Service Delivery Through E-Governance: Perceptionand Expectation of Customers in Fiji and PNG

Gurmeet Singh & Raghuvar Dutt Pathak & Rafia Naz

Published online: 5 October 2010# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract Empirical studies on e-governance are replete with evidences highlightingits potential for improving service delivery. This study was conducted in PNG andFiji using structured questionnaires distributed to different groups of respondents.The results indicate that e-governance has the potential to improve Public ServiceDelivery. It is also confirmed through the findings in this research that theexpectations of citizens from public services are quite high, but experience has oftenbeen negative i.e. there is a huge variance in the perception and expectation ofnormal citizens in PNG (Papua New Guinea) and Fiji regarding service delivery,quality of services.

Keywords E-governance . Public service delivery . Customer service . PNG . Fiji

Introduction

E-governance not only saves costs but also helps in improving quality, responsetimes, and access to services (ADB 2003; Jones et al. 2007). Some analysts haveeven noted its role in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of publicadministration (UN-ECOSOC 2003; Gonzalez et al. 2007; Singh et al. 2010). It isalso seen as a tool to increase transparency in administration, reduce corruption,and increase political participation (Seifert and Bonham 2003). Its potential tomake governments more competitive and to enable them to face the challenges ofthe information and communication age has also been noted (UN 2008; UNDP2010). E-governance that leads to just internal efficiency in the publicadministration may not necessarily benefit the citizens at large. Real benefits cantrickle down to citizens only after relations between public administration andcitizens improve (Gilbert and Balestrini 2004; Tan and Pan 2003; Pan et al. 2006).

Public Organiz Rev (2011) 11:371–384DOI 10.1007/s11115-010-0135-2

G. Singh (*) : R. D. Pathak : R. NazSchool of Management & Public Administration, Faculty of Business and Economics,The University of the South Pacific, Private Mail Bag, Laucala Bay Campus, Suva, Fijie-mail: singh_g@usp.ac.fj

On these grounds, it is essential that e-governance afford clear benefits to citizens(Gilbert and Balestrini 2004) who will then translate into improving citizens’perception of the public sector (Tolbert and Mossberger 2006). Toshifumi andHimanshu (2004) have pointed out that government, perhaps more than any otherorganization, can benefit from the efficiencies and improved service that stem fromdigital processes. The use of ICT in government is not only intended to have afocus on efficiency and effectiveness but also to empower citizens by makingavailable to them an interactive access to and use of information (Gage 2002;Ghosh and Arora 2005; Siau and Long 2005).

South Pacific countries, like many other developing countries of the worldare facing problems in efficient public service delivery (ADB 2003). Publicservice delivery has been inconsistent with citizen preferences and consideredfeeble in developing countries (International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment/The World Bank 2005). The problems of poor service delivery inthe Pacific are mostly due to lack of accountability, transparency and commitmentin making services work for poor and marginalized citizens (World Bank, WorldDevelopment Report 2004). Gani et al. (2007) present a good governance index forseven Pacific Island Countries (PICs). Countries were classified as those (1) wheregovernance quality has been improving over the past decade and include countriesincluding Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, Samoa and Vanuatu; and (2) wheregovernance has improved only marginally over the past decade including countrieslike Papua New Guinea and Tonga. Fiji and PNG best representatives of these twoclassifications. This is one of the reasons why Fiji and PNG have been chosen aspart of this research. Other reasons being their large size, population and servicesdelivery problems.

PNG and Fiji are two biggest countries of South Pacific in terms of populationand area. Both countries are grappling to improve the quality of Governance andpublic service delivery through effective use of ICT. This study examines thepotential of information and communication technology (ICT) in improvinggovernance and service delivery in PNG and Fiji. The paper is presented in foursections: a literature review; methodological discussion, including details ofsampling procedures and data collection; presentation and discussion of the researchfindings; and overall conclusions, including discussion of managerial implicationsand areas for future research.

Literature review

A number of empirical studies have been conducted that highlight the potential of e-governance for improving service delivery. Studies by Ahmed (2004), Bassanini(2003), Bhatnagar (2002, 2003, 2004), Borwankar (2004), Cho and Choi (2004),Fuliya and Bansal (2005), Kang (2001) and Prahalad (2005) demonstrate the impactof e-governance in improving service delivery and enhancing transparency andaccountability. According to Bhatnagar (2002, 2003, 2004) e-governance led togreater empowerment in Mexico, Chile, Philippines and even in India. Borwankar’s(2004) investigation in India shows that e-governance led to increased levels oftransparency and greater public participation and trust.

372 G. Singh et al.

Despite much research on service delivery, vigour is still lacking (Augus etal. 2007). Kašubienė and Vanagas (2007) have pointed out that it is crucial toinvestigate the factors influencing customer perception towards e-governance.They argue also that service quality aspects of e-governance are even more inneed of research. Åkesson and Edvardsson (2008) provide a useful guide toimprovement. They identify how e-governance could stimulate five dimensionsof change in the design of services (service encounter and service process;customers as co-creators and sole producers of services; efficiency; increasedcomplexity; and integration). The present study illustrates the significance ofÅkesson and Edvardsson’s findings. The study builds on one by Singh et al.(2010) which used a sample of 400 citizens each from Ethiopia, Fiji and Indiaand found that e-governance will be able to streamline bureaucratic proceduresto make operations more efficient.

The paper accepts the propositions of principal-agent theory that problems ofaccountability and transparency created by asymmetric information flowsbetween agents and principals (Laffont and Martimort 2002; Lane 2003) lead toproblems such as corruption and huge time and cost factors in service delivery.ICT enabled systems offer the potential to eliminate opportunities for corrupt useof discretion by dis-intermediating services and allowing citizens to conducttransactions themselves. Such systems also extend accessibility of informationwithin the public sector and by providing enhanced accounting, monitoring andauditing systems; such systems ensure that public business is more fully open tosenior managerial and external scrutiny. Enhanced communication means thatcitizens can be more fully involved in all aspects of government, including policy-making, thus reinforcing the creation of a culture of trust and mutual interest (Nazet al. 2006).

The issue of public service is also one of effectiveness. Effectiveness in customerservice typically refers to “doing the right things” and measures constructs likecustomer satisfaction on dimensions, such as service quality, speed, timing, andhuman interaction. Providing high-quality and cost-effective public services involvescreating organizations with the right approaches and ethos, establishing clear waysof delivering services, and putting the right people in place to respond to the needsof citizens (Rodríguez, et al. 2009). Public service provider in order to attain suitableperformance and satisfy customers/citizens has to build new strategies ofdevelopment, based on the principles of efficiency, effectiveness, and economy ofmanagement. Service provider also needs to understand how these services areperceived by citizens. In other words, the relationship between the service concept,the service offered to citizens, and citizen benefits has to be clarified (Grönroos2007).

The work of early researchers like Crosby (1979), Deming (1986), Juran (1988),Gronroos (1984) and Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988, 1991a, b) focused attention onthe relationship between service quality and business performance. Previously,concern with service quality was confined to private services but recent changeagendas have made it also a priority in the public sector (Lagrosen and Lagrosen2003; Perrott 1996). Therefore the present research is based on the argument thatthere is a strong relationship between service quality and business performance inpublic-sector organizations.

Service Delivery Through E-Governance: Perception and Expectation of Customers in Fiji and PNG 373

To measure the perception of public service experience and expectations, threevariables of effectiveness, efficiency and equity have been used. The measures ofexpectations and perceptions of the service experience tend to focus on a relativelysmall number of very specific factors, such as how long customers wait to be served.This allows a gap analysis approach through comparing expected service qualitywith experience (MORI 2002). The same has been reflected in the work of Zeithamlet al. (1985).

Methodology

This study was conducted with a sample of 189 respondents from PNG, and 198respondents from Fiji. Structured questionnaires were distributed to differentgroups of respondents (from five geographical areas of Fiji and PNG) usingstratified random sampling. Questionnaires targeting individual citizens andpublic servants were collected via multi-method which entailed personal or faceto face interviews; and personally administered questionnaires in a surveyconducted between November 2007 and January 2008.The justification for usingtriangulation was that it enabled the researchers to overcome the advantages anddisadvantages of the different modes of data collection and yet ensured at least90–100% response rate. To test the validity, content or face validity andconstruct validity was conducted. Face validity was tested in the pilot testingphase and construct validity was ensured by linking theoretical rationale to theconcepts being measured as in the introductory section. Before carrying outhypothesis testing, a reliability test of the constructs was carried out to produceCronbach’s coefficient alpha. Using SPSS software, reliability tests for internalconsistency using Cronbach’s alpha as shown in Table 1 was carried out.

Table 1 Reliability test scores

Construct Cronbach’s coefficient alpha

Fiji PNG

Public service experience 0.85 0.95

Public service effectiveness 0.89 0.94

Public service efficiency 0.86 0.86

Public service equity 0.86 0.87

Public service expectation 0.94 0.89

Public service expectation effectiveness 0.98 0.96

Public service expectation efficiency 0.94 0.93

Public service expectation equity 0.93 0.89

Public service agencies 0.79 0.95

Public service improvement 0.76 0.92

Source: Questionnaire scale reliability

Scale reliability accepted at alpha value >=0.5

374 G. Singh et al.

According to the reliability test in Table 1, it can be seen that the standardized itemalpha scores for each variable reaches acceptable scores as all alpha values areabove 0.9. Consequently, the internal consistency reliability of the surveyinstrument and the variables were determined to be reliable. For those scales thatwere single item scales but utilized in subsequent hypotheses testing, reliability oftests could not be conducted.

After data was collected, the next step was to analyze data to test the researchhypotheses and answer specific research objectives. The hypotheses for this researchwere as follows:

H1: Public perception of quality for Public Service Delivery System is satisfactoryH2: There is a variance in public perception of their service delivery experience

and expectationH3: E-Governance contributes towards effectiveness, efficiency and equity in

public servicesH4: Effectiveness, efficiency and equity in public services enhances the quality of

public service delivery.H5: Adoption of e-governance improves quality of public services

Results and discussion

H1: Public perception of quality for Public Service Delivery System is satisfactory

Quality of Public Service Delivery System was measured by investigating theproblems of the system in Fiji and PNG.

In response to question on how you rate the overall quality of PublicService Delivery System in your country? As exhibited in Table 2, of the 198respondents in Fiji, 16.2% said that PSD is very poor, 44.9% have rated PSD aspoor, 31.3% were okay with PSD, and a small per cent- 6.1% rated PSD as good,while 1% rated PSD in Fiji as very good. Of the 189 respondents in PNG, 29.6%said that PSD is very poor, 32.8% have rated PSD as poor, 29.6% were okay withPSD, and a small per cent- 7.9% rated PSD as good, while none of the

Table 2 Rating on the overall quality of public service delivery system in Fiji and PNG

Ratings (Count/%)

Country VG (1) G (2) Ok (3) P (4) VP (5) TotalRatings

MissingResponses

Total

Count%

Count%

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

Fiji 2 1.0 12 6.1 62 31.3 89 44.9 32 16.2 197 99.5 1 0.5 198 100.0

PNG 0 0 15 7.9 56 29.6 62 32.8 56 29.6 189 100.0 0 0.0 189 100.0

Source: Questionnaire

Service Delivery Through E-Governance: Perception and Expectation of Customers in Fiji and PNG 375

respondents rated PSD in PNG as very good. This is also in alignment with thestudies conducted by ADB (2004), Kavanamur and Okole (2004) and Payani(2000) who revealed that public service delivery is rated poor and ineffective.

Also exhibited in Table 3 above, Fiji has mean value of 3.69 with standarddeviation of 0.85. PNG has mean value of 3.23 with standard deviation of 0.88.The mean values suggest that in Fiji customers rated public service quality as poorbecause the mean values are near to 4 rating scale (poor). In the case of PNG, themean values suggest that citizens were neutral (OK) with PS Quality. Thusfindings reveal that Public perception of service quality is poor in Fiji but, OK inPNG.

Therefore, H1 is rejected.

H2: There is a variance in public perception of their service delivery experienceand expectation

This hypothesis was formulated to know if there is any variance in publicperception of their service delivery experience and expectation. To test thishypothesis, paired sample t-test was carried out with the help of SPSS 15. Theimportance of paired sample t-test is that it intends to identify differences betweenthe mean values, in this case perception (actual experience) in PSD and expectationsabout (should be; ought to be) service delivery. Hypothesis 1 Results are presentedin Table 4 below:

Negative difference between perception of public service experience andexpectation of public services indicates, low customer satisfaction and a positiveresult indicate high customer satisfaction. With reference to H2, it is observed that inFiji and PNG, the difference between Public Service experience and Public Serviceexpectation is negative; implying that the Public Service experience is less than whatcitizens expect; or in other words Public Service experience does not match PublicService expectations. The value is significant as it is well below p value 0.05. Thisalso means that there is a huge variance between Public Service perception andPublic Service expectation. It was clearly seen, that huge variances exist inperceptions (actual experience) and expectations in Fiji and PNG, implying widercitizen dissatisfaction.

Therefore, H2 is accepted.

H3: E-Governance contributes towards effectiveness, efficiency and equity inpublic services

Table 3 Average of PS rating (PS quality) and indication of the spread the rating in Fiji and PNG

Variables Country Mean rank Mean S.D rank S.D

Public service rating (Public service quality) Fiji 2 3.69 1 0.85

PNG 1 3.84 3 0.94

Source: Questionnaire

S.D stands for standard déviation

376 G. Singh et al.

This hypothesis was developed to assess whether e-governance has anycontribution towards effectiveness, efficiency and equity in various servicesprovided to public in Fiji and PNG. To test this hypothesis, one-sample t test wascarried out and this was tested by taking population mean value of zero (assuming itas indifferent response).

Hypothesis 3 Results are presented in Table 5 below.In analyzing people’s expectations on capabilities/benefits derived from e-

governance systems in PNG, it was found that respondents in PNG and Fijibelieve that e-governance has significantly affected all the items which e-governance is supposed to facilitate (items 1–9 in effectiveness; items 1–3 inefficiency; and items 1–3 in equity in services). In other words, the benefits areeither much above expectation or above expectation (positive rating). All thevalues are significant as they are below 0.05. Thus, H3 is accepted and it can beinferred that e-governance contributes towards effectiveness, efficiency andequity in services delivered to citizens in PNG and Fiji.

H4: Effectiveness, efficiency and equity in public services enhances the quality ofpublic service delivery.

This hypothesis was developed to assess whether improved service quality isthe result of effectiveness, efficiency and equity in services. To test thishypothesis, one-sample t test was carried out. It was tested by taking populationmean value of 0 assuming it as indifferent response. Table 6 presents the resultsbelow.

In analyzing the drivers of service quality in the two countries, therespondents believe that the drivers (effectiveness, efficiency and equity) aresignificant and explain service quality. All values are significant as they arebelow 0.05. Page and Spreng (2002) had defined service quality as “the overallevaluation of service performance”, and so had Zeithaml et al. (1985). This modelwas also discussed by other researchers as well (Brady and Cronin 2001; Cronin etal. (2000); Dabholkar et al. (2000) ; Parasuraman et al. 1988). Thus, H4 is acceptedin both the countries and it can be inferred that service quality is the result of or ispositively affected by effectiveness, efficiency and equity in services delivered inFiji and PNG.

To further test these drivers, chi–square test of independence was carried out. Theimportance of chi–square is that it intends to identify whether the perceived findingsare real or a result of sampling error. With reference to H4, it is expected that PSeffectiveness, PS efficiency and PS equity would have an impact on service quality.The output for the test is shown in table 7.

Table 4 Variance in customers perception versus customers expectations in Fiji and PNG

Variables Country Mean difference Sig.

Public service experience and Public service expectation Fiji −1.249 0.000

PNG −0.124 0.036

Source: Questionnaire

Service Delivery Through E-Governance: Perception and Expectation of Customers in Fiji and PNG 377

Table 5 Respondents’ expectations of the key benefits from e-governance-results for Fiji and PNG

Measures Key positive benefits from using/adopting e-governance in Fiji andPNG

Effectiveness In service Country MBE(1) %

SBE(2) %

JHE(3) %

AE(4) %

MAE(5) %

MeanDiff.

Sig. At5 %

Accurate Response Fiji 2.5 16.7 52.5 16.2 10.6 3.15897 0.000

PNG 2.1 2.6 20.6 50.3 15.9 3.82081 0.000

Timely Information Fiji 3.5 23.7 50.0 14.6 6.6 2.96923 0.000

PNG 2.1 2.6 16.4 52.9 17.5 3.88439 0.000

Feedback Response Fiji 4.5 19.2 55.1 14.1 5.6 2.96923 0.000

PNG 2.1 3.7 16.9 48.7 20.6 3.89080 0.000

Citizen Participation Fiji 4.0 22.7 53.5 12.6 5.6 2.92821 0.000

PNG 2.1 6.3 19.6 48.1 15.9 3.75287 0.000

Reliability in services Fiji 6.6 20.2 53.5 12.6 4.5 2.88083 0.000

PNG 2.1 5.8 14.8 45.5 21.7 3.87647 0.000

Assurancea Fiji 6.1 25.8 46.5 14.1 5.6 2.87113 0.000

PNG 3.2 4.8 23.8 45.5 14.3 3.68786 0.000

Reducing discretion & bribery Fiji 7.6 24.2 46.5 14.6 4.5 2.83938 0.000

PNG 2.6 5.3 9.5 48.1 26.5 3.98276 0.000

Reducing transaction cost Fiji 7.6 19.2 52.0 13.6 5.1 2.89119 0.000

PNG 3.2 5.8 15.9 48.7 18.5 3.79885 0.000

Increase transparency and openness Fiji 7.6 19.2 15.5 14.6 5.6 2.91192 0.000

PNG 2.6 3.2 11.1 42.3 30.2 4.05325 0.000

Efficiency in service

Low cost factor Fiji 7.1 17.2 50.5 18.7 4.5 2.96392 0.000

PNG 2.6 4.2 21.2 51.3 12.7 3.72989 0.000

Low waiting time Fiji 6.1 26.8 49.0 12.6 4.0 2.81538 0.000

PNG 1.6 5.3 18.5 47.6 19.0 3.83908 0.000

Procedures streamlined Fiji 6.1 23.2 47.5 18.7 3.0 2.89231 0.000

PNG 2.6 5.3 9.5 43.9 30.7 4.02874 0.000

Equity in service

Affordable Fiji 6.6 21.7 55.1 10.1 4.5 2.84021 0.000

PNG 4.8 3.2 20.6 49.7 13.8 3.70115 0.000

Accessible Fiji 5.6 25.3 52.0 10.6 4.5 2.82990 0.000

PNG 3.7 5.3 19.6 47.6 15.9 3.72414 0.000

Nepotism Fiji 14.6 24.2 43.4 10.6 5.1 2.66495 0.000

PNG 4.8 5.8 6.9 42.9 31.2 3.98266 0.000

Source: Questionnaire

• Hypothesis Accepted at <0.05

MBE Much below expectation, SBE Slightly below expectation, JAE Just as expected, AE, AboveExpectation, MAE Much Above Expectationa Assurance for this research includes knowledge, courteous, trust and confidence

378 G. Singh et al.

A chi–square test of independence between PS Effectiveness, PS Efficiency andPS Equity indicates that the variables are dependent on each other in the case of Fijias chi–square=78.21 for PS Effectiveness with p value 0.000<0.05; chi-square=114.72 for PS Efficiency with p value 0.000<0.05; chi square 92.37 for PS Equitywith p value 0.000<0.05. Therefore, this result supports H4 in the case of Fiji.

Table 6 Enhancers of service quality (effectiveness, efficiency and equity) for Fiji and PNG

Effectivenessin services

Country VBP (1)Count

P(2)Count

OK(3)Count

SP(4)Count

NVBP(5)Count

MeanDiff.

Sig. At5 %

Accurate Response Fiji 21 49 67 49 12 2.90909 0.000

PNG 40 69 55 22 2 2.34574 0.000

Timely Information Fiji 50 57 55 0 36 2.38889 0.000

PNG 43 75 52 16 2 2.25000 0.000

Feedback Response Fiji 48 64 54 28 4 2.37374 0.000

PNG 39 81 47 19 2 2.27660 0.000

Citizen participation Fiji 35 44 80 37 2 2.63131 0.000

PNG 28 67 71 17 4 2.47594 0.000

Reliability in services Fiji 35 87 53 20 2 2.32487 0.000

PNG 47 94 29 16 1 2.09091 0.000

Assurance Fiji 42 80 43 27 4 2.34184 0.000

PNG 41 72 56 18 2 2.30159 0.000

Reducing discretion andchances of bribery

Fiji 64 79 37 14 4 2.06566 0.000

PNG 80 88 11 0 8 1.71658 0.000

Reducing transaction cost Fiji 30 85 40 34 9 2.53030 0.000

PNG 41 94 43 10 0 2.11702 0.000

Increase transparencyand openness

Fiji 38 76 56 20 7 2.40102 0.000

PNG 67 97 15 6 3 1.83511 0.000

Efficiency in services

Cost factor is low inacquiring services

Fiji 31 73 61 31 2 2.49495 0.000

PNG 42 86 52 8 1 2.15344 0.000

Waiting time is low inacquiring services

Fiji 43 79 51 21 1 2.27179 0.000

PNG 54 99 26 8 0 1.93583 0.000

Procedures streamlinedby reducing bureaucracy

Fiji 44 80 44 24 2 2.27835 0.000

PNG 64 98 17 8 0 1.83422 0.000

Equity in services

Affordable services Fiji 31 73 61 31 2 2.52525 0.000

PNG 42 86 52 8 1 2.20213 0.000

Accessible services Fiji 43 79 51 21 1 2.63673 0.000

PNG 54 99 26 8 0 2.14815 0.000

Nepotism, kickback andgreasing the palm

Fiji 44 80 44 24 2 1.96447 0.000

PNG 64 98 17 8 0 1.67553 0.000

Source: Questionnaire

*Hypothesis Accepted at <0.05

Service Delivery Through E-Governance: Perception and Expectation of Customers in Fiji and PNG 379

For PNG, variables (PS Effectiveness, PS Efficiency and PS Equity) aredependent on each other in the as chi–square=149.94 for PS Effectiveness withp value 0.000<0.05; chi-square=84.11 for PS Efficiency with p value 0.000<0.05; chi square 136.61 for PS Equity with p value 0.000<0.05. Therefore, thisresult supports H2 in the case of PNG as well. Service quality is dependant onand is influenced or is related to/by PS Effectiveness, PS Efficiency and PSEquity. The results are consistent across these two countries. Therefore, H4 isaccepted.

H5: Adoption of e-governance improves quality of public services

This hypothesis was developed to evaluate whether adoption of e-governanceimproves quality of public services. To test this hypothesis, mean values of e-governance service quality and e-governance service improvements were calculated.Hypothesis 2 Results are presented in Table 8 below:

As per the above results, the mean values show that in Fiji, service improvementsare somewhat positive and quality of services is good. And for PNG, the meanvalues show that service improvements are average and quality of services is good.

To further test the relationships between the variables (e-governance, quality ofservices and service improvements) chi-square test was conducted. This is exhibitedin Table 9 below.

Adoption of e-governance leads to service improvements and quality, it waslogical to test if e-governance service improvements and quality depend on benefitsthat citizens derive from such usage i.e. whether e-governance expected benefitsinfluence service quality and service improvements.

Table 7 Test of independence (Chi square) results for public service quality in Fiji and PNG

Variables Pearson Chi-square value Df Sig.

Fiji PNG Fiji PNG Fiji PNG

PS effectiveness 78.21 149.94 27 25 0.000 0.000

PS efficiency 114.72 200.07 10 10 0.000 0.000

PS equity 92.37 136.61 11 10 0.000 0.000

Source: Questionnaire

*Hypothesis Accepted at <0.05

Table 8 Test of independence (Chi square) results for customer satisfaction in Fiji and PNG

Variables Country Mean Rating

E-governance service quality Fiji 2.36 Good

PNG 1.93 Average

Service improvements Fiji 2.32 Somewhat positive

PNG 2.79 Average

Source: Questionnaire

380 G. Singh et al.

A chi–square test of independence indicates that the variable (benefits from e-governance), are dependent on each other in the case of Fiji as chi–square=1036.18with p value 0.000<0.05 and in PNG, chi square 685.15 with p value 0.000<0.05.Therefore, this result supports H5 and it can be said that e-governance serviceimprovements depend on and are influenced or related to the benefits derived frome-governance usage.

Conclusion

The findings of this study imply that the more the progress towards attainmentof e-governance goals (of coordination, cost savings and cost effectiveness),the more are the positive impacts in areas affected by the introduction of e-governance (such as provision of services, ability to do the job, governmenttransparency and accountability, convenient services, citizen communication,etc.). This study has explored the role of e-Governance in facilitating servicedelivery and service quality in the public sector in Fiji and PNG. It hasinvestigated the relationship between e-governance and service quality. Studyreveals that Public perception of quality for Public Service Delivery System isnot satisfactory in Fiji and PNG. The results indicate that although e-governance has the potential to improve service delivery but, there is alsovariance in the public of their service delivery experience and expectation. Itis therefore, confirmed that the expectations of citizens from public servicesare quite high, but experience has tended to be negative. This study alsoconfirms that e-Governance contributes towards effectiveness, efficiency andequity in public services that further enhances the quality of public servicedelivery. Therefore, in Fiji and PNG, there is an urgent need to employ e-governance in all public agencies. This is mainly in view of prevailing concernsabout service quality in these countries. Even though the quality of governance inPNG over the last decade has marginally improved in comparison to itsneighbours in the South Pacific (Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, Samoa and Vanuatu)more needs to be done to improve service quality, policy making and goodgovernance. Therefore, e-governance here should be seen as a means ofimproving services in the future.

Table 9 Average of e-governance service quality and service improvements and the spread (dispersion) inFiji and PNG

Service improvements Country Pearson Chi-square value Df Sig.

Benefits from e-governance Fiji 1036.18 68 0.000

PNG 685.15 54 0.000

E-governance service quality

Benefits from e-governance Fiji 1036.18 68 0.000

PNG 685.15 54 0.000

Source: Questionnaire

**Hypothesis Accepted at <0.05

Service Delivery Through E-Governance: Perception and Expectation of Customers in Fiji and PNG 381

References

ADB (2003). Poverty Discussion Paper as Presented to National Poverty Workshop Assessment ofHardship and Poverty: Strategies for Equitable Growth and Hardship Alleviation, Suva, Fiji. Mimeo.

ADB (2004). Governance in PNG: A cluster evaluation of three public sector reform activities.Evaluation and Review Series No. 35 July 2004. Australian Agency for International Development(AusAID), Canberra, July 2004. Papua New Guinea National Assessment Report. Prepared forUnited Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Commission for SustainableDevelopment.

Ahmed, M. (2004). E-governance initiatives in Bangladesh: An analysis of strategy formulation forreinventing good governance. Department of Business Administration, Jahangirnagar University,2004, http://moshtaq.net/Papers/Strategies%20for%20eGovernance.htm.

Åkesson, M., & Edvardsson, B. (2008). Effects of e-government on service design as perceived byemployees. Managing Service Quality, 18(5), 457–478.

Augus, A., Barker, S., & Kandampully, J. (2007). An exploratory study of service quality in the Malaysianpublic service sector. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 24(2), 177–190.

Bassanini, F. (2003). Good governance strategies: A prospect for integration reflections from the Italianexperience. Fifth Global Forum on Reinventing Government, Good Government Strategies for the21st Century, Mexico, November 3–7.

Bhatnagar, S. (2002). E-government: lessons from implementation in developing countries. RegionalDevelopment Dialogue, UNCRD, 24, 1–9.

Bhatnagar, S. (2003). Administrative corruption: How does e-government help? Global Corruption Report2003, Transparency International.

Bhatnagar, S. (2004). E-government: From vision to implementation: A practical guide with case studies.New Delhi: Sage.

Borwankar, M. C. (2004). The status of e-governance in Maharashtra: an exploratory study. Ashwattha, 4(2), April–June, http://www.yashada.org/.

Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: ahierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65, 34–49.

Cho, Y. H., & Choi, B. D. (2004). E-government to combat corruption: the case of Seoul metropolitangovernment. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(10), 719–735.

Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value and customersatisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2),193–218.

Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free. New York: MacGraw Hill.Dabholkar, P. A., Shepherd, D. C., & Thorpe, D. I. (2000). A comprehensive framework for service

quality: an investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal study.Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 139–173.

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.Fuliya, R. R., & Bansal, G. S. (2005). Nai-Disha Eka Sewa Kendra (NDESK): improve service

delivery in government. Journal of the Eighth National Conference on eGovernance, 54–57.Gage, J. (2002). Some thoughts on How ICTs Could Really Change the World. In The Global Information

Technology Report 2001–2002: Readiness for the Networked World, Harvard University: Center forInternational Development.

Gani, A., Nakagawa, H., Duncan, R., & Toatu, T. (2007). Good Governance Indicators for Seven PacificIsland Countries. Retrieved 21 March 12, 2008, http://www.usp.ac.fj/fileadmin/files/Institutes/piasdg/governance_papers/2007_Governance-Indicator.pdf.

Ghosh, A., & Arora, N. (2005). Role of e-governance frameworks in effective implementation. LahorePakistan: ICEG.

Gilbert, D., & Balestrini, P. (2004). Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-government. TheInternational Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4), 286–301.

Gonzalez, R., Gasco, J., & Llopis, J. (2007). E-government success: some principles from a Spanish casestudy. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(6), 845–861.

Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its market implications. European Journal of marketing,18(4), 36–44.

Grönroos, C. (2007). Service management and marketing. Customer management in service competition.Chichester: Wiley.

382 G. Singh et al.

Jones, S., Hackney, R., & Irani, Z. (2007). Towards e-government transformation: conceptualizing’citizen engagement’ a research note. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(2), 145–152.

Juran, J. M. (1988) Juran’s quality control handbook (4th Ed.), (pp. 4.9–4.12). McGraw-Hill.Kang, H. B. (2001). Cleaning up the city government of Seoul: A systematic approach. The Anti-Corruption

Symposium: The Role of On-line Procedures in Promoting Good Governance, Seoul Institute forTransparency, Seoul, p. 43, August 30–31.

Kašubienė, L., & Vanagas, P. (2007). Assumptions of e-government services quality evaluation.Engineering Economics, 5(55), 68–74.

Kavanamur, D., & Okole, H. (2004). Understanding Reform in Papua New Guinea: An AnalyticalEvaluation. Port Moresby: Institute of National Affairs.

Kavanamur, D., Okole, H., Manning, M., & Lavantis, T. (2004). Understanding reform in Papua NewGuinea: An analytical evaluation. A study commissioned by the Global Development Network(Washington DC) and the Foundation for Development Cooperation (Brisbane). Retrieved April 3,2010 from http://pngccs.org/media/pdfs/PNG-Understanding-Reform.pdf.

Laffont, J.-J., & Martimort, D. (2002). The theory of incentives. The principal-agent model. New York:Princeton University Press.

Lagrosen, S., & Lagrosen, Y. (2003). Management of service quality – differences in values, practices andoutcomes. Managing Service Quality, 13(5), 370–81.

Lane, J. E. (2003). Public principals and their agents. Retrieved 4 May, 2005, http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/wp/wp32.pdf.

MORI. (2002). Public service reform: Measuring and understanding customer satisfaction. Retrieved 4May, 2005, www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rd/opsr.pdf.

Naz, R., Pathak, R. D., Rahman, M. H., Agarwal, K. N., & Smith, R. F. I. (2006). The potential for usingIT to cut corruption in service delivery: a case study of services to farmers in Fiji. InternationalJournal of Effective Management, 3(1), 39–52.

Page, T. J., & Spreng, R. A. (2002). Difference scores versus direct effects in service quality measurement.Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 184–192.

Pan, S. L., Tan, C. W., & Lim, E. T. K. (2006). Customer relationship management (CRM) in e-government: arelational perspective. Decision Support Systems, 42(1), 237–250.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and itsimplications for further research. Journal of Marketing, 48, 41–50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991a). Understanding customer expectations ofservice. Sloan Management Review, 32, 39–48.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991b). Refinement and reassessment of theSERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420–50.

Payani, H. H. (2000). Selected problems in the Papua New Guinean public service. Asian Journal ofPublic Administration, 22(2), 135–160.

Perrott, B. (1996). Managing strategic issues in the public service. Long Range Planning, 29(3), 337–45.Prahalad, C. K. (2005). The fortune of the bottom of the pyramid. Eradicating poverty through profits.

United States of America: Wharton School Publishing.Rodríguez, P. G., Burguete, J. L. V., Vaughan, R., & Edwards, J. (2009). Quality dimensions in the public

sector: municipal services and citizen’s perception. International Review on Public and NonprofitMarketing, 6, 75–90.

Seifert, J. W., & Bonham, G. M. (2003). The transformative potential of e-government in transitionaldemocracies, The International Conference on Public Administration in the 21st Century:Concepts, Methods, Technologies, School of Public Administration, Lomonosov Moscow StateUniversity, 26–29 May 2003.

Siau, K., & Long, Y. (2005). Synthesizing e-government stage models—a meta-synthesis based on themeta-ethnography approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(4), 443–58.

Singh, G., Pathak, R. D., Naz, R., & Belwal, R. (2010). e-governance and the potential for corruptionreduction in developing countries: perceptions from India, Ethiopia and Fiji. International Journal ofPublic Sector Management, 23(3), 254–275.

Tan, C. W., & Pan, S. L. (2003). Managing e-transformation in the public sector: an e-governmentstudy of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). European Journal of InformationSystems, 12(4), 269–81.

Service Delivery Through E-Governance: Perception and Expectation of Customers in Fiji and PNG 383

Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence ingovernment. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–69.

Toshifumi, N., & Himanshu, T. (2004). eGovernance initiatives in India: Citizens Would Rather BeOnline Than In-Line. [online]. Retrieved 4 March, 2010 from: http://www.ps.ritsumei.ac.jp/assoc/policy_science/121/12101.pdf.

UNDP (2010). E-governance and access to information for citizens’ participation. Practice Notes.Retrieved 1 April, 2010 from: http://www.undp.org/governance/slegov.Htm.

United Nations (2008). United Nations e-Government Survey 2008: From e-Government to ConnectedGovernance, United Nations, New York, 2008. . Retrieved 1 April, 2010 from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028607.pdf.

United NationsN-Economic and Social Council (2003). Status and trend in the development of E-Government. Enhancing the capacity of public administration to implement the United NationsMillennium Declaration. Experts on Public Administration, Second session, New York, 7–11 April.Retrieved 4 April, 2010 from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan008253.pdf.

World Bank. World Development Report (2004). Making Services Work for Poor People. A publication ofthe World Bank and Oxford University Press (2003). In APDIP e-note 11. (2007).. Pro-Poor PublicService Delivery With ICTs. Making Local e-Governance work towards achieving the millenniumdevelopment goals. Retrieved 4 May, 2005, http://www.apdip.net/apdipenote/11.pdf.

Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and strategies in services marketing.Journal of Marketing, 49, 33–46.

Gurmeet Singh is Associate Dean (Research and Graduate Affairs) in Faculty of Business andEconomics. He is also Associate Professor, School of Management & Public Administration, TheUniversity of The South Pacific, Fiji.

Raghuvar Dutt Pathak is Professor, Head Graduate School of Business, The University of South Pacific,Fiji.

Rafia Naz is Faculty, School of Management & Public Administration, The University of the SouthPacific, Fiji.

384 G. Singh et al.