Research Seminar presented at Jönköping International Business School as a Visiting Doctoral Fellow on April 2nd, 2012.

1. Measuring Online Service Quality: The Case of Local E-Government
Research Seminar MMTC, JIBS, Jönköping Robert Piehler, April 2nd 2012

2. 2
1. Definition of Online Service Quality
2. Status Quo of Online Service Quality Research
3. The Case of E-Government
Outline
4. My Current Research Model
5. Summary & Outlook

3. Definition of Online Service Quality
3
•Quantitative evaluation of user perceptions regarding the quality of a website or an online-based service
•Individual perspective based on the psychological concept of attitudes (Ajzen / Fishbein 1975)
1. Hofacker et al. (2007). 2. Grönroos (1982). 3. Berry et al. (1985). 4. Zeithaml et al. (2000).
Consumer Perceptions
Online Service Quality
Functional Quality2 (How?)
Outcome Quality3 (What?)
Definition: The „extent to which a Web site facilitates efficient and effective shopping, purchasing, and delivery of products and services“.4 Includes pre- and post-website service aspects
Online Services
Definition: An „act or performance that creates value and provides benefits for customers through a process that is stored as an algorithm and typically implemented by networked software“.1  Includes service production and service outcome

4. Definition of Online Service Quality
4
Nature of E-Services & Industry Specifics
Dimensions & Hierarchy
Relationship to Offline Service Quality
Effects & Consequences
Online Service Quality
•Most research conducted in the field may be attributed to the following key perspectives:
•There is a strong emphasis on quantitative measures in this research area, especially regarding the development und validation of scales
Online ServQual
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3 (...)
The service provided by the website fulfilled my needs.
O 1
O 2
O 3
O 4
O 5
Strongly disagree
Strongly
agree
1
2
3
4

5. 5
1. Definition of Online Service Quality
2. Status Quo of Online Service Quality Research
3. The Case of E-Government
Outline
4. My Current Research Model
5. Summary & Outlook

6. Online Services1
Stand-Alone Services
Pure Service Offerings
Content Offerings
Support Services
Status Quo of Online Service Quality Research – 1. Nature of E-Services
6
1. Fassnacht / Koese (2006). 2. Hofacker (2007).
Online Services2
Complements to Offline Services
Substitutes for Offline Services
New Core Services
•Definitions of E-Services differ, reflecting the corresponding research streams:
•Industry Specifics, e.g.: E-Tailing-Focus
•Artifact (Website) vs. Process, e.g.: Technology-Focus
•Definitions also differ in terms of consideration of offline services
•Stand-Alone vs. Support Service
Examples of E-Service- Taxonomies

7. Status Quo of Online Service Quality Research – 2. Dimensions
Dimension
Used by
Reliability / Fulfillment
O‘Neill et al. (2001); Francis / White (2002); Yang / Jun (2002); Cai / Jun (2003); Wolfinbarger / Gilly (2003); Jun et al. (2004); Long / McMellon (2004); Yang et al. (2004); Lee / Lin (2005); Parasuraman et al. (2005); Bauer (2006); Fassnacht / Koese (2006); Ibrahim et al. (2006); Sohn / Tadisina (2008)
Respon- siveness
O‘Neill et al. (2001); Li et al. (2001); Yang / Jun (2002); Jun et al. (2004); ; Long / McMellon (2004); Yang et al. (2004); Lee / Lin (2005); Bauer (2006); Ho / Lee (2007)
Ease of Use / Usability
Yoo / Donthu (2001); Barnes / Vidgen (2002); Yang / Jun (2002); Jun et al. (2004); Yang et al. (2004); Yang et al. (2005); Collier / Bienenstock (2006); Fassnacht / Koese (2006); Sohn / Tadisina (2008)
Privacy / Security
Yoo / Donthu (2001); Francis / White (2002); Janda et al. (2002); Ranganathan / Ganapathy (2002); Yang / Jun (2002); Wolfinbarger / Gilly (2003); Jun et al. (2004); Yang et al. (2004); Parasuraman et al. (2005); Collier / Bienenstock (2006); Ho / Lee (2007)
Web (Site) Design
Yoo / Donthu (2001); Aldwani / Palvia (2002); Barnes / Vidgen (2002); Loiacono et al. (2002); Ranganathan / Ganapathy (2002); Cai / Jun (2003); Wolfinbarger / Gilly (2003); Lee / Lin (2005); Bauer (2006); Fassnacht / Koese (2006); Christobal et al. (2007)
Information Quality / Benefit
Aldwani / Palvia (2002); Barnes / Vidgen (2002); Janda et al. (2002); Li et al. (2001); Ranganathan / Ganapathy (2002); Gounaris / Dimitradis (2003); Yang et al. (2005); Collier / Bienenstock (2006); Fassnacht / Koese (2006); Ho / Lee (2007); Sohn / Tadisina (2008)
Methods applied for...
Item Generation
Model testing
Literature Reviews
Overall Level
In-depth- interviews
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Content analysis of consumer reviews
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Focus groups
Scale Level
Cronbach‘s α
Average Variance Extracted
AVE > (Correlations between that construct & other constructs)2
1-Factor vs. 2-Factor Model
Different sets of online service quality dimensions are derived from a variety of research methods.  No consensus on number and nature (Ladhari 2010, p. 473)  Only few hierarchical approaches  Strong focus on functional dimensions and e-tailing
7

8. Status Quo of Online Service Quality Research – 2. Dimensions
8
Loiacono et al. (2002) Webqual
Parasuraman et al. (2005) ES-Qual
Bresolles (2006) Netqual
Fassnacht / Koese (2006) Hierarchical Model
ES-Qual
Efficiency
Privacy
System Availability
Fulfillment
Online Service Quality
Ease of Use
Privacy / Security
Design
Reliability

9. Status Quo of Online Service Quality Research – 3. Relationship to Offline
9
•Some scholars have tried to adapt existing scales of offline service quality to an online context  Several dimensions (like ‘reliability‘ or ‘responsiveness‘) can be found in both domains, but they are NOT completely identical
•Expectations of customers about Online Service Quality are not as well formed as in offline Service Quality4
•Links of Online Service Quality to offline phenomenon and behaviour could be shown, e.g.: Value & Joy5, Loyalty6, Relationship Quality7
1. Kang (2006). 2. Long / McNellon (2004). 3. Hofacker et al. 2007. 4. Zeithaml et al. (2000). 5. Semeijn et al. (2005). 6. Shankar et al. (2003); Semeijn et al. (2005). 7. Walsh et al. (2010)
Responsiveness
Customer Perceptions
Service Website2
Offline
Online
•Had tech support online
•Answered every question you had about their service
•Willing to help customers
Process-related scales differ more in content than outcome-related scales.3
Service Personnel1
•Prompt service to customers
•Willingness to help customers
•Readiness to respond to customer‘s requests

10. 10
Status Quo of Online Service Quality Research – 4. Effects & Consequences
Key Question:
What is the causal structure (effect chain) of a successful online service process?
Perceived Value
Satisfaction
Net Benefits
Loyalty
Online Service Quality
Intention to Use
Continuity Intentions
Trust
1. Bressolles / Durrieu (2007); Fassnacht / Kose (2007); Loiacono et al. (2007); Shamdasani et al. (2008); Chao / Lee (2009); Yoon / Kim (2009); Baskar / Ramesh (2010); Marimon et al. (2010); Wells et al. (2011)
D&M IS Success Model
Other Effects: Online shop image, Willingness to pay more, Site commitment
1
Other Effects: Perceived playfulness, Perceived product quality

11. 11
Status Quo of Online Service Quality Research – 4. Effects & Consequences
Key Question:
What is the causal structure (effect chain) of a successful online service process?
1. Collier / Bienenstock (2009). 2. Chang et al. 2009. 3. Chao / Lee (2009) 4. Chao / Lee (2009) 5. Yoon / Kim (2009) 6. Liao et al. (2011). 7. Luo / Lee (2011). 8. Stone et al. (2007)
Perceived Value
Satisfaction
Net Benefits
Loyalty
Online Service Quality
Intention to Use
Continuity Intentions
Trust
2
4
5
Word of Mouth
5
1
6
7
8

12. 12
1. Definition of Online Service Quality
2. Status Quo of Online Service Quality Research
3. The Case of E-Government
Outline
4. My Current Research Model
5. Summary & Outlook

13. 13
The Case of E-Government – Introduction
What is E-Government?:
•Registering your car‘s licence plate online (C2G)
•Transfering company tax data online (B2G)
•Online archives and central registers (G2G)
•Public tendering for social projects (N2G)
Government
Business
Citizen
NPO / NGO
Country-Level
State-Level
Local Level
Supranational Level
B2G
C2G
G2G
G2G
N2G

14. Subject- related Aspects
•Provider- vs. User-based focus
•Inclusion and differentiation for different actor groups (Government/Citizen vs. Government/Administration vs. Politics/Nation/Administration/Citizen/Business)
Purpose- related Aspects
•Level of purpose analysis (Access to Services vs. Processes vs. Service Quality)
•Inclusion of the support function of E-Government-Services
•Inclusion of organisational change
Functional Aspects
•Broad (modern Information and Communication Media) vs. narrow (Internet, WWW) technology perspective
•Differentiation of the processes according to the level of value creation (Information, Communication, Transaction, Partizipation, Integration)
14
The Case of E-Government – Definition
Preliminary Definition E-Government
The term Electronic Government covers the electronic execution of administrative and democratic processes in the context of government acts by using information technology. The purpose is to provide or support public service.

15. 15
1. Morgesson / Mithas (2009). 2. Gisler (2001), p. 14, ff.; Mehlich (2005), p. 2, ff.; Lucke (2009), p 7, ff.
Market / Organizational Comparison with simplified extreme values2
Private Sector
Public Sector
Market Principle
Competition
Monopoly
Market Adjustment
By Demand
By Law
Range of Products / Services
Homogenous
Heterogenous
Customer Segments
Homogenous
Heterogenous
Internal Process Management
Flexible
Static
Ability to react fast
High
Low
Influence of Managerial Staff
High
Low
The Case of E-Government – Private vs. Public Sector
•Despite the common application of research models from an electronic business context E-Government cannot be equated with it
•Differences regarding the implementation level of functional online service quality dimensions and user-based expectations towards the service can be shown empirically1
•Based on a market / organizational perspective certain differences between private and public sector have to be considered:

16. The Case of E-Government – Examples of Research Models
16
Papadomichelaki / Mentzas (2012)
Benbasat et al. (2007)
Sung et al. (2009)
Morgeson et al. (2010)
Efficiency
Trust
Reliability
Citizen Support

17. 17
1. Definition of Online Service Quality
2. Status Quo of Online Service Quality Research
3. The Case of E-Government
Outline
4. My Current Research Model
5. Summary & Outlook

18. 18
My Current Research Model – Theoretical Basis
Expectation Confirmation Theory (ECT, Oliver 1977)
Expectations
Disconfir- mation
Satisfaction
Perceived Performance
•The central argument of this theory is, that the link between Perceived Performance and Satisfaction is mediated by a confirmation / disconfirmation of expectations
•ECT originated from consumer behaviour research and is often used in IS research regarding continuity intentions1
Positive Disconfirmation
Negative Disconfirmation
Zone of Tolerance
•Expectations are met
•No Disconfirmation
Expectations are fallen short of
 Dissatisfaction
Expectations are exceeded
 Satisfaction
•The phenomenon of Disconfirmation can be divided into positive and negative Disconfirmation:
1. Bhattacherjee (2001); Lin et al. (2003); Thong et al. (2006); Liao et al. (2007); Liao et al. (2009).

19. 19
Summary: A study on the moderating effect of functional and outcome-related online service quality dimensions concerning the relation between Expectations and Perceived Performance / Disconfirmation
My Current Research Model
Empirical Contribution:
Theoretical Contribution: Focus on Antecedents dimensions of Expectation- Disconfirmation-Theory
•Applying Expectation- Disconfirmation-Theory to an E-Government context
•Applying a hierarchical online service quality concept to an E- Government context
Expectations
Disconfir- mation
Satisfaction
Perceived Performance
Perform- ance Ex- pectancy
Website Design / Ease of Use
Effort Expectancy
Privacy / Security
Trust in Internet
Outcome Quality
Trust in Government
Need for Personal Interaction
Respon- siveness
Reliability
Functional Dimension
Outcome-Dimension
Moderators
Determinants

20. 20
1. Definition of Online Service Quality
2. Status Quo of Online Service Quality Research
3. The Case of E-Government
Outline
4. My Current Research Model
5. Summary & Outlook

21. 21
Summary & Outlook
•Online Service Quality is a quite blurry scientific field (in terms of what quantitative researchers are used to)
•The specifics of public service make an argument for customized models
•Little attention has been paid to expectation disconfirmation and hierarchical models so far
Summary:
•Operationalize functional and outcome online service quality dimensions
•In-depth-interviews with public service IT managers and E-government scholars
•Anderson-Gerbing-Item-Presorting-Test
•Pretest of the finalized model
•Data Gathering
•Statistic Analysis
•Writing, writing, writing
Next Steps:

22. 22
Summary & Outlook
•What could be other potential antecedents determinants of ‘Expectations‘?
•Can the model be further specialized to the context of E-Government?
•Should ‘Outcome-Quality‘ also be conceptionalized as a multi-dimensional construct?
•Does the model pass a ‘Mothers & Managers-Test‘ or is it just common sense?
Discussion:
Thank you

23. 23
Backup

24. 24
Vgl. Stowers (2004), S. 173; Wirtz (2010), S. 100.
Entwicklungsstufe 1:
Pr
ä
sentation /
Information
Statischer Inhalt
•
Keine Personalisierung
•
Elektronische
Bereitstellung von
Informationen
•
Z.B. Interseiten von
Beh
ö
rden
Entwicklungsstufe 2:
Kommunikation
•
Elektronische
Kommunikation
•
Versand von
Informationen
•
B
ü
rgeranfragen, z.B.
ü
ber E
-
Mail
Entwicklungsstufe 3:
Transaktion
•
Online
-
Transaktionen,
z.B. Online
Reservierung des
Wunschkennzeichens
•
Integration des Back
-
Office
Entwicklungsstufe 4:
Partizipation
•
Aktive elektronische
Partizipation durch den
B
ü
rger
•
„
Mitmach
“
-
Internet
,
z.B. Online
-
Vorschlagswesen und
Abstimmung bei einer
Namensgebung
Value Creation
Entwicklungsstufe 5:
Integration
•
Ü
bergreifende
elektro
-
nische
Integration in
die
Verwaltungs
-
prozesse
(z.B.
Verarbeitung einer
Umzugsmeldung)
•
H
ö
chste Stufe der
Interaktivit
ä
t
Pr
ä
sentation /
Information
Development Stage e
Development Stage Communication
Development Stage Transaction
Development Stage Participation
Complexity
Development Stage The Case of E-Government
•
Static content
•No personalisation
•Electronic provision of information
E.g.: Static websites
Electronic Communication
•Transmission of information
•E.g.: citizen service inquiries by e-mail
•Online-transactions
•Back-office integration
•E.g.: Online reservation of licence plate
Electronic participation by citizens
•Social-Web
•E.g.: Online participatory budget
Comprehensive electronic integration of administrative tasks
•E.g.: Automatic processing of a removal note

25. 25
The Case of E-Government
•„Therefore, despite extensive debate on the importance of e-government service quality as a predictor of citizens’ receptivity towards public e-services, both the academic and practitioner communities know little more than they do with regards to this topic.”1
•„In fact, a recent review of the e-government literature found a general lack of statistical or empirical rigor and of formal testing of theory or robust model building.”2
•„While important issues from conceptual framework, technological innovation, services measurement, and management support of e-Government services have been studied extensively, determinants of user acceptance have not been well understood.”3
•„Benchmarking studies of e-government are undertaken regularly (…). Unfortunately, most of this literature focuses on central and federal governments in terms of examining trends in digital government. These are frequently little more than simplistic ‘bean-counting’ exercises that measure the number of services provided online.”4
In the sector of complex multivariate analysis concerning local E-Government a high demand of further research can be stated.
1. Benbasat/Tan/Centefelli (2007), S. 15. 2. Morgeson/VanAmburg/Mithas (2010), S. 2. 3. Hung et al. (2006), S. 100. 4. Pina/Torres/Royo (2007), S. 451.
Scientific Relevance of the Subject

26. 26
The Case of E-Government
In international comparative benchmark-studies Germany fails to achieve top rankings. Hence the potential of E-Government and modern information and commnication media has not been fully exploited yet.
1. Vgl. Capgemini (2009), S. 98.
Practical Relevance of the Subject
Benchmark
Ranking GER
EU eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail.)
EU eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Soph.)
15/31
12/31
UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008
22/189
WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010
7/133
WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009
20/134
EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009
17/70

27. E-Government Research OSQ
Current Research Model – Conceptualization of functional OSQ dimensionns
E-Business Research OSQ
Website Design / Ease of Use
Yoo / Donthu (2001); Barnes / Vidgen (2002); Wolfinbarger / Gilly (2003); Bressolles (2006); Fassnacht / Koese (2006)
Chang et al. (2005); Barnes / Vidgen (2006); Horan / Abhichandani (2006); Mohamed et al. (2009); Sung et al. (2009); Jiang (2011)
Reliability
Responsive- ness
Security / Privacy
Tan et al. (2008); Papadomichelaki / Mentzas (2009); Sung et al. (2009); Chen (2010); Jiang (2011)
Tan et al. (2008); Sung et al. (2009); Chen (2010)
Barnes / Vidgen (2006); Papadomichelaki / Mentzas (2009); Verdegeem / Verleye (2009); Jiang (2011)
Wolfinbarger / Gilly (2003); Long / McMellon (2004); Parasuraman et al. (2005); Bressolles (2006); Fassnacht / Koese (2006)
Long / McMellon (2004); Lee / Lin (2005); Bauer (2006); Ho / Lee (2007)
Yoo / Donthu (2001); ; Wolfinbarger / Gilly (2003); Parasuraman et al. (2005); Bressolles (2006); Collier / Bienenstock (2006); Ho / Lee (2007)
27

28. E-Government Research OSQ
28
Current Research Model – Conceptualization of Outcome OSQ dimensions
E-Business Research OSQ
Outcome Quality
Collier / Bienenstock (2006); Fasstnacht (2006); Lu et al. (2009)
Lee / Gim / Yoo (2009)
Furthermore an integration of newly develloped items on the basis of outcome- specifics of public adminsitration is possible.
Market / Organizational Comparison with simplified extreme values1
Private Sector
Public Sector
Market Principle
Competition
Monopoly
Market Adjustment
By Demand
By Law
Range of Products / Services
Homogenous
Heterogenous
Customer Segments
Homogenous
Heterogenous
Internal Process Management
Flexible
Static
Ability to react fast
High
Low
Influence of Managerial Staff
High
Low
1. Gisler (2001), p. 14, ff.; Mehlich (2005), p. 2, ff.; Lucke (2009), p 7, ff.
Example:
•The Online-Service provided comes up to the responsibility of public administration.

29. E-Government Research Barriers / IS Adoption
Current Research Model – Conceptualization of Determinants
E-Business Research OSQ
Technology Readiness / Trust in Internet
Parasuraman / Colby 1997; Parasuraman (2000); Parasuraman / Colby (2001)
Belanger / Carter (2008); Dijk et al. (2008); Al-Sobhi et al. 2011; Chang (2011); Ozkan / Kanat (2011); Styvén et al. (2011)
Need for Personal Interaction
Experience / Performance Expectancy
Effort Expectancy
Gilbert et al. (2004); Chang (2011)
Horst et al. (2007); AlAwadhi / Morris (2008); Dijk et al. (2008); Wang / Shih (2009); Al-Sobhi et al. 2011
AlAwadhi / Morris (2008); Dijk et al. (2008); Wang / Shih (2009); Al-Sobhi et al. 2011
-
-
-
29
Trust in Government
Horst et al. (2007); Belanger / Carter (2008); Morgesson et al. (2010); Al-Sobhi et al. 2011; Ozkan / Kanat (2011); Styvén et al. (2011)
-

30. 30
Current Research Model – Conceptualization of central theoretical constructs
Expectation Confirmation Theory Research
Expectations
Bhattacherjee (2001); McKinney et al. 2002; Lin et al. (2003); Ryzin 2004; Thong et al. (2006); Liao et al. (2007); Sorebo/Eikebrokk (2008); Liao et al. (2009)
Perceived Performance
Disconfirmation
Satisfaction
Endogenous Variables of the Theory
Exogenous Variable of the Theory
Theoretical concept regarding emergence of satisfaction
Central causal structure (effect chain) of the model

31. 31
The Case of E-Government
Business Studies
•Business Value
•New Business Processes
•Technology- & Process Management
•Infrastructure
Computer Sciences
Administrative Sciences
•New Public Management
•Customer Orientation
•New kind of interaction
•Participation
Media and Com- munication Studies

32. 32
Solution:
•Identification of indicators which can be measured explicitly to measure the latent variables indirectly
•Calculation of the correlations between the indicators
•Decomposition of the indicator correlations to the correlations of the latent variables
•Calculation of the correlations between the latent variables by solving a multidimensional linear system of equations
Empirical validation of latent construct, which was deduced from theory, and its relations to other constructs.
Point of Departure
Examples
Problem
•A system of relations which has been deduced from theory needs to be tested by empirical analysis
•The acceptance of E-Government is determined by reduced costs of action.
•The interaction configuration between the stakeholders is relevant for the acceptance of E- Government.
•Regression analysis can be employed for the 1st example since all variables can be measured directly. However, in the 2nd example the variables cannot be measured directly. They are latent.
x
1
x
1
x
2
h
1
y
1
y
2
Measurement model of the latent exogenous variables
Structural model
e
2
e
1
h
2
y
3
y
4
e
4
e
3
l
11
l
21
l
11
l
12
l
24
l
23
z
1
z
2
g
11
g
12
b
12
Measurement model of the latent endogenous variables
d
1
d
2
Methodology: Structural Equation Modelling
My Current Research Model