icegov2012 proceedings

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Mobile Government
With rapid advance in wireless technologies, there have been
several studies on the next generation of e-government adopting
wireless technologies in the public sector, which is called mgovernment.
More specifically, m-government is defined as “the
strategy and its implementation involving the utilization of all
kinds of wireless and mobile technology, services, applications,
and devices for improving benefits to the parties involved in egovernment
including citizens, businesses, and all government
units” [6]. With regard to the emergence of m-government, the
early literatures tend to regard m-government as the subset or
complement of e-government [5][6]. That is, m-government
cannot function apart from the existing e-government in that most
of the public services equipped with wireless technologies are
nothing more than replications of e-government services on the
mobile platforms. On the other hand, the recent literatures
emphasize the uniqueness of m-government [2]. More
specifically, m-government upgrades the level of public services
by providing the infrastructure and contents, which could not be
realized in the era of the wired e-government, by means of
mobility and hand-held devices.
Regardless of a perspective on m-government, however, there is a
tendency that most of the m-government literatures not only put
too much emphasis on conceptual discussion, but also regard mgovernment
as the phenomenon taking place in the distant future.
In order to deviate from such a tendency and approach mgovernment
empirically, the authors analyze the public apps, the
mobile applications provided by public organizations for
improving benefits to the public and private sector, in this study
[3][6]. With rapid increase in sales of mobile devices and huge
success of mobile application markets, such as Apple’s App Store,
citizens’ demand to receive public services via public apps has
been increasing sharply in Korea [4]. It implies that the study of
the relationship between m-government and public apps is
significant in order to understand the substance of m-government
and contribute to enlarging the research field of m-government.
2.2 Development Models of IT/IS
Since Nolan paved the way for the study of the use of IS
(Information Systems) in business organizations through the
growth stage model of computer use, there have been various
discussions to understand and analyze the development process of
e-commerce and e-business through a development or stage model
[7]. Likewise, the stage models that deal with the development
process of e-government, such as Gartner’s 4-stage model, UN’s
5-stage model, and Layne and Lee’s 5-stage model, have been
illustrated in order to analyze the use of IT (Information
Technology) in government organizations [1]. In their metasynthesis
approach, Siau and Long integrate five stage models
into a synthesized one on the basis of a systematic comparison of
stages between different models. They illustrate a comprehensive
e-government model whose stages are web presence, interaction,
transaction, transformation, and e-democracy [9].
However, some scholars criticize validity and usefulness of the
stage models. While these stage models are predicated on the
premise that the development process of technology and its
adoption in organizations are an evolutionary phenomenon,
Andersen and Henriksen argue that “not all researchers agree on
106
the suitability of “evolutionistic” development models as a means
for measuring IT capabilities in organizations” and “the individual
phases occur simultaneously and part of different elements of egovernment.”
[1] That is, a development model could regard
development process as discrete and individual stages even
though it is a complex and continuous process in reality.
Despite the weakness of these development models, the authors
claim that the development models have contributed to identifying
the current status of the recent IT or IS phenomenon, enlarging
conceptual discussion about the development process which is
seemingly chaotic, monitoring whether an organization’s use of
IT is on the right track in practice, and planning for future
applications. In particular, a development model helps provide a
systematic approach with regard to characteristics of newly
emerging fields of IT and IS. Given that few studies have dealt
with public apps and to a larger extent the substance of mgovernment,
it is expected that building the public apps
development model helps understand and analyze the result of
empirical approach on public apps systematically.
3. PUBLIC APPS DEVELOPMENT MODEL
The crucial principles applied to building the public apps
development model are citizen-centricity and technological
complexity. First, the more the functions of each public app are
interactive with citizens, the higher its stage is. Jaeger states that
not only do leading e-government strategies emphasize a citizen
centered version of public administration, but e-government
technologies that allow government to determine the identity of
users in order to provide more personalized and responsive
service become every more important [2]. In a broader sense, the
concept of Web 2.0 is also in accord with citizen-centricity. Web
2.0, inspired by Tim O’reilly, refers to the user-centric Internet
environment that is underpinned by the spirit of participation,
sharing, and openness, which emphasizes the utility of Internet
users, rather than that of Internet contents suppliers [8]. Second,
the more the technology of each public app is complex, the higher
the stage of the development model is. According to Siau and
Long, e-government system complexity and integration increase
with the advancement of the e-government stages, which also
implies that the technological advance in the functions of public
apps deserves to be regarded as the higher level of services [9].
More importantly, the authors put more significance on citizencentricity
than technological complexity because the studies
dealing with e-government stage models also suggest that it is
crucial to emphasize the function that facilitates interaction
between public organizations and citizens [2]. Therefore, the
public apps which provide a high level of citizen-centric service
with high level of mobile technology reaches the higher stage than
those which provide a high level of mobile technology with a low
level of citizen-centric service.
In summary, the public app which provides a high level of citizencentric
services with a high level of mobile technology reaches the
highest stage, while the public app which provides unilateral
services with a low level of mobile technology stays at the lowest
stage. Combining these criteria, the authors demonstrate a 6-stage
development model for public apps. More specific description
about each stage of this model is illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1. The public apps development model