Adoption of High Impact Governmental eServices: Seduce or Enforce?

The adoption of high impact governmental e-services is not obvious. Especially small and medium sized companies hesitate to invest and adopt. Non-adoption endangers the realization of the 25% reduction objective within the EU's Lisbon Agenda of the administrative burden of businesses by 2012. On the other hand governmental organisations gain from the use of these e-services. In several cases this is the underlying argument behind the legal enforcement of the use of governmental e-services. In the study reported in this paper we answer the question which factors influence the adoption of these high impact governmental e-services. The designed research model has been tested in an empirical business-to-government context. In contrast to several business-to-business studies we found that especially organisational readiness is a hampering factor for the adoption of these governmental high impact e-services. These findings question the effectiveness of governmental enforcement strategies.

[1]  Patrick Y. K. Chau,et al.  A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology-organization-environment framework , 2001, Inf. Manag..

[2]  Nicholas S. Vonortas.  The Process of Technological Innovation , 1997 .

[3]  ElgarahWafa,et al.  Data exchange in interorganizational relationships , 2005 .

[4]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Electronic Data Interchange and Small Organizations: Adoption and Impact of Technology , 1995, MIS Q..

[5]  Tom M. van Engers,et al.  Reduction of the Administrative Burden: An e-Government Perspective , 2004, EGOV.

[6]  J. Michael Pearson,et al.  Electronic commerce adoption: an empirical study of small and medium US businesses , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[7]  Eric van Heck,et al.  The adoption and impact of EDI in Dutch SMEs , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[8]  Albert Boonstra,et al.  Analyzing inter-organizational systems from a power and interest perspective , 2005, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[9]  Paul J. Hart,et al.  Power and Trust: Critical Factors in the Adoption and Use of Electronic Data Interchange , 1997 .

[10]  Pieter M. A. Ribbers,et al.  The adoption and impact of EDI in Dutch SME's , 1998 .

[11]  WeiKwok-Kee,et al.  Organizational transformation using electronic data interchange , 1997 .

[12]  Hock-Hai Teo,et al.  Organizational Transformation Using Electronic Data Interchange: The Case of TradeNet in Singapore , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[13]  JoAnne Yates,et al.  Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies , 1987, CACM.

[14]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[15]  Vijay K. Vemuri,et al.  Inventing the Organizations of the 21st Century , 2003 .

[16]  Carol Stoak Saunders,et al.  Data exchange in interorganizational relationships: review through multiple conceptual lenses , 2005, DATB.

[17]  H. Henriksen.  Performance, pressures, and politics: motivators for adoption of interorganizational information systems , 2002 .

[18]  Åke Grönlund,et al.  State of the Art in e-Gov Research - A Survey , 2004, EGOV.

[19]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Research Report: Empirical Test of an EDI Adoption Model , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[20]  J. Cockcroft.  The process of technological innovation , 1965 .

[21]  Patrick Y. K. Chau.  Inhibitors to EDI Adoption in Small Businesses: An Empirical Investigation , 2001, J. Electron. Commer. Res..