EXPERTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON BARRIERS TO THE
DEPLOYMENT OF MOBILE GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Tarek El-Kiki, Elaine Lawrence and Gordana Culjak
Faculty of IT, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123 Broadway 2007, Australia
Keywords: mGovernment, barriers, evaluation, mobile, services, systems, management.
Abstract: Effective management is considered the crucial factor that decides the success or failure of any mService
project. This paper is a further step into a research project that aims to measure the effectiveness of
mGovernment services. As a preparatory step to developing a users’ opinion survey, this paper analyses and
defines barriers to the success of mGovernment service projects from the perspective of mobile government
and mobile technology experts from nineteen countries around the world. The outcome is compared to the
findings from an extensive literature review. The results show a very close correspondence between the
literature review and the opinions of the experts.
1 INTRODUCTION
Mobile government refers to electronic government
services capable of being delivered via mobile user
interfaces, or in some instances, special mobile
services such as location-based services, provided by
the government (Suomi, 2006). Government services
may also be offered electronically or traditionally in
person by different government departments or
agencies. Field workers, customs inspectors,
immigration agents, local council officers, medical
and law enforcement and military personnel can all
benefit from access to current data to make better,
faster, decisions (AFIRM, 2002). In order for those
services to be successful, their initiating projects
have to be established on facts about the validity of
the mobile service itself. Not every government
service can be rendered using mobile technologies,
for example, services that require the downloading
of large amounts of data to mobile phones which
have limited storage capability and small screen real
estate. Hence, the investigation of both the
government services that can be offered by mobile
technologies and the barriers to success of such
service projects must be undertaken when initiating
a mobile service project.
The authors’ ongoing research aims to define
and analyse “barriers”, which are also known as
“challenges” and even “goals” to be achieved, from
different perspectives namely end-users’,
government officials’ and mobile technology
experts’ viewpoints. This paper represents another
link in our research into the success and failure
factors of mGovernment service projects initiated by
a devised generic mGovernment framework (El-Kiki
et al., 2005). Here the authors analyse opinions of
experts and academics in mobile technologies from
19 different countries. The objectives of such expert
surveys are to precisely develop hypotheses, or
extend interpretation of certain social events and
processes (Potabenko, 2002). Part 2 of the paper
provides a background overview of government ICT
projects barriers and Part 3 outlines the methodology
of the paper. Part 4 describes the findings of the
survey, while the conclusion and future directions
are contained in Part 5.
2 BACKGROUND
There have been numerous attempts to define
barriers to success of eGovernment projects and, by
implication, to mobile government projects
(TWGEDW, 2002, CIBS and CCICMT, 2003,
Gasco, 2005, OECD, 2003). Researchers such as
Heeks (2003) conducted many studies which
verified the implementation of eGovernment
projects. He suggests that there is always a gap
between design and reality, and in order to minimize
this gap, he divides factors of success and failure of
29
El-Kiki T., Lawrence E. and Culjak G. (2007).
EXPERTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON BARRIERS TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF MOBILE GOVERNMENT SERVICES.
In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Society, e-Business and e-Government /
e-Learning, pages 29-36
DOI: 10.5220/0001269500290036
Copyright
c
SciTePress
eGovernment projects into two categories: drivers
and enablers. Other researchers viewed barriers to
government electronically-rendered services from
different aspects. For example, in England, potential
voters, who usually use SMS to send messages to
friends, were not willing to use it when voting
despite the very low cost, only because they could
not surmount that psychological barrier of using an
unofficial messaging method to fulfil an official task
(Arazyan, 2002). Others (ETSI, 2005) consider
negative experiences and failures as a barrier against
using a service again. A recent report by the
Australian Government (DCITA, 2005) reveals that
lack of trust in online transactions also represents a
barrier to using an online service. Carroll’s (2005)
research revealed the following about mobile
acceptance that will inform our future research on
mobile government acceptance:
having access to mobile technologies does not
mean that they are used for a wide range of
activities;
convenience is important to users;
participants were unwilling to invest effort into
using mobile devices for complex or lengthy
tasks;
physical limitations of mobile technologies
including clumsy input and output
mechanisms an inadequate screen size
influenced usage;
continuing concerns about privacy and security
and vividness of ‘urban myths’ around mobile
technologies have led to continuing distrust of
electronic transactions; and
little access to public sector services; the chief
service accessed was transport information.
However, governments are recognising that mobile
devices are vital tools for emergency and law
enforcement management as they promise to
enhance efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness
and accountability at federal, state and local levels
(Moon, 2004). The recent major emergencies caused
by the Asian Tsunami in December 2004 and
Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 provide graphic
examples of the failure of government agencies to
communicate quickly and effectively with their
threatened populations.
Our research reveals a large diversity of opinions
about barriers depending on the type of barrier and
the perspective from which researchers view it.
These comments are aligned to the results of an
intensive literature study for verification purposes
and are discussed in Section 5 of this paper.
3 METHODOLOGY
Researchers were seen as an important source of
knowledge as their work requires familiarity with all
the developments in the field (Zmijewska and
Lawrence, 2005). An extensive review of literature
was conducted in order to list most of the opinions
about barriers (as mentioned in the background
section), and to identify leading mGovernment and
eGovernment researchers. The selection criterion
for researchers and academics was at least one peer-
reviewed journal or conference publication
regarding mobile and electronic government.
References were accessed through the use of
different academic databases such as Proquest, ACM
Digital Library and IEEE Explore. Industry experts
were sourced from different areas such as
communication companies, mobile phone suppliers,
application developers and consultants. The
researchers also attended eGovernment and
mGovernment conferences and trade shows to
source likely experts. As Zmijewska & Lawrence
(2005) stated, such stakeholders, due to their first-
hand experience, are likely to know exactly what
helps and hinders successful diffusion of mobile
government.
The research involved the deployment of a web
based survey to experts who were invited to
participate anonymously and/or by providing their
contacts for further elaboration. This survey tool was
chosen as the most efficient, and economic, method
to collect global experts’ opinions. This survey is
still in progress and currently 35 usable responses
have been received and are the subject of this paper.
3.1 The Survey Instrument
UTS Survey Manager was the survey instrument.
During three months (June – August, 2006), 116
invitations were sent with the link to the study’s
anonymous survey. The web-based survey consisted
of two sections; the first part elicited demographic
information whilst the second part included two
open questions about the main barriers to success in
mobile service projects and suggestions to overcome
them. Analysis of these suggestions is being handled
in another paper as this paper only reports on the
answers to the barriers question.
3.2 Sampling Technique
This study was based upon stratified purposive
sampling, which means that cases were selected
from previously identified subgroups (Gorman and
WEBIST 2007 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
30
Clayton, 2005). This sampling technique enables
gathering of a variety of opinions and perspectives,
in addition to enhancing the credibility of data
collected from several sources. Accordingly,
because it is not used to generalize to the large
population, this sampling technique does not need to
be statistically representative. Stratified purposive
sampling aims to create rich, in-depth information
(Liamputtong, 2005, Zmijewska and Lawrence,
2005). The thirty five (35) respondents who
completed the web survey are grouped as: university
professors and teachers (13), eGovernment officials
and consultants (8), mobile telecommunication
manager (1), wireless software analysts & architects
(2) and wireless and mobile researchers (8). The
participants included (21) from European countries,
(4) from Asia, (5) from North America, (1) from
South America, (1) from Africa, and (3) from
Australia (See Figure 2).
As purposive sampling is used to the point of
redundancy (Liamputtong, 2005), the sample size,
which is the number of participants, is less important
than the richness of data. Accordingly, redundancy
is the primary criterion that will determine when the
sampling in this study should terminate; currently
the survey is still up and continuing.
Johnson (1997) suggested a strategy to promote
the validity of qualitative research such as our open
ended questions (further discussed in part 5).
Qualitative research aims to “probe for deeper
understanding rather than examining surface
features” (Johnson, 1995, Spring). Verbatims (direct
quotes) are a commonly used type of low inference
descriptors, and therefore this paper utilizes direct
quotes from the subjects to improve validity of the
research. Such examples of data not only validate
the conclusions, but also provide rich illustrations of
the topic (Zmijewska and Lawrence, 2005).
4 SURVEY RESULTS
The authors targeted researchers and experts in the
field of both eGovernment and mGovernment
service delivery. The authors have received 35
useful responses from a preliminary email to 116
persons (30% response rate). Our second survey will
take into account any advice received so far as well
as extra information from the respondents who are
willing to be contacted again for follow-up email,
telephone, and/or online conference interviews.
4.1 Demographic Data
The statistics depicted in Figure 1 show 20% female
respondents to 80% male respondents. This could
reflect the general trend in technology sectors where
females are traditionally under-represented.
20.0%
80.0%
Female
Male
Figure 1: Respondents’ gender radio.
Participants’ roles varied from university professors
and teachers to wireless and mobile researchers. The
respondents’ largest sample comes from Europe, as
per Figure 2, where most mGovernment service
implementations and research are occurring.
U
S
A
U
K
T
h
e
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
S
p
a
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
A
f
r
i
c
a
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
P
o
l
a
n
d
I
t
a
l
y
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
n
d
i
a
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
F
r
a
n
c
e
C
h
i
n
a
B
r
a
z
i
l
B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 2: Respondents’ participation per country.
In Figure 3, the survey results revealed that 34% of
respondents were in the 20-35, 43% were in the 36-
50 and 23% in the 51-65 age ranges. This percentage
reflects that new mobile technologies and services
are gaining the interest of experts aged 20 - 50.
EXPERTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON BARRIERS TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF MOBILE GOVERNMENT SERVICES
31
22.86%
42.86%
34.29%
51 - 65
36 - 50
20 - 35
Figure 3: Respondents’ participation by age.
It was particularly significant to the authors that over
half of the respondents (51%) have been involved in
developing a mobile government service (Figure 4).
Such a percentage of returns indicates the high level
of commitment to these targeted experts and
confirms our selection criteria as valid.
48.57%
51.43%
No
Yes
Figure 4: Respondents’ previous involvement in a
government mobile service project.
The cumulative percentage of success for developed
mobile services was 68% as per Figure 5, which is a
very encouraging and significant indicator about the
expertise of participants.
Very
Unsuccessful
NeutralSuccessfulVery Successful
10
8
6
4
2
0
Count
5.26%
26.32%
47.37%
21.05%
Figure 5: Government mobile service projects success
rates.
5 DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY
A web-based survey was conducted to extract
opinions from both expert practitioners, and
academics, with research expertise, in mobile and
electronic government fields. An open question
about the main barriers to success in mobile service
projects was answered by 83% of participants.
Figure 6 illustrates the categorisation of the barriers
as identified by the experts across four axes:
Organisational, Technical, Governance and Social.
The barriers are measured against the findings from
the literature survey and are discussed below.
5.1 Organisational Barriers
Leadership issues were identified as inhibitors in the
literature review; Cattaneo (2004) mentions conflicts
of leadership between different government levels
and Millard & Warren(2005) cite a lack of project
management skills as a barrier. Our respondents
reported ‘bureaucratic problems’, a ‘lack of
cooperation among public organisations’, inadequate
‘involvement of local and government authorities’ as
well as ‘interoperability issues between departments’
as working against mobile government service
implementations. Another respondent indicated a
problem with ‘taking citizens for granted, thinking
that they will accept and use a new service as long as
it is provided by the government’ whilst another
indicated that ‘service is structured by the goals of
the administration, not the goals of the citizen user’.
Two experts mentioned ‘absence of combined e-
business/e-governance models’ and the lack of
‘sustainable business models’. Another expert stated
there was a ‘reluctance of authorities to alter
traditional ways of dealing with their customers (i.e.
attachment to offices and office hours).’
Economic and financial issues also feature as
barriers according to some of our respondents
‘high development costs’, ‘lack of infrastructural
investments’ and ‘low budget for mServices’ are
cited. The legal aspects of mGovernment services
were areas of concern in both the literature review
and the survey. As mobile government is an
extension of eGovernment, it should be able in many
cases to use the legal precedents set up for
eGovernment. Of course there must also be laws
that relate specifically to the unique aspects of
mobile government services such as location based
WEBIST 2007 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
32
Figure 6: Identified barriers to mobile government projects according to survey of experts.
services. Our literature revealed mobile government
in action in legal areas in many countries. For
example, in the West Yorkshire Police Force
(BlackBerry, 2006), operational officers are able to
access critical information from central criminal
databases via small Blackberry devices. According
to their Head of Information Systems ‘The public
has responded well to BlackBerry and it is helping
us to do our jobs more effectively. Everyone wants
to see their police force employing forward thinking
techniques for policing.’
The literature review and survey identified
potential legal issues as reported in Table 1.
Table 1: Legal issue as barriers to mGovernment.
Literature review extracts on
Legal Issues
Survey Answers on Legal
Issues
Developing ontologies, i.e.
translating legal clauses into
machine-readable policies
(IST, 2003) ; translating legal
clauses into machine-readable
policies
Law related issues – e.g.
in Poland most of the
documents have to be
provided in a way that has
a confirmation (stamp,
signature)
Multiple digital identities –
legal implications of concepts
of online identities (IST, 2003,
Kubicek et al., 2003)
Adjustments to existing
laws
Legal implications of use of
online anonymity and
pseudonymity. privacy friendly
concepts of Public Key
Infrastructure and privacy
friendly Digital Rights
Management (DRM) (IST,
2003, 4th Generation Mobile
Communications Committee,
2004)
In the United States there is a worrying trend for
persons to go online to buy someone else’s cell
phone records. According to Stone (2006) one
potential issue could concern criminals buying the
records of an undercover officer and calling his
home via his undercover personal mobile phone.
The criminals could then connect that phone number
back to the agent’s real identity. Legislation is now
pending to stop the selling of private phone records.
Finally one expert stated that the task of ‘re-
negotiating and reorganizing the work context with
the workers’ is vital - ‘It is definitely NOT the
technology, which [is] in the way’.
5.2 Infrastructure Barriers:
Technology
One expert was quite scathing about people’s ‘lack
of familiarity with mobile technologies’ whilst
another cited the ‘lack of technical knowledge
among Information Technology personnel’ as a
barrier. The authors believe this is understandable
given the explosion of mobile technologies in the
21st century. Other respondents felt that ‘the lack of
interoperability’ was a technical obstacle and also
mentioned ‘competition between access channels’
and lack of ‘backend process integration’ as
obstructions. One respondent felt ‘the absence of
integrated process constructs’ was hindering mobile
government whilst others indicated that the ‘absence
of ability to bundle information and
materials/service together’ were inhibiting factors.
EXPERTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON BARRIERS TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF MOBILE GOVERNMENT SERVICES
33
The above aligns with the findings of the
literature review which indicated that technical
barriers [such as low priority for ICT,
interoperability issues and scalability] (Prisma
Project Team, 2003, Guijarro, 2003, Millard, 2004)
were major problems. The proliferation of tools and
mobile networks is a huge challenge to governments
as they try to evaluate the business case for
implementing mobile government services. There
are issues with ‘bandwidth and the small screen size
of mobile devices’ and the lack of availability of
‘context aware information’.
Many private and government organizations
which have adopted new technologies have often
regretted the decision (Wyatt, 2005). In fact,
technology fatigue is often a barrier to the adoption
of new technology so governments must check
carefully before committing to mobile government
projects. One promising technology, Near Field
Communication (NFC) is already starting to
revolutionise the way people use their mobile
phones. NFC uses a short range wireless chip that
can be placed into mobile phones to enable them to
transfer all sorts of data (including credit card details
and bus timetables) once the user touches his phone
to a NFC paypoint (Flynn Vencat, 2006). This is just
one technology that could prove attractive to
government officials – for example citizens could
pay their parking fees and click through to pay for
train tickets, at NFC paypoints, both of which are
often controlled by government authorities. The
downside, of course, is the infrastructure costs of
setting up the NFC paypoints. However, industry
pundits are predicting the mobile will replace the
wallet by 2010.
5.3 Governance Barriers
Only one expert noted there was a lack of ‘combined
e-business/e-governance models’ yet governance
issues featured highly in the literature review. Many
researches (Martin and Byrne, 2003, Pascual, 2003,
Millard et al., 2004, Millard, 2004, CPSI, 2003,
Accenture, 2003, Realini, 2004, Government of Italy
& United Nations, 2003) state that accountability,
transparency, accessibility and participation can be
achieved by eGovernance (or eDemocracy).
Gronlund (2003), however, considers accountability
as a base for “thin” democracy, which is still vague
and impractical to achieve, in contrast to “strong”
democracy. Earlier Altman (2002) raised suspicions
about the ability of eGovernment to have a positive
effect on democratic accountability. . On the other
hand, Heeks & Lallana (2004) consider
accountability, publication, openness, transactions
and reporting as examples of the types of
transparency that eGovernment offers.. The
difference among researchers in defining each
element of eGovernance makes it difficult to
precisely achieve each element in reality, adding
more barriers to the success of a project. As well,
changing social structures(Prisma Project Team,
2003) hinder the implementation of eGovernance.
5.4 Social Barriers
The literature review identified a lack of awareness
as a major barrier (Millard and Warren, 2005, CPSI,
2003, Clarke, 2003, Millard et al., 2004, Accenture,
2003, Pascual, 2003) and this was echoed in the
expert survey – there is ‘a largely uneducated public
in the use of mobile devices for this type of service’
and there is a need to let ‘people understand why
they should use a mobile service’. On usability
issues one expert noted that ‘ideally services must be
simple, be handled with just a few SMS, location
based services or just notification services’. Another
stated that it was essential to design ‘easy-to-use and
societal [socially?] interesting services’. One expert
noted that a key selling point was ‘the level of
convenience the mobile services provide in contrast
with their tradition counterparts.’
Pricing issues were noted in the survey and the
literature review. There are four hierarchical types of
pricing: fixed, sale, promotional and dynamic (C.
Wyld, 2000), where the dynamic itself is classified
into four sub-types which mainly depend on the
cardinality of transaction: haggle, bidding, auction
and exchange. eGovernment and mGovernment
pricing policies should adopt those four types of
pricing depending on the transaction model; be it
government to citizen (G2C), government to
business (G2B), government to government (G2G)
or business to government (B2G) in addition to the
type of product or service rendered. The experts felt
that ‘telecommunication costs in many countries
[are] too high’ and that ‘Access charges are too high
for everyone’. Privacy fears are a substantial barrier
– ‘Trust of citizen[s] concerning privacy low’. One
expert mentions that ‘the anonymity of voters in
mobile voting services’ is vital and another states
that ‘fears about confidentiality may also be a
barrier’. Security is another area of concern: ‘If there
is no sound solution to security e-government or m-
government will be dream’. There is a ‘lack of
security for transactional services’ and ‘probable or
real security issues in respect of payment and data
protection’.
WEBIST 2007 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
34
6 CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
This paper analyses and defines barriers to the
success of mGovernment service projects from the
perspective of mobile technology experts in nineteen
countries around the world. The outcome would
appear to confirm the findings from our literature
review that potential barriers to mGovernment
include the cost of developing mobile applications
and the current business strategies of network and
mobile device providers such as sport and premium
services. High costs are associated with acquisition,
maintenance and contracting with third party
providers (Moon, 2004). A lack of financial
resources, staff, expertise, information about mobile
applications and support from elected officials has
also been identified as inhibitors for mobile
government. Issues about privacy, security,
upgrading technology and dealing with online
transactions also hamper the adoption of mobile
government (Moon, 2004). The path to acceptance
of mobile government will not be smooth.
However, given the rapid advances in the usability
of mobile devices there may be a leapfrogging
acceptance of mobile government, especially in
developing countries which do not have a wired
infrastructure. Our next step involves conducting a
real-world survey which will investigate mobile
government service barriers from the end users’
perspective.
REFERENCES
4
TH
Generation Mobile Communications Committee
(2004) Towards the 4
th
Generation Mobile
Communications Systems. Flying Carpet II. mITF.
A
CCENTURE (2003) eGovernment Leadership: Engaging
the Customer. The Government Executive Series.
Accenture.
Afirm (2002) A Blueprint for Successful E-government
Implementation: Steps to accelerate cultural change
and overcome stakeholder resistance. Association for
Federal Information Resources Management.
Altman, D. (2002) Prospects for E-Government in Latin
America. International Review of Public
Administration, 7, 5 - 20.
Arazyan, H. (2002) m-Government: Definition and
Perspectives.
Blackberry (2006) BlackBerry and the Public Sector -
Mobilising the Power of Wireless.
C. Wyld, D. (2000) The Auction Model: How the Public
Sector Can Leverage the Power of E-Commerce
Through Dynamic Pricing. The Center for The
Business of Government.
Carroll, J. (2005) Risky Business: Will Citizens accept M-
Government in the Long Term. IN KUSHCHU, I. &
KUSCU, M. H. (Eds.) From E-Government To M-
Government. University of Sussex, Brighton, UK,
Mobile Government Consortium International LLC.
Cattaneo, G. (2004) Building eGovernment: European
Regions Alternative Strategies. Databank Consulting.
CIBS & CCICMT (2003) Net Readiness Results of
Bulgaria E-Government Strategy. Coordination Center
for Information, Communication and Management
Technologies under the auspices of Council of
Ministers and United Nations Development Program:
Cisco Internet Business Solutions and Coordination
Center for Information, Communication and
Management.
Clarke, A. (2003) eServices for all – treating all users
equally. Prisma Strategic Guidelines 3. Telefónica
Investigación y Desarrollo, Spain.
Cpsi (2003) Citizin Access to E-Government Services.
Centre for Public Service Innovation.
Dcita (2005) Trust and Growth in the Online
Environment. Department of Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts, Australian
Government.
El-Kiki, T., Lawrence, E. & Steele, R. (2005) A
Management Framework for Mobile Government
Services. CollECTeR. 13 July ed. Sydney, Australia.
Etsi (2005) Human Factors; User education guidelines for
mobile terminals and e-services. Sophia Antipolis
Cedex, European Telecommunications Standards
Institute.
Flynn Vencat, E. (2006) Toss the wallet and Grab the
Mobile. The Technologist, 14.
Gasco, M. (2005) Exploring the E-Government Gap in
South America. international Journal of Public
Administration, 28, 683-701.
Gorman, G. E. & Clayton, P. (2005) Qualitative Research
for the Information Professional: A Practical
Handbook, London, Facet Publishing.
Government Of Italy & United Nations (2003) Plan of
Action E-Government for Development. World
Summit on the Information Society.
Gronlund, A. (2003) e-Democracy: in Search of Tools and
Methods for Effective Participation. Journal of Multi-
Criteria Decision Analysis, 12, 93 - 100.
Guijarro, L. (2003) eGovernment Interoperability in the
2005-2010 horizon. eGovernment interoperability
workshop report, addressing the future IST RTD.
Brussels, Information Society Technologies, European
Commission.
Heeks, R. (2003) Most eGovernment-for-Development
Projects Fail: How Can Risks be Reduced? IN
HEEKS, R. (Ed.) iGovernment Working Paper Series.
Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and
Management University of Manchester.
Heeks, R. & Lallana, E. C. (2004) Using ICTs for
Government Transparency. eGovernment for
EXPERTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON BARRIERS TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF MOBILE GOVERNMENT SERVICES
35
Development. Institute for Development Policy and
Management, University of Manchester.
IST (2003) Roadmap for Advanced Research in Privacy
and Identity Management. IN HUIZENGA, J. (Ed.),
Information Society Technologies.
Johnson, R. B. (1997) Examining the Validity Structure of
Qualitative Research. Education, 118, 282 - 290.
Johnson, S. D. (1995, Spring) Will our research hold up
under scrutiny? Journal of Industrial Teacher
Education, 32, 3-6.
Kubicek, H., Westholm, H. & Winkler, R. (2003)
eDemocracy. IN SABOL, T. (Ed.) Prisma Strategic
Guidelines 9.
Liamputtong, P. (2005) Qualitative Research Methods,
Oxford University Press.
Martin, B. & Byrne, J. (2003) Implementing e-
Government: widening the lens. Electronic Journal of
e-Government, 1, 11-22.
Millard, J. (2004) Good practice in European
eGovernment (2): policies and visions. Danish
Technological Institute.
Millard, J., Iversen, J. S., Kubicek, H., Westholm, H. &
Cimander, R. (2004) Reorganisation of government
back-offices for better electronic public services –
European good practices (back-office reorganisation).
Danish Technological Institute & Institut für
Informationsmanagement GmbH, University of
Bremen.
Millard, J. & Warren, R. (2005) eTEN - Study on trans-
European deployment potential, sustainability and
exploitation models for public services in the context
of an enlarged European Union.
Moon, M. J. (2004) From E-Government to M-
Government? Emerging Practices in the Use of Mobile
Technology by State Governments. E-Government
Series. Washington, IBM Center for The Business of
Government.
Oecd (2003) The E-Government Imperative. OECD E-
Government Studies. Paris, Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development Science & Information
Technology Publications Service.
Pascual, P. J. (2003) e-Government. Asia-Pacific e-
Primers Series. e-Asean Task Force UNDP-APDIP.
Potabenko, M. (2002) Use of Sociological Surveys for
Assessing Environmental Information Needs.
Southern Norway, UNEP/GRID-Arendal.
Prisma Project Team (2003) eGovernment in selected EU
Accession States. IN SABOL, T. (Ed.) Prisma
Strategic Guidelines 8.
Realini, A. F. (2004) G2G E-Government; The Big
Challenge for Europe. Department of Informatics.
Zurich, University of Zurich.
Stone, A. (2006) Not for Sale. Mobile Government.
Government Technology.
Suomi, R. B. (2006) Five Finnish Innovations in Mobile
Government and their root factors. CollECTeR
Europe.
Basel, Switzerland.
Twgedw (2002) Roadmap for E-Government in the
Developing World. Los Angeles, The Working Group
on E-Government in the Developing World in Pacific
Council on International Policy.
Wyatt, A. (2005) Mobile Workforce for Dummies,
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Zmijewska, A. & LAWRENCE, E. (2005) Reshaping the
Framework for Analysing Success of Mobile Payment
Solutions. ADIS International Conference - e-
Commerce 2005. Porto, Portugal.
WEBIST 2007 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
36