Many have studied different factors affecting e-government performance, but there is little research on the role of readiness factors, which may impact e-government outcomes indirectly. This study presents a conceptual model with the aim of determining the role of readiness factors in the relationship between e-government factors and e-government outcomes. E-government factors are comprised of citizens, businesses, and government itself. Also, readiness factors are categorized into three main groups, namely governing, technical, and organizational. A questionnaire was designed and completed by 90 e-government senior managers at multiple government agencies of Iran expressing their opinions on several factors impacting e-government outcomes within their organizations. The results of hierarchical regression analysis strongly support the appropriateness of the proposed model and prove that readiness factors play a moderating role in the relationship between e-government factors and e-government outcomes. Also, the results of latent moderated structuring (LMS) technique show that ‘organizational’ readiness factors have the most important effect on e-government outcomes. Finally, some policy implications are provided for better understanding of the role and importance of readiness factors in theory and practice.
Abd. HamidAAbdul RazakFZAbu BakarASalihinWAbdullahW (2016) The effects of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on continuance intention to use e-government. Procedia Economics and Finance35: 644–649.
2.
Abu-ShanabEA (2017) E-government familiarity influence on Jordanians’ perceptions. Telematics and Informatics34: 103–113.
3.
Al-AdawiZYousafzaiSPallisterJ (2005) Conceptual model of citizen adoption of e-government. In: 2nd International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology, Dubai, UAE, 26-28 September 2005, pp. 1–5.
4.
AlbadviAKeramatiARazmiJ (2007) Assessing the impact of information technology on firm performance considering the role of intervening variables: organizational infrastructures and business processes reengineering. International Journal of Production Research45(12): 2697–2734.
5.
AlghamdiIAGoodwinRRampersadG (2013) Evaluation of organizational e-government readiness in the public sector. International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications5(2): 1–21.
6.
Al-HujranOAl-DebeiMMChatfieldAMigdadiM (2015) The imperative of influencing citizen attitude toward e-government adoption and use. Computers in Human Behavior53: 189–203.
7.
AlhussainTDrewS (2010) Employees’ perceptions of biometric technology adoption in e-government. International Journal of E-Adoption2: 59–71.
8.
Al NagiEHamdanM (2009) Computerization and e-government implementation in Jordan: challenges, obstacles and successes. Government Information Quarterly26(4): 577–583.
9.
AltameemTZairiMAlshawiS (2006) Critical success factors of e-government: a proposed model for e-government implementation. In: Innovations in Information Technology, 2006, pp. 1–5.
10.
AlzahraniLAl-KaraghouliWWeerakkodyV (2016) Analyzing the critical factors influencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens’ perspective: A systematic review and a conceptual framework. International Business Review. Epub ahead of print 18 July 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.06.004.
11.
AhnMJBretschneiderS (2011) Politics of e-government: e-government and the Political Control of Bureaucracy. Public Administration Review71(3): 414–424.
12.
AngelopoulosSKitsiosFPapadopoulosT (2010) New service development in e-government: identifying critical success factors. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy4(1): 95–118.
13.
BadriMAAlshareK (2008) A path analytic model and measurement of the business value of e-government: An international perspective. International Journal of Information Management28(6): 524–535.
14.
BaroudiJJOrlikowskiWJ (1989) The problem of statistical power in MIS research. MIS Quarterly13(1): 87–106.
15.
BélangerFCarterL (2009) The impact of the digital divide on e-government use. Communications of the ACM52(4): 132–135.
16.
BoyerKKLeongGKWardPTKrajewskiLJ (1997) Unlocking the potential of advanced manufacturing technologies. Journal of Psychology Management15: 331–347.
17.
BrownMMBrudneyJL (2003) Learning organizations in the public sector? A study of police agencies employing information and technology to advance knowledge. Public administration review63(1): 30–43.
18.
CarterLWeerakkodyV (2008) E-government adoption: A cultural comparison. Information Systems Frontiers10(4): 473–482.
19.
ChenYNChenHMHuangWChingRK (2006) E-government strategies in developed and developing countries: An implementation framework and case study. Journal of Global Information Management14(1): 23–46.
20.
ColescaSEDobricaL (2009) Adoption and use of e-government services: The case of Romania. Journal of Applied Research and Technology6(03): 204–217.
21.
CooperDRSchindlerPS (2003) Business Research Methods (8th Ed.) New York: McGraw Hill.
22.
DwivediYKWilliamsMD (2008) Demographic influence on UK citizens’ e-government adoption. Electronic Government, an International Journal: 5(3), 261–274.
23.
EbrahimZIraniZ (2005) E-government adoption: architecture and barriers. Business Process Management Journal11(5): 589–611.
24.
FangZ (2002) E-government in digital era: concept, practice, and development. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management10(2): 1–22.
25.
FountainJE (2001) Building the Virtual State: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press.
26.
FrankeRKroenungJBornFEckhardtA (2015) Influential factors for e-government success in the Middle East: Case study evidence from Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Electronic Government Research11(1): 39–62.
27.
GhazinoorySMirzaeiSGhazinooriS (2009) A model for national planning under new roles for government: Case study of the National Iranian Nanotechnology Initiative. Science and Public Policy36(3): 241–249.
28.
GiddensA (1999) The Third Way: the Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
29.
GilbertDBalestriniPLittleboyD (2004) Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-government. International Journal of Public Sector Management17(4): 286–301.
30.
GonzalezRGascoJLlopisJ (2007) E-government success: Some principles from a Spanish case study. Industrial Management & Data Systems107(6): 845–861.
31.
HorstMKuttschreuterMGuttelingJM (2007) Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in The Netherlands. Computers in Human Behavior23(4): 1838–1852.
32.
JamesJ (2012) Which developing countries have done the most to close the digital divide?Telematics and Informatics29(1): 2–10.
33.
KaisaraGPatherS (2011) The e-government evaluation challenge: A South African Batho Pele-aligned service quality approach. Government Information Quarterly28(2): 211–221.
34.
KamalMWeerakkodyVIraniZ (2011) Analyzing the role of stakeholders in the adoption of technology integration solutions in UK local government: An exploratory study. Government Information Quarterly28(2): 200–210.
35.
KarunasenaKDengH (2012) Critical factors for evaluating the public value of e-government in Sri Lanka. Government Information Quarterly29(1): 76–84.
36.
KassenM (2014) Globalization of e-government: open government as a global agenda; benefits, limitations and ways forward. Information Development30(1): 51–58.
37.
KeramatiASaremiM SAfshari–MofradM (2011a) Citizen relationship management critical success factors: An empirical study of Municipality of Tehran. International Journal of Electronic Governance4(4): 322–347.
38.
KeramatiAAfshari-MofradMKamraniA (2011b) The role of readiness factors in e-learning outcomes: An empirical study. Computers & Education57(3): 1919–1929.
39.
KhalilOE (2011) E-government readiness: Does national culture matter?Government Information Quarterly28(3): 388–399.
40.
KhanGFMoonJSwarBZoHRhoJJ (2012) E-government service use intentions in Afghanistan: Technology adoption and the digital divide in a war-torn country. Information Development28(4): 281–299.
41.
KimHJPanGPanSL (2007) Managing IT-enabled transformation in the public sector: A case study on e-government in South Korea. Government Information Quarterly24(2): 338–352.
42.
KleinAMoosbruggerH (2000) Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika65: 457–474.
43.
KohCEPrybutokVRRyanSIbragimovaB (2006) The importance of strategic readiness in an emerging e-government environment. Business Process Management Journal12(1): 22–33.
44.
KohCEPrybutokVRZhangX (2008) Measuring e-government readiness. Information & Management45(8): 540–546.
45.
KolsakerALee-KelleyL (2008) Citizens’ attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: a UK study. International Journal of Public Sector Management21(7): 723–738.
46.
KrishnanSTeoTS (2012) Moderating effects of governance on information infrastructure and e-government development. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology63(10): 1929–1946.
47.
LamW (2005) Barriers to e-government integration. Journal of Enterprise Information Management18(5): 511–530.
48.
LayneKLeeJ (2001) Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly18(2): 122–136.
49.
LeanOKZailaniSRamayahTFernandoY (2009) Factors influencing intention to use e-government services among citizens in Malaysia. International Journal of Information Management29(6): 458–475.
50.
LeeJKimHJAhnMJ (2011) The willingness of e-government service adoption by business users: The role of offline service quality and trust in technology. Government Information Quarterly28(2): 222–230.
51.
MillardJ (2008) E-government measurement for policy makers. European Journal of ePractice4: 19–32.
52.
MoghaddasiAFeyziK (2005) E-Government: Recreation of government in information age. Termeh Press.
53.
NavarraDDCornfordT (2005) ICT, innovation and public management: Governance, models & alternatives for e-government infrastructures. In ECIS, pp. 1573–1583.
54.
NunnallyJCBernsteinIH (1994) Psychometric Theory (3 rd ed.) New York: McGraw Hill.
55.
OlsonEMSlaterSFHultGTM (2005) The performance implication of fit among business strategy, marketing organization structure, and strategic behavior. Journal of Marketing69: 49–65.
56.
PapadomichelakiXMentzasG (2012) A multiple-item scale for assessing e-government service quality. Government Information Quality29(1): 98–109.
57.
PrybutokVRZhangXRyanSD (2008) Evaluating leadership, IT quality and net benefits in an e-government environment. Information & Management45(3): 143–152.
58.
RoseWRGrantGG (2010) Critical issues pertaining to the planning and implementation of e-government initiatives. Government Information Quarterly27(1): 26–33.
59.
RowleyJ (2011) e-Government stakeholders—Who are they and what do they want?International Journal of Information Management31(1): 53–62.
60.
SarrayrihMASriramB (2015) Major challenges in developing a successful e-government: A review on the sultanate of Oman. Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences27: 230–235.
61.
Schermelleh-EngelKMoosbruggerH (2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online8(2): 23–74.
62.
SharifiMManianA (2010) The study of the success indicators for pre-implementation activities of Iran’s e-government development projects. Government Information Quarterly27(1): 63–69.
63.
SharmaSK (2015) Adoption of e-government services: the role of service quality dimensions and demographic variables. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy9(2): 207–222.
64.
ShihEKraemerKLDedrickJ (2007) Research note: Determinants of country-level investment in information technology. Management Science53(3): 521–528.
65.
StefanovicDMarjanovicUDelicMCulibrkDLalicB (2016) Assessing the success of e-government systems: An employee perspective. Information & Management53(6): 717–726.
66.
TavanaMZandiFKatehakisMN (2013) A hybrid fuzzy group ANP-TOPSIS framework for e-government readiness assessment from a CiRM perspective. Information & Management50: 383–397.
67.
TsengPTYenDCHungY CWangN C (2008) To explore managerial issues and their implications on e-Government deployment in the public sector: Lessons from Taiwan’s Bureau of Foreign Trade. Government Information Quarterly25(4): 734–756.
68.
TungL LRieckO (2005) Adoption of electronic government services among business organizations in Singapore. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems14(4): 417–440.
69.
VassilakisCLepourasGFraserJHastonSGeorgiadisP (2005) Barriers to electronic service development. E-service Journal4(1): 41–63.
70.
VerdegemPVerleyeG (2009) User-centered e-government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly26(3): 487–497.
71.
WangpipatwongSChutimaskulWPapasratornB (2008) Understanding citizen’s continuance intention to use e-government website: A composite view of technology acceptance model and computer self-efficacy. The Electronic Journal of E-Government6(1): 55–64.
72.
WelchEWFeeneyMK (2014) Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes. Government Information Quarterly31(4): 506–512.
73.
WhitmoreA (2012) A statistical analysis of the construction of the United Nations E-government Development Index. Government Information Quarterly29(1): 68–75.
74.
WongWWelchE (2004) Does e-government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability. Governance17(2): 275–297.
75.
YildizM (2007) E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly24(3): 646–665.
76.
ZhangJDawesSSSarkisJ (2005) Exploring stakeholders’ expectations of the benefits and barriers of e-government knowledge sharing. The Journal of Enterprise Information Management18(5): 548–567.
77.
ZhangHXuXXiaoJ (2014) Diffusion of e-government: A literature review and directions for future directions. Government Information Quarterly31: 631–636.
