PERCEPTIONS ABOUT MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56238/revgeov17n5-103Keywords:
Usability, Public Contracts, Technological Monitoring, Textual Analysis, Technology AcceptanceAbstract
This study analyzed the perceptions of assistants and monitors regarding the usability of digital technologies applied to the monitoring of public contract management within the Ministry of Social Development, Family, and Fight Against Hunger (MDS) and the Department of Entities for Support and Care in Alcohol and Drugs (DEPAD). Textual statistical analysis was conducted using the IRaMuTeQ software, processing a corpus composed of 46 respondents and 148 context units, totaling 5,000 lexical occurrences. The results confirmed that the simplicity and clarity of KoboToolbox fostered positive usability perceptions, while technical failures of uMov.me generated dissatisfaction and compromised effectiveness. Moreover, the analysis revealed differences across user profiles: assistants prioritized subjective evaluations, whereas monitors emphasized technical and institutional aspects, thereby validating the four formulated hypotheses. It is concluded that the technological adoption in public contract monitoring depends on the interaction between design, technical performance, and user profile, requiring differentiated training and investments in platform stability.
Downloads
References
Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de conteúdo (4ª ed.). Edições 70.
Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594 https://doi.org/10. 1080/10447310802205776
Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (2017). Pesquisa qualitativa com texto, imagem e som: Um manual prático (13ª ed.). Vozes.
Benzécri, J. P. (1992). Correspondence analysis handbook. CRC Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1201/ 9780429040635
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03 .001
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781498710411-35
Camargo, B. V., & Justo, A. M. (2013). IRaMuTeQ: Um software gratuito para análise de dados textuais. Temas em Psicologia, 21(2), 513–518. https://doi.org/10.9788/TP2013.2-16
Cordella, A., & Tempini, N. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dawes, S. S., Vidiasova, L., & Parkhimovich, O. (2016). Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.01.003
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
Faria, E. R., & Sousa, M. P. (2019). Usabilidade e aceitação de sistemas de informação: Uma análise com base em métodos lexicométricos. Revista Eletrônica de Administração, 25(3), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-2311.250.96274
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE.
Gao, S. (2016). Understanding mobile application for field data collection: A user acceptance perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 635–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb .2016.04.017
Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience – A research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330331
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B. T. (2010). The technology acceptance model: Its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43(1), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi .2009.07.002
Hornbæk, K. (2006). Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 64(2), 79–102. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002
Ketikidis, P. H., Dimitrovski, T., Lazuras, L., & Bath, P. A. (2012). Acceptance of health information technology in health professionals: An application of the revised technology acceptance model. Health Informatics Journal, 18(2), 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458211435 425
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE.
Kortum, P., & Bangor, A. (2013). Usability ratings for everyday products measured with the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 29(2), 67–76. https: //doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2012.681221
Lewis, J. R. (2018). Measuring perceived usability: The SUS, UMUX, and CSUQ. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(12), 1148–1156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.20 17.1418805
Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. R. (2008). Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 236–263. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.15
Ratinaud, P., & Marchand, P. (2015). Application de la méthode ALCESTE à de “gros” corpus et stabilité des “mondes lexicaux”: Analyse du “CableGate” avec IraMuTeQ. Lexicometrica, 19, 1–15. http://lexicometrica.univ-paris3.fr
Reinert, M. (1990). Alceste: Une méthodologie d’analyse des données textuelles et une application: Aurelia de Gerard de Nerval. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 26(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/075910639002600103
Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2016). Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2015-0-01799-8
Schatz, R., & Egger, S. (2012). Vienna subjective quality test: Assessing voice quality in telecommunications. IEEE Communications Magazine, 50(4), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.11 09/MCOM.2012.6178835
Souza, M. P., Faria, E. R., & Sousa, M. C. (2021). Textual analysis of public policy evaluations: Applying IRaMuTeQ to health monitoring. Revista de Administração Pública, 55(2), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220200083
Sun, Y., Fang, Y., Lim, K. H., & Straub, D. (2011). Understanding the determinants of consumer mobile payment usage: A modified TAM approach. Information Systems Research, 22(3), 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0343
Ssemugabi, S., & de Villiers, M. R. (2010). Effectiveness of heuristic evaluation in usability testing of e-learning applications in higher education. South African Computer Journal, 45, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.18489/sacj.v45i0.66
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00031-X
Tullis, T., & Albert, W. (2013). Measuring the user experience: Collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2011-0-00091-8
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 30036540
Yen, P. Y., & Bakken, S. (2012). Review of health information technology usability study methodologies. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19(3), 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000020
Zaharias, P., & Poylymenakou, A. (2009). Developing a usability evaluation method for e-learning applications: Beyond functional usability. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 25(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802546716
Zhao, Y., Ni, Q., & Zhou, R. (2014). Understanding mobile learning adoption in higher education: A theoretical model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 793–806. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12144.
