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

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. Reddick
Associate 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 study
focusesspecificallyonlocalegovernmentdevelopmentofprojectsinEgypt.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. This chapter applies the Delone and Mclean (1992; 2003) model of information system
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, with Northern African countries leading the continent. The top
ranked countries in Africa were Tunisia, Mauritius, and Egypt (United Nations, 2010). The World Bank
3

hasrecognizedtheimportanceofegovernmentforAfricaandcalledforaneTransformation,orusing
InformationandCommunicationTechnology(ICT)topromotethelivesandwellbeingofcitizens(World
Bank,2010).

Thischapterfirstexaminesthereasonsforsuccessandfailureofegovernmentprojects.Thisisfollowed
by a discussion of the information systems success model and how this model can be translated into
testablehypothesisexaminingegovernmentprojectsinEgypt.Italsoincludesbackgroundinformation
provided on a local egovernment investment service project Egypt. Finally, it involves a testing of the
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 egovernment
implementation in Africa and in its ability to transform service delivery. However, these extremely
advancedsystemsmaynotworkinthecontextofadevelopingcountryandshouldbemodifiedtofitthe
contextofthecountry(Chen,Chen,Ching,&Huang,2007).

Withtheadvancementofegovernmentindevelopedcountries,itisincreasinglyimportanttoknowthe
reasons for successes and failures of egovernment projects (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,governments
generally lag behind (Goldfinch, 2007). This is especially apparent in developing countries where there
are many factors beyond the control of the project, most notably lack of bureaucratic inertia that
prevents wholesale change from a new egovernment system (Peterson, 1998). In addition, the larger
the scale and scope of the IT project, the more likely for failure of the system (Pardo & Scholl, 2002;
Heeks, 2002b; Goldfinch, 2007). There is also the issue of complexity of the system, and this increases
the risk of failure of the system in its implementation (Melin & Axelsson, 2009). Besides the issues of
bureaucratic culture that prevents the implementation of egovernment projects in developing
countries,someothercommonbarriersarepoorinfrastructure,lackoffinances,poordatasystemsand
capability,lackofskilledpersonnel,andleadershipstyles(Gichoya,2005).

Drawing on Wilson & Howcroft (2002), Goldfinch (2007) summarizes three types of IT project failures:
(1) Project failure: the project does not meet the specification agreed upon, including the functional
requirements, budget, or completion deadline; (2) System failure: the system does not work properly,
includingexpectedperformance,notbeingusedinthewayintended,orusedasintendedbutdoesnot
deliver the expected benefits, or (3) User failure: the system is not used in the face of user resistance
becauseofsuchthingsaslackoftraining,abilityofstaff,andthecomplexityofthenewsystem(Wilson
& Howcroft, 2002). Often in developing countries, the implementation of information systems fails to
meet the objectives of the originally set goals (system failure), which is a high price for countries that
lackresourcesforthesesystems(Heeks,2002b;Krishna&Walsham,2005).

Informationsystemsingeneralandegovernmentprojectsinparticular,havemanydiverseandcomplex
challenges that are not easy to overcome (GilGarcia & Pardo, 2005). The fact that systems are
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
dimensions have much more complex interactions than most private sector initiatives. Third, for the
publicsectortheplanninghorizon,duetobudgetrestrictionsandelectoralprocesses,makesthislonger
thantheprivatesector.Fourth,thelegalandregulatoryissuesaremuchmorepronouncedinthepublic
sector. Fifth,thepolitical natureofdecisionmaking in thepublicsectormakes projectmanagement of
egovernmentmuchmoredifficult.Finally,sincethepublicsectordoesnotmakeaprofit,thereturnon
investment is much moredifficulttodeterminethan inthe private sector counterparts (Gupta & Jana,
2003). Therefore, it is critical to study IT project management in the context of the public sector, and
thisisdonethroughacommonlyusedinformationsystemssuccessmodel.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUCCESS MODEL

One of the most commonly used information system success model is that of the Delone and Mclean
(1992;2003)andextensionsofthismodel(Seddon,1997).However,twoalternativemodelsthatcould
have been applied to this case study of egovernment project management in Egypt should be briefly
mentioned. The oldest theory is the diffusion of innovations. According to Rogers (2003) theory e
governmentwouldbeaninnovationwithdifferenttypesofadopters,witheachofthemhavingunique
characteristics. While the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been used in the study of
management information systems, there is some similarity to the diffusion of innovations model, but
there is more emphasis on socialpsychological influences on innovation (Davis, 1986). The important
component of the TAM is the perceived usefulness of the new technology, the higher the more 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 enhancing job
performance (Hamner & Qazi, 2009). Research has integrated the TAM and diffusion of innovations
theory and found significant evidence of both having an impact on egovernment services (Carter &
Belanger,2005;Dimitrova&Chen,2006).

FollowingarethesixattributesofsuccessfulinformationsystemsaccordingtothePetter,DeLone,and
McLeanmodel(2008):

System Quality: This is the desirable characteristics of an information system such as its ease of use
systemflexibility,systemreliability,andeaseoflearning.
Information Quality: The desirable characteristics of system outputs such as relevance of information,
understandability,accuracy,completeness,andusabilityofinformation.
Service Quality: The quality of system support that users get from the IT department such as
responsiveness,accuracy,andtechnicalcompetencefrompersonnelstaff.
System Use: The manner in which staff and customers use the capabilities of an 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

Net Benefits: This is the extent in which the egovernment information system is contributing 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
taxation systems (Hu, Brown, Thong, et al., 2009; Floropoulos, Spathis, Halvatzis, & Tsipouridou, 2010)
and inegovernment in Taiwan(Wang& Liao,2008).Thereare alsodifferent applications of the model
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).TheDeloneand Mclean(1992; 2003)model
hasbeensuccessfullyappliedtoinformationsystemsintheprivatesector,andtoselectedcountriesand
egovernmentsystems.However,ithasnotbeenappliedtoegovernmentprojectmanagementinEgypt
beforeasthischapterwillexplore.

RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
Thisstudybuildsonthecomprehensivemultidimensionalmodel(Figure1)ofanegovernmentsystems
successmodelproposedbyWang&Liao(2008).TheirmodelwasdevelopedinaccordancewithDeLone
& McLean (2003), and suggested six success variables in egovernment systems: information quality,
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
H2
H8
H9
H7
H3
H4
H5
H6

Figure1. Theoretical Research Model

Similar to Wang & Liao (2008), this study considers the use of egovernment system. However, the
challengefortheresearcheristodefineclearlyandcarefullythestakeholdersandcontextinwhichnet
benefitaretobemeasured(DeLone&McLean,2003,p.23).Differentstakeholdersmayhavedifferent
opinionsastowhatconstitutesabenefittothem(Seddon,Staples,Patnayakuni,&Bowtell,1999).Thus,
given thenatureoftheprojectbeinginvestigated,thefocus ofthis studyison themeasurementofe
government systems success from the perspective of employees who are the users of the 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,thecountryisdividedinto
29 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
within a governorate deal directly to citizens and can be logically categorized in four major sections:
internalservices,externalservices,administrativedepartments,andtopmanagement.

Internal services departments provide services pertinent to the municipalities, covering housing,
constructionpermits,commerciallicenses,andthataredirectlymanagedbythemayor/districtcouncil
director.Externalservicesdepartmentsprovidethespecializedservicessuchaseducation,health,social
security,agriculturalservices,andreport administrativelytothemayor,andtechnically totherelevant
ministries.Thecity/districtcouncilsexerttheirauthorityoverthesedepartmentsthroughcommitteesin
which all these departments are members and not through direct management. Administrative
departmentsarethesupportingdepartmentsthatperformthenecessaryadministrativetasksrequired
for thecouncil,suchashumanresources, accounting, transportation, andtheydonot provide services
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 the alignment of investments projects with the community development track,
the approval of investment projects proposed by investors, allocation of the required lands to these
projects, and tracking the conformity of ongoing projects with their originally set objectives and rules.
Duetothecriticalnatureofitsfunctions,thisdepartmenthasbeenoneofthefocusingareasofEgypt
governmentadministrativereforminitiativesexaminedinthisstudy.

Local E-Government Program

Egypt Information and Communication Technology (ICT) strategy was established in 2001 in what was
calledtheEgyptianInformationSocietyInitiative(EISI).EISIwasdividedintoseventracks;oneofwhich
is egovernment. The egovernment program in Egypt started in 2001 within the Ministry of
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
government as an element of administrative reform and development. In fact, the other mandate of
MSADistheinstitutionalreformofpublicadministration.

Initially, the egovernment program consisted of four major tracks: (1) egovernment legislative and
technical standards infrastructure;(2)egovernment services delivery; (3)enterprise resource planning
(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 focuses on service enhancement in municipalities through the automation of citizen services and
the establishment of the socalled Smart CitizenServiceCenters. The second is concerned with 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. ELGDP projects do not aim to fully automate the services, but rather to provide better
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
integrated Management Information System and Geographical Information System (MISGIS) as a part
of the governorate investment services enhancement projectthat was carried out inthree different
sites(governorates)inEgypt.Thefollowingsubsectionwillbrieflyintroduceandcomparethethreesites
tofamiliarizethereaderwiththecontext.

Three Sites
Figure 2 shows the locations of the governorates in Egypt where this project has been implemented.
Projectsitesarethecapitalcitiesofthethreegovernorates:Matrouh(governorateofMatrouh),AlTor
(governorateofSouthSinai),andPortSaid(governorateofPortSaid).

Figure 2. Location of project sites.

MatrouhisabordergovernorateandoneofthevastestgovernoratesinEgypt;itstretchesover450km
alongthe Mediterranean Sea withalarge areathatforms 16.6%ofthetotal areaofEgypt.Matrouh is
mainlyadesertwithlimitedeconomicactivitiesinthefieldsoftourism,olivecultivationandprocessing,
aswellasotherhandicraftactivities.ThemajorityofinvestmentprojectinMatrouhisintourism.
In contrast, SouthSinaiis much smallerthanMatrouh witharea representing3.1%of thetotalarea of
Egypt. South Sinai is one of the most touristic governorates in Egypt; it contains historical places like
MountSinai andSt.Catherine'sMonastery,inadditiontorecreationalareaswithitsdivingparadiseand
itsreserves.Itattractstheinvestorstoestablishtouristicprojectslikehotelsandresorts,anditcontains
14.7%ofthetotalnumberofhotelsinEgypt.

Port Said differs from the two above governorates in the fact that it is basically an urban governorate
withthecityofPortSaidatitscenter.ThecityofPortSaidisaFreeZonePortontheMediterranean,at
theentranceofthe Suez Canal. Itseconomic activitiesarebasicallytrade, commerce,maritime service
andindustriesaswellasnationaltourism.Itisquitelimitedinareaandpopulation.Thecityhadseveral
institutes that were part of the Suez Canal Universities, out of which emerged the University of Port
Said.ThegovernorateofPortSaidmainlyconsistsofthecityofPortSaiddividedintofivedistrictsand
thecityofPortFouad.

Matrouh and South Sinai governorates are similar in many aspects: they are both sparse governorates
with vast unused desert lands and extended coasts. The main investments inboth governorates are 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 SouthSinai
Portsaid
Population(thousands) 323,381 150,088 570,603
(%ofEgyptspopulation) 2.21 0.21 1.25
Area(1000km
2
) 166,563 31,272 1.3511
(%ofEgyptsArea) 16.6 3.1 0.13
No.ofphonecentrals 20 20 9
No.ofpostoffices 37 94 36
Illiteracyasa% 26.2 10.1 13.5

9

Project Description
Thissectionprovidesabriefdescriptionofthesystem.Themainobjectiveoftheprojectistoassistthe
localauthoritiestoproperlyplan,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
information management in government with a strong institutional impact (Fountain, 2001). Without
ICT,thelocalauthoritieswouldpoorlyplanandmanageitsdevelopmentalprojects.Thesystemcovers
all the service related procedure bypassing the cumbersome paperbased activities. Most of the
investment department activities require human intervention and insight. Thus, the integrated system
does not completely replace the manual system, but rather complements it since original supporting
documentsarerequiredbylaw.

Figure 3. Conceptual System Relations

TheGISimplementedinthisproject(Figure4)containslayersrepresentingthelandtopology,usage,the
available utilities and services, the current and contracted projects and their types as well as satellite
image of the region. The GIS represents a central component in enhancing decision making. While
spatial information is managed through the GIS unit, this information is availed to other departments
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 the project requirements. Administrative and Spatial data are consolidated in one
systemtobejointlyanalyzedandsupportthedecisionmakingwithinthegovernorate.

10

Figure 4. Integrated MIS-GIS

Current Project Status

ThefirstimplementationoftheprojectwasinMatrouhin2006.Backthen,thesystemwasbroughtto
operation with a noticeably successful implementation that led to plan for its rollout in several other
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.

Matrouhprojectstartedand remainedfunctional forseveralmonths; afterwhich thesystemwentout

of operation until revived with the new Matrouh management. The case, thus, can be classified as a
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, and enjoys the strong support of the top management, and thus seems to be a promising
success.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

Data collection procedure
As indicated earlier, the focus of this study is on the measurement of egovernment systems success
from the perspective of employees who are the users of the system under consideration. Therefore,
they represent the targeted population of this research. Given that the system was implemented in
three governorates, all the 48 employees in the investment departments in these governorates were
asked to participate in the survey. The data used to test the research model were obtained from 48
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

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
questions by assessing the system as is not based on their expectations of an ideal system. For each
question,respondentswereaskedtocircletheresponsewhichbestdescribedtheirlevelofagreement.
Thestudentresearchersproctoredtheprocessoffillinginthequestionnairestomakesureallquestions
wereclear.Atotalof48usableresponseswereobtained.

Detaileddescriptivestatisticsrelatedtotherespondents'characteristicsareshowninTable2.Themale
andfemalerespondentswereequalinnumber.Furthermore,theyoungerrespondentsintheagerange
of 2030 years outnumbered the other respondents (35.6%). Most of the users of the systems had a
universitydegree(79.2%).Therewasanevenmixofrespondentsfromeachofthethreegovernorates.

Table2.Samplecharacteristics
ValidPercentage Number Characteristic
Gender
50.0 24 Female
50.0 24 Male
Age
35.6 16 2030
20.0 9 3140
20.0 9 4150
24.4 11 >51
Education
20.8 10 HighSchool/diploma
79.2 38 University
0.0 0 Master
0.0 0 Ph.D.
Governorate
35.4 17 SouthSinai
31.3 15 Matrouh
33.3 16 PortSaid

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 review and indepth interviews conducted with Small
and MediumSized Enterprises (SMEs) established the basis of content validity for the survey
instrument.AsinWang&Liao(2008),toensurethecontentvalidityofthescalesusedinthestudy,this
chapter tries to adapt, as much as possible, items for the constructs from prior studies. However, the
targetedsample/stakeholderisdifferentfromDeLoneandMcLean(2003),sincenewitemsdrawnfrom
Heeks&Bhatnagar(1999)areincluded.Fortheinformationqualityconstruct,twoitems(IQ2andIQ3)
areadaptedfromDoll&Torkzadeh(1988)tocapturethetwoattributesofinformationqualityofane
governmentsystemofthecontentandtimeliness.

Additionally, one item (SQ 6) from Doll & Torkzadeh (1988) as adapted by Wang & Liao (2008) is
selectedtomeasuresystemqualityinanegovernmentsystem.Oneitem(SV4),selectedfromWang&
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) user performance scale, are included to measure perceived net benefit. Items
used in this study are listed in Appendix A. The measurement in this study relies on Likertscales
measurement with the 5 point scale: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, on a
numericalscalefrom1to5.AsummaryofthesurveystatisticsisshowninTable3.

The purpose of construct validity is to show that the items measure what they purport to measure.
Unidimensionalityisestablished withexploratoryfactor analysis, where0.30isgenerallyconsidered to
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 the
factoranalysiscouldbeconducted.

Reliability is the extent to which a variable or set of variables is consistent in what it is intended to
measure. If multiple measurements are taken, the reliable measures will all be very consistent in their
values(Hair,Tatham,&Anderson,1998).ThisresearchusesCronbachsalpha,asitisthemostpopular
technique and most suitable for the study. The Cronbach alpha (Cronbach, 1951) is a reliability
coefficient that indicates how well the item is positively correlated to one another. It is computed in
terms of the average intercorrelations among the item measuring the concept. The closer Cronbach
alphaisto1thehighertheinternalconsistencyreliability(Sekaran,2003).

Thewidelyacceptedsocialsciencecutoffisthatalphashouldbe0.7orhigherforasetofitemstobe
consideredascale,butsomeuse0.75or0.8whileothersareaslenientas0.5(Garson,2008;Schraga,
Morleyb,Quinnb,&Jahanshahib,2004;Bullinger,Power,Aaronson,Cella,&Anderson,1996).Cuieford
(1965)alsothoughtthattheCronbachsvaluehigherthan0.7indicateshighvalidity,thevaluebetween
0.7 and 0.35 means acceptable validity, and the value lower than 0.35 means rejected validity. 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
respondentsreplies tothe questionnaire.Table 5 provides a listof allthe alphavaluesobtained atthe
factorlevel.

Table3.Questionnairesummarystatistics
Standarddeviation Mean Question
InformationQuality
1.41 2.04 IQ1
1.32 1.96 IQ2
1.41 2.06 IQ3
1.29 2.04 IQ4
0.41 2.13 IQ5
SystemQuality
1.52 3.31 SQ1
1.65 3.21 SQ2
1.89 2.69 SQ3
13

1.49 2.17 SQ4

1.35 1.75 SQ5
1.27 1.85 SQ6
ServiceQuality
1.52 2.44 SV1
1.5 2.13 SV2
0.43 0.77 SV3
1.53 2.33 SV4
Use
1.44 2.19 U1
1.42 2.38 U2
UserSatisfaction
1.33 2.27 US1
1.38 1.94 US2
1.28 2.4 US3
1.43 1.69 US4
PerceivedNetBenefit
1.79 2.19 NB1
1.61 2.13 NB2
1.91 3.08 NB3
1.35 2.21 NB4
1.4 20.4 NB5
1.87 2.35 NB6
1.31 2.02 NB7

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 0.592
SQ4 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

U2 0.906
UserSatisfaction 0.81 0.000 1 4
US1 0.906
US2 0.871
US3 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
the hypothesis (H
a
: employees did not differ in their perception of system success factors in South Sinai,
Matrouh,andPortSaid).AstheresultsinTable6show,thestudyisabletorejectthenullhypothesis.Thus,
data from all respondents can be grouped and analyzed as one group. Table 7 presents the correlation
amongdifferentmodelfactors.Asshown,significantcorrelations(p<0.01)arefoundamongallmodelfactors
withstrengthvaryingfrom0.5to0.9.

Table6.ANOVAresults
Factor Sumof
Squares
Df Mean
Square
F Sig.
InformationQuality BetweenGroups 2.263 2 1.131 1.138 .329
WithinGroups 44.737 45 .994
Total 47.000 47
SystemQuality BetweenGroups 2.389 2 1.194 1.205 .309
WithinGroups 44.611 45 .991
Total 47.000 47
ServiceQuality BetweenGroups 2.610 2 1.305 1.323 .276
15

WithinGroups 44.390 45 .986

Total 47.000 47
Use BetweenGroups 6.096 2 3.048 3.353 .044
WithinGroups 40.904 45 .0909
Total 47.000 47
UserSatisfaction BetweenGroups 3.416 2 1.708 1.764 .183
WithinGroups 43.584 45 .969
Total 47.000 47
PerceivedNetBenefit BetweenGroups 2.727 2 1.364 1.386 .261
WithinGroups 44.274 45 .984
Total 47.000 47

Table7.Correlationbetweendifferentfactors
Perceived
Net
Benefit
User
Satisfaction
Use Service
Quality
System
Quality
Information
Quality
1 InformationQuality
1 0.943
**
SystemQuality
1 0.638
**
0.644
**
ServiceQuality
1 0.541
**
0.686
**
0.650
**
Use
1 0.759
**
0.435
**
0.807
**
0.733
**
UserSatisfaction
1 0.865
**
0.826
**
0.457
**
0.796
**
0.688
**
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

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***
R
2
=0.4895
R
2
=0.7603
R
2
=0.8583

Figure5.Hypothesestestingresults.

Asthefiguresdepicts,systemqualityhasasignificantinfluenceonbothuseandusersatisfaction.
Thus, hypotheses H2 and H5 are supported (=0.62 and =0.81, respectively). The influences of
informationqualityonbothuseandusersatisfactionwerenotsignificantatp<.001.Thus,wehavenot
been able to support hypotheses H1 and H4 at that level. As for service quality, H3 is supported with
=0.18 at p<0.1. Use influence on user satisfaction was significant with = 0.43 which supports H7. H8
andH9werealsosupportedwith=0.40and=0.56respectivelydepictingtheinfluenceofuseanduser
satisfactiononperceivednetbenefit.

This model accounts for 86% of the variance in perceived net benefit, with user satisfaction exerting a
stronger direct effect than use on perceived net benefit. In addition, 49% of the variance in use was
explained byinformationquality, system quality, service quality, and use, while 76% of the variance in
usersatisfactionwasexplainedbyinformationquality,systemquality,andservicequality.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The results of the SEM indicate that greater system quality leads to increased use and satisfaction by
users of the investment systems for the three governorates. There are also important implications in
thatuseandusersatisfactionisconnectedtogreaterperceivednetbenefitoftheinformationsystem.
The managerial significance of these findings is important. Public managers need to be aware that the
quality of the system determines its use. Therefore, systems designs that lower the quality would
impedeuseandsatisfactionandtheultimatesuccessoftheegovernmentproject.Itisespeciallycrucial
for a developing country like Egypt, whose resources are very restricted, to realize the importance of
improvingthesystemsuccessthroughquality(Heeks,2002a;Schuppan,2009).
Comparing Wang and Liaos (2008) application of the information systems success model to Taiwan
indicates some different results in the context of Egypt. They have found a relationship between
information quality and use as well as a relationship between service quality and user satisfaction.
Neitherofthesefindingsisdiscoveredbythepresentstudy.Onthewhole,mostoftheattributesforthe
modelcanbeappliedtotheEgyptiancontextsupportingitsuseinothercountries.

17

CONCLUSION
This chapter applies the Delone and Mclean (1992; 2003) information systems success model to the
developmentofanEgyptianinvestmentprojectsinlocalgovernments.Theresultsofthisstudyconfirm
thatfactorsfoundintheinformationsystemssuccessmodelwereapplicabletoEgyptianegovernment
projectmanagement.Therehasbeenanespeciallystrongindicationthatinformationsuccessisrelated
to the net benefit to the organization and user satisfaction. Therefore, management is critical for the
development of egovernment projects in Egypt. Management should spend more time on explaining
how their egovernment project impacts the organization, so that users have a broader understanding
ofthesystem.Inaddition,increasedusersatisfactionexplainsegovernmentprojectsuccess;something
thatcanbeeasilyaddressedbyeducationandtrainingintheworkplace.

Based on the results presented in this study, there are three management concerns that can be
addressed. First, instituting a system of beta testing the software before implementation by a select
groupofusersmakessense.Sinceinformationsystemsuccessisrelatedtosystemsqualitymakingsure
that this is adequately addressed through testing is imperative. A second recommendation for public
managers is to have an adequate training program for users of the system. Since use and user
satisfaction is related to the perceived net benefits, it is logical to have a system where experienced
userstrainmorenoviceusersonthesystems.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Future research should examine the information success model in the context of accounting for more
political and managerial factors that might influence egovernment projects. These issues have
traditionallybeenunderrepresentedinthesemodels.However,theyneedtocometotheforegiventhe
unique differences in public and private sector information systems. This study was also limited to a
small sample size, and therefore, future research could examine multiple projects and the information
systemsuccessmodel.

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 STUDY

Informationquality
IQ1. Dataneededforsystemoperationsisavailable
IQ2. TheSystemprovidesthepreciseinformationthatIneed(Doll&Torkzadeh,1988)
IQ3. Thesystemprovidesuptodateinformation(Doll&Torkzadeh,1988)
IQ4. Dataresultingfromthesystemissuitableandmatchesbusinessneeds
IQ5. Thesystempresentsoutputdatainrepresentativeandsuitableway
IQ6. Systemquality
Systemquality
SQ1. Thesystemcrashedseveraltimes
SQ2. Thereisperiodicalmaintenanceofthehardwareandsoftware
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. Thesystemsatisfiesuserrequirements
US3. 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

REFERENCES


Abdelsalam,H.M.,&ElKadi,H.A.(2007).ICTtoEnhanceAdministrativePerformance:ACaseStudy
fromEgypt.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,QualityofLifeandPharmacoeconomicsinClinicalTrials
(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

Fountain,J.E.(2001).Buildingthevirtualstate:Informationtechnologyandinstitutionalchange.
Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress.
Furlong,S.,&AlKaraghouli,W.(2010).Deliveringprofessionalprojects:Theeffectivenessofproject
managementintransformationalegovernmentinitiatives.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:Mappingpracticaltoolsto
theoreticalfoundations.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

Maumbe,B.,Owei,V.,&Alexander,H.(2008).Questioningthepaceandpathwayofegovernment
developmentinAfrica:AcasestudyofSouthAfricasCapegatewayproject.Government
InformationQuarterly,25(4),757777.
Melin,U.,&Axelsson,K.(2009).Managingeservicedevelopmentcomparingtwoegovernmentcase
studies.TransformingGovernment:People,ProcessandPolicy,3(3),248270.
Pardo,T.A.,&Scholl,H.J.(2002).WalkingAtoptheCliffs:AvoidingFailureandReducingRiskinLarge
ScaleEGovernmentProjects.Proceedingsofthe35
th
HawaiiInternationalConferenceon
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(5
th
edition).NewYork:FreePress.
Sarantis,D.,Smithson,S.,Charalabidis,Y.,&DimitrisAskounis,D.(2010).ACriticalAssessmentof
ProjectManagementMethodswithRespecttoElectronicGovernmentImplementation
Challenges.SystemicPracticeandActionResearch,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

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.

ProjectFailure:Theprojectdoesnotmeetthespecificationagreedupon,includingthefunctional
requirements,budget,orcompletiondeadline.

SystemFailure:Thesystemdoesnotworkproperly,includingexpectedperformance,notbeingusedin
thewayintended,orusedasintendedbutdoesnotdelivertheexpectedbenefits.

UserFailure:Thesystemisnotusedinthefaceofuserresistancebecauseofsuchthingsas
recalcitrance,lackoftrainingandabilityofstaff,andthecomplexityofthenewsystem.