Many e-government interventions in resource-constrained countries fail because of the cost involved in setting up appropriate, robust and responsive e-government programmes and platforms. The failure of these projects results into paying a higher opportunity cost owing to missing out on socio-economic benefits that e-government has to offer. To avert the higher failure rate of e-government interventions, it is vital that effervescent e-government design be informed by context-aware conceptual frameworks and models. Using the Mixed Methods Research (MMR) approach, this paper explores the contextual factors that influence e-government design and development and proposes a conceptual framework with due reference to local contextual characteristics. The proposed framework may act as a blueprint for designing e-government interventions in contextually similar environments endowed with complex cultural setups. The paper brings out pointers to understanding critical factors that influence e-government development especially in a developing world context. The results indicate that effervescent e-government design needs to be informed by the unique contextual characteristics in the area in which it is implemented.
AbandaHNg’ombeATahJHMKeivaniR (2011) An ontology-driven decision support system for land delivery in Zambia. Expert Systems with Applications38: 10896–10905.
2.
Al NagiEHamdanM (2009) Computerization and e-government implementation in Jordan: Challenges, obstacles and successes. Government Information Quarterly26, 577–583.
3.
AnttiroikoAi-VMalkiaM (2006) Encyclopedia of Digital Government. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference (IGI) Publishing.
4.
AsiimweENLimN (2010) Usability of government websites in Uganda. Electronic Journal of e-Government8(1): 1–12.
5.
BasaruddinSNawiASAShukorNSAJusoffKJahariNASalehH (2010) Influencing factors for effective community ICT hubs. World Applied Sciences Journal11(1): 114–117.
6.
BrattonM (2012) Citizen perceptions of local government responsiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development40(3): 516–527.
7.
BwalyaKJHealyM (2010) Harnessing e-government adoption in the SADC region: A conceptual underpinning. Electronic Journal of e-government8(1): 23–32.
8.
BwalyaKJDu PlessisTRensleighC (2014) Multivariate analysis of the status of e-government development in Zambia. AFFRIKA: Journal of Politics, Economics and Society4(1&2): 39–69.
9.
CapurroRBritzJB (2010) In search of a code of global information ethics: The road travelled and new horizons. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics7(3): 28–36.
10.
ChauhanRSinghA (2011) Generalizing meta-data elements: Global scenario and Indian perspective. Journal of Administration and Governance5(1). Available at: http://joaag.com/uploads/5_1__Article_2_Chauhan___Singh.pdf (accessed 4 April 2014).
11.
CoatesNNikolausL (2010) Zambia and e-government: An assessment and recommendations. In: MaumbeB (ed) E-Agriculture and E-Government for Global Policy Development: Implications and Future Directions. Hearshey, New York: Idea Group Publishing, pp.137–161.
12.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–339.
13.
DishawMTStrongDM (1999) Extending the Technology Acceptance Model with Task Technology Fit constructs, Information & Management36: 9–21.
14.
EstevezEJanowskiT (2013). Electronic governance for sustainable development – conceptual framework and state of research, Government Information Quarterly30: 94–109.
15.
GottschalkP (2009) Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly26: 75–81.
HorstMKuttschreuterMGuttelingJ (2007) Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-Government services in The Netherlands. Computers in Human Behavior23:1838–1852.
IqbalMSSeoJW (2008) E-governance as an anti-corruption tool: Korean cases. Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society11(2): 51–78.
21.
KellyGMulganGMuersS (2002) Creating public value: An analytical framework for public service reform. Discussion paper prepared by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, United Kingdom.
22.
KhalilOEM (2011) E-Government readiness: Does national culture matter?Government Information Quarterly28: 388–399.
23.
KimHPanGPanS (2007) Managing IT-enabled transformation in the public sector: Case study on e-government in South Korea. Government Information Quarterly24: 338–30052.
24.
KimSCKimHJLeeHJ (2009) An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anti-corruption: The case of OPEN. Government Information Quarterly26:42–50.
25.
KoufarisM (2002) Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and flow theory to online consumer behaviour. Information Systems Research13(2):205–223.
26.
KumarRBestML (2006) Impact and sustainability of e-government services in developing countries: Lessons learned from Tamil Nadu, India. The Information Society22: 1–12.
27.
KwonH (2000) A test of the Technology Acceptance Model: The case of cellular telephone adoption. In: 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, USA, 4-7 January, 2000. Maui: IEEE Computer Society2000.
28.
LiangHXueYByrdTA (2003) PDA usage in healthcare professionals: Testing an extended Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Mobile Communications1(4): 372–389.
29.
LinFFofanahSSLiangD (2011) Assessing citizen adoption of e-government initiatives in Gambia: A validation of the Technology Acceptance Model in information systems success. Government Information Quarterly28: 271–279.
30.
LeanOKZailaniSRamayahTYudiF (2009) Factors influencing intention to use e-government services among citizens in Malaysia. International Journal of Information Management29(6): 458–475.
31.
LedererALMaupinDJSenaMPZhuangY (2000) The Technology Acceptance Model and the World Wide Web. Decision Support Systems29: 269–282.
32.
LegrisPInghamJColleretteP (2003) Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information and Management40(3):191–204.
33.
Luna-ReyesLFGil-GarciaJR (2011) Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-government phenomena. Government Information Quarterly28: 329–345.
34.
MaumbeBMOweiVAlexanderH (2008) Questioning the pace and pathway of e-government development in Africa: A case study of South Africa’s Cape Gateway project. Government Information Quarterly25: 757–777.
35.
MisuracaGCodagnoneCRosselP. (2013) From practice to theory and back to practice: Reflexivity in measurement and evaluation for evidence-based policy making in the information society. Government Information Quarterly30: 68–82.
36.
MisraDC (2007) Ten guiding principles for knowledge management in e-government in developing countries. In: 1st International Conference on Knowledge Management for Productivity and Competitiveness, New Delhi, 11-12 January 2007, pp. 1–13. India National Productivity Council.
37.
NaidooG (2004) Introduction of e-governance and its implications for developing countries. In: GuptaM.P. (ed.) Towards E-Governance Management Challenges. (145–154) New Delhi. India. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company.
38.
NapitupuluD (2014) The critical success factors study for e-government implementation. International Journal of Computer Applications89(16): 23–32.
39.
NgulubeP (2007) The nature and accessibility of e-government in Sub Saharan Africa International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE) 7. Available at: http://fiz1.fh-potsdam.de/volltext/ijie/08092.pdf (accessed 5 April 2014).
40.
PalviaSCJSharmaSS (2007) E-government and e-governance: Definitions/domain framework and status around the world. Available at: http://www.iceg.net/2007/books/1/1_369.pdf (accessed 4 March 2014).
41.
PavlouP (2003) Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce7(3):101–134.
42.
PanettoHMolinaA (2008) Enterprise integration and interoperability in manufacturing systems: Trends and issues. Computers in Industry59 (7) 641–64.
43.
PapadopoulouPNikolaidouMMartakosD (2010) What is trust in e-government? A proposed typology. In: 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-43- 2010), Hawaii, USA, 5-8 January 2010, Koloa, Kauai, Hawaii. IEEExplore, ISBN: 978-1-4244-5509-6.
44.
ProkopiosDDimitrisGStefanosGCostasLMitrouL (2009) Towards an enhanced authentication framework for e-government services: The Greek case, Trust and Security189–196.
45.
ReddickCGRoyF (2013) Business perceptions and satisfaction with e-government: Findings from a Canadian survey. Government Information Quarterly30(1): 1–9.
46.
RorissaADemissieD (2010) An analysis of African e-government service websites. Government Information Quarterly27(2): 161–169.
47.
SaadéRGKiraD (2007) Mediating the impact of technology usage on perceived ease of use by anxiety. Computers & Education49(4): 1189–1204.
48.
SavoldelliAMisuracaGCodagnoneC (2013) Measuring the public value of e-government: The eGEP2.0 model. Electronic Journal of e-Government11(1): 373–388.
49.
SanderJIBellPJRiceSD (2005) MIS sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa: Three case studies from the Gambia. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT)1(3): 135–159.
50.
SchollHJSchollMC (2014) Smart governance: A roadmap for research and practice. In: iConference 2014 Proceedings, Berlin, Germany, 4-7 March 2014, pp. 163–176. IOS Press.
51.
SinghS (2007) Department of Information and Computer Science. UNISA. South Africa. (Interview).
52.
ShareefAMKumarVKumarUDwivediYK (2011) E-Government Adoption Model (GAM): Differing service maturity levels. Government Information Quarterly28: 17–35.
53.
ShenCCChiouJ-S (2010) The impact of perceived ease of use on Internet service adoption: The moderating effects of temporal distance and perceived risk. Computers in Human Behavior26(1):42–50.
54.
SyamsuddinIHwangJ-S (2010) A new fuzzy MCDM framework to evaluate e-government security strategy. In: 4th International Conference on Application of Information and Communication Technologies AICT2010, 12-14 October 2010, pp.1–5, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. IEEExplore.
55.
TassabehjiREllimanT (2006) Generating citizen trust in e-government using a trust verification agent: A research note. In: Proceedings of the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (EMCTS), Alicante, Spain, 6-7 July 2006.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3):425–478.
60.
WeerakkodyVDwivediYKBrooksLWilliamsMDMwangeA (2007) E-Government implementation in Zambia: Contributing factors. Electronic Government, An international journal4(4): 484–505.
