Olaseni Muritala Okunola and Jennifer Rowley
Government service quality and impact( Colesca and Dobrica 2008; Yaghoubi et al. 2011). Halaris et al( 2007) classify the approaches to measuring the quality of e‐Government into three categories concerned respectively with: the quality of traditional public service( e. g. balanced scorecard and six sigma); the quality of e‐Government services( e. g. the American Customer Satisfaction Index( ACSI); and the quality of e‐services( e. g. E‐S‐QUAL, E‐Qual, E‐service quality). Halaris et al.( 2007) suggest the following criteria as being commonly, but not always used in the studies that they reviewed: service reliability, personalisation, information / content, navigation / accessibility, security, and system performance. Similarly, Rowley( 2006) identified the feature that researchers have identified as contributing to e‐service quality as being: site features, security, communication, reliability, customer support, responsiveness, information, accessibility, delivery and personalisation. Others have used TAM and / or DOI as the basis for their study. For example, Carter and Belanger( 2005) based their study on TAM and DOI, and found that the following factors were important in e‐Government adoption: perceived ease of use, compatibility and trustworthiness. Together, these approaches to research on the user experience and response to e‐Government have generated a wide range of different variables for consideration for inclusion in this research.
In addition to grounding our research on previous measurement scales we have also drawn on the literature on the benefits or and barriers to the adoption and intention to use e‐Government services. Gilbert, Balestrini and Littleboy( 2004) argue that it is important to consider both the positive and the negative factors that influence adoption. Previous literature suggests that the major benefit of developing an e‐service strategy both within businesses and the public sector is that it enables the organization to communicate with the customer according to their preferences and environments needs( Reddick 2010 p. 97). Indeed, several authors have discussed user empowerment and control( Meuter et al. 2000; Liao and Cheung 2002; Zhu et al. 2002). However, there is also some evidence that users believe they benefited from savings in cost( Liao and Cheung 2002) and time( Liao and Cheung, 2001, 2002; Meuter et al., 2000). On the other hand, according to Idowu et al( 2009), there are some major barriers to successful e‐Government related to availability of technology. In addition, another important barrier is citizen’ s reluctance to trust e‐Government services, and associated concerns regarding privacy, information quality and financial security concerns( Dibbell 2012; Gilbert et al. 2004; Parker 2011).
2.2 E‐Government in developing countries
Grigoroudis and Siskos( 2009) identify one of the possible reasons for the variations between the different customer satisfaction and e‐service quality models when they suggest that each model has arisen in and is most suited to a specific context. This suggests that context is important, both in terms of the characteristics of potential users and in terms of the specific systems being measured. Lindgreen( 2010) argues for more exploration of e‐Government in different contexts. In addition, there is evidence that more research is needed on e‐Government in developing countries. For example, Dwivedi( 2009) recognizes the importance of e‐ Government to developing countries and its potential impact on the rate of development, whilst, on the other hand, Reddick( 2010) argues that governments within developing countries have failed to provide e‐services effectively due to a lack of achievement of pre‐defined goals and benefits. Hassan et al( 2011) in their recent review of e‐service on the public sector, suggest that‘ Little work has been done to offer helpful and practical guidance for e‐service in the public sector / e‐Government in the developing countries’( p. 538).
3. Methodology
3.1 Research context
This study is conducted in the context of the e‐services offered by the Nigeria Immigration Service( NIS). This context has been chosen because there is a dearth of research on e‐Government in developing countries, which have been recognised to face both implementation and adoption challenges with regards to e‐ Government( Hassan et al 2011; Reddick 2010). The NIS e‐services are of particular interest because they are accessed by both citizens and non‐citizens and people whose main abode may be either inside Nigeria or elsewhere. In addition, the web site both offers information and supports transactions and unlike some other e‐Government services, if the user wishes to move in and out of Nigeria, there is no choice as regards adoption, so evaluation can only be conducted in terms of satisfaction with the user experience. Importantly, whilst there is evidence that Nigeria is facing significant challenges in the implementation of e‐Government, the NIS is acknowledged to be one of the few successful e‐Government implementations in Nigeria. The Nigerian Immigration Service( NIS) controls and monitors the entry and exit activities in Nigeria. It has
381