SpringerLink
Log in

Study of the digital divide evaluation model for government agencies–a Taiwanese local government’s perspective

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many countries have devoted increasing attention to information infrastructures. However, a gap in digitalization exists among different government agencies, causing unequal opportunities for accessing infrastructures, information, and communication technologies. This paper, based on Gowin’s Vee structure, is an empirical study of the digital divide in the context of local governments in Taiwan. A model for identifying and measuring aforementioned digital divide is constructed in this paper. We first refer to the grounded theory to draft a framework for measuring the digital divide in local governments. Then, through the use of a questionnaire distributed to experts implemented alongside the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), we generate five dimensions (including ICT infrastructure, human resources, external environment, internals of organization, and information) and 42 measures. Finally, we measure the actual levels of the digital divide in local governments with the resulting digital divide evaluation model. This paper aims to generate results that can serve as a reference for government agencies (at all levels) in the formulation of their digitalization strategies. Moreover, the digital divide evaluation model constructed in this study goes beyond existing measures and may serve as a reference for academics in the examination of methods to narrow the digital divide in various levels of governmental bodies. Taken together, the features of integration, comprehensiveness, and wide applicability of this proposed model can be considered the theoretical contributions to digital divide and local government hierarchy research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akmana, Ib, Yazicib, A., Mishraa, A., & Arifoglu, A. (2005). E-Government: a global view and an empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, B. A., Juillet, L., Paquet, G., & Roy, J. (2001). E-governance and government on-line in Canada: partnerships, people and prospects. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andonova, V. (2006). Mobile phones, the Internet and the institutional environment. Telecommunications Policy, 30, 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apostolou, B., & Hassell, J. M. (1993). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its use in accounting research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 12, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billon, M., Marco, R., & Lera-Lopez, F. (2009). Disparities in ICT adoption: a multidimensional approach to study the cross-country digital divide. Telecommunications Policy, 33, 596–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S., Donovan, P., & Rumble, C. (2005). Develo** nations, the digital divide and research databases. Serials Review, 31, 270–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugha, C. M. (2004). Phased multicriteria preference finding. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 308–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bui, T. X., Sankaran, S., & Sebastian, I. M. (2003). A framework for measuring national e-readiness. Electronic Business, 1, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center for International Development at Harvard University (CIDHU) (2000). Readiness for the networked world: A guide for develo** countries. Available from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/readinessguide/guide.pdf.

  • Chang, B. L., Bakken, S., Brown, S. S., Houston, T. K., Kreps, G. L., Kukafka, R., et al. (2004). Bridging the digital divide: reaching vulnerable populations. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11, 448–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. J., & Huang, C. C. (2004). A multiple criteria evaluation of high-tech industries for the science-based industrial park in Taiwan. Information Management, 41, 839–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., & Wellman, B. (2004). The global digital divide –Within and between countries. IT & Society, 1, 39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie, R. W. (2004). The determinants of the global digital divide. Choice, 42, 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çilan, Ç., Bolat, B., & Coşkun, E. (2009). Analyzing digital divide within and between member and candidate countries of European Union. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 98–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP) (2003). The CSPP readiness guide for living in the networked world, A self assessment tool for communities. Available from http://www.schoolnetafrica.net/fileadmin/resources/CSPP_Readiness_Guide.pdf.

  • Crenshaw, E. M., & Robinson, K. K. (2006). Globalization and the digital divide: the roles of structural conduciveness and global connection in Internet diffusion. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 190–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuervo, M., & Menéndez, A. (2006). A multivariate framework for the analysis of the digital divide: evidence for the European Union-15. Information Management, 43, 756–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, M. S. (2000). Old values for the new information age. Library Journal, 125, 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). Social implications of the internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, Z., & Irani, Z. (2005). E-government adoption: architecture and barriers. Business Process Management Journal, 11, 589–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2007). The 2007 e-readiness rankings. Available from http://graphics.eiu.com/files/ad_pdfs/2007Ereadiness_Ranking_WP.pdf.

  • Evansa, D., & Yen, D. C. (2005). E-government: an analysis for implementation: framework for understanding cultural and social impact. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 354–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, E. H. (1990). AHP is intended for more than expected value calculations. Decision Science, 21, 670–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, E. H., & Gass, S. I. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process- An exposition. Operations Research, 49, 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C., & Horak, E. (2008). Africa and the digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 25, 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guasch, J. S., & Ugas, L. (2007). The digital gap in Maracaibo city in Venezuela. Telematics and Informatics, 24, 41–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, M. P., & Jana, D. (2003). E-government evaluation: a framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Z. (2006). E-government practices at local levels: an analysis of U.S. counties’ websites. Information Systems Journal, 7, 165–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, J. (2007). From origins to implications: key aspects in the debate over the digital divide. Journal of Information Technology, 22, 284–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jukic, T., & Vintar, M. (2006). E-government: the state in Slovenian local self-government. Organizacija, 39, 176–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiiski, S., & Pohjola, M. (2002). Cross-country diffusion of the Internet. Information Economics and Policy, 14, 297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuk, G. (2002). The digital divide and the quality of electronic service delivery in local government in the United Kingdom. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, E. F., & Verdini, W. A. (1989). A consistency test for AHP decision makers. Decision Science, 20, 575–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 564–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Kim, J. (2007). Grounded theory analysis of e-government initiatives: exploring perceptions of government authorities. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leenes, R. (2004). Local e-Government in the Netherlands: from Ambitious Policy Goals to Harsh Reality. Available from http://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/pdf/ita_04_04.pdf.

  • Lentz, R. G., & Oden, M. D. (2001). Digital divide or digital opportunity in the Mississippi Delta region of the US. Telecommunications Policy, 25, 291–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., & San, G. (2006). Social learning and digital divides: a case study of Internet technology diffusion. Kyklos, 59, 307–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luyt, B. (2006). Defining the digital divide: the role of e-readiness indicators. Aslib Proceedings, 58, 276–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell International and Witsa (2000). Risk E-Business: Seizing the opportunity of global E-readiness. Available from: http://www.mcconnellinternational.com/ereadiness/ereadiness.pdf.

  • McGregora, M. A., & Holman, J. (2004). Communication technology at the federal communications commission: e-government in the public interest? Government Information Quarterly, 21, 268–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metaxiotis, K., & Psarras, J. (2005). A conceptual analysis of knowledge management in e-government. Electronic Government, 2, 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreir, A. G. (2003). E- government in local level in Portugal. Proceeding of the Planning Research Conference Oxford Brookes University.

  • Mutula, S. M., & van Brakel, P. (2006). An evaluation of e-readiness assessment tools with respect to information access: towards an integrated information rich tool. International Journal of Information Management, 26, 212–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Information and Communication Initiative Committee (2004). Taiwan digital planning. Available from http://www.etaiwan.nat.gov.tw/content/application/etaiwan/generala/guest-cnt-browse.php?cnt_id=1233

  • National Research Development and Evaluation Commission (2006). 2006 digital application survey of local government. Taiwan Executive Yuan, Taiwan.

  • National Research Development and Evaluation Commission (2007). Excellent Internet government planning. Available from http://www.rdec.gov.tw/lp.asp?ctNode=8674&CtUnit=1072&BaseDSD=7.

  • Nia, A. Y., & Ho, A. T. K. (2005). Challenges in e-government development: lessons from two information kiosk projects. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P., Bennett, W. L., & Entman, R. M. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1989). Learning how to learn. NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O. E. C. D. (2001). Understanding the digital divide. Available from http://www.oeed.orb/dataoecd/38/57/1888451.pdf.

  • O. E. C. D. (2002). The Digital Divide: Diffusion and Use ICTs, OECD, Paris.

  • O. E. C. D. (2008). The Seoul Declaration for the future of the Internet Economy. OECD Ministerial Meeting, Seoul, Korea, June 17–18.

  • Parent, M., vandebeek, C. A., & Gemino, A. C. (2005). Building citizen trust through e-government. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 720–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, E. B. (2000). Closing the digital divide in rural America. Telecommunications Policy, 24, 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, S. S. (2005). Bridging digital divide: efforts in India. Telematics and Informatics, 22, 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, M. (2004). Democratizing information and communication by implementing e-government in Indonesian regional government. The International Information & Library Review, 36, 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, J. (2006). E-government And Local Governance in Canada: an examination of front line challenges and federal tensions. Public Administration and Management, 7, 306–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruikar, K., & Carrillo, P. M. (2006). Verdict-An e-readiness assessment application for construction companies. Automation in Construction, 15, 98–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1971). The analytic hierarchy process. NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1986). Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP: the most livable cities in the United States. Socio-Economic Planning Science, 20, 327–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, A. K., & Sahu, R. (2007). Integrating Internet, telephones, and call centers for delivering better quality e-governance to all citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 477–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, M. H. (2000). Racing to e-government: using the internet for citizen service delivery. Government Finance Review, 16, 21–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., He, S., & Leu, J. Y. (2007). Syndicating web services: a QoS and user-driven approach. Decision Support Systems, 43, 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2003). Information and communication technology development indices. Available from http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc20031_en.pdf.

  • Vargas, L. G. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and it applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vehovar, V., Sicherl, P., Hüsing, T., & Dolnicar, V. (2006). Methodological challenges of digital divide measurements. The Information Society, 22, 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wacker, J. G. (1998). A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16, 361–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wacker, J. G. (2008). A conceptual understanding of requirements for theory-building research: guidelines for scientific theory building. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44, 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weerasinghe, S. (2004). Revolution within the revolution: the Sri Lankan attempt to bridge the digital divide through e-governance. The International Information & Library Review, 36, 319–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, D. M. (2002). Assessing E-Government: The internet, democracy, and service delivery by state and federal governments. The Genesis Institute.

  • Wolcott, L. P., Mchenry, W., Goodman, S., & Foster, W. (2001). A framework for assessing the global diffusion of the internet. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2, 9–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2006). Information technologies and development. Geneva: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J., & Paul, S. (2003). Current stage of local E-government application—an empirical study. Communications of IIMA, 3, 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarei, B., & Ghapanchi, A. (2008). Guidelines for government-to-government initiative architecture in develo** countries. International Journal of Information Management, 28, 277–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., Kim, S., Suh, T., & Du, J. (2007). Social institutional explanations of global Internet diffusion: across-country analysis. Journal of Global Information Management, 15, 28–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Chung Cheng University, 168 University Road, Ming-Hsiung, Chia-Yi, 62102, Taiwan

    She-I Chang, I-Cheng Chang & Jung-Chu Chou

  2. Miami University, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    David C. Yen

Authors
  1. She-I Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David C. Yen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I-Cheng Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jung-Chu Chou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David C. Yen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chang, SI., Yen, D.C., Chang, IC. et al. Study of the digital divide evaluation model for government agencies–a Taiwanese local government’s perspective. Inf Syst Front 14, 693–709 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-011-9297-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-011-9297-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation