Evaluating Public Sector Employees’ Adoption of E-Governance and Its Impact on Organizational Performance in Angola

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback kindly provided. We have edited the manuscript in accordance with your comments and suggestions stated on the Review Report.

• The manuscript was reformatted based on the provided template.
• Changes were made to the abstract, aligning with your comments.
• In addition, the manuscript was proofread and the necessary grammar and vocabulary corrections were made.
• Similarly, we included a multicollinearity test in which we discussed the reason why it was needed and the results of its analysis were shown based on the comments.
• A correlation table was added as well.
• We further added a new discussion section highlighting the results of the hypothesis made in the manuscript.
• We further elaborated on how adopting the UTAUT model for this study was not done before for the adoption of e-governance, especially in the context of the Republic of Angola, in the section “contribution of the research”.
• Please note that based on the overall development and philosophical understanding of this study, we do believe the deductive approach is the most appropriate one. Therefore, we have further compared inductive and deductive reasoning, elaborating on the reason why we chose deductive reasoning.
• We added an explanation of why and how outliers were removed in the material and method section, as presence of outliers may have resulted in error in the result and might have impacted the study negatively.
• We have also added an explanation for using random sampling, which is the subtype of probability method and elaborated on how it was done.
• Furthermore, we added that there were no major deviations regarding the skewness and kurtosis.
• We have added and corrected more about the reliability analysis of the effort expectancy, how an item was deleted and how it increased the overall value of the EE variable in the reliability analysis in data analysis.
• Additional changes were made with different phrases in the abstract and other sections, as recommended for more accuracy.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Sincerely,

Sérgio Congo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author(s),

I find this paper interesting, with some places for improvements. 

First, please add more details on your sample in the abstract. Number of employees and the date when the data were collected.

Second, how did you deal with multicollinearity in your data. Please, provide the data on this.

Third, please check the references, there is a quite clear formatting given in the template.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback kindly provided. We have edited the manuscript in accordance with your comments and suggestions stated on the Review Report.

• The manuscript was reformatted based on the provided template.
• Changes were made to the abstract, aligning with your comments.
• In addition, the manuscript was proofread and the necessary grammar and vocabulary corrections were made.
• Similarly, we included a multicollinearity test in which we discussed the reason why it was needed and the results of its analysis were shown based on the comments.
• A correlation table was added as well.
• We further added a new discussion section highlighting the results of the hypothesis made in the manuscript.
• We further elaborated on how adopting the UTAUT model for this study was not done before for the adoption of e-governance, especially in the context of the Republic of Angola, in the section “contribution of the research”.
• Please note that based on the overall development and philosophical understanding of this study, we do believe the deductive approach is the most appropriate one. Therefore, we have further compared inductive and deductive reasoning, elaborating on the reason why we chose deductive reasoning.
• We added an explanation of why and how outliers were removed in the material and method section, as presence of outliers may have resulted in error in the result and might have impacted the study negatively.
• We have also added an explanation for using random sampling, which is the subtype of probability method and elaborated on how it was done.
• Furthermore, we added that there were no major deviations regarding the skewness and kurtosis.
• We have added and corrected more about the reliability analysis of the effort expectancy, how an item was deleted and how it increased the overall value of the EE variable in the reliability analysis in data analysis.
• Additional changes were made with different phrases in the abstract and other sections, as recommended for more accuracy.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Sincerely,

Sérgio Congo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript needs Extensive English editing. There are, for instance, many very short phrases with no predicate. Before resubmitting, please be sure that the manuscript is checked by an English native person. 

I suggest a new Discussion section and here the results should be discussed against the relevant findings from literature.

 

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback kindly provided. We have edited the manuscript in accordance with your comments and suggestions stated on the Review Report.

• The manuscript was reformatted based on the provided template.
• Changes were made to the abstract, aligning with your comments.
• In addition, the manuscript was proofread and the necessary grammar and vocabulary corrections were made.
• Similarly, we included a multicollinearity test in which we discussed the reason why it was needed and the results of its analysis were shown based on the comments.
• A correlation table was added as well.
• We further added a new discussion section highlighting the results of the hypothesis made in the manuscript.
• We further elaborated on how adopting the UTAUT model for this study was not done before for the adoption of e-governance, especially in the context of the Republic of Angola, in the section “contribution of the research”.
• Please note that based on the overall development and philosophical understanding of this study, we do believe the deductive approach is the most appropriate one. Therefore, we have further compared inductive and deductive reasoning, elaborating on the reason why we chose deductive reasoning.
• We added an explanation of why and how outliers were removed in the material and method section, as presence of outliers may have resulted in error in the result and might have impacted the study negatively.
• We have also added an explanation for using random sampling, which is the subtype of probability method and elaborated on how it was done.
• Furthermore, we added that there were no major deviations regarding the skewness and kurtosis.
• We have added and corrected more about the reliability analysis of the effort expectancy, how an item was deleted and how it increased the overall value of the EE variable in the reliability analysis in data analysis.
• Additional changes were made with different phrases in the abstract and other sections, as recommended for more accuracy.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Sincerely,

Sérgio Congo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the authors have satisfactorily addressed most of my comments, except for a few. Most importantly, I think they do not yet explain what examining the Angolan e-governance context *adds* to existing insights (see my first comment on the previous version). In the discussion section, they merely state in several places that no previous studies have examined this context, but do not seem to explain in what relevant ways this context might be *different* from the contexts examined in previous studies. For example, how exactly could the context of e-governance in Angola explain why there was no relationship between effort expectancy and behavioural intention in the current study (page 18)?

In addition, when explaining sampling, the authors state on page 6: "Probability sampling was used with the use of random sampling, which helped the researcher to select a subset of the sample from population casually". I'm not sure what "casually" means here. Do they authors mean they used *convenience sampling*? That would be fine, but it is a form of *non*-probability sampling and definitively not the same as random sampling. 

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Once again, thank you for your kindly comments and suggestion. The manuscript has been modified accordingly.

• Additional changes were made to the Literature Review section, aligning with your comments.
• We edited the Conclusions section further elaborating on the context of e-government in Angola as recommended.
• Also, additional changes were made to References for better accuracy.

 

Sincerely,

Sérgio Congo

Reviewer 3 Report

I suggested the manuscript to be approved, the authors modified it according to my suggestions

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for your kind comments. 

Best regards,

Sergio Congo 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Unfortunately, it seems the authors still have not fully addressed my comments about the academic contribution. The authors now state on page 19: "despite the work necessary to adopt e-governance, the benefits of e-governance were great enough that no further effort was required to implement e-governance". That might indeed be a possible explanation for the lack of an effect of expected effort, but does it seem likely that this high benefit/effort ratio did *not* occur in the contexts in which previous studies were conducted (such as 3G adoption in Somalia)? In other words, I think it is important that the authors explain why this explanation makes sense specifically for e-governance in Angola (and not, or to a lesser extent, for other contexts examined in previous studies).

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Once again, thank you for your kind comments and suggestions. In order to address your latest comments, additional changes were made to the manuscript by further editing the Conclusions section.

Sincerely,

Sérgio Congo