A Novel Approach to Improving E-Government Performance from Budget Challenges in Complex Financial Systems
Table 1
. Factor analysis and data reliability analysis for all factors (F1, F2, F3, F4, and F5).
Factor analysis
Reliability analysis
KMO and Bartlett’s test
Rotated component matrix
Cronbach’s alpha
Denominations
Results
Factor 1
Subfactor 1.1
Subfactor 1.2
Results
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy.
0.719
The lack of accurate information and ineffective decision-making for risk management during the budget process as a budget challenge to improving e-government performance in the complex financial system
Unrealistic and inaccurate information
Ineffective decision-making during the budget process
0.854
Bartlett’s test of sphericity approx. chi-square
135.710
Var
Q1F1
0.893
0.335
Var
Q2F1
0.833
0.289
Var
Q3F1
0.793
−0.077
Var
Q4F1
0.642
0.447
Var
Q5F1
0.220
0.909
Var
Q6F1
0.131
0.867
df
21
Var
Q7F1
0.158
0.728
Sig.
0.000
Sub-factor 1.1
Unrealistic and inaccurate information
Results
Cronbach’s alpha
KMO Bartlett’s test
0.740
Var
Q1F1.1
0.959
0.849
83.588
Var
Q2F1.1
0.889
df
6
Var
Q3F1.1
0.775
Sig.
0.000
Var
Q4F1.1
0.692
Denominations
Results
Subfactor 1.2
Ineffective decision-making during the budget process
Results
Cronbach’s alpha
KMO Bartlett’s test
0.846
Var
Q5F1.2
0.927
0.832
43.021
Var
Q6F1.2
0.877
df Sig.
3 0.000
Var
Q7F1.2
0.790
Denominations
Results
Factor 2
Sub-factor 2.1
Sub-factor 2.2
Results
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
0.718
Lack of cooperation for risk management during the budget process as a budget challenge to improving e-government performance in the complex financial system
Lack of cooperation during the budget process
Lack of supervision
0.820
Bartlett’s test of sphericity approx. chi-square
74.201
Var
Q12F2.1
0.909
0.236
Var
Q10F2.1
0.773
−0.296
Var
Q14F2.1
0.749
−0.288
Var
Q19F2.1
0.729
−0.384
df
15
Var
Q20F2.1
0.717
0.298
Sig.
0.000
Var
Q18F2.2
0.355
0.835
Denominations
Results
Factor 3
Subfactor 3.1
Results
Lack of resources and reduction of focus (cooperation) for risk management during the budget process as a budget challenge to improving of e-government performance in the complex financial system
Lack of resources and reduction of focus (collaboration) during the budget process
0.815
KMO Bartlett’s test
0.801
Var
Q11F3.1
0.813
63.727
Var
Q6F3.1
0.809
Var
Q12F3.1
0.752
df
10
Var
Q8F3.1
0.720
Sig.
0.000
Var
Q9F3.1
0.698
Denominations
Results
Factor 4
Sub-factor 4.1
Results
Lack of budget experts and stability for risk management during the budget process as a budget challenge to improving of e-government performance in the complex financial system
Budget experts and stability for risk management
0.887
KMO Bartlett's Test
0.815
Var
Q15F4.1
0.856
17.246
Var
Q13F4.1
0.811
Var
Q16F4.1
0.680
df
3
Sig.
0.001
Denominations
Results
Factor 5
Subfactor 5.1 Shortcomings and inconsistencies
Results
Shortcomings and inconsistencies during the budget process as a budget challenge to improving of e-government performance in the complex financial system
0.867
KMO Bartlett’s test
0.754
Var
Q7F5.1
0.881
17.487
Var
Q17F5.1
0.781
Var
Q21F.1
0.652
df
3
Sig.
0.001
Values that are presented in bold are values that confirm the importance of the test. Example: (i) The KMO test to be accepted must have a value above 0.50. All factors have a value higher than 0.50 (data are suitable for factor analysis); (ii) Reliability analysis (alpha test must be above 0.60 to be accepted). And so on. Therefore, all the results made in bold are important and confirm the model. Those that have not been verified have been further processed through other tests or removed from the model indicating their irrelevance.
