Cross-sectional study examines strategic alignment's effect on service delivery in government institutions, suggesting implications for effective implementation.
Strategic alignment is expected to connect public-sector digital investments with institutional goals, leadership priorities, resource allocation and measurable service standards. This article examined the influence of strategic alignment on government service delivery at the National Registration Bureau (NRB) in Homa Bay County, Kenya. The study used a cross-sectional correlational design. Data were obtained from 192 valid respondents comprising 135 clients, 38 clerks, 11 ICT personnel and 8 sub-county registrars. Strategic alignment was measured using six Likert-scale items. The scale showed acceptable to good internal consistency across the four respondent groups, with Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from 0.738 to 0.900. Descriptive results showed that strategic alignment was rated very highly overall (M = 4.23, SD = 0.72), while government service delivery recorded a mean of 4.46 (SD = 0.59). Strategic alignment had a moderate positive bivariate relationship with government service delivery (r = 0.512, p < 0.001). However, after technology integration, cultural change and customer centricity were controlled in a multiple regression model, strategic alignment did not make a statistically significant independent contribution (B = -0.047, beta = -0.058, t = -0.860, p = 0.391). Item-level findings revealed a clear implementation gap: clients generally experienced the registration process as planned, well explained and faster, whereas registrars gave the lowest rating to budgetary and resource support (M = 3.12). The findings suggest that strategic intent is present, but its contribution to service delivery depends on how well plans are translated into budgets, coordination arrangements, infrastructure and service-level targets. The article recommends office-level digital plans, protected ICT budget lines, clearer accountability between headquarters and sub-county offices, and routine monitoring of turnaround time, accuracy and repeat visits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Belinda et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: