Effects of e-Government Adoption on Public Service Organization Performance in Developing Countries. A Case of Kenyan Public Service

Abstract:

Background: The term e-government has become popular, especially in recent years. Governments around the world have sought to integrate technology into the way they operate and the way they serve their citizens. A number of countries in the developing world are in the process of implementing e-Government initiatives to help improve service delivery and provide better opportunities for their citizenry with the objective of improving governance.. The study’s objective was to establish how e-Government adoption contributes to public service organizations’ performance in developing countries specifically focusing on Process efficiency and effectiveness, compliance with government policies and Service Quality and Accessibility. The study was anchored on two theories; Technology acceptance Model (TAM) and Social Systems theory. They are best suited for this study because they collectively explain how individual acceptance of e-Government technologies (TAM) and broader organizational and social dynamics (Social Systems Theory) influence the performance of public service organizations in developing countries like Kenya.

e-Government, Public Service, efficiency and effectiveness, Government policies, Service Quality and Accessibility

1. Abusamhadana, G. A., Bakon, K. A., & Elias, N. F. (2021). E-Government in Ghana: The benefits and challenges. Abusamhadana, GAO, Bakon KA, & Elias NF (2021)" E-Government in Ghana: The Benefits and Challenges." Asia-Pacific Journal of Information Technology and Multimedia, 10(1), 124-140. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adams, S. O., & Paul, C. (2023). E-government development indices and the attainment of United Nations sustainable development goals in Africa: A cross-sectional data analysis. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 7(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Al Mudawi, N., Beloff, N., & White, M. (2020). Issues and challenges: Cloud computing e-government in developing countries. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 11(4), 7-11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Aljukhadar, M., Belisle, J. F., Dantas, D. C., Sénécal, S., & Titah, R. (2022). Measuring the service quality of governmental sites: Development and validation of the e-Government service quality (EGSQUAL) scale. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 55, 101182. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Adam, I. O. (2020). Examining E-Government development effects on corruption in Africa: The mediating effects of ICT development and institutional quality. Technology in Society, 61, 101245 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Abusamhadana, G. A., Bakon, K. A., & Elias, N. F. (2021). E-Government in Ghana: The benefits and challenges. Abusamhadana, GAO, Bakon KA, & Elias NF (2021)" E-Government in Ghana: The Benefits and Challenges." Asia-Pacific Journal of Information Technology and Multimedia, 10(1), 124-140. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Adjei-Bamfo, P., Maloreh-Nyamekye, T. and Ahenkan, A. (2019), “The role of e-government in sustainable public procurement in developing countries: a systematic literature review”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 142, pp. 189-203, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.001. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Adu, K. K., Patrick, N., Park, E. G., & Adjei, E. (2018). Evaluation of the implementation of electronic government in Ghana. Information polity, 23(1), 81-94. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Agbozo, E., & Spassov, K. (2018, April). Establishing efficient governance through data-driven e-government. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance (pp. 662-664). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Agbozo, Ebenezer, and Benjamin K. Asamoah. "The role of e-government systems in ensuring government effectiveness and control of corruption." R-Economy. 2019. Vol. 5. Iss. 2 5.2 (2019): 53-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Al Raee, M., Ritzen, J., & de Crombrugghe, D. (2017). Innovation policy & labour productivity growth: Education, research & development, government effectiveness and business policy. The UNU‐MERIT working paper series, 2017-19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Alharbi, A. S., Halikias, G., Rajarajan, M., & Yamin, M. (2021). A review of effectiveness of Saudi E-government data security management. International Journal of Information Technology, 13, 573-579. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Alharmoodi, B. Y. R., & Lakulu, M. M. B. (2020). Transition from e-government to m-government: challenges and opportunities-case study of UAE. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 5(1), 61-67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Aljukhadar, M., Belisle, J. F., Dantas, D. C., Sénécal, S., & Titah, R. (2022). Measuring the service quality of governmental sites: Development and validation of the e-Government service quality (EGSQUAL) scale. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 55, 101182. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Абдулла, Н. Н. (2021). Factors Affecting the Adoption of E-Government in Public Sector Organizations of Kurdistan Region. Аспекти публічного управління, 9(2), 15-27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Almukhlifi, A., Deng, H., & Kam, B. (2019). e-Government adoption in Saudi Arabia: The moderation influence of transparency. Journal of Advances in Information Technology, 10(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Almukhlifi, A., Deng, H., & Kam, B. (2019, April). Critical factors for the adoption of e-government in developing countries: validation of a measurement model. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 397-407). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Al-Qaysi, N., Mohamad-Nordin, N. & Al-Emran, M. Employing the technology acceptance model in social media: A systematic review. Educ Inf Technol 25, 4961–5002 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10197-1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Al-Refai, M. S. (2020). The impact of e-government on economic growth in GCC countries. International Review, (1-2), 18-26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Alryalat, M. A. A., Rana, N. P., Sahu, G. P., Dwivedi, Y. K. & Tajvidi, M. (2017). Use of social media in Citizen-Centric Electronic Government Services: A literature analysis. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 13(3), 55–79. DOI10.4018/IJEGR.2017070104 2.4.1 e-Government on Service Quality and Accessibility. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Alsarraf, H. A., Aljazzaf, S., & Ashkanani, A. M. (2022). Do you see my effort? An investigation of the relationship between e-government service quality and trust in government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 17(1), 116-133. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Amankwah, A. (2022). Trust In E-Government Adoption in Sub Saharan Africa: Understanding Trust in E-Government Adoption by Citizens (Tertiary Students) Of Ghana (Master's thesis, University of South-Eastern Norway). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Andrews, R., & Entwistle, T. (2014). Public service efficiency: Reframing the debate. routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Androniceanu, A., & Georgescu, I. (2021). E-Government in European countries, a comparative approach using the Principal Components Analysis. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14(2), 65-86. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ani Petrosyan (2023). Number of internet and social media users worldwide as of April 2023: https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Anwar, K. (2017). Leading Construction Project Teams: The Effectiveness of Transformational Leadership in Dynamic Work Environments in Kurdistan. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 3(10), 239925. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Aoko (2022)An Analysis of the Right of Refugees to Access Public and Private Services in Kenya [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Arayankalam, J., Khan, A., & Krishnan, S. (2021). How to deal with corruption? Examining the roles of e-government maturity, government administrative effectiveness, and virtual social networks diffusion. International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102203. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Arwati, D., & Latif, D. V. (2019). Public Trust and Financial Transparency of E-government implementation in Bandung City. Journal of Economics, Business, and Government Challenges, 2(2), 136-143. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Arayankalam, J., Khan, A., & Krishnan, S. (2021). How to deal with corruption? Examining the roles of e-government maturity, government administrative effectiveness, and virtual social networks diffusion. International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102203. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Ashaye, O. R., & Irani, Z. (2019). The role of stakeholders in the effective use of e-government resources in public services. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 253-270. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Bayaga, A., & Ophoff, J. (2019, September). Determinants of e-government use in developing countries: the influence of privacy and security concerns. In 2019 Conference on Next Generation Computing Applications (NextComp) (pp. 1-7). IEEE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Baždarić, K., Šverko, D., Salarić, I., Martinović, A., & Lucijanić, M. (2021). The ABC of linear regression analysis: What every author and editor should know. European science editing, 4. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Bednar, P. M., & Welch, C. (2020). Socio-technical perspectives on smart working: Creating meaningful and sustainable systems. Information Systems Frontiers, 22(2), 281-298. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Bekmukhambetova, A. (2021). Comparative analysis of change management models. Corvinus University of Budapest, Business and Management, 8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Benaida, M. (2023). e-Government Usability Evaluation: A Comparison between Algeria and the UK. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 14(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Bosio, E., Hayman, G., & Dubosse, N. (2023). The Investment Case for E-Government Procurement: A Cost–Benefit Analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 1-27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. UN DESA:https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2016-Survey/Executive%20Summary.pdf. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Bisogno, M., Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., & Santis, S. (2022). Do e-government initiatives and e-participation affect the level of budget transparency? [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Bloomfield, J., & Fisher, M. J. (2019). Quantitative research design. Journal of the Australasian Rehabilitation Nurses Association, 22(2), 27-30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Bozhikin, I., Macke, J., & da Costa, L. F. (2019). The role of government and key non-state actors in social entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review. Journal of cleaner production, 226, 730-747. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Bwana, R. (2023). Kenya’s Digital Identity Revolution: Balancing Progress and Human Rights. Available at SSRN 4513860. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Castro, C., & Lopes, I. C. (2022). E-government as a tool in controlling corruption. International Journal of Public Administration, 1-14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Chan, F. K., Thong, J. Y., Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2021). Service design and citizen satisfaction with e‐government services: a multidimensional perspective. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 874-894. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Chen, T., Guo, W., Gao, X., & Liang, Z. (2021). AI-based self-service technology in public service delivery: User experience and influencing factors. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101520. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Cheptoo, K. P., & Obare, R. M. (2023). A Framework for Electronic Document Management in the Implementation of E-Government in Kenya. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Ciesielska, M., Rizun, N., & Chabik, J. (2022). Assessment of E-government inclusion policies toward seniors: A framework and case study. Telecommunications Policy, 46(7), 102316. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Cortés-Cediel, M. E., Cantador, I., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2021). Analyzing Citizen Participation and Engagement in European Smart Cities. Social Science Computer Review, 39(4), 592–626. https://doi-org.pxz.iubh.de:8443/10.1177/0894439319877478. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Cox, A. M., Pinfield, S., & Rutter, S. (2019). Extending McKinsey’s 7S model to understand strategic alignment in academic libraries. Library Management, 40(5), 313-326. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. D. M. Sihotang et al., "A Systematic Literature Review of Barriers and Drivers E-Government in Developing Countries: TOE Framework Perspective," 2022 Seventh International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC), Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia, 2022, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICIC56845.2022.10006942. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Demir, E., Kocaoglu, B. (2019). Maturity assessment in the technology business within the Mckinsey’s 7S framework. Research Journal of Business and Management (RJBM), V.6(3), p.158-166. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Driss, O. B., Mellouli, S., & Trabelsi, Z. (2019). From citizens to government policy-makers: Social media data analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 560-570. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Dhaoui, I. (2022). E-government for sustainable development: Evidence from MENA countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(3), 2070-2099. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Dipura, 1990), D. (2022). Benefits of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and Proposed Applications in the Defense Industry: A Literature Review. International Journal of Social and Management Studies, 3(4), 23-33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Ebru Gökalp & Veronica Martinez (2022) Digital transformation maturity assessment: development of the digital transformation capability maturity model, International Journal of Production Research, 60:20, 6282-6302, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2021.1991020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Ephraim Chidama, Y., & Ononiwu, C. G. (2021). Empirical Study of Sustaining the Actualized Value Propositions of Implemented E-Government Projects in Sub-Saharan Africa. arXiv e-prints, arXiv-2108. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. eGovernment Benchmark 2017, Taking stock of user-centric design and delivery of digital public services in Europe, Final Insight Report - Volume 1, A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology. The European Commission, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Elkhan Richard Sadik-Zada, Andrea Gatto & Ibrahim Niftiyev (2022) E-government and petty corruption in public sector service delivery, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2022.2067037. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. El-Ebiary, Y. A. B., Kanaan, A. G., Pathmanathan, P. R., Alawi, N. A., Hatamleh, A., Jusoh, J. A., ... & Bamansoor, S. (2021, June). E-Government and E-Commerce Issues in Malaysia. In 2021 2nd International Conference on Smart Computing and Electronic Enterprise (ICSCEE) (pp. 153-158). IEEE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. ElKheshin, S. A., & Saleeb, N. (2020). Assessing the adoption of e-government using TAM model: case of Egypt. International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT), 12(1), 1-14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Erumban, Abdul A. & Das, Deb Kusum, 2016. "Information and communication technology and economic growth in India," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 412-431. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Fauzi, A., Wandira, R., Sepri, D., & Hafid, A. (2021). Exploring Students' Acceptance of Google Classroom during the COVID-19 Pandemic by Using the Technology Acceptance Model in West Sumatera Universities. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 19(4), 233-240. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Firoozeh Haddadi and Tahere Yaghoob(2014) Key indicators for organizational performance measurement. Management Science Letters 4 (2014) 2021–2030 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Fischer, H. E., Boone, W. J., & Neumann, K. (2023). Quantitative research designs and approaches. In Handbook of research on science education (pp. 28-59). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Florina, P. (2017). Elements on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Public Sector. Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, 17(2), 313-319. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Frankfurter, Z., Kokoszka, K., Newhouse, D., Silwal, A. R., & Tian, S. (2020). Measuring Internet Access in Sub-Saharan Africa. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Gaber, S. A., & Kazim, B. (2019). A Proposed Road Map To Enhance E-Government Services: Kuwait Case Study. International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications, 3(12). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Gacitúa, R., Astudillo, H., Hitpass, B., Osorio-Sanabria, M., & Taramasco, C. (2021). Recent models for collaborative e-government processes: A survey. IEEE Access, 9, 19602-19618. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Galushi, L. T., & Malatji, T. L. (2022). Digital Public Administration and Inclusive Governance at the South African Local Government, in Depth Analysis of E-Government and Service Delivery in Musina Local Municipality. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 116-126. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Gajendra, S., Xi, B., & Wang, Q. (2012). E-government: Public participation and ethical issues. Journal of e-Governance, 35(4), 195-204. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Ghareeb, A. M., Darwish, N. R., & Hefney, H. A. (2019). E-government adoption: literature review and a proposed citizen-centric model. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 15(4), 392-416. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Glyptis, L., Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., Del Giudice, M., Dimitriou, S., & Michael, P. (2020). E-Government implementation challenges in small countries: The project manager's perspective. Technological Forecasting and social change, 152, 119880 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Gökalp, E., & Martinez, V. (2021). Digital transformation capability maturity model enabling the assessment of industrial manufacturers. Computers in Industry, 132, 103522. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Gomez, L. E., & Bernet, P. (2019). Diversity improves performance and outcomes. Journal of the National Medical Association, 111(4), 383-392. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Goodfellow, L. T. (2023). An overview of survey research. Respiratory Care. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. GOV.UK, “Government Transformation Strategy”, (2017), [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572-2593. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Grigalashvili, V. (2022). E-government and E-governance: Various or Multifarious Concepts. International Journal of Scientific and Management Research, 5(01), 183-196. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Gu, E., Meng, T., Wang, H., & Zhang, A. (2023). E-Government Use, Perceived Transparency, Public Knowledge of Government Performance, and Satisfaction with Government: An Analysis of Mediating, Moderating, and Framing Mechanisms Based on the COVID-19 Outbreak Control Survey Data from China. Social Indicators Research, 1-46. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Güldenur AYDIN (2019): Research journal of politics, economics and management The Applicability of Balanced Scorecard in Public Sector: The Case of Ombudsman Institution1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. H. Looks, E.-M. Schön and J. Thomaschewski, "Agile Projekte in öffentlichen Verwaltungen - Eine Bestandsaufnahme", Mensch und Computer 2018 - Usability Professionals. Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. Und German UPA e.V, pp. 415-426, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Han, J. H., & Sa, H. J. (2021). Acceptance of and satisfaction with online educational classes through the technology acceptance model (TAM): The COVID-19 situation in Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 1-13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Han, Y., & Guo, Y. (2022, January). Literature Review of the Concept of “Internet governance” based on the Background of E-Society. In Proceedings of the 2022 13th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management, and E-Learning (pp. 611-618). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Hänninen, R., Taipale, S., & Luostari, R. (2021). Exploring heterogeneous ICT use among older adults: The warm experts’ perspective. New media & society, 23(6), 1584-1601. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Hariguna, T., Ruangkanjanases, A., & Sarmini. (2021). Public behavior as an output of e-government service: the role of new technology integrated in e-government and antecedent of relationship quality. Sustainability, 13(13), 7464. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Haryanti, T.; Rakhmawati, N.A.; Subriadi, A.P. The Extended Digital Maturity Model. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2023, 7, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7010017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Hassan, A. S., & Anwar, R. M. (2021). Impact of E-Government on Organizational Performance in Developing Countries: The Mediating Role of Information Quality. Information Technology & People, 34(3), 936-957. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Henriquez, V., Moreno, A. M., & Gutiérrez, S. (2023). Organizational training in agile settings under the lens of CMMI V2. 0. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 35(9), e2502. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Hervani, A. A., Nandi, S., Helms, M. M., & Sarkis, J. (2022). A performance measurement framework for socially sustainable and resilient supply chains using environmental goods valuation methods. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 30, 31-52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Hochstetter, J., Vásquez, F., Diéguez, M., Bustamante, A., & Arango-López, J. (2023). Transparency and E-Government in Electronic Public Procurement as Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 15(5), 4672. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Hruba, A., & Vasquez, M. C. S. (2023). Nordic Roadmap toward an EU-Wide and Seamless Cross-Border Cooperation on Judicial Matters. Digital Development of the European Union: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, 199-218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. Hofmann, S., Madsen, C. Ø., & Distel, B. (2020). Developing an analytical framework for analyzing and comparing national e-government strategies. In Electronic Government: 19th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2020, Linköping, Sweden, August 31–September 2, 2020, Proceedings 19 (pp. 15-28). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. Hope, T. M. (2020). Linear regression. In Machine Learning (pp. 67-81). Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. Hristov, I., & Chirico, A. (2019). The role of sustainability key performance indicators (KPIs) in implementing sustainable strategies. Sustainability, 11(20), 5742. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. Hruba, A., & Vasquez, M. C. S. (2023). Nordic Roadmap toward an EU-Wide and Seamless Cross-Border Cooperation on Judicial Matters. Digital Development of the European Union: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, 199-218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

96. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5901 99/Government_Transformation_Strategy.pdf. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. Hu, G., Yan, J., Pan, W., Chohan, S. R., & Liu, L. (2019). The influence of public engaging intention on value co-creation of e-government services. IEEE Access, 7, 111145-111159. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

98. Huda, M. N., Kurniasari, E. N., & Ruroh, S. M. (2022). A systematic literature review of E-government evaluation. Journal of Local Government Issues, 5(1), 32-48. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

99. Ida, F., & Annisa, L. (2021). Implementation of E-Government as a Public Service Innovation in Indonesia. Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление, 8(1), 72-79. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

100. Indrayani, R. (2019). Pengukuran Kualitas Pelayanan Jasa Pendidikan Tinggi Terhadap Kepuasan Mahasiswa Pts x. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

101. Innovation Science and Technology-Africa. (2016). Retrieved on 11.7.23 from http://www.istafrica.org/home/default.asp?page=doc-by-id&docid=5181. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

102. Jääskeläinen, A., Sillanpää, V., Helander, N., Leskelä, R. L., Haavisto, I., Laasonen, V., & Torkki, P. (2020). Designing a maturity model for analyzing information and knowledge management in the public sector. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 52(1), 120-140. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

103. Jahidi, I., & Budiati, A. (2019, August). The Improvement of E-administration in Indonesia: An analysis based on U theory. In First International Conference on Administration Science (ICAS 2019) (pp. 543-547). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

104. Jameel, A., Asif, M., & Hussain, A. (2019). Good governance and public trust: Assessing the mediating effect of E-government in Pakistan. Lex Localis, 17(2), 299-320. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

105. Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 84(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

106. Jung, C., & Schindler, D. (2023). Efficiency and effectiveness of global onshore wind energy utilization. Energy Conversion and Management, 280, 116788. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

107. Kakwezi, P., & Nyeko, S. (2019). Procurement processes and performance: Efficiency and effectiveness of the procurement function. International Journal of Social Sciences Management and Entrepreneurship (IJSSME), 3(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

108. Kalogiannidis, S., Chatzitheodoridis, F., Papaevangelou, O., & Mavrommati (2023) A. Management Information Technology and Quality Service Delivery in Government Institutions. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

109. Kang, H. (2021). Sample size determination and power analysis using the G* Power software. Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

110. Kasemsap, K. (2020). The roles of business process modeling and business process reengineering in e-government. In Open Government: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 2236-2267). IGI Global. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

111. Kassen, M. (2016), E-Government in Kazakhstan: A Case Study of Multidimensional Phenomena, Routledge, London and New York, NY. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

112. Kassen, M. (2023). Covid-19 Pandemic and Digital Public Awareness Platforms: Strategies, Solutions, and Tools of Communication and e-Government Data Management. Preservation, Digital Technology & Culture, 52(2), 69-82 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

113. Keller, G. (2022). Statistics for management and economics. Cengage Learning [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

114. Kesharwani, S. (2020). E-service quality in banking industry-a review. Global Journal of Enterprise Information System, 12(2), 111-118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

115. Khan, A.H. (2018). Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness with the Application of E-Government: A Study on Bangladesh Public Administration. In: Saeed, S., Ramayah, T., Mahmood, Z. (eds) User Centric E-Government. Integrated Series in Information Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-59442-2_6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

116. Khatib, O. (2023). Digital Illiteracy and its Impact on Digital Transformation Maturity in Palestinian Public Universities. International Journal of Education and Learning Systems, 8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

117. Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2020). Public policy: A new introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

118. Knox, C. and Janenova, S. (2019), "The e-government paradox in post-Soviet countries", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 600-615. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

119. Kyakulumbye, S., Pather, S., & Jantjies, M. (2019). Towards design of citizen centric e-government projects in developing country context: the design-reality gap in Uganda. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

120. Kosec, K., & Wantchekon, L. (2020). Can information improve rural governance and service delivery? World Development, 125, 104376. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

121. Lai, C. H., & Huili Lin, S. (2017). Systems theory. The international encyclopedia of organizational communication, 1-18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

122. Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), 33267. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

123. Land, F. (2018), “Management information systems: the technology challenge”, in N. F. Piercy (Ed.), Management Information Systems, Taylor and Francis Group. London. p. 47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

124. Lapuente, V., & Van de Walle, S. (2020). The effects of new public management on the quality of public services. Governance, 33(3), 461-475. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

125. legislation.gov.uk, The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations, (2018), http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/852/made. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

126. Lemke, F., Taveter, K., Erlenheim, R., Pappel, I., Draheim, D., & Janssen, M. (2020). Stage models for moving from e-government to smart government. In Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia: 6th International Conference, EGOSE 2019, St. Petersburg, Russia, November 13–14, 2019, Proceedings 6 (pp. 152-164). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

127. Lemke, F., Taveter, K., Erlenheim, R., Pappel, I., Draheim, D., & Janssen, M. (2020). Stage models for moving from e-government to smart government. In Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia: 6th International Conference, EGOSE 2019, St. Petersburg, Russia, November 13–14, 2019, Proceedings 6 (pp. 152-164). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

128. Lessa, L. (2019), “Sustainability framework for E-Government success: feasibility assessment”, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV’19), Melbourne. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

129. Li, T., Higgins, J. P., & Deeks, J. J. (2019). Collecting data. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 109-141. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

130. Li, Y., & Shang, H. (2020). Service quality, perceived value, and citizens’ continuous-use intention regarding e-government: Empirical evidence from China. Information & Management, 57(3), 103197. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

131. Li, Y., & Shang, H. (2023). How does e-government use affect citizens’ trust in government? Empirical evidence from China. Information & Management, 60(7), 103844. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

132. Lindgren, I., Madsen, C. Ø. Hofmann, S., & Melin, U. (2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government information quarterly, 36(3), 427-436. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

133. Liu, T., Yang, X., & Zheng, Y. (2020). Understanding the evolution of public–private partnerships in Chinese e-government: four stages of development. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 42(4), 222-247. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

134. Lulaj, E., Zarin, I., & Rahman, S. (2022). A novel approach to improving e-government performance from budget challenges in complex financial systems. Complexity, 2022, 1-16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

135. Lulaj, E., Zarin, I., & Rahman, S. (2022). A novel approach to improving e-government performance from budget challenges in complex financial systems. Complexity, 2022, 1-16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

136. Lyzara, R., Purwandari, B., Zulfikar, M. F., Santoso, H. B., & Solichah, I. (2019, January). E-government usability evaluation: Insights from a systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Information Management (pp. 249-253). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

137. M. A. Sarrayrih and B. Sriram, “Major challenges in developing a successful e-government: A review on the Sultanate of Oman,” J. King Saud Univ. - Comput. Inf. Sci., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 230–235, 2015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

138. M. K. Sharma and K. S. Vaisla, "Towards Cloud Supported E-Governance Services Delivery Model," 2014 Fourth International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies, 2014, pp. 537-539, doi: 10.1109/CSNT.2014.113. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

139. M. M. Nielsen, “Governance Lessons from Denmark’s Digital Transformation”, ACM Int. Conf.Proceeding Ser., pp. 456–461, (2019). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

140. M. M. Rantanen, J. Koskinen and S. Hyrynsalmi, "E-Government Ecosystem: A new view to explain complex phenomenon," 2019 42nd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), Opatija, Croatia, 2019, pp. 1408-1413, doi: 10.23919/MIPRO.2019.8756909. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

141. Maryam A.,Obaid A. (2021).Change Management And Its Obstacles In Light Of "ADKAR Model" Dimensions From Female Teachers Perspective In Secondary Schools In Dammam In Saudi Arabia Vol 20 (Issue 3): pp2454-2475. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

142. MacLean, D., & Titah, R. (2022). A systematic literature review of empirical research on the impacts of e‐government: a public value perspective. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 23-38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

143. Maharaj, M. S., & Munyoka, W. (2019). Privacy, security, trust, risk and optimism bias in e-government use: The case of two Southern African Development Community countries. South African Journal of Information Management, 21(1), 1-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

144. Majerova, I. (2019). E-government as a smart solution for public administration: A case of visegrad group. Balkans Journal of Emerging Trends in Social Sciences Balkans JETSS, 2(2), 115-123. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

145. Manda, M. I., & Ben Dhaou, S. (2019, April). Responding to the challenges and opportunities in the 4th Industrial revolution in developing countries. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance (pp. 244-253). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

146. Manoharan, Aroon P.; Melitski, James; Holzer, Marc (20 January 2022). "Digital Governance: An Assessment of Performance and Best Practices". Public Organization Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

147. Marcela Presecan (2021) Five Levels of Organizational Maturity: Performance Management Perspective: https://www.performancemagazine.org/five-levels-of-organizational-maturity-performance-management-perspective/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

148. Marikyan, D. & Papagiannidis, S. (2023) Technology Acceptance Model: A review. In S. Papagiannidis (Ed), TheoryHub Book. Available at http://open.ncl.ac.uk / ISBN: 9781739604400. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

149. Maulana, R. Y., & Bafadhal, F. (2020, May). Provision of Access to Information Services Based on E-Government in the Village Government. In Tarumanagara International Conference on the Applications of Social Sciences and Humanities (TICASH 2019) (pp. 219-223). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

150. Mellouli, M., Bouaziz, F., & Bentahar, O. (2020). E-government success assessment from a public value perspective. International Review of public administration, 25(3), 153-174. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

151. Mensah, R., Cater‐Steel, A., & Toleman, M. (2021). Factors affecting e‐government adoption in Liberia: A practitioner perspective. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 87(3), e12161. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

152. Mensah, I. K. (2019). Impact of government capacity and E-government performance on the adoption of E-Government services. International Journal of Public Administration. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

153. Mehrad, A., & Zangeneh, M. H. T. (2019). Comparison between qualitative and quantitative research approaches: Social sciences. International Journal For Research In Educational Studies, Iran, 5(7), 1-7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

154. Meru, A. K., & Kinoti, M. W. (2022). Digitalisation and public sector service delivery in Kenya. In Digital Service Delivery in Africa: Platforms and Practices (pp. 229-248). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

155. Mishra, S. S., & Geleta, A. T. (2020). Can an E-government system ensure citizens’ satisfaction without service delivery?. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(3), 242-252. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

156. Mishra, P., Pandey, C. M., Singh, U., Gupta, A., Sahu, C., & Keshri, A. (2019). Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Annals of cardiac anaesthesia, 22(1), 67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

157. Mohammadi, M. K. (2022). Factors influencing the adoption of e‐government websites in Afghanistan from the citizens' perspective. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 88(5), e12216. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

158. Mohanad Ali Kareem, Zeena Jabber Haseeni 2015. E-Government and Its Impact on Organizational Performance: International Journal of Management and Commerce Innovations Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp: (664-672. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

159. Mohrman, S. A., & Bartunek, J. M. (2023). How Can ODC Help Accomplish a Sustainable Future? A Joint Reflection. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 30, 1-26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-301620220000030003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

160. Moldogaziev, T. T., & Resh, W. G. (2016). A systems theory approach to innovation implementation: Why organizational location matters. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 677-692. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

161. Moonti, R. M. (2019). Regional Autonomy in Realizing Good Governance. Substantive Justice International Journal of Law, 2(1), 43-53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

162. Mohammad, A. H. (2020). The Effects of Usability and Accessibility for E-Government Services on the End-user Satisfaction. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

163. Mousa, S. K., & Othman, M. (2020). The impact of green human resource management practices on sustainable performance in healthcare organisations: A conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, 118595. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

164. Moons, K., Waeyenbergh, G., & Pintelon, L. (2019). Measuring the logistics performance of internal hospital supply chains–a literature study. Omega, 82, 205-217. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

165. Muafi, M., Gusaptono, R. H., Effendi, M. I., & Novrido, C. (2021). The information technology (IT) adoption process and e-readiness to use within Yogyakarta Indonesian small medium enterprises (SME). International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Research to Use within Yogyakarta Indonesian Small Medium Enterprises (SME), 2(1), 29-37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

166. Mukamurenzi, S., Grönlund, Å. & Islam, S. M. (2019). Improving qualities of e‐government services in Rwanda: A service provider perspective. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 85(5), e12089. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

167. Mukhoryanova, O. A., Novikova, I. V., Rudich, S. B., & Bogushevich, E. V. (2016). E-Government in the Western European Countries, Asia and in the USA. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(16), 1-13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

168. Mukwenda, H. T. (2019). Adaptation of the ADKAR Model to the Management of the Higher Education Student Loan Scheme in Uganda. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 11(1), 45-57. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

169. M'murithi, A. M. (2020). E-Government Adoption and Customer Satisfaction of Business Community in Garissa Township, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, Garissa University). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

170. Müller, U. K. (2023). A more robust t-test. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1-46. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

171. Mulyadi, A. M., Suwaryo, U., & Sagita, N. I. (2023). The Quality of E-Government in Population Service in Bandung 2021. Al Qalam: Jurnal Ilmiah Keagamaan dan Kemasyarakatan, 17(5), 3116-3129. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

172. Mustaf, A., Ibrahim, O., & Mohammed, F. (2020). E-government adoption: A systematic review in the context of developing nations. International Journal of Innovation: IJI Journal, 8(1), 59-76. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

173. Mustafa, D., Farida, U., & Yusriadi, Y. (2020). The effectiveness of public services through E-government in Makassar City. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 9(1), 1176-1178. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

174. Nam, H., Nam, T., Oh, M., & Choi, S. (2022). An Efficiency Measurement of E-Government Performance for Network Readiness: Non-Parametric Frontier Approach. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(1), 10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

175. Nam, T. (2019). Does e-Government raise effectiveness and efficiency?: Examining the cross-national effect. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 27(3), 120-138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

176. Nam, T. (2019). Does e-Government raise effectiveness and efficiency?: Examining the cross-national effect. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 27(3), 120-138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

177. Nawafleh, S. (2020). The implementation of e-government and the trust of citizens in public sector performance: the mediating role of service quality. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 6(1), 17-35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

178. Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 427-431. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

179. Nirmal Kumar Betchoo & bookboon.com (2016) Public Sector Management: A Millennial Insight 1st edition. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

180. Nkanata, M. G., & Ocholla, D. N. (2022). Contextualizing Huduma Centres E-government Initiative in Kenyan Public Service Delivery. Mousaion, 40(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

181. Nokele, K. S., & Mukonza, R. M. (2021). The Adoption of E-Government in the Department of Home Affairs–Unpacking the Underlying Factors Affecting Adoption of E-Government within the Selected Service Centres in Limpopo Province, South Africa. African Journal of Governance and Development, 10(1), [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

182. Nurdin N., Helana S. and Rosemary S. 2019 A social system for sustainable local e-government. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

183. Nurdin, N., Scheepers, H., & Stockdale, R. (2022). A social system for sustainable local e-government. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 24(1), 1-31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

184. Nurdin, N., Scheepers, H., & Stockdale, R. (2022). A social system for sustainable local e-government. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 24(1), 1-31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

185. Ochara, N. M. (2010). Assessing irreversibility of an E-Government project in Kenya: Implication for governance. Government Information Quarterly, 27(1), 89-97. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

186. Odeh, G. (2021). Implementing Mckinsey 7S Model of Organizational Diagnosis and Planned Change, Best Western Italy Case Analysis. Journal of International Business and Management, 11(4), 01-08. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

187. Olaniyi, Evans (2018, p. 278-279). Digital Government: ICT and Public Sector Management in Africa. School of Management Social Sciences, Pan-Atlantic University, Lagos, Nigeria. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

188. Ongena, G., & Ravesteyn, P. (2020). Business process management maturity and performance: A multi group analysis of sectors and organization sizes. Business Process Management Journal, 26(1), 132-149 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

189. Onitsuka, K., Hidayat, A. R. T., & Huang, W. (2018). Challenges for the next level of digital divide in rural Indonesian communities. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 84(2), e12021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

190. Osah, J., & Pade-Khene, C. (2020). E-government strategy formulation in resource-constrained local government in South Africa. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(4), 426-451. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

191. Othman, M. H., Razali, R., & Nasrudin, M. F. (2020). Key factors for e-government towards sustainable development goals. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol, 29(6), 2864-2876. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

192. Owusu, A., Akpe-Doe, C. E., & Taana, I. H. (2022). Assessing the effectiveness of e-government services in Ghana: A case of the registrar general's department. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 18(1), 1-23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

193. Palaco, I., Park, M. J., Kim, S. K., & Rho, J. J. (2019). Public–private partnerships for e-government in developing countries: An early stage assessment framework. Evaluation and program planning, 72, 205-218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

194. Pandey, D. & Richal, N. (2020). Information Technology Spillover and Organizational Performance. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(4), 30-36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

195. Panom Gunawong & Ping Gao (2017) Understanding e-government failure in the developing country context: a process-oriented study, Information Technology for Development, 23:1, 153-178, DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2016.1269713. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

196. Poneman, D. (2023). Nuclear power in the developing world. Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

197. Prokopenko, O., Shmorgun, L., Kushniruk, V., Prokopenko, M., Slatvinska, M., & Huliaieva, L. (2020). Business process efficiency in a digital economy. International Journal of Management (IJM), 11(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

198. Park, C. H., & Kim, K. (2020). E-government as an anti-corruption tool: Panel data analysis across countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(4), 691-707. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

199. Paramitha T, Diana K. (2020) ADKAR Model to Manage Organizational Change. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

200. Pasquetto, I. V., Borgman, C. L., & Wofford, M. F. (2019). Uses and reuses of scientific data: The data creators’ advantage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

201. Patience I. Akpan-Obong, Mai P. Trinh, Charles K. Ayo & Aderonke Oni (2022) E-Governance as good governance? Evidence from 15 West African countries, Information Technology for Development, DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2022.2123770. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

202. Powell, J. (2018). An introduction to systems theory: from hard to soft systems thinking in the management of complex organizations. Complexity and Healthcare Organization, 43-58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

203. Putri, M. E., Sensuse, D. I., Mishbah, M., & Prima, P. (2020, January). E-government inter-organizational integration: Types and success factors. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Information Management (pp. 216-221). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

204. Putri, N. A., Aristio, A. P., & Junaedi, L. (2022). Putri. Ladis International Journal on WWW/Internet, 20(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

205. R. Gacitúa, H. Astudillo, B. Hitpass, M. Osorio-Sanabria and C. Taramasco, "Recent Models for Collaborative E-Government Processes: A Survey," in IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 19602-19618, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3050151. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

206. Quaye, J. D., & Sneiders, E. (2020, April). E-government adoption: The role of perception of digital technology in the public service of Ghana. In 2020 Seventh International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG) (pp. 225-230). IEEE [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

207. R. Meiyanti, B. Utomo, D. I. Sensuse and R. Wahyuni, "e-Government Challenges in Developing Countries: A Literature Review," 2018 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM), Parapat, Indonesia, 2018, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/CITSM.2018.8674245. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

208. Rasool, T., Warraich, N. F., & Rorissa, A. (2020). Citizens’ assessment of the information quality of e-government websites in Pakistan. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 69(3), 189-204 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

209. Rasull, Ashty & Jantan, Amer & Ali, Mass & Jaharuddin, Nor & Mansor, Zurain. (2019). Benefit and Sacrifice Factors Determining Internet Banking Adoption in Iraqi Kurdistan Region. Journal of International Business and Management. 1-2o. 10.37227/jibm.2020.65. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

210. Reddick, C.G., 2018, ‘Foreword’, in K.J. Bwalya, The e-Government Development Discourse: Analysing Contemporary and Future Growth Prospects in Developing and Emerging Economies, pp. xxiv–xxix, AOSIS, Cape Town. https://doi. org/10.4102/aosis.2018.BK71.00f. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

211. Reijers, H. A. (2021). Business Process Management: The evolution of a discipline. Computers in Industry, 126, 103404. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

212. Reyes Plata, J. A., & Galindo Pérez, M. C. (2020). Access to basic services: from public benefit practice to a sustainable development approach. In Sustainable cities and communities (pp. 1-10). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

213. Rodríguez-Hevía, L. F., Navío-Marco, J., & Ruíz-Gómez, L. M. (2020). Citizens’ involvement in E-government in the European Union: The rising importance of the digital skills. Sustainability, 12(17), 6807. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

214. Ronchi, A. M. (2019). e-Services. Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

215. Rosenfeld, B. (2023). Survey research in Russia: in the shadow of war. Post-Soviet Affairs, 39(1-2), 38-48. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

216. Samsor, A. M. (2021). Challenges and Prospects of e-Government implementation in Afghanistan. International Trade, Politics and Development, 5(1), 51-70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

217. S. Al-Shuaili, M. Ali, A. A. Jaharadak and M. Al-Shekly, "An Investigate on the Critical Factors that can Affect the Implementation of E-government in Oman," 2019 IEEE 15th International Colloquium on Signal Processing & Its Applications (CSPA), Penang, Malaysia, 2019, pp. 75-79, doi: 10.1109/CSPA.2019.8695988. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

218. S. Trendall, “Streamlined GDS service standard removes need for ministerial tests”, (2019), https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/streamlined-gds-service-standard-removes-need- ministerial-tests. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

219. Sabir, S., Rafique, A., & Abbas, K. (2019). Institutions and FDI: Evidence from developed and developing countries. Financial Innovation, 5(1), 1-20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

220. Sabir, S., Rafique, A., & Abbas, K. (2019). Institutions and FDI: evidence from developed and developing countries. Financial Innovation, 5(1), 1-20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

221. Sadik-Zada, E. R., Gatto, A., & Niftiyev, I. (2022). E-government and petty corruption in public sector service delivery. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 1-17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

222. Salloum, S. A., Alhamad, A. Q. M., Al-Emran, M., Monem, A. A., & Shaalan, K. (2019). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning through the development of a comprehensive technology acceptance model. IEEE access, 7, 128445-128462. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

223. Samsor, A. M. (2021). Challenges and Prospects of e-Government implementation in Afghanistan. International Trade, Politics and Development, 5(1), 51-70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

224. Sari, D. I. P., Widjajani, R., & Noor, T. (2022). Implementation of E-Government in Improving Public Service: The Policy of the Directorate General of Taxes at the South Malang, in Indonesia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

225. Sari, Y., & Aydin, B. (2023). The Impact of E-Government Services on Organizational Performance: A Case Study in Turkey. Government Information Quarterly, 40(2), 101642. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

226. Schroeder, K., Lampietti, J., & Elabed, G. (2021). Policies to maximize the gains made through digital technologies. What's Cooking: Digital Transformation of the Agrifood System (pp. 157–188). https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1657-4_ch7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

227. Shah, I. A., Wassan, S., & Usmani, M. H. (2022). E-Government Security and Privacy Issues: Challenges and Preventive Approaches. In Cybersecurity Measures for E-Government Frameworks (pp. 61-76). IGI Global. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

228. Sigwejo, A., & Pather, S. (2016). A Citizen‐Centric Framework for Assessing E‐Government Effectiveness. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 74(1), 1–27. DOI: 10.1002/j.1681-4835.2016.tb00542. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

229. Sihotang, D. M., Yudhistira, B. A., Nugroho, W. S., Wibowo, W. C., Sensuse, D. I., & Hidayanto, A. N. (2022, December). A Systematic Literature Review of Barriers and Drivers E-Government in Developing Countries: TOE Framework Perspective. In 2022 Seventh International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

230. Silva, P. (2015). Davis' technology acceptance model (TAM)(1989). Information seeking behavior and technology adoption: Theories and trends, 205-219. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

231. Singh, H., Grover, P., Kar, A. K., & Ilavarasan, P. V. (2020). Review of performance assessment frameworks of e-government projects. Transforming government: People, process and policy, 14(1), 31-64. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

232. Singh, S., Sahni, M. M., & Kovid, R. K. (2020). What drives FinTech adoption? A multi-method evaluation using an adapted technology acceptance model. Management Decision, 58(8), 1675-1697. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

233. Sittrop, D., & Crosthwaite, C. (2021). Minimizing risk—the application of kotter’s change management model on customer relationship management systems: A case study. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(10), 496 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

234. Soliman, M., & Ali, M. (2021). Exploring the Impact of E-Government Adoption on Organizational Performance: An Empirical Investigation in Egypt. International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102358. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

235. Soumia, A., & Amine, R. M. (2023). A Method for Evaluation of e-Government systems information Agility: Case of e-Algeria. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

236. Sreenivasan S, Kothandaraman K. Improving processes by aligning Capability Maturity Model Integration and the Scaled Agile Framework. GBOE. 2019;38(6):42–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.21966. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

237. Stoica, M., & Ghilic-Micu, B. (2020). E-government in Romania–A case study. Journal of e-Government Studies and Best Practices, 1-12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

238. Story, D. A., & Tait, A. R. (2019). Survey research. Anesthesiology, 130(2), 192-202. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

239. Stratton, S. J. (2021). Population research: convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital and disaster Medicine, 36(4), 373-374. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

240. Stratton, S. J. (2021). Population research: convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital and disaster Medicine, 36(4), 373-374. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

241. Sultan, E. W. A. M. (2022). Key Performance Indicators (Kpis), Key Result Indicator (Kris) and Objectives and Key Results (OKRS). Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Kuwait Chapter), 11(4), 147-157. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

242. Tan, S. Y., & Taeihagh, A. (2020). Smart city governance in developing countries: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(3), 899. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

243. T. Aguiar, S. Bogea Gomes, P. Rupino da Cunha and M. Mira da Silva, "Digital Transformation Capability Maturity Model Framework," 2019 IEEE 23rd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), Paris, France, 2019, pp. 51-57, doi: 10.1109/EDOC.2019.00016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

244. Teater, B. (2019). An Introduction to Applying Social Work Theories and Methods 3e. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

245. Teichert, R. (2019). Digital transformation maturity: A systematic review of literature. Acta universitatis agriculturae et silviculturae mendelianae brunensis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

246. Tejedo-Romero, F., & Araujo, J. F. F. E. (2020). E-government-enabled transparency: The effect of electoral aspects and citizen’s access to Internet on information disclosure. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(3), 268-290. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

247. The European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020, accelerating the digital transformation of government, Brussels. The European Commission, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

248. Thitinan, T. S., & Chankoson Khunanan, S. (2022). Modelling the impact of e-government on corruption for the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of eBusiness and eGovernment Studies, 14(3), 26-45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

249. Tomas A, Silvia Gom, Paulo R. and Miguel (2019) Digital Transformation Capability Maturity Model Framework. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

250. Touchton, M., & Wampler, B. (2023). Participation, Development, and Accountability: A Survey Experiment on Democratic Decision-Making in Kenya. American Political Science Review, 1-16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

251. Transparency International.2022.Corruption Perception Index 2021. Berlin: Transparency International.https://images.transparencycdn.org/images/CPI2021_Report_EN-web.pdf. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

252. Trawick, S., & Carraher, T. (2023). Contextualising Kotter’s 8-step model to a sustainable digital transformation: A qualitative study from the perspective of organisational change. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

253. Tree, K. P. I. (2023). Key Performance Indicator (KPI). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

254. Trevisan, F. (2022). Beyond accessibility: Exploring digital inclusivity in US progressive politics. New Media & Society, 24(2), 496-513. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

255. Turnip, A. K., H. Lubis, S. H., & Lubis, M. S. (2018). A review of ICT in government bureaucracy: Psychological and technology skill perspectives, Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol, 9(9), 1309–1319. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

256. Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of E-Government–A literature review. Government information quarterly, 36(2), 167-178. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

257. Uhl, Axel & Born, Matthias & Koschmider, Agnes & Janasz, Tomasz. (2016). Digital Capability Framework: A Toolset to Become a Digital Enterprise. 10.4324/9781315577166-2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

258. Umbach, G., & Tkalec, I. (2022). Evaluating e-governance through e-government: Practices and challenges of assessing the digitalization of public governmental services. Evaluation and program planning, 93, 102118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

259. UN DESA, “UN E-government survey 2016: E-Government in Support of Sustainable Development”, New York: UN DESA, (2016). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

260. Un E-Government Survey 2016. E-Government in Support of Sustainable Development, UN E-Government Knowledgebase, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

261. UNCTAD. (2021). The Least Developed Countries in the Post-COVID World: Learning from 50 Years of Experience. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

262. United Nations (2021): Assessing public participation in policy-making process.https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2022-06/undp_ge_dg_par_assessing-public-participation_research_phase%202_eng.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

263. United Nations. (2018). Gearing E-Government to Support Transformation towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies. United Nations E-Government Survey 2018, 7–20, [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

264. Valer-Limaco, G., Delgado-Arenas, R., Delgado-Corazao, S., Marroquín, N. C., & Farfán-Pimentel, J. F. (2022). E-Government in the Peruvian Public Management System: A Theoretical Analysis. NVEO-NATURAL VOLATILES & ESSENTIAL OILS Journal| NVEO, 1789-1796. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

265. Varpio, L., Paradis, E., Uijtdehaage, S., & Young, M. (2020). The distinctions between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. Academic Medicine, 95(7), 989-994. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

266. Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011). Outcomes, process, and trust of civil servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 745-760. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

267. Vatankhah, A., Kim, M. J., & Li, Y. (2022). Examining the Relationship between E-Government Services and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Innovation Capability. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101717. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

268. Verma, J. P., Verma, P., Verma, J. P., & Verma, P. (2020). Use of G* power software. Determining Sample Size and Power in Research Studies: A Manual for Researchers, 55-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

269. Vorm, E. S., & Combs, D. J. (2022). Integrating transparency, trust, and acceptance: The intelligent systems technology acceptance model (ISTAM). International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(18-20), 1828-1845. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

270. W. M. Al-Rahmi et al., "Integrating Technology Acceptance Model with Innovation Diffusion Theory: An Empirical Investigation on Students’ Intention to Use E-Learning Systems," in IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 26797-26809, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899368. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

271. Wairiuko, Jennifer, Nyonje Raphael &, Omulo, Elisha. (2018) ICT Infrastructure and Adoption of E-government for Improved Service Delivery in Kajiado County, Kenya. European Journal of Business and Management 10(30), 205-221. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

272. Wang, J. (2016). The Rise of Singapore as International Financial Centre: Political Will, Industrial Policy, and Rule of Law. In Hu, J., Vanhullebusch, M., & Harding, A. (Eds.), Finance, Rule of Law and Development in Asia: Perspectives from Singapore, Hong Kong and Mainland China (pp. 3–17). Leiden/Boston: Brill Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

273. Weerakkody, V., El-Haddadeh, R., Sivarajah, U., Omar, A., & Molnar, A. (2019). A case analysis of E-government service delivery through a service chain dimension. International Journal of Information Management, 47, 233-238. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

274. Wickham, H., & Wickham, H. (2016). Data analysis (pp.) Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

275. World Bank (2015). E-Government https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/digitaldevelopment/brief/e-government. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

276. World Bank: ICT for Greater Development Impact: World Bank Group Strategy for Information and Communication Technology, 2012–2015. World Bank, Washington, DC (2012). https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/27411. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

277. WorldBank, (2017). Doing Business Report. Retrieved on 4.10.19 from https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/reports/globalreports/doing-business-2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

278. Yasuoka, M., Meyerhoff Nielsen, M., & Iversen, K. E. (2022). The exercise of mandate–how mandatory service implementation promoted the use of e-government services in denmark. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

279. Y. Jinhua, L. Yong and Z. Peng, "E-government Evaluation Based on Citizen Satisfaction and its Implementation," 2010 International Conference on E-Business and E-Government, 2010, pp. 535-538, doi: 10.1109/ICEE.2010.143. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

280. Yera, A., Arbelaitz, O., Jauregui, O., & Muguerza, J. (2020). Characterization of e-Government adoption in Europe. Plos one, 15(4), e0231585. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

281. Yera, A., Arbelaitz, O., Jauregui, O., & Muguerza, J. (2020). Characterization of e-Government adoption in Europe. Plos one, 15(4), e0231585. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

282. Yerina, A., Mazurenko, O., & Demydiuk, O. (2021). Benchmarking E-government: Current trends and digital barriers to development. International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Economy, (3 (35)). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

283. Yulianti, R., & Fuad, A. (2019, November). E-Government Based Public Information Servicesin the Framework of Public Information Openness. In International Conference on Democratisation in Southeast Asia (ICDeSA 2019) (pp. 340-343). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

284. Yunis, M., El-Kassar, A., & Tarhini, A. (2017). Impact of ICT-based innovations on organizational performance: The role of corporate entrepreneurship, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30 (1), 122-141. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

285. Yusuf, I. M., Astuti, R. S., & Afrizal, D. (2021, November). The Role of Collaborative E-Government in Surabaya Intelligent Traffic System. In The 1st International Conference on Research in Social Sciences and Humanities (ICoRSH 2020) (pp. 775-781). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

286. Zabukovšek, S. S., Bobek, S., Tominc, P., & Štrukelj, T. (2021). E-Government. Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance: Volume 2: Policy and Practice, 263-289 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

287. Zhao, H., Ahn, M. J., & Manoharan, A. P. (2021). E-government, corruption reduction and the role of culture: A study based on panel data of 57 countries. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 10(3), 86-104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

288. Zubir, M. H. H., & Abdul Latip, M. S. (2023). Factors affecting citizens’ intention to use e-government services: assessing the mediating effect of perceived usefulness and ease of use. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Patriarchy and Gender Roles in Shobhaa De's Second Thoughts and Easterine Kire’s Life on Hold
• Comparative Effects of Zeolite and Fly Ash on Soil Properties and Agricultural Productivity
• Assessing Interrelationships among Banking Satisfaction, Cooperative Perspectives and Rural Service Beliefs in Cooperative Banking in Northern Nigeria
• High-Performance Alloys and Composites’ Applications in Production Engineering
• Integrating Tidal Energy into Sub-Saharan Africa’s Power Mix: A Strategic Framework for Renewable Energy Expansion