Study of the digital divide evaluation model for government agencies-A Taiwanese local government's perspective

Information Systems Frontiers

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 693-709

  Chang, She I ^a   Yen, David C ^b   Chang, I Cheng ^a   Chou, Jung Chu ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHUNG CHENG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process; Digital divide; Digital governments; Evaluation model; Expert questionnaire; Grounded theory

Indexed keywords

DIGITAL DIVIDE; DIGITAL GOVERNMENT; EVALUATION MODELS; EXPERT QUESTIONNAIRE; GROUNDED THEORY;

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; MULTIMEDIA SERVICES;

SURVEYS;

EID: 84865354196     PISSN: 13873326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10796-011-9297-x     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Akmana, Ib, Yazicib, A., Mishraa, A., & Arifoglu, A. (2005). EGovernment: A global view and an empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 239-257. (Pubitemid 40869738)
2. Allen, B. A., Juillet, L., Paquet, G., & Roy, J. (2001). E-governance and government on-line in Canada: Partnerships, people and prospects. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 93-104. (Pubitemid 33379947)
3. Andonova, V. (2006). Mobile phones, the Internet and the institutional environment. Telecommunications Policy, 30, 29-45. (Pubitemid 43121354)
4. Apostolou, B., & Hassell, J. M. (1993). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its use in accounting research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 12, 1-28.
5. Billon, M., Marco, R., & Lera-Lopez, F. (2009). Disparities in ICT adoption: A multidimensional approach to study the crosscountry digital divide. Telecommunications Policy, 33, 596-610.
6. Brooks, S., Donovan, P., & Rumble, C. (2005). Developing nations, the digital divide and research databases. Serials Review, 31, 270-278. (Pubitemid 43115525)
7. Brugha, C. M. (2004). Phased multicriteria preference finding. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 308-316.
8. Bui, T. X., Sankaran, S., & Sebastian, I. M. (2003). A framework for measuring national e-readiness. Electronic Business, 1, 3-21.
9. Center for International Development at Harvard University (CIDHU) (2000). Readiness for the networked world: A guide for developing countries. Available from http://cyber.law.harvard. edu/readinessguide/guide.pdf.
10. Chang, B. L., Bakken, S., Brown, S. S., Houston, T. K., Kreps, G. L., Kukafka, R., et al. (2004). Bridging the digital divide: Reaching vulnerable populations. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11, 448-457. (Pubitemid 39421728)
11. Chen, C. J., & Huang, C. C. (2004). A multiple criteria evaluation of high-tech industries for the science-based industrial park in Taiwan. Information Management, 41, 839-851.
12. Chen, W., & Wellman, B. (2004). The global digital divide -Within and between countries. IT & Society, 1, 39-45.
13. Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie, R. W. (2004). The determinants of the global digital divide. Choice, 42, 7-17.
14. Çilan, Ç., Bolat, B., & Coşkun, E. (2009). Analyzing digital divide within and between member and candidate countries of European Union. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 98-105.
15. Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP) (2003). The CSPP readiness guide for living in the networked world, A self assessment tool for communities. Available from http://www.schoolnetafrica.net/fileadmin/resources/CSPP- Readiness-Guide.pdf.
16. Crenshaw, E. M., & Robinson, K. K. (2006). Globalization and the digital divide: The roles of structural conduciveness and global connection in Internet diffusion. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 190-207. (Pubitemid 43439111)
17. Cuervo, M., & Menéndez, A. (2006). A multivariate framework for the analysis of the digital divide: Evidence for the European Union-15. Information Management, 43, 756-766. (Pubitemid 44287237)
18. Dalton, M. S. (2000). Old values for the new information age. Library Journal, 125, 43-46.
19. DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). Social implications of the internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307-336.
20. Ebrahim, Z., & Irani, Z. (2005). E-government adoption: Architecture and barriers. Business Process Management Journal, 11, 589-611. (Pubitemid 41374242)
21. Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2007). The 2007 e-readiness rankings. Available from http://graphics.eiu.com/files/ad-pdfs/2007Ereadiness-Ranking-WP. pdf.
22. Evansa, D., & Yen, D. C. (2005). E-government: An analysis for implementation: Framework for understanding cultural and social impact. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 354-373. (Pubitemid 41472346)
23. Forman, E. H. (1990). AHP is intended for more than expected value calculations. Decision Science, 21, 670-672.
24. Forman, E. H., & Gass, S. I. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process-An exposition. Operations Research, 49, 469-486.
25. Fuchs, C., & Horak, E. (2008). Africa and the digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 25, 99-116. (Pubitemid 351289013)
26. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Press.
27. Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
28. Guasch, J. S., & Ugas, L. (2007). The digital gap in Maracaibo city in Venezuela. Telematics and Informatics, 24, 41-47. (Pubitemid 44415390)
29. Gupta, M. P., & Jana, D. (2003). E-government evaluation: A framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 365-387. (Pubitemid 37527835)
30. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: differences in people's online skills. First Monday, 7, 1-20.
31. Huang, Z. (2006). E-government practices at local levels: An analysis of U.S. counties' websites. Information Systems Journal, 7, 165-170.
32. James, J. (2007). From origins to implications: key aspects in the debate over the digital divide. Journal of Information Technology, 22, 284-295.
33. Jukic, T., & Vintar, M. (2006). E-government: The state in Slovenian local self-government. Organizacija, 39, 176-183.
34. Kiiski, S., & Pohjola, M. (2002). Cross-country diffusion of the Internet. Information Economics and Policy, 14, 297-310. (Pubitemid 34641946)
35. Kuk, G. (2002). The digital divide and the quality of electronic service delivery in local government in the United Kingdom. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 353-363. (Pubitemid 37527834)
36. Lane, E. F., & Verdini, W. A. (1989). A consistency test for AHP decision makers. Decision Science, 20, 575-590.
37. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 564-575.
38. Lee, J., & Kim, J. (2007). Grounded theory analysis of e-government initiatives: Exploring perceptions of government authorities. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 135-147. (Pubitemid 44872629)
39. Leenes, R. (2004). Local e-Government in the Netherlands: From Ambitious Policy Goals to Harsh Reality. Available from http://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/pdf/ita- 04-04.pdf.
40. Lentz, R. G., & Oden, M. D. (2001). Digital divide or digital opportunity in the Mississippi Delta region of the US. Telecommunications Policy, 25, 291-313. (Pubitemid 32573299)
41. Liu, M., & San, G. (2006). Social learning and digital divides: A case study of Internet technology diffusion. Kyklos, 59, 307-321.
42. Luyt, B. (2006). Defining the digital divide: The role of e-readiness indicators. Aslib Proceedings, 58, 276-291. (Pubitemid 44491167)
43. McConnell International and Witsa (2000). Risk E-Business: Seizing the opportunity of global E-readiness. Available from: http://www. mcconnellinternational.com/ereadiness/ereadiness.pdf.
44. McGregora, M. A., & Holman, J. (2004). Communication technology at the federal communications commission: E-government in the public interest? Government Information Quarterly, 21, 268-283. (Pubitemid 39109165)
45. Metaxiotis, K., & Psarras, J. (2005). A conceptual analysis of knowledge management in e-government. Electronic Government, 2, 77-86.
46. Moreir, A. G. (2003). E-government in local level in Portugal. Proceeding of the Planning Research Conference Oxford Brookes University.
47. Mutula, S. M., & van Brakel, P. (2006). An evaluation of e-readiness assessment tools with respect to information access: Towards an integrated information rich tool. International Journal of Information Management, 26, 212-223. (Pubitemid 43853071)
48. National Information and Communication Initiative Committee (2004). Taiwan digital planning. Available from http://www. etaiwan.nat.gov.tw/content/ application/etaiwan/generala/guestcnt-browse.php?cnt-id=1233
49. National Research Development and Evaluation Commission (2006). 2006 digital application survey of local government. Taiwan Executive Yuan, Taiwan.
50. National Research Development and Evaluation Commission (2007). Excellent Internet government planning. Available from http://www.rdec.gov.tw/lp.asp? ctNode=8674&CtUnit=1072& BaseDSD=7.
51. Nia, A. Y., & Ho, A. T. K. (2005). Challenges in e-government development: Lessons from two information kiosk projects. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 58-74.
52. Norris, P., Bennett, W. L., & Entman, R. M. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. UK: Cambridge University Press.
53. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1989). Learning how to learn. NY: Cambridge University Press.
54. O. E. C. D. (2001). Understanding the digital divide. Available from http://www.oeed.orb/dataoecd/38/57/1888451.pdf.
55. O. E. C. D. (2002). The Digital Divide: Diffusion and Use ICTs, OECD, Paris.
56. O. E. C. D. (2008). The Seoul Declaration for the future of the Internet Economy. OECD Ministerial Meeting, Seoul, Korea, June 17-18.
57. Parent, M., vandebeek, C. A., & Gemino, A. C. (2005). Building citizen trust through e-government. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 720-736. (Pubitemid 43422592)
58. Parker, E. B. (2000). Closing the digital divide in rural America. Telecommunications Policy, 24, 281-290.
59. Rao, S. S. (2005). Bridging digital divide: Efforts in India. Telematics and Informatics, 22, 361-375. (Pubitemid 40819559)
60. Rose, M. (2004). Democratizing information and communication by implementing e-government in Indonesian regional government. The International Information & Library Review, 36, 219-226. (Pubitemid 39167955)
61. Roy, J. (2006). E-government And Local Governance in Canada: An examination of front line challenges and federal tensions. Public Administration and Management, 7, 306-350. (Pubitemid 44878673)
62. Ruikar, K., & Carrillo, P. M. (2006). Verdict-An e-readiness assessment application for construction companies. Automation in Construction, 15, 98-110. (Pubitemid 41436349)
63. Saaty, T. L. (1971). The analytic hierarchy process. NY: McGraw-Hill.
64. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. NY: McGraw-Hill.
65. Saaty, T. L. (1986). Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP: The most livable cities in the United States. Socio-Economic Planning Science, 20, 327-331.
66. Singh, A. K., & Sahu, R. (2007). Integrating Internet, telephones, and call centers for delivering better quality e-governance to all citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 477-490.
67. Sprecher, M. H. (2000). Racing to e-government: Using the internet for citizen service delivery. Government Finance Review, 16, 21-22.
68. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. CA: Sage.
69. Sun, Y., He, S., & Leu, J. Y. (2007). Syndicating web services: A QoS and user-driven approach. Decision Support Systems, 43, 243-255. (Pubitemid 46073240)
70. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2003). Information and communication technology development indices. Available from http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc20031-en.pdf.
71. Vargas, L. G. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and it applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 2-8.
72. Vehovar, V., Sicherl, P., Hüsing, T., & Dolnicar, V. (2006). Methodological challenges of digital divide measurements. The Information Society, 22, 279-290. (Pubitemid 44449271)
73. Wacker, J. G. (1998). A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16, 361-385. (Pubitemid 128408883)
74. Wacker, J. G. (2008). A conceptual understanding of requirements for theory-building research: guidelines for scientific theory building. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44, 5-15.
75. Weerasinghe, S. (2004). Revolution within the revolution: The Sri Lankan attempt to bridge the digital divide through e-governance. The International Information & Library Review, 36, 319-327. (Pubitemid 40256605)
76. West, D. M. (2002). Assessing E-Government: The internet, democracy, and service delivery by state and federal governments. The Genesis Institute.
77. Wolcott, L. P., Mchenry, W., Goodman, S., & Foster, W. (2001). A framework for assessing the global diffusion of the internet. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2, 9-21.
78. World Bank. (2006). Information technologies and development. Geneva: World Bank.
79. Yang, J., & Paul, S. (2003). Current stage of local E-government application -an empirical study. Communications of IIMA, 3, 49-60.
80. Zarei, B., & Ghapanchi, A. (2008). Guidelines for governmentto-government initiative architecture in developing countries. International Journal of Information Management, 28, 277-284.
81. Zhao, H., Kim, S., Suh, T., & Du, J. (2007). Social institutional explanations of global Internet diffusion: Across-country analysis. Journal of Global Information Management, 15, 28-55.