Constructs of E-Governance Satisfaction in Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations: A Factor Analysis

The increasing adoption of digital technologies in public administration emphasizes the role of e-governance in enhancing service delivery, transparency, and citizens’ trust. This study examines the constructs of e-governance satisfaction among e-users of government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), with a focus on agencies providing social services, specifically the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Social Security System (SSS), Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), and Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth). Anchored on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Public Value Theory, the research employed an exploratory sequential mixed-method design. Qualitative interviews with GOCC representatives informed the development of a validated survey instrument, which was then administered to e-users. Using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), five key constructs of e-governance satisfaction were identified: transparency and real-time updates, user experience and interface, integration and multi-platform support, accessibility and convenience, and privacy and security. These dimensions collectively explain a substantial proportion of user satisfaction and highlight the critical role of secure, transparent, and citizen-centered digital platforms. Findings suggest that strengthening these constructs can enhance trust and confidence in GOCC e-services, contributing to improved governance and public value creation. The study offers a framework for GOCCs and policymakers to refine digital strategies and guide future innovations in service delivery. Moreover, it provides an empirical basis for further comparative studies across different agencies and sectors to advance sustainable e-governance implementation.

e-governance, e-user satisfaction, government-owned and controlled corporations, technology acceptance model

1. Alassaf, P., Zai, S., & Olah, J. (2020). Factors affecting e-government implementation: Developing countries e-opportunities. Acta Oeconomica Universitatis Selye, 9(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Arabadzhyiev, D., Popovych, Y., Lytvynchuk, I., Bakbergen, K., & Kyrychenko, Y. (2021). Digital society: Regulatory and institutional support of electronic governance in modern realities. SHS Web of Conferences, 100, p. 03008. EDP Sciences. http://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202110003008. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Arief, A., Sensuse, D. I., Latif, L. A., & Abbas, M. Y. (2021). Study on e-government integration: a theoretical and empirical review. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 1125, No. 1, p. 012028). IOP Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baeuo, M.O.M., Rahim, N.Z.B.A. & Alaraibi, A.A.M., 2017. Technology factors influencing egovernment readiness. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, 95(8). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bajar, J. T. (2020). E-government in the Philippines: An assessment. Ciencia: Humanities, Education, Arts, Languages, and Social Sciences (HEALS), 1(1), 26-50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Berman, E. (2017). An exploratory sequential mixed methods approach to understanding researchers’ data management practices at UVM: Integrated findings to develop research data services. Journal of eScience Librarianship 6(1): e1104. https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2017.1104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Blom, P.P. & Uwizeyimana, D.E. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of e-government and e-governance in South Africa: During national lockdown 2020. Research in World Economy, 11(5), pp.208-219. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chen, M., & Grossklags, J. (2023). E-government HCI in China: How does the government communicate a new regulation system to the public? In Proceedings of the Asian HCI Symposium 2023 (pp. 7-14). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Creswell, J.W. & Clark, V.L.P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, pp.319-340. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. De Castro, C.A. & De Castro, E.G. (2022). E-government initiatives of local governments in the Philippines. Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), 15(3), pp.55-70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Gu, D., Khan, S., Khan, I.U., Khan, S.U., Xie, Y., Li, X., & Zhang, G. (2021). Assessing the adoption of e-health technology in a developing country: An extension of the UTAUT model. Sage Open, 11(3), p.21582440211027565. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Haque, M. S. & Rattan, A. (2020). Transparency in e-government services: A literature review. Information Systems Frontiers, 22(3), 659-676. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Jane, K. (2024). Role of user experience in e-government service satisfaction. Accessed at https://tinyurl.com/yc63dhhh. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Jopang, J., Aryatama, S., Muazzinah, M., Qamal, Q., & Ansar, A. (2024). Exploring the relationship between e-government, transparency, and citizen trust in government services. Global International Journal of Innovative Research, 2(6), 1354-1363. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kala, D., Chaubey, D.S., Meet, R.K., & Al-Adwan, A.S. (2024). Impact of user satisfaction with egovernment services on continuance use intention and citizen trust using TAM-ISSM framework. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 19, p.001. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Khalid, S. A. & Lavilles, R. Q. (2019). Maturity assessment of local e-Government websites in the Philippines. Procedia Computer Science, 161, 99-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Khan, H.A. & Khan, H.A. (2018). The challenges of e-governance in public administration. Globalization and the Challenges of Public Administration: Governance, Human Resources Management, Leadership, Ethics, E-Governance and Sustainability in the 21st Century, pp.135-160. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kovacova, M., Kliestik, T., Valaskova, K., Durana, P., & Juhaszova, Z. (2019). Systematic review of variables applied in bankruptcy prediction models of Visegrad group countries. Oeconomia Copernicana, 10(4), pp.743-772. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kumar, K. R., Praveen, C., & Rahma, A. (2023). Digital governance and its impact on society. International Conference on Education, Humanities, Social Science (ICEHoS 2022) (pp. 209213). Atlantis Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-088-6_24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Lagura, G. B. (2025). Towards digital governance divide index development: Evaluating city government websites in the Philippines. Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), 18(1), 1-17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Li, Y. & Shang, H. (2020). Service quality, perceived value, and citizens’ continuous-use intention regarding e-government: Empirical evidence from China. Information & Management, 57(3), 103197. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lu, W. (2018). The research of e-government on big data in China. In 2018 International Conference on Management, Economics, Education, Arts and Humanities (MEEAH 2018) (pp. 40-43). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Masengu, R., Muridzi, G., & Meyer, J. (2021). Governance in Africa - A perspective of e-governance in South Africa urban municipalities. Global Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 1(10), pp. 618. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Mensah, I.K., Zeng, G., & Mwakapesa, D.S. (2022). Understanding the drivers of the public value of egovernment: Validation of a public value e-government adoption model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, p.962615. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Mohammad, A. H. (2020). The effects of usability and accessibility for e-government services on the enduser satisfaction. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 14(13), pp. 78–90. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i13.14659 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Munyoka, W. (2020). Electronic government adoption in voluntary environments–a case study of Zimbabwe. Information Development, 36(3), 414-437. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Munyoka, W. & Maharaj, M. S. (2019). Privacy, security, trust, risk and optimism bias in e-government use: The case of two Southern African Development Community countries. South African Journal of Information Management, 21(1), 1-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Myint, A.A. (2022). Users’ satisfaction with e-government services: Case study on Myanmar companies online (MyCO) system. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), 11(3), pp.73-81. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Patel, P. & Moitra, M. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in India: A call for research. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 58, 102600. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Sarahneh, M. (2024). Effect of empathy maps on analyzing first year student's experience with the university's website in 2023\2024: The case of Palestine Polytechnic University Website. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26293.49128. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Sebetci, Ö. (2015). A TAM-based model for e-government: A case for Turkey. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 7(2), pp.113-135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Singh, A. (2023). E-governance: Moving towards digital governance. VIDYA-A Journal of Gujarat University, 2(1), pp.204-215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Singh, U. (2019). e-Governance implementation–A literature review analysis. IJRAR-International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR), E-ISSN, pp.2348-1269. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Solinthone, P. & Rumyantseva, T. (2016). E-government implementation. MATEC Web of Conferences.79. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201679010 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Stevens, J. (1994). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence erlbaum associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Toots, M. (2019). Why e-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia's Osale. ee. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), pp.546-559. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Upadhyay, P., Kumar, A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Adlakha, A. (2022). Continual usage intention of platformbased governance services: A study from an emerging economy. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), 101651. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Zongpu, Y. & Samsu, K.H.K. (2023). Factors influencing the development and implementation of egovernment services in China. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(18). doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i18/19950. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Decadal Overview of Welfare Schemes in Telangana (2014–2024)
• Ubuntu and the Missed Development Goals in the Global South: Rethinking MDGs and SDGs through an African Philosophical Lens
• Exploring the Factors of Obesity: Insights from Johor State Civil Servants
• Navigating the Nexus: Challenges Faced by Part-Time Postgraduate Government Employees in Malaysia
• The Lived Experiences of Skilled Filipino Women Immigrants in Denmark