A Framework for Improving e-Services Utilization in Rural Areas

36 The IUP Journal of Information Technology, Vol. X, No. 2, 2014
A Framework for Improving e-Services
Utilization in Rural Areas
Puneet Kumar*, Dharminder Kumar** and Rajesh Sharma***
© 2014 IUP. All Rights Reserved.
* Assistant Professor, Computer Science, FASC, Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh,
Sikar, Rajasthan, India; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: professor.pkumar@gmail.com
** Professor and Chairman, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Guru Jambheshwar University
of Science and Technology, Hisar, Haryana, India. E-mail: dr_dk_kumar_02@yahoo.com
*** Assistant Professor, Economics, FASC, Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Sikar,
Rajasthan, India. E-mail: raj09sharma@rediffmail.com
The Indian rural society is infested with problems like illiteracy, poverty, lack of awareness,
etc., and to eradicate such problemsan attempt has beenmade by the Government of India in
the form of 73rd
Constitutional AmendmentAct which strongly affirms the establishment of
PanchayatiRajInstitutions(PRIs).ThePRIscompriseelectedrepresentativesfromruralvicinity,
who can understand local demands and problems. The government has initiated various rural
development programs which encompasskeen involvement of PRIs and bureaucracy fortheir
success. Inthe year 2006, the government approved National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) for
computerizationofhighprioritymundanetasks.Asaresult,numerouse-governanceapplications
were designed for imparting various types of services to people in their own vicinity. But a
majority of applications have not attained the intended success. The e-services, especially in
rural areas, werehamperedbythelackof participationand awarenessamongPRIs, bureaucrats
and beneficiaries. This paper proposes a prototype for enhancing utilization of e-services in
rural areas by reengineering the methodology adopted for capacity building of PRIs and
sensitizationmechanism.It also includes thefeedback mechanism forbeneficiaries.The paper
encompasses the formal mathematical representation of the framework which gives an
impeccable idea about the boundaries of the framework and the impact of various parameters
in enhancing e-services utilization, and assists in the development of ontologies for the
framework.
Keywords: Panchayati RajInstitutions (PRIs), Information andCommunication Technology
(ICT), Rural development, Capacity building, Sensitization, e-Governance,
National e-Governance Plan (NeGP)
Introduction
The concept of rural development is not novel, and it was coined after the independence
of India. Since a majority of Indian populace lives in villages, the concept of rural
development has become important. It imbibes the zeal of overall development of the
nation. The current democratically decentralized architecture of India focuses on
rural and urban areas separately with divergent modus operandi. According to the
73rd
Constitutional Amendment Act, a three-tier architecture was conceptualized for

37A Framework for Improving e-Services Utilization in Rural Areas
the establishment of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in rural areas (deSouza, 2010).
A PRI comprises three bodies, viz., Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad
at local level, block level and district level, respectively. The PRIs encompass elected
representatives from local areas in order to identify local needs and formulate
appropriate policies for them (Kumar et al., 2013).
Although the government has devised an influential mechanism for the overall
development of rural society, still a majority of marginalized people reside in rural
areas, and moreover, they are suffering from social problems like poverty, illiteracy,
shelter, sanitation, etc., severely. The current scenario puts a stigma on the adopted
strategies of government for the welfare of rural masses and hence the existing
developmental mechanisms need to be reengineered in order to accomplish the
intended objectives of rural development.
This paper describes the necessity of PRIs for rural development along with various
schemes for their development. It also identifies major impediments to rural
development, along with their possible solutions, supplemented with Information and
Communication Technology (ICT). It also sheds some light on the usage of ICT in the
developmental process. The global perspective also affirms that ICT is a successful
and powerful tool for strengthening the governance and it can help poor and
marginalized segments of the society by empowering them in various aspects. The
concept of democracy revolves around the principle of governance by the people, for
the people and of the people. To support this zeal of democracy, the government of
India has launched National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) in 2006 comprising various
Mission Mode Projects (MMPs) for strengthening the largest democracy in the world,
with the objective of disseminating various types of services like G2C (Government to
Citizen), G2B (Government to Business), G2G (Government to Government) and
G2E (Government to Employee) (Bhattacharya, 2012) with an initial estimated outlay
of 3,300 cr (Times, 2007).
2. e-Governance in India
In the year 1970, the Government of India (GoI) established the Department of
Electronics, and subsequently in 1977, GoI took the first major step towards
implementation of e-governance with the establishment of National Informatics Center
(NIC). By 1980, most of the government offices were equipped with computers, but
their role was confined to word processing. With the advent of ICT, the GoI took a
remarkable step towards fostering e-governance by launching the national satellite-
based network NICNET in 1987, followed by District Information System of the National
Informatics Centre (DISNIC). According to Prabhu (2012), NICNET was the first
government informatics network across the world equipped with facilities like Telnet,
FTP, Internet along with database services (GISTNIC and MEDLARS). Up to 1990,
NICNET extended its reach from state headquarters to district headquarters. In the
year 2000, the GoI established the Ministry of Information Technology and identified

a 12-points minimum agenda for e-governance. This agenda comprises providing
computers with software to officers, necessary training to officials, adoption of office
procedure automation software developed by NIC and inclination towards automation
of various mundane operations. Finally, in the year 2006, the GoI launched NeGP and
grouped the initiatives into three broad categories, viz., G2C, G2B and G2G.
The government is spending an enormous amount on cultivating the culture of e-
governance through NeGP, however, the results are not encouraging. Although there
are islands of success in the area of e-governance, yet there are certain areas which
are unexplored or inadequately explored. On the basis of a survey, 85% failure rate for
e-governance projects has been noticed across the world, whereas in the year 2009
alone, the worldwide expenditure on the technology by the government was $428.38 bn
(Luna et al., 2013). The studies by Dwivedi and Bharti (2010), Mistry (2010), Kumar
et al. (2010) and Gajendra et al. (2012) identify major impediments and challenges to
the successful implementation of e-governance in India and reveal that inadequate
planning, leadership failures, deficiency in finances, lack of motivation and awareness,
dearth of citizen-centric nature of applications, poor cooperation among bureaucrats
and people at local level, lack of trust, miserable technical design which endures lack
of interoperability among distinct e-governance applications, and underutilization of
ICT infrastructure resources are the major obstacles in the successful implementation
of e-governance in India.
3. Need for Panchayati Raj Institutions and Rural Development
Two-thirds of the Indian populace reside in rural areas with diversified culture,
geographical conditions, language, religion, demands and necessities (Wikipedia,
2013). Moreover, their growth is also hindered by some severe social glitches, viz.,
illiteracy, poverty, lack of awareness, etc. (Singh, 2010). Further, the identification of
the grassroots realities and necessities was also a cumbersome task for the government.
Since a majority of the population resides in rural areas, they need to be aptly developed
for the overall development of the nation. To usher in the conception of rural
development, the government needs to enhance its accessibility at the local level by
promoting local self-governance. The 73rd
Constitutional Amendment Act endorses
the conceptualization of local self-governance and enforces the establishment of PRIs
(Singh, 2010). The concept of decentralized governance envisions devolution of powers
associated with the government to eradicate the persisting problems of the rural society.
The PRIs also play a vital role in the formulation and implementation of new policies
or schemes designed by the government by analyzing the local problems, needs etc.
and optimistically enforcing them at the local level accordingly.
4. Literature Review
E-governance initiatives should be taken in the rural areas by identifying and analyzing
the grassroots realities (Malhotra et al., 2010). Mere establishment of an Information

Technology (IT) infrastructure in the rural area does not lead to better delivery of
e-services. It requires fostering a culture of e-governance across various ministries
and departments at the central, state and district levels (Bagga et al., 2009). The
strategy devised for the implementation of e-governance should be comprehensive
and citizen-centric, and should follow multiple channels of communication for
dissemination of e-services (Bernnat et al., 2010; and Cloet, 2012). Furthermore, the
lack of necessary infrastructure, lack of awareness regarding e-services among
beneficiaries, inequality in gaining access to various services between urban and rural
residents, technical illiteracy and language dominance are the major problems in the
successful implementation of e-governance (Dwivedi and Bharti, 2010; and NISG
and PMI, 2011). The awareness among bureaucrats regarding recently launched e-
services or updated e-services is also not encouraging (Gulati, 2010; and Naik et al.,
2010). The Punjab government intends to offer various e-governance services in rural
areas, but despite their good intention, they are not effectively implemented due to
lack of participation (Singla and Aggarwal, 2012). The Warana Kiosks project, intended
to serve the villagers, resulted in failure because of lack of participation by bureaucrats
and the topdown approach (Cecchini and Ratna, 2008; Singh, 2010; and Network,
2013).
Although the government of India is focusing on almost every aspect of e-governance
services implementation, yet a majority of e-governance projects fail or become
inoperable. The major causes are as follows:
• Lack of participation among PRIs and inadequate level of awareness about
e-services;
• Inadequate operational and managerial skills of associated bureaucrats; and
• Lack of awareness about e-services among beneficiaries.
5. The Proposed Framework for Improving e-Services Utilization
5.1 Description of the Framework
Figure 1 depicts the proposed framework for improving the utilization of e-services, and
it has been divided into three major segments, viz., capacity building of PRIs, sensitization
of beneficiaries and enhancement in the awareness level of bureaucrats. The link L1
indicates the conduct of appropriate capacity-building program for PRIs; and afterwards,
the feedback must be taken (L2) from PRIs about conducted capacity-building program
for analyzing the increment in awareness level. Again the capacity-building program
(L3) will be conducted for PRIs, followed by the feedback process. L1, L2 and L3 will be
repeated periodically until the feedback becomes approximately negligible and the level
of awareness of PRIs approaches to maximum limit of awareness level.
Further, the beneficiaries need to be more sensitized and mobilized about various
e-services delivered by the government because the literacy rate of rural mass is quite

low in comparison to urban mass. Generally, the sensitization campaigns are conducted
by governments, preferably in collaboration with NGOs or private partners.
The second segment of the proposed framework focuses on effective sensitization.
After each sensitization campaign (L5), an impact analysis (L6) should be done which
reflects the impact of campaign on beneficiaries. If impact analysis leads to insignificant
results, then the sensitization mechanism will be reengineered (L7) in order to improve
the effect of mobilization. Again, the campaign will be initiated with revised sensitization
mechanism, followed by impact analysis and considerable revisions in mechanism.
This process will be continued periodically till the average awareness level of
beneficiaries reaches up to a significant point.
The bureaucrats or functionaries are solely responsible for providing logistics for
the implementation of various e-services offered by the government. Therefore, their
capacity building is equally essential to ensure successful delivery of e-services. The
third segment of the proposed framework concentrates on capacity building of
Figure 1: Framework for Improving the Utilization of e-Services
L1
L3
L2
L4
L6
L7L5
L8
Capacity
Building
Feedback
Elected
Representatives
Bureaucrats
Beneficiaries
Sensitization
Mechanism
Reengineering
Impact
Analysis
Improved
e-services
utilization
Frequent
Training about
current, new and
updated modules

functionaries. The functionaries should undergo periodical training programs/
conferences/seminars conducted by various government as well as private agencies in
order to be aware of the current services, recent developments, updates in existing
services, upcoming services, etc., followed by feedback mechanism. On the basis of
feedback from bureaucrats, the government can decide whether a functionary is
competent or not for delivering the e-services.
Further, the proposed framework increases the degree of utilization of e-services
which is directly proportional to the successfulness of delivered e-services.
5.2 Formal Representation of the Framework
5.2.1 Notations
ER = Set of elected representatives
BC = Set of bureaucrats
BF = Set of beneficiaries
 = Set of capacity-building programs
 = Increase in the level of awareness of an elected representative/
beneficiary/ bureaucrat after undergoing a unit capacity-building
program/sensitization mechanism
 = Level of awareness of an elected representative/beneficiary/bureaucrat
after a capacity-building program/sensitization mechanism
 = Level of awareness of an elected representative/beneficiary/bureaucrat
before a capacity-building program/sensitization mechanism
i = Average increase in the level of awareness of elected representative/
beneficiary/bureaucrat after a capacity-building program/sensitization
mechanism
 = Coefficient of impact on beneficiaries after sensitization
 = An occurrence of sensitization mechanism engineering
 = Set of sensitization mechanism
5.2.2 The Framework
The proposed framework focuses on three major components of rural democracy, viz.,
elected representatives, bureaucrats and beneficiaries. Let ER be represented as
 neeee .,...,,, 321 , BC as  mbbbb .,...,,, 321 and BF as  pffff .,...,,, 321  is the set of
capacity-building programs  kcccc .,...,,, 321 conducted for elected representatives.

After 1st
capacity-building program, i.e., c1
, the increase in the level of awareness of
all elected representatives is:
nnn   ...,,,, 333222111
where niii  1
Average increase in the level of awareness after c1
is:


n
i
i
n 1
1
1

The consequential level of awareness of elected representatives after c1
is
....,,, 2211 nn  
After the 2nd
capacity-building program, i.e., c2
,
nnn   ...,,,, 333222111
where niii  1 is the increase in the level of awareness of all elected
representatives. Therefore, the average increase in level of awareness is:


n
i
i
n 1
2
1

Since k numbers of capacity-building programs are to be conducted on the basis of
feedback, for ck
th
, the average increase in the level of awareness is:


n
i
ik
n 1
1

Therefore, the average increase in the level of awareness of elected representatives
after undergoing k capacity programs is:


k
i
iER
k 1
1

If LER
and MER
indicate the average level of awareness of elected representatives
without any capacity-building programs and maximum level of awareness of any elected
representative, respectively, then:
ERERER ML  
Let  t ,....,,, 321 be the set of insignificant impacts on
tiiBF  10i.e.,,  , and it leads to  t ,.....,,, 321 corresponding to

considerable revisions in the sensitization mechanisms  t ,.....,,, 321 . The
average rise in the awareness levels of beneficiaries during t successive revisions in
sensitizing mechanisms can be defined as  t .....,, ,32,1 . And the average increase
in the awareness level of beneficiaries can be calculated as:
 

p
i
it
p
i
i
p
i
i
ppp 11
2
1
1
1
.,.......,
1
,
1

Any arbitrary sensitization mechanism can be defined as:
tqtlqll   1and11
where q
indicates the change in the previous sensitization mechanism. Since major
changes in the mechanism take place at initial levels,
1321 ...  t
i will be significant if .0 ii  The average increase in the level of awareness
of beneficiaries is:


t
i
iBF
t 1
1

The state as well as central government conducts workshops and seminars about
new/revised e-governance projects periodically for enhancing the awareness level of
bureaucrats associated with various departments. Let  r .,,...,, 321 be the set
of capacity-building programs conducted for BC  Again for ,BC the gain in the
awareness level after one capacity-building program can be defined as
.0 miiii   Hence, the average rise in the awareness level after each
capacity-building program is:
 

m
i
ir
m
i
i
m
i
i
mmm 11
2
1
1
1
..,......,
1
,
1

The average increase in the level of awareness of bureaucrats after undergoing ‘r’
number of capacity-building programs can be calculated as:


r
i
iBC
r 1
1

Since the level of awareness of e-services is directly proportional to the utilization
of e-services, the proposed framework improves the utilization of e-services by enduring

sensitization of beneficiaries and capacity building of elected representatives as well
as bureaucrats. The improvement factor will be the function of BCER  ,  and BF
defined as:
  BFBCERBFBCERf  ,,
6. Significance of the Proposed Framework
The failure of e-governance projects is the prime concern for any government. The
review of literature identifies that lack of information among elected representatives,
contemptible level of awareness of beneficiaries and lack of updated information about
offered e-services among functionaries are the major causes responsible for the failure
of e-governance projects. The proposed framework is a remedial solution for these
problems and attempts to eradicate such problems to a great extent. The anticipated
repercussions after the adoption of the proposed framework are depicted as under:
• The level of awareness about e-services among beneficiaries and elected
representatives will increase to a great extent, which enhances e-services
utilization. Nevertheless, the sensitization of people also enhances the level
of participation among various stakeholders.
• A majority of e-governance projects are implemented on the basis of PPP
where services are to be delivered through CSCs. It has been proclaimed by
numerous researches and studies that revenue generated by CSCs in own
vicinity is quite low and they undergo financial scarcity which results in
volatility of CSCs. The proposed framework increases the sustainability of
CSCs by ensuring the utilization of e-services via dissemination of awareness
among various stakeholders.
• Since the government is spending an enormous amount on development
and deployment of e-governance projects, their failure has an undesirable
effect on the economy. If implemented, the proposed model will also increase
the success rate of e-governance projects, especially in rural areas.
• When the number of e-services utilizers increases at the local level, then
the government can negotiate with private partners about the reduction in
the cost incurred by the people in availing e-services through CSCs, which
results in cost-effective delivery of e-services.
• A continuous assessment-based capacity-building mechanism will empower
the people at the local level, which may lead to a powerful democracy.
Conclusion
In the Indian scenario, the democratically decentralized architecture for rural areas
stands on three pillars, viz., elected representatives (PRIs), bureaucrats and
beneficiaries. Therefore, they need to be more empowered in terms of awareness about

the usage of e-services. Although the state and central governments have taken
significant measures for capacity building of PRIs, beneficiaries and bureaucrats, yet a
majority of e-governance projects result in failure or attain only partial success due to
lack of awareness and poor management (Choudhari et al., 2007; and NISG et al.,
2011). Therefore, the existing capacity building and sensitizing mechanisms need to
be reengineered according to the clientele group, in order to accomplish considerable
improvement in e-services utilization. Moreover, the capacity building and sensitization
mechanisms must be followed up with consecutive feedback process, and the results
must be incorporated into the subsequent capacity building and sensitization processes.
The mechanism of the proposed framework reengineers and rejuvenates the existing
awareness dissemination mechanism on the utilization of e-services among various
stakeholders.
References
1. Bagga R K, Vashista P K, Sekhar K S and Gupta P (2009), “Evaluation of
e-Governance Initiative at District Level in India: Andhra Pradesh Experience”,
in P Gupta, R K Bagga and S Ayaluri (Eds.), Fostering e-Governance, pp. 45-86,
The Icfai University Press, Hyderabad.
2. Bernnat R, Johnstone-Burt A, Zink W and Thomé F (2010), “e-Government: Ten
Lessons Learned from the Best Global Programs”, Booz and Company, United States.
3. Bhattacharya J (2012), e-Gov 2.0, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi.
4. Cecchini S and Raina M (2008), Village Information Kiosks for the Warana
Cooperatives in India. Retrieved 2013, from e-Government for Development:
http://www.egov4dev.org/success/case/warana.shtml
5. Choudhari R D, Banwet D K and Gupta M P (2007), “Identifying Risk Factors
for E-governance Projects”, in A Agarwal and V V Ramana (Eds.), Foundations
of e-Government, pp. 270-277, Computer Society of India, Hyderabad.
6. Cloet F (2012), “e-Government Lessons From South Africa 2001 – 2011:
Institutions, State of Progress and Measurement”, The African Journal of Information
and Communication, pp. 128-142.
7. deSouza P R (2010), “The Struggle for Local Government: Indian Democracy’s
New Phase”, The Journal of Federalism, pp. 99-118.
8. Dwivedi S K and Bharti A K (2010), “e-Governance in India-Problems and
Acceptability”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology,
pp. 37-43.
9. Gajendra S, Xi B and Wang Q (2012), “e-Government: Public Participation and
Ethical Issues”, Journal of e-Governance, pp. 195-204.
10. Gulati A G (2010), “Monitoring for Effective Service Delivery – The Case of
USO Funded Schemes”, Kurukshetra, pp. 26-30.

11. Kumar P, Kumar D and Kumar N (2013), “ICT in Local Self Governance: A
Study of Rural India”, International Journal of Computer Applications, pp. 31-36.
12. Kumar S P, Umashankar C, Rani J K and Ramana V (2010), “e-Governance
Applications for Citizens – Issues and Framework”, International Journal on
Computer Science and Engineering, pp. 2362-2365.
13. Luna-Reyesa L F, Melloulib S and Bertotc J C (2013), “Key Factors and Processes
for Digital Government Success”, Information Polity, pp. 101-105.
14. Malhotra C, Chariar V and Das L (2010), Citizen-centricity for e-Governance
Initiatives in Rural Areas. Retrieved 2013, from Governance Knowledge Centre:
http://indiagovernance.gov.in/files/initiatives_in_Rural_Areas.pdf
15. Mistry H (2010), “e-Governance: Efficiency and Challenges in India”, Mahindra
Special Services Group, Mumbai.
16. Naik G, Basavaraj K P and Joshi S (2010), “Making e-Governance Centers
Financially Sustainable in Rural India: A Conceptual Design for Action Research”,
Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.
17. Network I R (2013), India Rural Development Report 2012-13, Orient Blackswan
Private Limited, New Delhi.
18. NISG and PMI (2011), Project Management in e-Governance: Issues and
Challenges in Navigating to the New Normal, Grant Thornton Private Advisory
Limited, Gurgaon.
19. NISG, PMI and Thornton G (2011), Project Management in e-Governance,
National Institute for Smart Government, Hyderabad.
20. Prabhu C (2012), e-Governance: Concepts and Case Studies, PHI Learning Private
Limited, New Delhi.
21. Singh R (2010), “Sixty Years of Indian Republic, Unfinished Agenda of Gram
Swaraj”, Kurukshetra, pp. 15-17.
22. Singh S P (2010), “Emerging Issues in Indian Rural Economy”, Kurukshetra,
pp. 3-6.
23. Singla S K and Aggarwal H (2012), “Impact and Scope of e-Governance Initiatives
in State of Punjab (India)”, International Journal of Computer Applications, pp. 5-9.
24. Times T E (2007, February 2), “News 3,300 cr for National e-Governance Plan”,
The Economic Times, Bhopal, India.
25. Wikipedia (2013, December 3), Geography of India. Retrieved December 6, 2013,
from The free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_India
Reference # 35J-2014-06-03-01

Copyright of IUP Journal of Information Technology is the property of IUP Publications and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

A Framework for Improving e-Services Utilization in Rural Areas

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to A Framework for Improving e-Services Utilization in Rural Areas

Recently uploaded

A Framework for Improving e-Services Utilization in Rural Areas