Cited By
View all- Negri CDincă G(2023)Public sector’s efficiency as a reflection of governance quality, an European Union studyPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.029104818:9(e0291048)Online publication date: 8-Sep-2023
Using data envelopment analysis (DEA) to assess government web portals performance
Authors: 
Dolores E. Luna, 
J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, 
Luis F. Luna-Reyes, Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazán, Abel Duarte-ValleAuthors Info & Claims
Dolores E. Luna, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Luis F. Luna-Reyes, Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazán, Abel Duarte-ValleAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 107 - 115
Abstract
In the last few years, researchers have evaluated the performance of e-government portals in order to identify best practices and understand some of the factors that influence the quality of the information and services they provide to citizens. Most of these evaluations consider only the results or outputs, but ignore the inputs in terms of capabilities and resources that governments have available for these efforts. This paper argues that using data envelopment analysis (DEA) could help to better understand how efficient are governments in their use of certain inputs to produce high quality e-government portals. DEA is applied to calculate an efficiency score based on some portal characteristics (outputs) such as information, interaction, transaction, integration, and participation, and some organizational, institutional and contextual factors (inputs) such as government capacity, potential demand, and operation cost. The state government portals in Mexico are used for the empirical analysis. Our results indicate that there are some states that are never in the first places in terms of quality, but they have very few resources and capabilities and therefore, they are highly efficient.
References
[1]
Ahn, M. J., and Bretschneider, S. 2011. Politics of e-government: E-government and the political control of bureaucracy. Public Administration Review. 71, 3, 414--424.
[2]
Åkesson, M., and Edvardsson, B. 2008. Effects of e-government on service design as perceived by employees. Managing Service Quality. 18, 5, 457--478.
[3]
Ambite, J. L., Arens, Y., Bourne, W., Feiner, S., Gravano, L., Hatzivassiloglou, V., et al. 2002. Data Integration and Access. In Advances in Digital Government. Technology, Human Factors, and Policy, W. J. McIver and A. K. Elmagarmid, Eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 85--106.
[4]
Andersen, D. F., and Dawes, S. S. 1991. Government Information Management. A primer and Casebook. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[5]
Angelopoulos, S., Kitsios, F., and Papadopoulos, T. 2010. New service development in e-government: Identifying critical success factors. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. 4, 1, 95--118.
[6]
Ashurst, C., Doherty, N. F., and Peppard, J. 2008. Improving the impact of IT development projects: The benefits realization capability model. European Journal of Information Systems. 17, 352--370.
[7]
Azad, B., and Faraj, S. 2008. Making e-Government systems workable: Exploring the evolution of frames. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 17, 2, 75--98.
[8]
Ballou, D. P., and Tayi, G. K. 1999. Enhancing Data Quality in Data Warehouse Environments. Communications of the ACM. 42, 1, 73--79.
[9]
Banker R. D., Charnes A., Cooper W. W. 1984. Some model for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis, Management Science. 30, 9 (Sept. 1984), 1078--1092.
[10]
Baqir, M. N., and Iyer, L. 2010. E-government maturity over 10 Years: A comparative analysis of e-government maturity in select countries around the world. In Comparative E-Government, C. G. Reddick, Ed. Springer, New York, NY, 3--22.
[11]
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., and McClure, C. R. 2008. Citizen-centered e-government services: Benefits, costs, and research needs. Paper presented at the International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o).
[12]
Bissessar, A. M. 2010. The challenge of E-governance in a Small, Developing Society: The case of Trinidad and Tobago. In Comparative E-Government, C. G. Reddick, Ed. Springer, New York, NY, 313--329.
[13]
Burke, W. W. 2011. Organization Change: Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[14]
Charnes A., Cooper W. W., Rhodes E. L. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational Research. 2, 6, 429--444.
[15]
Choudhari, R. D., Banwet, D. K., and Gupta, M. P. 2011. Assessment of risk in e-governance projects: An application of product moment correlation and cluster analysis techniques. Electronic Government, an International Journal. 8, 1, 85--102.
[16]
Chwelos, P., Ramirez, R., Kraemer, K. L., and Melville, N. 2010. Does technological progress alter the nature of information technology as a production input? New evidence and new results. Information Systems Research. 21, 2, 392--408.
[17]
Cooper W. W., Seiford L. M., Tone K. 2000. Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
[18]
Cordella, A., and Iannacci, F. 2010. Information systems in the public sector: The e-Government enactment framework. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 19, 1, 52--66.
[19]
Cresswell, A. M., and Pardo, T. A. 2001. Implications of Legal and Organizational Issues for Urban Digital Government Development. Government Information Quarterly. 18, 269--278.
[20]
Criado, J. I. 2009. Gobierno Electrónico en Latinoamérica. Aproximación desde una Perspectiva Intergubernamental. Estado, Gobierno y Gestión Pública. Revista Chilena de Administración Pública, 14, 9--35.
[21]
Dawes, S. S. 1996. Interagency Information Sharing: expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 15, 3, 377--394.
[22]
Dawes, S. S. 2008. The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review. 68, S1, S86--S102.
[23]
Dawes, S. S., and Pardo, T. A. 2002. Building Collaborative Digital Government Systems. Systematic Constraints and Effective Practices. In Advances in Digital Government, Technology, Human Factors, and Policy, W. J. McIver and A. K. Elmagarmid, Eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Norwell, MA, 259--273.
[24]
Detlor, B., Hupfer, M. E., and Ruhi, U. 2010. Internal factors affecting the adoption and use of government websites. Electronic Government, an International Journal. 7, 2, 120--136.
[25]
Emrouznejad A., Podinovski V. 2004. Data envelopment analysis and performance management. Warwick print, Coventry, UK.
[26]
Eynon, R., and Margetts, H. 2007. Organizational Solutions for Overcoming Barriers to e-Government. European Journal of ePractice. 1, 73--86.
[27]
Fedorowicz, J., Gelinas Jr., U. J., Gogan, J. L., and Williams, C. B. 2009. Strategic alignment of participant motivations in e-government collaborations: The Internet Payment Platform pilot. Government Information Quarterly. 26, 1, 51--59.
[28]
Ferro, E., and Sorrentino, M. 2010. Can intermunicipal collaboration help the diffusion of E-Government in peripheral areas? Evidence from Italy. Government Information Quarterly. 27, 1, 17--25.
[29]
Fountain, J. E. 2001. Building the Virtual State. Information Technology and Institutional Change. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
[30]
Fountain, J. E. 2009. Bureaucratic reform and e-government in the United States: An institutional perspective. In Routledge handbook of Internet politics, A. Chadwick and P. N. Howard, Eds. Taylor and Francis Group, New York, NY, 99--113.
[31]
Garson, G. D. 2003. Toward an Information Technology Research Agenda for Public Administration. In Public Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues, G. D. Garson, Ed. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, 331--357.
[32]
Gil-Garcia, J. R. (forthcoming). Enacting Electronic Government Success: An Integrative Study of Government-wide Websites, Organizational Capabilities, and Institutions. Springer, New York, NY.
[33]
Gil-Garcia, J. R. and Helbig N. 2006. Exploring e-Government Benefits and Success Factors. In Encyclopedia of Digital Government, Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko and Matti Malkia, Eds. Idea Group Inc., Hershey, PA, 803--811.
[34]
Gil-Garcia, J. R. and Luna-Reyes, L. F. 2007. Modelo Multidimensional de Medición del Gobierno Electrónico para América Latina y el Caribe. Naciones Unidas-CEPAL y Unión Europea, Santiago de Chile, Chile.
[35]
Gil-Garcia, J. R., and Pardo, T. A. 2005. E-Government Success Factors: Mapping Practical Tools to Theoretical Foundations. Government Information Quarterly. 22, 2, 187--216.
[36]
Gonzalez, P., Adenso-Diaz, B., and Gemoets, L. A. 2010. A cross-national comparison e-government success measures: A theory-based empirical research. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Lima, Peru.
[37]
Gulati, G. J., Yates, D. J., and Tawileh, A. 2010. Towards E-Participation in the Middle East and Northern Europe. In Comparative E-Government, C. G. Reddick, Ed. Springer, New York, NY, 71--91.
[38]
Hall, R. H. 2002. Organizations. Structures, Processes, and Outcomes. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[39]
Heeks, R. 2003. Success and Failure Rates of eGovernment in Developing/Transitional Countries: Overview.
[40]
Herrera, L., and Gil-Garcia, J. R. 2010. Implementation of e-government in Mexico: The case of Infonavit. In Practical Studies in E-Government: Best Practices from Around the World, S. Assar, I. Boughzala and I. Boydens, Eds. Springer, New York, NY, 29--48.
[41]
Ho Ch. B., Wu D. D. 2009. Online banking performance evaluation using data envelopment analysis and principal component analysis. Computers and Operations Research. 36, 6(Jun. 2009), 1835--1842.
[42]
ITESM, 2010. La competitividad de los Estados Mexicanos. Fortalezas ante la crisis. Escuela de Graduados en Administración Pública y Política Pública, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, NL.
[43]
Janssen, M. 2008. Exploring the service-oriented enterprise: Drawing lessons from a case study. Paper presented at the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
[44]
Joseph, B. K. 2010. E-Government Adoption Landscape Zambia: Context, issues and challenges. In Comparative E-Government, C. G. Reddick, Ed. Springer, New York, NY, 241--258.
[45]
Klievink, B., and Janssen, M. 2009. Realizing joined-up government: Dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Government Information Quarterly. 26, 2, 275--284.
[46]
Klischewski, R., and Scholl, H. J. 2008. Information quality as capstone in negotiating e-government integration, interoperation and information sharing. Electronic Government, an International Journal. 5, 2, 203--225.
[47]
Kuan, K. K. Y., and Chau, P. Y. K. 2001. A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology organization-environment framework. Information and Management, 38, 507--521.
[48]
Langford, J., and Roy, J. 2009. Building shared accountability into service transformation partnerships. International Journal of Public Policy, 4, 3/4, 232--250.
[49]
Liao, C., Chuang, S.-H., and To, P.-L. 2011. How knowledge management mediates the relationship between environment and organizational structure. Journal of Business Research. 64, 7, 728--736.
[50]
Luna-Reyes, L. F. and Gil-Garcia, J. R. 2011. Using Institutional Theory and Dynamic Simulation to Understand Complex e-Government Phenomena. Government Information Quarterly. 28, 3, 329--345.
[51]
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Pardo, T. A., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Navarrete, C., Zhang, J., and Mellouli, S. 2010. Digital Government in North America: A comparative Analysis of Policy and Program Priorities in Canada, Mexico and the United States. In Comparative E-Government, C. G. Reddick, Ed. Springer, New York, NY, 139--160.
[52]
Margetts, H. (2009). The Internet and Public Policy. Policy and Internet. 1, 1--21.
[53]
Maudos J., Pastor J. M., Perez, F. and Quesada, J. 2002. Cost and profit efficiency in European Banks. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 12, 1(Feb. 2002), 33--58.
[54]
Meijer, A., and Thaens, M. 2010. Alignment 2.0: Strategic use of new internet technologies in government. Government Information Quarterly. 27, 2, 113--121.
[55]
OECD. 2003. The e-Government Imperative. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
[56]
Olbrich, S. 2010. Implementing E-Government Locally - An Empirical Survey from the European Metropolitan Area Rhine-Nechar. In Comparative E-Government, C. G. Reddick Ed. Springer, New York, NY, 221--237.
[57]
Pardo, T. A., Gil-Garcia, J. R., and Burke, G. B. 2008. Sustainable cross-boundary information sharing. In Digital Government: E-Government Research, Case Studies, and Implementation, H. Chen, L. Brandt, V. Gregg, R. Traunmüller, S. Dawes, E. Hovy, A. Macintosh and C. A. Larson, Eds. Springer, New York, NY, 421--438.
[58]
Pina, V., Torres, L., and Royo, S. 2009. E-government evolution in EU local governments: a comparative perspective. Online Information Review. 33, 6, 1137--1168.
[59]
Rahman, H. 2010. Framework of E-Governance at the local government level. In Comparative E-Government, C. G. Reddick Ed. Springer, New York, NY, 23--47.
[60]
Reddick, C. G. 2010. Preface. In Comparative E-Government, C. G. Reddick Ed. Springer, New York, NY.
[61]
Reddick, C. G. 2009a. The adoption of centralized customer service systems: A survey of local governments. Government Information Quarterly. 26, 1, 219--226.
[62]
Rorissa, A., Demissie, D., and Pardo, T. 2011. Benchmarking e-Government: A comparison of frameworks for computing e-Government index and ranking. Government Information Quarterly. 28, 3, 354--362.
[63]
Roy, J. 2009. E-government and integrated service delivery in Canada: The Province of Nova Scotia as a case study. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 2, 2/3, 223--238.
[64]
Sandoval-Almazan R., Gil-García J. R. 2008. Construyendo un índice de funcionalidad para el gobierno electrónico: una primera evaluación de los portales estatales en México. Espacios Públicos, 11, 21(Feb. 2008), 8--19.
[65]
Smith, M. L. 2010. Building institutional trust through e-government trustworthiness cues. Information Technology and People. 23, 3, 222--246.
[66]
Ubaldi, B.-C., and Roy, J. 2010. E-government and federalism in Italy and Canada---A comparative assessment. In Comparative E-Government, C. G. Reddick, Ed. Springer, (Vol. 25) Berlin, 183--199.
[67]
Valdés, G., Solar, M., Astudillo, H., Iribarren, M., Concha, G., and Visconti, M. 2011. Conception, development and implementation of an e-Government maturity model in public agencies. Government Information Quarterly. 28, 2, 176--187.
[68]
Van Veenstra, A. F., Klievink, B., and Janssen, M. 2011. Barriers and impediments to transformational government: Insights from literature and practice. Electronic Government, an International Journal. 8, 2/3, 226--241.
[69]
Weerakkody, V., Dwivedi, Y. K., and Kurunananda, A. 2009. Implementing e-government in Sri Lanka: Lessons from the UK. Information Technology for Development. 15, 3, 171--192.
[70]
Yang, T.-M., and Maxwell, T. A. 2011. Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly. 28, 2, 164--175.
Index Terms
- Using data envelopment analysis (DEA) to assess government web portals performance
Recommendations
Government web portals performance evaluation using data envelopment analysis
dg.o '11: Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging TimesOver the past years we have studied the performance of e-government portals in order to identify best practices. This poster proposes a performance measurement for internet state portal in México using data envelopment analysis (DEA). For each portal, ...
Improving the performance assessment of government web portals: A proposal using data envelopment analysis DEA
Key Factors and Processes for Digital Government SuccessResearchers around the world propose different ways to assess the performance of electronic government portals in order to understand the factors that influence the quality of the information and services they provide to citizens, businesses, and other ...
Tailoring open government data portals for lay citizens: A gamification theory approach
AbstractGovernment policies focused on Open Government Data (OGD) often aim to stimulate the provision of public, interoperable data towards any user, including lay citizens, through online portals. However, these OGD portals are mostly ...
Highlights- Open Government Data (OGD) portals are tailored for experts and not for lay citizens.
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
June 2012
324 pages
ISBN:9781450314039
DOI:10.1145/2307729
- Conference Chair:
- John Bertot,
- Program Chairs:
- Luis Felipe Luna-Reyes,
- Sehl Mellouli
Copyright © 2012 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Sponsors
- Elsevier
- iSchool: College of Information Studies, University of Maryland
- iPAC: Information Policy and Access Center
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 04 June 2012
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Funding Sources
Conference
dg.o '12
Sponsor:
- iSchool
- iPAC
dg.o '12: 13th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
June 4 - 7, 2012
Maryland, College Park, USA
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 150 of 271 submissions, 55%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 239Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)2
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 15 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Negri CDincă G(2023)Public sector’s efficiency as a reflection of governance quality, an European Union studyPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.029104818:9(e0291048)Online publication date: 8-Sep-2023
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in