success and failure of local e-government projects lessons learned from egypt

8/11/2019 Success and Failure of Local E-Government Projects Lessons Learned From Egypt

1/22

1

Book Chapter Accepted

To Appear in

Managing E-Government Projects: Concepts, Issues and Best Practices

Editor(s):

Stephen K. Aikins

Publisher:IGI Global


2/22

2

Success and Failure of Local E

Government Projects: Lessons Learned

from Egypt

Hisham Abdelsalam

Associate Professor and Director, Decision Support and Future Studies Center, Faculty of

Computers and Information, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Christopher G. ReddickAssociate Professor, Department of Public Administration, University of Texas at San Antonio,

USA.

Hatem ElKadi

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

ABSTRACT

This chapter examines the information systems success model in the Egyptian context. Much of the

existing literature on information system success focuses primarily on the private sector. There are

fewer studies that examine success in the context of the development of egovernment. This studyfocusesspecificallyonlocalegovernmentdevelopmentofprojectsinEgypt.Asurveyisadministeredin

threelocalgovernmentsonactualusersofinformationsystems.Theresultsofthisstudyconfirmmuch

oftheexistingresearchoninformationsystemsuccess,buthighlighttheimportanceofnetbenefitasa

success factor which examines the organizational and managerial context of egovernment

development. The importance of this research indicates that managerial functions matter for the

successofegovernmentprojects.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

TheadvancementofegovernmentprojectsiscriticalforthedevelopmentofcountriesinAfrica(Heeks,2002a). This chapter examines the success and failure of egovernment projects in Egyptian local

governments.Thischapterapplies theDeloneandMclean (1992;2003)modelof informationsystem

success to the Egyptian context, something that has not been done in prior research. This chapter

examinesboththereasonsforsuccessandfailureofegovernmentprojectsandappliesaninformation

systemsframeworkusingsurveydataofactualusersofalocalegovernmentinvestmentproject.

EGovernment in Africa shows significant promise according to the United Nations egovernment

surveys.DespitethefactthatAfricafallsbelowtheworldaverageintermsofrankings,therehasbeen

significant improvement in the region,withNorthernAfricancountries leading thecontinent.Thetop

rankedcountries inAfricawereTunisia,Mauritius,andEgypt (UnitedNations,2010).TheWorldBank


3/22

3

hasrecognizedtheimportanceofegovernmentforAfricaandcalledforaneTransformation,orusing

InformationandCommunicationTechnology(ICT)topromotethelivesandwellbeingofcitizens(World

Bank,2010).

Thischapterfirstexaminesthereasonsforsuccessandfailureofegovernmentprojects.Thisisfollowed

byadiscussionof the information systems successmodelandhow thismodelcanbe translated into

testablehypothesisexaminingegovernmentprojectsinEgypt.Italsoincludesbackgroundinformation

providedona localegovernment investmentserviceprojectEgypt.Finally, it involvesatestingofthe

modelofinformationsystemssuccessonactualusersofthisegovernmentproject.

SUCCESS AND FAILURE OF E-GOVERNMENT PROJECTS

It is critical to know the unique challenges and opportunities facing an African country in order to

determine the best way to align egovernment with national development goals (Maumbe, Owei, &

Alexander, 2008; Schuppan, 2009). For instance, there is a lot of hype about egovernmentimplementation in Africa and in its ability to transform service delivery. However, these extremely

advancedsystemsmaynotworkinthecontextofadevelopingcountryandshouldbemodifiedtofitthe

contextofthecountry(Chen,Chen,Ching,&Huang,2007).

Withtheadvancementofegovernmentindevelopedcountries,itisincreasinglyimportanttoknowthe

reasons for successesand failuresofegovernmentprojects (Heeks,2002a). Research shows that the

success rates of African information systems projects have been low, compared to many Western

industrial societies (Berman & Tettey, 2001). However, being progressively dependent upon IT

development,thereformofAfricangovernmentissignificanttostudy.(Peterson,1998)

Oncomparingthesuccessratesofinformationsystemsinthepublictotheprivatesector,governmentsgenerally lagbehind(Goldfinch,2007).This isespeciallyapparent indevelopingcountrieswherethere

are many factors beyond the control of the project, most notably lack of bureaucratic inertia that

preventswholesalechange fromanewegovernmentsystem (Peterson,1998). Inaddition,the larger

thescaleand scopeof the ITproject, themore likely for failureof the system (Pardo&Scholl,2002;

Heeks,2002b;Goldfinch,2007).There isalsothe issueofcomplexityofthesystem,andthis increases

theriskof failureofthesystem in its implementation (Melin&Axelsson,2009).Besidesthe issuesof

bureaucratic culture that prevents the implementation of egovernment projects in developing

countries,someothercommonbarriersarepoorinfrastructure,lackoffinances,poordatasystemsand

capability,lackofskilledpersonnel,andleadershipstyles(Gichoya,2005).

DrawingonWilson&Howcroft(2002),Goldfinch(2007)summarizesthreetypesof ITprojectfailures:

(1)Project failure: theproject doesnotmeet the specificationagreedupon, including the functional

requirements,budget,orcompletiondeadline; (2)System failure:thesystemdoesnotworkproperly,

includingexpected performance,notbeingusedinthewayintended,orusedasintendedbutdoesnot

delivertheexpectedbenefits,or(3)Userfailure:thesystem isnotused inthe faceofuserresistance

becauseofsuchthingsaslackoftraining,abilityofstaff,andthecomplexityofthenewsystem (Wilson

&Howcroft,2002).Often indevelopingcountries, the implementationof informationsystems fails to

meettheobjectivesoftheoriginallysetgoals(system failure),which isahighprice forcountriesthat

lackresourcesforthesesystems(Heeks,2002b;Krishna&Walsham,2005).

Informationsystemsingeneralandegovernmentprojectsinparticular,havemanydiverseandcomplex

challenges that are not easy to overcome (GilGarcia & Pardo, 2005). The fact that systems are


4/22

4

interconnected in egovernment poses a unique challenge for implementation because it stretches

acrossdifferentorganizationsandthroughexistingdepartmentsoragencies.Indeed,successfulproject

management is seen as the larger effort to transform government through egovernment efforts

(Furlong&AlKaraghouli,2010).

It is important to study project success and failure in the public sector bearing in mind six unique

differencestotheprivatesector(Sarantis,Smithson,Charalabidis,&Askounis,2010).First,thegoalsof

public sector organizations are usually vague compared to the private sector. Second, the project

dimensionshavemuchmore complex interactions thanmostprivate sector initiatives.Third, for the

publicsectortheplanninghorizon,duetobudgetrestrictionsandelectoralprocesses,makesthislonger

thantheprivatesector.Fourth,thelegalandregulatoryissuesaremuchmorepronouncedinthepublic

sector.Fifth,thepoliticalnatureofdecisionmaking inthepublicsectormakesprojectmanagementof

egovernmentmuchmoredifficult.Finally,sincethepublicsectordoesnotmakeaprofit,thereturnon

investment ismuchmoredifficulttodeterminethan intheprivatesectorcounterparts(Gupta&Jana,

2003).Therefore, it iscriticaltostudy ITprojectmanagement in thecontextof thepublicsector,andthisisdonethroughacommonlyusedinformationsystemssuccessmodel.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUCCESS MODEL

Oneofthemostcommonlyused informationsystemsuccessmodel isthatoftheDeloneandMclean

(1992;2003)andextensionsofthismodel(Seddon,1997).However,twoalternativemodelsthatcould

havebeenappliedtothiscasestudyofegovernmentprojectmanagement inEgyptshouldbebriefly

mentioned. The oldest theory is thediffusion of innovations. According toRogers (2003) theorye

governmentwouldbeaninnovationwithdifferenttypesofadopters,witheachofthemhavingunique

characteristics. While the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been used in the study of

management informationsystems, there issomesimilarity to thediffusionof innovationsmodel,but

there ismoreemphasison socialpsychological influenceson innovation (Davis,1986).The important

componentoftheTAM istheperceivedusefulnessofthenewtechnology,thehigher themore likely

there will be adoption (Dimitrova & Chen, 2006). The TAM model has been used to explain e

government in developing countries, through the perceived usefulness of technology enhancingjob

performance (Hamner & Qazi, 2009). Research has integrated the TAM and diffusion of innovations

theory and found significant evidence of bothhaving an impact onegovernment services (Carter &

Belanger,2005;Dimitrova&Chen,2006).

FollowingarethesixattributesofsuccessfulinformationsystemsaccordingtothePetter,DeLone,and

McLeanmodel(2008):

System

Quality:This is thedesirable characteristicsofan information system suchas itseaseofusesystemflexibility,systemreliability,andeaseoflearning.

InformationQuality:Thedesirablecharacteristicsofsystemoutputssuchasrelevanceof information,

understandability,accuracy,completeness,andusabilityofinformation.

Service Quality: The quality of system support that users get from the IT department such as

responsiveness,accuracy,andtechnicalcompetencefrompersonnelstaff.

SystemUse:Themanner inwhich staffand customersuse the capabilitiesofan information system

suchastheamountofuse,frequencyofuse,extentofuse,andpurposeofuse.

User Satisfaction: The users level of satisfaction with the information system such as the reports it

generates,andsupportservicesprovided.


5/22

5

NetBenefits:This is theextent inwhich theegovernment information system iscontributing to the

success of the individuals that are using the system such as improved decision making, improved

productivity,andgreaterefficiency.

This model has been applied to the development of information system success in egovernment

taxationsystems(Hu,Brown,Thong,etal.,2009;Floropoulos,Spathis,Halvatzis,&Tsipouridou,2010)

and inegovernment inTaiwan(Wang&Liao,2008).Therearealsodifferentapplicationsofthemodel

to collaborative egovernment (GilGarcia, ChengalurSmith, & Duchessi, 2007), IT leadership and e

government (Prybutok, Zhang, & Ryan, 2008), and examining technological factors of egovernment

development(Hussein,Shahriza,Karim,&Selamat,2007).TheDeloneandMclean(1992;2003)model

hasbeensuccessfullyappliedtoinformationsystemsintheprivatesector,andtoselectedcountriesand

egovernmentsystems.However,ithasnotbeenappliedtoegovernmentprojectmanagementinEgypt

beforeasthischapterwillexplore.

RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESESThisstudybuildsonthecomprehensivemultidimensionalmodel(Figure1)ofanegovernmentsystems

successmodelproposedbyWang&Liao(2008).TheirmodelwasdevelopedinaccordancewithDeLone

& McLean (2003), and suggested six success variables inegovernment systems: informationquality,

systemquality,servicequality,use,usersatisfaction,andperceivednetbenefit.Toenhanceworkdone

byWang&Liao(2008),thisresearchteststhefollowingninehypotheses:

H1.Informationqualitywillpositivelyaffectuseintheegovernmentcontext.

H2.Systemqualitywillpositivelyaffectuseintheegovernmentcontext.

H3.Servicequalitywillpositivelyaffectuseintheegovernmentcontext.

H4.Informationqualitywillpositivelyaffectusersatisfactionintheegovernmentcontext.

H5.Systemqualitywillpositivelyaffectusersatisfactionintheegovernmentcontext.H6.Servicequalitywillpositivelyaffectusersatisfactionintheegovernmentcontext.

H7.Usewillpositivelyaffectusersatisfactionintheegovernmentcontext.

H8.Usewillpositivelyaffectperceivednetbenefitintheegovernmentcontext.

H9.Usersatisfactionwillpositivelyaffectperceivednetbenefitintheegovernmentcontext.

Information

Quality

System

Quality

Service

Quality

Use

User

Satisfaction

Perceived

NetBenefit

H1

H2H8

H9

H7

H3

H4H5

H6

Figure1. Theoretical Research Model


6/22

6

Similar toWang& Liao (2008), this study considers theuseofegovernment system.However, the

challengefortheresearcheristodefineclearlyandcarefullythestakeholdersandcontextinwhichnet

benefitaretobemeasured(DeLone&McLean,2003,p.23).Differentstakeholdersmayhavedifferent

opinionsastowhatconstitutesabenefittothem(Seddon,Staples,Patnayakuni,&Bowtell,1999).Thus,giventhenatureoftheprojectbeinginvestigated,thefocusofthisstudy isonthemeasurementofe

governmentsystemssuccessfromtheperspectiveofemployeeswhoaretheusersofthe information

system. This chapter will examine users and evaluate the system and its net benefit for the e

governmentprojectintheEgyptiancontext.

CONTEXT

Egypt

Egyptisconsideredtobeoneoftheoldeststatesinhistory(Daly&Petry,1998),andithasalwaysbeen

aunitarycountrythatevolvedaroundthewateroftheriverNile.Currently,thecountryisdividedinto29 administrative sections called governorates of varying natures, their sizes, populations, and

resources.Governoratesare,inturnadministrativelydividedintocitiesanddistricts.Localgovernments

governoratesabidebyregulationscreatedbythecentralgovernment.Theyonlyhavealimitedlevel

of autonomy in the way they provide their services to citizens and the way they manage their

administrative processes. Consequently, as reflected in their organizational structure, different

governoratesmightbeadministrativelyorganizedslightlydifferentthanothers.Ingeneral,departments

withinagovernoratedealdirectly tocitizensand canbe logically categorized in fourmajor sections:

internalservices,externalservices,administrativedepartments,andtopmanagement.

Internal services departments provide services pertinent to the municipalities, covering housing,

constructionpermits,commercial licenses,andthataredirectlymanagedbythemayor/districtcouncildirector.Externalservicesdepartmentsprovidethespecializedservicessuchaseducation,health,social

security,agriculturalservices,andreportadministrativelytothemayor,andtechnicallytotherelevant

ministries.Thecity/districtcouncilsexerttheirauthorityoverthesedepartmentsthroughcommitteesin

which all these departments are members and not through direct management. Administrative

departmentsarethesupportingdepartmentsthatperformthenecessaryadministrativetasksrequired

forthecouncil,suchashumanresources,accounting,transportation,andtheydonotprovideservices

tothepublic.Finally,thetopmanagementdirectsandmonitorstheprogressofservicesandoperation

inthedifferentdepartmentsaswellassetthetargetsandplansforthecommunity.

Theinvestmentdepartmentisoneofthedepartmentsthatexistsonlyatthegovernoratelevel(i.e.does

not exist in cities and districts). Its functions are preparing studies to promote investment in the

governorate,ensuring thealignmentof investmentsprojectswith thecommunitydevelopment track,

theapprovalof investmentprojectsproposedby investors,allocationof the required lands to these

projects,andtrackingtheconformityofongoingprojectswiththeiroriginallysetobjectivesandrules.

Duetothecriticalnatureofitsfunctions,thisdepartmenthasbeenoneofthefocusingareasofEgypt

governmentadministrativereforminitiativesexaminedinthisstudy.

Local E-Government Program

Egypt InformationandCommunicationTechnology (ICT)strategywasestablished in2001 inwhatwas

calledtheEgyptianInformationSocietyInitiative(EISI).EISIwasdividedintoseventracks;oneofwhich

is egovernment. The egovernment program in Egypt started in 2001 within the Ministry of


7/22

7

Communication and Information Technology (MCIT). In 2004, the program was transferred to the

MinistryofStateforAdministrativeDevelopment(MSAD),wheretheappointedministerwastheformer

egovernment Program Director (Dr. Ahmed Darwish). This reflects the Egyptian perception of e

governmentasanelementofadministrative reformanddevelopment. In fact, theothermandateofMSADistheinstitutionalreformofpublicadministration.

Initially, the egovernment program consisted of four major tracks: (1) egovernment legislative and

technicalstandards infrastructure;(2)egovernmentservicesdelivery;(3)enterpriseresourceplanning

(Accounting, Stock Control, and Personnel); and (4) integration of national databases. Later, each of

thesetrackswastransformedintoprogramswithintheegovernmentframework.Theservicesprogram

was later renamed as Egyptian Government Services Development Program; part of which is the

EgyptianLocalGovernmentDevelopmentProject(ELGDP):asuperprojectwiththreemainprojects.The

first focusesonserviceenhancement inmunicipalities throughtheautomationofcitizenservicesand

theestablishmentof the socalledSmartCitizenServiceCenters.The second is concernedwith the

developmentofwebportalsforthegovernoratesandthethirdisthecitizenrelationshipmanagement(CRM)systems.Thepresentcaseisconcernedwiththefirstproject.

ELGDP uses IT and modern management systems to enhance both the quality and efficiency of

government systems, reduce service delivery time, and overcome corruption within public

administration.ELGDPprojectsdonotaimtofullyautomatetheservices,butrathertoprovidebetter

transparency and equity through enhanced operations, reduced delivery time using a rigorous

monitoringandcontrolsystem.

This chapter examines the critical success or failure factors derived from the deployment of an

integratedManagement InformationSystemandGeographical InformationSystem(MISGIS)asapart

ofthegovernorate investmentservicesenhancementprojectthatwascarriedout inthreedifferent

sites(governorates)inEgypt.Thefollowingsubsectionwillbrieflyintroduceandcomparethethreesites

tofamiliarizethereaderwiththecontext.

Three Sites

Figure2 shows the locationsof thegovernorates inEgyptwhere thisprojecthasbeen implemented.

Projectsitesarethecapitalcitiesofthethreegovernorates:Matrouh(governorateofMatrouh),AlTor

(governorateofSouthSinai),andPortSaid(governorateofPortSaid).


8/22

8

Figure 2. Location of project sites.

MatrouhisabordergovernorateandoneofthevastestgovernoratesinEgypt;itstretchesover450km

alongtheMediterraneanSeawitha largeareathatforms16.6%ofthetotalareaofEgypt.Matrouh is

mainlyadesertwithlimitedeconomicactivitiesinthefieldsoftourism,olivecultivationandprocessing,

aswellasotherhandicraftactivities.ThemajorityofinvestmentprojectinMatrouhisintourism.

Incontrast,SouthSinaiismuchsmallerthanMatrouhwitharearepresenting3.1%ofthetotalareaof

Egypt.SouthSinai isoneof themost touristic governorates inEgypt; itcontainshistoricalplaces like

MountSinaiandSt.Catherine'sMonastery,inadditiontorecreationalareaswithitsdivingparadiseand

itsreserves. Itattractstheinvestorstoestablishtouristicprojectslikehotelsandresorts,anditcontains

14.7%ofthetotalnumberofhotelsinEgypt.

PortSaiddiffers fromthetwoabovegovernorates inthe factthat it isbasicallyanurbangovernorate

withthecityofPortSaidatitscenter.ThecityofPortSaidisaFreeZonePortontheMediterranean,at

theentranceoftheSuezCanal.Itseconomicactivitiesarebasicallytrade,commerce,maritimeserviceandindustriesaswellasnationaltourism.Itisquitelimitedinareaandpopulation.Thecityhadseveral

institutes thatwerepartof theSuezCanalUniversities,outofwhichemerged theUniversityofPort

Said.ThegovernorateofPortSaidmainlyconsistsofthecityofPortSaiddividedintofivedistrictsand

thecityofPortFouad.

MatrouhandSouthSinaigovernoratesaresimilar inmanyaspects:theyarebothsparsegovernorates

withvastunuseddesert landsandextendedcoasts.Themain investments inbothgovernoratesare in

tourism, local and international. Land allocation for projects is usually faced by the informal land

appropriationbylocalBedouins,whotendtoobstructtheestablishmentofprojectsontheselands.

In addition to being urban in nature, Port Said differs from both governorates in the nature of

investmentwhichconcentratesoncommerceandtrade.

Table 1 compares the three governorates with respect to some key indicators. As the table depicts,

telecommunication infrastructure in the three governorates is rather primitive, and it is the main

concernofgovernorstodevelopthebasicregioninfrastructure,includingroads,water,sewage,aswell

as health and educational services. This is quite difficult in vast sparse regions, with limited active

resources.

Table 1. Key numbers of the three governorates.

Matrouh SouthSinaiPortsaid

Population(thousands) 323,381 150,088 570,603

(%ofEgyptspopulation) 2.21 0.21 1.25

Area(1000km2) 166,563 31,272 1.3511

(%ofEgyptsArea) 16.6 3.1 0.13

No.of phonecentrals 20 20 9

No.ofpostoffices 37 94 36

Illiteracyasa% 26.2 10.1 13.5


9/22

9

Project Description

Thissectionprovidesabriefdescriptionofthesystem.Themainobjectiveoftheprojectistoassistthelocalauthoritiestoproperlyplan,assign,andmanagedifferentinvestmentprojectsonthegovernorate

level.Thisistobeachievedthroughanintegrationof,MIS,GIS,andworkflowsoftwareapplicationused

by the relevant departments, connected over a Local Area Network. Figure 3 shows the conceptual

relationsstructureofthesystem.TheGISspatiallymaintainstheavailableandusedlandsandongoing

projects,whiletheworkflowmaintainstherelatedadministrativeprocessesandtherelatedarchives.

Work performed in this project supports the view as the fundamental transition and redefinition of

informationmanagement ingovernmentwitha strong institutional impact (Fountain,2001).Without

ICT,the localauthoritieswouldpoorlyplanandmanageitsdevelopmentalprojects.Thesystemcovers

all the service related procedure bypassing the cumbersome paperbased activities. Most of the

investmentdepartmentactivitiesrequirehuman interventionand insight.Thus,the integratedsystem

doesnot completely replace themanual system,but rather complements it sinceoriginal supporting

documentsarerequiredbylaw.

Figure 3. Conceptual System Relations

TheGISimplementedinthisproject(Figure4)containslayersrepresentingthelandtopology,usage,the

availableutilitiesandservices, thecurrentandcontractedprojectsand their typesaswellassatellite

image of the region. The GIS represents a central component in enhancing decision making. While

spatial information ismanaged through theGISunit, this information isavailed tootherdepartments

and the public. The system simplifies the identification of vacant parcels of land both for staff and

decision makers. A query builder, assisted by GIS features, allows the easy identification of all land

parcels answering theproject requirements. Administrative and Spatialdata are consolidated inone

systemtobejointlyanalyzedandsupportthedecisionmakingwithinthegovernorate.


10/22

10

Figure 4. Integrated MIS-GIS

Current Project Status

Thefirst implementationoftheprojectwas inMatrouhin2006.Backthen,thesystemwasbroughtto

operationwithanoticeablysuccessful implementationthat ledtoplan for itsrollout inseveralother

sites (Abdelsalam & ElKadi, 2007). However, by the end of 2007, the system began to face some

difficulties that led to the complete cancellation of the system early 2008. These troubles were

discussedinAbdelsalam,ElKadi,&Gamal(2010).Currently,thesystemisworkingonlyinthelattertwo

sitesofSouthSinaiandPortSaid.

Matrouhprojectstartedandremainedfunctionalforseveralmonths;afterwhichthesystemwentout

ofoperationuntil revivedwith thenewMatrouhmanagement.The case, thus, canbe classifiedasa

userfailure(asdiscussedpreviously)demonstratingthattechnologyisnottheimmediatereasonofthe

setback.Aswillbeshowninthefollowingdiscussion,thestaffandmanagementcanbethemaincause

ofthesetback.Onthecontrary,theimplementationinAlTorissuccessfulasitis,aftermorethanone

year,stillrunningunderthesamemanagement,maintainingthedrivingforcebehindthesystem.Thisis

whatdrivesthestafftoproperlymanagethesystem,andpromptlyremedyproblemstoavoidfailures.

As this chapter is being prepared, Port Said implementation is still at start up with few months of

operation,andenjoys thestrong supportof the topmanagement,and thus seems tobeapromising

success.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

Data collection procedure

As indicatedearlier, the focusof thisstudy ison themeasurementofegovernment systems success

from theperspectiveofemployeeswhoare theusersof the systemunder consideration.Therefore,

they represent the targetedpopulation of this research. Given that the system was implemented in

threegovernorates,all the48employees in the investmentdepartments in thesegovernorateswere

asked toparticipate in the survey.Thedataused to test the researchmodelwereobtained from48

employeesrepresentinga100%sampleofusersofthesystem.

Data collection was done onsite via a group of student researchers. Employees who are using the

system (or have used it in the case of Matrouh) were asked to fill in the questionnaire. The


11/22

11

questionnaire requested the respondents to relate to their experience in using the system and to

answer the questions in view of that experience. The respondents were instructed to answer the

questionsbyassessingthesystemas isnotbasedontheirexpectationsofan idealsystem.Foreach

question,respondentswereaskedtocircletheresponsewhichbestdescribedtheirlevelofagreement.Thestudentresearchersproctoredtheprocessoffillinginthequestionnairestomakesureallquestions

wereclear.Atotalof48usableresponseswereobtained.

Detaileddescriptivestatisticsrelatedtotherespondents'characteristicsareshowninTable2.Themale

andfemalerespondentswereequalinnumber.Furthermore,theyoungerrespondentsintheagerange

of2030yearsoutnumbered theother respondents (35.6%).Mostof theusersof the systemshada

universitydegree(79.2%).Therewasanevenmixofrespondentsfromeachofthethreegovernorates.

Table2.Samplecharacteristics

ValidPercentageNumberCharacteristic

Gender50.024Female

50.024Male

Age

35.6162030

20.093140

20.094150

24.411>51

Education

20.810HighSchool/diploma

79.238University

0.00Master

0.00Ph.D.

Governorate

35.417SouthSinai

31.315Matrouh

33.316PortSaid

Measures of the constructs, validity and reliability

The validation process for the survey instrument has gone through three steps: content validity;

construct validity,and reliability.The literature reviewand indepth interviews conductedwith Smalland MediumSized Enterprises (SMEs) established the basis of content validity for the survey

instrument.AsinWang&Liao(2008),toensurethecontentvalidityofthescalesusedinthestudy,this

chaptertriestoadapt,asmuchaspossible, items fortheconstructsfrompriorstudies.However,the

targetedsample/stakeholderisdifferentfromDeLoneandMcLean(2003),sincenewitemsdrawnfrom

Heeks&Bhatnagar(1999)areincluded. Fortheinformationqualityconstruct,twoitems(IQ2andIQ3)

areadaptedfromDoll&Torkzadeh(1988)tocapturethetwoattributesofinformationqualityofane

governmentsystemofthecontentandtimeliness.

Additionally,one item (SQ6) fromDoll&Torkzadeh (1988)asadaptedbyWang&Liao (2008) is

selectedtomeasuresystemqualityinanegovernmentsystem.Oneitem(SV4),selectedfromWang&


12/22

12

Tang(2003)ECSERVQUALscale,isusedintheservicequalityconstruct.Useismeasuredbyatwoitem

scale adapted by DeLone and McLean (2003) from previous studies (Heo & Han, 2003; Rai, Lang, &

Welker,2002)).Twoitems(US1andUS3)aretakenfromWang&Liao(2008)andincludedtomeasure

usersatisfaction.Finally,twoitems(NB5andNB7)adaptedbyWang&Liao(2008)fromEtezadiAmoli& Farhoomand (1996)userperformance scale,are included tomeasureperceivednetbenefit. Items

used in this study are listed in Appendix A. The measurement in this study relies on Likertscales

measurementwiththe5pointscale:StronglyAgree,Agree,Neutral,Disagree,StronglyDisagree,ona

numericalscalefrom1to5.AsummaryofthesurveystatisticsisshowninTable3.

The purposeof construct validity is to show that the items measurewhat they purport to measure.

Unidimensionality isestablishedwithexploratoryfactoranalysis,where0.30isgenerallyconsideredto

bethelowestsignificantfactorloadingtodefinetheconstruct(Hair,Tatham,&Anderson,1998).Table

4 shows that all factor loadings meet the criterion of larger than 0.3 and all constructs satisfy the

unidimensionalityrequirement.TheKaiserMeyerOlkin(KMO)measureofsamplingadequacyrevealed

values of at least 0.5 which is appropriate. Taken together with the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity thefactoranalysiscouldbeconducted.

Reliability is theextent towhicha variableor setof variables is consistent inwhat it is intended to

measure.Ifmultiplemeasurementsaretaken,thereliablemeasureswillallbeveryconsistent intheir

values(Hair,Tatham,&Anderson,1998).ThisresearchusesCronbachsalpha,asitisthemostpopular

technique and most suitable for the study. The Cronbach alpha (Cronbach, 1951) is a reliability

coefficientthat indicateshowwellthe item ispositivelycorrelated tooneanother. It iscomputed in

termsof theaverage intercorrelationsamong the itemmeasuring the concept.The closerCronbach

alphaisto1thehighertheinternalconsistencyreliability(Sekaran,2003).

Thewidelyacceptedsocialsciencecutoff isthatalphashouldbe0.7orhigherforasetofitemstobe

consideredascale,butsomeuse0.75or0.8whileothersareaslenientas0.5 (Garson,2008;Schraga,

Morleyb,Quinnb,&Jahanshahib,2004;Bullinger,Power,Aaronson,Cella,&Anderson,1996).Cuieford

(1965)alsothoughtthattheCronbachsvaluehigherthan0.7indicateshighvalidity,thevaluebetween

0.7and0.35meansacceptablevalidity,andthevalue lowerthan0.35meansrejectedvalidity.Hence,

due to the fact that a number of the items were not tested before with regards to egovernment

systems,wecanconsideralpha>0.5reliable.WithexceptionoftheServiceQualityscale,thereported

CronbachsAlphaforalltheanalyzeddataindicatesahighdegreeofconsistencyandstabilityamongthe

respondentsrepliestothequestionnaire.Table5providesa listofallthealphavaluesobtainedatthe

factorlevel.

Table3.Questionnairesummarystatistics

StandarddeviationMeanQuestionInformationQuality

1.412.04IQ1

1.321.96IQ 2

1.412.06IQ 3

1.292.04IQ 4

0.412.13IQ 5

SystemQuality

1.523.31SQ1

1.653.21SQ2

1.892.69SQ3


13/22

13

1.492.17SQ 4

1.351.75SQ 5

1.271.85SQ6

ServiceQuality1.522.44SV1

1.52.13SV2

0.430.77SV3

1.532.33SV4

Use

1.442.19U1

1.422.38U2

UserSatisfaction

1.332.27US1

1.381.94US2

1.282.4US31.431.69US4

PerceivedNetBenefit

1.792.19NB1

1.612.13NB2

1.913.08NB3

1.352.21NB4

1.420.4NB5

1.872.35NB6

1.312.02NB7

Table4.FactorAnalysis

Scale KMO Barletts Factors Questions Factorloading

InformationQuality 0.88 0.000 1 5

IQ1 0.744

IQ2 0.938

IQ3 0.876

IQ4 0.947

IQ5 0.902

SystemQuality 0.68 0.000 1 6

SQ1 0.551

SQ2 0.462

SQ3 0.592SQ4 0.874

SQ5 0.830

SQ6 0.658

ServiceQuality 0.55 0.000 1 4

SV1 0.814

SV2 0.899

SV3 0.305

SV4 0.591

Use 0.50 0.000 1 2

U1 0.906


14/22

14

U2 0.906

UserSatisfaction 0.81 0.000 1 4

US1 0.906

US2 0.871US3 0.787

US4 0.828

PerceivedNetBenefit 0.81 0.000 1 7

NB1 0.745

NB2 0.864

NB3 0.622

NB4 0.666

NB5 0.909

NB6 0.458

NB7 0.909

Table5.ReportedValuesofCronbachsAlpha

Scale Items Reliabilityalpha

InformationQuality 5 0.927

SystemQuality 6 0.732

ServiceQuality 4 0.575

Use 2 0.781

UserSatisfaction 4 0.870

PerceivedNetBenefit 7 0.849

RESULTS

Measurement model

Sincedataiscollectedfromthreegroups(representingthreegovernorates)ANOVAtestisperformedto

thehypothesis (Ha:employeesdidnotdiffer intheirperceptionofsystemsuccess factors inSouthSinai,

Matrouh,andPortSaid).AstheresultsinTable6show,thestudyisabletorejectthenullhypothesis.Thus,

data from all respondents can be grouped and analyzed as one group. Table7presents the correlation

amongdifferentmodelfactors.Asshown,significantcorrelations(p


15/22

15

WithinGroups 44.390 45 .986

Total 47.000 47

Use BetweenGroups 6.096 2 3.048 3.353 .044

WithinGroups 40.904 45 .0909Total 47.000 47

UserSatisfaction BetweenGroups 3.416 2 1.708 1.764 .183


Total 47.000 47

PerceivedNetBenefit BetweenGroups 2.727 2 1.364 1.386 .261


Total 47.000 47

Table7.Correlationbetweendifferentfactors

PerceivedNet

Benefit

UserSatisfaction

UseServiceQuality

SystemQuality

InformationQuality

1InformationQuality

10.943 SystemQuality

10.6380.644 ServiceQuality

10.541**

0.686**

0.650**Use

10.7590.4350.8070.733 UserSatisfaction

10.8650.8260.4570.7960.688 PerceivedNetBenefit

**Correlationissignificantatthe0.01level(2tailed)

Structural model

StructuralEquationModeling(SEM)isapowerfulmethodofmodelingtheinteractionsamongdifferent

variables. It has the benefit over multiple regressions in that it has the ability to construct latent

variables, or variables which are not measured directly, but are estimated in the model which is

predicted to influence the other variables. TETRAD is used to examine the path coefficients of the

structuralmodel.Propertiesofthecausalpaths,includingstandardizedpathcoefficients,pvalues,and

varianceexplainedforeachequationinthehypothesizedmodelarepresentedinFigure5.


16/22

16

Information

Quality

System

Quality

Service

Quality

Use

User

Satisfaction

Perceived

NetBenefit

0.05

0.62***

0.18*

0.19

0.81***

0.20

0.43***

0.40***

0.56***

R2=0.4895

R2=0.7603

R2=0.8583

Figure5.Hypothesestestingresults.

Asthefiguresdepicts,systemqualityhasasignificantinfluenceonbothuseandusersatisfaction.

Thus, hypotheses H2 and H5 are supported (=0.62 and =0.81, respectively). The influences of

informationqualityonbothuseandusersatisfactionwerenotsignificantatp


17/22

17

CONCLUSION

This chapterapplies theDelone andMclean (1992;2003) information systems successmodel to the

developmentofanEgyptianinvestmentprojectsinlocalgovernments.Theresultsofthisstudyconfirm

thatfactorsfoundintheinformationsystemssuccessmodelwereapplicabletoEgyptianegovernment

projectmanagement.Therehasbeenanespeciallystrongindicationthatinformationsuccessisrelated

to thenetbenefit to theorganizationandusersatisfaction.Therefore,management iscritical forthe

developmentofegovernmentprojects inEgypt.Management shouldspendmore timeonexplaining

howtheiregovernmentproject impactstheorganization,sothatusershaveabroaderunderstanding

ofthesystem.Inaddition,increasedusersatisfactionexplainsegovernmentprojectsuccess;something

thatcanbeeasilyaddressedbyeducationandtrainingintheworkplace.

Based on the results presented in this study, there are three management concerns that can be

addressed. First, institutinga systemofbeta testing the softwarebefore implementationbya select

groupofusersmakessense.Sinceinformationsystemsuccessisrelatedtosystemsqualitymakingsure

that this isadequatelyaddressed through testing is imperative.A second recommendation forpublicmanagers is to have an adequate training program for users of the system. Since use and user

satisfaction is related to theperceivednetbenefits, it is logical tohavea systemwhereexperienced

userstrainmorenoviceusersonthesystems.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Future researchshouldexaminethe informationsuccessmodel in thecontextofaccounting formore

political and managerial factors that might influence egovernment projects. These issues have

traditionallybeenunderrepresentedinthesemodels.However,theyneedtocometotheforegiventhe

uniquedifferences inpublicandprivate sector information systems.This studywasalso limited toa

smallsamplesize,andtherefore,futureresearchcouldexaminemultipleprojectsandthe informationsystemsuccessmodel.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is part of the research project Local egovernment in Egypt: Integrating Lessons into

Planning,financedbyagrantfromtheInternationalDevelopmentResearchCenter(IDRCCanada).The

authors would also like to express their gratitude to H.E. Dr. Ahmed Darwish, Minister of State for

AdministrativeDevelopmentforhissupportoftheresearchteam.

APPENDIX A. SURVEY ITEMS USED IN THIS STUDYInformationquality

IQ1.

Dataneededforsystemoperationsisavailable

IQ2. TheSystemprovidesthepreciseinformationthatIneed (Doll&Torkzadeh,1988)

IQ3. Thesystemprovidesuptodateinformation (Doll&Torkzadeh,1988)

IQ4. Dataresultingfromthesystemissuitableandmatchesbusinessneeds

IQ5.

Thesystempresentsoutputdatainrepresentativeandsuitableway

IQ6. Systemquality

Systemquality

SQ1.

Thesystemcrashedseveraltimes

SQ2.

Thereisperiodicalmaintenanceofthehardwareandsoftware


18/22

18

SQ3. Thereisobviousandcompleteintegrationofdatacomingfromdifferentdepartments

SQ4.

Thesystemmakestheprocessoflandallocationmoreaccurate

SQ5. Thesysteminstantaneouslyinformsmeaboutthestatusoftheinvestmentprojects

SQ6.

Thesystemiseasytouse (Doll&Torkzadeh,1988)Servicequality

SV1. Theemployeesarequalifiedenoughtousethesystem

SV2. Employeestransfertheirexperienceaboutthesystemtoeachother

SV3. Ineedmoretrainingtoefficientlyusethesystem

SV4. Ifeelsafeinmytransactionswiththesystem (Wang&Tang,2003)

Use(Heo&Han,2003;Rai,Lang,&Welker,2002)

U1. Idependonthesysteminperformingmywork

U2. ThefrequencyIusewiththesystemishigh

Usersatisfaction

US1.

Iamsatisfiedwiththissystem (Wang&Liao,2008)

US2.

ThesystemsatisfiesuserrequirementsUS3. Thesystemhasmetmyexpectations(Wang&Liao,2008)

US4. Irecommendusingthesysteminothergovernments

Perceivednetbenefit

NB1. Thesystemfacilitatesthemanagerialprocess

NB2. Thesystemfacilitatestheprocessofdecisionmaking

NB3. Thesystemmakesthelandallocationprocessfaster

NB4.

Theemployeeshadtakensufficienttrainingtodealwiththesystemprofessionally

NB5.

Thesystemsavesmetime (EtezadiAmoli&Farhoomand,1996)

NB6. Thesystemprovidesbetterwayofcontrol

NB7. Thesystemmakesmyjobeasier(EtezadiAmoli&Farhoomand,1996)

Note:AllquestionswerescaledwithStronglyAgree(1),Agree(2),Neutral(3),Disagree(4),andStrongly

Disagree(5).


19/22

19

REFERENCES

Abdelsalam,H.M.,&ElKadi,H.A.(2007).ICTtoEnhanceAdministrativePerformance:ACaseStudyfromEgypt.InT.Janowski,&T.A.Pardo(Ed.),1stInternationalConferenceonTheoryand

PracticeofElectronicGovernance(ICEGOV2007)(pp.129132).ACMPress.

Abdelsalam,H.M.,ElKadi,H.A.,&Gamal,S.(2010).SetbackandRemedyofLocaleGovernment

Projects:ACaseStudyfromEgypt.InT.Janowski,&J.Davies(Ed.),the4thInternational

ConferenceonTheoryandPracticeofElectronicGovernance(ICEGOV2010)(pp.6671).ACM

Press.

Berman,B.J.,&Tettey,W.J.(2001)Africanstates,bureaucraticcultureandcomputerfixes,Public

AdministrationandDevelopment,21(1),113.

Bullinger,M.,Power,M.J.,M.,Aaronson,N.,Cella,D.,&Anderson,R.(1996).CreatingandEvaluating

CrossCulturalInstruments.InB.Spilker,Qualityof

Life

and

Pharmacoeconomics

in

Clinical

Trials

(2nded.,pp.659668).Philadelphia:LippincottRaven.

Carter,L.,&Belanger,F.(2005).TheUtilizationofEGovernmentServices:CitizenTrust,Innovationand

AcceptanceFactors.InformationSystemsJournal,15(1),525.

Chen,Y.,Chen,H.M.,Cling,R.,&Huang,W.W.(2007).Electronicgovernmentimplementation:A

comparisonbetweendevelopedanddevelopingcountries.InternationalJournalofElectronic

GovernmentResearch,3(2),4561.

Cronbach,L.(1951).Coefficientalphaandtheinternalstructureoftests.Psychometrika,16,297334.

Cuieford,J.(1965).Fundamentalstatisticsinpsychologyandeducation(4thed.).NewYork:McGraw

Hill.

Daly,M.W.,&Petry,C.(1998).TheCambridgeHistoryofEgypt.CambridgeUniversityPress.

Davis,F.D.(1986).Atechnologyacceptancemodelforempiricallytestingnewenduserinformation

systems:Theoryandresults.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation.MassachusettsInstituteof

Technology,Cambridge.MA.

DeLone,W.H.,&McLean,E.R.(1992).InformationSystemsSuccess:TheQuestfortheDependent

Variable.InformationSystemsResearch,3(1),6095.

DeLone,W.H.,&McLean,E.R.(2003).TheDeLoneandMcLeanmodelofinformationsystemssuccess:A

tenyearupdate.JournalofManagementInformationSystems,19(4),930.

Dimitrova,D.V.,&Chen,Y.(2006).Profilingtheadoptersofegovernmentinformationandservices:The

influenceofpsychologicalcharacteristics,civicmindedness,andinformationchannels.Social

ScienceComputerReview,24(2),172188.

Doll,W.,&Torkzadeh,G.(1988).Themeasurementofendusercomputingsatisfaction.MISQuarterly,

12(2),259274.

EtezadiAmoli,J.,&Farhoomand,A.(1996).Astructuralmodelofendusercomputingsatisfactionand

userperformance.InformationandManagement,30(2),6573.

Floropoulos,J.,Spathis,C.,Halvatzis,D.,&Tsipouridou,M.(2010).MeasuringthesuccessoftheGreek

TaxationInformationSystem.InternationalJournalofInformationManagement,30(1),4756.


20/22

20

Fountain,J.E.(2001).Buildingthevirtualstate:Informationtechnologyandinstitutionalchange.

Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress.

Furlong,S.,&AlKaraghouli,W. (2010).Deliveringprofessionalprojects:Theeffectivenessofprojectmanagementintransformationalegovernmentinitiatives.TransformingGovernment:People,

ProcessandPolicy,4(1),7394.

Garson,G.(2008).ScalesadStandardMeasures.Retrieved2008,from

http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/standard.htm

Gichoya,D.(2005).FactorsAffectingtheSuccessfulImplementationofICTProjectsinGovernment.The

ElectronicJournalofeGovernment,3(4),175184.

GilGarcia,J.R.,ChengalurSmith,I.,&Duchessi,P.(2007).CollaborativeeGovernment:impediments

andbenefitsofinformationsharingprojectsinthepublicsector.EuropeanJournalof

InformationSystems,16(2),121133.

GilGarca,J.R.,&Pardo,T.A.(2005).Egovernmentsuccessfactors:Mappingpracticaltoolstotheoreticalfoundations.GovernmentInformationQuarterly,22(2),187216.

Goldfinch,S.(2007).Pessimism,ComputerFailure,andInformationSystemsDevelopmentinthePublic

Sector.PublicAdministrationReview,67(5),917929.

Gupta,M.P.,&Jana,D.(2003).Egovernmentevaluation:Aframeworkandcasestudy.Government

InformationQuarterly,20,365387.

Hair,J.,Tatham,R.,&Anderson,R.(1998).MultivariateDataAnalysis(5thed.).NewJersey:Prentice

Hall.

Hamner,M.,&Qazi,R.(2009).Explandingthetechnologyacceptancemodeltoexaminepersonal

computingtechnologyutilizationingovernmentagenciesindevelopingcountries,Government

InformationQuarterly,26(1),128136.

Heeks,R.(2002a).eGovernmentinAfrica:PromiseandPractice.InformationPolity,7,97114.

Heeks,R.(2002b).InformationSystemsandDevelopingCountries:Failure,Success,andLocal

Improvisations.TheInformationSociety,18,101112.

Heeks,R.,&Bhatnagar,S.(1999).Understandingsuccessandfailureininformationagereform.InR.

Heeks,Reinventinggovernmentintheinformationage:Internationalpracticeinitenabled

publicsectorreform(pp.4974).London,UK:Routledge.

Heo,J.,&Han,I.(2003).Performancemeasureofinformationsystems(IS)inevolvingcomputing

environments:Anempiricalinvestigation.InformationandManagement,40(4),243256.

Hu,P.,Brown,S.A.,Thong,J.,Chan,F.,&Tam,K.Y.(2009).Determinantsofservicequalityand

continuanceintentionofonlineservices:ThecaseofeTax.JournaloftheAmericanSocietyof

InformationScienceandTechnology,60(2),292306.

Hussein,R.,Karim,A.,&Selamat,M.H.(2007).Theimpactoftechnologicalfactorsoninformation

systemssuccessintheelectronicgovernmentcontext.BusinessProcessManagement,13(5),

613627.

Krishna,S.,&Walsham,G.(2005).ImplementingPublicInformationSystemsinDevelopingCountries:

LearningfromaSuccessStory.InformationTechnologyforDevelopment,11(2),123140.


21/22

21

Maumbe,B.,Owei,V.,&Alexander,H.(2008).Questioningthepaceandpathwayofegovernment

developmentinAfrica:AcasestudyofSouthAfricasCapegatewayproject.Government

InformationQuarterly,25(4),757777.

Melin,U.,&Axelsson,K.(2009).Managingeservicedevelopment comparingtwoegovernmentcase

studies.TransformingGovernment:People,ProcessandPolicy,3(3),248270.

Pardo,T.A.,&Scholl,H.J.(2002).WalkingAtoptheCliffs:AvoidingFailureandReducingRiskinLarge

ScaleEGovernmentProjects.Proceedingsofthe35thHawaiiInternationalConferenceon

SystemSciencesRetrievedfrom

http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2002.994076

Peterson,S.B.(1998).Saints,demons,wizardsandsystems:whyinformationtechnologyreformsfailor

underperforminpublicbureaucraciesinAfrica.PublicAdministrationandDevelopment,18(1),

3760.

Petter,S.,DeLone,W.,&McLean,E.(2008).Measuringinformationsystemssuccess:models,dimensions,measures,andinterrelationships.EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems,17,

236263.

Prybutok,V.R.,Zhang,X.,&Ryan,S.D.(2008).Evaluatingleadership,ITquality,andnetbenefitsinane

governmentenvironment.Information&Management,45,143152.

Rai,A.,Lang,S.,&Welker,R.(2002).AssessingthevalidityofISsuccessmodels:Anempiricaltestand

theoreticalanalysis.InformationSystemsResearch,13(1),5069.

Rogers,E.(2003).DiffusionofInnovations(5thedition).NewYork:FreePress.

Sarantis,D.,Smithson,S.,Charalabidis,Y.,&DimitrisAskounis,D.(2010).ACriticalAssessmentof

ProjectManagementMethodswithRespecttoElectronicGovernmentImplementation

Challenges.SystemicPractice

and

Action

Research,23(4),301321.

Schraga,A.,Morleyb,D.,Quinnb,N.,&Jahanshahib,M.(2004).Developmentofameasureofthe

impactofchronicparentalillnessonadolescentandadultchildren.TheParentalIllnessImpact

Scale(Parkinsonsdisease).ParkinsonismandRelatedDisorders,10,399405.

Schuppan,T.(2009).EGovernmentindevelopingcountries:ExperiencesfromsubSaharanAfrica.

GovernmentInformationQuarterly,26,118127.

Seddon,P.,Staples,D.S.,Patnayakuni,R.,&Bowtell,M.(1999).Thedimensionsofinformationsystems

success.CommunicationsoftheAssociationforInformationSystems,2(20).

Seddon,P.B.(1997).ARespecificationandExtensionoftheDeLoneandMcLeanModelofISSuccess.

InformationSystemsResearch,8(3),240253.

Sekaran,U.(2003).ResearchMethodsforBusiness.Askillbuildingapproach(4thed.).NewYork:Wiley.

TETRAD.(n.d.).Retrieved2010,fromTETRADProject:http://www.phil.cmu.edu/projects/tetrad/

UnitedNations.(2010).UnitedNationsEGovernmentSurvey2010.Retrievedfrom

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan038851.pdf

Wang,Y.S.,&Liao,Y.W.(2008).Assessingegovernmentsystemssuccess:AvalidationoftheDeLone

andMcLeanmodelofinformationsystemssuccess.GovernmentInformationQuarterly,25,

717733.


22/22

22

Wang,Y.S.,&Tang,T.I.(2003).AssessingcustomerperceptionsofWebsitesservicequalityindigital

marketingenvironments.JournalofEndUserComputing,15(3),1431.

Wilson,M.,&Howcroft,D.(2002).ReconceptualisingFailure:SocialShapingMeetsISResearch.EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems,11(4),236250.

WorldBank.(2010).HarnessingthetransformationalpowerofICTsfordevelopmentinAfrica.Retrieved

from

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/0,,contentMDK:2255596

9~menuPK:258657~pagePK:2865106~piPK:2865128~theSitePK:258644,00.html

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

InformationSystemSuccess:Theexaminationofsixcriteriaofsuccessofinformationsystemsas

developedbyDeloneandMclean(1992;2003).

SystemQuality:Thisisthedesirablecharacteristicsofaninformationsystemsuchasitseaseofuse

systemflexibility,systemreliability,andeaseoflearning.

InformationQuality:Thedesirablecharacteristicsofsystemoutputssuchasrelevanceofinformation,

understandability,accuracy,completeness,andusabilityofinformation.

ServiceQuality:ThequalityofsystemsupportthatusersgetfromtheITdepartmentsuchas

responsiveness,accuracy,andtechnicalcompetencefrompersonnelstaff.

SystemUse:Themannerinwhichstaffandcustomersusethecapabilitiesofaninformationsystem

suchastheamountofuse,frequencyofuse,extentofuse,andpurposeofuse.

UserSatisfaction:Theuserslevelofsatisfactionwiththeinformationsystemsuchasthereportsit

generates,andsupportservicesprovided.

NetBenefits:Thisistheextentinwhichtheegovernmentinformationsystemiscontributingtothe

successoftheindividualsthatareusingthesystemsuchasimproveddecisionmaking,improved

productivity,andgreaterefficiency.

Project

Failure:Theprojectdoesnotmeetthespecificationagreedupon,includingthefunctionalrequirements,budget,orcompletiondeadline.

SystemFailure:Thesystemdoesnotworkproperly,includingexpected performance,notbeingusedin

thewayintended,orusedasintendedbutdoesnotdelivertheexpectedbenefits.

UserFailure:Thesystemisnotusedinthefaceofuserresistancebecauseofsuchthingsas

recalcitrance,lackoftrainingandabilityofstaff,andthecomplexityofthenewsystem.

success and failure of local e-government projects lessons learned from egypt

Documents