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

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

 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

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.

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

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%

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

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

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

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

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

Generation Mobile Communications Committee

(2004) Towards the 4

Generation Mobile

Communications Systems. Flying Carpet II. mITF.

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

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