Identifying and Prioritizing key Components in Pioneering and Sublimity in Digital Public Services

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration and Tourism, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Public Administration and Tourism, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.

3 Master's degree, Department of Public Administration and Tourism, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.

Abstract

Abstract
With the significant growth of information and communication technology, public services have also taken a new and digital form. Although many efforts have been made in this field; But there is still need for study and investigation and effort in this field; Therefore, identifying and prioritizing the key components in this field is a step towards the improvement of digital public services. The current research is in terms of practical purpose and field execution method and is based on a combined research method and a sequential explanatory approach in which the quantitative phase has priority over the qualitative phase. Domestic and foreign (available) and related articles and research projects were examined, based on the topic, "digital services" in the number of 15 and 10.71% and the number of abundance per year, the highest number in 1402 36 numbers and 21.82% were obtained, and in the qualitative phase, using the Foundation's data method and interviewing 17 experts and specialists in this field, 988 primary codes, 174 indicators, 84 components and 38 dimensions were obtained, which Using the paradigmatic model, the dimensions were placed in the classes related to causal, contextual, intervening, strategies, and consequences, and the highest number related to causal conditions was obtained as 11 dimensions, which are: digital application, digital need-oriented, reduction Digital class gap, digital services, digital supervision, digital citizenship, digital common welfare, digital justice, digital de-bureaucracy, digital satisfaction, digital self-achievement.
Introduction
With the significant growth of information and communication technology, public services have also taken a new and digital form. The technological evolution and digital technology have caused fundamental changes in the way of providing services and the services have changed from their traditional form to a new form, which is the need to provide fast services in the midst of modern life and the expectations of citizens from services and changes in attitudes towards how to receive services and use them. Digital technology in providing services requires deep consideration in this field, therefore, service providers have taken many steps towards providing digital services. Although many efforts have been made in this field; But there is still a need to study and investigate and try to excel and pioneer digital public services; Therefore, identifying and prioritizing key components in pioneering and sublimity in digital public services is one of the most important issues in the direction of further sublimity in digital public services.
Case study
the comprehensive system of government support schemes.
Materials and Methods
The current research is applied in terms of purpose and field implementation and is based on a mixed research method and a sequential explanatory approach in which the quantitative phase has priority over the qualitative phase. Writing, domestic and foreign theses and dissertations (available) and related articles and research projects were examined in a 10-year period (1393-1403).Then, using the findings obtained in the quantitative phase, the axes of the interview were adjusted. In the qualitative phase, using semi-structured interviews of academic and administrative-executive experts and experts in the field of public services, public administration, political science, economics, public administrative affairs, human resources management, and others, up to the theoretical saturation stage, interviews were conducted with 17 people. It was found that using the qualitative method of database and Strauss and Corbin's approach, the primary data obtained from the interviews of experts were examined and analyzed.
Discussion and Results
Based on the research obtained in the quantitative stage with the quantitative analysis method, according to the subject area, the most subject in the 10-year period is digital services with 15 numbers and 10.71% of service quality, respectively. 14 numbers and 10%, e-government in 12 numbers and 8.57%, acceptance of digital services in 12 numbers and 8.57%, digital transformation in 11 numbers and 7.86%, services in 10 numbers and 14.7% digital service quality 9 and 6.43 percent and digitization and digital manufacturing is 9 and 6.43 percent, and based on the number of times per year, the highest number was obtained in 1402 with 36 and 21.82 percent And based on the findings of the qualitative phase, 988 primary codes, 174 indicators, 84 components and 38 dimensions were obtained, and by using the paradigmatic model, the obtained dimensions were placed in the classes related to causal, contextual, intervening conditions, strategies and consequences. based on this model, the largest number of dimensions related to causal conditions was 11 dimensions. The dimensions related to the causal conditions are as follows: digital purpose, digital need-oriented, digital class gap reduction, digital service expansion, digital monitoring, digital citizenship, digital common welfare, digital justice, digital de-bureaucracy, digital satisfaction, Digital self-achievement.
Conclusion
According to the investigations carried out in this research, few researches have been done in the field of digital public services in the last 10 years. And also based on the findings of the quantitative and qualitative phase and the integration of these findings, digital public services in the country due to the lack of suitable digital infrastructure or even the lack of infrastructure in deprived areas and inappropriate digital infrastructure and conditions The economic and political ills of the country have not progressed much due to the existence of cruel sanctions and the lack of digital awareness and literacy, especially among the elderly and the low and weak classes of the society, as well as the negative attitude and lack of trust in digital services and the desire for traditional services of the citizens. that by solving such problems, such as improving the infrastructure, creating a suitable platform and expanding digital services in the whole country and spreading the digital culture and literacy of the citizens and improving the economic and political conditions of the country in line with pioneering and sublimity in digital public services, we can step forward. He took it firmly.

Keywords


Refrences
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72-95.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research.
Berger, AA. (1982). Media Analysis Techniques. Newberry Park: Sage: 1982. 107-110.
Butt, A., Imran, F., Helo, P., & Kantola, J. (2024). Strategic design of culture for digital transformation. Long Range Planning, 57(2), 102415.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (2nd edition).
Dunleavy, P.,  Margetts, H., Bastow, S., Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead - long live digital-era governance, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16 (3) (2006), pp. 467-494.
Edelman, M. (2021). Hollowed out Heartland, USA: How capital sacrificed communities and paved the way for authoritarian populism. Journal of Rural Studies, 82, 505-517.
Eiglier, P ,. Langeard, E. (1997). Services as systems: Marketing implications,  Eiglier, P,. Langeard, E,. Lovelock, C.H,. J.E.G,. Bateson, J.E.G,.Young, R.F  (Eds.) , Marketing Consumer Services: New Insights. Report #77-115, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA (1977), pp. 83-103.
European Commission(2017). Quality of Public Administration: A Toolbox for Practitioners. Theme 5: Service Delivery and Digitalisation, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2017).
Gong, C., & Ribiere, V. (2021). Developing a unified definition of digital transformation. Technovation, 102, 102217.
Grönroos, C. (2015). Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Service Profit Logic,  (4th ed.), Wiley, Chichester (2015).
Hou,X et al.(2021). Can urban public services and ecosystem services achieve positive synergies? Ecol. Indic (2021).
Ködding, P., Ellermann, K., Koldewey, C., & Dumitrescu, R. (2023). Scenario-based Foresight in the Age of Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence–Identification and Analysis of Existing Use Cases. Procedia CIRP, 119, 740-745.
Kotler, P,  Keller, K.L,. Brady, M,. Goodman, M,. Hansen, T. (2019). Marketing Management, (4th European ed.), Pearson Education, Harlow (2019).
Krippendorf, K.(2004). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Translated by Nayebi H. Tehran: Ney, 2004. 9-11.
Lanzolla, G., Lorenz, A., Miron-Spektor, E., Schilling, M., Solinas, G., & Tucci, C. L. (2020). Digital transformation: What is new if anything? Emerging patterns and management research. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(3), 341-350.
Lindgren, I,. Jansson, G. (2013). Electronic services in the public sector: A conceptual framework, Government Information Quarterly, Volume 30, Issue 2, April 2013, Pages 163-172.
Lindgren, I., et al.(2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services, Government Information Quarterly,   Volume 36, Issue 3, July 2019, Pages 427-436.
Lindgren, I., Melin, U., & Sæbø, Ø. (2021). What is e-government? Introducing a work system framework for understanding e-government.
Lindgren,I., Madsen,C., Hofmann,S., Melin,U.(2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, Volume 36, Issue 3, July 2019, Pages 427-436.
Madsen, C. Ø., Hofmann, S., & Pieterson, W. (2019). Channel choice complications: Exploring the multiplex nature of citizens’ channel choices. In Electronic Government: 18th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2019, San Benedetto Del Tronto, Italy, September 2–4, 2019, Proceedings 18 (pp. 139-151). Springer International Publishing.
Mastera, G. (1996). The process of revising general education curricula in three private baccalaureate colleges: A grounded theory study. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Mayring, P.(2006). Qualitative Content Analysis. Accessed on: 10 June 2006.
Nunes, V., Cappelli, C., & Ralha, C. G. (2017). Transparency in information systems. Sociedade Brasileira de Computação.
OECD (2015a). In it together: Why less inequality benefits all. (Retrieved November 14, from) http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/employment/2015,in-it-together-why-less-inequality-benefits- all_9789264235120-en#page17.
Osborne, S.P. (2020). Public service logic: Creating value for public service users, citizens, and society through public service delivery, Routledge Critical Studies in Public Management (1st ed.), Routledge, London (2020).
Pawlowski, C., & Scholta, H. (2023). A taxonomy for proactive public services. Government Information Quarterly, 40(1), 101780.
Rao, R.M (2011). Services Marketing, (2nd ed.), Dorling Kindersley, New Delhi.
Rowley, J. (2006). An analysis of the e-service literature: Towards a research agenda, Internet Research, 16 (3), pp. 339-359.
Sala-Vilar, L. R., Li-Ying, J., & Traunecker, T. (2024). How do innovation intermediaries’ business models cope with their need to develop new digital services?. Technovation, 131, 102950.
Scholta, H., & Lindgren, I. (2023). Proactivity in digital public services: a conceptual analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 40(3), 101832.
Shareef, M. A., Kumar, V., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Kumar, U. (2016). Service delivery through mobile-government (mGov): Driving factors and cultural impacts. Information systems frontiers, 18, 315-332.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: sage.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of business research, 122, 889-901.
Vial, S. (2019). Being and the Screen: How the Digital Changes Perception. Published in one volume with A Short Treatise on Design. MIT Press.
Wirtz, J,. Lovelock, C.H. (2016). Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, (8th ed.), World Scientific, New Jersey.
Wirtz, J., Patterson, P. G., Kunz, W. H., Gruber, T., Lu, V. N., Paluch, S., & Martins, A. (2018). Brave new world: service robots in the frontline. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 907-931.
Wouters, S., Janssen, M., Lember, V., & Crompvoets, J. (2023). Strategies to advance the dream of integrated digital public service delivery in inter-organizational collaboration networks. Government Information Quarterly, 40(1), 101779.