This paper assesses the perceptions of a group of employees from the federal judiciaries of Brazil and Argentina regarding the impact of electronic lawsuits on individual performance and public service quality. A model is proposed and tested with data collected from 14 interviews with public managers and employees. The results of this study suggest that court administrators should align task characteristics and individual characteristics to achieve better task-technology fit, individual performance and public service quality. These findings present important implications to understand the processes of the implementation of electronic lawsuits within courts and may provide guidance for future research about the judiciary.
AguinisHSolarinoAM (2019) Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal40(8): 1291–1315. doi: 10.1002/smj.3015.
2.
AhmedZKaderAHarun RashidBU, et al. (2017) User perception of mobile banking adoption: an integrated TTF-UTAUT model. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce22(3): 1–19.
3.
AlaneziMAMahmoodAKBasriS (2012) E-Government service quality: a qualitative evaluation in the case of Saudi Arabia. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries (EJISDC)54(3): 1–20. Available at: http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/view/971/435.
4.
AndradeA (2009) The strategic planning and ICT in the Brazilian Justice. In: Proceedings of the 3 rd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV ‘09, New York, New York, USA, 2009, p. 91. ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/1693042.1693061.
5.
AndradeAJoiaLA (2012) Organizational structure and ICT strategies in the Brazilian Judiciary System. Government Information Quarterly29(SUPPL. 1). Elsevier Inc.: S32–S42. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.08.003.
6.
BarbosaAFPozzebonMDinizEH (2013) Rethinking E-government performance assessment from a citizen perspective. Public Administration91(3): 744–762. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02095.x.
BaruaAKriebelCHMukhopadhyayT (1995) Information technologies and business value: An analytic and empirical investigation. Information Systems Research6(1): 3–23. doi: 10.1287/isre.6.1.3.
9.
BelangerFCarterL (2012) Digitizing government interactions with constituents: an historical review of e-government research in information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems13(5): 363–394. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol13/iss5/1 (accessed 6 September 2015).
10.
BellamyCTaylorJ (1996) New information and communications technologies and institutional change: The case of the UK criminal justice system. International Journal of Public Sector Management9(4): 51–69. doi: 10.1108/09513559610128717.
11.
BertotJEstevezEJanowskiT (2016) Universal and contextualized public services: Digital public service innovation framework. Government Information Quarterly33(2): 211–222. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.05.004.
12.
BharatiPBergD (2003) Managing information systems for service quality: A study from the other side. Information Technology & People16(2): 183–202. doi: 10.1108/09593840310478685.
13.
BrownSAMasseyAPMontoya-WeissMM, et al. (2002) Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of Information Systems11(4): 283–295. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000438.
14.
Burton-JonesAGrangeC (2013) From use to effective use: a representation theory perspective. Information Systems Research24(3): 632–658. doi: 10.1287/isre.1120.0444.
15.
Burton-JonesAStraubDW (2006) Reconceptualizing system usage: an approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research17(3): 228–246. doi: 10.1287/isre.1060.0096.
16.
BusettiSVecchiG (2018) Process tracing change management: the reform of the Italian judiciary. International Journal of Public Sector Management31(5): 566–582. doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-06-2017-0158.
17.
CarterMGroverV (2015) Me, My Self, and I(T): Conceptualizing information technology identity and its implications. MIS Quarterly39(4): 931–957.
CzepielJASolomonMRSurprenantCF (1985) The Service Encounter, Managing Employee/ Customer Interaction in Service Businesses. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
21.
Freitasda SilvaJuniorJCMaçadaACGBrinkhuesRA (2017) Digital capabilities as key to digital business performance. Full paper. In: Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA, 2017, pp. 1–10.
22.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008.
23.
DeLoneWHMcLeanER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Management3(1): 60–95. doi: 10.1287/isre.3.1.60.
24.
DeLoneWHMcLeanER (2003) The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems19(4): 9–30. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748.
25.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550. doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4308385.
26.
ElenaS (2015) Open data for open justice: a case study of the judiciaries of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay. In: Center for the Implementation of Public Policies Promoting Equity and Growth, Open Data Research Symposium, Ottawa, Canada, 2015, pp. 1–11.
27.
ElenaSvan SchalkwykF (2017) Open data for open justice in seven Latin American countries. In: Achieving Open Justice through Citizen Participation and Transparency, pp. 210–231. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0717-8.ch011.
GoodhueDL (1995) Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Management Science41(12): 1827–1844. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.41.12.1827.
30.
GoodhueDLThompsonRL (1995) Task-Technology Fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly19(2): 213–236. doi: 10.2307/249689.
31.
Guimarães T deAOdeliusCCMedeirosJJ, et al. (2011) Management innovation at the Brazilian Superior Tribunal of Justice. The American Review of Public Administration41(3): 297–312. doi: 10.1177/0275074010380449.
32.
HaysJMHillA V. (2001) A preliminary investigation of the relationships between employee motivation/vision, service learning, and perceived service quality. Journal of Operations Management19(3): 335–349. doi: 10.1016/S0272-6963(00)00061-9.
33.
HaysJMHillA V. (2006) Service Guarantee Strength: The key to service quality. Journal of Operations Management24(6): 753–764. doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2005.08.003.
34.
HeeksRRenkenJ (2018) Data justice for development. Information Development34(1): 90–102. doi: 10.1177/0266666916678282.
35.
Hernández SampieriRFernández ColladoCBaptista LucioM d. (2010) Metodología de La Investigación. Quinta. México DF: McGraw-Hill.
36.
HeskettJLJonesTOLovemanGW, et al. (1994) Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review: 164–174.
37.
HostageGM (1975) Quality control in a service business. Harvard Business Review53(4): 98–106.
38.
HsiehJJP-ARaiAPetterS, et al. (2012) Impact of user satisfaction with mandated CRM use on employee service quality. MIS Quarterly36(4): 1065–1080.
Jiménez-GómezCE (2017) Hacia el estado abierto: Justicia abierta en américa latina y el caribe. In: NaserARamírez-AlujasÁRosalesD (eds) Desde El Gobierno Abierto Al Estado Abierto En América Latina y El Caribe. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), pp. 231–251. doi: 10.18356/34034156-es.
41.
JoiaLA (2008) The impact of government-to-government endeavors on the intellectual capital of public organizations. Government Information Quarterly25(2): 256–277. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.06.004.
42.
JoiaLA (2009) Governo eletrônico e capital intelectual nas organizações públicas. Revista de Administração Pública43(6): 1379–1405. doi: 10.1590/S0034-76122009000600008.
43.
KimDAmmeterT (2014) Predicting personal information system adoption using an integrated diffusion model. Information and Management 51(4). Elsevier B.V.: 451–464. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2014.02.011.
44.
KositanuritBNgwenyamaOOsei-BrysonK-M (2006) An exploration of factors that impact individual performance in an ERP environment: an analysis using multiple analytical techniques. European Journal of Information Systems15(6): 556–568. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000654.
45.
KraemerKLDanzigerJNDunkleDE, et al. (1993) The usefulness of computer-based information to public managers. MIS Quarterly17(2): 129. doi: 10.2307/249798.
46.
KumarRSachanAMukherjeeA (2017) Qualitative approach to determine user experience of e-government services. Computers in Human Behavior 71. Elsevier B.V.: 299–306. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.023.
47.
LapointeLRivardS (2005) A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly29(3): 2005. doi: 10.2307/25148692.
48.
LezcanoJMOliveraN (2009) The Electronic Ombudsman. In: Proceedings of the 3 rd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV ‘09, New York, New York, USA, 2009, p. 218. ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/1693042.1693086.
LuzuriagaJMCechichA (2011) Electronic notification of court documents. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV ‘11, New York, New York, USA, 2011, p. 45. ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2072069.2072077.
51.
LuzuriagaJMMartínezRCechichA (2009) Design and implementation of an electronic signature solution in the Justice Area. In: Proceedings of the 3 rd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV ‘09, New York, New York, USA, 2009, p. 299. ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/1693042.1693104.
52.
Martinez-VillaBAMachin-MastromatteoJD (2016) Four theories to improve justice in Latin America. Information Development32(4): 1284–1288. doi: 10.1177/0266666916658588.
53.
MusliminIHadiSPNugrohoE (2017) An evaluation model using perceived user technology organization fit variable for evaluating the success of information systems. Scientific Journal of Informatics4(2): 86–94.
PangM-SLeeGDeLoneWH (2014) In public sector organisations: a public-value management perspective. Journal of Information Technology 29(3): 187–205. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.2.
56.
ParkEGOhW (2019) Developing a Government Openness Index: The case of developing countries. Information Development35(1): 121–134. doi: 10.1177/0266666917731946.
57.
ParkMJDulambazarTRhoJJ (2015) The effect of organizational social factors on employee performance and the mediating role of knowledge sharing: focus on e-government utilization in Mongolia. Information Development31(1): 53–68. doi: 10.1177/0266666913494908.
58.
PetterSDeLoneWMcLeanER (2013) Information systems success: The quest for the independent variables. Journal of Management Information Systems29(4): 7–61. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222290401.
59.
RaineJW (2000) Modernising courts or courting modernisation?International Journal of Public Sector Management13(5): 390–416. doi: 10.1108/09513550010350788.
60.
RaineJWWillsonMJ (1996) Managerialism and beyond: the case of criminal justice. International Journal of Public Sector Management9(4): 20–33. doi: 10.1108/09513559610128672.
61.
Sandoval-AlmazánR (2017) Open Justice in Latin America? An Assessment Framework for Judiciary Portals in 2015. In: Jiménez-GómezCEGascó-HernándezM (eds) Achieving Open Justice through Citizen Participation and Transparency. Hershey PA, USA: IGI Global, pp. 232–252. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0717-8.ch012.
62.
Sandoval-AlmazánRGil-GarciaJR (2015) Understanding judicial websites: An exploration of portals in the states of Mexico. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences2015-March: 2106–2114. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2015.253.
63.
Sandoval-AlmazánRValle-CruzD (2016) Open Justice in Latin America: judiciary websites under scrutiny. In: ICEGOV ‘15-16, Montevideo, Uruguay, 2016, pp. 287–290. doi: 10.1145/2910019.2910088.
64.
SerranoCKarahannaE (2016) The compensatory interaction between user capabilities and technology capabilities in influencing task performance: an empirical assessment in telemedicine consultations. MIS Quarterly40(3): 597–621.
65.
ShahrekiJNakanishiH (2016) The relationship between Task Technology Fit and individual performance: case study in hotel industry in Malaysia. Journal of Soft Computing and Decision Support Systems3(6): 1–15. Available at: http://jscdss.com/index.php/files/article/view/114.
66.
SilvaRAFGuimarães T deASousaMM (2019) What judges think about the meaning of their work. International Journal for Court Administration10(1): 59. doi: 10.18352/ijca.258.
67.
Sousa M deMGuimarães T deA (2017) The adoption of innovations in Brazilian labour courts from the perspective of judges and court managers. Revista de Administração52(1). Departamento de Administração, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo - FEA/USP: 103–113. doi: 10.1016/j.rausp.2016.09.008.
68.
StakeRE (2005) Qualitative Case Studies. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 443–466.
69.
SunHFangYZouH (Melody) (2016) Choosing a fit technology: understanding mindfulness in technology adoption and continuance. Journal of the Association for Information Systems17(6): 377–412. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol17/iss6/2 (accessed 1 September 2016).
TorkzadehGDollWJ (1999) The development of a tool for measuring the perceived impact of information technology on work. Omega27(3): 327–339. doi: 10.1016/S0305-0483(98)00049-8.
73.
VelicognaMSteigengaETaalS, et al. (2018) Connecting EU jurisdictions. Social Science Computer Review: 1–21. doi: 10.1177/0894439318786949.
74.
VenkateshVThongJXuX (2016) Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: a synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems17(5). Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol17/iss5/1(accessed 1 September 2016).
75.
WangYSLiaoYW (2008) Assessing eGovernment systems success: A validation of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success. Government Information Quarterly25(4): 717–733. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.06.002.
76.
WangYSWangH-YSheeDY (2007) Measuring e-learning systems success in an organizational context: Scale development and validation. Computers in Human Behavior23(4): 1792–1808. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.006.
77.
YildizM (2007) E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly24(3): 646–665. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.002.
78.
YinRK (2001) Estudo de Caso: Planejamento e Métodos. 2a. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
