icegov2012 proceedings

(69%) has also highlighted the importance of getting personal
feedback from the government in case some documents would be
additionally required during the administrative process.
A more detailed review of the results show that the users are least
satisfied with the communication with public servants by email,
while the visual design, ease of use and navigation scored better
(Figure 6.) (Table 7.). The factor of appointing a public servant as
a contact person appears high in the list of citizens’ requirements
for a successful e-government project implementation. While this
question was unfortunately not detailed further in the
questionnaire, it is most possible that this specific requirement is a
result of the citizens’ overall distrust towards the public
administration and their habits in dealing with the administration
in traditional means through direct contact with the public servant
in the administration office.
The actual requirements for e-government services derive from
the evaluation of citizens’ priorities that were provided for each
success factor listed in the questionnaire. A high priority of a
success factor is a demand for the information system [21].
Figure 6 The average values of the perceived
implementation/performance of success factors (shown in red
color) vs. their priority (shown in blue color)
Table 7. List of success factors that were assessed together
with the calculated difference between their average priority
and implementation values
# Success factor Difference
F-1 Multilingualism 0.3
F-2 Unified appearance 0.8
F-3 Visually attractive design 0.8
329
F-4 Easy to use 1.1
F-5 Easy to navigate 1.2
F-6 Large amount of information 1.3
F-7 Cost saving factor 1.4
F-8 Services supporting specific activities 1.4
F-9 Provision of samples 1.4
F-10 Grouping of services by life situation 1.5
F-11 Client-oriented services 1.5
F-12 Continuously updated content 1.5
F-13 Integration of services between central and local
level
1.5
F-14 Acceptance of digital signatures 1.6
F-15 Large amount of services 1.6
F-16 Support of general processes 1.6
F-17 Simplification of administration processes 1.6
F-18 Time saving factor 1.6
F-19 Support of communication 1.7
F-20 Appointment of a contact person 1.7
F-21 Acceptance of e-mail messages 1.9
F-22 Support for email notifications 1.9
F-23 Rapid response by administration 1.9
The Figure 6 details the average values of assessed
implementation (shown in red color) in a scale from 1 (not
important) to 4 (most important) vs. the average values of their
priorities (shown in blue color) using a similar scale from 1 (not
implemented) to 4 (fully implemented). The Table 7 provides the
list of all measured factors and presents the calculated difference
between the values of assessed implementation and the priority
for each measured factor. The difference figure shows how large
is the discrepancy between the citizens’ priority for a specific
success factor and their assessment of its current implementation
in practice.
Figure 7. Portfolio matrix of implementation/performance vs.
priority of identified success factors
The actual values of success factors implementation and their
priorities are shown with the portfolio matrix (Figure 7),
illustrating that all success factors are located within a grouping
cluster, which requires appropriate adjustment by increasing the
level of their implementation. All success factors are placed just
below the matrix cluster with highest priority and excellent
implementation. Except the success factor F-1 (Multilingualism),
which is considered appropriately implemented due to its slight