International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 11, Issue 3 (March 2024), Pages: 46-54

----------------------------------------------

 Review Paper

A systematic literature review on the effect of information systems on the performance of government officials

 Author(s): 

 Mohamad Kamil Mohamad Kasim *, Azahan Awang, Mokhtar Jaafar

 Affiliation(s):

 Centre for Research in Development, Social and Environment (SEEDS), Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5038-9448

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.03.006

 Abstract

The use of information systems (IS) in the public sector has significantly increased, especially with the introduction of the electronic government system (EGS), which makes it easier for citizens to access government services. Even though there has been a lot of investment in information technology (IT), it's still unclear how much these investments improve productivity. This study thoroughly examines research papers, journals, and conference reports from the past ten years to assess the effect of information systems on the performance of government workers in different areas. Following the reporting standard for systematic evidence syntheses (ROSES), a detailed search was conducted using databases such as Web of Science and Scopus. The study uses the PICo (population, interest, and context) strategy to identify key areas of focus, such as Skill development, return on investment (ROI), strategic decision-making, and innovative thinking. This research plays a crucial role in developing policies and guiding the deployment of information systems to enhance the effectiveness of government officials and other stakeholders. It also looks into factors and situations that might improve or weaken the impact of IS on performance in government contexts. The outcomes of this systematic review help in understanding the complex relationship between information systems and the performance of government workers more clearly. The findings provide valuable guidance for policymakers, government organizations, and scholars, offering strategies to make the most of information systems to improve government workers' performance and productivity.

 © 2024 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Information systems, Electronic government system, Performance of government officers, Systematic evidence syntheses, Return on investment

 Article history

 Received 20 September 2023, Received in revised form 25 January 2024, Accepted 6 February 2024

 Acknowledgment 

This research did not receive specific funding from any granting agency. The study acknowledges the valuable contributions of members at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, particularly in guiding the writing of this SLR. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Associate Professor Dr. Azlan Abas, a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, for his guidance in crafting this article. The study is thankful for the support from fellow Ph.D. candidates who dedicated their time to facilitate discussions. Special appreciation is extended to Christopher Perumal (Ph.D. Candidate) and See Too Kay Leng (Ph.D. Candidate) for their invaluable contributions to group discussions. I also express sincere thanks to my esteemed university, specifically the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, for covering the associated fees related to this manuscript and providing continuous support throughout my doctoral journey. Additionally, I acknowledge and appreciate the Government of Malaysia, specifically the Public Service Department (PSD) of Malaysia, for providing the opportunity and sponsorship for this study.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Kasim MKM, Awang A, and Jaafar M (2024). A systematic literature review on the effect of information systems on the performance of government officials. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 11(3): 46-54

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3  

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2

----------------------------------------------   

 References (53)

  1. Abas A, Arifin K, Ali MAM, and Khairil M (2023). A systematic literature review on public participation in decision-making for local authority planning: A decade of progress and challenges. Environmental Development, 46: 100853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100853   [Google Scholar]
  2. Abas A, Er AC, Tambi N, and Yusoff NH (2022). A systematic review on sustainable agricultural practices among oil palm farmers. Outlook on Agriculture, 51(2): 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270211021875   [Google Scholar]
  3. Alghorbany A, Che-Ahmad A, and Abdulmalik SO (2022). IT investment and corporate performance: Evidence from Malaysia. Cogent Business and Management, 9(1): 2055906. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2055906   [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson R and Klaassen H (2012). The fallacy of the context: An empirical study of the influence of the context on the use of performance management in the public sector. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(5): 483-501. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401211232939   [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnaboldi M, Lapsley I, and Steccolini I (2015). Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge. Financial Accountability and Management, 31(1): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12049   [Google Scholar]
  6. Arnal E, Ok W, and Torres R (2003). Knowledge, work organisation and economic growth. In: Barfield CE (Ed.), Internet, economic growth and globalization: Perspectives on the new economy in Europe, Japan and the USA: 327-376. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24761-6_22   [Google Scholar]
  7. Bakar AH, Razali R, and Jambari DI (2022). A qualitative study of legacy systems modernisation for citizen-centric digital government. Sustainability, 14(17): 10951. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710951   [Google Scholar]
  8. Bakar AHA, Choy CS, Lin B, and Radzi NM (2014). Towards e-government: End-user satisfaction with IT implementation at Royal Malaysian customs. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 13(03): 451-471. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622014500102   [Google Scholar]
  9. Bakon KA, Elias NF, and Abusamhadana GA (2020). Culture and digital divide influence on e-government success of developing countries: A literature review. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 98(9): 1362-1378.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Basaglia S, Caporarello L, Magni M, and Pennarola F (2010). IT knowledge integration capability and team performance: The role of team climate. International Journal of Information Management, 30(6): 542-551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.04.003   [Google Scholar]
  11. Bayo-Moriones A, Billon M, and Lera-López F (2017). Are new work practices applied together with ICT and AMT? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(4): 553-580. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1116453    [Google Scholar]
  12. Berg M (2001). Implementing information systems in health care organizations: Myths and challenges. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 64(2-3): 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1386-5056(01)00200-3   [Google Scholar]
  13. Bozeman B and Bretschneider S (1986). Public management information systems: Theory and prescription. Public Administration Review, 46(Special Issue): 475-487. https://doi.org/10.2307/975569   [Google Scholar]
  14. Brynjolfsson E, Hitt LM, and Yang S (2002). Intangible assets: Computers and organizational capital. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2002(1): 137-181. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2002.0003   [Google Scholar]
  15. Carter L and Belanger F (2004). Citizen adoption of electronic government initiatives. In the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Big Island, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265306   [Google Scholar]
  16. Chiang LC (2012). Trust and public services in e-government based on customer orientation. In: Chen YC and Chu PY (Eds.), Electronic governance and cross-boundary collaboration: Innovations and advancing tools: 107-121. IGI Global, Hershey, USA. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-753-1.ch006   [Google Scholar]
  17. Choong KK (2013). Understanding the features of performance measurement system: A literature review. Measuring Business Excellence, 17(4): 102-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-05-2012-0031   [Google Scholar]
  18. Courty P, Heinrich C, and Marschke G (2005). Setting the standard in performance measurement systems. International Public Management Journal, 8(3): 321-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490500439628   [Google Scholar]
  19. Dewett T and Jones GR (2001). The role of information technology in the organization: A review, model, and assessment. Journal of Management, 27(3): 313-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(01)00094-0   [Google Scholar]
  20. Engin M and Gürses F (2019). Adoption of hospital information systems in public hospitals in Turkey: An analysis with the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 16(06): 1950043. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877019500433   [Google Scholar]
  21. Forman C and Zeebroeck NV (2012). From wires to partners: How the Internet has fostered R&D collaborations within firms. Management Science, 58(8): 1549-1568. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1505   [Google Scholar]
  22. Goh JM and Arenas AE (2020). IT value creation in public sector: How IT-enabled capabilities mitigate tradeoffs in public organisations. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(1): 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2019.1708821   [Google Scholar]
  23. Goshovska V, Danylenko L, Hachkov A, Paladiiichuk S, and Dzeha V (2021). Problems of applying information technologies in public governance. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 21(8): 71-78.   [Google Scholar]
  24. Grimshaw D Cooke FL, Grugulis I, and Vincent S (2002). New technology and changing organisational forms: Implications for managerial control and skills. New Technology, Work and Employment, 17(3): 186-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-005X.00104   [Google Scholar]
  25. Gusenbauer M and Haddaway NR (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2): 181-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378   [Google Scholar] PMid:31614060 PMCid:PMC7079055
  26. Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, and Pullin AS (2018). ROSES RepOrting standards for systematic evidence syntheses: Pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environmental Evidence, 7: 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7   [Google Scholar]
  27. Hajli M, Sims JM, and Ibragimov V (2015). Information technology (IT) productivity paradox in the 21st century. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(4): 457-478. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2012-0129   [Google Scholar]
  28. Hitt LM and Brynjolfsson E (1996). Productivity, business profitability, and consumer surplus: Three different measures of information technology value. MIS Quarterly, 20(2): 121-142. https://doi.org/10.2307/249475   [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoogervorst JA, Koopman PL, and Flier HVD (2002). Human resource strategy for the new ICT-driven business context. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(8): 1245-1265. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190210149501   [Google Scholar]
  30. Jauhari A, Abd Majid MS, Basri H, and Djalil MA (2020). Are e-government and bureaucratic reform promoting good governance towards a better performance of public organization? Calitatea: Acces la Success, 21(175): 25-30.   [Google Scholar]
  31. Kasimin H, Aman A, and Noor ZM (2013). Using evaluation to support organizational learning in e-government system: A case of Malaysia government. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 9(1): 45-64. https://doi.org/10.4018/jegr.2013010103   [Google Scholar]
  32. Khallaf A and Majdalawieh M (2012). Investigating the impact of CIO competencies on IT security performance of the US federal government agencies. Information Systems Management, 29(1): 55-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.634298   [Google Scholar]
  33. Kroll A and Moynihan DP (2015). Does training matter? Evidence from performance management reforms. Public Administration Review, 75(3): 411-420. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12331   [Google Scholar]
  34. Lehr W and Lichtenberg FR (2003). Computer use and productivity growth in US federal government agencies, 1987–92. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2): 257-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6451.00071   [Google Scholar]
  35. Leonardi PM and Bailey DE (2008). Transformational technologies and the creation of new work practices: Making implicit knowledge explicit in task-based offshoring. MIS Quarterly, 32(2): 411-436. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148846   [Google Scholar]
  36. Lockwood C, Munn Z, and Porritt K (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: Methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13(3): 179-187. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062   [Google Scholar] PMid:26262565
  37. Lu Y, Zhou T, and Wang B (2009). Exploring Chinese users’ acceptance of instant messaging using the theory of planned behavior, the technology acceptance model, and the flow theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1): 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.06.002   [Google Scholar]
  38. Macharia P, Kimanga D, and Kamau O (2015). E-government for health facilities in Africa. In: Sodhi IS (Ed.). Emerging issues and prospects in African e-government: 21-27. IGI Global, Hershey, USA. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6296-4.ch002   [Google Scholar]
  39. Mauldin MD (2016). No MPA left behind: A review of information technology in the master of public administration curriculum. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(2): 187-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2016.12002240   [Google Scholar]
  40. Muñoz LA, Hernández AML, and Bolívar MPR (2018). E-inclusion strategies in public administrations: Experiences from regional governments in Spain. In: Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Information and technology literacy: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications: 434-455. IGI Global, Hershey, USA. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3417-4.ch024   [Google Scholar]
  41. Nam T (2014). Determining the type of e-government use. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2): 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.09.006   [Google Scholar]
  42. Norris DF (2010). E-government 2020: Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose. Public Administration Review, 70(S1): S180- S181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02269.x   [Google Scholar]
  43. Oke AE, Arowoiya VA, and Akomolafe OT (2022). Influence of the Internet of Things’ application on construction project performance. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(13): 2517-2527. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1807731   [Google Scholar]
  44. Ouadahi J (2008). A qualitative analysis of factors associated with user acceptance and rejection of a new workplace information system in the public sector: A conceptual model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 25(3): 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.65   [Google Scholar]
  45. Pang MS, Tafti A, and Krishnan MS (2016). Do CIO IT budgets explain bigger or smaller governments? Theory and evidence from US state governments. Management Science, 62(4): 1020-1041. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2164   [Google Scholar]
  46. Pashutan M, Abdolvand N, and Harandi SR (2022). The impact of IT resources and strategic alignment on organizational performance: The moderating role of environmental uncertainty. Digital Business, 2(2): 100026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2022.100026   [Google Scholar]
  47. Rubery J and Grimshaw D (2001). ICTs and employment: The problem of job quality. International Labour Review, 140(2): 165–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2001.tb00219.x   [Google Scholar]
  48. Seehra J, Pandis N, Koletsi D, and Fleming PS (2016). Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 69: 179-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.023   [Google Scholar] PMid:26151664
  49. Stanimirovic D and Vintar M (2013). A critical insight into the evaluation of e-government policies: Reflections on the concept of public interest. International Journal on Advances in Life Sciences, 5(1/2): 52–65.   [Google Scholar]
  50. Torres L, Pina V, and Acerete B (2005). E-government developments on delivering public services among EU cities. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2): 217-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.02.004   [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Helden GJ and Johnsen A (2002). A comparative analysis of the development of performance-based management systems in Dutch and Norwegian local government. International Public Management Journal, 5(1): 75-95.   [Google Scholar]
  52. Venkatesh V, Bala H, and Sykes TA (2010). Impacts of information and communication technology implementations on employees' jobs in service organizations in India: A multi‐method longitudinal field study. Production and Operations Management, 19(5): 591-613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2010.01148.x   [Google Scholar]
  53. Waeyenberg VT, Decramer A, Desmidt S, and Audenaert M (2017). The relationship between employee performance management and civil servants’ turnover intentions: A test of the mediating roles of system satisfaction and affective commitment. Public Management Review, 19(6): 747-764. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1209230   [Google Scholar]