2.2 The m-Governance Concept
2.2.1 Evolution of m-Government Services
m-Government, although a modern concept, has attracted considerable research attention (Hellström, 2008; Mengistu, Zo & Rho, 2009; Oui-Suk, 2010; OECD/ITU, 2011;
Maranny, 2011; Abdelghaffar & Magdy, 2012; Raja et al., 2012; Yfantis et al., 2013;
Dlamini & Mpekoa, 2018). Several debates exist in literature regarding the evolution of m-government services; some have explained evolution through the maturity model lens (Maranny, 2011; Dlamini & Mpekoa, 2018) while others explain it through intentions and manner for implementing m-government initiatives (Oui-Suk, 2010; OECD/ITU, 2011; Raja et al., 2012).
According to Lee & Kwak (2012), maturity models are designed to facilitate the evaluation of development in process, people, technology, and objectives based on set principles. In m-government, maturity models have been widely used to analyse the development of m-government services (Dlamini & Mpekoa, 2018). Table 2.1 shows various types of maturity models describing the development of m-government services.
Table 2.1 indicates the authors of the maturity model, the number of stages, and a brief description of the maturity model stages. Important to note is that progress from one stage to the next indicates an increased level of sophistication and complexity in process and technology applied. Maturity models allow researchers and governments to assess
and measure progress in the implementation of m-government services. Maturity models are useful in explaining the achievement and the different features associated with each stage. Therefore, the m-government maturity model prevents ineffective practices and facilitates governments to keep track and direct m-government initiatives to maturity (Maranny, 2011; Valdés et al. 2011).
However, maturity models are only useful for monitoring and evaluating progress; they do not capture the why or how m-government services evolve in the manner explained.
The models are simply an enumeration of attributes within a sequence of maturity levels without explanation on what triggers the progression from one stage to another. Likewise, the conceptualisation of evolution as distinct stages, which progresses continuously from one stage to another, is argued to be unrealistic (Joshi & Isalm, 2018). Moreover, the different stages in the maturity model are neither mutually exclusive from each other nor do they progress sequentially as depicted in most maturity models; in most cases, overlapping of stages occurs during implementation (Sandoval & Gil-Garcia, 2005;
Goyayi, 2007; Joshi & Isalm, 2018). Despite the weakness, maturity models' ability to capture characteristics, technological sophistication and complexities at each stage (Goyayi, 2007), significantly contributes to the body of knowledge on m-government service development. The maturity model discourse does not necessarily suggest correctness in explaining m-government evolution but recognizes aggregate levels of technological sophistication, security, privacy controls and knowledge creation are continuously adding from one stage to a higher one (Maranny, 2011).
In contrast, emergent literature describes m-government evolution based on intentions for applying wireless and mobile technologies in the public sector (OECD/ITU, 2011; Raja et al., 2012). There are three categories of intentions for progressing m-government services from one stage to another, which include supplementary, expansionary, and innovation intentions. The supplementary phase involves applying mobile and wireless technologies as an alternative delivery channel to existing e-government infrastructures to overcome limitations of time and location (Raja et al., 2012). It has marginal implications for government, as it is limited to providing "physical" service at the needed location and time.
17 Table 2.1: Review of Some m-Government Maturity Models
Author Number of Stages Names and a brief description of the maturity model stages Tozsa & Budai
(2005)
Six levels Information stage (communicating using SMS), interactive stage (prompt responses via SMS or MMS), transactional stage (variety of transactions over the mobile phones), transformation stage (systems with back end functionalities for administrative service processing via mobile phones) Sandy &
McMillan (2005)
Five stages Initial stage (non-interactive wireless services and responses), enhanced stage (displaying regularly updated information), interactive, transactional or mature interface stage (financial transactions via mobile phones) and fully interactive stage (secure access, i.e., authorisation and identification through trusted secure networks to access government systems and facilitate personalized services) Fasanghari &
Samimi (2009)
Six stages e-Government stage (services accessible through electronic infrastructures), migration stage (transition from e-service to m-service), primary interaction stage (interaction with government websites via mobile phones), full interaction stage (full scale interaction with citizens directly through mobile phones), transaction stage (financial transactions via mobile phones) and the ubiquity stage (services personalisation and availability in an ad-hoc manner)
Alijerban &
Saghafi (2010)
Five stages Presence and dissemination of information stage, interaction stage, transactional stage, vertical and horizontal integration stage (integration of machinery of communication only made possible through the integration of e-government across government organisations), and finally the portal and personalisation stage (facilitation of service customisation and single interface access to government services)
Maranny (2011) Five stages Initial (publishing) stage, enhanced (interaction) stage, reforming (transactional) stage, enriching (integration) stage and the governance (transformation) stage.
Dlamini &
Mpekoa (2018)
Five stages Augmentation (informational) stage, elementary (browsing ability via mobile phones) stage, interaction stage, transactional stage and the involvement stage (total transformation, greater convenience, and social media incorporated)
The expansionary stage applies mobile tools to expand the outreach of conventional government services to the un-served or underserved populations where personal computers and the Internet is not accessible. This phase expounds the use of mobile tool characteristics such as coverage, familiarity, and ease of use to serve those excluded due to infrastructure limitations (OECD/ITU, 2011). It has moderate to significant implications as it pioneers growth in capacity and process re-engineering to serve excluded citizens. The innovation stage applies mobile tools to develop new services and governance processes to transform the government to citizen interaction significantly.
Innovative m-governments revamp not only the technology part but also the design and nature of service delivery and governance processes (Oui-Suk, 2010). It has significant implications for governance, as it requires changes in technology, processes, and culture to create a response capacity.
Similar to the maturity model, this discourse is also limited in terms of capturing the realities of evolution. The three phases are not as distinct and mutually exclusive from each other. The intentions for implementing m-government initiatives span more than one category. If anything, the discourse succeeds in portraying various forms of m- government based on the intention of implementation, together with the level of transformational complexities and implications in reforming the public sector.
Furthermore, with the design of mobile applications ever evolving, robust m-government initiatives are anticipated in the future that might be beyond these simple conceptions of m-government evolution (OECD/ITU, 2011).
Consequently, a knowledge gap exists in providing a better realistic way to capture and explain the development of m-government services from one step to another. However, while this may not be the focus of this research, it is paramount to understand how m- government progresses and the various driving intentions for its evolution in order to understand its provisioning and, eventually, how these principles and practices may affect citizens’ decision to adopt m-government services.
19