4. Perspectives on e-government

4.1 Government on the Internet

This section presents responses from both the questionnaire and focus group interviews. Of the 47 questionnaire respondents who ticked either "some experience" or "experienced" in their use of government web sites, 22 (46.8 percent) had a negative experience and 25 (53.2 percent) did not. The negative experiences related to their degree of search expertise, limitations of search engines (e.g. the ability of the search engine to guess the right search term if the spelling is close but incorrect, slow response time, and poor or non-existent instructions on how to search), the sending of e-mail but not receiving an acknowledgement or response, problems with web sites (other than with search engines) (e.g. slow response, the use of language that they find difficult to understand, pages where the text moves past the screen too rapidly, and cluttered web sites that pack too much information onto one screen), and problems with online forms—their downloading, completion, and electronic return.

Their use of government information on the Internet related to (arranged in descending order of most frequently mentioned):

• Personal requirements and research/finding information (31 ticks each);
• Work (23 ticks);
• School/study (7 ticks); and
• Other (i.e., volunteer work; 1 tick).

4.1.1 Questionnaire

Both questions depicted in Table 6 used a seven-point scale common to many studies of customer satisfaction. The points on that scale ranged from -3 ("falls short of expectations") to +3 ("exceeds expectations"), with 0 representing "exactly meets." First, study participants were asked "whether government falls short of, exactly meets, or exceeds your expectations in protecting any personal information you provide it face to face or over the phone?" Next, using the same scale, the same question was repeated, but this time "face to face or over the phone?" was replaced with "on the Internet (web site or e-mail)?"

Table 6. Extent of Satisfaction

A comparison of the findings to these two questions becomes difficult in part because there was substantial variation in the number of responses to each question (n =42 and n=29) and the expectations are not necessarily related to the actual problems they experienced or the specific subject matter they sought. In other words, these questions lack a context. Nonetheless, the results are interesting. The mode for both rests with "exactly meets" and the numbers on both the plus and minus sides of the mode tend to be somewhat similar. In other words, both the phone and Internet met expectations but do not create a climate of the delighted customer. It merits mention that a number of participants provided a written comment about their expectations. They asked "how are we to know what our expectation should be?" In other words, they had not given any thought to the issue and the web sites did not try to raise expectations. (Section 9 of this report amplifies on ways likely to raise expectations.)

The next question asked whether or not "government web sites make it easier to find what you want?" Respondents circled a number between 1 ("strongly disagree") to 7 ("strongly agree"). Of the 45 respondents to the question, more than half (24, 53.3 percent) circled a number from 5 to 7. With the inclusion of the responses to 4, a neutral response, the percentage increases to 75.6. Thirteen people indicated a number between 1 and 3; however, only two people circled 1 or 2. On the other hand, only three circled 7. In effect, those participants completing the questionnaire believed that government web sites make it easier to find the information they want (mode and median = 5).

Next, the participants were asked "How important is it to you that government information/services are available on the Internet?" The seven-point scale ranged from 1 ("not at all important") to 7 ("extremely important"). Nobody circled 1 and six people marked 2 to 4. Viewed from the other end of the scale, 21 circled 7 and 36 circled either 6 or 7; 41 people circled 5 to 7. Evidently, the availability of government information and services on the Internet has some importance to them (mode = 7, median = 6).

To provide a better context for the answers to the above questions, one questionnaire item asked "What do you like MOST about access to government information and services on the Internet?" The responses reinforced answers given to previous questions, namely anytime/anywhere access, saving of time, the breadth and depth of information available, and instant communication. Respondents also reiterated their dislike of being placed on hold when they call and for having to "battle the automated call service to find someone one to talk to." They also mentioned "reasonable anonymity."

On the other hand, they "LEAST"liked coping with pdf files, trying to locate web addresses for government departments and agencies, being unable to determine when a web page or particular content was last updated, the confusing organisation of different web sites, the difficulty of reading and digesting the information provided, not finding the information sought, conducting a search that turned out to be time consuming, poor search capabilities at numerous web sites, loss of face-to-face contact, the uncertainty about whether or not e-mail communication was received, insufficient provision of contact information, and the presumption that if they could not find the information on a web site, that information would otherwise be very difficult to obtain. One person commented, "There are a lot of statements saying that the information should not be taken as gospel. It is only advice. If it is government shouldn't there be more facts?"

The final question in this section asked, "If the government could do ONE thing to improve its Internet services and communication with people, what should it be?" The students wanted the placement of kiosks around the country as well as better access to their financial records covering loans for university studies. Others favoured the acknowledgement of e-mail messages, more contact information for departmental personnel, simplification of web sites and the language used, the deployment of more and simple electronic filing, provision of training in searching government web sites, inclusion of all web addresses in the phone book (both the white and blue pages), provision of free Internet access to government web sites from places spread throughout the country, creation of some degree of uniformity for government web sites (including the use of common language and good site design), enabling pages to load faster, improvement in the functionality of the government portal, creation of specialised (supplementary) portals, and advertisements explaining what government does on the Internet, informing people about the information and services available, and facilitation of communication directly with government through e-mail. Several people wanted the inclusion of more information—all except that which it is legitimate for government to withhold.

4.1.2 Impact of the Internet on communication with government

Three questions dealt with bringing the government and the public closer together by means of the Internet. The first two questions covered one-way communication—government to the public—and focused on the provision of government information and services. The final question covered two-way communication—government to the public and vice-versa. The data displayed in Table 7 support the comments made in focus group interviews. People readily recognised the value of one-way communication (particularly for information provision) but did not consider two-way communication as useful, although a few regarded e-mail as a means of communication with government. Of the 46 respondents to each question, 11 people circled 4 or lower for finding information, whereas 21 circled 4 or lower for service provision and 28 indicated 4 or lower for communication with government. Viewed from another perspective, only a small number strongly agreed with any of the statements. (The next section adds clarification to Table 7 and this paragraph.)

Table 7. Participants' Views on the Impact of the Internet on Relations with Government

4.2 Democratic Processes

Except for the Wellington business people, the 65 participants were unfamiliar with e-government in New Zealand, its concept and purposes, as articulated in documents related to the government's vision and strategy (see http://www.e-government.govt.nz). They also were unfamiliar with the name "e-government" and assumed that e-government referred to online voting. As a result, they had no substantial knowledge upon which to base their answers to questions about the Internet and e-government promoting democratic processes. Nonetheless, the questions let them reflect on the Internet and the direction in which the government is proceeding.

When they thought about government on the Internet, they equated it with government's provision of information—current information—to the public. They did not see the process so much as involving services or communication from the public to government. In effect, they saw e-government and the promotion of democratic processes as a means of one-way, not two-way, communication. They liked the availability of legislation, policy documents, and other information on the Internet, but they saw great variation among departments and agencies in supplying such information in a way that the public—not sophisticated in information gathering—can find. One person summed up nicely her view of e-government: the government provides "information useful to me. That information informs me." It is the "citizen's duty to be informed and government's duty to inform the citizen." Some of the Māori interviewed liked it when government web sites provided e-mail announcements that they could forward "to our people. The e-mail shows what government is doing to (not for) Māori!"

For some interviewees, e-mail comprises a means of two-way communication and a means of generating a record of what is written. Some people may shy away from e-mail communication because they are unsure how to word the message or the government department or agency may not acknowledge receipt and provide a written response.*1As two people remarked, "If the message doesn't bounce [back to you] you know it has arrived (unlike leaving a telephone message). It also provides a record" and "saves finding a stamp and envelope." For some participants, the creation of e-mail records, with prompt acknowledgement and a formal response, promotes democratic processes.*2 This type of communication, however, disadvantages those who do not have computers with Internet connectivity. One of the working professionals noted that the "Internet is a passive mechanism. You have to make the effort to gain access to the information. This requires time and access to computers." A few participants mentioned, "Solutions such as the availability of cybercafés and public libraries "don't work for ... everyone."

Democracy is better served, some remarked, by not relying on only one channel for information provision and communication. "The government should not assume that if information is placed on the web everyone will have seen, read, and understand it." The importance of human interaction should not be minimised. Such interaction is a critical means of maintaining democratic processes. One other example is informative. One of the Pacific people noted, "You can complain online. E-mail, though, is not as good as doing so by letter or in person. Face-to-face is the best." Still, this group will not engage in e-mail unless they know the other party. Furthermore, "Making a submission by e-mail does not carry weight like human interaction. I am always surprised when I get an e-mail response from a government department." They might look for opportunities to provide online feedback, but they still want to attend meetings and voice their opinions and concerns orally. Māori also supported face-to-face or telephone interaction. A businessperson added further clarification; he prefers to call people because he wants information right away and he favours personal contact, to build relationships.

The Māori and Pacific peoples interviewed did not see the availability of government information and services on the Internet as improving or promoting democracy. Some of those interviewed distrusted government. They saw newspapers as informing the public about what government does. Newspapers have the currency, they thought, that government on the Internet lacks. However, one of the Pacific peoplethought thatonline submissions for input into policy development promoted democracy.

4.2.1 The exception

As previously mentioned, the Wellington business people were familiar with e-government. They thought that e-government "has the potential to further democratic processes." To achieve that potential, they wanted all government information not subject to copyright or restrictive statutes placed on government web sites. They also realised that advice given to a Ministry should receive some protection (i.e., submissions, or advice from industry should not be publicly available while policy is still being formed), although they still favoured the release of submissions afterwards. Publicly available information must be well organised and presented, and supported by a good archive for information removed from those sites.

For them, democracy is served when the public has input into policy development and refinement. They liked the widespread availability of policy documents, and they thought the real potential of e-government related to e-compliance. E-compliance, they said, would be a real boon for owners of small businesses. For instance, "they need not take off part of the day to go to IRD. Instead, they can work on their compliance in the evenings and on weekends." If government provides more online transactions—does more of what the private sector does online—there is greater potential for government to serve the public through the Internet.

1. One Māori sends e-mail messages to government departments and "rings up to see if they were received."

2. With an e-mail submission, one businessperson mentioned that he sent an e-mail message to a Minister. Presumably, a secretary logged it in and acknowledged the message. Within five weeks, he received a complete reply from the Minister. Such a "service" provided him with a receipt and the detailed information sought. Such services "make life easier."