A Business Model Approach to Local mGovernment Applications
Mapping the Brussels Region’s Mobile App Initiatives
Nils Walravens
iMinds-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 9, 1050, Brussels, Belgium
Keywords: Mobile Applications, mGovernment, Brussels, Business Models, Public Value.
Abstract: This paper uses business model theory as a framework to approach modern mobile government (mGov)
applications and explore the role of public bodies within the volatile and complex mobile services sector.
We propose and apply a new mapping methodology with a basis in business modelling that allows the
comparison of mobile app initiatives by governments and can support the development or adjustment of a
mobile strategy. We zoom in on the official applications released by different public administrations in the
Capital Region of Brussels, Belgium. We find that the laggard position Brussels is currently in could be an
opportunity to leapfrog in the field of mobile services, but that a focused vision, quadruple helix approach
and clearly formulated mobile strategy is quintessential to achieving this.
1 INTRODUCTION
The public sector has always been under some form
of pressure to innovate along the speed of the
market, both internally as an organisation and
externally, towards the services it provides to
citizens. In recent times, that high expected pace of
innovation has only grown, together with demands
and expectations from the public (Stylianou, 2014).
As a strategy geared towards meeting some of these
demands, organisations at different levels of
government have begun to initiate or commission
the development of mobile applications (“apps”) as a
new or complementary channel of (two-way)
communication with citizens (Hung et al., 2013), or
as a means of increasing citizen participation in
government processes (de Reuver et al., 2013).
Shifting public service provision to mobile devices
has also been referred to as mGovernment (as an
evolution of the field of eGovernment) (Kushchu
and Kuscu, 2003).
However, the mobile services and application
sector is a highly volatile one, perhaps even more so
than the ICT industry. Public administrations and
cities are faced with a significant challenge in this
regard, which mainly pertains to the high speed of
innovation, a shift in culture and mindset of the
organisation and the actual organisational aspects
related to creating, providing and supporting mobile
applications in a complex ecosystem that is – at least
in the Western hemisphere – dominated by two US
companies (Apple and Google) (Kahn, 2015).
It is in this complex context we propose business
model thinking as a framework to tackle some of
these challenges. Business models need to be
defined in their wider context here and not for
example be confused with business cases or the
revenue models of single enterprises (Janssen and
Kuk, 2007). Rather, we consider the entire value
network surrounding a particular mobile service and
offer a framework that allows public organisations to
find their “strategic fit” (Stabell and Fjeldstad, 1998)
within this complex ecosystem (Al-Debei and
Avison, 2010). To better frame the discussion and
help governments prioritise their mobile strategy, we
propose a new mapping methodology that allows the
direct comparison of mobile apps, based on the level
of government involvement required in their
development, as well as the potential public value
they may generate. We apply this method to the
Brussels Capital Region. As the capital of Belgium
and Europe, the region is faced with many
challenges that are representative of major
metropolitan areas around the world. Additionally,
the Region has a unique organisational and political
structure that makes taking joint initiative
challenging.
The main contribution of this paper then is to
introduce this mapping methodology based in
business model theory and immediately apply it to
Brussels. This approach will give more insight into
how business model thinking can help frame local
m-government strategies and support government in
setting up mobile service initiatives.
113
Walravens N..
A Business Model Approach to Local mGovernment Applications - Mapping the Brussels Region’s Mobile App Initiatives.
DOI: 10.5220/0005509701130124
In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on e-Business (ICE-B-2015), pages 113-124
ISBN: 978-989-758-113-7
Copyright
c
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
2 BUSINESS MODELS AND
mGOVERNMENT
This section will briefly explore the role that
business models may play in researching mGov
strategies. It also develops the set of parameters that
will be used as the foundation of the mapping
methodology.
2.1 Business Model Thinking in mGov
We approach the concept of a business model
similarly to e.g. Jullien (2004), Chesbrough (2006)
and Gawer (2010) as a value network consisting of
actors, roles and relationships that need to find a
strategic fit (Stabell and Fjeldstad, 1998) to deliver
value to end users. Using this operationalisation of
the concept, the underlying logic when applying it to
technological innovation is that it is not the
technology as such that is a determinant of success,
but rather the way in which the network of actors is
configured in generating added value around the
technology (Panagiotopoulos et al., 2012).
In this sense, business modelling can serve as a
means of bridging the gap between theoretical work
and the daily practice of policy makers and
government representatives. Applying a business
model logic or thinking to the public sector does not
have to be contradictory and business modelling as a
concept has already proved useful in the context of
eGovernment (Janssen et al., 2008; Jannsen and
Kuk, 2007, 2008). Yu (2013) also shows how the
concept of value proposition (an integral part of
business modelling theory) can be a guideline in
developing an integrated framework for analysing
and designing mGov strategies. Although the term
business model is naturally associated with a purely
commercial ecosystem, applying it in the context of
government does not necessarily imply imposing a
“business logic” to the public sector
(Panagiotopoulos et al., 2012). As mentioned, it
rather serves as a framework that allows policy
makers and government organisations to think about
their position within a complex value network and
prepare strategies as a response to potential issues of
control and value. This idea is built upon in the
following section, where the business model
framework we will use to design the mapping
methodology is explained.
2.2 mGov Business Model Parameters
and Mapping Methodology
In recent years, the focus of business modelling
(Hawkins, 2001) has gradually shifted from the
single firm to networks of firms, and from simple to
much more all-encompassing concepts (see e.g.
Linder and Cantrell, 2000; Faber et al., 2003). Due
to this shift, the guiding question of a business
model has become “Who controls the value network
and the overall system design” just as much as “Is
substantial value being produced by this model (or
not)” (Ballon, 2009).
Based on the tension between these two
questions, Ballon (2009) proposes a holistic business
modelling framework that is centred around control
on the one hand and creating value on the other. It
examines four different aspects of business models:
the value network, the functional (technical)
architecture, the financial model and the value
proposition. We build on these foundations, but
expand the matrix to include qualitative parameters
that are of additional importance when a public
entity contributes to the value proposition. Given
these organisations’ non-commercial logic, it is
imperative we take these additional parameters into
account when discussing (mobile) service business
models that involve public actors (Walravens and
Ballon, 2013). We propose an update to Ballon’s
business model matrix, represented in Figure 1. The
left-hand side of the matrix offers parameters
pertaining to control and governance, whereas the
right-hand side parameters offer more insight into
value and public value issues.
Figure 1: Expanded business model matrix.
The detailed, qualitative description of all the
parameters of this expanded matrix allows for the
thorough analysis and direct comparison of complex
ICE-B2015-InternationalConferenceone-Business
114
business models that involve public actors in the
value network. The parameters are quickly outlined
below.
Value Network
Control over assets: anything tangible or intangible
that could be used to help an organisation achieve its
goals.
Vertical integration: the level of ownership and
control over successive stages of the value chain.
Control over customers: looks into the party
maintaining the customer relationship and keeping
the customer data.
Good governance: refers to a striving towards
consensus and harmonization of interests (and
related rhetoric).
Stakeholder management: refers to the choices that
are made related to which stakeholders (be they
public, semi-public, non-governmental, private etc.)
are involved or invited to participate in the process
of bringing a service to end-users.
Technical Architecture
Modularity/integration: refers to the design of
systems and artefacts as sets of discrete modules that
connect to each other via predetermined interfaces.
Distribution of intelligence: refers to the particular
distribution of computing power, control and
functionality across the system.
Interoperability: refers to the ability of systems to
directly exchange information and services with
other systems.
Technology governance: highlights the importance
of transparency, participation and emancipation in
making technological choices and relates to the
digital divide.
Public data ownership: concerns the terms under
which data is opened up and to which actors.
Financial Architecture
Investment structure: deals with the necessary
investments (both capex and opex) and the parties
making them.
Revenue model: deals with the trade-off between
direct/indirect revenue models.
Revenue sharing model: refers to agreements on
whether and how to share revenues among the actors
involved in the value network.
ROPI: refers to the question whether the expected
value generated by a public investment is purely
financial, public, direct, indirect or combinations of
these, and how a choice is justified.
Public partnership model: explores how the
financial relationships between the private and
public participants in the value network are
constructed.
Value Proposition
Positioning: refers to marketing issues including
branding, market segments and identifying
competing services.
User involvement: refers to the degree in which
users can contribute to the value proposition.
Intended value: lists the basic attributes that the
product or service possesses, or is intended to
possess, and that together constitute the intended
customer value.
Public value creation: refers to the justification a
government provides initiating a specific service,
rather than leaving its deployment to the market.
Public value evaluation: questions whether an
evaluation of the generated public value takes places
and if this occurs ex-ante or ex-post.
A purely textual description of all these parameters
is not easily accessible and inspired us to translate
this into a mapping grid, which finds its basis in the
theoretical work of the matrix, but reduces the
complexity of representation. In this grid, it becomes
possible to compare divergent cases based on the
two central parameter sets of the matrix: control and
governance on the one hand and (public) value on
the other. The grid represented in Figure 2 allows us
to map different cases of (in our case mobile) city
services and identify how they compare to one
another.
Figure 2: Governance and public value grid.
The vertical axis refers to the governance parameters
described in the two left columns of the business
model matrix and provide an indication of the level
of control the city government has in providing the
service to citizens. The horizontal axis provides
insight into the type of value that is generated by the
services (the two right columns of the matrix) and
whether this public value is direct or indirect: direct
public value refers to a more individual, short-term
ABusinessModelApproachtoLocalmGovernmentApplications-MappingtheBrusselsRegion'sMobileAppInitiatives
115
Table 1: Overview of official Brussels mobile applications.
Name Dev. Platform Last update Category Rating iOS (by
x users)
Rating Android
(by x users)
Downloads (April
’14 Android)
Be.Brussels BRIC iOS/ Android 2012-12 Utilities 2 (1) 3,8 (29) 100-500
Brussels Gardens Tapptic iOS/ Android 2014-02 Lifestyle 4 (3) 3,9 (18) 1.000-5.000
City of Brussels GIAL Android 2015-02 Travel and Local NA 3,3 (7) 1.000-5.000
Fix My Street Bxl BRIC iOS/ Android 2015-01 Social 1,5 (9) 3,5 (44) 1.000-5.000
STIB Mobile STIB iOS/ Android 2013-02 Travel 2,5 (229) 4 (3391) 100.000-500.000
Visit Brussels Visit Brussels iOS/ Android 2012-12 Travel 3,5 (14) 2,2 (132) 10.000-50.000
value and relates to “what the public values”; while
indirect public value is more collective and long
term, and relates to “what adds value to the public
sphere” (Benington, 2011). This grid has been
validated in (Walravens and Ballon, 2013) and will
be used to map the official Brussels mobile city apps
further on in this article.
To determine the precise relative position of the
cases on the grid, a value or weight is attributed to
each of the parameters in the updated business
model matrix (see Section 4 and 5). In this sense,
qualitative indicators are translated to quantitative
ones in order to allow their direct comparison in a
structured way (see for example Michailidis and de
Leeuw, 2000). This approach is detailed and applied
in Section 4 and 5.
While this comparison is represented in a simple
fashion, it is based on an extensive qualitative
analysis that is based in literature, desk research,
policy document analysis and expert interviews with
stakeholders involved in the cases. A total of twenty-
two expert interviews was carried out in 2013 and
2014, tapping both national and international
expertise on mobile apps in general, as well as
specific insight into the Brussels cases.
3 THE BRUSSELS CONTEXT
Although its de facto role as capital of Europe, the
capital of Belgium and an interesting political
construction in a rather small geographical area,
Brussels is often neglected as a research topic in
some fields, precisely due to this complexity. The
Brussels Capital Region consists of the City of
Brussels, combined with the 19 municipalities that
encircle it and, with over one million inhabitants,
makes up the third Region of Belgium next to the
Flemish and Walloon Region. The Region, the City
and the municipalities all hold competences related
to ICT: for example, the City and the municipalities
are responsible for their own websites and any
online services they wish to offer to citizens (e.g.
social media communications), but the Region
operates an e-administration service called Irisbox,
where citizens can download documents related to
the Region’s competences (e.g. regional tax forms
and soil certificates), as well as documents related to
municipal competences (e.g. birth certificates,
parking permits and so on), although the availability
of these documents depends on the municipality.
These distributed competences can make the
development of common policies a challenge.
One example of this is the City and Region’s
approach to open data. While the cooperation
models and exact terms are still crystallizing across
Europe and the world, it is accepted that open data is
and will be an important component of innovative
urban services (whether they be mobile or not) (EC,
2012). In Brussels, open data initiatives are
distributed; GIS data is managed and opened by the
Brussels Region Informatics Centre (BRIC) while
more typical datasets (e.g. ATM locations, public
toilets etc.) are the responsibility of the
municipalities and in the case of the City of Brussels
opened up by GIAL (Centre de Gestion
Informatique des Administrations Locales), a non-
profit that provides ICT-services to local
administrations, including the City of Brussels. This
again makes a common approach difficult.
While there are certain issues and questions to be
raised (for example on ICT-expenditure in Hillenius,
2013), the Region also takes positive initiatives in
the area of mobile services, launching initiatives
such as FixMyStreet Brussels and these will be
analysed using the framework introduced above.
4 OFFICIAL BRUSSELS APPS
The number of official apps by the City of Brussels,
the Region or any of its institutions is limited. Table
1 provides an overview of the official apps for
Brussels. For each case, all the parameters of the
expanded business model matrix described above
are discussed in a table, available in annex to this
paper. The material for the cases was gathered from
policy documents, publicly available information
ICE-B2015-InternationalConferenceone-Business
116
and expert interviews with people involved with
them. From this analysis, a score on a 5-point Likert
scale is given to each of the parameters that help
determine the position of the case on the governance
and public value grid. This scale ranges from -2
(strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree), indicating
the level of agreement with the statements in the
tables in annex. This scoring allows us to compare
the cases with each other and draw some
conclusions on the Brussels approach to mGov
services.
4.1 Be.Brussels
The Be.Brussels app developed by BRIC applies to
the Brussels Capital Region and offers a map with
points of interest and useful phone numbers, as well
as direct access to the Region’s social media
streams.
Given that the main goal of the app is providing
information to individual citizens, we see a score
that leans towards a direct public value. Although
their relation is very strong, the fact that this app was
developed by an individual organisation and not
within a Brussels administration is reflected in the
government involvement score. Since our data
gathering phase, this app has been removed from
Google Play and the iTunes App Store for unclear
reasons. The breakdown of all parameters and scores
can be found in annex to this paper.
4.2 Brussels Gardens
Brussels Gardens was created by Brussels
Environment (IBGE), one of the Region’s
administrations responsible for the study, monitoring
and management of air, water, soil, waste and
nature. The app provides an overview of the green
spaces and their uses in the Region as well as
information on the history of the green spaces, their
special characteristics and the conservation of plants
and wildlife.
The almost neutral score in the public value
column can in this case be explained by the fact that
the app provides information to individuals, but its
broader goal is to increase appreciation and use of
green spaces in Brussels.
4.3 City of Brussels
The City of Brussels app only pertains to this level
of government (the City and not the Region) and is
developed by a different non-profit organization
(GIAL) than the one working for the Region
(BRIC). It provides news, public transport
information, contact information, the city’s social
media and a map with points of interest.
Similarly to the Be.Brussels app, the fact that the
app is not developed by a Regional administration is
reflected in the lower government involvement score
and the public value it generates is more direct.
4.4 FixMyStreet Brussels
FixMyStreet Brussels is the local implementation of
the well-known issue reporting service, first
developed in the UK. It allows citizens to report
issues with city furniture or in the public space, but
was until very recently limited to potholes, bad road
surface or missing road markings in the case of the
Brussels Region.
In this case a very high level of government
involvement was required to make the app possible
and the public value is aimed at the collective.
4.5 STIB Mobile
STIB mobile is the official app of the Brussels
public transport company and allows users to consult
real time departures and timetables at STIB stops.
Since the STIB acts as an independent company
from the city government (even though it is publicly
funded), the level of government control is lower in
this case and the created public value is direct.
4.6 Visit Brussels
The final official app is Visit Brussels by the tourism
department of the Region, bringing together all
kinds of touristic information and offering a
comprehensive city guide. The app was developed
by Visit Brussels and is based on an internal
database of points of interest.
Similarly to the Brussels Gardens app, we notice
a balance between a direct and indirect value in the
case of Visit Brussels. This can be explained as a
result of the combination of the individual
information the app provides to visitors and the
more long-term and collective goal of boosting
tourism and the attractiveness of the city.
5 MAPPING
Bringing together the scores of the six publicly
developed Brussels applications (see annex) allows
us to map them on the governance and public value
grid introduced in Section 2. The scores are directly
translated to coordinates on the grid, which consists
of two 20-point axes. The coordinates and the
ABusinessModelApproachtoLocalmGovernmentApplications-MappingtheBrusselsRegion'sMobileAppInitiatives
117
mapping are represented in the following table and
figure.
Table 2: Coordinates.
Public value
(x-axis)
Government
involvement (y-axis)
Be.Brussels -5 7
Brussels Gardens -1 13
City of Brussels -9 5
FixMyStreet Brussels 14 17
STIB Mobile -7 -10
Visit Brussels -1 10
Figure 3: Governance and public value grid mapping
Brussels’ cases.
Although we of course expected most apps to
score quite highly when it comes to government
involvement (as all are developed by official
government organisations), this is slightly more
nuanced. In the cases of FixMyStreet, Brussels
Gardens and Visit Brussels the official Brussels
administrations were directly involved in the
ideation, development or commissioning of the apps.
Be.Brussels, City of Brussels and STIB Mobile were
created by semi-public organisations that work
directly for the Brussels Capital Region. As such and
depending on their role, they score lower on the
government involvement axis.
We clearly see that most apps were created with
a direct public value in mind, meaning they are
aimed at individuals and on providing information,
without much possibility for interaction or a long-
term approach. The only exception is FixMyStreet,
which allows citizens to report issues that are acted
upon by the local administration. The system has
been integrated as a single point of contact into the
daily operations of the Brussels Mobility
administration and it is part of a long-term vision to
add more types of reports (and related stakeholders)
to the list of options for citizens. The end goal is
increasing communication with citizens and at the
same time improving the general quality of life
around the City and Region, pointing again to the
app’s indirect public value. By most definitions and
operationalisations of the mGovernment concept
(laid out in the first two sections of this paper),
FixMyStreet is probably one of the better examples
of what mobile government services (should) look
like.
When interpreting the scores for these six
official Brussels applications, we come to the
conclusion that basic information provision to
individual citizens appears to be the most popular
strategy amongst administrations. This is also the
most careful one. It is not surprising in the context of
budgetary constraints that (local) governments face
today, that more long-term, structural and
participatory initiatives such as FixMyStreet are
more exception than rule. Nevertheless, the
interview round showed that the administration
involved is serious about the service and that the
investment made is too important to view it as an
experiment. The other apps under discussion are
more easily referred to as first try-outs in
mGovernment and in most cases leave features or
uptake to be desired. While experimentation
certainly needs to be encouraged, we argue that in
order to make a long-term impact in this area and
begin tackling governance challenges through
mobile services, the mobile application market and
related economy has now sufficiently matured for
governments to move beyond experimentation and
take the lessons learned locally and internationally to
develop a true mobile strategy. Since Brussels is
playing something of a laggard role when it comes
to both Smart City initiatives and mobile application
creation, the opportunity to leapfrog in this space
should be valorised today. The FixMyStreet case
illustrates that involving all relevant stakeholders
(municipal administrations, mayors, local energy
and telecom players, citizens and civil society) in a
quadruple helix approach is key to a successful and
broadly supported mobile government service, but
one that may require higher investments.
6 DISCUSSION
A government body can use the grid to map any
mobile service initiatives it has running or plans to
undertake, to identify whether their level of
involvement has the desired results related to the
public value it wants to generate, and thus if the
actions they take are aligned with the policy goals
ICE-B2015-InternationalConferenceone-Business
118
they want to achieve. The different quadrants of the
grid give insight into the approach taken by
government: the strategy in the bottom-right
quadrant focuses on creating a positive climate for
long-term innovation and improvements to the
general quality of life for as many citizens as
possible; the bottom-left quadrant aims to stimulate
projects and initiatives that have a more immediate
and clear benefit to citizens that potentially show
signs of engagement themselves; while the top-right
quadrant sees a more integrated approach to solving
long-term issues typical to major metropolitan areas,
wherein the city takes a leading role; compared to
the final top-left quadrant that sees an applied
approach by the city to create some immediate value
for individual citizens, by increasing the ease-of-life
and attractiveness of their city. These represent four
quite different strategies to providing mGov services
to citizens to be considered by government
authorities and public bodies looking towards or
providing those services.
While this mapping offers a visual representation
of the Brussels Region’s mGov initiatives, the main
value of the analysis lies in the business model
approach taken to this challenge. By considering all
the business model aspects pertaining to a modern
mobile service initiative, and including parameters
that are specific to public sector involvement, it has
been our aim to provide policy makers at the local,
regional or national level with a way to better
consider the implications of a mobile strategy. As
was mentioned earlier, business modelling as a
framework should not only be associated with
commercial initiatives, but rather be seen in a
broader context. When operationalised in a
methodology comparable to the one presented in this
paper, business modelling can provide more insight
into the challenges pertaining to mobile in the public
sector as well.
A limitation of this work pertains to the focus of
the original matrix on the relations between firms
and organizations and not so much on the internal
organizational structures of companies or agencies.
Since the newly introduced parameters build on the
original matrix, there is no specific attention to
internal organizational processes. As government is
also a system of systems with different actors and
roles, this aspect should be further explored.
7 CONCLUSIONS
This article set out to frame how business modelling
may also provide a framework to mGovernment,
rather than being confined to purely commercial
initiatives. We did this by expanding on an existing
business model framework to include parameters
specific to the public sector. We then apply this to
all official Brussels apps, map them on the newly-
developed grid and come to the conclusion that these
apps are mostly aimed at short-term public value
generation and providing localised information to
individual citizens. FixMyStreet is the only Brussels
case that shows a mid to long-term strategy that has
a mobile application at its core. It is then also a
showcase of how an urban challenge can (begin to)
be tackled through a qualitative mGov application
that is well thought out and enables citizen
participation.
Our conclusion then is that Brussels is taking
careful steps when it comes to smart mGov apps, but
that this hesitance can for the most part be explained
by the institutional complexity of the Region and the
(for now) lack of a single mobile strategy as a
consequence. The FixMyStreet case shows that it is
possible for the Region to set up a long-term and
integrated approach, but this is likely to take more
time and resources. Nevertheless, we believe
Brussels can learn from the increasing maturity in
the mGovernment and apps sector and leverage its
potential to leapfrog in this space. To do so and label
itself as “smarter” than before, an integrated and
open-minded approach to mobile services, which
involves all relevant stakeholders in the city through
a quadruple helix approach, will be a conditio sine
qua non to achieving this.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was performed at the Vrije
Universiteit Brussel and iMinds, and supported by
an Innoviris PRFB grant (Brussels Capital Region).
REFERENCES
Al-Debei, M. M., Avison, D., 2010. Developing a unified
framework of the business model concept. European
Journal of Information Systems, 19(3), 359-376.
Ballon, P., 2009. Control and Value in Mobile
Communications. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit
Brussel, Belgium.
Benington, J., 2011. From Private Choice to Public Value?
In Benington, J., Moore, M., eds. Public Value:
Theory and Practice. Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 31-49.
Chesbrough, H., 2006. Open Business Models: How to
Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape, Harvard
Business School Press. Boston, Massachusetts:
De Reuver, M., Stein, S., Hampe, J. F., 2013. From
eParticipation to mobile participation: Designing a
ABusinessModelApproachtoLocalmGovernmentApplications-MappingtheBrusselsRegion'sMobileAppInitiatives
119
service platform and business model for mobile
participation. Information Polity, 18(1), 57-73.
Faber, E., Ballon, P., Bouwman, H., Haaker, T., Rietkerk,
O., Steen, M., 2003. Designing business models for
mobile ICT services. Proceedings of 16th Bled E-
Commerce Conference, Bled, Slovenia.
Gawer, A., 2010 Towards a General Theory of
Technological Platforms. Proceedings of DRUID
2010, Imperial College London Business School, June
16-18.
Hawkins, R., 2001. The Business Model as a Research
Problem in Electronic Commerce. STAR Project Issue
Report No. 4, SPRU – Science and Technology Policy
Research, Brighton.
Hillenius, G., 2013. Jurisdiction Stops Brussels Region
from Sharing FixMyStreet. Joinup, European
Commission, 14 June.
Hung, S. Y., Chang, C. M., Kuo, S. R., 2013. User
acceptance of mobile e-government services: An
empirical study. Government Information Quarterly,
30 (1), 33-44.
Janssen, M., Kuk, G., 2007. E-Government business
models for public service networks. International
Journal of E-Government Research, 3(3), 54-71.
Janssen, M., and Kuk, G., 2008. E-Government business
models: Theory, challenges and research issues. In M.
Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), E-Government diffusion, policy,
and impact: Advanced issues and practices (pp. 1-12)
IGI Global.
Janssen, M., Kuk, G., Wagenaar, R., 2008. A survey of
web-based business models for E- Government in the
Netherlands. Government Information Quarterly,
25(2), 202-220.
Jullien, B., 2004. Two-Sided Markets and Electronic
Intermediation. IDEI Working Papers 295, Institut
d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, France.
Kahn, J., 2015. iOS and Android increase duopoly on
smartphone market to 96%. 9to5mac. 24 February.
Konings, R., 2014. Belgische app-ontwikkelaars
ondertekenen eTIC-charter voor mobiele applicaties.
Agoria, Press Release, 14 May.
Kushchu, I., Kuscu, M., 2003. From e-Government to m-
Government: Facing the Inevitable. In Proceedings of
the 3rd European Conference on E-Government, pp.
253–260, Dublin, Ireland.
Linder, J., Cantrell, S., 2000. Changing Business Models:
Surveying the Landscape. Institute for Strategic
Change Report, Accenture, New York, NY.
Michailidis, G., de Leeuw, J., 2000. Multilevel
Homogeneity Analysis with Differential Weighting.
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 32(3/4),
pp.411-442.
Panagiotopoulos, P., et al., 2012, A business model
perspective for ICTs in public engagement.
Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 192-202.
Stabell, C., Fjeldstad, O., 1998. Configuring Value for
Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management
Journal, 19(5), pp.413-437.
Stylianou, A., 2014. Mobile by Default? Leveraging
Mobile Technology to Extend eGovernments Reach
and Scope, Workshop Policy Brief, ePractice,
European Commission. 30 June.
Walravens, N., Ballon, P., 2013 Platform Business Models
for Smart Cities. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51
(6), June, pp.2-9.
Yu, C.-C., 2013. Value Proposition in Mobile
Government, In Wimmer, M., Janssen, M., Scholl, H.,
eds., Electronic Government, Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, pp. 175-187.
APPENDIX
The business model parameter descriptions and the
scores of each case are appended to this paper.
Tables 3 and 4: Business model parameters and scores for Be.Brussels.
Control and governance parameters Value and public value parameters
Value network Technical architecture Financial architecture Value proposition
Control over assets: with BRIC,
gathering official information
Modularity: not particularly
modular approach, uses BRIC’s
URBIS maps
Investment structure: budgeted in
short term by BRIC
User involvement: limited to
social networking links
Vertical integration: quite
integrated into the city
organisation, although BRIC is
an independent entity
Distribution of intelligence: an
internet connection is required to
access main functions
Revenue model: indirect, public
funds
Intended value: access to POIs
and city contact information
Control over customers: with the
Region, marketed as the Region’s
app
Interoperability: available for the
two most important platforms
Revenue sharing: no revenue
sharing
Positioning: towards individual
citizens looking for information
Good governance: not
particularly used in surrounding
rhetoric
Technology governance:
inclusion not emphasised,
distribution of info
ROPI: one-way information
channel
Public value creation: mainly
one-way information channel
Stakeholder management: BRIC
is the only involved stakeholder
Public data ownership: all used
data is publicly available
elsewhere
Public private partnership model:
no structural PPP present
Public value evaluation:
internally evaluated
ICE-B2015-InternationalConferenceone-Business
120
Tables 3 and 4: Business model parameters and scores for Be.Brussels (cont.).
Limited to strong government involvement Direct to indirect public value
Value network Financial architecture
Control over assets with city 1 Investment structure goal is long term/collective -2
Vertically integrated within city organisation -1 Revenue model is direct or indirect 0
Control over customers with city 2 Revenue sharing set up over long term 0
Good governance aspects emphasised -1 ROPI is long term 1
Stakeholder management organised by city 1 PPP model is structural 0
Technical architecture Value proposition
Modularity: control over modules with city 2 User involvement: individual or collective 1
Distribution of intelligence: centralised with the city 1 Intended value: short or long term 1
Interoperability emphasised 1 Positioning aimed at collective -2
Technology governance: inclusion and openness emphasised 0 Public value creation aimed at long term/collective -2
Public data ownership defined by city 1 Public value evaluation organised -2
Score 7 -5
higher=more involvement higher=indirect
Tables 5 and 6: Business model parameters and scores Brussels Gardens.
Control and governance parameters Value and public value parameters
Value network Technical architecture Financial architecture Value proposition
Control over assets: almost
completely with Brussels
Environment
Modularity: not particularly
modular, but uses Google Maps
Investment structure: in short-
term budget of IBGE
User involvement: limited to
none
Vertical integration: app was
created by external developer but
is managed by IBGE
Distribution of intelligence:
internet connection required to
load data
Revenue model: no revenue
model
Intended value: access to green
spaces and environment
Control over customers: free app
clearly from IBGE
Interoperability: both iOS and
Android versions available
Revenue sharing: indirect, public
funds
Positioning: towards individual
citizens looking for green space
Good governance: quite present
given the topic of the app and
focus on sustainability
Technology governance:
inclusion not specifically
emphasised
ROPI: information distribution
Public value creation: promote
green spaces in Brussels
Stakeholder management: IBGE
is the only main stakeholder
Public data ownership: most
presented data is publicly
available but not centralised
Public private partnership model:
no structural PPP in place
Public value evaluation:
evaluated internally
Limited to strong government involvement Direct to indirect public value
Value network Financial architecture
Control over assets with city 2 Investment structure goal is long term/collective -2
Vertically integrated within city organisation 1 Revenue model is direct or indirect 0
Control over customers with city 1 Revenue sharing set up over long term 0
Good governance aspects emphasised 2 ROPI is long term 1
Stakeholder management organised by city 0 PPP model is structural 0
Technical architecture Value proposition
Modularity: control over modules with city 1 User involvement: individual or collective 1
Distribution of intelligence: centralised with the city 2 Intended value: short or long term 2
Interoperability emphasised 1 Positioning aimed at collective -2
Technology governance: inclusion and openness emphasised 1 Public value creation aimed at long term/collective 1
Public data ownership defined by city 2 Public value evaluation organised -2
Score 13 -1
higher=more involvement higher=indirect
ABusinessModelApproachtoLocalmGovernmentApplications-MappingtheBrusselsRegion'sMobileAppInitiatives
121
Tables 7 and 8: Business model parameters and scores for City of Brussels.
Control and governance parameters Value and public value parameters
Value network Technical architecture Financial architecture Value proposition
Control over assets: based on
public information, developed by
GIAL
Modularity: not particularly
modular
Investment structure: short-term
budget of GIAL
User involvement: very limited to
none
Vertical integration: internally
developed
Distribution of intelligence: need
for internet connection
Revenue model: indirect revenue,
public funding
Intended value: information
channel, static
Control over customers: with the
City of Brussels
Interoperability: only Android,
based on open data sets
Revenue sharing: no revenue
sharing
Positioning: marketed as the
city’s app
Good governance: not
particularly emphasised, info
distribution
Technology governance: only
available on Android
ROPI: information distribution
Public value creation: wider
access to information
Stakeholder management: GIAL
is the only main stakeholder
Public data ownership: publicly
available data (as open data)
Public private partnership model:
no structural PPP
Public value evaluation: limited
internal evaluation
Limited to strong government involvement Direct to indirect public value
Value network Financial architecture
Control over assets with city 1 Investment structure goal is long term/collective -2
Vertically integrated within city organisation -1 Revenue model is direct or indirect 0
Control over customers with city 2 Revenue sharing set up over long term 0
Good governance aspects emphasised -1 ROPI is long term 1
Stakeholder management organised by city 1 PPP model is structural 0
Technical architecture Value proposition
Modularity: control over modules with city 1 User involvement: individual or collective -2
Distribution of intelligence: centralised with the city 1 Intended value: short or long term -2
Interoperability emphasised 1 Positioning aimed at collective -1
Technology governance: inclusion and openness emphasised -1 Public value creation aimed at long term/collective -2
Public data ownership defined by city 1 Public value evaluation organised -1
Score 5 -9
higher=more involvement higher=indirect
Tables 9 and 10: Business model parameters and scores for FixMyStreet Brussels.
Control and governance parameters Value and public value parameters
Value network Technical architecture Financial architecture Value proposition
Control over assets: shared
between BRIC, cabinet and
Mobile Brussels
Modularity: quite modular
architecture, links to other
services possible
Investment structure: public funds
from regional ICT cabinet
User involvement: primordial to
use of the service
Vertical integration: growing
internally
Distribution of intelligence:
centrally hosted, data connection
required
Revenue model: indirect, public
funds
Intended value: increased internal
efficiency and fixing issues
Control over customers: with the
city/region
Interoperability: open source,
middleware required to link to
existing systems
Revenue sharing: no revenue
sharing
Positioning: branded as
government service
Good governance: emphasised,
transparency highlighted
Technology governance: Android
and iOS, phone number available
but differently branded
ROPI: both internal and external
efficiency gains, transparency
Public value creation: increased
citizen interaction, fixing issues
Stakeholder management:
challenging and organised by
external consultant
Public data ownership: collected
reports not open data
Public private partnership model:
not present
Public value evaluation:
internally evaluated, stimulation
towards municipalities
ICE-B2015-InternationalConferenceone-Business
122
Tables 9 and 10: Business model parameters and scores for FixMyStreet Brussels (cont.).
Limited to strong government involvement Direct to indirect public value
Value network Financial architecture
Control over assets with city 2 Investment structure goal is long term/collective 2
Vertically integrated within city organisation 2 Revenue model is direct or indirect 0
Control over customers with city 2 Revenue sharing set up over long term 0
Good governance aspects emphasised 2 ROPI is long term 2
Stakeholder management organised by city 1 PPP model is structural 0
Technical architecture Value proposition
Modularity: control over modules with city 2 User involvement: individual or collective 2
Distribution of intelligence: centralised with the city 2 Intended value: short or long term 2
Interoperability emphasised 2 Positioning aimed at collective 2
Technology governance: inclusion and openness emphasised 1 Public value creation aimed at long term/collective 2
Public data ownership defined by city 1 Public value evaluation organised 2
Score 17 14
higher=more involvement higher=indirect
Tables 11 and 12: Business model parameters and scores for STIB Mobile.
Control and governance parameters Value and public value parameters
Value network Technical architecture Financial architecture Value proposition
Control over assets: with STIB
Modularity: app links to real-time
position system of STIB
Investment structure: public funds User involvement: not enabled
Vertical integration: integrated
with STIB location system
Distribution of intelligence:
internet connection required
Revenue model: no revenue
model present
Intended value: access to real-
time information
Control over customers: with
STIB, no explicit reference to
city or region
Interoperability: no open data,
closed approach
Revenue sharing: no revenue
sharing
Positioning: branded as STIB
service
Good governance: not
particularly emphasised
Technology governance:
Android, web and iOS apps
ROPI: access to real-time
location of public transport
Public value creation: increased
and real-time information
provision
Stakeholder management: STIB
is only main stakeholder
Public data ownership: closed
data owned by STIB
Public private partnership model:
not present
Public value evaluation: no public
evaluation of app
Limited to strong government involvement Direct to indirect public value
Value network Financial architecture
Control over assets with city -1 Investment structure goal is long term/collective -2
Vertically integrated within city organisation -1 Revenue model is direct or indirect 0
Control over customers with city 0 Revenue sharing set up over long term 0
Good governance aspects emphasised 0 ROPI is long term -2
Stakeholder management organised by city -1 PPP model is structural -1
Technical architecture Value proposition
Modularity: control over modules by city -2 User involvement: individual or collective -1
Distribution of intelligence: centralised with the city -1 Intended value: short or long term -2
Interoperability emphasised -2 Positioning aimed at collective 1
Technology governance: inclusion and openness
emphasised 0 Public value creation aimed at long term/collective 1
Public data ownership defined by city -2 Public value evaluation organised -1
Score -10 -7
higher=more involvement higher=indirect
ABusinessModelApproachtoLocalmGovernmentApplications-MappingtheBrusselsRegion'sMobileAppInitiatives
123
Tables 13 and 14: Business model parameters and scores for Visit Brussels.
Control and governance parameters Value and public value parameters
Value network Technical architecture Financial architecture Value proposition
Control over assets: mostly with
Visit Brussels
Modularity: uses Open Street
Map
Investment structure: public funds
User involvement: none, apart
from social media sharing
Vertical integration: integrated in
Visit Brussels organisation
Distribution of intelligence: a
large initial download is required,
offline
Revenue model: no revenue
model present
Intended value: providing
touristic information on map
Control over customers: with
Visit Brussels/the Region
Interoperability: closed system
Revenue sharing: potential
revenue sharing with event
organisers
Positioning: branded as
City/Regional service
Good governance: present in
general communication
Technology governance:
Android, iOS, no web app
ROPI: increasing information on
and attractiveness of Region
Public value creation: individual
information provision
Stakeholder management: Visit
Brussels is main stakeholder
Public data ownership: no open
data for POIs, Open Street Map
Public private partnership model:
not present
Public value evaluation: internal
evaluation
Limited to strong government involvement Direct to indirect public value
Value network Financial architecture
Control over assets with city 1 Investment structure goal is long term/collective -1
Vertically integrated within city organisation 2 Revenue model is direct or indirect 0
Control over customers with city 2 Revenue sharing set up over long term 1
Good governance aspects emphasised 1 ROPI is long term 2
Stakeholder management organised by city 1 PPP model is structural 0
Technical architecture Value proposition
Modularity: control over modules with city 1 User involvement: individual or collective -1
Distribution of intelligence: centralised with the city 1 Intended value: short or long term -2
Interoperability emphasised -1 Positioning aimed at collective -2
Technology governance: inclusion and openness emphasised 1 Public value creation aimed at long term/collective 1
Public data ownership defined by city 1 Public value evaluation organised 1
Score 10 -1
higher=more involvement higher=indirect
ICE-B2015-InternationalConferenceone-Business
124
