the influence of public engaging intention on value co ... · g. hu et al.: influence of public...

Received July 11, 2019, accepted July 23, 2019, date of publication August 9, 2019, date of current version August 23, 2019.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2934138

The Influence of Public Engaging Intention onValue Co-Creation of E-Government ServicesGUANGWEI HU 1,3, JIAQI YAN 1, WENWEN PAN1,2, SOHAIL RAZA CHOHAN1,3, AND LIU LIU31School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China2School of Management, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing 210093, China3Institute of Government Data Resources, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China

Corresponding author: Guangwei Hu ([email protected])

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant 71573117 and Grant 71701091,in part by the Chinese Ministry of Education Project of Humanities and Social Science under Grant 17YJC870020, in part by the JiangsuDepartment of Human Resources and Social Security under Grant 2015-XXRJ-001, and in part by the Nanjing University.

ABSTRACT Thewide acceptability of ICTs and social media enriches the delivery platform of e-government(E-gov) services. The public can explore problems, provide ideas, and design solutions to improve E-govservices (EGS) in a convenient and timely manner. The role of the public transforms from passive usersto active, informed partners or co-creators of EGS innovations and problem solving. However, value co-creation is an interactive process, and service value can only be created through joint efforts of all participants.This study builds an influence factor model of public engaging intention towards EGS value co-creation,based on technology acceptance theory, trust theory, and motivation theory, to explore the impact factors andimpact paths. Comprehensive validation is further conducted through path analysis using structural equationmodeling (SEM) methods. Path analysis interprets how the public will accept and adopt value co-creationbehavior for EGS. The results presented in this study might be helpful for government policymakers or ITmanagers seeking to enhance EGS value creation through designing more effective incentive mechanisms.This study also introduces a comprehensive picture of the potential paradigm of public service value creationin an era of increasing user dominance.

INDEX TERMS E-gov service, value co-creation, technology acceptance, public engaging intention, socialmedia.

I. INTRODUCTIONThe Internet has exerted increasing influence on peo-ple’s lifestyles given the development of ICTs [1], [2].E-gov services (EGS) continue to receive increased pub-lic attention [2]–[4]. The wide application of governmentsocial media, such as government microblogs (i.e., Face-book accounts, Twitter accounts, WeChat accounts) andAPPs, expanded the scope of government service-providingplatforms and approaches to public interaction [5]. How-ever, the demand for public services will not be met ifneeds/interests are not identified. Government agencies ororganizations that bear the responsibility of providing EGSoften have limited awareness of the demand; sometimes theyremain unaware of needs until an urgent solution becomesessential for a particular situation [1]. Individuals involvedin these contexts are likely to be the first to gain awareness

The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript andapproving it for publication was Saqib Saeed.

of these service needs. The disconnection between govern-ment agencies and citizens who have knowledge about thesedemands has resulted in the failure to identify these needsin a timely manner. When these demands are identified,sometimes they are not defined accurately, thereby leading toinefficient and/or costly service delivery. New technologiesand mechanisms can help address this issue and enable citi-zens to assume an active role in discovering, identifying, anddefining public services that need to be provided [3], [6], [7].Therefore, the value creation pattern of government servicesis transformed from independent government creation tocollaborative co-creation [6]. The role of the public in thevalue creation process of government services then changesbecause the public is not only the user and receiver of EGSbut also the value co-creator [4], [8].

A mapping study was carried out to investigate the trendin e-service domains over time, and it was shown that thereis increasing demand for government e-services adoptionamong the citizens of various countries [9]. Rapidly increas-

VOLUME 7, 2019 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 111145

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1303-363X

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5603-5171

G. Hu et al.: Influence of Public Engaging Intention on Value Co-Creation

ing volumes of information, along with data resources ongovernment big data-based platforms, have motivated publicinvolvement, which helps people develop abilities related tothe construction, design, supply, and improvement of EGSand also increased the value of public service to satisfypersonal and social needs. These data resources encourageorganizations and the public to participate in data miningand data application through innovative competitions, gov-ernment procurement, businesses, and welfare. Individualsand organizations can identify possible service value opportu-nities along with introducing solutions and suggestions basedon their opinions, real needs, and contexts. They can shareand transfer information and suggestions to relevant govern-ment sectors in a timely, convenient, and accurate manner [1].The purpose of this initiative is to make the governmentsmarter by improving the effectiveness and efficiency ofgovernment decisions and expanding the value dimensionsof government services [10].

Value creation in the digital age, represented by co-creationbetween organizations and users, is seen as increasinglyimportant [11], [12]. As a matter of fact, value co-creationis an interactive process, and service value can only becreated through joint efforts of all participants (i.e., citi-zens, IT providers, and government agencies). Thus, the pub-lic’s willingness and attitude toward EGS value co-creationimpacts participation.What factors influence public engagingintention (PEI) toward EGS value co-creation? How do thesefactors influence PEI? How should the government motivatethe public to participate in these activities? Understandingthe reasons for such behavior is vital to the adoption ofEGS value co-creation. However, the empirical discussionson the influence factors and paths of acceptance and adop-tion of EGS co-creation mechanisms are still lacking. Thishas made it difficult for governments to formulate guid-ing policies and implement strategies. This study fills thisgap by developing an SEM model that aims to investigatethe factors that affect PEI in EGS value co-creation. Thisstudy also attempts to explain the behavioral characteristicsof public participation in value co-creation and identifyways to promote a positive attitude towards participa-tion. It is hoped that this research can provide a theoret-ical explanation for the increasing EGS value co-creationactivities.

The study is structured as follows. The introduction is fol-lowed by an extensive research background that reviews EGSvalue co-creation and its practices. The subsequent sectionexplains the theoretical framework, followed by methodol-ogy and an empirical study. Findings and suggestions arepresented. Finally, the study ends with a conclusion andlimitations.

II. RESEARCH BACKGROUNDA. E-GOVERNMENT SERVICESTechnological innovation provides an opportunity for thepublic of any country to have equal access to all government

services being offered from time to time, which is for-mally known as EGS [2], [13], [14]. EGS is regarded asan effective and efficient channel to deliver public services,even in the midst of global economic crises [83], [84].This may require the government to transform itself byusing E-gov systems [85]. At the same time, the interactionbetween the government and society influences the govern-ment to use the latest technology trends in government elec-tronic applications and e-services. We are in a new era ofmachine-driven societies due to the 4th industrial revolutionand deployment of innovative technologies like AI, IoT, bigdata, geo-spatial data, deep machine learning, etc. Due tothis revolution, the government sector is rapidly embracingnew technology trends to meet the EGS needs of society ondemand [86], [88].

B. VALUE CO-CREATIONValue co-creation is becoming a dominant trend in ser-vice science, particularly in the information managementand service domains [8], [11]. According to Vargo andLusch, the dominant marketing logic is transforming froma Good Dominant (G-D) logic to a Service-Dominant (S-D)logic, and the role of consumers is changing from passiveproduct and service recipients to active development part-ners [15], [16]. This framework leads to the assumption thatthe value creation process is transformed from enterpriseand product-centered to individual and experience-centered[11], [17]. Value co-creation theory has been the focus ofresearch and discussion among scholars since 2000, with tworepresentative viewpoints, namely, co-creation theory basedon ‘‘S-D logic’’ and co-creation theory based on consumerexperience. Despite the differences in research perspectiveand connotation, both viewpoints aim to create product andservice value through effective interaction between con-sumers and enterprises [18], [19]. Value co-creation theoryreceived significant attention from scholars, who explainedits general concept and connotation from different perspec-tives (Table 1). Existing literature indicates that scholars havedifferent viewpoints elaborating the concept of value co-creation. Their core ideas are summarized in the followingaspects:

a) The stakeholders of value co-creation usually includetwo or more core entities, namely, providers (manufac-turers) and consumers (users) of a product or service.The process of co-creation implies the need for eachside to contribute.

b) Interaction is the reason, intermediary, and result of thecollaboration between providers (manufacturers) andconsumers (users) of a product or service.

c) Value co-creation can provide consumers (users)with improved product or service usage experiencesand will increase the providers’ efficiency and costsavings.

d) Value co-creation is complex when the boundariesbetween collaborating communities are complex or notclearly defined.

111146 VOLUME 7, 2019


TABLE 1. Various viewpoints of value co-creation.

e) Effective co-creation requires IS artifacts or platforms.f) The emergence and usage of social media, big data,

and cloud computing are effective drivers of value co-creation between organizations and users.

C. E-GOVERNMENT SERVICES VALUE CO-CREATIONValue co-creation theory was disseminated quickly from themarketing field and is now incorporated into fields such aspublic service, society governance, manufacturing, and edu-cation [18], [20]. In the field of EGS, the government and thepublic (citizens, enterprises, government employees, socialgroups, and non-governmental organizations) are collabo-rating in value co-creation in traffic services, food security,social work, environmental protection, policy making, andneighborhood maintenance [12], [23]. A case summary sug-gests that the government first provides relevant informationand skills in public service and service provision for relevantusers through EGS platforms [22]. These platforms relateto the physical or virtual venues of citizen co-creation byfacilitating knowledge-sharing and interaction among partic-ipants and modularizing or partitioning the problem-solvingprocess. The public then perceives the quality of serviceaccording to their demands while capturing and consuming

these services. The public can interact with governmentemployees via various participation interfaces [1]. Based onrelevant knowledge and skills, they can fully express theirexpectations, requirements, and suggestions for EGS design,provision, and improvement [10]. Four distinct roles of cit-izens in co-creation are identified, namely, explorer, ideacreator, designer, and diffuser [1]. Through such joint publicefforts, the government can provide EGS experiences withincreased effectiveness, efficiency, and capability to under-stand and meet personalized demands [22].

The governments of various countries, such as theUnited States, Australia, Greece, Korea, Canada, and China,embarked on novel initiatives to engage citizens and organi-zations in collaborative innovation and problem solving [1].Examples of co-creation in government services includethe U.S. government’s crowdsourcing initiative (i.e., Chal-lenge.gov); FixMyStreet initiative, which was launched in theUnited Kingdom; the initiative of the Danish government toco-create climate strategy with citizens (Climate ConsortiumDenmark); and the ‘‘e-People initiative’’ of the South Koreangovernment to support online civil petitions. Singaporeapplied value co-creation in its ‘‘2011-2015 e-governmentmasterplan’’ (eGOV2015), which explicitly pointed out thatthe delivery of EGS in this phase will be converted from‘‘Government-to-You’’ to ‘‘Government-with-You’’; the goalof this initiative was ‘‘through more interaction and value co-creation activities between the government, the public and theprivate sectors, to create better service value experience forSingapore citizens’’ [24].

Existing studies related to EGS value co-creation in theacademic field mainly focus on the participation process,value co-creation tools (system), and approaches to promotevalue co-creation [12], [17]. Research on the participationprocess mainly emphasizes the interaction process betweenthe government and the public in value co-creation [17]. Ref-erence [13] built a process model of EGS value co-creationto explain the value co-creation mechanisms based on theDART model and initiative of interaction while giving fullconsideration to factors such as service orientation, experi-ence, knowledge, and skills required. The study also pro-posed a prospective EGS value co-creation framework, whichconsisted of three parts, namely, personal unique experiencevalue of co-creation, public cooperation in co-creation, andacquisition of management value, government partners, andcompetitors [4]. In this framework, interaction is the centerof co-creation and value is the core output decided by thepublic through communication and service networks. Thisstudy indicated that the knowledge, skills, and experiencemastered by the public plays an important role in value co-creation, and the interaction between the government andcitizens is an essential and indispensable condition in valueco-creation [4].

Moreover, the complexity of boundaries among commu-nities affects inter-organizational collaboration outcomes interms of co-created value [22]. The government and thepublic use government IS artifacts in the process of value

VOLUME 7, 2019 111147


co-creation to ‘‘connect with’’ each other and establish dia-logues; thus, EGS is an indispensable part of value co-creation [25]. Social media is considered a potential toolfor EGS value co-creation, which contains several essentialelements such as determination and involvement of the gov-ernment, a designated community manager who follows upwith the community of users, secured privacy of users, andan easy-to-use technological platform [5].

Scholars exerted efforts to identify approaches to promotethe effectiveness and efficiency of value co-creation. A con-ceptual model was proposed to promote communicationamong key stakeholders (i.e., system designer, the public, andgovernment agencies) to implement the goal of social inclu-sion [26]. To effectively implement public-centered EGS,the Australian Department of Human Services (DHS) extendspublic participation to the design process and uses the powerof the public to decide ‘‘what type of service to implement inwhat type of way’’ [26]. From the perspective of innovation,the co-creation of services by public authorities and commu-nity groups is essential in realizing the benefits of investmentin ICTs; open innovation reveals the effect of the nature ofEGS value creation and the nature of their organization [6].

Research on value co-creation in EGS remains in theinitial stage. Only a few studies examined aspects such asthe participation process, co-creation tools, and promotionmethods. Their main contributions focused on constructing aconceptual framework, empirical discussions on the influencefactors, paths of acceptance, and adoption of co-creationmechanisms. There is still a need to understand theoreticalinfluences and persuasion methods/approaches. The presentstudy attempts to fill this gap.

D. E-GOVERNMENT SERVICES VALUECO-CREATION IN CHINANowadays, China’s government websites are located in all ofthe provinces and cities to open public participation channelsfor value co-creation activities [2], [3], [27], [28]. The publiccan share problems and express opinions, comments, andsuggestions by name to related government functional depart-ments through methods such as e-participation, e-petitions,online questionnaires, online interviews, and electronic mes-sage boxes [29], [30]. The government can then standard-ize services to improve the effectiveness and satisfactionlevel of EGS in a timely and personalized manner. Suchgovernment online channels make it easy for the publicto be involved in EGS value co-creation [1], [30]. Basedupon these approaches, the government has designed anddeveloped a series of value co-creation channels, such asthe ‘‘transportation facilities woodpecker’’ and ‘‘traffic vio-lation photography’’ modules offered by the WeChat account‘‘Wuxi traffic police’’ and the ‘‘#Hefei real-time road situ-ation#’’ launched by the Anhui traffic information servicewebsite’s official microblog. Some interactive e-participationchannels are available as mobile APPs, such as the ‘‘PublicSupervision APP’’ [Figure 1(a)], the ‘‘Environmental Protec-tion Snap APP’’ [Figure 1(b)], and the ‘‘Social Governance

FIGURE 1. E-participation and e-petition apps.

Proposal APP’’ [Figure 1(c)]. Wuxi is a middle-sized city inthe Yangtze River Delta, and Hefei is the capital of Anhuiprovince in mainland China.

Though the Chinese government has clearly embracedEGS value co-creation, there are few studies that discussusers’ intention to participate in value co-creation activities.This study was put forward under the above background.

III. HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH MODELThis study aims to explore the possible influencing factorsthat affect the intention of social users to engage in EGS valueco-creation. One of the value co-creators in EGS is the serviceprovider, known as the public agency (or the government).The other entity is the public (or social users), which includecitizens, government employees, private businesses, or socialcommunities. In terms of process, the information interactionbetween the public and government is based on interactionplatforms, such as government-owned EGS platforms (e.g.,websites and APPs) and social media channels (e.g., Twitter,Facebook, WeChat, SinaBlog); thus, public participation invalue co-creation can be viewed as acceptance of value co-creation systems [26], [31]. A significant study suggests thattrust has an important influence on use, acceptance, andparticipation in EGS [32]. Therefore, this study explores theinfluencing factors of PEI from three aspects: technologyacceptance, trust, and participation motivation.

A. TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE FACTORS ON PEIVenkatesh, Morris, and Davis introduced the Unified Theoryof Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), which wascombined with eight user behavior theories and models [32].In UTAUT, personal use intention is affected by perfor-mance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), and socialinfluence (SI) and restricted by gender, age, experience, andvolunteerism.

Performance expectancy is defined as the degree to whichan individual believes that using the system will help him orher to improve job performance; empirical study has proved itis the most powerful influencing factor on the intention to useinformation technology [32]. Various studies that examinedthe use and acceptance of EGS have recognized that the key

111148 VOLUME 7, 2019


influencing factor of public acceptance and usage intention isperformance expectancy [6], [31], [33].

Effort expectancy is defined as the degree of ease asso-ciated with using a system. It was noted in one study thatthe effort exerted to learn a technology will affect individualacceptance of that technology, and various scholars con-firmed this point through empirical research [32]. A study onthe influence factors of intention to use EGS among studentsat Sri Lanka University found that effort expectancy is animportant factor; the ease of operation of a mobile govern-ment system is the primary consideration in the decision touse mobile e-government [34].

Social influence, which includesmedia influence and inter-personal influence, is the degree to which an individual per-ceives that the external environment will influence their useof the target system. Scholars studied the influencing factorsof public use of EGS in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and othercountries, and they proved that social influence plays a rolein the public use of EGS [34], [35].

In EGS value co-creation, the process of public participa-tion is completed through specific platforms, such as gov-ernment service websites, microblogs (e.g., Facebook, Twit-ter), WeChat accounts, and APPs; thus, public participationin value co-creation can be viewed as the acceptance ofthe technology adopted in EGS. This study suggests thatincreased technological acceptance of value co-creation plat-forms increases the willingness of the public to engage invalue co-creation.

Therefore, this study proposes the following hypotheses.H1: PE, EE, and SI have a positive influence on the pub-

lic’s technology acceptance (TA) of EGS value co-creationplatforms.

H2: The TA of the public toward value co-creationplatforms positively influences PEI toward EGS value co-creation.

B. TRUST FACTORS OF PEITrust is the expectation of the reliability of commitment madeby individuals or organizations [36]; the role and functionof trust is fully reflected in socio-economic exchange [32].Literature suggests that trust may be viewed as an impor-tant factor influencing EGS adoption [37]. Gupta, Bhaskar,and Singh argued that trust of e-government websites interms of technological acceptance is based on the perceptionof information, system, and service [38]. They proved thattrust in technology and government is a significant predic-tor of citizen adoption of e-government platforms/services.These findings indicate that additional attention to trust isvaluable when developing and implementing e-governmentinitiatives.

There are two types of trust objects, namely, trust in theentity of service provision and trust in the channels of serviceprovision [39]. Before using electronic services, users shouldconsider the characteristics of the service providers and thetechnical infrastructure [37], [38]. Therefore, trust in EGSshould include trust in the EGS entity, which is known as trust

in the government (TG), and trust in the reliability of appliedtechnology, which is known as trust in the platform (TP).

The government and the public are two essential entitiesof value co-creation in the EGS value co-creation process.The government provides value co-creation channels and thepublic participates in the co-creation process [21], [22], [29].The public’s belief or trust that the government has a positiveattitude toward public participation becomes important whenthey are deciding to participate in value co-creation [20].Damodaran, Olphert, and Balatsoukas considered that thepublic needs to trust in the government’s sincerity to pro-vide information, solve problems, and offer suggestions [26].However, value co-creation between the public and the gov-ernment is completed through electronic channels, thus pub-lic trust in the safety and reliability of these channels is anessential factor [40]. The public trust in personal informationsecurity, privacy security, and whether the information theyrelease can be delivered accurately, completely, and timelyalso positively impacts their decision making [41], [42].Moreover, trust is fragile, so it is important to develop gov-ernment infrastructures that assist the trust-building processwith citizens [43].

Therefore, this study considers that public trust (PT) influ-ences engaging intention toward value co-creation: higherpublic trust leads to stronger engaging intention. In particular,public trust in the government and the value co-creationplatforms influences the overall public trust, leading to strongpublic engaging intention toward value co-creation. There-fore, the following hypotheses are proposed.

H3: TG and TP have a positive influence on public trust(PT).

H4: PT has a positive influence on PEI to participate inEGS value co-creation.

C. MOTIVATION FACTORS OF PEIMotivation is the core principle in understanding individualbehavior and the driving force for individuals to take actionand achieve goals [36], [44]. Motivation theory examinesbehavior attitude, behavior intention, and the actual behav-ior of information users from the angles of psychology andbehavior, including self-efficacy, sense of achievement, per-sonal appearance, recognition, and external rewards.

Self-efficacy is a measure of confidence in the ability of anindividual to achieve a goal. Self-efficacy is not the actualability of an individual, but rather the cognition of his/herability [44]. Self-efficacy positively affects the willingnessof the public to engage in value co-creation [45]. Therefore,the willingness of the public to participate in EGS value co-creation will be strong when they believe they have enoughknowledge and abilities to provide valuable information toothers, solve problems, and offer helpful suggestions.

The sense of achievement is a psychological feeling gen-erated when a person strikes a balance between desire andreality [32], [35]. In a study on participation motivation ofproblem solvers in the crowdsourcing model, the pursuit ofa sense of accomplishment is considered one of the internal

VOLUME 7, 2019 111149


influence factors [33]. This study believes that if the publicobtains an inner sense of achievement along with internalsatisfaction in EGS value co-creation as a result of providingvaluable information to others and helping them solve prob-lems or adopt suggestions, then the public will have increasedwillingness to participate in EGS value co-creation.

Scholars have explored the enhancement of personalappearance as one of the influence factors in the study ofPEI. In studying the willingness to engage in knowledge-sharing behavior in a virtual community, it is argued that theperceived enhancement of reputation or personal appearancedue to such behavior will exert influence on the intention [46].Recognition from others is the other important factor thatinfluences public participation [47]. It is suggested that thewillingness of the public to participate in EGS value co-creation will be strongly increased if their knowledge, abil-ities, problem-solving attitude, prestige, status, and authorityare recognized [40].

According to the theory of motivation, individuals par-ticipate in an activity to obtain external rewards [46], [48].When an individual believes that his or her behavior willproduce expected results, such an individual is driven bypractical motivations. Practical motivations include externalrewards such as economic returns. It is believed that eco-nomic rewards are important incentives in attracting certaintypes of users to participate, and one study suggested thatmonetary and other forms of material rewards are importantmotivation factors [49], [50]. The present study also suggeststhat the intention to engage will be strong when the publicobtains economic or material rewards for their participationin EGS value co-creation [40].

Therefore, this study believes that self-efficacy (SE), senseof achievement (SA), personal appearance (PA), recognitionfrom others (RO), and external rewards (ER) may influenceparticipation motivation (PM) and PEI. Thus, this study pro-poses the following hypotheses.

H5: SE, SA, PA, RO, and ER have a positive influence onthe public’s PM.

H6: PM has a positive influence on PEI in EGS value co-creation.

This study considers that technology acceptance (TA) willbe higher when the public has a higher degree of trust in thegovernment and EGS co-creation platforms [37], [38]. Theconcept of TAwas proposed based on the Technology Accep-tance Model (TAM). TAM adapts the Theory of ReasonedAction (TRA) to the field of Information Systems (IS) [51].Davis developed the TAM, which deals more specificallywith the prediction of the acceptability of an informationsystem [52]. The purpose of this model is to predict theacceptability of a tool and to identify the modifications thatmust be brought to the system in order to make it acceptableto users [53], [54]. This model suggests that the acceptabilityof an information system is determined by two main fac-tors: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [52].As demonstrated in the Theory of Reasoned Action, the TAMpostulates that the use of an information system is determined

FIGURE 2. PPTP model.

by the behavioral intention [55]. Moreover, trust has beenconceptualized as a general belief in an e-vendor that resultsin behavioral intentions [32], [57]. Gefen et al. argued thattrust is a central aspect in many transactions because of adeep-seated human need to understand one’s social surround-ings, that is, to identify what, when, why, and how othersbehave [55]. So, public trust (PT) in the government and itsplatforms may allow them to think that participating in valueco-creation via the platform can improve personal appearanceand gain recognition and external rewards. Thus, the studyalso raises the following hypotheses.

H7: PT has a positive influence on TA of value co-creationplatforms.

H8: PT has a positive influence on PEI in EGS valueco-creation.

D. RESEARCH MODELThe research model is presented in Figure 2 based on theabove hypotheses. This study explores the influence effectsand paths by analyzing the relationships of three factors,namely, public trust (PT), participation motivation (PM),and technology acceptance (TA), on PEI in EGS value co-creation, which leads to the PPTP model.

IV. METHODOLOGY AND EMPIRICAL STUDYA. DATA COLLECTIONTo collect data, we designed the questionnaire in four steps.First, field studies were reviewed (including TAM, TRA,UTAUT, etc.), and a group containing the possible items wasdeveloped for evaluating TA, PT, PM, and PEI. Next, smallrange sampling was executed. Then, the revised and refinedconstructs were developed, including 12 items dealing withTA (i.e., four for PE, four for EE, four for SI), six for PT(i.e., three for TG, three for TI), 18 items dealing with PM(i.e., four for SE, three for SA, four for PA, four for RO, threefor ER), and three for PEI, along with the list of questionsor indicators to be used (see Appendix A). Subsequently,Chinese/English translations were done five times to ensurethat there were no interpretation differences between them.

111150 VOLUME 7, 2019


Given that EGS value co-creation is still a new concept forthe public, we created a questionnaire to collect data, witha detailed explanation in the introduction that was easy forparticipants to understand.We examined the research modelusing data collected from respondents who are involved orparticipating in or have future plans through various channelsto participate in EGS value co-creation. Most of these respon-dents used EGS channels by self-service or in governmentservice centers (offline service windows). The Respondentsanswered the questions using a 5-point Likert scale withoptions ranging from 1 (‘‘strongly disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘stronglyagree’’).We also used different gray scales to visually expressthe importance of the options.

Before the formal survey, 86 people were randomly chosenfor the pre-survey. Based on the analysis results, severalitems were revised that had major differences in internalconsistency, mainly eliminating semantic overlap and mod-ifying ambiguities in expression. The survey was conductednationwide through face-to-face interviews, e-mail, paperquestionnaires, and an online survey system. To obtain reli-able data, the participants must be reasonably consistent inunderstanding the dimensions and indicators involved. Thequestionnaire included detailed descriptions of the goal, inter-pretations of the high and low scale capabilities, and instruc-tions on how to complete the survey and leave comments andsuggestions.

Data was collected for a period of three months (January toMarch 2017); a total of 339 questionnaires were returned,with 41 considered as invalid after a strict data cleaning pro-cess through excluding those with missing values (29), incon-sistent responses (12), and modifying some abnormal data.Nine questionnaires were excluded because all the optionshad the same answers. Finally, 289 were considered valid andused for the following analysis.

B. DEMOGRAPHICS AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICOut of the 289 respondents, approximately 48% were maleand 52% were female; 94.5% had undergraduate and abovediplomas. In terms of area and position coverage, the respon-dents were from 15 provinces and three municipalities (e.g.,Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin). A total of 251 respondents wereaged 18 to 35, accounting for 88.2%. The detailed demo-graphic background of the respondents is shown in Table 2.

This study also collected information about the participa-tion tendency and behavior of the respondents in EGS valueco-creation from the questionnaire, including participationmethods and activities (See Table 3).

C. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY TESTING OF THE MODEThe models were tested through SEM using SPSS/PC ver-sion 21.0 and AMOS version 21.0. Given that instrumentswere not fully examined in previous works, we tested theinstruments using two independent stages in accordancewith [57]. First-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)and hierarchical CFA (HCFA) were applied to appraise themeasurement model. Structural equation analysis was used

TABLE 2. Demographic Background of Subjects (n = 289).

TABLE 3. Participation tendency and behavior in EGS value co-creation(n = 289).

to appraise the structural model. In statistics, CFA is usedto test whether measures of a construct are consistent with aresearcher’s understanding of the nature of that construct (orfactor) and whether the data fit a hypothesized measurementmodel [57], [58].

1) RELIABILITY TESTINGThe reliability test mainly examines the inner consistency ofthe construct to investigate whether the same set of ques-tions in the questionnaire are the measures of the same con-cept [57]. Therefore, this study applies internal consistencyanalysis and adopts Cronbach’s α to evaluate the consistencyand stability of the questionnaire items [57], [59]. The relia-bility coefficient of the construct is shown in Table 4, whichshows that the Cronbach’s α of each measurement exceeds0.8 and the overall construct of Cronbach’s α is 0.942.The results show that the measurement items in the ques-tionnaire have high consistency and stability, and the con-struct indicates acceptable reliability for all latent variables(factors).

2) VALIDITY TESTINGValidity testing is a measure of the effectiveness of thequestionnaire data, which refers to the degree to which

VOLUME 7, 2019 111151


TABLE 4. Participation tendency and behavior in EGS value co-creation (n = 289).

the questionnaire can reflect the measurement goals andintentions [59]. In this study, content and structure validitywere examined. Content validity mainly measures whetherthe item can represent the content to be measured [59]. Struc-ture validity refers to the degree by measurement tools ofthe internal structure of the characteristics and concepts ofthe theoretical hypothesis [57]. The study applied exploratoryfactor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)to analyze the structure validity. KMO and Bartlett’s testfor the scale is tested in this study. The results are shownin Table 4. The results show that the KMO values of anylatent variables exceed 0.7, and Bartlett’s tests are all sig-nificant. Principal component analysis was used to extract

factors; 11 factors were extracted (see Table 4), whichexplain 77.131% of the total variables. The analysis resultsdemonstrate that the design of the questionnaire items is goodand appropriate.

CFA was used to perform structure validity analysis,including convergent validity and discriminate validity. Con-vergent validity is usually tested with Cronbach’s α (seeTable 4) and composite reliability (CR). The results of thevalidity analysis are listed in Table 4. The standard factorloading of observed variables exceeds the standard of 0.5,and the CR value is higher than 0.8, which indicates thatboth the convergent and discriminate validity of the question-naire meet the test standard. The average variance extracted

111152 VOLUME 7, 2019


TABLE 5. Fitness test results of the structural model (n = 289).

TABLE 6. Correlation coefficient and square root of AVE matrix (n = 289).

TABLE 7. Result of path analysis (n = 289).

(AVE) of the observed variables shows that the observedvariables all passed the test of discriminate validity(see Table 5) [57]–[59]. In conclusion, the questionnaire usedin the study has good structural validity.

D. STRUCTURAL MODEL TESTINGAbsolute fitness, incremental fitness, and simple fitnessindexes were chosen to test the goodness of fit of the struc-tural model usingHCFA. The absolute fitness indexes includeGFI, RMR, and RMSEA; the incremental fitness indexesinclude NFI, CFI, RFI, IFI, and TLI; the simple fitnessindexes include PGFI, PCFI, and χ2/df . The fitness indexesof this model are shown in Table 6. The fit measures andparameters indicate that the structural model exhibited ade-quately fits the observed data.

E. HYPOTHESES TESTINGPath analysis of the structural model was conducted usingAMOS with maximum likelihood estimation. The stan-dardized regression coefficients of each variable are shownin Figure 3. The standardized regression coefficient, stan-dard error, t-value, and p-value of each variable are shownin Table 7.

According to the empirical analysis (see Figure 3 andTable 7), the standardized path coefficients between tech-nology acceptance (TA) and performance expectancy (PE),effort expectancy (EE), and social influence (SI) are 0.585,

FIGURE 3. Path coefficient of the hypothesized structural mode.

0.649, and 0.800, respectively. Thus, H1 is supported. Thepath coefficients between public trust (PT) and trust of thegovernment (TG) and trust of the Internet (TI) are 0.949 and0.648, respectively, which shows that H3 is supported. Thepath coefficients between participation motivation (PM) andself-efficacy (SE), sense of accomplishment (SA), personalappearance (PA), recognition of others (RO), and externalrewards (ER) are 0.559, 0.310, 0.846, 0.853, and 0.556,respectively, which indicate that H5 is also supported. A com-parison of path analysis results with the reference standardshows that H2, H4, H6, H7, and H8 are supported.

VOLUME 7, 2019 111153


V. DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTIONSA. DISCUSSIONThe results of the empirical study show that public trust hasa positive influence on the PEI in EGS value co-creation(β = 0.221, p < 0.05), which means the higher the trustthat the public perceives, the stronger the value co-creationengaging intention. Public trust is decided based on trust ofthe government and trust of the channels adopted for valueco-creation. Therefore, the public will have the confidence toparticipate in interaction with the government when they per-ceive that the government’s attitude toward value co-creationis positive. Likewise, trust in the security and reliability ofthe platforms will be high, and the public will have strongwillingness to participate in EGS value co-creation whenthey are assured that their personal information and privacysecurity can be effectively guaranteed in the process of infor-mation interaction and the information they provide can bedelivered accurately, completely, and in timely manner [1].Therefore, the government should take effective measures toimprove public trust in the government and value co-creationplatforms. The following measures might be effective, forexample, anonymous participation (if they are willing) andmore transparent engagement processes to eliminate partici-pant concerns.

Technology acceptance has a significant positive impacton PEI (β = 0.498, p < 0.001), which means the greaterthe public acceptance of value co-creation technology, espe-cially mobile platforms such as government microblogs,WeChat accounts, or APPs, the stronger their engaging inten-tion. The technology acceptance of platforms is affected byperformance and effort expectancy and social influence [32].Therefore, when the public feels that their participation invalue co-creation through the platforms can improve theperformance of government services, such as an optimizedprocess of the transaction service or services to meet person-alized needs, the public will be willing to participate in valueco-creation. The ease of use of EGS value co-creation directlyaffects the efforts needed in the process. That means whenplatforms are designed to be easy to operate and the processis simple to use, the public willingness to participate in valueco-creation will be positive. Whether the public providesinformation to the government to create value togethervia platforms is affected by the surroundings, and thusthe encouragement of value co-creation behavior from thegovernment and effective media promotion and ‘‘exampleeffects’’ from those who contribute to value co-creation willall enhance PEI. Therefore, the government should createmultiple aspects that combine different ways to improve pub-lic technology acceptance of the platforms through improvingthe interface and process design and reducing the technolog-ical complexity.

PEI is also influenced by self-efficacy, sense of accom-plishment, personal appearance, recognition, and externalrewards. According to the results, participation motivationhas a positive influence on PEI (β = 0.161, p < 0.1),but its influence degree is not strong compared with other

factors. The following reasons were obtained through randominterviews:• In mainland China, most EGS value co-creation chan-nels are relatively inconvenient, and governments havetried to open interaction channels like forms of mayor’semail box, electronic community (i.e., mobile APP), andbulletin board systems (BBS). However, the public is notwilling to interact with EGS agencies because of theabsence of criteria for evaluating participation contri-bution and suitable incentive policies.

• With the development of the open governmentdata (OGD) initiatives, some provincial governments,such as Guangdong, Zhejiang, and Shanghai, haveorganized application and innovation competitions toencourage citizens and businesses to utilize OGDresources. However, because of the absence of periodi-cal organizations and incentive mechanisms, the publicreceived no reward when participating in most of theEGS-based value co-creation activities.

The structural model analysis indicates that public trust has asignificant positive influence on the technology acceptanceof value co-creation platforms (β = 0.552, p < 0.001).In the process, the government usually acts as a sponsor ofvalue co-creation activities, develops a system suitable forvalue co-creation, or provides platforms for communicationactivities. Therefore, trust in the government would impactpublic acceptance of value co-creation platforms. When thepublic has high trust in the provided platforms, they arewilling to use the platforms to provide information, exploreproblems, propose advice, and design solutions. Similarly,when the public has high trust in the security and stability ofplatforms, they will think that the platforms are reliable andbe more willing to use them as mentioned above.

In addition, results show that public trust has a significantpositive influence on public participation motivation(β = 0.661, p < 0.001). Value co-creation activities areusually initiated by the government and public participationis in terms of co-operators, collaborators, and co-designers ofthe service [1], [12], [18]. The higher the public trust in thegovernment and platforms, the stronger the public perceptionis, i.e. participating in value co-creation via the platformcan improve personal appearance and gain recognition andexternal rewards for participants.

B. SUGGESTIONBased on the literature review and results discussion, thisstudy suggests the following guidelines.

1) IMPROVING PUBLIC TRUST TO PROMOTE PUBLICPARTICIPATION IN EGS VALUE CO-CREATIOTo promote public participation, it might be a useful todisseminate application scenarios in EGS value co-creation.Such scenarios could enhance public understanding of EGSvalue co-creation and the government’s positive attitudetoward improving public participation. One approach isto motivate the public to identify existing problems in

111154 VOLUME 7, 2019


government services and request feedback on their serviceexperience through opinions and suggestions. This couldcreate a closer connection between the government and thepublic and help identify new solution mechanisms. Govern-ments can also advertise the whole procedure in a transparentmanner using real-life examples to explain about improve-ments made based on their opinions and suggestions. Theseefforts will obviously enhance public confidence in the ini-tiative and allow the public to observe how the governmenttreats the information, problems, and suggestions. When thepublic believes that their conceptions, recommendations, andsuggestions are likely to be adopted, their engaging intentiontowards EGS value co-creation will be heightened.

Furthermore, it is necessary for the government to expandand improve the value co-creation feedback process in termsof improving the quality, efficiency, and diversity of thefeedback sources. Research shows that some platforms do notprovide a progress tracking function after the information issubmitted. That means that the public cannot track progresson their feedback and concerns in a timely manner. This issueleads to ambiguity on whether their problems, opinions, andsuggestions have been handled seriously. It also developsuncertainty about trust in the government. On the contrary,if the public can follow the progress of their informationand obtain timely responses and feedback through the routineinformation feedback mechanism and process, the public willthink that the information is taken seriously and have moreconfidence in the future. Thus, public participation in EGSvalue co-creation would continue to increase.

Personal information and privacy should be protected incompliance with laws and regulations to promote publicparticipation. With the increase of internet security risks,the adoption of information and privacy protection technol-ogy, such as Adaptive Security Architecture (ASA), willimprove public trust in the government and value co-creationplatforms [37], [40]. For many government agencies, it is alsourgent to formulate or amend the current laws and regulationson cybersecurity, which in turn creates a trusted networkenvironment. Furthermore, the public should be informedhow the platforms and infrastructures are operated, protected,and maintained by opening up the operation and maintenanceorganizations (e.g., the city information center), which canalso enhance the sense of trust.

2) IMPROVING TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE SCHEMAS INTHE PUBLIC TO CO-CREATE EGS VALUEIn mainland China, EGS co-creation still mainly depends ongovernment information infrastructures, such as governmentmicroblogs, APPs, etc. The convenience and usability ofthose platforms are helpful in enabling the public to acceptEGS and emerging technology, such as big data and artificialintelligence (AI) [35]. Hence, the characteristics of users ofdifferent ages and cultural levels should be considered whenthe co-creation platforms are designed, and the interactiontechnologies should ensure the public can conveniently andeasily adopt and use the platforms. For example, the design

of co-creation platforms should make the interface conciseand easy, thereby enabling the public to clearly understandlogging in and navigation. Information should be providedon how to correctly participate in EGS value co-creation, i.e.,multilingual support, voice guidance, and even virtual realityvideos should be provided to help the public understand theparticipation process.

Moreover, it is critical to advertise successful cases andtheir implications in value co-creation to improve the public’sacceptance and create an expectation that participation canlead to improved service experience. When participants feelthat involvement has brought real efficiency into the system,their engaging intention will be strong and their willingnessto participate will increase.

A variety of different types of value co-creation participa-tion channels are important in facilitating interaction with thegovernment in different situations.

3) MOTIVATING CITIZENS TO PARTICIPATEIN EGS VALUE CO-CREATIOIt is important to motivate the public to identify/realize theirown capabilities and increase their self-efficacy confidenceto participate in EGS value co-creation activities. Differentkeywords can be used to attract the public to use the inter-active EGS value co-creation portals. It is further suggestedto increase the transparency of activities to help participantsunderstand the rules and rewards. The public can easily obtaininformation offered by the government to enhance their con-fidence to participate in the activities. Instant feedback willencourage the public and create confidence, self-efficacy, andwillingness to participate.

Additionally, the government can motivate the public toparticipate in value co-creation by giving different types ofmotivational bonuses and rewards, e.g., participants can berewarded with some corresponding scores if they publishinformation, participate in questionnaires, and provide sug-gestions through platforms. In addition to the virtual rewards,monetary rewards such as telephone bill payment and cashcoupons can be given to participants. Moreover, the gov-ernment can sponsor data application competitions offeringmonetary rewards and prizes or awarding honorary titles andcertificates to attract the public to participate in EGS valueco-creation.

VI. CONCLUSIONThe new perspective of value creation helps governments bet-ter understand the public from the demand side and extendsthe EGS value-creating span and channels. Public participa-tion in EGS and EGS value co-creation becomes convenient,feasible, conductible, and valuable, especially with the devel-opment and adoption of social media, big data, and artificialintelligence (AI) technologies. This study adopted a combi-nation of qualitative and quantitative research methods usingthe normative process of an empirical study of the impactfactors of PEI in EGS value co-creation. A 14-factor HCFAstructural model (i.e., PPTP) was constructed to describe

VOLUME 7, 2019 111155


public engaging behaviors. This model could explain 77.13%of the variance in public engagement in EGS value co-creation activities. Moreover, path analysis interpreted howthe public would accept and adopt EGS value co-creationplatforms and channels through some incentive mechanismsin government e-service operation. This study also introducedsome management suggestions to help promote the effectiveimplementation of EGS and the wide distribution of valueco-creation concepts and activities. The results provided acomprehensive picture to understand the new paradigm ofpublic service and administration in the era of increasingdominance of users (the public).

The study proposed some suggestions to improve publictrust, platform acceptance, and participation in EGS valueco-creation. However, the study has some limitations, one ofwhich is related to the non-response bias normally associatedwith surveys. Determining how respondents differ from non-respondents is possible. First, although the respondents wereindiscriminately selected from 33 regions in mainland Chinaand overseas, non-response might occur under certain cir-cumstances, which could result in measurement bias. Second,the research that combines the theory of technology accep-tance, trust theory, and motivation theory identified the influ-ence factors of public participation in EGS value co-creation.In addition to the factors examined in the study, many otherfactors might influence public willingness toward EGS valueco-creation, which this study did not consider. Finally, ‘‘valueco-creation’’ is still a new concept in marketing science, andaccording to demographic statistics, some of the respondentsmight be unfamiliar with the concept because they do nothave a marketing background. Thus, respondents might nothave accurately understood the relations between Internetefficiency, technology adoption, humanization design, andco-created value. Therefore, personal experience with EGSvalue co-creation might be a deviation, which could furtherinfluence the results of the survey.

APPENDIX ATHE CONSTRUCTS (FIVE-POINT LIKERT SCALE)A. PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS (PE)PE1: I can get timely and useful information throughreal-time information sharing on the EGS platforms (includ-ing government websites, WeChat accounts, microblogs,and apps).

PE2: If I make suggestions on the problems in the currentEGS process, I will experience better EGS than I am now.

PE3: If I make suggestions about the problems in thecurrent EGS process, I can get better EGS experiences.

PE4: If I provide my own ideas and opinions during thedrafting of policies through the EGS platforms, the policieswill be closer to my wishes.

B. EFFORT EXPECTANCY (EE)EE1: It is easy to learn the methods of the EGS valueco-creation.

EE2: I can quickly grasp the participation skills of the EGSvalue co-creation.

EE3: It is simple to participate in the EGS valueco-creation.

EE4: Participating in the EGS value co-creation will notcost me much time and effort.

C. SOCIAL INFLUENCE (SI)SI1: The government encourages the public to provideinformation, identify problems, and make recommendationsthrough the EGS platforms.

SI2: Mass media encourages public participation inproviding information, identifying problems, and makingsuggestions through the EGS.

SI3: The people around are all interacting with the gov-ernment by providing information, spotting problems, andmaking recommendations on the EGS.

SI4: People around me suggest that I interact with thegovernment about the EGS.

D. TRUST OF GOVERNMENT (TG)TG1: I think the government wants the public to provideinformation, identify problems, and make recommendationsabout EGS.

TG2: I think the opinions and suggestions of the publicabout the EGS will be taken seriously.

TG3: I think the government will improve the EGS basedon the questions and suggestions of the public.

E. TRUST OF THE PLATFORM (TP)TP1: It is safe to use the EGS platform and not threaten mypersonal information.

TP2: My intentions can be accurately transformed throughthe EGS platform.

TP3: With the EGS platform, my reputation, and moneywill not suffer.

F. SELF-EFFICACY (SE)SE1: I think the information I provide and share using theEGS platform is valuable to others.

SE2: I think I can clearly express my viewpoints using theEGS platform.

SE3: I think the suggestion I provided using the EGSplatform is helpful to the others.

SE4: I believe I have enough knowledge and skills toparticipate in value co-creation.

G. SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT (SA)SA1:Whenmy information is useful to others, there is a senseof accomplishment in my heart.

SA2: When my suggestion was adopted, there is a sense ofaccomplishment in my heart.

SA3: When my information and suggestions can help oth-ers solve problems, there is a sense of accomplishment in myheart.

111156 VOLUME 7, 2019


H. PERSONAL APPEARANCE (PA)PA1: By participating in EGS value co-creation, I canenhance my personal influence.

PA2: By participating in EGS value co-creation, I canenhance the authority of individuals.

PA3: By participating in EGS value co-creation, I can geta high status.

PA4: By participating in EGS value co-creation, I can geta better reputation.

I. RECOGNITION OF OTHERS (RO)RO1: By participating in EGS value co-creation, I can getother people’s knowledge of my level of recognition.

RO2: By participating in EGS value co-creation, I can getother people’s recognition of my ability to solve problems.

RO3: By participating in EGS value co-creation, I can getother people’s recognition of my skill level.

RO4: By participating in EGS value co-creation, I can getother people’s recognition of others’ reputation for me.

J. EXTERNAL REWARDS (ER)ER1: By participating in EGS value co-creation, I can getpoints, titles, and other honorary rewards.

ER2: By participating in EGS value co-creation, I canredeem points or direct physical reward.

ER3: By participating in EGS value co-creation, I amable to get money rewards such as cash or phone bill, eitherdirectly or through redemption.

K. PUBLIC ENGAGING INTENTION (PEI)EI1: I am willing to learn how to participate in EGS valueco-creation activities.

EI2: I am willing to try to participate in EGS value co-creation activities.

EI3: I would recommend that people around me participatein EGS value co-creation activities.

REFERENCES[1] S. Nambisan and P. Nambisan, ‘‘Engaging citizens in co-creation in public

services,’’ IBM Center Bus. Government, p. 53, 2013.[2] G. Hu, W. Pan, H. Lin, K. Kang, and M. L. Best, ‘‘Study on the framework

of e-government services capability: An empirical investigation,’’ Soc. Sci.Comput. Rev., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 56–73, Feb. 2014.

[3] G. Hu, H. Lin, andW. Pan, ‘‘Conceptualizing and examining e-governmentservice capability: A review and empirical study,’’ J. Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci.Technol., vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 2379–2395, 2013.

[4] O. Ibrahim and A. Subbiah, ‘‘Value co-creation process: A case ofe-services for G2C in Malaysia,’’ Eur. J. Soc. Sci., vol. 19, no. 3,pp. 443–449, 2011.

[5] R. Díaz-Díaz and D. Pérez-González, Implementation of Social MediaConcepts for E-Government: Case Study of a Social Media Tool for Valueco-Creation and Citizen Participation. Philadelphia, PA, USA: IGI Global,2016.

[6] J. Feller, P. Finnegan, and O. Nilsson, ‘‘ Open innovation and publicadministration: Transformational typologies and business model impacts,’’Eur. J. Soc. Sys., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 358–374, 2011.

[7] C. Grönroos and P. Voima, ‘‘Critical service logic: Making sense ofvalue creation and co-creation,’’ J. Acad. Marketing Sci., vol. 41, no. 2,pp. 133–150, Mar. 2013.

[8] K. Osei-Frimpong, A. Wilson, and F. Lemke, ‘‘Patient co-creation activ-ities in healthcare service delivery at the micro level: The influence ofOnline access to healthcare information,’’ Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change,vol. 126, pp. 14–27, Jan. 2018.

[9] M. Saleemi, M. Anjum, and M. Rehman, ‘‘eServices classification,trends, and analysis: A systematic mapping study,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 5,pp. 26104–26123, 2017.

[10] L. Zhuhadar, E. Thrasher, S. Marklin, and P. O. de Pablos, ‘‘The nextwave of innovation—Review of smart cities intelligent operation systems,’’Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 66, pp. 273–281, Jan. 2017.

[11] K. Xie, Y. Wu, J. Xiao, and Q. Hu, ‘‘Value co-creation between firmsand customers: The role of big data-based cooperative assets,’’ Inform.Manage., vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 1034–1048, Dec. 2016.

[12] W. Si and G. Hu, ‘‘E-government services value co-creation: Implemen-tation content, process and resource elements,’’ J. Intell., vol. 37, no. 1,pp. 132–139, 2018.

[13] P. T. Jaeger and K. M. Thompson, ‘‘Social information behavior and thedemocratic process: Information poverty, normative behavior, and elec-tronic government in the United States,’’ Libr. Inform. Sci. Res., vol. 26,no. 1, pp. 94–107, 2004.

[14] L. Ma, J. Chung, and S. Thorson, ‘‘E-government in china: Bringingeconomic development through administrative reform,’’ Government Inf.Quart., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 20–37, 2005.

[15] S. L. Vargo and R. F. Lusch, ‘‘Evolving to a new dominant logic formarketing,’’ J. Marketing, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 1–17, Jan. 2004.

[16] C. K. Prahalad and V. Ramaswamy, ‘‘Co-creation experiences: The nextpractice in value creation,’’ J. Interact. Marketing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 5–14,2004.

[17] X. Wu and F. Liu, ‘‘An analysis of the motivation of customer participationvalue co-creation in the we-media: A study based on content marketing,’’Open J. Bus. Manag., vol. 06, no. 3, pp. 749–760, Mar. 2018.

[18] C. Xie, R. P. Bagozzi, and S. V. Troye, ‘‘Trying to prosume: Towarda theory of consumers as co-creators of value,’’ J. Acad. Marketing Sci.,vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 109–122, Mar. 2008.

[19] C. R. Greer, R. F. Lusch, and S. L. Vargo, ‘‘A service perspective. Keymanagerial insights from service-dominant (S-D) logic,’’ Organ. Dyn.,vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 28–38, 2016.

[20] I. Adeleke and A. AbdulRahman, ‘‘Co-creation of value: Applying theparadigm to government e-service,’’ in Proc. Int. Conf. Res. Innov. Inf.Syst., Nov. 2011, pp. 1–6.

[21] T. Vartiainen and T. Tuunanen, ‘‘Value co-creation and co-destruction in anIS artifact: Contradictions of geocaching,’’ in Proc. 49th Hawaii Int. Conf.Syst. Sci. (HICSS), Jan. 2016, pp. 1266–1275.

[22] E. Uppström and C.-M. Lönn, ‘‘Explaining value co-creation and co-destruction in e-government using boundary object theory,’’ GovernmentInf. Quart., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 406–420, Sep. 2017.

[23] L. F. Luna-Reyes, S. Picazo-Vela, D. E. Luna, and J. R. Gil-Garcia,‘‘Creating public value through digital government: Lessons on inter-organizational collaboration and information technologies,’’ in Proc.Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., Jan. 2016, pp. 2840–2849.

[24] Singapore. (2016). Egov Masterplans. [Online]. Available:https://www.tech.gov.sg/media/corporate-publications/egov-masterplans

[25] L. D. W. Thomas, E. Autio, and D. M. Gann, ‘‘Architectural leverage:Putting platforms in context,’’ Acad. Manage. Perspect., vol. 28, no. 2,pp. 198–219, Jan. 2014.

[26] L. Damodaran, W. Olphert, and P. Balatsoukas, ‘‘Democratizing locale-government: The role of virtual dialogue,’’ in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. TheoryPract. Electron. Governance, Dec. 2008, pp. 388–393.

[27] Z.-J. Chen, D. Vogel, and Z.-H. Wang, ‘‘How to satisfy citizens? usingmobile government to reengineer fair government processes,’’ Decis. Sup-port Syst., vol. 82, pp. 47–57, Feb. 2016.

[28] UN E-Government Surveys: Gearing e-Government to Support Transfor-mation Towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies. New York, NY, USA:United Nations, 2018.

[29] D. Linders, ‘‘From e-government to we-government: Defining a typologyfor citizen coproduction in the age of social media,’’ Government Inf.Quart., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 446–454, Oct. 2012.

[30] S. Jing, L. Han, and G. Hu, ‘‘Open government data development velocityindex: A research based on assessment of provincial open government dataportals in China,’’ J. Intell., no. 11, pp. 156–163, 2018.

[31] Y.-S. Wang, Y.-H. Hung, and S. Chou, ‘‘Acceptance of e-governmentservice: A validation of the UTAUT,’’ in Proc. 5th WSEAS Int. Conf. E-Activities, Nov. 2006, pp. 165–170.

[32] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, ‘‘User accep-tance of information technology: Toward a unified view,’’ MIS Quart.,vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, Sep. 2003.

VOLUME 7, 2019 111157


[33] Y. Liang, G. Qi, K. Wei, and J. Chen, ‘‘Exploring the determinant andinfluence mechanism of e-Government cloud adoption in governmentagencies in China,’’ Government Inf. Quart., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 481–495,Sep. 2017.

[34] M. Alshehri, S. Drew, T. Alhussain, and R. Alghamdi, ‘‘The effects ofwebsite quality on adoption of e-government service: An empirical studyapplying UTAUT model using SEM,’’ in Proc. 23rd Aust. Conf. Inform.Sys., 2012, pp. 1–13.

[35] A. A. Oni, S. Oni, V. Mbarika, and C. K. Ayo, ‘‘Empirical study of useracceptance of online political participation: Integrating civic voluntarismmodel and theory of reasoned action,’’ Government Inf. Quart., vol. 34,no. 2, pp. 317–328, Apr. 2017.

[36] J. B. Rotter, ‘‘Generalized Expectancies for Interpersonal Trust,’’ Amer.Psychol., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 443–452, 1971.

[37] T. S. H. Teo, S. C. Srivastava, and L. Jiang, ‘‘Trust and electronic govern-ment success: An empirical study,’’ J. Manage. Inf. Syst., vol. 25, no. 3,pp. 99–132, 2008.

[38] K. P. Gupta, P. Bhaskar, and S. Singh, ‘‘Critical factors influencinge-government adoption in India: An investigation of the citizens’ perspec-tives,’’ J. Inf. Technol. Res., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 28–44, Oct. 2016.

[39] Y.-H. Tan and W. Thoen, ‘‘Electronic contract drafting based on risk andtrust assessment,’’ Int. J. Electron. Commerce, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 55–71,2003.

[40] L. Alzahrani, W. Al-Karaghouli, and V. Weerakkody, ‘‘Analysing thecritical factors influencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens’perspective: A systematic review and a conceptual framework,’’ Int. Bus.Rev., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 164–175, Feb. 2017.

[41] A. Luqman, X. Cao, A. Ali, A. Masood, and L. Yu, ‘‘Empirical investiga-tion of Facebook discontinues usage intentions based on SOR paradigm,’’Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 70, pp. 544–555, May 2017.

[42] P. A. Pavlou, ‘‘Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integratingtrust and risk with the technology acceptance model,’’ Int. J. Electron.Commer., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 101–134, Apr. 2003.

[43] K. J. Hole, ‘‘Building trust in e-government services,’’ Computer, vol. 49,no. 1, pp. 66–74, Jan. 2016.

[44] Y. Chen and J. Xie, ‘‘Cross-market network effect with asymmetric cus-tomer loyalty: Implications for competitive advantage,’’ Marketing Sci.,vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 52–66, Jan. 2007.

[45] J. Yousefian, ‘‘The effect of role clarity and self-efficacy on customer valueco-creation: The case of fitness centres,’’ Sep. 2015.

[46] D. Roberts, M. Hughes, and K. Kertbo, ‘‘Exploring consumers’ moti-vations to engage in innovation through co-creation activities,’’ Eur.J. Marketing, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 147–169, 2014.

[47] J. Füller, ‘‘Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective,’’California Manage. Rev. vol. 52, pp. 98–122, Feb. 2010.

[48] L. Jinyang, ‘‘Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: A social exchangetheory perspective,’’ J. Ind. Eng. Manage., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 170–183, 2015.

[49] W. Ebner, J. M. Leimeister, and H. Krcmar, ‘‘Community engineeringfor innovations: The ideas competition as a method to nurture a virtualcommunity for innovations,’’ R D Manage. vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 342–356,Sep. 2009.

[50] J. Füler, ‘‘Why consumers engage in virtual new product developmentsinitiated by producers,’’ North Amer. Adv., vol. 33, pp. 639–646. 2006.

[51] B. H. Wixom and P. A. Todd, ‘‘A theoretical integration of user satisfactionand technology acceptance,’’ Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 85–102,May 2005.

[52] F. D. Davis, ‘‘Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user accep-tance of information technology,’’MIS Quart., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–339,Sep. 1989.

[53] P. K. Y. Chau, ‘‘An empirical assessment of a modified technology accep-tance model,’’ J. MIS, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 185–204, 1996.

[54] A. L. Lederer, D. J. Maupin, M. P. Sena, and Y. Zhuang, ‘‘The technologyacceptance model and the world wide Web,’’ Decis. Support Syst., vol. 29,no. 3, pp. 269–282, Oct. 2000.

[55] D. Gefen, E. Karahanna, and D. W. Straub, ‘‘Trust and TAM in Onlineshopping: An integrated model,’’ MIS Quart., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 51–90,Mar. 2003.

[56] D. Gefen and D. W. Straub, ‘‘The relative importance of perceived ease ofuse in IS adoption: A study of e-commerce adoption,’’ J. Assoc. Inf. Syst.,vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 1–30, Oct. 2000.

[57] R. P. McDonald and M. H. R. Ho, ‘‘Principles and practice in reportingstructural equation analyses,’’ Psychol. Methods, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 64–82,2002.

[58] P. M. Bentler, ‘‘Comparative fit indexes in structural models,’’ Psychol.Bull., vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 238–246, Mar. 1990.

[59] N. O’Rourke and L. Hatcher, A Step-by-Step Approach to Using SAS forFactor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed. Cary, NC,USA: SAS Institutex, 2015.

GUANGWEI HU received the Ph.D. degree fromthe School of Economic and Management, South-east University, China. He spent eight years asa practicing IT professional, including serving asa CIO with Anyuan Co., Ltd. He is currently aProfessor of MIS with the School of InformationManagement, Nanjing University, China. He haspublished in the Journal of American Society forInformation Science and Technology (JASIST),Government Information Quarterly (GIQ), Inter-

national Review of Administrative Sciences (IRAS), Social Sciences of Com-puter Review (SSCR), the International Journal of Electronic Governance,and various conference proceedings, such as Conference of Information Sci-ence and Management Engineering, Computer Science and Service Systemand Computational and Information Sciences. His research interests includeMIS, E-Gov, and service management.

JIAQI YAN received the Ph.D. degree in infor-mation systems from the City University ofHong Kong, and the joint Ph.D. degree in man-agement science and engineering from the Univer-sity of Science and Technology of China. He iscurrently an Associate Professor and the Directorof the Peertech Blockchain Research Lab, Schoolof Information Management, Nanjing University.He has published papers in ACM Transactionson Management Information Systems, Decision

Support Systems, Information and Management, Future Generation Com-puter Systems, the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS:SYSTEMS, the Journal of Information Systems, Expert Systems with Appli-cants, Knowledge-Based Systems, Financial Innovations, and various con-ference proceedings such as ICIS and HICSS. His research interests includebusiness intelligence, smart supply chain, blockchain, E-government, finan-cial innovation, and risk management.

WENWEN PAN is currently pursuing the Ph.D.degree with the School of Information Manage-ment, Nanjing University. She is currently anAssociate Professor with the School of Manage-ment, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecom-munications. She has published in GovernmentInformation Quarterly (GIQ), the Journal of Elec-tronic Commerce in Organizations, the Interna-tional Journal of Hybrid Information Technology,International Review of Administrative Sciences

(IRAS), the Journal of Modern Management Science in China (JMMSC),and The Electronic Library (TEL). Her research interests includeE-government, E-business, and MIS.

111158 VOLUME 7, 2019


SOHAIL RAZA CHOHAN received the master’sand M.S. degrees in information technology fromBahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan,in 2004 and 2013, respectively. He is currently pur-suing the Ph.D. degree in informationmanagementwith Nanjing University, Nanjing, China. From2006 to 2008, he was a Lecturer with BahauddinZakariya University. He joined G. C. University,Faisalabad, Pakistan, as a Lecturer from 2008 to2009. From 2009 to 2015, he was also a Lecturer

with the University of Education, Lahore, Pakistan, where he is currentlyserving as an Assistant Professor in information technology. His researchinterests include E-government, information management, big data, artificialintelligence, and MIS.

LIU LIU received the MLIS degree from theSchool of Information Management, Nanjing Uni-versity, China. She is currently a Researcherwith the Institute of Government Data Resources,Nanjing University, and also with the LiaowangInstitute of China. She also paid close attention tothe application of the theory of value co-creationin e-gov field. She has published in the Journalof E-Government in China and the Journal ofIntelligence. Her current research interests include

E-gov, information service, and information behavior.

VOLUME 7, 2019 111159

the influence of public engaging intention on value co ... · g. hu et al.: influence of public...

Documents