article

Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating User-centered and Citizen-centered E-government

Authors:

Paul T. Jaeger,

John Carlo BertotAuthors Info & Claims

International Journal of Electronic Government Research, Volume 6, Issue 2

Pages 1 - 17

https://doi.org/10.4018/jegr.2010040101

Published: 01 April 2010 Publication History

Abstract

The effectiveness of user interactions and engagement with e-government hinges on the extent to which the information and services being offered are user-centered, and in particular citizen-centered. E-government is not effectively serving users if they cannot find the information and services that they seek due to organizational, educational, policy, or management issues; do not have the skills to properly interact with e-government; do not understand the results that they get; or do not trust the information that they receive. As such, user-centered design and evaluation must be a key consideration in the development and management of e-government. Building on a range of previous research by the authors, this article will examine the issues of the designing for, evaluation of, and research about user-centered e-government and implications for e-government policy and management.

References

[1]

Anderson. 2002. A usability analysis of selected federal government web sites. Washington, DC: Author.

[2]

Baker, D. L. 2009. Advancing e-government performance in the United States through enhanced usability benchmarks. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 75-81.

[3]

Barr, S. 2007. Public less satisfied with government websites. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001338.html

[4]

Bertot, J. C. 2003. The multiple dimensions of the digital divide: more than the technology 'haves' and 'have nots.' . Government Information Quarterly, 202, 185-191.

[5]

Bertot, J. C., & Jaeger, P. T. 2006. User-centered e-government: Challenges and benefits for government Web sites. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 163-168.

[6]

Bertot, J. C., & Jaeger, P. T. 2008. The e-government paradox: Better customer service doesn't necessarily cost less. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 149-154.

[7]

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Langa, L. A., & McClure, C. R. 2006a. Public access computing and Internet access in public libraries: The role of public libraries in e-government and emergency situations. First Monday, 119. Retrieved from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/bertot/index.html.

[8]

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Langa, L. A., & McClure, C. R. 2006b. Drafted: I want you to deliver e-government. Library Journal, 13113, 34-39.

[9]

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & McClure, C. R. 2008. User-centered e-government services: Benefits, costs, and research needs. Paper presented at the 9th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research.

Digital Library

[10]

Bertot, J. C., Snead, J. T., Jaeger, P. T., & McClure, C. R. 2006. Functionality, usability and accessibility: Iterative user-centered assessment strategies for digital libraries. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 71, 17-28.

[11]

Borins, I. 2002. On the frontiers of electronic governance: A report on the United States and Canada. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68, 199-211.

[12]

Brinkley, D. 2006. The great deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. New York: Harper Perennial.

[13]

Browning, G. 2002. Electronic democracy: Using the Internet to transform American politics 2nd ed. Medford, NJ: Cyberage Books/Information Today.

Digital Library

[14]

Burroughs, J. M. 2009. What users want: Assessing government information preferences to drive information services. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 203-218.

[15]

Chadwick, A. 2001. The electronic face of government in the Internet age: Borrowing from Murray Edelman. Information Communication and Society, 43, 435-457.

[16]

Chadwick, A., & May, C. 2003. Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the Internet: "E-government" in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance, 162, 271-300.

[17]

Chang, A., & Kannan, P. K. 2008. Leveraging Web 2.0 in government. New York: IBM Business of Government Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/main/publications/bog/chang_fall08.pdf

[18]

Cilan, C. A., Bolat, B. A., & Coskun, E. 2009. Analyzing digital divide within and between member and candidate countries of European Union. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 98-107.

[19]

Coleman, S. 2004. Connecting Parliament to the public via the Internet. Information Communication and Society, 71, 1-22.

[20]

Cooper, C., & Block, R. Disaster: Hurricane Katrina and the failure of homeland security. New York: Times Books.

[21]

Cullier, D., & Piotrowski, S. J. 2009. Internet information-seeking and its relation to support for access to government records. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 441-449.

[22]

Dawes, S. S. 2009. Governance in the digital age: A research and action framework for an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 257-264.

[23]

Dragulanescu, N.-G. 2002. Website quality evaluations: Criteria and tools. The International Information & Library Review, 34, 247-254.

[24]

Ebbers, W. E., Pieterson, W. J., & Noordman, H. N. 2008. Electronic government: Rethinking channel management strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 181-201.

[25]

Ebbers, W. E., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. 2007. Resistance and support to electronic government, building a model of innovation. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 554-575.

[26]

Eschenfelder, K. R., Beachboard, J. C., McClure, C. R., & Wyman, S. K. 1997. Assessing US federal government websites. Government Information Quarterly, 14, 173-189.

[27]

Feinberg, L. E. 2004. FOIA, federal information policy, and information availability in a post-9/11 world. Government Information Quarterly, 21, 439-460.

[28]

Fenton, R. 2004. United Kingdom adoption agency Web sites. First Monday, 92. Retrieved from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_2/fenton/index.html.

[29]

Gauld, R., Gray, A., & McComb, S. 2009. How responsive is e-government? Evidence from Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 69-74.

[30]

Gibson, A. N., Bertot, J. C., & McClure, C. R. 2009. Emerging roles of public libraries as e-government providers. Paper presented at the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences.

Digital Library

[31]

Google. 2008. Lessons learned from the 2008 campaign trail. Washington, DC: Author.

[32]

Gouscos, D., Kalikakis, M., Legal, M., & Papadopoulou, S. 2007. A general model of performance and quality for one-stop e-government service offerings. Government Information Quarterly, 224, 860-885.

[33]

Graff, G. M. 2007, December 2. Don't know their Yahoo from their YouTube. Washington Post.

[34]

Gupta, M. P., & Jana, D. 2003. E-government evaluation: A framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 365-387.

[35]

Halchin, L. E. 2004. Electronic government: Government capability or terrorist resource. Government Information Quarterly, 21, 406-419.

[36]

Hamner, M., & Al-Qahtani, R. 2009. Enhancing the case for electronic government in developing nations: A people-centric study focused in Saudi Arabia. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 118-127.

[37]

Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. 2007. Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 242, 243-265.

[38]

Ho, A. T.-K., & Ni, A. Y. 2004. Explaining the adoption of e-government features: A case study of Iowa County Treasurers' offices. American Review of Public Administration, 34, 164-180.

[39]

Hoffman, K. M. 2007. Government websites for special populations: Toward content-based evaluation. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Maryland, University Park, Maryland.

[40]

Horrigan, J. B. 2004. How Americans get in touch with government. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

[41]

Horrigan, J. B. 2006. Politics online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

[42]

Horrigan, J. B. 2008. Home broadband 2008. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

[43]

Horrigan, J. B., & Rainie, L. 2002. Counting on the Internet. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

[44]

Horst, M., Kuttschreuter, M., & Gutteling, J. M. 2007. Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in The Netherlands. Computers in Human Behavior, 234, 1838-1852.

Digital Library

[45]

Huang, C. J., & Chao, M.-H. 2001. Managing WWW in public administration: Uses and misuses. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 357-373.

[46]

Hung, S.-Y., Tnag, K.-Z., Chang, C.-M., & Ke, C.-D. 2009. User acceptance of intergovernmental services: An example of electronic document management system. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 387-397.

[47]

Jaeger, P. T. 2005. Deliberative democracy and the conceptual foundations of electronic government. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 702-719.

[48]

Jaeger, P. T. 2006. Assessing Section 508 compliance on federal e-government websites: A multi-method, user-centered evaluation of accessibility for persons with disabilities. Government Information Quarterly, 232, 169-190.

[49]

Jaeger, P. T. 2007. Information policy, information access, and democratic participation: The national and international implications of the Bush administration's information politics. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 840-859.

[50]

Jaeger, P. T. 2008. User-centered policy evaluations of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: Evaluating e-government websites for accessibility. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 191, 24-33.

[51]

Jaeger, P. T., & Fleischmann, K. R. 2007. Public libraries, values, trust, and e-government. Information Technology and Libraries, 264, 35-43.

[52]

Jaeger, P. T., Langa, L. A., McClure, C. R., & Bertot, J. C. 2007. The 2004 and 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes: Evolving roles and lessons learned for public libraries in disaster preparedness and community services. Public Library Quarterly, 253/4, 199-214.

[53]

Jaeger, P. T., & Matteson, M. 2009. E-government and technology acceptance: The implementation of Section 508 guidelines for e-government websites. Electronic Journal of E-Government, 71, 87-98. Retrieved from http://www.ejeg.com/volume-7/vol7-iss1/v7-i1-art8.htm

[54]

Jaeger, P. T., Paquette, S., & Simmons, S. N. 2010. Information policy in national political campaigns: A comparison of the 2008 campaigns for President of the United States and Prime Minister of Canada. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7, 1-16.

[55]

Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. 2003. E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and new directions. Government Information Quarterly, 204, 389-394.

[56]

Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. 2004. Social information behavior and the democratic process: Information poverty, normative behavior, and electronic government in the United States. Library & Information Science Research, 261, 94-107.

[57]

Jaeger, P. T., & Xie, B. 2009. Developing online community accessibility guidelines for persons with disabilities and older adults. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 55-63.

[58]

Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, J. 2002. Online and in the know: Uses and gratification of the Web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 54-71.

[59]

Kirtley, J. E. 2006. Transparency and accountability in a time of terror: The bush administration's assault on freedom of information. Communication Law and Policy, 11, 479-509.

[60]

Laris, M. 2009, January 4. O brave new world that has such avatars in it. Washington Post.

[61]

Lazar, J. 2005. Web usability: A user-centered design approach. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Digital Library

[62]

Mahler, J., & Regan, P. M. 2006. Crafting the message: Controlling content on agency Web sites. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 505-521.

[63]

McClure, C. R., Jaeger, P. T., & Bertot, J. C. 2007. The looming infrastructure plateau? Space, funding, connection speed, and the ability of public libraries to meet the demand for free Internet access. First Monday, 1212. Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2017/1907.

[64]

Mechling, J., & Booz Allen Hamilton. 2002. Building a methodology for measuring the value of e-services. Washington, DC: Booz Allen Hamilton.

[65]

Nagesh, G. 2009. Agencies used social media to manage salmonella outbreak. Nextgov. Retrieved from www.nextgov.com

[66]

Noveck, B. S. 2003. Designing deliberative democracy in cyberspace: The role of the cyber-lawyer. Boston University Journal of Science and Technology, 9, 1-91.

[67]

Pariser, E. 2008, December 28. Will he bring change.gov we can believe in? Washington Post, B04.

[68]

Pew Internet and American Life Project. 2007. Latest trends. Retrieved December 17, 2007 from http://www.pewinternet.org/trends.asp

[69]

Quinn, A. C., & Ramasubramanian, L. 2007. Information technologies and civic engagement: Perspectives from librarianship and planning. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 595-610.

[70]

Reddick, C. G. 2005. Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers? Government Information Quarterly, 22, 38-57.

[71]

Relyea, H. C., & Halchin, L. E. 2003. Homeland security and information management. In Bogart, D. Ed., The Bowker annual: Library and trade almanac 2003. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

[72]

Ritchie, H., & Blanck, P. 2003. The promise of the Internet for disability: A study of online services and website accessibility at centers for independent living. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 5-26. 12579615.

[73]

Roberts, N. 2004. Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. American Review of Public Administration, 34, 315-353.

[74]

Schedler, K., & Summermatter, L. 2007. Customer orientation in electronic government: Motives and effects. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 291-311.

[75]

Scott, J. K. 2006. "E" the people: Do US municipal government websites support public involvement? Public Administration Review, 663, 341-353.

[76]

Singh, A. K., & Sahu, R. 2008. Integrating Internet, telephones, and call centers for delivering better quality e-governance to all citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 477-490.

[77]

Smith, B., Fraser, B. T., & McClure, C. R. 2000. Federal information policy and access to We-based information. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26, 274-281.

[78]

Streib, G., & Navarro, I. 2006. Citizen demand for interactive e-government: The case of Georgia consumer services. American Review of Public Administration, 36, 288-300.

[79]

Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. 2006. The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 663, 354-369.

[80]

Toregas, C. 2001. The politics of e-gov: The upcoming struggle for redefining civic engagement. National Civic Review, 903, 235-240.

[81]

Tsai, N., Choi, B., & Perry, M. 2009. Improving the process of e-government initiative: An in-depth case study of web-based GIS implementation. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 368-376.

[82]

van den Haak, M. J., de Jong, M. D. T., & Schellens, P. J. 2009. Evaluating municipal websites: A methodological comparison of think-aloud variants. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 193-202.

[83]

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. 2009. Improving digital skills for the use of online public information and services. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 333-340.

[84]

van Dijk, J. A. G. M., Peters, O., & Ebbers, W. 2007. Explaining the acceptance and use of government Internet services: A Multivariate analysis of 2006 survey data in the Netherlands. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 148-164.

[85]

Vargas, J. A. 2008, December 28. Politics is no longer local: It's viral. Washington Post, B01.

[86]

Yildiz, M. 2007. E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 646-665.

Cited By

Escher NBanovic N(2020)Exposing Error in Poverty Management Technology: A Method for Auditing Government Benefits Screening ToolsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33928744:CSCW1(1-20)Online publication date: 29-May-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3392874
Panigrahi PVakeel K(2018)Social Media Usage in E-GovernmentJournal of Global Information Management10.4018/JGIM.201801010126:1(1-19)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/JGIM.2018010101
Fan Q(2018)Developing A Model for Transforming Government in the Digital AgeInternational Journal of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation10.4018/IJEEI.20180701048:2(44-53)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/IJEEI.2018070104
Show More Cited By

Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating User-centered and Citizen-centered E-government
1. Applied computing
  1. Computers in other domains
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Interaction design
    1. Interaction design process and methods

Recommendations

A Citizen-Oriented Approach for Evaluating the Performance of e-Government in Sri Lanka

This paper presents an empirical study of the performance of e-government in Sri Lanka from the perspective of citizens within a public value based conceptual framework. The delivery of quality public services, the effectiveness of public organizations, ...
Citizen-centered e-government services: benefits, costs, and research needs
dg.o '08: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Digital government research

The promise of E-Government (and its more recent spin-offs of E-Democracy, E-Participation, E-Procurement, and a range of other "E-'s") is to engage citizenry in government in a user-centered manner, but also to develop quality government services and ...
E-Government and Citizen Experiences in South Africa: Ethekwini Metropolitan Case Study
ICEGOV '19: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

As the desire for personalized interactions with government increases, efforts to enhance citizen- and business-focused digital government are becoming a norm in our society. The intention of this paper is to discuss the challenges that the EThekwini ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image International Journal of Electronic Government Research

International Journal of Electronic Government Research Volume 6, Issue 2

April 2010

85 pages

ISSN:1548-3886

EISSN:1548-3894

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

IGI Global

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 April 2010

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

23
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 29 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Escher NBanovic N(2020)Exposing Error in Poverty Management Technology: A Method for Auditing Government Benefits Screening ToolsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33928744:CSCW1(1-20)Online publication date: 29-May-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3392874
Panigrahi PVakeel K(2018)Social Media Usage in E-GovernmentJournal of Global Information Management10.4018/JGIM.201801010126:1(1-19)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/JGIM.2018010101
Fan Q(2018)Developing A Model for Transforming Government in the Digital AgeInternational Journal of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation10.4018/IJEEI.20180701048:2(44-53)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/IJEEI.2018070104
Pilemalm S(2018)Participatory Design in Emerging Civic Engagement Initiatives in the New Public SectorACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/315242025:1(1-26)Online publication date: 30-Jan-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3152420
Fröhlich KPeters AMasinde M(2017)e-government social exclusion and satisfaction among Namibian citizensProceedings of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists10.1145/3129416.3129435(1-6)Online publication date: 26-Sep-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3129416.3129435
Bertot JEstevez EJanowski T(2016)Digital Public Service InnovationProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance10.1145/2910019.2910108(113-122)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2910019.2910108
Garcia-Garcia L(2016)User Centric e-GovernmentProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance10.1145/2910019.2910102(432-435)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2910019.2910102
Shin D(2016)Application of actor-network theory to network neutrality in KoreaTelematics and Informatics10.1016/j.tele.2015.10.00233:2(436-451)Online publication date: 1-May-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.tele.2015.10.002
Iriberri A(2015)Natural Language Processing and Psychology in e-Government ServicesInternational Journal of Electronic Government Research10.5555/2795646.279564711:2(1-17)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2795646.2795647
Shin DShim Y(2015)Network neutrality in the eye of the beholderInternational Journal of Mobile Communications10.1504/IJMC.2015.07096613:5(510-534)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1504/IJMC.2015.070966
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents