Exploring the Conceptual Dimensions of Proposed E-Government Innovation in the Philippine Local Government Unit

This study developed a framework to enhance e-government implementation in selected local government units (LGUs) in Davao del Norte. Using an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, qualitative data were gathered through 9 key informant interviews, followed by a quantitative survey involving 235 participants. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) revealed six core dimensions of e-government: (1) Institutional Digital Readiness, (2) Citizen Engagement Mechanisms, (3) Digital Infrastructure Accessibility, (4) E-employment Enablement, (5) Digital Capacity Building, and (6) Secure and Equitable Digital Access. These dimensions accounted for 49.37% of the total variance, affirming the multifaceted nature of e- government in local governance. The results point out the value of digital literacy, successful electronic governance involving institutional support, inclusive access and citizen response. The framework is consistent with international digital governance frameworks, but specific to respond to the requirements of issues facing the Philippine LGUs like insufficient infrastructure and digital divides. This framework provides a practical guide for local policymakers, IT personnel, and stakeholders aiming to improve digital service delivery. Future studies are recommended to apply Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to validate the framework further and support its application across other regions.

E-Government, Digital Governance, Exploratory Factor Analysis, Citizen Engagement, Davao del Norte SDG: 16 Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

1. Arabacca, F., & Base, R. (2022). Citizen’s level of participation and satisfaction in the conduct of barangay assembly: A case of one Philippine LGU. Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun, 8(2), 377-388. https://doi.org/10.26811/peuradeun.v8i2.531 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Aylin Akca Okan. 2024. Exploring the Landscape of e-Government Maturity Models: Insights from Systematic Mapping Study and Comparative Analysis. Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract. 5, 2, Article 12 (June 2024), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3656586 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Belakhdar, O. (2021). E-Governance in South Korea. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354544347_E- Governance_in_South_Korea [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bhatt, A., & Kumar, S. (2023). Bridging the gap: Analyzing the impact of digital divide on egovernance in rural Sudurpashchim Province, Nepal. Propulsion Technology Journal, 44(6), 4001-2714. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. https://www.propulsiontechjournal.com/index.php/journal/article/download/4001/2714/68765. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2024, February 10). SAGE Publications Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. https://us.sagepub.com/en- us/nam/designing-and-conducting mixed-methods-research/book241842 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cruciani, G., Cavicchioli, M., Tanzilli, G., Tanzilli, A., Lingiardi, V., & Galli, F. (2023). Heart rate variability alterations in takotsubo syndrome and related association with psychological factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 20744. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47982-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. De Winter, J., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(2), 147–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902794206 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fetters, M., Curry, L., & Creswell, J. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs— Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134– 2156. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gibbson, G., & O’Connors, R. (2003). Thematic coding and categorizing. In Analyzing Qualitative Data (pp. 38-56). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526441867.n4. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research a. (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. a. Psychometrika, 23(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kaushik, Vibha & Walsh, Christine. (2019). Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research. Social sciences. 8. 255. 10.3390/socsci8090255. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. 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. https://doi.org/10.69650/jcdrhs.2025.717 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Nunn, Jack & Chang, Steven. (2020). What are Systematic Reviews?. WikiJournal of Medicine. 7. 5. 10.15347/WJM/2020.005. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Okan, A. A., Akca, A., & Okan, O. (2024). Exploring the landscape of e-government maturity models: Insights from systematic mapping study and comparative analysis. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 5(2), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3656586 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Rarhoui, K. (2024, February 1). E-government in Africa: Challenges and prospects. HAL Open Science. https://hal.science/AO-DROIT/hal-04450951v1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Shakya, S. (2018, March). E-Governance in Nepal: progress, challenges and possibilities. Researchgate. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323068760_E-Governance_in_Nepal_Progress_Challenges _and_Possibilities [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Siddiquee, N. A., & Mohamed, M. (2020). E-Government and transformation of service delivery in Malaysia. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance (pp. 1-10). Springer. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9860-2.ch075 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Siddiquee, Noore & Mohamed, Mohd. (2020). E-Government and Transformation of Service Delivery in Malaysia. 10.4018/978-1-5225-9860-2.ch075. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Sukarno, M., Rodriguez, M., & Nursamsiyah, N. (2024). E-government development on control corruption: A lesson learned from Singapore. Journal of Governance and Public Policy, 11(3), 271286. https://doi.org/10.18196/jgpp.v11i3.21447 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Tavakol, M. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Toral, J. (2023). The Philippines E-Government Challenge: Secure Digital Services for All. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/philippines-e-government-challenge-secure-digital-services-toraltzqbc [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Watkins, M. W. (2021). A step-by-step guide to exploratory factor analysis with SPSS. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003149347 [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