaluations of use of digital government services. Alalwan, 2013;Alarabiat et al, 2021;Alguliyev et al, 2018;Alomari et al, 2012;Alshibly and Chiong, 2015;Anwer et al, 2016;Aranyossy, 2022;Bhattacharya et al, 2012;Carter and Bélanger, 2005;Chen and Zhang, 2012;Chen, 2010;Dash and Jain, 2022;Gupta and Suri, 2017;Hujran et al, 2020;Lal and Haleem, 2009;Linders et al, 2018;Naswir et al, 2019;Osman et al, 2014;Pawlowski and Scholta, 2023;Rana et al, 2013;Saleh and Alyaseen, 2021;Sanati and Lu, 2010;Scutella et al, 2022;Sepasgozar et al, 2019;Sigwejo and Pather, 2016;Singh and Singh, 2018;Sorn-in et al, 2014;Tan et al, 2013;Tassabehji et al, 2019 counterfactuals, i.e., contrasting types with 'opposite' features to the ideals. This analysis allows us to theorize (Weick, 1995) through the generation of ideal types and thereby capturing different dimensions of citizen-centricity as described in digital government research.…”
Section: Analytical Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Predictions and evaluations of use of digital government services. Alalwan, 2013;Alarabiat et al, 2021;Alguliyev et al, 2018;Alomari et al, 2012;Alshibly and Chiong, 2015;Anwer et al, 2016;Aranyossy, 2022;Bhattacharya et al, 2012;Carter and Bélanger, 2005;Chen and Zhang, 2012;Chen, 2010;Dash and Jain, 2022;Gupta and Suri, 2017;Hujran et al, 2020;Lal and Haleem, 2009;Linders et al, 2018;Naswir et al, 2019;Osman et al, 2014;Pawlowski and Scholta, 2023;Rana et al, 2013;Saleh and Alyaseen, 2021;Sanati and Lu, 2010;Scutella et al, 2022;Sepasgozar et al, 2019;Sigwejo and Pather, 2016;Singh and Singh, 2018;Sorn-in et al, 2014;Tan et al, 2013;Tassabehji et al, 2019 counterfactuals, i.e., contrasting types with 'opposite' features to the ideals. This analysis allows us to theorize (Weick, 1995) through the generation of ideal types and thereby capturing different dimensions of citizen-centricity as described in digital government research.…”
Section: Analytical Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Important features of government services are that they are modelled on citizens' life events rather than organizational structures (Sanati & Lu, 2010), and scholars highlight the need to build strong organizational capacities to generate such services (Chen, 2010). The terminology for citizens here is shifting, as exemplified by terms used in conjunction with the notion 'proactive' e-governance (Linders et al, 2018;Pawlowski & Scholta, 2023), which includes 'users' and 'customers' (Alshibly & Chiong, 2015;Dash & Jain, 2022), as well as 'consumers' (Alalwan, 2013).…”
Section: Theme 2: Service Adoptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Caroline Pawlowski & Hendrik Scholta from eight dimensions to classify proactive public services [4]. From the point of view of the government's discovery of the problem to the entry into the agenda, the discussion, and the final implementation of the plan, the generation of public services is diversified.…”
Section: Taxonomy Of Public Servicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This paper focuses on Participation, which is considered an effort to encourage a group of people to work together and contribute as a team. Aim to improve public services and increase their use, scholars suggest developing public services (Bru ggemeier, 2010;Linders, Liao, & Wang, 2018;Pawlowski & Scholta, 2023;Scholta, Mertens, Kowalkiewicz, & Becker, 2019), where public organizations approach their clients, the people, rather than the other way around (Linders et al, 2018). Proactive participation in public policy and services is not new (Brinckmann, Grimmer, Lenk, & Rave, 1974) although the percentage would be greater if public organizations utilized the development of digital technology as a tool.…”
Section: Iapa International Conference and Workhop 2023mentioning
confidence: 99%