IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i18p10464-d639453.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinant Factors for Adoption of Government as a Platform in South Korea: Mediating Effects on the Perception of Intelligent Information Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Hyungjun Seo

    (Center for Security Convergence and eGovernance, Inha University, Michuhol-gu, Inharo-100, Incheon 22212, Korea)

  • Seunghwan Myeong

    (Department of Public Administration, Inha University, Michuhol-gu, Inharo-100, Incheon 22212, Korea)

Abstract

This study aims to shed light on determinant factors for the introduction of Government as a Platform (GaaP) by public officers who can be platform providers or main stakeholders in GaaP. It focuses on public officers in 261 Korean public agencies. In order to verify the research model’s hypotheses, we take advantage of Structural Equation Modeling and the Technology Acceptance Model. As a first result, concerning the direct effect on GaaP, the quality of open data, the scope of the stakeholders, and attitudes to civic engagement have a positive relationship on the perceived usefulness of Intelligent Information Technology (IIT). Second, in terms of the effect of IIT on GaaP, the perceived usefulness of IIT mediates positively on the intention to adopt GaaP based on the quality of open data, the scope of the stakeholders, and attitudes towards civic engagement. Based on these results, policy implications can be described as follows. Besides managing internal open data, governments should actively mine new open data that can create added value for innovation. They need to create an easily cooperative environment with other stakeholders, especially non-public participants, and governments should encourage public officers to more actively accept and utilize IIT in their jobs.

Suggested Citation

  • Hyungjun Seo & Seunghwan Myeong, 2021. "Determinant Factors for Adoption of Government as a Platform in South Korea: Mediating Effects on the Perception of Intelligent Information Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:18:p:10464-:d:639453
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/18/10464/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/18/10464/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Seunghwan Myeong & Yuseok Jung, 2019. "Administrative Reforms in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: The Case of Blockchain Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Weijia You & Hui Shu & Suyuan Luo, 2018. "Competition, cooperation, and performance: an empirical investigation of Chinese online sellers," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 743-760, November.
    3. Burak Erkut, 2020. "From Digital Government to Digital Governance: Are We There Yet?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Brown, A. & Fishenden, Jerry & Thompson, M. & Venters, Will, 2017. "Appraising the impact and role of platform models and Government as a Platform (GaaP) in UK Government public service reform: towards a Platform Assessment Framework (PAF)," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 73864, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Gorwa, Robert, 2019. "What is Platform Governance?," SocArXiv fbu27, Center for Open Science.
    6. William H. DeLone & Ephraim R. McLean, 1992. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 60-95, March.
    7. Hyungjun Seo & Seunghwan Myeong, 2020. "The Priority of Factors of Building Government as a Platform with Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-28, July.
    8. Steve Jones & Zahir Irani & Uthayasankar Sivarajah & Peter E. D. Love, 2019. "Risks and rewards of cloud computing in the UK public sector: A reflection on three Organisational case studies," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 359-382, April.
    9. Stavros Ioannis Valsamidis & Ioannis Petasakis & Sotirios Kontogiannis & Fotini Perdiki, 2019. "Factors of Usage Evaluation for a Tax Information System," International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector (IJISSS), IGI Global, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, July.
    10. W. H. Voorberg & V. J. J. M. Bekkers & L. G. Tummers, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1333-1357, October.
    11. Vishanth Weerakkody & Zahir Irani & Kawal Kapoor & Uthayasankar Sivarajah & Yogesh K. Dwivedi, 2017. "Open data and its usability: an empirical view from the Citizen’s perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 285-300, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Seunghwan Myeong & Michael J. Ahn & Younhee Kim & Shengli Chu & Woojong Suh, 2021. "Government Data Performance: The Roles of Technology, Government Capacity, and Globalization through the Effects of National Innovativeness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-14, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hyungjun Seo & Seunghwan Myeong, 2020. "The Priority of Factors of Building Government as a Platform with Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-28, July.
    2. Talukder, Md Shamim & Shen, Liang & Hossain Talukder, Md Farid & Bao, Yukun, 2019. "Determinants of user acceptance and use of open government data (OGD): An empirical investigation in Bangladesh," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 147-156.
    3. Tian Jin & Cheng Dong, 2023. "Technical Foundation, External Environment, and Government Internet Service Capability: Evidence From China," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, October.
    4. Yu Zeng & Quan Zhang & Qi Zhao & Huang Huang, 2023. "Doing more among institutional boundaries: Platform‐enabled government in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(3), pages 458-478, May.
    5. Dakshitha N. Jinasena & Konstantina Spanaki & Thanos Papadopoulos & Maria E. Balta, 2023. "Success and Failure Retrospectives of FinTech Projects: A Case Study Approach," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 259-274, February.
    6. Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Nripendra P. Rana & Anand Jeyaraj & Marc Clement & Michael D. Williams, 2019. "Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a Revised Theoretical Model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 719-734, June.
    7. Xiaoxu Dong & Huawei Zhao & Tiancai Li, 2022. "The Role of Live-Streaming E-Commerce on Consumers’ Purchasing Intention regarding Green Agricultural Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-13, April.
    8. Philippe Cohard, 2020. "Information Systems Values: A Study of the Intranet in Three French Higher Education Institutions," Post-Print hal-02987225, HAL.
    9. Yan Zhang & Ciaran B. Trace, 2022. "The quality of health and wellness self‐tracking data: A consumer perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(6), pages 879-891, June.
    10. Hasan, Rajibul & Lowe, Ben & Petrovici, Dan, 2020. "Consumer adoption of pro-poor service innovations in subsistence marketplaces," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 461-475.
    11. Tsung Teng Chen, 2012. "The development and empirical study of a literature review aiding system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 105-116, July.
    12. Abdesamad Zouine & Pierre Fenies, 2014. "The Critical Success Factors Of The ERP System Project: A Meta-Analysis Methodology," Post-Print hal-01419785, HAL.
    13. Petteri Repo & Kaisa Matschoss, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Wynen, Jan & Boon, Jan & Kleizen, Bjorn & Verhoest, Koen, 2018. "How multiple organizational changes shape managerial support for innovative work behavior : Evidence from the Australian Public Service," Other publications TiSEM 4f721d76-0c44-4d72-a494-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Proserpio, Luigi & Magni, Massimo, 2012. "Teaching without the teacher? Building a learning environment through computer simulations," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 99-105.
    16. Chen-Yuan Chen & Bih-Yaw Shih & Shih-Hsien Yu, 2012. "Disaster prevention and reduction for exploring teachers’ technology acceptance using a virtual reality system and partial least squares techniques," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 62(3), pages 1217-1231, July.
    17. Jin P. Gerlach & Ronald T. Cenfetelli, 2022. "Overcoming the Single-IS Paradigm in Individual-Level IS Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 476-488, June.
    18. Yoonsun Oh & Jungsuk Oh, 2017. "A critical incident approach to consumer response in the smartphone market: product, service and contents," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 577-597, August.
    19. Blackburn, Nivea & Brown, Judy & Dillard, Jesse & Hooper, Val, 2014. "A dialogical framing of AIS–SEA design," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 83-101.
    20. Palmyra Repette & Jamile Sabatini-Marques & Tan Yigitcanlar & Denilson Sell & Eduardo Costa, 2021. "The Evolution of City-as-a-Platform: Smart Urban Development Governance with Collective Knowledge-Based Platform Urbanism," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:18:p:10464-:d:639453. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.