Contributing factors to E-government service disruptions

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the contributing factors to E-government disruptions in Malaysia public service. Researchers have highlighted that the main factors that contribute to IT service failure are the people, process and technology. However, relatively few empirical studies examine to what extent these factors contribute to E-government service disruptions. This study explores the level of contribution of each factor to the E-government service disruptions. Design/methodology/approach The research was conducted based on the hypothetical-deductive approach. Based on the synthesized literature review, a conceptual model is proposed and several hypotheses are developed. The study was undertaken using questionnaires via convenience sampling whereby eight frontline agencies, six departments and four ministries in Malaysian public service were selected. The selected agencies are frontline agencies (agencies that deal directly with citizens) and have implemented E-government. The respondents consist of IT department employees of those agencies. The data for this research were analyzed using the descriptive and inferential statistics analysis. Findings Statistically, both human error and process failure are significantly correlated with E-government service disruptions in the Malaysian public sector. More importantly for this research, the empirical results reveal that human action, decision, management, error and failure are the major causes to the E-government disruptions, followed by an improper process or procedures. In addition, it is found that technology failure is not significantly contributing to the E-government disruption frequency in the Malaysian public sector. Human error is an important factor and needs to be given more attention by the management, as human is the creator, who uses, manages and maintains the technology and process to enable the delivery of services as specified in the objectives, vision and mission of the organization. However, the approach used to address E-government disruptions is more toward technology-oriented and revolves around the recovery process. Research limitations/implications The study only focuses on three main factors, which are people, process and technology, and the target sample focuses only front-end service agencies. Further study can be extended by incorporating the other factor such as organizational environment, and the sample size could be expanded by including all agencies in public services. As human failure is a major cause of E-government disruptions, the proposed future research should also study the causes of human failure and how to address the problem by developing a resilient organization. Practical implications The results of this study have two implications: first is the discovery of the disruption factors that affect E-government service availability, and second is that the results of this study prioritized the factors that contribute to E-government service disruptions. This information would be beneficial to local, state and national governments for further action to ensure the availability and sustainability of E-government implementation. Originality/value This study identifies the factors that contribute to the service disruption of E-government and, thus, gives the priority of each factor based on its contribution to the E-government service disruption. This is an important finding because it enables public sector agencies to plan and implement improvements as needed and at the appropriate rate for each IT service component to ensure the E-government availability guarantee.

Digital Organizational Resilience: A History of Denmark as a Most Digitalized Country

“…[7,49]. In our contribution, we respond to calls for research into resilience as a quality of e-government and public sector organizations [8].…”

“…7] rather than creating resilience in the government organization itself. As such, our research responds to calls for research into resilience in government organizations [8].…”

Service Delivery between 2013 and 2021—A Systematic Review

“…No. of Articles Authors 1 Africa 11 (Abdulkareem & Mohd Ramli, 2021;Adaku et al, 2018;Akinboade et al, 2013;Biljohn & Lues, 2019;Falisse & Leszczynska, 2022;Kuye & Akinwale, 2020;Li et al, 2019;Masiya et al, 2019;Musenze & Mayende, 2019;Phiri, 2017;Tassabehji et al, 2019;Yusheng & Ibrahim, 2019) 2 Asia 20 (Abdullah et al, 2016;Anwer Anwer et al, 2016;Aruan et al, 2018;Abdelkader Benmansour, 2019;Chakraborty et al, 2021;Jain Gupta & Suri, 2017;Hwang et al, 2021;Kekez et al, 2018;Lanin & Hermanto, 2019;Nayak & Samanta, 2014;Nguyen et al, 2017;Rahman et al, 2021;Saxena, 2017;Siddiquee, 2016;Siddiquee, 2019;Siddiquee & Xavier, 2020;Smith, 2020;ur…”

An examination of citizen satisfaction with mandatory e-government services: comparison of two information systems success models

“…Therefore, focusing on a single e-government service and on a specific group of users would improve the research models' fit indices (Wang and Liao, 2008) and the power of the hypotheses' testing (Lam et al, 2004). In addition, prior studies on the adoption of general egovernment services highlighted the difficulties encountered in selecting and contacting their target samples of users and thus suggested the adoption of various participant sampling approaches, such as specific areas (Hooda Nandal and Singla, 2019;Pai and Alathur, 2019;Al Athmay, 2015) or specific type of users (Abdullah et al, 2016;Bataineh and Abu-Shanab, 2016); however, these also limit the generalization of the results. This study's chosen e-government service context is the UEAS system, and its sampling frame was drawn from Saudi high school graduates, as the key users of that system.…”