Les facteurs et barrières pour l'adoption des services électroniques gouvernementaux

(1)

© Claudie-Ann Tremblay-Cantin, 2021

Les facteurs et barrières pour l'adoption des services

électroniques gouvernementaux.

Mémoire

Claudie-Ann Tremblay-Cantin

Maîtrise en sciences de l'administration - avec mémoire

Maître ès sciences (M. Sc.)

(2)

Les facteurs et barrières pour l’adoption des

services électroniques gouvernementaux

Mémoire

Claudie-Ann Tremblay-Cantin

Sous la direction de :

Sehl Mellouli, directeur de recherche

(3)

ii

Résumé

Les TI ont apporté de nouvelles possibilités d’améliorer l’efficience managériale et la qualité des services publics offerts aux citoyens (Ma and Zheng, 2019). Un service offert avec l’aide des technologies de l’information est appelé un service. C’est ce type de service qui est fourni par un gouvernement électronique ou e-gouvernement. Les gouvernements voulant implanter les e-services font face à d’importants défis : souvent, ils éprouvent des difficultés à fournir des e-services de qualité qui satisfont les demandes des citoyens, ce qui laisse un écart entre l’utilisation potentielle et l’utilisation réelle des services. Ceci est accentué par l’échec de rencontrer les besoins des citoyens et d’obtenir leur approbation (AL Athmay and al., 2016). Les gouvernements devraient porter davantage attention au développement de leurs et services pour donner plus d’avantages aux utilisateurs parce que l’adoption des services par les citoyens est le critère de succès des e-services (Ma and zheng, 2019; Kurfalı and al., 2017) C’est pourquoi il est important de comprendre les facteurs influençant l’adoption du service. Le présent mémoire se donne comme question de recherche principale : quels sont les facteurs ou les barrières qui influencent l’utilisation des services électroniques gouvernementaux par les citoyens? Pour répondre à cette question, nous conduisons une revue de littérature pour identifier ces facteurs et barrières afin de produire un modèle qui regroupe tous ces facteurs et toutes ces barrières. Ce modèle fournira une vue compréhensive aux chercheurs et aux praticiens afin d’avoir une vue d’ensemble sur ces facteurs/barrières.

(4)

Abstract

E-government services are services offered by governments using information technology. Many governments are investing heavily in information technology so that to enhance service delivery to their citizens. However, citizens do not always use these services so that they often forgo their potential benefits. This is the case since important barriers often emerge and hinder the adoption and use of government e-services. Over the years, several studies examined the adoption of government e-services, building a rich albeit fragmented body of knowledge on these barriers in the process. Indeed, the diversity found in these studies and the fast and continuous change that characterizes information technology in general, make the identification and the synthesis of the adoption enablers and barriers, a relevant and timely endeavor. For this reason, this study builds on the findings of a systematic literature review to provide a high-level framework that conceptually structures the state of knowledge on the topic, and that exhaustively informs both researchers and practitioners on the enablers and barriers of e-government services by citizens. The proposed model identifies nine categories– citizen’s internal, risk and security, practicality, sociodemographic, social, potential benefits, User Output, citizen’s trust, and government related–that can shape citizens’ adoption decisions of government e-services and that need to be considered by researchers and by practitioners alike.

(5)

iv

Table des matières

Résumé ... ii

Abstract ... iii

Table des matières ... iv

Liste des figures ... v

Liste des tableaux ... vi

Liste des sigles ... vii

Liste des acronymes ... viii

Remerciements ... xi

Avant-propos ... xii

Introduction... 1

Chapitre 1: Enablers and Barriers to E-government Services Adoption: A High-Level Model ... 3

1.1. Résumé ... 3

1.2. Abstract ... 3

1.3. Introduction ... 4

1.4. Cumulative Literature Review ... 5

1.5. A Generic Model for e-Government use barriers... 9

1.5.1. RO1: The factors influencing the adoption of government e-services ... 9

1.5.2. RO2: Create a high-level framework that illustrates the relations between the factors... 12

1.6. Conclusion ... 13

1.7. References: ... 14

1.8. Index of the figures and the tables: ... 18

1.9. Appendix A: ... 19

Conclusion ... 34

(6)

Liste des figures

Figure 1 : Organigramme du processus de recherche

Figure 2 : La méthodologie employée pour construire le modèle Figure 3 : Les facteurs et leurs construits connexes

Figure 4 : Un modèle générique des facilitateur/obstacles a l’adoption des services du e-gouvernement par les

(7)

vi

Liste des tableaux

Tableau 1: Nombre d’articles trouvés par base de données et par itération Tableau 2: Le résultats de la recherche de mots clés

(8)

Liste des sigles

ICT: Information and communication technologie / Technologies de l’information et de la communication ITC: Information, technology and communication / Information, technologie et communication

RO: Research objective / Objectif de recherche

RO1: Research objective one / Objectif de recherche numéro 1 RO2: Research objective two / Objectif de recherche numéro 2 TI : Technologies de l’information

(9)

viii

Liste des acronymes

TAM: Technlogy acceptance model / Modèle d'acceptation de la technologie

TAM2: Technlogy acceptance model two / Modèle d'acceptation de la technologie deux TAM3: Technlogy acceptance model three / Modèle d'acceptation de la technologie trois TRA: Theory of reason action / Théorie de l’action raisonnée

UTAUT: Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology / Théorie Unifiée de l'acceptation et de l'utilisation

(10)

< Je dédicace ce mémoire à ma fille et mon

mari qui m’ont aidé à passer au travers de

cette dure année. Merci. >

(11)

x

< “Dans le passé, pour vivre dans des

sociétés d'une complexité croissante, il nous

fallait accroître notre humanité, maintenant,

il nous suffit d'accroître la technologie.”

Edward Bond, >

(12)

Remerciements

J’aimerai remercier mon directeur de mémoire, Monsieur Sehl Mellouli ainsi que mon co-directeur Monsieur Mustapha Cheikh-Ammar pour leur encadrement et leur soutien durant toute la durée du mémoire. J’aimerai aussi remercier la Chaire de recherche sur l’administration publique à l’ère numérique pour l’octroi de la bourse de mémoire ainsi que l’intérêt qui a été porté à mon projet.

(13)

xii

Avant-propos

L’article qui suit a été soumis le 11 décembre 2020 dans le journal Digital Government : Research and Practice. Je suis l’auteure principale de l’article.

(14)

Introduction

Les technologies de l’information sont en constante évolution et les gouvernements, les citoyens et les entreprises doivent faire face à ces changements continuels (Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019). Les gouvernements fournissent aux citoyens et aux entreprises de multiples services et s’efforcent de rendre ces transactions aussi simples et rapides que possible (Al-Ma’aitah, 2019). La croissance des technologies de l’information a aidé les gouvernements à innover et revitaliser les services publics en changeant les méthodes traditionnelles de livraison de services. Un gouvernement fournissant ce type de service à l’aide des technologies de l’information est appelé un gouvernement électronique ou e-gouvernement (Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019; Ejdys and al., 2019; Mensah, 2017; Alzahrani and al., 2016). Pour leur part, des services délivrés électroniquement sont appelés des e-services. Souvent les e-services se basent sur de l’information de haute qualité qui est accessible en temps réel sur des appareils intelligents via internet (Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017). Ces nouveaux services fournis par les gouvernements constituent une amélioration importante par rapport à leurs homologues traditionnels souvent délivrés par papier ou en personne (Mensah, 2017; Ma and Sheng, 2017; Mensah and al, 2017).

Bien que potentiellement utiles, l’implantation des services du gouvernement et l’adoption de ce type de service par les citoyens restent un grand défi. Par exemple, 60 % à 80 % des projets du gouvernement sont considérés comme un succès partiel ou un échec (Fakhoury and baker, 2016). Dans les pays développés, le pourcentage d’acceptation de l’implantation d’un e-service n’excède pas 15 % (Mousa, 2020). Au-delà de l’adoption initiale, l’utilisation continue du service par les citoyens est également une considération importante qui peut aider à déterminer le succès des e-services (Alruwaie and al., 2020). Il est clair que l’implantation réussie des e-services du gouvernement ne dépend pas seulement des politiques et de la législation gouvernementale, mais aussi de la manière dont les citoyens perçoivent et évaluent ces services ainsi que la manière dont les citoyens parviennent à surmonter la résistance au changement (Al-Ma’aitah, 2019). Il y a des études antérieures qui examinent l’utilisation et l’adoption des services par les citoyens (Carter and al., 2016; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Van de walle and al., 2018; Ma and Zheng, 2019). La plupart des études se sont efforcées de trouver les barrières ou les incitatifs de l’adoption des services pour guider les gouvernements afin d’augmenter significativement le taux d’adoption de leurs e-services. Comme il existe un haut nombre d’études qui cherchent à identifier les facteurs, il est important d’obtenir une vue d’ensemble de la littérature pour pouvoir identifier tous ces facteurs ainsi que leurs liens et leurs implications pratiques. Le résultat de cette recherche est un modèle de haut niveau qui classifie les facteurs et établit les relations entre eux. Le présent mémoire cherche donc à répondre à la question : quels sont les facteurs les barrières

(15)

2

non seulement résumer la littérature des e-services, mais aussi consolider les connaissances à propos des facteurs influençant l’utilisation de ces services par les citoyens. Il a aussi une implication pratique car il pourra être utilisé par les gouvernements pour surpasser les facteurs pour que les citoyens utilisent plus facilement les e-services.

Il y a effectivement un besoin de consolider la littérature de l’adoption des e-services pour que les connaissances existantes soient synthétisées pour informer les futures recherches sur le sujet, mais aussi fournir des conseils indispensables aux gouvernements qui souhaitent mettre en œuvre des services électroniques que les citoyens seront prêts à adopter et à utiliser. Effectivement, plusieurs recherches ont été conduites portant sur l’adoption des e-service à travers les années et le rôle de plusieurs construits a été discuté. Par contre, il n’existe pas de modèle qui résume les principaux construits influençant cette adoption par les citoyens, ni qui donne explicitement les relations entre les facteurs. C’est le but principal de ce mémoire.

(16)

Chapitre 1: Enablers and Barriers to

E-government Services Adoption: A High-Level

Model

1.1. Résumé

Les e-services sont des services offerts via les technologies de l’information (TI). L’acceptation des e-services du gouvernement est un sujet émergent de ces dernières années. Ainsi, il existe une littérature riche sur le sujet. Il est maintenant nécessaire de résumer la littérature pour permettre aux chercheurs d’obtenir une meilleure compréhension des recherches qui ont été effectuées dans le passé. Nous nous sommes basés sur la littérature et des modèles utilisés pour expliquer l’adoption des e-service dans le but de créer un Framework de haut niveau. Une étude des principaux construits a aussi été exécutée. Nous avons regroupé les construits en neufs facteurs expliquant l’adoption des e-services par les citoyens. Le Framework est basé sur une revue de littérature cumulative de trente et un articles écris entre 2015 et 2020. Ce mémoire permet, non seulement, d’enrichir la littérature, mais a aussi une portée pratique pour les praticiens et les gouvernements.

1.2. Abstract

E-government services are services offered by governments using information technology. Many governments are investing heavily in information technology so that to enhance service delivery to their citizens. However, citizens do not always use these services so that they often forgo their potential benefits. This is the case since important barriers often emerge and hinder the adoption and use of government e-services. Over the years, several studies examined the adoption of government e-services, building a rich albeit fragmented body of knowledge on these barriers in the process. Indeed, the diversity found in these studies and the fast and continuous change that characterizes information technology in general, make the identification and the synthesis of the adoption enablers and barriers, a relevant and timely endeavor. For this reason, this study builds on the findings of a systematic literature review to provide a high-level framework that conceptually structures the state of knowledge on the topic, and that exhaustively informs both researchers and practitioners on the enablers and barriers of e-government services by citizens. The proposed model identifies nine categories–citizen’s internal, risk and security, practicality, sociodemographic, social, potential benefits, User Output, citizen’s trust, and government related–that can shape citizens’ adoption decisions of government e-services and that need to be considered by researchers and by practitioners alike.

(17)

4

1.3. Introduction

Governments provide citizens and businesses with numerous services and strive to make transactions with them as smooth as possible (Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019; Al-Ma’aitah, 2019). The continuous growth, and the rapid diffusion and use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) has helped governments innovate and revitalize public services by leveraging the power of information technology (IT) to change the traditional methods of service delivery. Today, a government providing services through IT is called electronic government or e-government (Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019; Alzahrani and al., 2017; Ejdys and al., 2019; Mensah, 2017), and services delivered electronically are referred to as e-government services. These new services generally rely on high-quality information accessible in real time on computers and smart devices via the Internet (Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017). Needless to say, these IT enabled services constitute important improvements over their traditional, often paper based, predecessors (Ma and Zheng, 2019; Mensah, 2017; Mensah and al., 2017).

That said, the implementation of e-government services and their adoption by citizens appear to be a challenging endeavor. For instance, 60% to 80% of e-government projects fail or are considered only partially successful (Fakhoury and Baker, 2016). In developed countries alone, the acceptance rate of new e-government services does not exceed the 15% (Mousa, 2020). Beyond initial adoption, the continuous use of e-government services by citizens is also an important consideration that can help determine the success of e-government services (Alruwaie and al., 2020). Furthermore, it has become clear that the successful implementation of e-government services does not solely depend on government policies and legislation. It also undoubtably depends on how citizens perceive and evaluate these services, and on how citizens manage to overcome their tendency to resist change (Al-Ma’aitah, 2019).

Prior studies have investigated the acceptance and use of e-government services by citizens (Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Carter and al., 2016; Mensah, 2017; Van de Walle and al., 2018), and have strived to uncover enablers and prohibitors to the adoption of these services. This effort should ultimately guide governments into finding means to facilitate the adoption of their e-services and to increase the success rate of these initiatives. Given that a significant number of studies have examined the causes of e-service adoption over the years, it is important to develop a clear frame that identifies the main factors guiding citizens in their adoption decisions, and that elaborates on the existing interrelations between these factors. To this end, the current study builds on the results of a comprehensive review of the literature in order to reach such a frame. Accordingly, it does not only summarize the e-government service adoption literature, but it also consolidates the knowledge accumulate on the topic over the years to develop a model that has both theoretical and practical implications. More specifically, the study addresses the following research question: What are the enablers of, and barriers to, the use of e-government services by citizens? The results of this study should

(18)

facilitate the examination of the means and the interventions that governments can implement to deal with these factors and to facilitate the adoption and use of their e-services. The outcome of this literature review is a model that classifies the identified factors and that elaborates on their interrelationships. To answer the research question, we set two research objectives (RO) for this study:

• RO1: Synthesize and identify the main factors influencing the adoption of governments e-services by citizens.

• RO2: Create a high-level model that illustrates the relations between the identified factors.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the review methodology and the articles selection process. Section 3 describes the proposed model. Finally, Section 4 is a conclusion.

1.4. Cumulative Literature Review

Our main research question aims at identifying the factors that influence the adoption of government e-services by citizens. To answer this research question, we conducted a scoping review which is a part of the cumulative review (Templier and Paré, 2015). The scoping review permits to evaluate the size and the extend of an available literature of a particular topic and can inform future research (Templier and Paré, 2015). A cumulative review, in comparison to other types of types of literature reviews, requires studies that have examined similar concepts. It attempts to cover the literature in detail and permit to identify and include all pertinent data. The main objective of a cumulative review is to collect cumulative evidence from prior research to identify patterns and draw general conclusions (Templier and Paré, 2015). It also synthesizes existing literature on a specific topic to supply readers with a detailed description of the current state of knowledge

(Templier and Paré, 2015). This fits perfectly with the objective of our study that aims at synthesizing the literature on the adoption of the e-government services by citizens.

We conducted this literature review on the last five years. We chose the period 2015–2020 because of the rapid progress of ICT that makes the technologies used before 2015 is considered as an old technology. In addition, ICT is more widely used in the last five years than it was before. Hence, recent studies will better reflect the reality of the enablers and barriers to adopt e-government services: 1- the studies prior to 2015 have not focused on updated technologies as of today and 2- citizens are more and more digital than those that may have been considered in studies prior to 2015.

(19)

6

The literature review will be based on the following steps (Templier and Paré, 2015): 1. Formulation of the problem

2. Search of the literature 3. Screening for inclusion 4. Extraction of the data

5. Analyzing and synthesizing the data

1.4.1. Formulation of the problem

The first step is to define the questions and the key concepts associated to the literature review (Templier and Paré, 2015). As stated, the main research question is: What are the enablers and barriers for the use of e-government services by citizens? There are several papers in the literature that dealt with the adoption by citizens of e-government services. We think that there is now a need for regrouping and summarizing this literature to obtain a general idea of the last research that has been conducted in this area. To achieve the intended purpose of this paper, we have conducted a scoping review of recent research published in the last 5 years (2015 to 2020).

(20)

1.4.2. Search of the Literature

In this step, we include guidelines to identify potentially relevant studies (Templier and Paré, 2015). Subsequently, we used a set of keywords to search the literature. The keywords that we used are: “use of e-services by citizens”, “E-government e-e-services”, “factors influencing the use of e-e-services by citizens”, “e-services, e-government e-service”, “E-services”, “E-government”, “citizen’s adoption of e-services”, “citizens’ adoptions of government e-services”. In the initial search, we found 11975 articles from the following databases: ABI/Inform globally—Proquest, Business source premier—EBSCOhost, google scholar, and Elsevier.

1.4.3. Screening for Inclusion

The objective of this step is to select the relevant papers that are appropriate for this review (Templier and Paré, 2015). In the initial research with the keywords, the search engines returned 11975 papers with no restriction on the year of publication. We found 7054 in google scholar, 4458 Elsevier, 286 papers with ABI/Inform-Proquest and 177 papers with Business source premier—EBSCOhost. These numbers show that there is a huge number of studies that focused on e-services adoptions. So, for this work, we decided not to work on the 11975 papers. For each database, we only looked at the top 100 papers with a date of publication between 2015 and 2020. So, we looked at a total of 400 papers. We recognize that this may be a limit of this work but as stated we seek to give a general overview on the enablers/barriers for e-government services adoption by citizens.

We went through these papers to first only keeps papers that were published in scientific journals to ensure that the papers went through a rigorous review process which assesses the quality of the data presented in these papers. Second, for the language, we decided to include French and Spanish articles as well as those written in English to try to have more variety. Nonetheless, most of the published and accessible articles are written in English, therefore we only have one article written in Spanish (Barrera-Barrera, 2019). Third, we decided to read the title and the abstract of all the articles to find those related to the scope of our research. These papers had to have at least e-government or e-services pair with citizens or users. We started by reading the title, then the abstract of each article before saving them for a complete reading. Most of the articles come from the keyword search but we also obtained 6 more articles via the “Related” and “those who consulted those articles also viewed” sections in the Elsevier search engine. From this, we obtained 23 articles from ABI/Inform-Proquest, 17 from Business source premier—EBSCOhost, 5 from google scholar and 11 from Elsevier for a total of 56 articles. Fourth, we did an in-dept reading and we kept 32 papers to this literature review. Table 1 summarizes the number of articles found by database and by iteration.

(21)

8

Databases Number of papers Number of papers after first _screening Number of papers after _{complete reading} ABI/Inform globally—

Proquest, 286 23 14

Business source premier— EBSCOhost

177 17 9

google scholar 7054 5 1

Elsevier 4458 11 8

Table 1: Number of articles found by database and by iteration 1.4.4. Extracting

In the final step of the literature review, we extracted all enablers and barriers for e-government services adoption by citizens.

1.4.5. Analyzing, and Synthesizing the Data

We adopted a 5 steps methodology to analyze and synthesize the data as depicted in Figure 2 and to answer the two research objectives. In the first step, we read in depth all the 32 papers. By reading the papers, we studied all the hypothesis when presented and the results in order to identify all constructs that describe the enablers or barriers for e-government services use by citizens and their links. Doing so, we built a list of all enablers and barriers. Then, in the third step, we looked at all the definitions given to each construct in the 32 papers. We tried to see if each construct is defined in the same way and to provide at the end with a single definition for each construct. Most of the constructs in the literature had the same definition or had similar definitions with different words. Looking at all the definitions, we grouped the constructs into categories of enablers/barriers to define a higher level of abstraction. Finally, we build the new model based on the different relations that may exist between categories. The fourth and fifth steps were executed iteratively between the first author and the co-authors. In these two steps, we added new enablers/barriers, deleted enablers/barriers if we found that they are not enablers/barriers, or moving enablers/barriers from one category to another to align with the scope of that category. The iterations stopped at each step when a total agreement is reached between the main author and the co-authors.

(22)

1.5. A Generic Model for e-Government use barriers

In this section, we will address the two research objectives:

• RO1: Synthesize and identify the factors influencing the adoption of governments e-services by citizens.

• RO2: Create a high-level model that illustrates the relations between the identified factors.

1.5.1. RO1: The factors influencing the adoption of government e-services

We identified 46 enabler/barriers influencing the adoption by citizens of e-government services. These enablers/barriers were grouped in nine categories as depicted in Figure 3: citizen’s internal factors, risk and security, practicality, sociodemographic factors, social factors, potential benefits, User Output, citizen’s trust, and government factors. The most cited enablers/barriers are: Perceived ease of use, Perceived usefulness and trust. The less cited enablers/barriers are interactivity and security awareness. In addition, we observe that most used models are the TAM (Davis and al., 1989), TRA/TPB (Azjen, 1991) and the UTAUT (Venkatesh and al., 2003). We present hereafter the different categories and their scopes.

1. Read the papers 2. Extract hypothesis and _{results from the papers} 3. Find the definition of each _construct

4. Group the constructs 5. Build the model

Figure 2: Methodology used to build the model

(23)

10

Figure 3: The factors and their related constructs 1.5.1.1. Social factors

Social factors represent the influence a person, a culture, a group, a norm, or a rule has on an individual. The social norms, the social influence and the subjective norms are all constructs included in this factor. For example, an individual may be influenced to use a service if it is a norm to do so or if a person close to that individual uses it.

1.5.1.2. Sociodemographic Factors

The sociodemographic factors correspond to the characteristics of people: gender, education level, marital status, religion, and work situations. These sociodemographic factors can shape the attitudes and behavior of people. For example, the boomer generation may have difficulties to use PCs or mobile internet because it is aging (Kim and Brady, 2019). It will then most likely want to use the services in person and by mail.

1.5.1.3. Citizen’s Internal Factors

This factor can explain how a person reacts in certain situations and how he perceives the technology and if he knows how to use it. This can have an impact on a person’s use of e-government services. The constructs included in this category are the habits, preferences, experiences, awareness, self-efficacy, and autonomy. For example, an individual who uses technology on an everyday basis and who is aware of the e-government service option, will adopt the e-government services more easily.

(24)

1.5.1.4. Potential Benefits

Potential benefits are directly related to the subjective perception of these services by citizens. Globally, they correspond to the advantages that the service can provide, how helpful it is to the citizens and the positive effects it brings to them. While creating e-government services, it is important to always keep in mind both the final users and the goals they would like to accomplish. If the services are not useful to the citizens, they will not adopt them. All the constructs are related to the expectations of the users versus the real use of the services: the perceived usefulness, the advantages, the performance expectancy and the personal outcome expectation. For example, if a government provides an instant access to an information or doesn’t require that citizens move to receive a service may influence a citizen to adopt the e-government service.

1.5.1.5. Practicality

This factor is related to the technicality of the services that is the technology they rely on, the way they were created and the way they were coded. A service with an interface that is not well made, with a lot of bugs and that does not respond correctly would not be used by citizens and may create more problems than it is trying to solve. Therefore, the constructs included in this category are the compatibility of the service with the citizens expectations, the information quality, the quality of internet services, the accessibility, the system quality, the responsiveness, the interactivity, the service capability, the quality of services, easy to use, the perceived ease of use, the effort expectancy and the perceived complexity. For example, a citizen that uses the e-services and cannot understand where to access them or how to realize the intended transaction will surely prefer to use the service in person.

1.5.1.6. Government Factors

These factors only apply to the government and to its capability to use, integrate, supply, create technology and e-services. A government that is not up to date or fail to provide its services via Internet may fail to implement e-government services. The constructs in this category are the supply of government’s e-services and E-government performance. For example, a government in a country where Internet services are not available everywhere might have problems to supply e-services adequately as the citizens do not have access to the Internet.

1.5.1.7. Risk and Security

In the last years, many companies, governments or institutions have had troubles with security of e-services. This security risk can have an impact on citizens to use e-government services. This category encompasses, privacy, e-government security, transaction security, perceived risk, use of personal data, security, and security awareness. Governments should be certain that security is highly considered in order to minimize the risks for citizens. With these risks will directly impact the adoption of e-government services.

(25)

12

1.5.1.8. Citizen’s trust

To use a service, citizens need to trust it, if not, they will not use it, making it, therefore, useless. There are different constructs in this category: trust in government, trust in internet, trust in e-government and trust in technology. A citizen needs to be sure that a service is not harmful to him in any way to trust it. For example, a citizen not trusting Internet will prefer to use the service in person or by mail

1.5.1.9. User Output

Citizens must have the intention to use e-services before they act and really do it. This category includes the constructs: Behavioral intention to use, attitude, and satisfaction. When a citizen uses e-government services, he can be satisfied or not and may decide to not use them again. This category explains what is necessary for a citizen to adopt and use e-government services.

1.5.2. RO2:

Create a high-level framework that illustrates the relations

between the factors

The model has 46 constructs divided into 9 categories. The objective of this model is not only to summarize the literature, but also to show the main links between the different categories. We used the different models and theories tested in the literature to establish and deduce the different links between the categories. The arrows represent the influence that one category has on another that is there is in the minimum one factor from the first category that influences at the minimum one factor in the second category. The direction of the arrow indicates the category being influenced while the starting point is the influencing category. A bidirectional arrow indicates a mutual influence. Figure 4 depicts the proposed model.

Figure 4: A generic model of enablers/barriers for e-government

(26)

There are models and theories that were developed in the literature and where their main purpose is to explain the adoption of a technology by end-users. We can mention the theory of reason actioned (TRA)/ Theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Azjen, 1991), the Technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis and al., 1989) and his extension the TAM2 (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) and TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala. 2008) and lastly, the Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh and al., 2003). These models are very generic and do not consider enablers/barriers related to the government context. Therefore, to study the adoption of the e-government services by citizens, it becomes mandatory to have a specific model and this is the model that we proposed in this study. By our proposed model, we bring a broader perspective as we identified enablers/barriers that are not generally linked together in the literature.

1.6. Conclusion

The current study was set to examine the state of the literature on the adoption of government e-services by citizens. To do so, it built on the results of a comprehensive review of the literature in order to develop a theoretical frame that not only summarizes the e-government service adoption literature, but that also consolidates the knowledge accumulate on the topic over the years. Several constructs were identified from the literature as they represent important concepts that can help better understand citizens’ considerations and perceptions in relation to governmental e-services. Hence, this study identified all the main factors that shaped citizens’ decisions, defined each based on how they were used in the literature, and regrouped them under different categories so that to consolidate existing knowledge on the topic. By doing so, this study offers a general overview of the enablers of, and the barriers to, e-government service adoption by citizens. The developed model can be used as a guide for future research on the adoption of e-government services by citizens since it spells-out the main constructs and relationships that have been so far explored on the topic. The model also has some practical implications, since it allows government officials to better understand the main issues that have been identified as possible hinders to the adoption of e-services. Ultimately, this effort should help guide governments develop e-services that are more likely to be used by their citizens. Even though our model is built on previous knowledge, we have not tested as a complete set of co-existing relationships. As such, it would be important to test the model to confirm or infirm some of the theoretical and practical associations it suggests. It would also be important to test the theoretical boundaries of the model. For instance, with the Covid-19 pandemic, many governments are now offering strictly online services. It would thus be interesting to use the model in such contexts, and to compare findings with other non-crisis related contexts.

(27)

14

1.7. References:

Abunadi, I., Alqahtani, F., (2019), Sociotechnical Factors in the Endorsement of Governmental E-Transactions, Journal of Global Information Management, 27(3), https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.2019070103 Al Abri, D., McGill, T., Dixon, M., (2009), Examining the Impact of E-privacy Risk Concerns on Citizens’ Intentions to Use E-government Services: An Oman Perspective, Journal of Information Privacy and Security, 3(26), https://doi.org/10.1080/15536548.2009.10855861

AL Athmay, A., Fantazy, K., Kumar, V., (2015), E-government adoption and user’s satisfaction: an empirical investigation, EuroMed Journal of Business, 11(1), https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-05-2014-0016

Alharbi, N., Papadaki, M., Dowland, P., (2017), The impact of security and its antecedents in behaviour intention of using e-government services, Behaviour & information technology, 36(6),

https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1269198

Al-Hujran, O., Al-Debei, M., Chatfield, A., Migdadi, M., (2015), The imperative of influencing citizen attitude toward e-government adoption and use, Computers in human behaviour, 53,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.025

Al-Ma’aitah, M., (2019), Drivers of E-Government Citizen Satisfaction and Adoption: The Case of Jordan, International Journal of E-Business Research, 15(4), https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEBR.2019100103

Almarashdeh, I., Alsmadi, M., (2017), How to make them use it? Citizen’s acceptance of M-government, Applied computing and informatics, 13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2017.04.001

Almuraqab, N., (2016), M-Government Adoption Factors in the United Arab Emirates: A Partial Least-Squares Approach, International Journal of Business and Information, 11(4)

Almuraqab N., Jasimuddin S., (2017), Factors that Influence End-Users’ Adoption of Smart Government Services in the UAE: A Conceptual Framework, The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 20(1)

Alruwaie, M., El-Haddadeh, R., Weerakkody, V., (2020), Citizens’ continuous use of eGovernment services: The role of self-efficacy, outcome expectations and satisfaction, Government information quarterly, 37(3), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101485

Alzahrani, L., Al-Karaghouli, W., Weerakkody, V., (2017), Analyzing the critical factors influencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens’ perspective: A systematic review and a conceptual framework,

International business review, 26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.06.004

Azjen, I., (1991), The theory of planned behaviour, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), p.179-211, https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978 (91)90,020-T

Balina, S., Skilters, J., Baumgarte, D., Zarina, L., (2017), Factors Impacting the Low Usage of e-Services in Latvia, European Research Studies Journal, 3A

Bhuasiri, W., Zo, H., Lee, H, Ciganek, A., (2016), User acceptance of e-government Services: Examining an e-tax Filing and Payment System in Thailand, Information Technology for Development, 22(4),

(28)

Barrera-Barrera, R., Rey-Moreno, M., Medina-Monila, C., (2019), Factores explicativos de la preferencia y uso de la administración electrónica en España, Revista de administraçäo pública, 53(2),

https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220170391

Carter, L., Weerakkody, V., Phillips, B., Dwivedi, Y., (2016), Citizen Adoption of E-Government Services: Exploring Citizen Perceptions of Online Services in the United States and United Kingdom, information system management, 33(2), https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2016.1155948

Chung, H., Lee, G., Kuo, R., (2016), Determinants of Public Servants’ Intention to Adopt E-Government Learning, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(4), https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X15590482 Davis, F., Richard, B., Warshaw, P., (1989), User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models, Management science, 35 (8), P.982

Ejdys, J., Ginevicius, R., Rozsa, Z., Janoskova, K., (2019), The role of perceived risk and security level in building trust in e-government solutions, Information management, 21(3), https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2019-3-014

Fakhoury, R., Baker, D., 2016, Governmental Trust, Active citizenship, and E-Government Acceptance in Lebanon, Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 13(2)

Faulkner, N., Jorgensen, B., Koufariotis, G., (2019), Can behavioural interventions increase citizens’ use of e-government? Evidence from a quasi-experimental trial, Government information quarterly, 36,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.10.009

Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J., (2012), An introduction to systematic reviews, Sage publication, 288 p. Kim, S., Brady., J., (2019), A Phenomenological Study on the Information Technology Acceptance of the Korean Baby Boomer Generation, International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology, 7(4), p.172-186, DOI 10.17703/IJACT.2019.7.4.172

Kurfalı, M., Arifoğlu, A., Tokdemir, G., Paçin, Y., (2017), Adoption of e-government services in Turkey, Computers in human behaviour, 66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.041

Li, Y., Shang., H., (2020), Service quality, perceived value, and citizens’ continuous-use intention regarding e-government: Empirical evidence from China, Information & Management, 57(3),

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103197

Liu, S., Yuan, Q., (2015), The evolution of information dans communication technology in public administration, Public admin. Dev., 35, https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1717

Lopes, K., Macadar, M., Luciano, E., (2019), Key drivers for public value creation enhancing the adoption of electronic public services by citizens, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5),

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2018-0081

Ma, L., Zheng, Y., (2019), National e-government performance and citizen satisfaction: multilevel analysis across European countries, International review of administrative science, 85(3),

https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317703691

Mensah, I., (2017), Citizens’ Readiness to Adopt and Use Egovernment Services in the City of Harbin, China, International Journal of Public Administration, https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1263658

(29)

16

Mensah, I., Jianing, M., Durrani, K., (2017), Factors Influencing Citizens’ Intention to Use E-Government Services: A Case Study of South Korean Students in China, International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 13(1), https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEGR.2017010102

Mousa, M., (2020), Determinants of cloud-based E-government in Libya, Journal of critical reviews,7(13) Naranjo-Zolotov, M., Oliveira, T., Casteleyn, S., (2018), Citizens’ intention to use and recommend e-participation Drawing upon UTAUT and citizen empowerment, Information Technology & People, 32(2), https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-08-2017-0257

Okunola, O., Rowley, J., (2019), User experience of e-government: The Nigeria Immigration Service, Library Hi Tech, 37(3) https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-09-2018-0138

Osman, I., Anouze, A., Irani, Z., Al-Ayoubi, B., Lee, H., Balcı, A., Medeni, T., Weerakkody, V., (2014), Government information quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.009

Petticrew, M., Roberts, H., (2006), Systematic reviews in the social sciences, Blackwell publishing, 336 pages

Rana, N., Dwivedi, Y., (2015), Citizen’s adoption of an e-government system: Validating extended social cognitive theory (SCT), Government information Quarterly, 32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.02.002 Roy, M., Chartier, A., Crête, J., Poulin, D., (2015), Factors influencing e-government use in non-urban areas, Electron Commer Res, 15, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9193-4

Roy, S., Upadhyay, P., (2016), Does e-readiness of citizens ensure better adoption of government’s digital initiatives? A case-based study, journal of enterprise information management, 30(1),

https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2016-0001

Saxena, S., (2017), Enhancing ICT infrastructure in public services Factors influencing mobile government (m-government) adoption in India, the bottom line, 30(4), https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-08-2017-0017

Susanto, T., Diani, M., Hafidz, I., (2017), User Acceptance of e-Government Citizen Report System (a Case Study of City113 App), Procedia computer science, 124

Templier, M., Paré, G., (2015), Framework for guiding and evaluation literature reviews, Communications of the association for information systems, 37 (6)

Varghese, B., (2019), A history of the cloud, ITNOW, 61(2), https://doi-org.acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/10.1093/itnow/bwz049

Van de Walle, S., Zeibote, Z., Stacenko, S., Muravska, T., Migchelbrink, K., (2018), Explaining non-adoption of electronic government services by citizens: A study among non-users of public e-services in Latvia, Information polity, 23, https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170069

Venkatesh, V., Bala, H., (2008), Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions, Decision sciences

Venkatesh, V, Morris, M., Davis, G., Davis, F., (2003), User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly, 27(3), P.425-478

(30)

Venkatesh, V., Davis, F., (2000), A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Field studies, Management science, 46(2), P.186-204, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

(31)

18

1.8. Index of the figures and the tables: Figures

Figure 1: Flowchart of the search process Figure 2: Methodology used to build the model Figure 3: The factors and their related constructs

Figure 4: A generic model of enablers/barriers for e-government services adoption by citizens Tables

Table 1: Number of articles found by database and by iteration Table 2: Result of our keywords search

(32)

1.9. Appendix A:

Constructs Factor related Definitions in the literature related to the Model

factor Articles where factor is mentioned

Accessibility Practicability A system/service being easy to reach and use by the _users Not explicitly _{refer to}

Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Almuraqab, 2016; Mensah, 2017; Alzahrani and al., 2017; Saxena,

2017; Almarashdeh and alsmadi, 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov and al., 2018; Van de walle and al., 2018; Okunola and Rowley, 2019; Li

and Shang, 2020

Advantages Potential benefits

A system/service that has benefits

Not explicitly refer to

Saxena, 2017; Balina and al., 2017; Alzahrani and al., 2017; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Faulkner and al., 2019;

Li and Shang, 2020 Economy of time, economy of money, less social contact,

affordability, reachability; ubiquity, on-time information delivery, low technology literacy requirements, personalized information, delivery, emergency management, more satisfied with government, lower cost,

higher satisfaction.

Attitude User Output

An affective reaction an individual has toward something.

TRA/TPB model (Ajzen, 1991)

Roy and al., 2015; Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Almuraqab, 2016; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Chung and al., 2016; Kurfalı and al., 2017 Mensah, 2017; Saxena, 2017; Mensah and al., 2017; Almarashdeh and Alsmadi, 2017;; Susanta and al., 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov and al., 2018; Faulkner et al, 2019 ; Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019; Ejdys and al., 2019 Alruwaie and al., 2020; Li and shang,

2020 A positive or negative feeling toward when they perform

the expected behaviour

(33)

20

Awareness Citizen’s internal _factors The state of being perceptive or aware of something Not explicitly _{refer to}

Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Almuraqab, 2016; AL Athmay and al, 2015; Carters and al., 2016;

Fakhoury and baker, 2016; Mensah, 2017; Alzahrani and al., 2017; Kurfalı and al., 2017;

Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Saxena, 2017; Lopes and al., 2019;

(Behavioural) intention to use

Use predictor When an individual has an intention to act and use a _{certain system/technology/service} Not explicitly _{refer to}

AL Athmay and al, 2015; Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Mensah, 2017;

Saxena, 2017; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Almarashdeh and alsmadi, 2017; Van de walle

and al., 2018;

User Output Relates to or involve a behavioural intention to use or do _something. Not explicitly _{refer to}

Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Fakhoury and Baker, 2016; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Alharbi

and al., 2017; Almarashdeh and Alsmadi, 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov and al., 2018; Abunadi and

Alqahtani, 2019; Ejdys and al., 2019

User Output An intention someone has to use something. Not explicitly _{refer to}

Roy and al., 2015; AL Athmay and al., 2015; Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Carter and al., 2016; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Fakhoury and baker, 2016; Almuraqab, 2016; Mensah, 2017, Saxena, 2017; Almuraqab

and Jasimuddin, 2017; Alharbi and al., 2017; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Alzahrani and al., 2017; Mensah and al., 2017; Almarashdeh and Alsmadi, 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov and al., 2018;

Van de Walle et al., 2018; Al-Ma’aitah, 2019; Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019; Ejdys and al., 2019; Faulkner et al, 2019 ; Alruwaie and al.,

(34)

Compatibility Practicability How an innovation is in pairs with the values, the past _{experiences, and the needs of potential users} Not explicitly _{refer to}

Roy and al., 2015; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Almuraqab, 2016; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Saxena,

2017; Alzahrani and al., 2017; Susanto and al., 2017; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Van

de walle and al., 2018; Okunola and Rowley, 2019;

Demographic

Variables Sociodemographic factors

The age, the marital status, the occupation, the educational qualification, the gender, the education, the

experience, the study level, employment situation and religion of a person

Roy and al., 2015; Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Roy and Upadhyay, 2016; Saxena, 2017; Barrera-Barrera and al., 2019; Barrera-Barrera-Barrera-Barrera and al.,

2019

Effort Expectancy Practicability The amount of effort a person must invest in the usage of _{a system} (Venkatesh UTAUT and al., 2003)

AL Athmay and al., 2015; Chung and al., 2016; Fakhoury and baker, 2016; Bhuasiri and al.,

2016; Alharbi and al., 2017; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov and al., 2018; Abunadi

and Alqahtani, 2019 E-Government

Performance Government factors

How the government complete and action, task or

performance required of them Not explicitly refer to Kurfalı and al., 2017; Ma and Zheng, 2019 How a government fulfills his task/job according to the

expectations. Not explicitly refer to Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Saxena, 2017; Ma and Zheng, 2019;

Experience Citizen’s internal _factors

Correspond to the user’s experience in terms of competency.

TAM2 (Davis and Venkatesh,

2000)

Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Roy and al., 2015; AL Athmay and al., 2015; Bhuasiri and al., 2016;

Balina and al., 2017; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Alzahrani, 2017; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin,

2017; Alharbi and al., 2017; Ma and Zheng, 2019; Ejdys and al., 2019; Okunola and Rowley,

2019 Alruwaie and al., 2020 Correspond to the general experience and user has with a

system or service Not explicitly refer to

Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Van de Walle et al., 2018; Lopes and al., 2019, Faulkner and al.,

2019; Li and Shang, 2019; Facilitating Conditions Practicability organizational and technical infrastructure to reinforce the The degree to which a person believes that there is

exploitation of a system

AL Athmay and al., 2015; Roy and al., 2015; Chung and al., 2016; Almuraqab, 2016; Bhuasiri

(35)

22

The degree to which a person believes there are resources permitting the reinforcement of the exploitation

of a system

Kurfalı and al., 2017; Saxena, 2017; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Alharbi and al., 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov, 2018; Faulkner and al., 2019;

Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019

Habits Citizen’s internal _factors An act that an individual does in a repeated or regular _manner Not explicitly _{refer to} Fakhoury and baker, 2016; Balina and al., 2017; _{Saxena, 2017}

Information quality Practicability

How a given information meets the user’s expectations. Not explicitly _{refer to}

AL Athmay and al, 2015; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Almuraqab, 2016; Alzahrani and al., 2017; Alharbi and al., 2017; Okunola and Rowley, 2019; Faulkner and al., 2019; Alruwaie and al.,

2020; Li and Shang, 2020 Allow to determine of the information a system produce

and delivers is at the required standard. _{Not explicitly} refer to

Athmay and al., 2015; Almuraqab, 2016; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Alzahrani and al., 2017;

Al-Ma’aitah, 2019; Alruwaie and al., 2020; Li and Shang, 2020

An information that is of quality is accurate, complete, actual, time comprehensive, concise, and relevant with

the citizen’s needs.

Interactivity Practicability Being able to have an interaction between the user and _{the system/service} Not explicitly _{refer to} Saxena, 2017; Li and Shang, 2020

Performance

expectancy Practicability How a person believes that the usage of the system will bring him/her gains in job performance.

UTAUT (Venkatesh and al., 2003)

Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; AL Athmay and al, 2015; Fakhoury and baker, 2016; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Chung and

al., 2016; Saxena, 2017; Alharbi and al., 2017; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov and al., 2018; Faulkner and al., 2019; Alruwaie and al.,

2020; Li and Shang, 2020 Perceived Complexity Practicability

How an innovation is seen as difficult to use and

understand in comparison with others Not explicitly refer to

Roy and al., 2015; Almuraqab, 2016; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Susanto and al., 2017; Van de walle and al., 2018; Okunola and Rowley, 2019; Personal outcome

(36)

Perceived Ease of use

(PEOU) Practicability

The degree to which a person expects a targeted system to be free of effort or challenge

TAM (Davis and al., 1989) UTAUT (Venkatesh and al., 2003)

Roy and al., 2015; AL Athmay and al, 2015; Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Almuraqab, 2016; Roy and Upadhay, 2016; Carters and al., 2016; Fakhoury and baker, 2016; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Kurfalı and

al., 2017; Mensah, 2017; Saxena, 2017; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017, Alzahrani

and al., 2017; Ma and Zheng, 2019; Almarashdeh and alsmadi, 2017; Susanto and

al., 2017; Van de walle and al., 2018; Lopes and al., 2019; Okunola and Rowley, 2019; Faulkner and al., 2019; Al-Ma’aitah, 2019; Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019; Ejdys and al.,

2019; Li and Shang, 2020 Roy and al., 2015 Is related with ease of learning, ease of use and the ease

of developing an expertise when using e-government

Perceived Usefulness

(PU) Potential benefits

The degree to which a person perceived that a system would enhance his or her job performance

TAM (Davis and al., 1989) UTAUT (Venkatesh and al., 2003)

AL Athmay, 2015; Roy and al, 2015; Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Almuraqab, 2016; Carters and al., 2016; Roy and Upadhyay, 2016; Bhuasiri and al., 2016;

Kurfalı and al., 2017; Almarashdeh and Alsmadi, 2017; Mensah, 2017;; Saxena, 2017; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017;; Mensah and al., 2017;; Alzahrani and al., 2017; Susanto and al., 2017; Faulkner and al., 2019; Al-Ma’aitah, 2019; Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019; Ejdys and

al., 2019; Li and Shang, 2020 AL athmay and al., 2015, Mensah and al, 2017

Roy and al., 2015

Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Almuraqab, 2016; Mensah, 2017; Mensah and al., 2017; Saxena, 2017; Van de walle and al.,

2018

Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017 The degree to which a person perceived that a system

would increase productivity and effectiveness Can be assessed by time savings, effectiveness, and

general usefulness

The degree to which a person perceived that a system would be free of physical and mental effort

The degree to which a person perceived that a system is user-friendly

(37)

24

Preferences Citizen’s internal _factors Liking something more than its counterpart, another or _other Not explicitly _{refer to}

Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Chung and al., 2016; Saxena, 2017; Balina and al., 2017; Almarashdeh and Alsmadi, 2017; Li and Shang,

2019; Alruwaie and al., 2020

Privacy Risk and security Being able to hide personal information that is private to _{the public and other individuals.} Not explicitly _{refer to}

Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Roy and al., 2015; AL Athmay and al, 2015; Carters and al., 2016; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Almuraqab, 2016; Fakhoury and baker, 2016; Mensah and al., 2017; Almarashdeh and alsmadi, 2017; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Alzahrani and al., 2017; Alharbi and al.,

2017; Saxena, 2017; Van de walle and al., 2018; Lopes and al., 2019; Ejdys and al., 2019; Okunola and Rowley, 2019; Li and Shang, 2020 Responsiveness Practicability A system/service being reactive, helpful, and responsive Not explicitly _{refer to} Mensah, 2017; Ma and Zheng, 2019; Okunola Almuraqab, 2016; Mensah and al., 2017;

and Rowley, 2019; Li and Shang, 2020

Risk

(perceived risk) Risk and security How a person sees the possibility of a bad outcome happening Not explicitly refer to

Al-Hujran, 2015; Roy and al., 2015; Fakhoury and Baker, 2016; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Almuraqab, 2016; Carters and al., 2017; Alzahrani , 2017; Alharbi, 2017; Kurfalı and al.,

2017; Mensah, 2017; Almuraqaab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Van de walle and al., 2018; Ejdys and al., 2019; Okunola and Rowley, 2019;

(38)

Satisfaction User Output consequences that they place on a pleasant-unpleasant An individual subjective evaluation of all the continuum.

AL Athmay and al., 2015; Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Carter and al., 2016; Almuraqab, 2016; Bhuasiri and al.,2016; Mensah, 2017; Saxena,

2017; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Alzahrani and al., 2017; Mensah and al., 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov and al., 2018; Barrera-Barrera and al., 2019; Ma

and Zheng, 2019; Okunola and Rowley, 2019; Barrera-Barrera and al., 2019; Faulkner and al., 2019; Al-Ma’aitah, 2019; Alruwaie and al., 2020;

Li and shang, 2020 Security Risk and security Being secure protect a person from being harmed and _{reduce the risks.} Not explicitly _{refer to}

Al Athmay and al., 2015; Roy and al., 2015; Mensah, 2017; Balina and al., 2017; Saxena,

2017; Lopes and al., 2019; Okunola and Rowley, 2019; Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019;

Ejdys and al., 2019 Security awareness Risk and security An individual being aware, conscious of his or her security Not explicitly _{refer to} Alharbi and al., 2017

Self-Efficacy _{Citizen’s internal} factors

A self-assessment that has an influence on decision about undertaking some behaviours

Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Roy and al., 2015; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Fakhoury and baker, 2016; Almuraqab, 2016; Alharbi and al., 2017; Almarashdeh and alsmadi, 2017; Susanto and al., 2017; Saxena, 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov and al., 2018; Van de walle and al., 2018; Faulkner

and al., 2019; Alruwaie and al., 2020 A measure of the effort that someone puts into something

during difficult times

One’s perception of their own ability to use something or complete a certain task

Service capability Practicability

describes the extent to which a government website provides content that satisfies citizens’ needs by assisting

them in achieving desired goals.

Not explicitly

(39)

26

Social Influence

(subjective norms) Social factors

The degree to which someone else believes influence a person in their decision

TRA/TPB (Azjen, 1991)

UTAUT (Venkatesh and al., 2003)

AL Athmay and al., 2015; Roy and al., 2015; Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Fakhoury and baker, 2016; Carter and al.,

2016; Chung and al., 2016; Almuraqab, 2016; Saxena, 2017; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin.,

2017; Alharbi and al., 2017; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Almarashdeh, and Alsmadi, 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov and al., 2018; Abunadi and

Alqahtani, 2019; Alruwaie and al., 2020 Roy and al., 2015; AL Athmay and al., 2015; Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Chung and al., 2016;

Almuraqab, 2016; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Fakhoury and baker, 2016; Carter and al., 2016;

Saxtena and al., 2017; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Almarashdeh and Alsmadi, 2017; Alharbi and

al., 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov and al., 2018; Alruwaie and al., 2020 The degree to which someone is influenced by others

important to him/her

The degree to which others influence an individual

How an individual perceives that other important for him/her believe he/she should use a new system.

Social norms Social factors

A social norm is an unwritten rule that a social group referred to or can be judged upon. The standards are established by the said group. Norms indirectly impose a

correct behaviour to an individual.

Not explicitly

refer to Roy and al., 2015; Almuraqab, 2016

Subjective Norms Social factors How a person perceived the social pressure to have or not _{a certain behaviour}

TRA/TPB (Azjen, 1991) TAM2 (Davis and Venkatesh, 2000)

Roy and al., 2015; Roy and Upadhyay, 2016; Almuraqab, 2016; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov and al., 2018; Alruwaie

(40)

System Quality Practicability

A system must be accurate, reliable, relevant, easy to understand, be user-friendly, usable, have a great website

design, be navigable and have operational modules. Not explicitly

refer to _{2017; Al-Ma’aitah, 2019; Li and Shang, 2020}AL Athmay and al., 2015; Alzahrani and al., Is evaluated by comparing the service they received with

the service quality that was expected A person

A comparison of a person belief of how an organization or company should perform, and the service performance

delivered to the citizen Not explicitly _{refer to}

AL Athmay and al., 2015; Roy and Upadhyay, 2016; Almuraqab, 2016; Bhuasiri et al., 2016; Mensah, 2017; Saxena, 2017; Alzahrani and al.,

2017; Mensah and al., 2017; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Barrera-Barrera and al., 2019; Ma and Zheng, 2019; Okunola and Rowley, 2019; Al-Ma’aitah, 2019; Alruwaie and al., 2020; Li and

Shang, 2020 How well an e-service given by the government meet the

user’s requirement Supply of

e-government service Government factors How the government gives access to his services to the users Not explicitly refer to Lopes and al., 2019;

Transaction security Risk and security A transaction being secure by protecting others from risk _{or potential harm} Not explicitly _{refer to} Fakhoury and baker, 2016; Almuraqab, 2016; _{Roy and Upadhyay, 2016;}

Trust Citizen’s trust

The confidence of one party that the other party will behave as acts as assumed and in a socially responsible

way to fulfill the other party trust expectations.

AL Athmay and al., 2015; Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Roy and al., 2015; Al-Hujran and al., 2015; Bhuasiri and al., 2016; Almuraqab, 2016;

Kurfalı and al., 2017; Fakhoury and Baker, 2016; Carters and al., 2016; Saxena, 2017; Mensah, 2017; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Alharbi and al.,2017; Mensah and al, 2017; Alzahrani and al., 2017; Almarashdeh

and alsmadi, 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov, 2018; Lopes and al., 2019; Ma and Zheng, 2019; Okunola and Rowley, 2019; Al-Ma’aitah, 2019;

Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019; Ejdys and al., 2019

A bilateral belief that no party involves will profit from another vulnerability

An expectation that the commitment of the other party can be relied upon

(41)

28

Trust in

e-government Citizen’s _trust

The degree to which a person believes that their expectations will be met by the

e-government Saxena, 2017; Alzahrani and al., 2017; Alharbi and al., 2017; Al-Ma’aitah, 2019

Trust in internet Citizen’s _trust The degree to which a person believes that the interaction with Internet or a system is trustable.

Almuraqab, 2016; Fakhoury and Baker, 2016; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Mensah and al, 2017

Trust in

government Citizen’s trust

The degree to which a person believes that an interaction with the government is trustable

and expectable.

Roy and al., 2015; AL Athmay and al., 2015; Almuraqab, 2016; Kurfalı and al., 2017; Carters

and al., 2016; Mensah and al, 2017; Mensah, 2017; Naranjo-Zolotov and al., 2018; Lopes and

al., 2019; Ma and Zheng, 2019; Okunola and Rowley, 2019; Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019 Trust in technology Citizen’s _trust the interaction and use of technology can be The degree to which a person believes that

expectable and trustable.

Roy and al., 2015; Almuraqab, 2016; Mensah, 2017; Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017; Almarashdeh and alsmadi, 2017; Lopes and al.,

2019; Al-Ma’aitah, 2019

Trust in internet Citizen’s _trust The degree to which a person has trust on the _internet. AL Athmay and al., 2015; Van de walle, 2018; Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019 Use of personal data Risk and security Someone or something else using the private data of _others Not explicitly _{refer to} Okunola and Rowley, 2019; Table 2: Result of our keywords search

(42)

Article Constructs Used Model

(Abunadi and Alqahtani, 2019)

Sociotechnical factors Comparative benefits Compatibility Outcome certainty Technological communicability Reliance of internet Intention to use

Reliance on government agencies Openness to change

Conservatism

Quantitative research with online survey

(Al Athmay and Al., 2015)

User satisfaction

User intention to use e-government services

Intention to use System quality Information quality

IS Success model and Utaut use of an online questionnaire survey

(Alharbi and al., 2017)

Interface quality Security culture Cybersecurity

Security perception, Trust Behaviour intention Performance expectancy Habit Intention to use Facilitating conditions Social influence Privacy perception

Integrating security, trust, and privacy with the UTAUT2

(Al-Hujran and Al., 2015)

Attitude

Citizen intention to adopt and use Perceived public value

Perceived ease of use

Extending TAM

(Al-Ma’aitah, 2019)

Citizen trust

Quality of electronic services Citizen satisfaction with e-government services Service quality Social CRM

Citizen-government satisfaction

Online Surey

(Almarashdeh and Alsmadi, 2017)

Social influence

Behavioural intention to use Usage behaviour

Cost of service Perceived usefulness Perceived ease of use

Research model based on TAM

(Almuraqab and Jasimuddin, 2017)

Perceived usefulness Perceived ease of use Intention to use Facilitating conditions Perceived cost Social influence

Perceived trust in government Trust in technology

Perceived risk Perceived compatibility