Multidimensional evaluation approach for an e-government website : a case study of e-government in Saudi Arabia

This study investigates the refinement of an evaluation framework for e-Government websites. The aim of the research was to determine how an existing evaluation framework, which recommends the use of multiple usability techniques, could be used to obtain usability data that would indicate how to improve e-Government websites and satisfy users' needs. The framework describes how common techniques, such as heuristic testing and user testing, can be used with the emerging discipline of web analytics to provide a comprehensive and detailed view of users' interactions on e-Government websites. The original framework was refined in the light of the findings and the refined framework should facilitate the improvement of e­Government websites depending on users' demands and interactions. The work involved implementing the original multi-dimensional framework in e­Government websites in Saudi Arabia. A case study method was used over two implementations. In the former implementation, the evaluation methods consisted of heuristic evaluation followed by usability testing then web analytic tools. However, in the later implementation, refinements to the evaluation framework were proposed and the order of methods was amended: web analytics was used first, followed by heuristic evaluation then usability testing. The framework recommends specific usability methods for evaluating specific issues. The conclusions of this study illustrate the potential benefits of using a multidimensional evaluation framework for e-Government websites and it was found that each usability method had its own particular benefits and limitations. The research concludes by illustrating the potential usefulness of the designed evaluation framework in raising awareness of usability methods for evaluating e-Government websites in Saudi Arabia.

[1]  Victor Bekkers,et al.  The Myths of E-Government: Looking Beyond the Assumptions of a New and Better Government , 2007, Inf. Soc..

[2]  Avinash Kaushik,et al.  Web Analytics: An Hour a Day , 2007 .

[3]  R. Stake The art of case study research , 1995 .

[4]  Arun Sen,et al.  Current trends in web data analysis , 2006, CACM.

[5]  Rhoda C. Joseph,et al.  A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects , 2008, Gov. Inf. Q..

[6]  George K. Kostopoulos E-government in the Arabian Gulf: a vision toward reality , 2004, Electron. Gov. an Int. J..

[7]  Seongil Lee,et al.  Usability Evaluation of Korean e-Government Portal , 2007, HCI.

[8]  Ralph Neuneier,et al.  Guidance performance indicator - Web metrics for information driven Web sites , 2005, The 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI'05).

[9]  A. Bryman Social Research Methods , 2001 .

[10]  K. Perreault,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2011 .

[11]  Paul T. Jaeger,et al.  Assessing Section 508 compliance on federal e-government Web sites: A multi-method, user-centered evaluation of accessibility for persons with disabilities , 2006, Gov. Inf. Q..

[12]  P. Jaeger Multi-Method Evaluation of U.S. Federal Electronic Government Websites in Terms of Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities , 2006 .

[13]  Gitte Lindgaard,et al.  Usability testing: what have we overlooked? , 2007, CHI.

[14]  Sotiris Karetsos,et al.  Mobile government: A challenge for agriculture , 2008, Gov. Inf. Q..

[15]  Teresa Roselli,et al.  An approach to usability evaluation of e-learning applications , 2006, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[16]  Elliot R. Siegel,et al.  A practical approach to e-government Web evaluation , 2003 .

[17]  Edward F. Halpin,et al.  An Exploratory Evaluation of UK Local e-Government From an Accountability Perspective , 2005 .

[18]  Dave Yates,et al.  The use of cookies in Federal agency web sites: Privacy and recordkeeping issues , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[19]  Richard T. Vidgen,et al.  Data triangulation and web quality metrics: A case study in e-government , 2006, Inf. Manag..

[20]  Klaus D. Wilde,et al.  Searchstrings revealing user intent: a better understanding of user perception , 2006, ICWE '06.

[21]  Jungwoo Lee,et al.  Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model , 2001, Gov. Inf. Q..

[22]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  What do usability evaluators do in practice?: an explorative study of think-aloud testing , 2006, DIS '06.

[23]  Markel Vigo,et al.  Quantitative metrics for measuring web accessibility , 2007, W4A '07.

[24]  Ryad Titah,et al.  E-Government Adoption and Acceptance: A Literature Review , 2006, Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res..

[25]  M. Denscombe The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research projects , 1998 .

[26]  Daphne Freeder,et al.  Web Metrics: Proven Methods for Measuring Web Site Success , 2003 .

[27]  Chauncey E. Wilson,et al.  The Usability Engineering Framework for Product Design and Evaluation , 1997 .

[28]  Olivia R. Liu Sheng,et al.  What are people searching on government web sites? , 2007, CACM.

[29]  Hussein Al-Yaseen,et al.  Evaluation of Awareness and Acceptability of Using e-Government Services in Developing Countries : the Case of Jordan , 2010 .

[30]  Gino Verleye,et al.  User-centered E-Government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[31]  Rowena Cullen,et al.  Information Privacy and Trust in Government: A Citizen-Based Perspective from New Zealand , 2008 .

[32]  Mario Piattini,et al.  A Web Metrics Survey Using WQM , 2004, ICWE.

[33]  Eelko K. R. E. Huizingh,et al.  Website optimization with web metrics: a case study , 2006, ICEC '06.

[34]  Martin Maguire,et al.  Achieving Usability Within E-Government Web Sites Illustrated by a Case Study Evaluation , 2007, HCI.

[35]  Y. Lincoln,et al.  Scientific Research in Education , 2004 .

[36]  Joseph S. Dumas,et al.  Moderating Usability Tests: Principles and Practices for Interacting: Principles and Practices for Interacting , 2008 .

[37]  B. J. Oates,et al.  Researching Information Systems and Computing , 2005 .

[38]  Zahir Irani,et al.  E-Government Evaluation: Reflections On Three Organisational Case Studies , 2007, 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07).

[39]  S. M. Zabed Ahmed A comparison of usability techniques for evaluating information retrieval system interfaces , 2008 .

[40]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Classifying web metrics using the web quality model , 2005, Online Inf. Rev..

[41]  Ingemar J. Cox,et al.  The web structure of e-government - developing a methodology for quantitative evaluation , 2006, WWW '06.

[42]  Zhenyu Liu,et al.  Automatic identification of user goals in Web search , 2005, WWW '05.

[43]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Prioritizing Web Usability , 2006 .

[44]  Esteban Zimányi,et al.  Semantic analysis of web site audience , 2006, SAC.

[45]  Beatriz Plaza,et al.  Monitoring web traffic source effectiveness with Google Analytics: An experiment with time series , 2009, Aslib Proc..

[46]  Sang M. Lee,et al.  Current practices of leading e-government countries , 2005, Commun. ACM.

[47]  S. Smithson,et al.  Considering Contemporary Project Management Approaches against E-Government Challenges , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering.

[48]  John Carlo Bertot,et al.  The E-Government paradox: Better customer service doesn't necessarily cost less , 2008, Gov. Inf. Q..

[49]  Gregoris Mentzas,et al.  SALT: A semantic adaptive framework for monitoring citizen satisfaction from e-government services , 2010, Expert Syst. Appl..

[50]  Pam J. Mayhew,et al.  Accessibility : In-Depth Evaluation of Saudi Arabia and Oman , 2005 .

[51]  Piyush Gupta,et al.  Challenges and issues in e-government project assessment , 2007, ICEGOV '07.

[52]  Anthony G. Tuckett,et al.  Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: A researcher’s experience , 2005, Contemporary nurse.

[53]  Mete Yildiz,et al.  E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[54]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methods , 2010, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[55]  Alok Mishra,et al.  E-Government: A global view and an empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens , 2005, Gov. Inf. Q..

[56]  Titus Schleyer,et al.  Comparative study of heuristic evaluation and usability testing methods. , 2009, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[57]  Bruno Gonçalves,et al.  Human dynamics revealed through Web analytics , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[58]  Weiguo Fan,et al.  Web site success metrics: addressing the duality of goals , 2006, CACM.

[59]  S. Alshawi,et al.  E-government evaluation: Citizen's perspective in developing countries , 2009 .

[60]  Eric T. Peterson,et al.  Web Site Measurement Hacks , 2005 .

[61]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Homepage Usability: 50 Websites Deconstructed , 2001 .

[62]  Lili Wang,et al.  Evaluating Web-Based E-Government Services with a Citizen-Centric Approach , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[63]  Cristiano Maciel,et al.  A Quality Inspection Method to Evaluate E-Government Sites , 2005, EGOV.

[64]  Steve Krug,et al.  Don't Make Me Think!: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability , 2000 .

[65]  Philip E. T. Lewis,et al.  Research Methods for Business Students , 2006 .

[66]  Peter Bak,et al.  How to use interaction logs effectively for usability evaluation , 2008 .

[67]  Layla Hasan Usability evaluation framework for e-commerce websites in developing countries , 2009 .

[68]  Elizabeth L. Black Web Analytics: A Picture of the Academic Library Web Site User , 2009 .

[69]  C. McClure,et al.  Evaluating federal websites: Improving e-government for the people , 2004 .

[70]  Gilbert Cockton,et al.  Reconditioned merchandise: extended structured report formats in usability inspection , 2004, CHI EA '04.