Mobile government (in short: m-government) is just at the beginning of its rise as a future trend of e-government. Considering technical advancements such as mobile Internet, smartphones, and tablet-PCs, m-government represents a tremendous new potential for the communication between governments and citizens. There are many examples of failures of early e-government projects due to a lack of consideration of users’ requirements. Against this background, this article tries to contribute to governmental communication processes by addressing the driving factors influencing the acceptance of mobile government among e-government users. Extending the approaches of the technology acceptance model (TAM; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) to mobile government, a new m-government acceptance model was developed. It shows that the intention to use m-government is significantly influenced by both, factors users see as a benefit but also by factors of perceived risks.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
2.
Al-KhamaysehS.LawrenceE.ZmijewskaA. (2006). Towards understanding success factors in interactive mobile government. Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Mobile Government (Euro mGov) – Opportunities for eGovernment: Adapting to Mobile and Ubiquitous Business (pp. 3–5). Brighton, UK: Mobile Government Consortium International.
3.
Al ThunibatA.Mat ZinN. A.SahariN. (2011). Identifying user requirements of mobile government services in Malaysia using focus group method. Journal of E-Government Studies and Best Practices, 25(2), 103–110.
CarrollJ. (2005). Risky business: Will citizens accept m-government in the long term? In Proceedings of EURO mGOV 2005 (pp. 77–87). Brighton, UK: Mobile Government Consortium International.
7.
ChenCh.-D.FanY.-W.FarnCh.-K. (2007). Predicting electronic toll collection service adoption: An integration of the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior. Transportation Research, 15, 300–311. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2007.04.004
8.
CunninghamS. (1967). The major dimensions of perceived risk. In CoxD. (Ed.), Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior (pp. 82–108). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
DavisF. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management.
10.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1002.
FeathermanM. S.PavlouP. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474. doi:10.1016/S1071–5819(03)00111–3
13.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
14.
GerpottT. J. (2011). Attribute perceptions as factors explaining mobile Internet acceptance of cellular customers in Germany – An empirical study comparing actual and potential adopters with distinct categories of access appliances. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2148–2162. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.001
15.
GilbertD.BalestriniP.LittleboyD. (2004). Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4), 286–301. doi:10.1108/09513550410539794
16.
HeeksR. B. (2003). Most e-government-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced? IDPMi-Government Working Paper No. 14. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.
17.
HorstM.KuttschreuterM.GuttelingJ. M. (2007). Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in the Netherlands. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1838–1852. doi:10.1016/ j.chb.2005.11.003
18.
HungS.-Y.ChangC.-M.KuoSh.-R. (2013). User acceptance of mobile e-government services: An empirical study. Government Information Quarterly, 30(1), 33–44.
19.
HungS.-Y.ChangC.-M.YuT.-J. (2006). Determinants of user acceptance of the e-government services: The case of online tax filing and payment system. Government Information Quarterly, 23(1), 97–122. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.005
IshmatovaD.ObiT. (2009). m-government services: User needs and value. I-Ways, 32(1), 36–46.
22.
JacobyJ.KaplanL. B. (1972). The components of perceived risk. In VenkatesanM. (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 382–393). Chicago, IL: Association for Consumer Research.
23.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory. An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
24.
KarahannaE.StraubD. W.ChervanyN. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183–213.
25.
KatzE.BlumlerJ. G.GurevitchM. (1974). Ulilization of mass communication by the individual. In BlumlerJ. G.KatzE. (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
KeoduangsineS.GoodwinR. (2009). User satisfaction model for mobile e-government service. In KotsisG.TaniarD.PardedeE. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-Based Applications & Services (pp. 609–612). New York, NY: ACM.
27.
KingW. R.HeJ. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003
28.
KushchuI. (2007). Mobile government: An emerging direction in e-government. Hershey, PA: IGI.
29.
LeanO. K.ZailaniS.RamayahT.FernandoY. (2009). Factors influencing intention to use e-government services among citizens in Malaysia. International Journal of Information Management, 29(6), 458–475. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.03.012
30.
LeeM. C. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of Internet banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 8(3), 130–141. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2008.11.006
31.
LohanM.FaulknerW. (2004). Masculinities and technologies. Men and Masculinities, 6(4), 319–329. doi:10.1177/1097184X03260956
32.
López-NicolásC.Molina-CastilloF. J.BouwmanH. (2008). An assessment of advanced mobile services acceptance: Contributions from TAM and diffusion theory models. Information & Management, 45(6), 359–364.
MoonJ.-W.KimY. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information & Management, 38(4), 217–230.
35.
MoonM. J. (2004). From e-government to m-government? Emerging practices in the use of mobile technology by state governments. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.
36.
OjhaA.SahuG.GuptaM. (2009). Antecedents of paperless income tax filing by young professionals in India: An exploratory study. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 3(1), 65–90. doi:10.1108/17506160910940740
37.
OzkanS.KanatI. E. (2011). E-government adoption model based on theory of planned behavior: Empirical validation. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4), 503–513. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.10.007
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
40.
SchepersJ.WetzelsM. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44(1), 90–103. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.10.007
41.
ShareefM. A.ArcherN.DwivediY. K. (2012). Examining adoption behavior of mobile government. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53(2), 39–49.
42.
ShihH. P. (2004). Extended technology acceptance model of Internet utilization behavior. Information & Technology, 41, 719–729. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.08.009
43.
SipiorJ. C.WardB. T.ConnollyR. (2010). The digital divide and t-government in the United States: Using the technology acceptance model to understand usage. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(3), 308–328. doi:10.1057/ejis.2010.64
44.
SukiM. N.SukiM. N. (2011). Exploring the relationship between perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived enjoyment, attitude and subscribers’ intention toward using 3G mobile services. Journal of Information Technology Management, 22(1), 1–7.
45.
TaylorS.ToddP. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. Kingston, Canada: School of Business, Queen’s University.
TrimiS.ShengH. (2008). Emerging trends in m-government. Communications of the ACM, 51(5), 53–58.
48.
VerkasaloH.López-NicolásC.Molina-CastilloF. J.BouwmanH. (2010). Analysis of users and non-users of smartphone applications. Telematics and Informatics, 27(3), 242–255. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2009.11.001
49.
WinklerT. J.ErnstP. (2011). Innovationen im Mobile Government: Eine Analyse von Dienstattraktivitäten und Motivationen von deutschen Kommunen [Innovations in mobile government: An analysis of service attractiveness and motivations of German municipalities]. In Wirtschaftinformatik [Economic computer science] Proceedings 2011 (pp. 1134–1144). Berlin, Germany: Technische Universität.
