skip to main content
10.1145/3543434.3543560acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesdg-oConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

E-Court System Evaluation through the User’s Perspective: Applying the End-User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) Model

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 September 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

The End-User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) model by Doll and Torkzadeh has played an essential role in evaluating users’ satisfaction and perspectives on change management, which will help governments in assessing the information system’s success and making efficient decisions about digital transformation and improving the quality of services provided to citizens. This research uses the EUCS model to assess the end-user satisfaction with a court information system and evaluate its success from the users’ viewpoint. The authors applied the EUCS model to the implemented court information system of the Sulaimaniyah Appellate Court in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). The authors employed a quantitative approach and collected data from 66 respondents from the group of active end-users of the court systems with different roles, i.e., judges, clerks, prosecutors, judicial investigators, lawyers, police officers, and typists. The results showed that the EUCS model could be considered a reliable and valid tool for assessing the court information system. Most of the participants of the currently implemented system showed their overall satisfaction and considered it a successful system.

References

  1. Vassilios P. Aggelidis and Prodromos D. Chatzoglou. 2012. Hospital Information Systems: Measuring End User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS). Journal of Biomedical Informatics 45, 3 (2012), 566–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2012.02.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Rozha K. Ahmed, Silvia Lips, and Dirk Draheim. 2020. eSignature in eCourt Systems. In Proceedings of 2020 Fourth World Conference on Smart Trends in Systems, Security and Sustainability (WorldS4). IEEE, 352–356. https://doi.org/10.1109/WorldS450073.2020.9210309Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Rozha K Ahmed, Khder H Muhammed, Ingrid Pappel, and Dirk Draheim. 2020. Challenges in the Digital Transformation of Courts : A Case Study from the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. In Proceedings of ICEDEG 2020 -– the 7th International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment. IEEE, 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEDEG48599.2020.9096801Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Rozha Kamal Ahmed, Khder Hassan Muhammed, Ingrid Pappel, and Dirk Draheim. 2021. Impact of E-Court Systems Implementation: a Case Study. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 15, 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2020-0008Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Rozha K. Ahmed, Khder H. Muhammed, Awat O. Qadir, Soran I. Arif, Silvia Lips, Katrin Nyman-Metcalf, Ingrid Pappel, and Dirk Draheim. 2021. A Legal Framework for Digital Transformation: A Proposal Based on a Comparative Case Study. In Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective. Springer International Publishing, 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86611-2_9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Rozha K Ahmed, Khder H Muhammed, Aleksander Reitsakas, Ingrid Pappel, and Dirk Draheim. 2020. Improving Court Efficiency through ICT Integration: Identifying Essential Areas of Improvement. In Proceedings of ICT4SD 2019 - the 4th International Conference on ICT for Sustainable Development. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Vol. 93. Springer, 449–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0630-7_44Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ahmed Al Kuwaiti. 2020. Evaluating Medical Students’ Satisfaction towards Library Resources and Services offered at Saudi Universities using Six Sigma approach. Library Philosophy and Practice 2020 (2020), 1–27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Muhammad Azwar, Ika Surandari, and Hasnul Insani Djohar. 2020. Evaluating The Library Website Of The Indonesian Ministry Of Education And Culture Through The End-User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) Model. Library Philosophy and Practice 2020 (2020), 1–19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. James E. Bailey and Sammy W. Pearson. 1983. Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction. Management Science 29, 5 (1983), 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.5.530Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Beatriz Valadares Cendón, Juliana Lopes, and Almeida Souza. 2015. A Method for Measuring Satisfaction of Users of Digital Libraries: a Case Study with Engineering Faculty. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML) 4 (2015), 11–19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Lei Da Chen, Khalid S. Soliman, En Mao, and Mark N. Frolick. 2000. Measuring User Satisfaction with Data Warehouses: An Exploratory Study. Information & management 37, 3 (2000), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(99)00042-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (1989), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Athanasios P. Deligiannis and DImosthenis Anagnostopoulos. 2017. Towards Open Justice: ICT Acceptance in the Greek Justice System: The Case of the Integrated Court Management System for Penal and Civil Procedures (OSDDY/PP). In 2017 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM). IEEE, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1109/CeDEM.2017.26Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. William H . DeLone and Ephraim R . McLean. 1992. Information Systems Success : The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research 3, 1 (1992), 60–95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. William H. DeLone and Ephraim R. McLean. 2004. Measuring E-Commerce Success: Applying the DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success Model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 9, 1 (2004), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2004.11044317Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. William J Doll and Gholamreza Torkzadeh. 1988. The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction. MIS Quarterly 12, 2 (1988), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/248851Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). 2016. European Judicial Systems Efficiency and Quality of Justice. Number 24. 178 pages. https://rm.coe.int/european-judicial-systems-efficiency-and-quality-of-justice-cepej-stud/1680788229Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ursula Gorham. 2012. State Courts, e-Filing, and Diffusion of Innovation: A Proposed Framework of Analysis. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research(dg.o ’12). ACM, 232–239.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Thair M. Hamtini, Fawaz Ahamd M. Al Zaghoul, and Nizar Mahmoud Mohssen. 2010. An Assessment of End User Computing Satisfaction at a Hospital. WMSCI 2010 - The 14th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Proceedings 1(2010), 391–396.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Nur Aeni Hidayah, Eri Rustamaji, and Purusotama. 2019. Determining User Satisfaction Factors on University Tuition Fee Systems Using End-User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS). 2018 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management, CITSM 2018Citsm(2019), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/CITSM.2018.8674378Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Blake Ives, Margrethe H Olson, and Jack J Baroudi. 1983. The Measurement of User Information Satisfaction. Commun. ACM 26, 10 (1983), 785 – 793.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Amdan Bin Mohamed, Mohd Rushdan Bin Yasoa, Azleen bte Ilias, and Mohd Fahmi Bin Ghazali. 2006. The Study of End-User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) on Computerised Accounting System (CAS) Among Peninsular Malaysia Public Universities: A Survey in Bursar’s Office. In International Borneo Business Conference (IBBC). 594 – 608. https://doi.org/10.5848/csp.1487.00001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kari Pikkarainen, Tero Pikkarainen, Heikki Karjaluoto, and Seppo Pahnila. 2006. The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction of Online Banking Services: Empirical Evidence from Finland. International Journal of Bank Marketing 24, 3 (2006), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320610659012Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. T. A. Prasetya, C. T. Harjanto, and Andri Setiyawan. 2020. Analysis of Student Satisfaction of E-Learning using the End-User Computing Satisfaction Method during the Covid-19 Pandemic. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1700, 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1700/1/012012Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Beny Prasetyo, R. Windi Eka Yulia, and Felisia. 2018. Measuring End-User Satisfaction of Online Marketplace using End-User Computing Satisfaction Model (EUCS Model) (Case study: Tokopedia.com). Proceedings of the 2017 4th International Conference on Computer Applications and Information Processing Technology, CAIPT 2017 (2018), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/CAIPT.2017.8320710Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Purwanto and P. B. Deden Hedin. 2020. Measurement of User Satisfaction for Web-Base Academic Information System using End-User Computing Satisfaction Method. In International Conference on Advanced Mechanical and Industrial engineering, Vol. 909. 012044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/909/1/012044Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. W. A. Putera and I. M. Candiasa. 2021. Analysis of E-Learning User Satisfaction itb Stikom Bali using End User Computing Satisfaction (eucs) Method. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1810, 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1810/1/012017Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Saeed Rouhani, Shooka Zamenian, and Sayna Rotbie. 2018. A Prototyping and Evaluation of Hospital Dashboard through End-User Computing Satisfaction Model (EUCS). Journal of Information Technology Management 10, 3(2018), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.22059/JITM.2019.282572.2362Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Özel Sebetci. 2018. Enhancing End-User Satisfaction through Technology Compatibility: An Assessment on Health Information System. Health Policy and Technology 7, 3 (2018), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2018.06.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Monika Singh, Ganesh P. Sahu, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, and Nripendra P Rana. 2018. Success Factors for e-Court Implementation at Allahabad High-Court Success Factors for e-Court Implementation at Allahabad High-Court. In 22th The Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Janilson Antonio da Silva Suzart. 2013. End-User Satisfaction with the Integrated System of Federal Government Financial Administration (SIAFI): a Case Study. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management 10, 1(2013), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.4301/s1807-17752013000100008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. United Nations. 2018. 2018 E-Government Survey. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis. 2003. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly 27, 3 (2003), 425 – 478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Firman Wijaya, Siti Alvi Solikhatin, and CImam Tahyudin. 2021. Analysis of End-user Satisfaction of Zoom Application for Online Lectures. 3rd 2021 East Indonesia Conference on Computer and Information Technology, EIConCIT 2021 (2021), 348–353. https://doi.org/10.1109/EIConCIT50028.2021.9431903Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. E-Court System Evaluation through the User’s Perspective: Applying the End-User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) Model

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            dg.o 2022: DG.O 2022: The 23rd Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
            June 2022
            499 pages
            ISBN:9781450397490
            DOI:10.1145/3543434

            Copyright © 2022 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 14 September 2022

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate150of271submissions,55%
          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)30
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

            Other Metrics

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader