J. Service Scie nce & Management, 2009, 3: 190-203
doi:10.4236/jssm.2009.23023 Published Online September 2009 (www.SciRP.org/journal/jssm)
E-Governance for Improved Public Service
Delivery in Fiji
Rafia NAZ
School of Management and Public Administration, Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of the South Pacific, Fiji
Islands.
Received March 8th, 2009; revised May 19th, 2009; accepted July 7th, 2009.
ABSTRACT
Using ICT in the form of e-governance could yield great benefits in the reform and modernization of the public sector.
The experience of e-governance in a number of developed and developing countries has shown that ICT can be a tool
for greater service delivery with the goal of improving service quality. E-governance can also promote ‘good govern-
ance’, that is, greater civic engag ement can increase opportunities for direct rep resentation and voice, a nd support for
increased democracy.
This paper discusses and presents the survey findings that seek to test the role of e-governance in improving service
delivery by altering the principal-agent relationship. It further seeks to elucidate the quality aspects of public service.
Policy recommendations to achieve the benefits of e-governance in Fiji are presented. Strong leadership is required to
implement e-governance to capture and internalize the benefits of qua lity services and satisfied customers.
Keywords: e-governance, service delivery, customer satisfaction, quality of services, service improvement.
1. Introduction
The concept of electronic governance (e-governance) is
defined as the application of Information and Communi-
cation Technology (ICT) to the government processes to
bring Simple, Moral, Accountable, Responsive, and
Transparent (SMART) governance [1,2,3,4,5].
A key measure of good governance, however, is
through the public sector that is in charge of delivering
transparent and quality services. Crocombe [6] says that
governance is about ensuring that the resources are used
for the citizens’ benefit. If governance in an economy is
weak, then there is a major reduction in the quality of
public services [7]. Service delivery was also the central
theme of the World Development Report [8]. The main
reason for emphasizing service delivery was that the
public sector has been slow and unresponsive to the citi-
zens needs in the modern times. According to the Inter-
national Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The
World Bank (2005), public service delivery has been
inconsistent with citizen preferences and considered fee-
ble in developing countries. According to the Economist
Intelligence Unit [9] survey, majority, which is 70 per
cent of the respondents believe that IT’s role will be to
predominantly improve quality of services in the public
sector. Not only worldwide but also in the Pacific, ser-
vice delivery is a major problem. According to ADB
(2003) it pinpoints that access is a major problem in ser-
vice delivery in the Pacific. The problems of poor service
delivery in the Pacific are mostly due to lack of ac-
countability, transparency and commitment in making
services work for poor and marginalized citizens. Ac-
cording to World Bank’s World Development Report [8],
accountability in service delivery is a major constraining
factor. Quality of governance also affects service deliv-
ery and Toutu (2003) says that governance is a major
problem in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). Gani et al.
[10] study shows the good governance index for seven of
the PICs. In this study countries were classified as those
1) where governance quality has been improving over
the past decade; 2) where governance quality has im-
proved only marginally; and 3) one country in particular,
Solomon Islands, where governance quality had deterio-
rated severely. Countries namely, Cook Islands, Fiji Is-
lands, Samoa and Vanuatu are classified under category
one where governance quality has been improving over

RAFIA NAZ 191
the past decade. In the second category; which is where
governance has improved only marginally are countries
like Papua New Guinea and Tonga. In the Cooks, the
study shows that governance improved stridently be-
tween 1995 and 1999, but had shown minor development
ever since then, however, it ranked highest on this ag-
gregate measure. In the case of Fiji, the Good Govern-
ance Index had enhanced amazingly over the past decade,
in spite of the coup in 2000 [10]. UNDP/APDIP [11]
says that e-governance can provide essential tools and
mechanisms for poor communities to hold both policy
makers and service providers accountable for a sustained
supply of services. Thus, it becomes important to view
the status of e-governance.
E-Governance is a relatively new research area. Along-
side academic work, there are many reports produced by
governments, corporations and other interested parties
[12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Despite so many re-
ports and research, Augus et al. [22] says it lacks re-
search vigor. Kasubiene and Vanagas [23] pinpoint that
it is crucial to investigate the factors influencing cus-
tomer perception towards e-governance. Kasubiene and
Vanagas [23] believe that since e-governance is a new
research area and e-governance service quality aspect is
even more in need for research, despite its importance in
the public sector with due regard to the customer’s per-
ceptions and expectations from a service delivery point
of view.
The next section presents the Literature Review on
e-governance and service quality, after which the theo-
retical framework and development of the hypotheses of
this study is discussed.
2. Literature Review
Studies by Ahmed [24], Bassanini [25], Bhatnagar
[26,27,28,29,30], Bowankar [31], Cho and Choi [32],
Fuliya and Bansal [33], Kang [24], Prahalad [35] and
Sarah [36] demonstrate the impact of e-governance in
improving service delivery and enhancing transparency
and accountability.
There is a growing evidence that the public sector has
committed itself to investments in ICT hoping to im-
prove its internal management as well as the services it
delivers to citizens through an innovative use of commu-
nication channels and facilities [37,38,39]. According to
Halaris et al. [40] there is greater apprehension in the
public sector regarding quality of service and many or-
ganizations are trying to evaluate and determine the
quality of services delivered. The author believes that
considerable progress has been made in the development
of e-government services as well. In the past few years,
much debate has focused on e-services in the public sec-
tor context [41,42,43,44,45].
Authors Gronroos et al. [46] and Rowley [47] suggest
that service quality is a key aspect that differentiates ser-
vice offers and helps build competitive advantage, but
Pinho et al. [48] comment that delivery of public ser-
vices by the use of ICTs is still in its early years and fur-
ther states that an ample number of citizens have had
modest or no experience/interaction with it. According to
Zeithaml et al. [49], online service quality is the extent to
which a website facilitates efficient and effective deliv-
ery of products and services. Rowley [47] has accredited
Zeithaml et al. [49] work and states that it was helpful in
developing scales and sets of service quality dimensions.
Akesson and Edvardsson [50] study reveals five dimen-
sions of change in the design of services because of the
introduction of e-government (service encounter and
service process; customers as co-creators and sole pro-
ducers of services; efficiency; increased complexity; and
integration). The study discusses the significance of
these findings with particular examples from transcrip-
tions of the interviews. Jones et al. [51] in his work men-
tions that e-government within the next few years will
transform both the way in which public services are de-
livered and the fundamental relationship between gov-
ernments, the community and citizens.
However, despite the link/relationship existing be-
tween e-governance and quality of services, Meuter et al.
[52] calls for more research and Parasuraman and Gre-
wal [53] emphasized further investigation into the impact
of technology on the service quality-value-loyalty chain.
Santos [54] comments that service quality is one of the
main factors that determine the success or failure of
electronic commerce and Buckley [55] adds that research
lags behind because practitioners have focused mainly
on issues of usability and measurement of use with little
consideration for the outcomes. Over the past few years,
there has been a great deal of deliberations by various
researchers [41,42,43,44,56,57] over the effectiveness of
e-service in the public sector context. According to Chan
and Al-Hawamdeh [58] and Shackleton et al. [59], many
government agencies in the government sector have
comprehended the imperative of using internet to pro-
vide services to citizens. Dabholkar and Bagozzi [60]
state that technology has had a remarkable influence on
the growth of service delivery options recently. Research
has focused lot of attention on use of ICTs for facilitating
service delivery [52,53,61,62,63, 64,65].
Pathak et al. [66] in a study using a sample of 400
citizens each from Ethiopia, Fiji and Jordan found that

RAFIA NAZ 192
e-governance will be able to streamline bureaucratic
procedures to make operations more efficient (negative
mean difference). The findings of this study imply that
the more the progress is made towards attainment of
e-governance goals (of coordination, cost savings and
cost effectiveness), the more are the positive impacts in
areas affected by the introduction of e-government (such
as provision of services, ability to do the job, govern-
ment transparency and accountability, convenient ser-
vices, citizen communication, etc.). Fitzsimmons and
Fitzsimmons [67] work shows that there are several
competitive advantages associated with the adoption of
technology in service organizations, including the crea-
tion of entry barriers, enhancement of productivity, and
increased revenue generation from new services. spite
studies showing that e-governance can improve service
delivery, this area has attracted augmented academic and
practitioner attention [68,69,70,71,72], as not enough is
known concerning how customers perceive and evaluate
e-governance services; and this is strengthened by
Parasuraman and Zinkhan [73] work in which the au-
thors state that a considerable knowledge gap still exists.
The next part of the paper presents the theoretical over-
view.
2.1 Theoretical Framework and Development of
the Hypotheses
The paper uses principal-agent theory as a guide to
analysis. Applied to the public sector, it focuses attention
on problems of accountability and transparency created
by asymmetric information flows between agents and
principals [74,75], which leads to problems such as cor-
ruption and huge time and cost factor involved in service
delivery. E-Governance has the advantage of empower-
ing the principals who can either bypass agents by using
IT based processes to help themselves or required to deal
with principals empowered by improved knowledge of
service delivery processes. These factors have the ability
to transform the way public services are delivered and
improve relationships between the public sector and
citizens. IT enabled systems remove opportunities for
corrupt use of discretion by disintermediating services
and allowing citizens to conduct transactions themselves.
Such systems also extend accessibility of information
within the public sector and in the public domain and, in
so doing cut the impacts of ‘distance’ and ‘time’ that
shore up official monopolies of information. Further, by
providing enhanced accounting, monitoring and auditing
systems, such systems ensure that public business is
more fully open to senior managerial and external scru-
tiny. More generally, there is less excuse for not pub-
lishing the rules and criteria governing decisions and
entitlements and those responsible for particular deci-
sions or activities can be more readily identified. Finally,
enhanced communication means that citizens can be
more fully involved in all aspects of government, in-
cluding policy-making, thus reinforcing the creation of a
culture of trust and mutual interest [76].
E-Governance can also address a number of principal
aims of quality: empowerment, efficiency and effective-
ness, and customer-driven [77]. Literature focuses on
usability and measurement of use, with little or no atten-
tion to service quality. Zeithaml et al. [70,71] stress,
“this is an area ripe for examination.” There is some lit-
erature on online service quality [78,79,80]. The issue of
public service is not only one of productivity, but also of
effectiveness. Services need to be effective in delivering
a level of performance that meets customer needs or ex-
pectations [81]. While sometimes intertwined with pro-
ductivity, effectiveness or customer service typically
refers to “doing the right things” and measures constructs
like customer satisfaction on dimensions, such as service
quality, speed, timing, and human interaction. A service
is effective whenever its outcomes or accomplishments
are of value to its customers. Berman [82] makes the
distinction among three goals that are important to public
organizations: efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. Eq-
uity refers to the need to provide services to all citizens
or equal access to those who require the specific services
provided. In general, public organizations focus more on
equity and effectiveness and less on efficiency; and
profit organizations focus more on efficiency, less on
effectiveness, and not at all on equity (Ibid.). While the
details are certainly arguable, it is perhaps more impor-
tant to recognize that all services may vary, with some
providing a greater challenge to productivity and per-
formance enhancement efforts, therefore, setting the im-
petus for research in public sector context. The area of
service productivity warrants much more research at
both a broad and detailed level, and particularly from an
operations perspective [83]. Schmenner’s work has per-
haps best articulated the significance of service produc-
tivity in terms of a theory of swift, even flow [84,85],
pointing out how service organizations that survive and
thrive over long periods of time seem to be concerned
with minimizing throughput time (swift flow) and de-
creasing the effects of variation that result from cus-
tomization for and interaction with customers (even
flow). Observations of organizations over the past quar-
ter century have led Schmenner to update his service

RAFIA NAZ 193
process matrix [86] and to conclude that productivity is
the key issue in explaining the problems that confront
different types of service organizations. The long-term
pressures for a service organization to perform like a
‘service factory’ are more prevalent than Schmenner had
originally thought and would seem to have clear implica-
tions for government services. Service quality has been
suggested as a means of developing a competitive ad-
vantage [87,88,89,90], however, previously service qual-
ity was confined to private services but in the past few
years it has become apparent in the public sector [91,92].
Brynjolfsson and Hitt [93], Lee and Perry [94], Lichten-
berg [95] and Zuboff [96] also highlight the potential of
e-governance to improve productivity and effectiveness
in both private and public organizations. The work of
early researchers like Crosby [97], Deming [98], Juran
[99], Gronroos [100,101] and Parasuraman et al. [90,102,
103,104] have raised considerable interest among the
academics and researchers on the subject of service qual-
ity. The reason for such an interest in the subject is the
belief that there is a strong relationship between service
quality and business performance [99,105,106]. As
Zeithaml et al. [70,71] stresses that “this is an area ripe
for examination”, and Wisniewski et al. [107] discusses
the major issues public-sector organizations need to ad-
dress in their search for adequate measures of service
quality and the authors draw upon the considerable em-
pirical research in the private sector to advocate for
similar use in the public sector, this research is therefore,
focused in line with the arguments presented by these
authors.
To measure the perception of public service experi-
ence and expectations, the same three variables, effec-
tiveness, efficiency and equity will be used. The meas-
ures of expectations and perceptions of the service ex-
perience tend to focus on a relatively small number of
very specific factors, such as how long customers wait to
be served etc. This allows the gap analysis approach
through comparing expected service quality with ex-
perience [108]. There are a number of variations on this
grid approach. For example, the Quality Strategy As-
sessment (QSA) model developed by Gallup does not
ask about the importance of factors directly, but rather
derives importance through factor analysis and multiple
regression stages1. The factor analysis groups the service
attributes asked about into a smaller number of mean-
ingful themes. The multiple regression then relates all
the factors to measures of overall satisfaction. The same
has been reflected in the work of Zeithaml et al. [70,71].
Zeithaml et al. [70,71] also say that customer satisfaction
is the difference between perception of public service
experience and expectation of public service.
3. Methodology
A pilot study consisting of a sample of 50 respondents
was conducted. The respondents were from Fiji. For the
pilot study, the researcher tried to get hold of respon-
dents based on rural/urban, gender and education basis.
The literature survey had failed to provide any evidence
of substantive methodologically sound, empirically reli-
able research on e-governance for public service delivery
in the PICs. Fiji was selected as it is most problematic in
terms of governance [11] and there is a need to conduct
research on e-governance and public service delivery in
Fiji. In Fiji, Viti Levu was selected as the main area of
study. The reason for selecting Viti Levu in Fiji was that
the researcher was from this part of the island, the public
service agencies were located in the capital city (Suva)
and due to ease of data collection. To avoid biasness
because Vanua Levu was not selected, the researcher
ensured that respondents who were randomly picked
were from this area as well as many people from Vanua
Levu were currently residing in Viti Levu (especially in
areas like Nausori, Nasinu and Navua). The sample size
was 200. Of the sample size, different areas in Viti Levu
were identified and five areas/strata were selected using
random number tables. These areas/strata were randomly
selected. The areas/strata were as follows: Suva, Nausori,
Navua, Lautoka and Rakiraki. The researcher ensured
that the citizens selected for the survey (100) were pro-
portionately divided in the five geographical areas. The
advantage was that it added an extra ingredient to ran-
dom sampling by ensuring that groups or strata within
the population are each sampled randomly. It offers in-
creased possibility of accuracy. The stratified random
sampling technique has the least bias and the most gen-
eralizability. The sample was diverse in terms of gender,
age, ethnicity, job status, educational background and
income. Besides surveying a sample size of 100 citizens
in Fiji in the aforementioned areas, public servants were
also surveyed. The Pacific Regional Information System
(PRISM) site, which is maintained by Secretariat of the
Pacific Community (SPC), indicates absence of data for
Fiji. According to the Public Service Commission (2006)
the employment figure is 16, 518 for Fiji2. Since the data
is not reflective based on the year in which surveys were
conducted, it is hard and quite illogical to draw sample
based on such figures. Thus in this research the re-
searcher has employed judgment sampling for identify-
ing the sample size only. This means that the choice of
1MIS Unit, PSC, 2006. http://www.psc.gov.fj

RAFIA NAZ 194
selecting the sample size lies in the researcher’s hand. To
ensure consistency and reliability in making use of
judgment in this research, the researcher ensured that a
sample size of 100 is maintained in line with the citizen
sample size. Thus, 100 public servants were surveyed.
The public service agencies to be surveyed were ran-
domly picked using random number tables. The advan-
tage was that each agency had an equal chance of being
selected. Twelve (12) agencies were identified: Execu-
tive branch, Legislature, Parliament, Judiciary, Police,
Army/Armed Forces, Electricity, Water, Telephone,
Transportation, Agriculture and Land Department. The
sample of 100 was divided within the twelve (12) agen-
cies. Thus, consistency was maintained in surveying the
public service agencies.
Some sets of questionnaires were self-administered
and some were hand delivered to the respective group of
respondents. Questionnaires were an efficient data col-
lection mechanism because the researcher knew exactly
what was required and how to measure the variables of
interest. The justification for using triangulation was that
it enabled the researcher to overcome the advantages and
disadvantages of the different modes of data collection
and yet ensured at least 90–100% response rate. After
data was collected, the next step was to analyze data to
test the research hypotheses and answer specific research
objectives. Since data analysis is now routinely managed
with software programs, SPSS software package was
used. Reliability of the scales was conducted in this re-
search. All scales were reliable. The hypotheses for this
research were as follows:
H1: E-Governance is positively related to effective-
ness, efficiency and equity in public service de-
livery (one-sample t test).
H2: E-Governance is highly correlated with service
quality and service improvements in public ser-
vice (mean values and chi square test).
H3: There is a huge variance in perception of public
service delivery experience and expectation of
citizens in Fiji (paired sample t test).
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Views on Public Service Delivery
Respondents were asked ‘How would you rate the over-
all Public Service Delivery in yo ur country?’. Of the 198
respondents in Fiji, 16.2 per cent said that PSD is very
poor, 44.9 per cent have rated PSD as poor, 31.3 per cent
were okay with PSD, and a small per cent—6.1 per cent
rated PSD as good, while 1 per cent rated PSD in Fiji as
very good. The findings of this research are similar to the
findings of Naz [76] study. Overall, majority that is, 61.1
per cent in Fiji have rated service delivery as poor and
very poor. The average rating in Fiji (Ok) is 31.3 per
cent. In terms of positive rating (good and very good), a
small minority that is, 7.1 per cent in Fiji have said this.
Thus, based on the findings in this research it can be ar-
ticulated that service delivery is considered mostly poor
and very poor, as only minority have given positive rat-
ings. This question was a measure of service quality in
terms of services delivered in Fiji. In Fiji, the mean value
of PS rating is 3.69, which is near to rating scale of poor
(4). The standard deviation for Fiji is 0.85. In the case of
Fiji, the finding is consistent with the frequency distribu-
tion. In reviewing the results for standard deviation, the
lower the standard deviation value, the greater the
agreement of the respondents, thus leading to the conclu-
sion that service delivery is a problem. These findings
are in line with the literature presented in part one of this
paper in which public service delivery was a problem.
Thus, service delivery needs to be improved and this has
serious implications for public sector transformation.
This question helped test Objective 1 of the study, which
was to ‘Investigate the problems in public services and
measure public service quality’.
Respondents were asked ‘What are the key problems
in Public Service Delivery (Perception of public service
experience)?’ These key problems were under three
categories namely: effectiveness, efficiency and equity
of services. Under the first category of effectiveness, the
first construct was accurate response. For the case of Fiji,
it was seen that, in accurate response, 21 of the respon-
dents view that this issue is a very big problem and 49
respondents view this as a problem. Sixty seven (67)
respondents view accurate response as okay, and a small
number, 49 respondents said that this was not a problem
and 12 said it was not a very big problem. For the second
construct under effectiveness, which was timely infor-
mation, 50 respondents said it was a very big problem,
57 said it was a problem, 55 rated it as okay and 36 rated
it as not a big problem. For the third construct under ef-
fectiveness, which was feedback response, 48 respon-
dents said it was a very big problem, 64 said it was a
problem, 54 rated it as okay and 28 rated it as big prob-
lem and 4 not a big problem. For the fourth construct
under effectiveness, which was citizen participation, 35
respondents said it was a very big problem, 44 said it
was a problem, 80 rated it as okay, 37 rated it as big
problem and 2 as not a big problem. For the fifth con-
2 MIS Unit, PSC, 2006. http://www.psc.gov.fj

RAFIA NAZ 195
struct under effectiveness, which was reliability in ser-
vices, 35 respondents said it was a very big problem, 87
said it was a problem, 53 rated it as okay, 20 rated it as
big problem and 2 as not a big problem. For the sixth
construct under effectiveness, which was assurance
(knowledge, courteous, trust and confidence), 42 re-
spondents said it was a very big problem, 80 said it was a
problem, 43 rated it as okay, 27 rated it as big problem
and 4 said it was not a big problem. For the seventh con-
struct under effectiveness, which was reducing discretion
and chances of bribery, 64 respondents said it was a very
big problem, 79 said it was a problem, 37 rated it as okay,
14 rated it as big problem and 4 said it was a big problem.
For the eighth construct under effectiveness, which was
reducing transaction cost, 30 respondents said it was a
very big problem, 85 said it was a problem, 40 rated it as
okay, 34 rated it as big problem and 9 respondents said it
was not a big problem. For the ninth construct under
effectiveness, which was increasing transparency and
openness, 38 respondents said it was a very big problem,
76 said it was a problem, 56 rated it as okay, 20 rated it
as big problem and 7 of the respondents said it was not a
big problem.
Under the second dimension, efficiency in services,
for the first construct, cost factor is low in acquiring ser-
vices-31 respondents rated this item as a very big prob-
lem, 73 said it was a problem, 61 rated it as okay, while
31 said it was not a problem and two respondents said it
was not a very big problem. The second construct, wait-
ing time is low in acquiring services, 43 respondents
rated this item as a very big problem, 79 said it was a
problem, 51 rated it as okay, while 21 said it was not a
problem and one respondent said it was not a very big
problem. The third construct, procedures are streamlined
by reducing the layers of bureaucracy, in Fiji, 44 re-
spondents rated this item as a very big problem, 80 said
it was a problem, 44 rated it as okay, while 24 said it was
not a problem and 2 respondents said it was not a very
big problem.
The third dimension was equity in services. The first
construct, affordable services showed that in Fiji, 28 re-
spondents rated this item as a very big problem, 77 said
it was a problem, 58 rated it as okay, while 31 said it was
not a problem and four respondents said it was not a very
big problem. The second construct, accessible services
showed that in Fiji, 37 respondents rated this item as a
very big problem, 72 said it was a problem, 72 rated it as
okay, while 14 said it was not a problem and one re-
spondent said it was not a very big problem. The third
construct, nepotism, kickback and greasing the palm
showed that in Fiji, 81 respondents rated this item as a
very big problem, 60 said it was a problem, 42 rated it as
okay, while 10 said it was not a problem and 4 respon-
dents said it was not a very big problem. This question
also helped test Objective 1 of the study, which was to
‘Investigate the problems in public services’. The find-
ings in this research are new, as problems related spe-
cifically to the three major determinants of service qual-
ity have not been investigated in the pacific context.
Objective two of this research was to ‘Explore the
difference between Public service perception (experience)
and Public service expectation in Fiji’. To test this objec-
tive, paired sample t-test was carried out with the help of
SPSS 15. The importance of paired sample t-test is that it
intends to identify differences between the mean values,
in this case perception (actual experience) in PSD and
expectation (should be; out to be) service delivery.
Zeithaml et al. [70,71] says that customer satisfaction is
the difference between perception of public service ex-
perience and expectation of public service. In addition,
came up with the model: Customer Satisfaction (CS) =
Perception-Expectation. Where a negative result indi-
cates, low customer satisfaction and positive result indi-
cates high customer satisfaction. With reference to Ob-
jective 2, it is observed that in Fiji, the difference be-
tween Public Service experience and Public Service ex-
pectation is negative (-1.249; p value=0.000); implying
that the Public Service experience is less than what citi-
zens expect; or in other words Public Service experience
does not match Public Service expectations. The values
are significant in Fiji as it is well below p value 0.05.
This also means that there is a huge variance between
Public Service perception and Public Service expectation.
This is very much in alignment with the findings in this
study for this study in which PS experience was mostly
negative.
Respondents were asked ‘How satisfied are you with
public services in general?’. Of the 198 respondents in
Fiji, 9.6 per cent said that as far as CS is concerned, they
rated it as very dissatisfied, 47.5 per cent have rated as
dissatisfied, 32.3 per cent were neutral with CS, and 6.1
per cent said they were satisfied while 2.0 per cent of the
respondents said they very satisfied. Overall, majority
that is, 57.1 per cent in Fiji have rated customer satisfac-
tion as dissatisfied and very dissatisfied. Thus, based on
the findings in this research it can be articulated that
customer satisfaction is negative for Fiji. Research shows
that the higher the service quality the more satisfied the
customers; therefore this implies that customer satisfac-
tion is based on customer expectations and perception of

RAFIA NAZ 196
service quality [109,110,111,112,113,114]. According to
Carman [115], Lewis and Booms [116], Oliver [117]
cited in Santos [54] and Santos [54] similar line of ar-
guments have been presented. Thus, the difference be-
tween perception and experience reveals the gap between
actual service delivery and the benchmark or expecta-
tions set by citizens and in this research, it was clearly
seen in the result that variances in perception (actual
experience) and expectations exist in Fiji; implying that
in Fiji, this gap is wider resulting in citizen dissatisfac-
tion. No research has previously studied the variance
between perception and expectation in the Pacific con-
text and this is a novel finding, thus contributing to the
body of knowledge.
4.2 E-Governance Views
Of the 198 respondents in Fiji, 93.4 per cent were aware,
and 6.6 per cent were unaware of e-governance. For the
question, ‘Do you think that there is a need to use
ICTs/e-governance in improving service delivery in your
country especially in the public sector?’. Of the 198 re-
spondents in Fiji, 98.5 per cent said yes, and 1.0 per cent
said no, while 0.5 per cent was non-responses. Respon-
dents were asked Q: ‘Overall would you say that
e-governance is having a positive or negative effect on
improving services (the way you access services)?’. In
Fiji, 25.8 per cent of the respondents said that
e-governance is having a very positive effect, 28.8 per
cent said somewhat positive, 23.7 per cent were neutral,
and 8.6 per cent said somewhat negative, while 12.1 per
cent said very negative effect. Overall, in Fiji,
e-governance positive impacts in accessing services were
far greater than the negative effect. This implies that
e-governance is having positive impact on the way citi-
zens access services.
In Fiji, 9.1 per cent of the respondents said that
e-governance is doing an excellent job, 57.6 per cent said
good, 23.7 per cent rated average and 6.6 per cent said
poor, while 2.5 per cent said very poor. The response to
‘How satisfied are yo u with the public services delivered
through e-governance?’. The results showed that of the
198 respondents in Fiji, 4.0 PER CENT said that as far
as Customer Satisfaction is concerned with Public Ser-
vice Delivery through e-governance, they rated it as very
dissatisfied, 36.4 PER CENT have rated as dissatisfied,
46.5 PER CENT were neutral with e-governance Cus-
tomer Satisfaction, and 9.6 per cent said they were satis-
fied while 1.5 per cent of the respondents said they very
satisfied Overall, in the case of Fiji, Customer Satisfac-
tion with services delivered through e-governance are
neutral (average) ranking by the citizens. This is similar
to the findings for Question on (citizen expectation/
benefits), in which Fiji was average ranking.
4.3 Hypothesis Results
H1: E-Governance is positively related to effective-
ness, efficiency and equity in public service de-
livery
This hypothesis was developed to assess whether e-
governance is positively related to the outcomes of ef-
fectiveness, efficiency and equity in services. To test this
hypothesis, one-sample t test was carried out with the
help of SPSS 15. It was tested by taking population mean
value of zero assuming it as indifferent response. Table 1
presents the results below.
In analyzing people’s expectations on capabilities/
benefits derived from e-governance systems in Fiji the
respondents believe that e-governance has significantly
affected all the items which e-governance is supposed to
facilitate (Items 1-9 in effectiveness; Items 1-3 in effi-
ciency; and Items 1-3 in equity in services) or in other
words the benefits are either much above expecta-
tion/above expectation (positive rating). All the values
are significant as they are below 0.05. Thus, H1 is ac-
cepted in Fiji and it can be inferred that e-governance
leads to or positively affects effectiveness, efficiency and
equity in services delivered. It was highlighted in this
paper that e-governance can also address a number of
principal aims of quality: empowerment, efficiency and
effectiveness, and customer-driven [76]. Sasser et al. [81]
says that the issue of public service is not only one of
productivity, but also of effectiveness and that services
need to be effective in delivering a level of performance
that meets customer needs or expectations. According to
Berman [82] there are three goals that are important to
public organizations: efficiency, effectiveness, and eq-
uity. Bryn jolfsson and Hitt [93], Lee and Perry [94],
Lichtenberg [95] and Zuboff [96] highlight the potention
of e-governance to improve productivity and effective-
ness in both private and public organizations. Zeithaml et
al. [70] stressed that “this is an area ripe for examination”,
and Wisniewski et al. [107] discusses the major issues
that public-sector organizations need to address in their
search for adequate measures of service quality and the
authors draw upon the considerable empirical research in
the private sector to advocate for similar use in the public
sector. This research was therefore, focused in line with
the arguments presented by these authors and the study
prove that e-governance leads to effectiveness, efficiency
and equity in services.
H2: E-Governance is highly correlated with service
quality and service improvements in public ser-
vice.

RAFIA NAZ 197
Table 1: Hypothesis 1 results for Fiji
* Hypothesis accepted at < 0.05
This hypothesis was developed to evaluate whether
e-governance is positively related to quality and service
improvements. To test this hypothesis, mean values of
e-governance service quality and e-governance service
improvements was carried out with the help of SPSS 15.
The hypothesis results are in line with Objective 2. As
per the results, the mean values show that in Fiji, service
improvements are somewhat positive (mean = 2.32) and
quality of services is good (mean = 2.36). To further test
the relatedness between the variables; that is; e-govern-
ance, quality of services and service improvements, chi-
square test was conducted. If e-governance leads to ser-
vice improvements and quality of services, it was pru-
dent to test if e-governance service improvements and
quality of services depends on benefits that citizens de-
rive from such usage. Meaning, does e-governance ex-
pected benefits determine or influence service quality
and service improvements. A chi–square test of inde-
pendence indicates that the variable (benefits from
e-governance), are dependent on each other in the case of
Fiji (chi–square = 1036.18 with p value 0.000 < 0.05).
Therefore, this result supports Hypothesis 2 and it can be
said that e-governance service improvements is depend-
ant on and is influenced or is related to the benefits de-
rived from e-governance usage. A chi–square test of in-
dependence indicates that the variable (benefits from
e-governance), are dependent on each other in the case of
Fiji (chi-square = 1036.18 with p value 0.000 < 0.05).
A lot of research has focused attention on use of ICTs
Effectiveness in services MBE(1)
%
SBE(2)
%
JHE(3)
%
AE(4)
%
MAE(5)
% Mean Diff.
Sig. At
5 %
1 Accurate response 2.5 16.7 52.5 16.2 10.6 3.15897 0.000
2 Timely information 3.5 23.7 50.0 14.6 6.6 2.96923
0.000
3 Feedback response 4.5 19.2 55.1 14.1 5.6 2.96923
0.000
4 Citizen participation 4.0 22.7 53.5 12.6 5.6 2.92821
0.000
Effectiveness in services MBE(1)
%
SBE(2)
%
JHE(3)
%
AE(4)
%
MAE(5)
% Mean Diff.
Sig. At
5 %
5 Reliability in services 6.6 20.2 53.5 12.6 4.5 2.88083 0.000
6
Assurance (knowl-
edge, courteous, trust
and confidence)
6.1 25.8 46.5 14.1 5.6 2.87113 0.000
7 Reducing discretion
and chances of bribery 7.6 24.2 46.5 14.6 4.5 2.83938 0.000
8 Reducing transaction
cost 7.6 19.2 52.0 13.6 5.1 2.89119 0.000
9 Increase transparency
and openness 7.6 19.2 15.5 14.6 5.6 2.91192 0.000
Efficiency in services MBE(1)
%
SBE(2)
%
JHE(3)
%
AE(4)
%
MAE(5)
% Mean Diff.
Sig. At
5 %
1 Cost factor is low in
acquiring services 7.1 17.2 50.5 18.7 4.5 2.96392 0.000
2 Waiting time is low in
acquiring services 6.1 26.8 49.0 12.6 4.0 2.81538
0.000
3
Procedures are
streamlined by reduc-
ing the layers of bu-
reaucracy
6.1 23.2 47.5 18.7 3.0 2.89231 0.000
Equity in services MBE (1)
%
SBE(2)
%
JHE(3)
%
AE(4)
%
MAE(5)
% Mean
Diff.
Sig. At
5 %
1 Affordable services 6.6 21.7 55.1 10.1 4.5 2.84021 0.000
2 Accessible services 5.6 25.3 52.0 10.6 4.5 2.82990 0.000
3
Nepotism, kickback
and greasing the
palm
14.6 24.2 43.4 10.6 5.1 2.66495 0.000

RAFIA NAZ 198
for facilitating service delivery (Aladwani, (2001); An-
dersen and Henriksen, (2006); [52,54,61,62,63,64,65]).
The findings for H2 are in line with the aforementioned
literature and that of Pathak et al. [66] in which the au-
thors found that e-governance will be able to streamline
bureaucratic procedures to make operations more effi-
cient (negative mean difference). The findings of this
study implied that the more the progress is made towards
attainment of e-governance goals (of coordination, cost
savings and cost effectiveness), the more are the positive
impacts in areas affected by the introduction of e-gov-
ernment (such as provision of services, ability to do the
job, government transparency and accountability, con-
venient services, citizen communication, etc.). Phala
[118] in her study also mentioned improving the produc-
tivity and efficiency of public service personnel; im-
proving the delivery of government information and ser-
vices; increasing access channels for public interaction;
and lower costs leading to higher participation through
e-governance. Jorgensen et al. [119] stipulates that IT
had brought major productivity gains to business or-
ganizations, and Brynjolfsson and Hitt [120] highlighted
that in most cases those gains are specifically tied to
changes in the ways organizations do business. Authors
Basu [121] and Mittal et al. [122], mention that focus of
e-governance is on fulfilling public needs and expecta-
tions, better delivery of services, and citizen empower-
ment. Similar findings were highlighted in the work of
Gonzalez et al. [123] and Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons
[56]. However, in this study it was highlighted that even
when e-governance can improve service delivery, this
area has still attracted augmented academic and practi-
tioner attention [68,69,70,71,72], as not enough was
known concerning how customers perceive and evaluate
e-governance services; and this was strengthened by
Parasuraman and Zinkhan [73] work in which the au-
thors state that a considerable knowledge gap still exists.
Thus, this research has filled in this research gap stressed
by the aforementioned authors and contributes to the
body of knowledge.
H3: There is a huge variance in perception of public
service delivery experience and expectation of
citizens in Fiji.
To test this hypothesis, paired sample t-test was car-
ried out with the help of SPSS 15. The importance of
paired sample t-test is that it intends to identify differ-
ences between the mean values, in this case perception
(actual experience) in PSD and expectation (should be;
out to be) service delivery. Zeithaml et al. [70,71] says
that customer satisfaction is the difference between per-
ception of public service experience and expectation of
public service. In addition, came up with the model:
Customer Satisfaction (CS) = Perception-Expectation.
Where a negative result indicates, low customer satisfac-
tion and positive result indicates high customer satisfac-
tion. With reference to hypothesis 3, it is observed that in
Fiji, the difference between Public Service experience
and Public Service expectation is negative (-1.249; p
value=0.000); implying that the Public Service experi-
ence is less than what citizens expect; or in other words
Public Service experience does not match Public Service
expectations. The values are significant in Fiji as it is
well below p value 0.05. This also means that there is a
huge variance between Public Service perception and
Public Service expectation. This is very much in align-
ment with the findings in this study for this study in
which PS experience was mostly negative.
5. Conclusions and Research Implications
To conclude this paper has looked at the role of
e-governance in improving service delivery and quality
and the impact that has on customer satisfaction in the
context of a small developing country like Fiji. It is seen
in this research that e-governance has the potential to
improve service delivery and customer satisfaction.
There is a huge variance in the perception and expecta-
tion of normal citizens in the country regarding service
delivery, quality of services and this has negatively af-
fected customer satisfaction over the number of years.
There is an urgent need in Fiji to employ e-governance in
all public agencies in view of the prevailing negative
impact of principal-agent problem. Service quality in
particular has deteriorated and e-governance should be
seen as a means of improving it in the future. Lack of
research in Fiji, demanded attention towards this topic,
this research will be helpful to policy makers and practi-
tioners in the field of IT, management and especially
those in the Government agencies. Future research in
e-governance should discover some of the reasons for
utilizing e-governance and in particular look at what
challenges a small developing nation faces as far as ser-
vice quality issues are concerned.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Budhiraja, “Role of standards and architecture for
e-governance projects,” 2005,
http://www.yashada.org.
[2] R. W. Harris, “Information and communication tech-
nologies for poverty alleviation,” UNDP-APDIP, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 2004,
http://www.apdip.net.

RAFIA NAZ 199
[3] R. Heeks, “Understanding e-governance for development,
i-government working paper series,” Institute for Deve-
lopment Policy and Management, University of Man-
chester, No. 11, 2001,
http://www.man.ac-uk/idpm/idpm_dp.htm#ig.
[4] H. M. Rajashekar, “Efficiency and transparency of e-gov-
ernance in India: A case study of Karnataka,” 2002.
[5] V. K. Jain and A. K. Ramani, “Concepts and applications
of e-governance: Illustrations through some case studies,”
Journal of the Eighth National Conference on E-Gov-
ernance, pp. 65-71, 2005.
[6] R. Crocombe, “The South Pacific,” 7th Edition, IPS Pub-
lications, University of the South Pacific, Suva, 2008.
[7] V. Tanzi, “Corruption around the world: Causes, conse-
quences, scope and cures,” IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 45, No.
4, pp. 559-94, 1998.
[8] World Bank, “World development report 2004: Making
services work for poor people,” A publication of the
World Bank and Oxford University Press, In APDIP
E-Note 11, Pro-Poor Public Service Delivery With ICTs.
“Making local e-governance work towards achieving the
millennium development goals,” 2007,
http://www.apdip.net/apdipenote/11.pdf.
[9] EIU, “The e-readiness rankings, economist intelligence
unit,” 2003,
http://graphics.eiu.com /files /ad_pdfs/eReady_2003.pdf.
[10] A. Gani, H. Nakagawa, R. Duncan, and T. Toatu, “Good
governance indicators for seven Pacific island countries,”
2007,
http://www.usp.ac.fj/fileadmin/files/Institutes/piasdg/gov
ernance_papers/2007_Governance-Indicator.pdf.
[11] UNDP/APDIP, APDIP E-Note 11, Pro-Poor Public Ser-
vice Delivery with ICTs, “Making local e-governance
work towards achieving the millennium development
goals,” 2007,
http://www.apdip.net/apdipenote/11.pdf.
[12] Cabinet Office, “E-government: A strategic framework
for public services in the information age,” Cabinet Of-
fice, London, 2000.
[13] Cabinet Office, “E.Gov: Electronic government services
for the 21st century,” Cabinet Office, London, 2001.
[14] C. Carter and M. Gieco, “New deals, no wheels: Social
exclusion, tele-options and electronic ontology,” Urban
Studies, Vol. 37, No. 10, pp. 1735–1748, 2000.
[15] I. Chatrie and P. Wraight, “Public strategies for the in-
formation society in member states of the European Un-
ion European information society projects,” European
Union, Brussels, 2000.
[16] P. Corrigan and J. Paul, “Reconstructing public manage-
ment: A new responsibility for the public and a case
study of local government,” International Journal of Pub-
lic Sector Management, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 417-432,
1997.
[17] N. Curthoys and J. Crabtree, “Smartgov: Renewing elec-
tronic government for improved service delivery,” Price
Waterhouse Coopers, London, 2003.
[18] IBM, “The net result: Social inclusion in the information
society,” London, IBM, 1997.
[19] IBM, “E-Government on demand,” EU E-Government
Conference, Villa Erba, Como, Italy, July 7–8, 2003.
[20] H. Margetts and P. Dunleavy, “Better public services
through e-government,” National Audit Office, London,
2002.
[21] R. Silcock, “What is e-government?” Parliamentary Af-
fairs, No. 54, pp. 88–101, 2001.
[22] A. Augus, S. Barker, and J. Kandampully, “An explora-
tory study of service quality in the Malaysian public ser-
vice sector,” International Journal of Quality & Reliabil-
ity Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 177-190, 2007.
[23] H. B. Kang, “Cleaning up the city government of Seoul:
A systematic approach,” The Anti-Corruption Sympo-
sium: The Role of On-line Procedures in Promoting Good
Governance, Seoul Institute for Transparency, Seoul, pp.
43, August 30-31, 2001.
[24] L. Kašubienė and P. Vanagas, “Assumptions of
e-government services quality evaluation,” Engineering
Economics, Vol. 5, No. 55, pp. 68-74, 2007.
[25] M. Ahmed, “E-governance initiatives in Bangladesh: An
analysis of strategy formulation for reinventing good
governance,” Department of Business Administration,
Jahangirnagar University, 2004,
http://moshtaq.net/Papers/Strategies%20for%20eGovern
ance.htm.
[26] F. Bassanini, “Good governance strategies: A prospect
for integration reflections from the Italian experience,”
Fifth Global Forum on Reinventing Government, Good
Government Strategies for the 21st Century, Mexico,
November 3-7, 2003.
[27] S. Bhatnagar, “The economic and social impact of
e-government,” A Background Technical Paper for the
Proposed UNDESA Publication—E-Government, the
Citizen and the State: Debating Governance in the Infor-
mation Age, 2003.
[28] S. Bhatnagar, “Transparency and corruption: Does
e-government help?” DRAFT Paper Prepared for the
Compilation of CHRI 2003 Report OPEN SESAME:

RAFIA NAZ 200
Looking for the Right to Information in the Common-
wealth, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 2003,
http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~subhash/pdfs/CHRIDraftPap
er2003.pdf#search='can%20egovernance%20curb%20cor
ruption%20in%20tax%20departments.
[29] S. Bhatnagar, “Administrative corruption: How does
e-governance help—on e-governance solutions,” 2003,
http://www.apdip.net /documents/WhitePaper.
[30] S. Bhatnagar, “Reducing corruption in service delivery to
citizens,” Presentation Delivered at Anti-Corruption
Thematic Groups One Day Clinic on Building ICT Ap-
plications for Combating Administrative Corruption,
2005,
http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/PREMWK2005
/ICT/bhatnagar-ICT-corruption%20servdel.ppt.
[31] S. Bhatnagar, “A framework for ICT use to combat ad-
ministrative corruption,” Presentation Delivered at Anti-
Corruption Thematic Groups One Day Clinic on Building
ICT Applications for Combating Administrative Corrup-
tion, 2005,
http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/PREMWK2005
/ICT/bhatnagar-ICT%20and%20corruption.ppt >.
[32] M. C. Borwankar, “The status of e-governance in Ma-
harashtra: An exploratory study,” Ashwattha, Vol. 4, No.
2, April-June 2004,
http://www.yashada.org/.2004.
[33] Y. H. Cho and B. D. Choi, “E-government to combat
corruption: The case of Seoul metropolitan government,”
International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 27,
No. 10, pp. 719-735, 2004.
[34] R. R. Fuliya and G. S. Bansal, “Nai-Disha Eka Sewa
Kendra (NDESK): Improve service delivery in gov-
ernment,” Journal of the Eighth National Conference on
eGovernance, pp. 54-57, 2005.
[35] C. K. Prahalad, “The fortune of the bottom of the pyra-
mid,” Eradicating Poverty through Profits, Wharton
School Publishing, United States of America, 2005.
[36] A. Sarah, “Information technology & governance,” 2nd
Year NALSAR University of Law, Shamirpet, 2003,
http://loksatta.org/itgovernance.pdf#search='Information
%20Technology%20%26%20Governance'.
[37] H. Chen, “Digital government: Technologies and prac-
tices,” Decision Support Systems, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.
223-7, 2003.
[38] J. Choudrie and A. Papazafeiropoulou, “Lessons learnt
from the broadband diffusion in South Korea and the UK:
Implications for future government intervention in tech-
nology diffusion,” Electronic Government, an Interna-
tional Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 373-85, 2006.
[39] R. K. Mitra and M. P. Gupta, “Analysis of issues of
e-government in Indian police,” Electronic Government,
an International Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 97-125, 2007.
[40] C. Halaris, B. Magoutas, X. Papadomichelaki, and G.
Mentzas, “Classification and synthesis of quality ap-
proaches in e-government services,” Internet Research,
Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 378-401, 2007.
[41] Accenture, “Governments closing gap between political
rhetoric and e-government reality,” 2001,
http://www.accenture.com/xd/xd.asp?it=enWeb&xd=ind
ustries/government/gove_study.xml.
[42] M. Asgarkhani, “E-governance in Asia Pacific,” Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on Governance
in Asia, Hong Kong, 2002.
[43] M. Asgarkhani, “A strategic framework for electronic
government,” Proceedings of the 22nd National IT Con-
ference, Sri Lanka, pp. 57-65, 2003.
[44] M. Asgarkhani, “Digital government: From vision to the
reality of strategy implementation,” Proceedings of the
International Conference on E-Governance, Sri Lanka, pp.
36-46, 2004.
[45] V. Nath, “Digital governance,” 2003,
http://www.cddc.vt.edu /digitalgov/gov-cases.html.
[46] C. Gronroos, F. Heinonen, K. Isoniemi, and M. Lindholm,
“The NetOffer model: A case example from the virtual
marketplace,” Management Decision, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp.
243-52, 2000.
[47] J. Rowley, “An analysis of the e-service literature: To-
wards a research agenda,” Internet Research, Vol. 16, No.
3, pp. 339-59, 2006.
[48] J. Pinho, I. Macedo, and A. Monteiro, “The impact of
online SERVQUAL dimensions on certified accountant
satisfaction: The case of taxation services,” EuroMed
Journal of Business, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 154-72, 2007.
[49] V. A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman, and A. Malhotra, “A
conceptual framework for understanding e-service quality:
Implications for future research and managerial practice,”
Working Paper Report, Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge, MA, No. 00-115, 2000.
[50] M. Akesson, P. Skale´n, and B. Edvardsson, “Govern-
ment and service orientation: Gaps between theory and
practice,” International Journal of Public Sector Man-
agement, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 74-92, 2008.
[51] S. Jones, R. Hackney, and Z. Irani, “Towards e-govern-
ment transformation: Conceptualizing ‘citizen engage-
ment’ a research note,” Transforming Government: Peo-

RAFIA NAZ 201
ple, Process and Policy, Emerald Group Publishing Lim-
ited, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 145-152, 2007.
[52] M. Meuter, A. Ostrom, R. Roundtree, and M. Bitner,
“Self-service technology: Understand customer satisfac-
tion with technology-based service encounters,” Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 50-64, 2000.
[53] A. Parasuraman and D. Grewal, “The impact of technol-
ogy on the quality-value-loyalty chain: A research
agenda,” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.
28, No. 1, pp. 168-74, 2000.
[54] J. Santos, “E-service quality: A model of virtual service
quality dimensions,” Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13,
No. 3, pp. 233-246, 2003.
[55] J. Buckley, “E-service and the public sector,” Managing
Service Quality, Vol. 13, pp. 6, pp. 453-62, 2003.
[56] R. Heeks, “Information technology and the management
of corruption,” Development in Practice, No. 9, pp. 184-
189, 1999.
[57] G. B. Reschenthaler and F. Thompson, “The information
revolution and the new public management,” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 6, No.
1, pp. 125-143, 1996.
[58] B. Chan and S. Al-Hawamdeh, “The development of
e-commerce in Singapore: The impact of government ini-
tiatives,” Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 8,
No. 3, pp. 278-88, 2002.
[59] P. Shackleton, J. Fisher, and L. Dawson, “E-government
services in the local government context: An Australian
case study,” Business Process Management Journal, Vol.
12, No. 1, pp. 88-100, 2006.
[60] P. A. Dabholkar and R. P. Bagozzi, “An attitudinal model
of technology-based self service: Moderating effects of
consumer traits and situational factors,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 184-
201, 2002.
[61] J. Cox and B. G. Dale, “Key quality factors in web site
design and use: An examination,” International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp.
862-88, 2002.
[62] G. Goldkuhl, “What does it mean to serve the citizen in
e-services? Towards a practical theory founded in socio-
instrumental pragmatism,” International Journal of Public
Information Systems, Vol. 3, pp. 135-159, 2007.
[63] K. Layne and J. Lee, “Developing fully functional
e-government: A four-stage model,” Government Infor-
mation Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 122-13, 2001.
[64] J. B. MacDonald and K. Smith, “The effects of technol-
ogy-mediated communication on industrial buyer behav-
ior,” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, No. 2,
pp. 107-16, 2004.
[65] M. A. Wimmer, “Integrated service modeling for online
one-stop government,” Electronic Markets, Vol. 12, No.
3, pp. 149-156, 2002.
[66] R. D. Pathak, G. Singh, R. F. I. Smith, and R. Naz, “Con-
tribution of information and communication technology
in improving government transparency and accountability
in Fiji,” In the Conference of the Network of Asia
-Pacific Schools Institute of Public Administration and
Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India, De-
cember 5-7, 2008.
[67] J. Fitzsimmons and M. Fitzsimmons, “Service manage-
ment: Operations strategy, and information technology,”
Irwin and McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
[68] H. H. Bauer, M. Hammerschmidt, and T. Falk, “Measur-
ing the quality of e-banking portals,” International Jour-
nal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 153-75, 2005.
[69] G. Lee and H. Lin, “Customer perceptions of e-service
quality in online shopping,” International Journal of Re-
tail and Distribution Management, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.
161-76, 2005.
[70] V. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman, and A. Malhotra, “Service
quality delivery through web sites: A critical review of
extant knowledge,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 362-75, 2002.
[71] V. A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman, and A. Malhotra, “An
empirical examination of the service quality-value-
loyalty chain in an electronic channel, working paper,”
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 2002.
[72] X. Zhang and V. R. Prybutok, “A consumer perspective
of e-service quality,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 461-77, 2005.
[73] A. Parasuraman and G. M. Zinkhan, “Marketing to and
serving customers through the internet: An overview and
research agenda,” Journal of The Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 286-95, 2002.
[74] J. J. Laffont and D. Martimort, “The theory of incen-
tives,” The Principal-Agent Model, Princeton University
Press, New York, 2002.
[75] J. E. Lane, “Public principals and their agents,” 2003,
http://www.spp. nus.edu.sg/docs/wp/wp32.pdf .
[76] R. Naz, R. D. Pathak, M. H. Rahman, K. N. Agarwal, and
R. F. I. Smith, “The potential for using IT to cut corrup-
tion in service delivery: A case study of services to farm-
ers in Fiji,” International Journal of Effective Manage-

RAFIA NAZ 202
ment, ISSN: (Online) 1547-3708, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 39-
52, 2006,
http://www.effectivemanagment.org/pubs/Jun2006/naz.p
df.
[77] “The economist,” In J. Teicher, H. Owens, and N. Dow,
E-Government: A New Route to Public Sector Quality,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 384-393,
June 24, 2000.
[78] D. Chaffey and W. Edgar, “Measuring online service
quality, marketing online: Internet marketing and e-mar-
keting knowledge,” 2002,
http://www.marke-ting-online.co.uk/sqpap.htm.
[79] D. Gefen, “Customer loyalty in e-commerce,” Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, No. 3, pp. 27-
51, 2002.
[80] A. Parasuraman, “Technology readiness and e-service
quality: Insights for effective e-commerce seminar se-
ries,” North California State University, Raleigh, April 17,
2002.
[81] W. E. Sasser, R. P. Olsen, and D. D. Wyckoff, “Man-
agement of service operations,” Allyn and Bacon, Boston,
MA, 1978.
[82] E. M. Berman, “Productivity in public and non-profit
organizations,” Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
1998.
[83] R. Johnston, “Service operations management: Return to
roots,” International Journal of Operations and Produc-
tion Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 104–124, 1999.
[84] R. W. Schmenner and M. L. Swink, “On theory in opera-
tions management,” Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 97–113, 1998.
[85] R. W. Schmenner, “Service businesses and productivity,”
Decision Sciences, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 333–347, 2004.
[86] R. W. Schmenner, “How can service businesses survive
and prosper?” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 3,
pp. 21–32, 1986.
[87] K. Clow and D. Vorhies, “Building a competitive advan-
tage for service firms,” Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 22-32, 1993.
[88] M. Gowan, J. Seymour, S. Ibarreche, and C. Lackey,
“Service quality in a public agency: Same expectations
but different perceptions by employees, managers and
customers,” Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 6, No.
2, pp. 275-91, 2001.
[89] D. Hensher, P. Stopher, and P. Bullock, “Service quality
—developing a service quality index in the provision of
commercial bus contracts,” Transportation Research Part
A, No. 37, pp. 499-517, 2003.
[90] A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry,
“SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring con-
sumer perceptions of service quality,” Journal of Retail-
ing, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 12-40, 1988.
[91] S. Lagrosen and Y. Lagrosen, “Management of service
quality—differences in values, practices and outcomes,”
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 370-81,
2003.
[92] B. Perrott, “Managing strategic issues in the public ser-
vice,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 337-45,
1996.
[93] E. Brynjolfsson and L. Hill, “Is information systems
spending productive? New evidence and new results,”
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on In-
formation System, pp. 47-64, 1993.
[94] G. Lee and J. L. Perry, “Are computers boosting produc-
tivity?” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 77-102, 2002.
[95] F. R. Linchtenberg, “The output contribution of computer
equipment and personnel: A firm level analysis,” Work-
ing Paper Number: 4540, MA, Cambridge, National Bu-
reau of Economic Research, 1993.
[96] S. Zuboff, “In the age of the smart machine: The future of
work and power,” Basic Books, New York, 1998.
[97] P. B. Crosby, “Quality is free,” MacGraw Hill, New York,
1979.
[98] W. E. Deming, “Out of the crisis,” MIT Center for Ad-
vanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, Mass, 1986.
[99] J. M. Juran and F. M. Gryna, “Juran’s quality control
handbook,” 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, pp. 4.9-4.12,
1988.
[100] C. Gronroos, “A service quality model and its market
implications,” European Journal of marketing, Vol. 18,
No. 4, pp. 36-44, 1984.
[101] C. Gronroos, “Strategic management and marketing in
the service sector,” Marketing Science Institution, Cam-
bridge, MA, 1983.
[102] A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry, “A
conceptual model of service quality and its implications
for further research,” Journal of Marketing, Fall, No. 48,
pp. 41-50, 1985.
[103] A . Parasuraman, L. L. Berry, and V. A. Zeithaml, “Un-
derstanding customer expectations of service,” Sloan
Management Review, Spring, No. 32, pp. 39-48, 1991.
[104] A. Parasuraman, L. L. Berry, and V.A. Zeithaml, “Re-
finement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale,”
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 420-50, 1991.

RAFIA NAZ 203
[105] N. Capon, J. U. Farley, and S. Hoenig, “Determinants of
financial performance: A meta-analysis,” Management
Science, No. 36, pp. 1143-1159, October 1990.
[106] N. Slack, S. Chambers, C. Harland, and R. Johnson,
“Operations management,” 4th Edition, Pitman Publish-
ing, London, 2003.
[107] M. Wisniewski and M. Donnelly, “Measuring service
quality in the public sector: The potential for SER-
VQUAL,” Total Quality Management, No. 7, pp.
357-367, 1996.
[108] MORI, “Public service reform: Measuring and under-
standing customer satisfaction,” 2002,
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rd/opsr.pdf.
[109] Y. Ekinci, “An investigation of the determinants of cus-
tomer satisfaction,” Tourism Analysis, No. 8, pp. 197-
203, 2004.
[110] J. J. Cronin and S. A. Taylor, “Measuring service quality:
A reexamination and extension,” Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 55-68, 1992.
[111] E. Christou and M. Sigala, “Conceptualising the meas-
urement of service quality and TQM performance for ho-
tels: The HOSTQUAL model,” Acta Touristica, Vol. 14,
No. 2, pp. 140-69, 2002.
[112] R. Johnston and D. Lyth, “Implementing the integration
of customer expectations and operational capabilities,” in
S. Brown, E. Gummesson, B. Edvardsson, and B. Gus-
tavsson, (Eds), “Service quality: Multidisciplinary and
multinational perspectives,” Lexington Books, Lanham,
MD, pp. 179-90, 1991.
[113] M. Sigala, “Investigating the factors determining e-learn-
ing effectiveness in tourism and hospitality education,”
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, Vol. 16,
No. 2, pp. 11-21, 2004.
[114] M. Sigala, “The ASP-Qual model: Measuring ASP ser-
vice quality in Greece,” Managing Service Quality, Vol.
14, No. 1, pp. 103-14, 2004.
[115] J. M. Carman, “Consumer perceptions of service quality:
An assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions,” Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 33-5, 1990.
[116] R. C. Lewis and B. H. Booms, “The marketing aspect of
service quality,” In L. Berry, G. Shostack, and G. Upah,
(Eds), Emerging Perspective on Service Marketing,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 99-
107, 1983.
[117] R. L. Oliver, “A cognitive model of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction judgments,” Journal of
Marketing Research, No. 17, pp. 460-9, November 1980.
[118] V. Phala, “Accelerating service delivery through the use
of mobile technology: M-government,” Service Delivery
Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 82, 2007.
[119] D. W. Jorgensen, M. S. Ho, and K. J. Stiroh, “Lessons
from the US growth resurgence,” First International
Conference on the Economic and Social Implications of
Information Technology, Washington DC, January 27,
2003.
[120] E. Brynjolfsson and L. M. Hitt, “The catalytic computer:
Information technology, enterprise transformation, and
business performance,” First International Conference on
the Economic and Social Implications of Information
Technology, Washington DC, January 27, 2003.
[121] S. Basu, “E-government and developing countries: An
overview,” International Review of Law Computers and
Technology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 109–132, March 2004.
[122] P. A. Mittal, M. Kumar, M. K. Mohania, M. Nair, N.
Batra, P. Roy, A. Saronwala, and L. Yagnik, “A frame-
work for e-governance solutions,” IBM Journal of Re-
search and Development, Vol. 48, No. 5/6, 2004.
[123] R. Gonzalez, J. Gasco, and J. Llopis, “E-government
success: Some principles from a Spanish case study,” In-
dustrial Management and Data Systems, Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, Vol. 107, No. 6, pp. 845-861, 2007.