Convergence of Technology in the E-Commerce World and

(1)

Global Entrepreneurship and New Venture Creation in the Sharing Economy

Norhayati Zakaria

University of Wollongong in Dubai, UAE Leena Ajit Kaushal

Management Development Institute, India

A volume in the Advances in Business Strategy and Competitive Advantage (ABSCA) Book Series

(2)

Published in the United States of America by IGI Global

Business Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue

Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2018 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.

Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Names: Norhayati Zakaria, 1969- editor. | Kaushal, Leena, 1977- editor.

Title: Global entrepreneurship and new venture creation in the sharing economy / Norhayati Zakaria and Leena Kaushal, editors.

Description: Hershey, PA : Business Science Reference, [2017] | Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: LCCN 2017010752| ISBN 9781522528357 (h/c) | ISBN 9781522528364 (eISBN)

Subjects: LCSH: New business enterprises. | Entrepreneurship.

Classification: LCC HD62.5 .G62 2017 | DDC 658.1/1--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017010752

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Business Strategy and Competitive Advantage (ABSCA) (ISSN: 2327-3429; eISSN: 2327-3437)

(3)

149

Chapter 9

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2835-7.ch009

ABSTRACT

Every time technology changes, it creates threats to established ways of doing business and opportuni- ties for new ways to offer services. This is being shown in the E-payment E-commerce world with the convergence of the technologies. In this chapter, we will discuss the recent economic surge of Southeast Asia and analyze the E-commerce payment systems with the latest development of the convergence of the technologies. We present an empirical study of E-payment systems and implications of our findings on E-payment systems in Southeast Asia. Finally, we present an overview of recent research on business angel investing in Southeast Asia focusing on investor’s high-tech investment strategies. We propose that management can tap the opportunities of the electronic payment technologies for E-commerce by providing electronic payment solutions that meet the consumers’ intention to use.

INTRODUCTION

Throughout history, there have been numerous different types of payment systems (Lai, 2016). Today electronic payment systems have become the in-thing for the E-commerce world. There are a number of electronic payment systems but this chapter will focus on the retail payment systems involving Card, Internet and Mobile that lead to the convergence of the technology for the E-commerce world. There are numerous advantages using electronic payment as compared to cash. A cashless E-payment system, for example an E-payment card (e.g.: credit card, debit card, pre-paid card or E-money card), may well

Convergence of Technology in the E-Commerce World and

Venture Capital Landscape in South East Asia

P. C. Lai

University Malaya, Malaysia William Scheela Bemidji State University, USA

(4)

Convergence of Technology in the E-Commerce World and Venture Capital Landscape in South East Asia

be smaller and lighter, provide convenience and efficiency that support the E-commerce world. The convergence of different technologies of E-payment interactions for the E-commerce world has emerged in the consumer centric world. Businesses can be conducted accurately, quickly and flexibly with the electronic payment solutions for the E-commerce world. Management can tap the opportunities of the electronic payment technologies for E-commerce by providing electronic payment solutions that meet the consumers’ intention to use (Lai, 2016).

This chapter is organized as follows: first, in section 2, we briefly discuss the recent economic surge of Southeast Asia. In section 3 we present multiple subsections focusing on explaining E-commerce payment systems. Sections 4 and 5 present, first, an empirical study of E-payment systems in Southeast Asia and, second, implications of our findings on E-payment systems in Southeast Asia. In section 6 we present an overview of recent research on business angel investing in Southeast Asia focusing on investor’s high-tech investment strategies. Finally, we provide a concluding section to summarize the main points of this chapter.

EMERGING SOUTHEAST ASIAN COUNTRIES

Southeast Asia represents one of the fastest growing economic regions in the world (Asian Development Outlook, 2011). A major reason for this economic juggernaut has been the growth of emerging Southeast Asian countries, which have developed rapidly over the past decades (Asian Development Outlook, 2014).

An outcome of this impressive growth has been increased investment opportunities for private equity investors to include venture capital and business angel investors (Scheela et al., 2015; Scheela, 2014).

According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) global report (Amoros and Bosma, 2014) entrepreneurship is a major factor in this impressive growth cycle in Southeast Asia. GEM researchers Amoros and Bosma (2014) report that entrepreneurs in the emerging countries of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam have shown above average intentions to become entrepreneurs because of both increasing economic opportunities and the high status of successful entrepreneurs in this region.

Recent private equity research has focused on the impact that business angels have on the development of high-tech industries, to include E-commerce technology, in these five emerging Southeast Asian countries. We will review these studies to determine the impact business angel investors can have on the E-commerce world in Southeast Asia.3.0 Convergence of Technology for E-commerce World.

E-COMMERCE E-PAYMENT TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

Every time technology changes, it creates threats to established ways of doing business and opportunities for new ways to offer services (Lai, 2006). Technology advances including broadband internet and mobile have reached critical mass with news sources saying these are going to be the ‘next big thing’.

The world of electronic payment is changing with the introduction of mobile phone Near Field Commu- nication (NFC) as well as Radio-frequency identification (RFID) contactless payments, in-app payments or payment apps and with these changes the way we shop and make payments. Marketers and managers need to be watching developments proactively to determine their potential impact. Leading firms often seek to shape the evolution of technological applications to their own advantage (Lovelock, 2001, Lai,

(5)

2006). One of the most significant impacts on product development has been made by the application of data management techniques (Lee and Chen, 1996, Lai, 2007, Lai and Zainal 2015) and this is where the electronic payment solutions for E-commerce become even more prevailing. The electronic payment solutions for E-commerce allow businesses to be conducted accurately, quickly and flexibly. Manage- ment can tap the opportunities of the electronic payment technologies for E-commerce by providing electronic payment solutions that meet the consumers’ intention to use (Lai, 2016).

The convergence of different technologies of E-payment interactions has emerged in the consumer centric world. MySIM™ is the novelty SIM card with NFC-enabled, which works on mobile phones and is designed to be used for public transport payments, tolls, parking, shopping, e-tickets, banking, healthcare and collection of loyalty points (Lai, 2015). Consumers with MySIM™ will be able to do instant top-up and conduct E-payments at Light Rail Transit (LRT), Monorail etc (Lai, 2016). Basically, MySIM™ is a single platform solution combining Card, Internet and Mobile technology for what the users’ needs and wants (Lai, 2014; 2016).

The combination of evolving business drivers, changing customers’ demands and the convergence of enabling technology are producing E-payment applications in the E-commerce environment. Internet and mobile payment teaches an organization that the network offers an opportunity to establish more personal, efficient and competitive relationships with the customers in a new paradigm. This chapter introduces different types of E-payment systems with the latest single platform E-payment in the electronic commerce world for mobile users.

E-Commerce E-Payment Systems

Barter, gold, and paper currency are the early forms of payment systems. Payment card systems started in the mid-twentieth century can be found in the history of credit cards (Woolsey and Gerson, 2016) and today electronic payments through Internet and mobile have become the in thing. No doubt, we still can pay with cash and cheques, but the payment cards and electronic payments are growing at a much faster rate than paper instruments. Many studies and commercial reports predicted the rise of electronic payment systems over the traditional payment methods (Worthington, 1995).

Charles and Wilfred (2010) defined E-payment systems as automated processes for business transactions to take the place of the information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure. There are a number of electronic payment systems but this research will focus on retail payment systems involving card, internet and mobile.

Figure 1 shows the different ways that cardholders (buyers) can make payment using cards, internet and mobile with credit, charge, debit or pre-paid cards or an account from an issuer bank through VISA/

MasterCard (MC) infrastructure passing through the payment gateway operator (Lai, 2012, 2014). An issuer bank is the bank that consumers get the credit, charge, debit or pre-paid cards from and have an account with. The merchants (sellers) get their payment systems from acquirer banks or payment service providers that use the same infrastructure network (Lai, 2012, 2014).

Card Payment

A payment card is a plastic card (e.g: credit card or debit card or pre-paid card or electronic-wallet) in order to pay for products and services, but also the one that takes the money directly from our bank account (Lai, 2014). These types of cards, as a form of payment, also removes the need for cheques as

(6)

the payment card immediately transfers money from the consumer’s account to the merchant’s account.

Garcia-Swartz, Hahn and Layne-Farrar (2006) acknowledged that credit and charge cards provide consumers with some level of float. If we can manage the float level, it will be beneficial to us as consumers.

Zilvinas (2011) a senior analyst within Celent’s Banking group mentioned the importance of authorization to ensure the customers have sufficient funds to make the payment and that the bank is happy to make the payment on behalf of the customers with funds in the bank. Debit cardholders can manage their finances more effectively and need not worry about late payment penalties, finance charges, and snowballing card debts. Many consumers who use the debit card value the imposed fiscal responsibility that debit cards provide (Thaler and Shefrin, 1981; Stavins, 2001; McDonald, Oates, Young, and Hwang, 2006). Mahony, Peirce and Tewari (2001) mentioned that payments cards cost is usually borne by the merchant and this is another reason that consumers are more willing to use payment cards.

Internet Payment

In today’s information technology communication (ICT) era, consumers are able to make payment from the web through the iPad and the PC/notebook at our finger tips. Internet payment system facilitates the acceptance of electronic payment for online transactions that is also known as electronic funds transfer or electronic commerce (E-commerce) through the World Wide Web (Lai, 2014). With technology advancement at a much faster rate than was previously imagined, internet payment is offering vast opportunities for instant global market access (Coviello and McAuley, 1999).

Figure 1. E-Payment (Cards, Internet, Mobile) Systems Services through VISA/MC Network - Source:

Lai (2012; 2014)

(7)

According to Mann (2003), internet payment is characterized as electronic money that organisations and consumers could issue, transfer, and redeem electronically through the internet. Another way of looking at internet payment systems are any electronic commerce businesses allowing money transfers to be made only through the internet (World Wide Web) and function as a fast and secure electronic alternative to traditional methods as cheques and money orders. A number of different types of payments exist for online purchases, and more are being developed all the time. Internet payment systems have become increasingly popular due to the widespread use of the internet-based shopping also known as electronic commerce (E-commerce) and banking.

Banks are providing technology to facilitate internet payment known as internet banking. Internet banking provides a fast and easy access to information (Asli, 2011) and use in performing common banking transactions, for example transferring funds from our savings account to our current account, or even to a third party’s account. Increased competition in the banking sector and customer demand is forcing banks to provide their services online through internet banking (Southard and Siau, 2004).

Banking leaders are achieving their goals to penetrate the cross border market by providing easy-to-use online services and transaction processing coupled with interactive self-service capabilities, discounts and reward programs, customized and personalized customer applications that include innovative authentica- tion security tools and integrated banking services (Adam, 2010; Lai and Zainal, 2015). Identity plays a vital role and banks offering internet-based services to their customers should use effective methods to authenticate the identity of customers using the internet banking services (Sharma and Singh, 2010, Lai and Zainal, 2015).

With the growth of payment service providers and technology, according to Tao (2001) the application service providers (ASPs) use the internet or other wide area networks to provide online application services on a rental basis commercially. Delivering computing as services has begun marketing the ASP model. These have provided more avenues for customers to make payment through the internet. Some of these systems perform internet payment processing not only for online vendors, auction sites, and other corporate users but between their customers (e.g: paypal), for which it charges a fee which can be much less than the bank wire transfer equivalent. The major advantage is saving time and convenience to users.

Mobile Payment

After the burst of the internet hype in 2000, mobile payment services became a hot topic and remained so even after. Mobile payments attracted researchers, e.g., Dahlberg, Mallat and Öörni, (2003a; 2003b), Ondrus and Pigneur (2004), Zmijewska, Lawrence and Steele (2004b), Lai (2007; 2010; 2014), Lai and Zainal (2014; 2015) and others. Besides the phone is light and usually at reach, the success factors of mobile payment are with its ease of use, trust, enjoyment and ubiquity (Xu and Jairo, 2006; Lai and Zainal, 2014; 2015).

Au and Kauffman (2008, p.141) suggest that “mobile payment is a type of electronic payment transaction in which at least the payer employs mobile device for the realization of payment”. Mobile payment is defined as a type of payment transaction processing in which the payer uses mobile communication techniques in tandem with mobile devices for initiation, authorization and confirmation of an exchange of financial value in return for goods and services (Flattraaker, 2008; Pousttchi, 2008). Mobile payment also referred to as mobile commerce, mobile wallet, mobile money and mobile banking are generally referred to payment services operated under financial regulations of each country and performed via a mobile device (Lai, 2014).

(8)

Banks are also embracing mobile banking to capitalize on emerging opportunities and to supplement traditional off-line and phone banking (Kim, Steinfield, and Lai, 2009, Lai and Zainal, 2015). Mobile banking usually refers to banking transactions that are similar to internet banking and provides a fast and convenient way of performing common banking transactions. Mobile banking can be seen as a subset of electronic banking (E-banking) - a concept covering all the electronic modes of conducting banking engagements (Pousttchi and Schurig, 2004; Lai, 2010) and an extension of internet banking (Brown, Cajee, Davies, and Stroebel, 2003) with its own unique features. Laukkanen and Mika (2007) and Lai and Zainal (2015) acknowledged that there is vast market potential for mobile banking due to its always- on functionality and the option to bank anytime and anywhere.

Consumers can use the mobile phone at selected merchants to make payment. Consumers can use the mobile phones to pay bills by deducting the amount owed from their credit cards or debit cards known as ‘Mobile Bill Payment’ (Rolfe, 2007).

Bill payments and purchase of goods and services are among the cashless transactions that can be made. As commonly known in the mobile phone services by the industry players, the mobile phone can be used to pay for a wide range of services and digital or hard goods such as:

• News, ringtones, online game subscription or items, wallpapers and other digital goods.

• Shoes, books, magazines, and other hard goods.

• Air Tickets, transportation fare (bus, train or subway), movies tickets and other services.

Collectively, this wide array of services will be called mobile commerce (m-commerce) (Okazaki, 2005). Mobile commerce is basically mobile payment for buying and selling products and services through wireless handheld devices such as mobile phones, PDAs, ipad etc. Consumers perceive location-free access and the ability to react immediately to the service need as important aspects of the creation of convenience and efficiency in these services consumption (Laukkanen and Lauronen, 2005).

Anckar and D’Incau (2002) and Lai (2014) suggest that m-commerce delivers special customer value when available services are grounded on five value contexts: time-sensitivity (e.g. urgency), spontaneity (as opposed to pre-planned), entertainment needs (e.g. time-filler), efficiency needs (e.g. productivity) and mobility related (e.g. location-based services). Hence, these are areas that mobile payment service providers should take note in providing services to their customers.

As commonly used in the telecommunication industry, these are the primary models for mobile payments (Lai, 2014):

• Direct Mobile Billing (billing directly on our Telco statements e.g: itemise billing).

• Mobile web payments (similar to internet payment).

• Premium SMS based transactional payments (pay a premium to download e.g: games).

• Near Field Communication (NFC) (e.g: E-wallet type – replacing card payment).

Near Field Communication (NFC) defined by mobilenfc.eu is “the next generation short-range high frequency wireless communication technology which enables the exchange of data between devices built with this technology” (Mateja and Mario, 2011, p 2). Mateja and Mario, (2011, p 2) explained in more details about NFC. “NFC works within the globally available and unlicensed radio frequency ISM band of 13.56 MHz with a bandwidth of 14 kHz. The specification details of NFC can be found in ISO 18092. It is a wireless communication technology; the proposed distance between devices is around 3-10

(9)

centimeters. The NFC technology is designed for usage in mobile phones. The device can communicate with existing ISO/IEC 14443 smartcards and readers, and with other NFC devices. It is a ‘read and write’

technology, and it allows the high-speed transfer of data between enabled devices”. Services built on top of NFC enable mobile phones users to share and receive information instantly, interact with other NFC enabled devices, and even make fast and secure mobile payments that can replace present cards payment.

NFC on a mobile phone is the next wave of technology and this study has explored the consumers’

acceptance of incorporating payment cards, internet payment and mobile payment into one (1) single platform known as “MySIM™ - payment with a touch!” (Lai, 2012; 2014; 2015; 2016) for electronic payment. MySIM™ is the novelty SIM card to be NFC-enabled to work on any mobile phone. MySIM™

is designed to be used for public transport payment, shopping, e-tickets, banking, healthcare and collection of loyalty points. This innovation brings convenience to our lives by providing the single payment platform for everything we need.

Organisations with more foresight recognise that “a tide taken at the flood can lead to fortune”

(Menon, 1965 p.47 cited from Julius Ceasar, written by William Shakespeare, 1599). But where does this tide lead to, and what does it imply for the role of one (1) single payment platform in E-payment known as “MySIM™?

CONVERGENCE OF CARD, INTERNET, AND MOBILE PAYMENT TECHNOLOGY Technology development of E-payment with Near Field

Communication (NFC) as well as Radio Frequency (RF) Technology for E-Payment in the E-commerce World

With the mobile phone and a telecommunication line, consumers can conduct mobile payment distance transactions also known as remote transactions using Web platform, Short Messaging Service (SMS) and others. Site E-payment is when consumers put their phones close to the point of sale machine and swipe them as site cards and provides a convenient and efficient way for E-payment transaction (Lai, 2010;

Wei, Shuo, Luo, Chen and Ling, 2011). In addition, remote transaction is rather maturing compared to site E-payment (Wei et al., 2011). Furthermore, there are solutions of combining both remote payment and site E-payment since site E-payment has a potential market to compliment the remote transaction.

NFC as well as RFID in many aspects like convenience, security and reliability have dominated the E-payment market for site E-payment at present (Smart Card Alliance, 2007; Lai, 2007; Kamran, Hanifa and Paul, 2010; Wei et al., 2011; Lai and Zainal, 2015). Table 1 shows the comparative analysis of the NFC E-Payment technology starting from the first generation of SIMpass and then the second generation of NFC-SIM related technology but still on passive working mode. Finally, the third generation active working mode NFC-SIM related technology (MySIM™) is here. Thus, this supports the efficiency, design and convenience of MySIM™ as the single platform E-payment System as the new mobile payment technology.

Factors Influencing the Converging Technology

Factors influencing the converging technology in this study are efficiency, design and convenience. The advantages of using internet payment include efficiency (Wu and Wang, 2005). Laukkanen & Mika

(10)

(2007) and Lai (2010) acknowledged that there was vast market potential for mobile banking due to its always-on functionality and the option to bank anytime and anywhere. Devaraj, Fan, and Kohli (2002) acknowledged that perceived ease of use and usefulness included factors of time saving and price saving that are major measures of the efficiency for internet retail transactions. Davis (1989) identified the design features that are directly related to perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Lin and Hsieh (2006) noted that consumers enjoyed using their phones as the electronic payment and valued the benefits of the design that provided ease of use and usefulness. Dewan & Chen (2005) and Lai (2016) found that consumers preferred convenient and practical E-payment modes that allowed transactions anywhere and anytime on their mobile phones that satisfied their daily needs and wants. Lin & Hsieh (2006) and Lai & Zainal (2015) illustrated convenience constituted consumers’ expectation of service attribute in a specific banking industry. Kim, Mirusmonov and Lee (2010) noted that convenience influenced consumers’ intention to use mobile payment through perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Thus, the factors comprising efficiency, design and convenience were selected because they had a relationship with perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use based on earlier discussion.

Convergence of Technology Research Model

The study aims to investigate the relationships between the factors and perceived ease of use as well as perceived usefulness. In addition, the study also examines the relationships between perceived usefulness as well as perceived ease of use and consumers’ intention to use single platform E-payment system. The theoretical framework is built upon previous research findings and theoretical achievements. Therefore, based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), this study will use the underlining variables shown in Figure 2 to determine the consumers’ intention to use single platform E-payment system.

Table 1. NFC E-Payment Technology Comparison

Solutions

Indicators SIMpass NFC Telco SIM

Simple

antenna Terminal NFC-SD

Card NFC-SIM

Card eNFC RF-SIM MySIM™

Working frequency 13.56 MHz 13.56 MHz 2.4 GHz 13.56 MHz

Relevance with

terminal Non-related related related related related Non- related related

Stability Bad Good Good Good Good Good Good

Reliability Bad Good Good Good Good Normal Normal

Cost (formation) SIM card,

antenna SIM card, mobile device, antenna

SD card, RF

module SIM card, RF

module SIM card, RF module, Mobile phone board

RF-SIM card with in-built antenna

NFC-SIM card with in-built antenna Compatibility Occupy Pin C4 and C8 of

SIM Good Occupy Pin

C4 and C8 of SIM

Good Not

compatible with existing bank and POS system

Compatible with existing bank and POS system + MI fare Working mode

(introduction) Passive Passive Passive Passive Passive Active Active

Source: Wei et al., (2011); Lai (2014)

(11)

This study analyzes the relationships between the variables shown in Figure 2 in order to determine their impact on consumers’ intention to use the single platform payment system. The following hypoth- eses regarding these relationships were posited:

H1a: Efficiency has positive relationship on perceived usefulness.

H1b: Efficiency has positive relationship on perceived ease of use.

H2a: Design has positive relationship on perceived usefulness.

H2b: Design has positive relationship on perceived ease of use.

H3a: Convenience has relationship on perceived usefulness.

H3b: Convenience has relationship on perceived ease of use.

H4: Perceived ease of use has relationship on perceived usefulness.

H5: Perceived usefulness has positive relationship with consumers’ intention to use.

H6: Perceived ease of use of has positive relationship with consumers’ intention to use.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS Method

The target population in this study includes 1480 respondents who have used card, internet and mobile payment for last 12 months from a pull of ASEAN events database. An online survey questionnaire was used to collect data during a two-months period through e-mail blast invitation to the database. A total of 537 respondents that fulfill the pre-set requirements were collected and used for this analysis. Based on Klien, (2011) using 10:1 (ratio for sample size to the number of questionnaires) and using purposeful non-probability sampling, the minimum recommended sample size for this study is 480. The research managed to collect 537 respondents (represent 36.3% respond rate from the database) that provided a robust study for this research. A five-point Likert-type scale was used to assess consumers’ intention of adopting the system. When responding to the survey items, participants specified their levels of agree- Figure 2. Convergence of technology Research model

(12)

ment to a subject given. The five point scale was selected to encourage respondents to make positive or negative choices (Cooper, Schindler, and Sun 2008) in order to produce more emphatic information (Oppenheim, 1992). The Cronbach’s alpha related to the sample size (537) for the various variables being studied are as follows: consumers’ intention to use (.90), Efficiency (.94), design (.95), convenience (.92), perceived usefulness (.96) and perceived ease of use (.97).

Results (Respondent Profile)

In this study, analyses have been done for each variable separately to gather a summary of respondents’

demographic profile in order to get the preliminary information and the feel of the data (Sekaran, 2003).

Table 2 shows the respondents’ demographic profiles of the survey. Most respondents are from developing countries (59.8%), in the age range of 26-40 (43.2%), primarily male (59.2%) and a single marital status (57.2%). Respondents are highly educated (at least college/university at 71.9%) and many have business experience (40.8% in middle management and 37.6% in Banking/Finance/Manufacturing/ICT).

Measurement Model

All of the goodness-of-fit indices satisfied the requirements with the validity assessment of the CFA model. Chi-Square was 519.32 (p=0.00, df =155). According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), the relative Chi-Square (χ2/df) at 3.35 is below the 5.0 required for good fit. As stated by Hair et al. (2006), p-value is sensitive to the sample size and it may be significant if using a large sample size.. In absolute fit indices, the goodness of fit index (GFI) was.91, which is higher than.90 recommended by Hair et al.

(2006). Comparative fit index (CFI) was.97, above the.90 required for good fit (Hu and Bentler 1999).

Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was.06, below the.08 required for good fit (Byrne 1998). For the overall measurement, the results indicated a good fit to the model proposed.

Structural Model

Based on the results of measurement model, the structural model was examined with the theoretical links as shown in Table 3 with all of the goodness of fit indices that indicates an acceptable model.

The overall structural model shows all paths of standardized regression weights (Table 4) are statisti- cally significant at p ≤ 0.001. The R² scores of perceived usefulness by perceived ease of use, efficiency, design and convenience variables are.79. The R² scores of perceived ease of use by efficiency, convenience and design variables are.77. The R² scores of consumers’ intention to use by perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness variables are.57.

Analysis and Discussion

Efficiency has positive relationship with perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use and also has positive direct relationship with the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Efficiency has a stronger significant relationship with perceived ease of use (β =.42) compared to perceived usefulness (β =.26), which means efficiency will contribute more towards perceived ease of use than perceived usefulness.

Laukkanen and Mika (2007) noted that efficiency is vital for mobile banking and, according to Lauk- kanen and Lauronen (2005) for services consumption like location-free access and the ability to react

(13)

immediately to the services. Anckar and D’Incau (2002) indicated efficiency needs (e.g. productivity) are required for m-commerce to deliver special customer value to consumers. Therefore, efficiency is an important factor for delivering both usefulness and ease of use for single platform E-payment systems.

Design has a positive relationship with perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use and also has positive direct relationship with the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. There isn’t much difference for the design significant relationship with perceived ease of use (β =.17) and perceived usefulness (β =.19). Design depends on both the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use as shown in previous studies (Davis, 1989; Ahn, Ryu, and Han, 2004; Lin and Hsieh, 2006). Therefore, design should be considered imperative in determining perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.

Convenience has a positive relationship with perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use and also has a positive direct relationship with the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Coincidently, convenience has a significant relationship with perceived usefulness (β =.15), which is the same as per- Table 2. Respondents Profile

Variable Frequency (n=537) Percent

(Total 100%) ASEAN Countries Status

Developed Countries (Singapore, Brunei) 104 19.3

Developing Countries (Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines) 321 59.8

Lesser Developed Countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar) 112 20.9

Gender Male 318 59.2

Female 219 40.8

Marital Status Single 307 57.2

Married 230 42.8

Age

< 25 170 31.7

26-40 232 43.2

41-55 110 20.5

> 55 25 4.6

Education

Secondary/High school 93 17.3

College/university 386 71.9

Graduate school 58 10.8

Job position

Top Management 26 4.8

Middle Management 219 40.8

Junior Management 60 11.2

Professional 61 11.4

Other 171 31.8

What industry you work in

Education 168 31.3

Banking/Finance/Manufacturing/ICT 202 37.6

Retail/Hypermarket 86 16.0

Other 81 15.1

(14)

ceived ease of use (β =.15). The results are in line with Lin and Hsieh (2006) findings that illustrated convenience constitutes consumers’ expectation of sinlge platform E-payment service attribute in the banking industry. Dewan and Chen (2005) found that consumers preferred convenient and practical E- payment modes that allowed transactions anywhere and anytime on their mobile phones that satisfied their daily needs and wants.. Therefore, convenience is an important factor to delivering both usefulness and ease of use for single platform E-payment systems.

SEM analysis showed a significant positive relationship between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness and it was the strongest predictor of usefulness with a path coefficient of0.78. Consistent with the previous studies, perceived usefulness is found to be influenced by perceived ease of use (Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Henderson and Divett, 2003; Wong and Teo, 2009). When consumers’ perceived a single platform E-payment system is easy to use, their perception of the MySIM™

system is useful too.

Table 3. Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Measurement Model

Goodness-of-fit

Statistics Level of Acceptance Index Value

Absolute fit Measures

Chi-square X² p > 0.05 11.943

(p=0.08)

Degree of freedom Df ≥ 0 3

Root mean square error of approximation RMSEA < 0.08 0.075

Goodness of fit index GFI > 0.90 0.993

Incremental fit measures

Comparative fit index CFI > 0.90 0.997

Parsimonious fit measures

Relative Chi-Square X²/df < 5 3.981

Table 4. Standardized Regression Weights (SRW)

H SRW(β) S.E. C.R. P Results

H 1a PU <--- EF 0.15 0.05 3.16 0.002 Significant p ≤ 0.01

H 1b PEU <--- EF 0.42 0.03 12.26 *** Significant p ≤ 0.001

H 2a PU <--- D 0.19 0.04 3.81 0.003 Significant p ≤ 0.01

H 2b PEU <--- D 0.17 0.04 5.01 *** Significant p ≤ 0.001

H 3a PU <--- C 0.15 0.04 3.44 *** Significant p ≤ 0.001

H 3b PEU <--- C 0.15 0.03 4.28 *** Significant p ≤ 0.001

H 4 PU <--- PEU 0.78 0.05 14.97 *** Significant p ≤ 0.001

H 5 CI <--- PU 0.64 0.07 8.95 *** Significant p ≤ 0.001

H 6 CI <--- PEU 0.07 0.08 2.78 0.036 Significant p ≤ 0.05

Note: *** p ≤ 0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01, * p ≤ 0.05

(15)

These results indicate that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use contribute 77% and 79%

respectively towards consumers’ intention to use the single platform payment system. The explanatory power R² score of consumers’ intention to use due to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use variables is.57. According to Cohen (1998), the explanatory power R² scores was decoded as small (≥.01), medium (≥.09), or large (≥.25). Thus, the results showed that the single platform E-payment system has very high perception of usefulness and ease of use and moderate consumers’ intention to use by the consumers’respondents. The results of explanatory power (R²) were the same to the findings of Yi, Jackson, Park and Probst (2006). Thus, the consumers’ intention to use is significant at 57%. It showed that more than 50% of consumers will use the single platform E-payment system in this study. The study therefore establishes the roles of efficiency, design, convenience, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use positioning in determining consumers’ intentions to use the single platform E-payment system.

Organisations providing E-payment solutions should be able to promote and facilitate the implementa- tion of consumers’ intention to use the single platform E-payment ystem with the suggested factors.

THEORETICAL AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATION

There have been increasing studies of the factors influencing technology acceptance especially in the area of card, internet and mobile lately but focused on individual elements like payment cards (Rinaldi, 2001), smart cards (Humphrey, et al., 2004) and mobile e-wallet (Amoroso and Magnier-Watanabe, 2012). Specifically, as far as the researcher is aware, variables contribute to the finding in accepting single platform E-payment system (MySIM™) has not yet enticed the interest of the research community (Lai, 2014). Thus, this research breaks new ground within the technology acceptance literature because this study validated the variables of the well-established theories in this context (Lai, 2014, 2016).

With the emerging of single platform E-payment system, many companies are facing vital issues in regard to their consumers’ technology acceptance. Since consumers play the vital role in organizations bottom line, organizations need to take into consideration of consumers’ point of view in regard to their intention to use the single platform E-payment systems for the E-commerce world. This study has many managerial implications for different stakeholders but we will only highlight the top directly impacted parties.

Consumers are concerned with carrying cash that exposes them to theft and loss as well as too many

“cards” to carry and manage. Based on consumers’ feedback, security (e.g., safe transactions), user friendly as well as their interest with easy to change SIM rather than phone for payment (MySIM™) are their priorities. By understanding consumers’ preference, technology solution providers will be able to design the solution focused on consumers’ needs and wants (Lai, 2016).

As for the telecommunication market, this has reached maturity and on a look out for new business like NFC and other payments that can utilize the telco infrastructure for new sources of revenue. Thus, this research provides valuable information for telecommunication companies’ strategies for their products and services offering to the intended consumers. Banks are on the lookout to reduce their high cost of operation (OECD, 2006, Lai, 2010). Besides core banking services, banks generate good revenue from transaction payment (e.g., cards payment). Another challenge is to keep the customers satisfied and loyal through innovation (e.g., to have all banking solution in one single platform).

(16)

The study results provide the information needed for the development of new products and services caring for the social-environment by promoting cardless, cashless and contactless MySIM™ (Lai, 2013) that will create new businesses for green jobs in the single platform E-payment environment. Organizations will be able to utilize the study findings for developing products and services that meet the consumers’

single platform E-payment system while also fulfilling their objective of corporate social responsibility.

Thus, with MySIM™ platform, the solutions l (e.g: site payment using point of sales, internet payment on mobile) are able to be deployed easily and further examples can be found in the articles of “SMART LIVING for SMART CITIES @ the palm of your hand” and SMART HEALTHCARE @ the palm of our hand” (Lai, 2015; Lai, 2016).

VENTURE CAPITAL LANDSCAPE FOR E-COMMERCE

There are two types of venture capital investors: formal venture capitalists who raise investment funds from investors and informal venture capitalists, or business angels, who invest their personal funds. Both types invest in unlisted companies with venture capitalist investing primarily in growth companies and business angels investing in seed (pre-revenue/business plans) and early-stage companies. In this section we will focus on business angel investing.

Recently, researchers have begun to focus on business angel investing in Southeast Asian emerging markets to include Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia. For the first four countries a combined sample of 62 angels invested personal funds into 400 primarily early-stage companies and reported positive, on average, positive investment results (Scheela, 2016). Harrison and Scheela (2015) analyzed the investment strategies of 19 Malaysian business angels and determined the top four industries preferred by angel investors are: first, high tech/ICT; second, food and beverage; third, E-commerce;

fourth, media and health care. When asked to rank future industry preferences for investing, high tech/

ICT remained number one and mobile ranked fourth. It appears, based on the sample, that business angel investors are increasingly interested to invest in seed- and early-stage companies in the E-commerce world.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the empirical results from the study suggest that efficiency, design, convenience, perceived usefulness as well as perceived ease of use can lead to consumers’ intention to use a single platform E- payment system. It is noted that the constructs of the single platform E-payment system should include efficiency, good design with convenience and supports the ease of use and usefulness of the MySIM™. In addition, organizations should look into the single platform E-payment system solutions that are easy to use, user friendly E-commerce transactions as well as value for money for the consumers. Having wider strategic alliances for the applications and solutions that are acceptable globally can further enhance the potential of the consumers’ intention to use single platform E-payment system. Venture capital interest in this area will also help boost the growth of E-payment transactions in the E-commerce world.

This chapter serves as an eye opener for single platform E-payment system solutions in the E-commerce world that can be explored through further studies and research in numerous areas. A few areas of interest are, for example, in Information Technology (IT) or Information Communication Technology (ICT).

The single platform E-payment system as discussed in this chapter has enabled greater accessibility and

(17)

availability. At the same time, it also calls for greater security. The E-payment systems technologies for the E-commerce world provide a platform for further research in consumers’ buying behaviors and other areas related to marketing. Further, organizations are given a bigger integrated spectrum of management including: areas like processes, operations etc. through collaboration and globalization.

REFERENCES

Adam, R. (2010, September). Technology helps banks stay ahead – Annual Survey by Best Internet Bank Award. Global Finance, 31-36.

Ahn, T., Ryu, S., & Han, I. (2004). The impact of the online and offline features on the user acceptance of internet shopping malls. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 3(4), 405–420. doi:10.1016/j.

elerap.2004.05.001

Amoros, J. E., & Bosma, N. (2014). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 Global Report. Babson Park, MA: Babson College.

Amoroso, D. L., & Magnier-Watanabe, R. (2012). Building a Research Model for Mobile Wallet Con- sumer Adoption: The Case of Mobile Suica in Japan. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 7(1), 94–110. doi:10.4067/S0718-18762012000100008

Anckar, B., & D’Incau, D. (2002). Value Creation in Mobile Commerce: Findings from a Consumer Survey. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(1), 43–64.

Asian Development Bank. (2011). Asian development outlook 2011. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Asian Development Bank. (2014). Asian development outlook supplemental 2014. Manila: Asian De- velopment Bank.

Asli Y. M. (2011). Customer’s Perspectives and Risk Issues on E-Banking in Turkey; Should We Still be Online? Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 16(1), 1-15.

Au, Y., & Kauffman, R. (2008). The economics of mobile payments: Understanding stakeholder issues for an emerging financial technology application. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(2), 141–164. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2006.12.004

Brown, I., Cajee, Z., Davies, D., & Stroebel, S. (2003). Cell phone banking: Predictors of adoption in South Africa — An exploratory study. International Journal of Information Management, 23(5), 381–394.

doi:10.1016/S0268-4012(03)00065-3

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Con- cepts, Applications, and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Charles, K. A., & Wilfred, I. U. (2010). Design of a secure unified e-payment system in Nigeria: A case study. African Journal of Business Management, 4(9), 1753–1760.

Cohen, P. N. (1998). Black concentration effects on black-white and gender inequality: Multilevel analysis for US metropolitan areas. Social Forces, 77(1), 207–229. doi:10.2307/3006015

(18)

Coviello, N., & McAuley, A. (1999). Internationalisation and the smaller firm: A review of contemporary empirical research. Management International Review, 39(3), 223–240.

Dahlberg, T., Mallat, N., & Öörni, A. (2003a). Consumer acceptance of mobile payment solutions - ease of use, usefulness and trust. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Mobile Business, Vienna, Austria.

Dahlberg, T., Mallat, N., & Öörni, A. (2003b). Trust enhanced technology acceptance model - consumer acceptance of mobile payment solutions. Paper presented at the 2nd Mobility Roundtable, Stockholm, Sweden.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008

Devaraj, S., Fan, M., & Kohli, R. (2002). Antecedents of B2C channel satisfaction and preference: Vali- dating e-commerce metrics. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 316–333. doi:10.1287/isre.13.3.316.77 Dewan, S. G., & Chen, L. (2005). Mobile payment adoption in the US: A cross-industry, cross platform solution. Journal of Information Privacy and Security, 1(2), 4–25. doi:10.1080/15536548.2005.10855765 Flatraaker, D. (2008). Mobile, Internet and electronic payments: The key to unlocking the full potential of the internal payments market. Journal of Payments Strategy & Systems, 3(1), 60–70.

Garcia-Swartz, D., Hahn, R., & Anne, L. R. (2006). The Move Toward a Cashless Society: A Closer Look at Payment Instrument Economics. Review of Network Economics, 5(2), 1–24. doi:10.2202/1446- 9022.1094

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. Y. A., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

Harrison, R., & Scheela, W. (2015). The emerging business angel market in Malaysia: A ‘state of the nation’ report. Unpublished paper sponsored by the Cradle Fund and Technopreneurs Association of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Henderson, R., & Divett, M. J. (2003). Perceived usefulness, ease of use and electronic supermarket use.

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(3), 383–395. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00079-X Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Kamran, A., Hanifa, S., & Paul, K. (2010). RFID Applications: An Introductory and Exploratory Study.

International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 7(1), 1–7.

Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M., & Lee, I. (2010). An empirical examination of factors influencing the intention to use mobile payment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 310–322. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.013 Kim, D. J., Steinfield, C., & Lai, Y. J. (2008). Revisiting the Role of Web Assurance Seals in Business- to-Consumer Electronic Commerce. Decision Support Systems, 44(4), 1000–1015. doi:10.1016/j.

dss.2007.11.007

(19)

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (3rd ed.). New York:

Guilford Press.

Krejcie, R., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. doi:10.1177/001316447003000308

Lai, P. C. (2006). The significant of E-business and knowledge-based Customer Relationship in the E- market Place Environment. INTI Journal, 2(1), 552–559.

Lai, P. C. (2007). The Chip Technology Management Implication in the Era of Globalization: Malaysian Consumers’ Perspective. Asia Pacific Business Review, 3(1), 91–96.

Lai, P. C. (2010). E-business and E-banking. Japan Society for Software Science and Technology. Itech Research Group.

Lai, P. C. (2012). E-PaySIM™ - Mobile Payment at a Touch! IPI Singapore.

Lai, P. C. (2012). E-Payment Systems Services. E-payment Banking. GlobalCLAS.

Lai, P. C. (2013, May). WalletSIM™ - Contactless, Cardless, Cashless, Convenience. Paper presented at Singapore Innofest, Singapore.

Lai, P. C. (2014). Factors influencing Consumers’ intention to use single platform E-payment. UNITEN.

Lai, P. C. (2014). Live smarter with MySIM™ - My Single Identity Management! GlobalCLAS Technology.

Lai, P. C. (2015). Smart living for smart cities @ the palm of your hand. Research Asia.

Lai, P. C. (2016). Smart healthcare @ the palm of our hand. ResearchAsia.

Lai, P. C. (2016). Design and Security impact on consumers’ intention to use single platform E-payment, Interdisciplinary. Information Sciences, 22(1), 111–122.

Lai, P. C., & Ahmad, Z. A. (2014, April). Perceived Enjoyment of Malaysian consumers’ intention to use a single platform E-payment. Paper presented at International Conference on Liberal Arts & Social Sciences, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Lai P. C., & Zainal A. A. (2015). Consumers’ Intention to Use a Single Platform E-Payment System:

A Study Among Malaysian Internet and Mobile Banking Users. Journal of Internet Banking and Com- merce, 20(1), 1-13.

Lai, P. C., & Zainal, A. A. (2015). Perceived Risk as an Extension to TAM Model: Consumers’ Intention To Use A Single Platform E-Payment. Australia Journal Basic and Applied Science, 9(2), 323–330.

Laukkanen, T., & Lauronen, J. (2005). Consumer value creation in mobile banking services. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 3(4), 325–338. doi:10.1504/IJMC.2005.007021

Laukkanen, T., & Mika, P. (2007). Mobile banking innovators and early adopters: How they differ from other online users? Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 13(2), 86–94. doi:10.1057/palgrave.

fsm.4760077

(20)

Lee, D. L., & Chen, Y. M. (1996). Integrated product and process data management. Integrated Computer- Aided Engineering, 3(1), 1–4.

Lin, J., & Hsieh, P. (2006). The role of technology readiness in customers perception and adoption of self-service technologies. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(5), 497–517.

doi:10.1108/09564230610689795

Lovelock, C. (2001). Services Marketing, People, Technology, Strategy. Prentice Hall.

Mahony, D., Peirce, M., & Tewari, H. (2001). Electronic Payment Systems for E-Commerce (2nd ed.).

Artech House.

Mann, R. J. (2003). Regulating Internet Payment Intermediaries. University of Texas School of Law, The Berkeley Electronic Press, paper 69, 1-36.

Mateja, J., & Mario, M. O. (2011, May). Analyzing the latest trends in mobile commerce using the NFC Technology. Journal of Selected Areas in Telecommunications.

McDonald, S., Oates, C., Young, W., & Hwang, K. (2006). Toward sustainable consumption: Research- ing voluntary simplifiers. Psychology and Marketing, 23(6), 515–534. doi:10.1002/mar.20132

Menon, K. R. (1965). Every Student’s guide to Shakespeare Julius Caesar. Star Press.

Okazaki, S. (2005). New Perspectives on M-Commerce Research. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6(3), 160–164.

Ondrus, J., & Pigneur, Y. (2004). Coupling Mobile Payments and CRM in the Retail Industry. Paper presented at the IADIS International Conference e-Commerce, Lisbon, Portugal.

Online Payment Systems for E-commerce. (2006). Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry Committee for Information, Computer and Communication Policy. Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD).

Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement (2nd ed.).

London: Continuum International Publishing.

Pousttchi, K. (2008). A modelling approach and reference models for the analysis of mobile payment use cases. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(2), 182–201. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.07.001 Pousttchi, K., & Schurig, M. (2004). Assessment of today’s mobile banking applications from the view of customer requirements. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Rolfe, A. (2007, July). Citibank Malaysia launches ‘Mobile Bill Payment’. Mobile Payment World, 103, 1–14.

Scheela, W. (2014). Venture Capital in Asia: Investing in Emerging Countries. New York: Business Expert Press.

Scheela, W. (2016). Business angels in emerging economies: Southeast Asia. In H. Landstrom & C.

Mason (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Business Angels (pp. 233-255). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

(21)

Scheela, W., Isidro, E., Jittrapanun, T., & Nguyen, T. (2015). Formal and informal investing venture capital investing in emerging economies in Southeast Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(3), 597–617. doi:10.1007/s10490-015-9420-5

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach (4th ed.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Sharma, K., & Singh, A. J. (2010). Biometric Security in the E World. Applied Cryptography for Cyber Security and Defense. Information Encryption and Cyphering, 289-337.

Smart Card Alliance. (2007). Proximity Mobile Payments: Leveraging NFC and the Contactless Finan- cial Payments Infrastructure. A Smart Card Alliance Contactless Payments Council White Paper. Smart Card Alliance. Publication Number: CPC-07002.

Southard, P., & Siau, K. (2004). A survey of online e-banking retail initiatives. Communications of the Act, 47(10).

Stavins, J. (2001). Effect of Consumer Characteristics on the Use of Payment Instruments. New England Economic Review, (3): 19–31.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

Tao, L. X. (2001). Shifting Paradigms with the Application Service Provider Model, Computer Perspec- tive. IEEE Computer, 2-9.

Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An Economic Theory of Self-Control. Journal of Political Economy, 89(2), 392–406. doi:10.1086/260971

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model:

Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 Wei, D., Shuo, Z., Luo, G., Chen, Z., & Ling, X. (2011). Analyze on Mobile Payment Based on RFID.

Proceedings of Environmental Sciences, 10, 950–955. doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2011.09.152

Wong, S. L., & Teo, T. (2009). Investigating the technology acceptance among student teachers in Malaysia: An application of the technology acceptance model (TAM). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(2), 261–272.

Woolsey & Gerson. (n.d.). The history of credit cards. Academic Press.

Worthington, S. (1995). The cashless society. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Manage- ment, 23(7), 31–41. doi:10.1108/09590559510095260

Wu, J. H., & Wang, S. C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42(5), 719–729. doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.07.001 Xu, G., & Jairo, G. A. (2006). An Exploratory Study of Killer Applications and Critical Success Fac- tors in M-Commerce. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 4(3), 63–79. doi:10.4018/

jeco.2006070104

(22)

Yi, M. Y., Jackson, J. D., Park, J. S., & Probst, J. C. (2006). Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view. Information & Management, 43(3), 350–363. doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.08.006

Zilvinas, B. (2011). Defining a Payment Services Hub. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 16(1), 1–16.

Zmijewska, A., Lawrence, E., & Steele, R. (2004). Towards understanding of factors influencing user acceptance of mobile payment systems. Paper presented at the IADIS International Conference WWW/

Internet, Madrid, Spain.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Card Payment: Card Payment is a plastic card (e.g: credit card or debit card or pre-paid card or electronic-wallet) in order to pay for products and services, but also the one that takes the money directly from our bank account (Lai, 2014).

Electronic Commerce (E-commerce): E-commerce is the commercial transaction that involves the transfer of information and funds electronically.

Electronic Payment (E-payment): Electronic payment systems in this chapter will focus on the retail payment systems involving Card, Internet and Mobile.

Internet Payment: Internet payment system facilitates the acceptance of electronic payment for online transactions that is also known as electronic funds transfer or electronic commerce (E-commerce) through the World Wide Web (Lai, 2014).

Mobile Payment: Mobile payment also referred to as mobile commerce, mobile wallet, mobile money and mobile banking are generally referred to payment services operated under financial regulations of each country and performed via a mobile device (Lai, 2014).

MySIM™: A single platform solution technology combining Card, Internet and Mobile technology for what the users’ needs and wants (Lai, 2014; 2016).

South East Asia (SEA): South East Asia is geographically divided into two sub regions, namely Mainland Southeast Asia (or Indochina) and Maritime Southeast Asia. SEA consists of countries from Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar (Burma), Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei, Singapore and East Timor.