Mobility: The Basis for Value Creation in Mobile Commerce?

Mobility: The Basis for Value Creation in Mobile Commerce? Bill Anckar IAMSR at Åbo Akademi University Lemminkäisenkatu 14B, 20520 Turku, Finland bill...
Author: Edwin Stafford
1 downloads 0 Views 276KB Size
Mobility: The Basis for Value Creation in Mobile Commerce? Bill Anckar IAMSR at Åbo Akademi University Lemminkäisenkatu 14B, 20520 Turku, Finland [email protected]

Niklas Eriksson Arcada Polytechnic Haahkapolku 3, 00200 Helsinki, Finland [email protected]

Mobile commerce, mobility, value, mobile services

offer as an instrument of commerce, little is still known about the consumers’ willingness to adopt wireless electronic media, and the factors that influence their adoption decisions and value perceptions relating to mcommerce [4, 10, 14, 32, 44). Just as we are gradually starting to gain an understanding of the unique characteristics of the Internet, a new medium has emerged, the wireless Internet, which raises many of the same questions in a new context [12, 24]. While a growing body of literature, matched by limited empirical evidence, has pointed out the main value-adding elements in m-commerce, the consumers’ actual reasons - the primary drivers - for adopting and intending to adopt mobile services remain unclear (cf. [29, 39]. As pointed out by Shuster [33], there are almost no direct, comprehensive studies on consumer behavior and preferences related to the wireless Internet in the public domain, and little research has been conducted to identify the key contexts in which people use the mobile Internet most frequently [22]. As argued by Pedersen et al. [29], the fact that the consumer perspective has been almost absent in most projects studying the end-user in telecommunication services is particularly disturbing since many of the services introduced in third generation wireless networks will be consumer-oriented.

1. INTRODUCTION

2. VALUE CREATION IN M-COMMERCE

Mobile commerce, or e-commerce over mobile devices, has become a major topic of interest for the IS research community and a key priority for many companies as it is becoming increasingly evident that PC-based e-commerce has not achieved true mass adoption [30]. While many conflicting predictions on the future popularity and volume of m-commerce have been presented in the last few years, the expectations regarding consumer adoption of m-commerce technologies and applications still tend to be high, and many scholars have theorized that the overall volume of e-commerce will experience a significant growth with the linkage of mobile phones and the Internet (e.g. [7, 13, 20, 24]).

On electronic markets, firms can create value for customers in a manner that is different from that which has been achieved in conventional business [14]. Correspondingly, m-commerce allows for unique services and additional benefits when compared to traditional ecommerce applications [38]. As noted by Keen and Mackintosh [21], the demand side of m-commerce is a search for value, but as the authors correctly point out, a pure transformation of services into mobile services does not necessarily make them value-adding from a customer’s point of view. Consequently, there is a need to build an understanding of the elements and special features of wireless electronic channels that are valueadding from the consumer’s point of view. Every company entering the mobile marketplace has the same

ABSTRACT Drawing on an analytical framework that can be used to assess the extent to which different mobile services are likely to offer customer value in comparison to stationary electronic channels, this paper offers both theoretical and empirical contributions relating to customer value creation in mobile commerce, and especially the role of mobility as a driver for consumer adoption of mobile commerce. Based on the findings from a survey conducted with a convenience sample of 113 Finnish students, we offer some early insights relating to the main reasons for consumers’ interest in different mobile services, and the primary settings in which mobile services will be used. In addition, the consumers’ interest in a number of commonly proposed mobile success applications is explored. The findings indicate that consumers indeed perceive mobility to be at the core of the value proposition of mobile commerce, although some mobile services clearly stood out as highly attractive even in a fixed setting.

KEYWORDS

Although the mobile Internet appears to have much to

goal: leveraging this channel to create customer value [19]. In view of that, we need to identify what is distinctive about the mobile channel in its own right, and rather than focusing on the perceived limitations of the current generation of mobile devices, look at where the mobile platform clearly wins over the fixed Internet [24].

1.

Primary services: To what extent are different mservices likely to gain popularity among consumers in the early years of m-commerce, and which are the likely success applications?

2.

Value dimensions: Which are the main value-adding features of mobile commerce, and are the perceived key value dimensions of wireless channels related to actual mobile use?

3.

Value settings: Which are the primary usage settings for mobile services, and will these services actually be used primarily in mobile situations?

4.

Channel preferences: Which electronic channel is the preferred one for accessing various services that commonly are hypothesized as being highly suitable for mobile commerce?

2.1. Mobility Although mobile commerce still is an emerging phenomenon, a significant body of literature has, from the late 1990s onwards, pointed out the factors that are likely to drive the diffusion of mobile commerce in the business-to-consumer marketplace. In this area, most contributions - which are strongly dominated by intuitionbased reasoning and conceptual analyses rather than empirical investigations - have primarily focused on establishing the value proposition of mobile commerce from the consumer’s point of view, pointing out concepts such as flexibility, ubiquity, localization, personalization, and especially mobility as key adoption motivators (see e.g. [5, 17, 26, 45]. According to Nohria and Leestma [28], the m-commerce opportunity exists, and is huge, if companies develop ubiquitous solutions that recognize the role that mobility plays in consumers’ lives. Herman and Neff [17] contend that mobility and ubiquity complete the foundation on which m-commerce will be built. Gillick and Vanderhoof [11] argue that the new mobility experience - the anytime/anywhere access to desired products and services - will be the greatest benefit for the consumer. This contention is supported by empirical findings: In a UKbased survey, Strong and Old [35] found that the convenience of having Internet access at any time and place will be the most important incentive for consumers to use mobile Internet applications. Similarly, Anckar et al. [1] reported survey findings from Finland indicating that the flexibility with respect to the user’s location and the time of the day was the second most important benefits of using mobile devices and services. The latter study also showed that adoption/rejection decisions and intents relating to the mobile Internet and m-commerce appear to be determined to a greater extent by perceived benefits than by perceived barriers, a fact that substantiates the importance of the objectives of this study.

2.2. Research Objectives In this paper we draw on empirical data to gain exploratory insights into the true value proposition of mobile commerce. In doing this, we especially focus on investigating the consumers’ perceived value of mobility, or in other words the possibility to access, produce and send information, products and services from anywhere, anytime - irrespective of the user’s location. In line with this, four interrelated topics will be covered in this study:

In addition to these broad fundamental questions, a number of more focused research questions, which directly build on an analytical framework used in this study1, will be addressed and presented in subsequent sections.

3. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS 3.1. Value Dimensions: An Analytical Framework With reference to Carlsson and Walden’s [6] contention that the key question for m-commerce is to find some way to assess the value of mobile applications to prospective users, Anckar and D’Incau [2, 3] introduce an analytical framework that identifies the potential value-creating features of m-commerce, and that can be used to evaluate, theoretically, the suitability of specific services for mcommerce. This framework, which is presented in detail in the next section, constitutes a basis for this study, in which a key objective is to empirically identify the main value-adding elements in m-commerce with reference to the categorization proposed by Anckar and D’Incau. In the framework, an important distinction is made between the value offered by the wireless Internet technology in itself; wireless value, and the value emerging from the actual mobile use of a device; mobile value. Wireless value can be created through the use of any wireless device, irrespective of the service/application (a service-independent phenomenon), whereas mobile value is created only through certain types of wireless services (a service-dependent phenomenon). 3.1.1. Wireless Value As pointed out by Varshney and Vetter [41], mobile and 1

The framework is presented in section 3.1.

service-dependent value missions/settings Entertainment needs

Spontaneous needs

Efficiency ambitions

Time-critical arrangements

Mobilityrelated needs

Mobile value TOTAL WIRELESS CHANNEL VALUE Wireless value

Only access device (cost savings)

Wireless convenience

Familiarity with device

service-independent value elements

Figure 1. The analytical framework

wireless systems are not the same even though there is considerable overlap; wireless interfaces do not necessarily need to support mobility (cf. [24]). In addition to such obvious advantages of wireless technologies as using your computer without any cables, an important benefit of the wireless Internet is the opportunity to use a wireless device (mobile phone, PDA) to do almost all types of e-commerce related activities without having to invest in (or connect using) a computer. Besides offering obvious convenience benefits (cf. [26]), this may bring significant advantages for consumers that lack proficiency with computers, but are familiar with mobile phones (cf. [31]): It has, in fact, been argued that the learning curve for m-commerce is much faster than for other information and communication technology (ICT) applications [45], and that m-commerce applications are likely to be userfriendlier than corresponding PC-based applications. Moreover, there may be cost savings involved for consumers who are satisfied with the more limited computing power offered by handheld devices, especially as owning a mobile phone already is a matter of course for an increasing number of consumers. Tang and Veijalainen [36] assert that the main force for the rapid acceptance rate of m-commerce will be its increased convenience and efficiency in performing simple transactions compared with the stationary machines, thereby implying that wireless value is likely to be a main driver for m-commerce. 3.1.2. Mobile Value Mobile value signifies the value arising from the mobility of the new medium, i.e. making use of electronic services while ‘on the move/road’2. We live, no doubt, in a disconnected world and an increasingly mobile society [18, 42], and therefore we need interfaces and electronic services that support our mobile lifestyle (cf. [40]). According to Keen and Mackintosh [21], the key value 2

M-commerce has, in fact, been defined as “e-commerce for users on the move” [19, 45].

proposition of mobility is the creation of choice, or new freedoms, for customers. In a similar way, words commonly used to describe the main value-adding feature of m-commerce include flexibility, convenience, and ubiquity. While being pertinent and illuminating, such terms nevertheless appear to be too general to grasp the essence of the consumer value creation process in mcommerce, as they fail to address the relevance of contextuality (cf. [18]): The distinctive feature of mcommerce is the significance of the user’s location, situation, and mission [24], and to gain an understanding of the drivers for consumer adoption and usage of mobile services, there is thus a need to look into why and when flexibility is valuable to customers. It is, after all, obvious that the freedom benefits created by mobility are not equally valid for different mobile services and settings. The framework distinguishes between five different missions/settings in which wireless services can provide mobile value: (i) Time-critical needs and arrangements. As noted by May [24], time adds a dimension to m-commerce that is commonly absent in fixed e-commerce, presenting new opportunities in situations where the interaction is characterized by urgency (cf. [8]): M-commerce is introducing us to instant gratification anywhere [29], and enables the delivery of time-sensitive information the value of which depends on its timely use [38]. Timecritical situations where immediacy is essential, or at least desirable, typically arise from external events, and in this respect the always-on connectivity of the medium is an important feature as it allows for on-demand pushtechnological solutions (alerts and reminders) on certain topics that the user recognizes as time-critical (for instance alerts for stock traders). (ii) Spontaneous needs and decisions. Many needs and wants arise and are satisfied spontaneously rather than as a result of carefully planned behavior. In contrast to timecritical needs, spontaneous needs are internally awakened and not a result of external events (such as alerts, etc.). In general, these needs are related to products and services that are characterized by the purchasing decision being straightforward, meaning that the if/when/where decisions do not require careful consideration. Spontaneous needs can also be entertainment-related, efficiency-related, or even time-critical in nature. Herman [16] argues that for consumers, m-commerce is to a great extent about spontaneous and instant shopping. Similarly, Hennessy [15] as well as the consulting firm Booz, Allen & Hamilton [5] contend that the greatest demand for mobile applications will be in areas that are spontaneous, timecritical, or location-specific in nature, such as auctions, email, ticketing, news, and online games. May [24] mentions the opportunity for balance checking on an instinctive basis as an example of a value-adding feature of mobile banking services. (ii) Entertainment needs. The combination of mobility

and entertainment appears intuitively appealing for many customer segments due to the opportunity to kill time/have fun in situations when wired entertainment appliances cannot be accessed. Using the term “time filler” rather than “time killer” services, Kalakota and Robinson [19] argue that entertainment applications such as digital music and games can be seen as the perfect complement to mobile devices. Varshney et al. [43] present a similar contention, maintaining that people still want to enjoy entertainment while mobile. Entertainment needs are, by their very nature, generally also spontaneous in character, especially in mobile settings. (iv) Efficiency needs and ambitions. Mobile devices are, in essence, developed to increase productivity while mobile [30]. According to Kalakota and Robinson [19], today’s consumers constantly look for more efficient ways to do simple everyday activities, and as a timesaver for practical activities such as mobile banking, and making travel reservations. M-commerce gives timepressured consumers opportunities for increased productivity (e.g. of working time) by providing them with the possibility to use the ‘dead spots’ in the day (e.g. during the daily commute between home and work) more effectively [8]. According to Maginnis et al. [25], the chief benefit of portable computing devices has so far been to increase worker productivity (cf. [9]). (v) Mobility-related needs. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of m-commerce is the potential for launching services that are, in essence, of value only through a mobile medium, as needs for such services predominantly arise when away from home and ‘on the move’. Examples include the widely discussed location-based services (see e.g. [27, 37]) such as routing and tracking/pinpointing, and ’roadside’ services such as vending/parking machine payments. As these types of services are of value exclusively in mobile settings, we believe that they are likely to constitute the core of the m-commerce value proposition. It should be noted that the personalization of services, which commonly is pointed out as a value-adding feature of m-commerce (e.g. [26, 31]) obviously might be an additional benefit for many users. It is, however, not only a controversial issue, but also one of the foundation pillars of wired e-commerce, and hence not a benefit that can be reaped only through mobile media. Thus, personalized services do not - at least not unquestionably - offer mobile value from a consumer perspective, although they intuitively fit well with mobile channels. Rather, personalized services should be seen as a prerequisite for m-commerce due to the imperfect usability of handsets and the situations and settings in which many mtransactions are likely to be made. 3.1.3. Research Questions In accordance with the line of reasoning presented thus

far in this paper, we argue that in order to become true success applications, mobile services will have to offer customers indisputable mobile value by grasping the very essence of the combination of mobility and computing, ideally by providing mobile value on several of the proposed dimensions. For services that do not bring mobile value, but only wireless value, it can be hypothesized that mobile devices will be used primarily for reasons of convenience or because of a lack of alternative ways to connect to the Internet. In these cases, we believe that mobile channels are likely to remain in a secondary position due to the higher usability offered by desktop PCs. In short, then, a proposition of this research is that mobile value is likely to constitute a much greater driver for consumer adoption of m-commerce than wireless value. Building on the preceding discussion and the presented framework, we address the following three research questions that relate to the key value dimensions of wireless channels: ¾ Is mobile value or wireless value a greater driver for consumer adoption of m-commerce? ¾ Is the distinction between wireless and mobile value the main value categories in the analytical framework - relevant? (In other words, are wireless value elements seen as service-independent, whereas mobile value elements are service-dependent)?

¾ Are consumers likely to favor m-services that offer a broad range of mobile value, and do some sources of mobile value stand out as especially relevant?

3.2. Value Settings As suggested by the main categorization in the framework presented above, a potentially important distinction as we analyze the value creation process in m-commerce is the difference between usage in mobile and fixed settings. Given that the core of the value proposition of wireless channels indeed is mobility-related, as proposed above, it becomes imperative to investigate if mobile services indeed will be used primarily when the users are mobile, and thus are not able to access e.g. Internet-based services through alternative channels. Fixed settings represent situations where we typically have access to desktop computers and high-speed Internet connections. First and foremost, such fixes settings are (i) the home and (ii) the office/school. Studies [34] show that the Internet penetration rate in Finland (using wired computers) is about 91% for enterprises with more than 10 employees. In the fall of 2000, more than 60% of the Finnish population aged 15-74 had Internet access through a wired computer either at home, at work or at school [19].

Mobile settings represent situations when we are “on the move”, i.e. traveling, wandering or visiting [23], and thus do not - as a rule - have access to the wired devices that we regularly use (or at least have slower and more unstable connections). Mobile settings are situations when we are, for instance, (i) sitting in restaurants/bars/cafés or (ii) in transportation. Likewise, we are mobile while walking in the street or while (iv) on a journey abroad or (v) at the weekend/summer house. In all these situations, we typically do not have access to fixed Internet connections or even advanced computers. Mobile settings represent the value category referred to as mobile value in the analytical framework by Anckar and D’Incau [2, 3] presented in a previous section. An interesting question explored in this paper is whether mobile services, which we hypothesize to be value-adding primarily in mobile settings, actually will be used primarily - or even exclusively - when the user is mobile. Although this would indicate high rationality (in the sense of choosing optimum usability), we would, however, expect such a usage scenario implausible.

3.3. Channel Preferences There is little doubt that channels are very different and can add value depending on the business situation rather than by replacing other channels. As a result of the development of new technologies (wireless communications, iDTVs), the electronic channel is no longer a single computer-based channel, but has emerged into several different channels, all with their unique characteristics, and - presumably - a varying suitability for performing certain tasks. The analytical framework which constitutes a basis for this study can be used to assess the extent to which different mobile services are likely to offer customer value in comparison to stationary electronic channels. An overall objective of the study presented here is to identify the special value-adding features of the mobile channel and to look at when and where the mobile platform wins over the fixed Internet [cf. 24]. In doing this, we also aim at identifying the primary electronic channels for using different (Internet-based) services.

4. THE EMPIRICAL STUDY 4.1. Sample and Data Collection In order to accomplish our main research objectives, we picked out 15 services3 commonly pointed out as early or imminent m-commerce ‘killer’ applications (see e.g. [20, 26, 42]) to be included in the empirical study. The primary data needed for our research objectives were 3

These services are listed in Table 1.

collected through a survey conducted among 113 Finnish polytechnic and university students taking part in courses on e-commerce. In April 2002, quantitative data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire, in which the students were asked to state the likelihood (on a 5-point scale: [5] yes, definitely; [4] likely; [3] don’t know/can’t say; [2] unlikely; [1] definitely not) that they would use different mobile services, and to indicate their primary reasons for their interest in each of the mobile services (for this, we used statements reflecting the underlying notions of the different value components in the framework, which the students rated on the following scale: [0] unimportant; [1] somewhat important; [2] very important reason. In addition, the students who indicated that they might be interested in a certain service were asked to state the likelihood that they would use it in certain settings and locations: The scale used was: [0] I would probably not use it in this setting; [1] I might use it in this setting; [2] I would definitely use it in this setting. Finally, the students were asked to indicate the electronic channel that would be their primary choice for using the services subject of investigation. Of the respondents, 75 (66.4%) were females, and 38 (33.6%) males. Nearly all (97.3%) reported that they visit the Internet every day or several times per week. 44.2% had, at least at some point, used the Internet through a mobile device. All of the students reported that they own a mobile device (GSM-phone: 90.3%; WAP-enabled phone: 14.2%; GPRS-phone: 6.2%).

4.2. Survey Findings and Discussion 4.2.1. Primary Services The students’ interest in the mobile services subject of investigation turned out to vary greatly. As far as the reported interest in the early mobile applications (meaning services that are already available or that can be made functional over 2G/2.5G networks) are concerned, our findings are in line with previous studies (see [1, 2]) in which e-mail, cinema/theatre ticket reservations, and routine bank services stood out as the most likely success applications. As regards the more advanced services which require 3G networks (such as live picture transfer and watching TV/movies), and for which the consumers’ interest has not yet been explored, our findings indicate, interestingly, a rather low consumer interest. 4.2.2. Value Dimensions To identify the primary reasons for the respondents’ interest in different mobile services (and to address the research questions formulated in section 3.1.3.), we computed an importance score for each of the value

1

Mobile service

Mean Interest

Make small payments (soft drinks at vending machines; local bus fares; parking fees, etc.) Send/receive e-mails Book tickets for cinema/theatre/concerts/sport events Routine bank transactions (pay bills, check accounts) Listen to and/or download music Browse the wireless Internet for information (news, weather, timetables, addresses, phone numbers...) Routing/navigation services (the service provider pinpoints the location of your mobile device, and can guide you by providing exact route information and directions) Make simple travel arrangements (booking bus tickets, train tickets, or hotel rooms) Play games Automatic, unbiased price comparison services, which list the price for a certain product across a large number of physical or online stores Fill out, submit, and pay for Lotto coupons and/or sports betting services Remote activation/control of home appliances (adjusting the home heating system, heating the sauna/car). Personalized alerting services (up-to-date news/ information sent to your mobile device based on your stated subscription preferences (for instance alerts about stock drops, hockey scores, etc.) 2 Live picture transfer while talking to a friend (mobile picture phone) Watch TV or movies Take part in electronic auctions 1

SD

3.82 3.77 3.68 3.46 3.08 2.99

74.1 % 67.3 % 71.5 % 60.3 % 48.6 % 45.9 %

1.03 .99 1.07 1.31 1.36 1.44

2.96

42.0 %

1.33

2.95 2.62

40.0 % 29.4 %

1.30 1.32

2.53

29.7 %

1.40

2.41 2.38

21.6 % 30.3 %

1.19 1.44

2.33

24.8 %

1.33

2.27 1.92 1.46

25.7 % 12.8 % 1.8 %

1.30 1.20 .73

Percentage of consumers who responded yes, definitely (5) or likely (4)

2

While not an m-commerce application in the same sense as the other services, this advanced person-to-person communication feature of 3G mobile devices was included in the study to provide a point of comparison as regards the figures on consumer interest in m-commerce.

Table 1. Reported likelihood of using mobile services by all respondents (N = 106-113)

dimensions for each of the mobile services subject of investigation. The scores represent the percentage of the interested respondents (i.e. the students who indicated a willingness to use a service by responding yes, definitely [5] or likely [4]) who found a specific value element to be an important reason for their interest in a specific service, but the observed percentage of respondents who found a reason to be “somewhat important” was divided by 2, whereas the observed percentage of those who responded “very important” was kept as such. The observed importance scores (see Appendix 1) and the graphical summary of the findings presented in Table 2 clearly suggest that mobile value constitutes a much greater driver for consumer adoption of m-commerce than wireless value, with none of the wireless value dimensions being seen as especially important by the surveyed students (see RQ 1, section 3.1.3). This finding also suggests that the distinction between wireless and mobile value dimensions is relevant as we speak of value creation in m-commerce (see RQ 2, section 3.1.3), with further evidence in support of the main framework categorization being provided by the fact that the observed deviation in the importance scores was much higher for the mobile value dimensions than for the wireless value dimensions: On an average, the degree of dispersion in the importance scores for a specific mobile value dimension across all services subject of investigation was 56.5, whereas the corresponding deviation score for the wireless value dimensions was 22.6. The empirical data thus partially supported the fundamental proposition (inherent in the framework) of mobile value dimensions being service-dependent, whereas wireless value dimensions are serviceindependent. Nevertheless, the results indicate that the

wireless value dimensions are not completely serviceindependent in nature. Table 2 also provides us with some answers to RQ 3 (see section 3.1.3), based on which we investigated whether the respondents favored mobile services that offer a broad range of mobile value, and if some sources of mobile value stand out as especially relevant. As shown in Table 1, four services stood out as especially attractive to the respondents: make small payments, e-mail, ticket reservations, and routine bank transactions. All of these services, with the exception of make small payments, were not only found to have the highest aggregate importance scores, but also to offer mobile value on as many as four of the proposed dimensions. In line with this finding, the services that were seen as the least interesting displayed low aggregate importance scores. The ability to satisfy spontaneous needs stood out as the single most important value dimension in m-commerce, closely followed by the ability to address time-critical needs and arrangements. The possibility to satisfy mobility-related needs was also widely recognized, but it was not the main driver for adopting any of the services investigated. Where entertainment-based mobile value was recognized, it was seen as by far the most important value dimension. Overall, efficiency-based value was not seen as a major m-commerce adoption driver.

4.2.3. Value Settings To investigate where the respondents principally would use the different mobile services (i.e. the primary settings), we employed the same procedure that was used to assess the magnetism of the different value dimensions (see section 4.2.2.). We thus computed interest scores

Wireless value dimensions

Mobile value dimensions Mobile Service

Mean

N

SP

TC

Make small payments Send/receive emails Book tickets (cinema/theatre/concerts/sport events)

3.82 3.77 3.68 3.46 3.08 2.99 2.96 2.95 2.62 2.53 2.41 2.38 2.33 1.92 1.46

83 76 80 67 54 48 47 43 33 33 24 33 26 14 2

€ € z z c z € z

c z € z

2.82

44

€

Routine bank transactions Listen to/download music Browse the wireless Internet for information Routing / navigation services Make simple travel arrangements Play games

Automatic price comparison services Mobile betting / lotto services Remote activation/control of home appliances Personalized alerting services Watch TV or movies Take part in e-auctions Aggregated

EN

EF

MO

€ c €

c € c c

c

c € c

z

c c c c

OA

GF

WC

z c € c z

€ € € c

c c c c

Too few observations

c

c

TC = time-critical needs SP = spontaneous needs/decisions EN = entertainment needs EF = efficiency needs/ambitions MO = mobility-related needs OA = only access device GF= greater familiarity with mobile devices WC = wireless convenience NOTE: In the table, the appearance of the bullets reflects the observed importance of a specific value dimension for a specific service:

z > 70%

€ 55 - 70%

c 54,9 - 40%

Blank < 40%

Table 2. Observed importance of different value elements as drivers for adoption of m-commerce services

for each setting for each of the mobile services subject of investigation. The scores represent the percentage of the likely users of a mobile service who indicated that they might use [1] or definitely would use [2] the service in a certain setting. The observed percentage of respondents who replied that they “might” use it was divided by 2,

whereas the observed percentage of those who responded that they “definitely” would use it was calculated as such. The observed interest scores (see Appendix 2) and the graphical summary of the findings presented in Table 3 clearly shows that consumers, while widely recognizing the mobile value arising from wireless channels, do not Fixed settings

Mobile settings Mobile Service

Mean

N

RE

TR

AB

Make small payments Send/receive emails Book tickets (cinema/theatre/concerts/sport events)

3.82 3.77 3.68 3.46 3.08 2.99 2.96 2.95 2.62 2.53 2.41 2.38 2.33 1.92 1.46

83 76 80 67 54 48 47 43 33 33 24 33 26 14 2 44

c c c

€ z c

z

Routine bank transactions Listen to/download music Browse the wireless Internet for information Routing / navigation services Make simple travel arrangements Play games

Automatic price comparison services Mobile betting / lotto services Remote activation/control of home appliances Personalized alerting services Watch TV or movies Take part in e-auctions Aggregated

2.82

RE = in restaurants / bars / cafés WE = at weekend / summer house

TR = in transportation HO = at Home

c € € z c €

ST

c

c

WE

HO

WO

€

c € z € c

c c c c c c

€

c

€

c

c

€ €

€

c

c

c

c

c c c

c

too few observations

c

c

AB = abroad WO = at work / school

ST = in the street

NOTE: In the table, the sizes of the bullets reflect the observed importance of a specific setting for a specific service z > 70%

€ 55 - 70%

c 54,9 - 40%

Blank < 40%

Table 3. Observed interest in using mobile services in different settings

c

intend to restrict their use of mobile services to truly mobility-related situations. Mobile services will be used equally extensively in the home or at the office as when on the move. Nevertheless, the respondents showed a remarkably high interest for using many mobile services, especially entertainment-related ones, while in transportation and during journeys abroad. The poor usability of wireless devices and technologies in comparison to stationary ones is apparently not a concern for the users as far as some of the commonly proposed success applications of m-commerce are concerned. This is especially true for routine bank transactions, lotto services, and ticket reservations, i.e. services that primarily add value by satisfying spontaneous needs and wants (cf. section 3.1.2.). As we relate our results on the value settings to our findings on the value dimensions, which suggested that mobility indeed seems to be the key driver for adoption of m-commerce, we can observe an interesting paradox: Wile the respondents certainly did not rate wireless convenience as an important reason for using mobile services, their stated intentions in terms of settings of use would indicate that they regard the wireless convenience and efficiency in performing simple transactions to be, if not valuable, at least practical. 4.2.4. Channel Preferences Interestingly, the results show a clear division as far as the preferred channels for the proposed services are concerned: The stationary PC was seen as significantly more functional than a mobile device for only four of the 15 services (send/receive e-mails, book tickets, routine bank transactions, and listening to/downloading music).

For 9 of the 15 services, a mobile handheld device was rated as the primary channel choice by an overwhelming majority of the respondents. The value of accessing services through an interactive digital TV was not acknowledged by the respondents, a finding which partly can be explained by the fact that the iDTV still is an emerging technology, Hence, the true benefits, limitations, and costs of this new electronic channel are hard to assess at this point.

5. CONCLUSIONS This study has helped to develop our understanding of the mobile Internet as a medium for commercial use in the Bto-C arena, a sector where the lack of empirical academic studies is striking due to the novelty of the phenomenon. Drawing on an analytical framework that can be used to assess the extent to which any mobile service is likely to offer customer value in comparison to stationary electronic channels, the paper has offered both theoretical and empirical contributions relating to the value proposition of m-commerce to consumers. In essence, this study - including both the analytical framework presented and the empirical findings - has demonstrated the complexity of issues concerning consumer value generation and subsequent adoption/rejection decisions of mobile channels, and thus highlighted the need for contextual, service-specific perspectives in research as well as practitioner decisionmaking on these matters. Although just exploratory in nature, the study has provided us with some early insights relating to the main reasons for consumers’ interest in different mobile services, suggesting that mobility indeed

Mobile Service

Mean

N

Stationary PC

Make small payments Send/receive emails Book tickets (cinema/theatre/concerts/sport events)

63 65 63 54 42 41 38 34 28 25 18 28 24 10

15.9 61.5 73.0 59.3 52.4 29.3 10.5 41.2 32.1 28.0 22.2 7.1 16.7 40.0

Take part in e-auctions

3.82 3.77 3.68 3.46 3.08 2.99 2.96 2.95 2.62 2.53 2.41 2.38 2.33 1.92 1.46

Aggregated

2.82

36

Routine bank transactions Listen to/download music Browse the wireless Internet for information Routing / navigation services Make simple travel arrangements Play games

Automatic price comparison services Mobile betting / lotto services Remote activation/control of home appliances Personalized alerting services Watch TV or movies

2 34.9

Mobile device

iDTV

84.1 33.8 27.0 38.9 47.6 70.7 89.5 58.8 67.9 72.0 77.8 92.9 83.3 40.0 too few observations

0.0 4.6 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0

63.2

1.9

Table 4. Observed channel preferences for the services subject of investigation NOTE: These figures represent the ratings only for the respondents who indicated a willingness to use a service (responded yes, definitely or likely)

appears to be the key driver for consumer adoption of mcommerce. From a practitioner’s point of view, the study has thus identified the features and add-on services needed to support the provision of mobile value to consumers. Due to the obvious limitations inherent in using a small convenience sample of students, care should, however, be taken not to overgeneralize from these findings: The degree to which the results are representative for a larger consumer market is certainly an open issue, as students are likely to differ from the general population in many ways. Further and more extensive studies are therefore certainly needed to gain a deeper understanding of the mcommerce value proposition to consumers.

REFERENCES [1] B. Anckar, C. Carlsson, & P. Walden (2003), “Factors Affecting Consumer Adoption Decisions and Intents in Mobile Commerce: Empirical Insights” Proc. 16th Bled Electronic Commerce Conf., Bled, Slovenia, June 9-11, 2002. [2] B. Anckar, & D. D’Incau, Value-Added Services in Mobile Commerce: An Analytical Framework and Empirical Findings from a National Consumer Survey. Proc. 35th Hawaii International Conf. on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, January 7-10, 2002. [3] B. Anckar, & D. D’Incau, Value Creation in Mobile Commerce: Findings from a Consumer Survey. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(1), 2002, 43-64. [4] R. Amit, & C. Zott, Value Creation in E-Business. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 2001, 493-520. [5] Booz, Allen & Hamilton, The Wireless Internet Revolution. Insights: The Communications, Media & Technology Group, 6(2), 2000, 1-8. www.bah.de/content/downloads [6] C. Carlsson, & P. Walden, Mobile Commerce: A Summary of Quests for Value-Added Products and Services, Proc. 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conf., Bled, Slovenia, June 17-19, 2002. [7] J. Daitch, R. Kamath, R. Kapoor, A. Nemiccolo, J. Sahni, & S. Varma, Wireless Applications for Business: Business Anytime, Anywhere. Kellogg TechVenture 2000 Anthology. www.ranjaygulati.com/ [8] Datamonitor, Mcommerce Grocery Opportunities. Reaching the Consumers Through their Mobile Phones. Datamonitor Future Briefing, 4, 2000. [9] J. Delichte, Re-inventing Commerce with Mobility. The IT Journal, First quarter 2001, 26-31. [10] M.A. Eastlick, & S. Lotz, Profiling Potential Adopters and Non-adopters of an Interactive Electronic Shopping Medium. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 27(6), 1999, 209-223. [11] K. Gillick & R. Vanderhoof, Mobile E-commerce: Marketplace Enablers and Inhibitors. Paper presented at the Smart Card Forum Annual Meeting, September 25-28, 2000. http://whitepapers.informationweek.com [12] W. Guerley, Making Sense of the Wireless Web. Fortune, August 1, 2000. www.fortune.com. [13] J.F. Hampe, P.M.C. Swatman, & P.A. Swatman, Mobile Electronic Commerce: Reintermediation in the Payment

[14] [15] [16]

[17]

[18] [19] [20]

[21] [22]

[23]

[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

[30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

System, Proc. 13th Bled International Electronic Commerce Conf., Bled, Slovenia, June 19-21, 2000. J. Han, & D. Han, A Framework for Analyzing Customer Value of Internet Business. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 3(5), 2001, 25-38. D. Hennessy, The Value of the Mobile Wallet. Network 365 White Paper, November 2001. www.network365.com M. Herman, M-Commerce - Hype And Reality, A View From The Bridge. In World Market Series Business Briefings: Wireless Technology 2002. World Markets Research Centre, 2002, 21-22. J. Herman, & T. Neff, Managing through the M-Commerce Storm. World Market Series Business Briefings: Wireless Technology 2002. World Markets Research Centre, 2002, pp. 78-82. M. Kakihara, & C. Sørensen, Mobility: An Extended Perspective. Proc. 35th Hawaii International Conf. on System Sciences, January 7-10, 2002, Big Island, Hawaii. R. Kalakota, & M. Robinson, M-Business: The Race to Mobility (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001). P.K. Kannan, A-M. Chang, & A.B. Whinston, Wireless Commerce: Marketing Issues and Possibilities. Proc. 34th Annual Hawaii International Conf. on System Sciences, January 3-6, 2001, Maui, Hawaii. P. Keen, & R. Mackintosh, The Freedom Economy: Gaining the M-commerce Edge in the Era of the Wireless Internet (Berkeley, CA: Osborne/McGraw-Hill, 2001). H. Kim, J. Kim, Y. Lee, M. Chae, & Y. Choi, An Empirical Study of the Use Contexts and Usability Problems in Mobile Internet. Proc. 35th Hawaii International Conf. on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, January 7-10, 2002. S. Kristoffersen & F. Ljungberg, Mobility: From Stationary to Mobile Work, Planet Internet, Chapter 6, K. Braa, C. Sorensen, B. Dahlbom (eds). Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden 2000. P. May, Mobile Commerce: Opportunities, Applications, and Technologies of Wireless Business (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001). F. Maginnis, R. White, & C. McKenna, Customers on the Move: M-Commerce Demands a Business Object Broker Approach to EAI. eAI Journal, Nov./Dec. 2001, 58-62. F. Müller-Versee, Mobile Commerce Report (London: Durlacher Research Ltd., 1999). A.K. Narayanan, Realms and States: A Framework for Location Aware Mobile Computing. Proc. 1st International Workshop on M-commerce, Rome, Italy, July 2001, 48-54. N. Nohria & M. Leestma, A Moving Target: The MobileCommerce Customer. MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2001. Massachusetts Institute of Technology P.E. Pedersen, L.B. Methlie, & H. Thorbjørnsen, Understanding Mobile Commerce End-user Adoption. Proc. 35th Hawaii International Conf. on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, January 7-10, 2002. B. Peters, The Future of Wireless Marketing. In World Market Series Business Briefings: Wireless Technology 2002. World Markets Research Centre, 2002, 188-190. S. Ropers, New Business Models for the Mobile Revolution. eAI Journal, February 2001, 53-57. J. Rowley, Product Search in E-shopping: A Review and Research Propositions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(1), 2000, 20-35. T. Shuster, “Pocket Internet” and M-Commerce - (How) Will it Fly?, Feb. 1, 2001. ww.gwu.edu/~emkt/Ecommerce Statistics Finland (2000), www.stat.fi/tk/tietoyhteiskunta/tietokone_onverkkoyhteysjs skin_kuvataulu.htm 28.10.2002

[35] C. Strong & J. Old, How Can Mobile Developments Deliver Customer End-Value? White Paper on Mobile Internet Applications. NOP Research Group, London, November 2000. www.datacard.com/downloads/ pdf/white_paper_ecommerce.pdf [36] J. Tang, & J. Veijalainen, Using Agents to Improve Security and Convenience in Mobile E-commerce. Proc. 34th Hawaii International Conf. on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, January 3-6, 2001. [37] D. Tapscott, & M. Stevens-Guille, Evolution of LocationBased Services - Truth versus Myth. In World Market Series Business Briefings: Wireless Technology 2002. World Markets Research Centre, 2002, 138-141. [38] A. Tsalgatidou, & E. Pitoura, Business Models and Transactions in Mobile Electronic Commerce: Requirements and Properties. Journal of Computer Networks, 37(2), 2001, 221-236. [39] A. Urbaczewski, J. Wells, S. Suprateek, & M. Koivisto, Exploring Cultural Differences as a Means for Understanding the Global Mobile Internet: A Theoretical Basis and Program of Research. Proc. 35th Hawaii International Conf. on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, January 7-10, 2002. [40] G.C. Vanderheiden, Anywhere, Anytime (+Anyone) Access to the Next Generation WWW. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 29, 1997, 1439-1446. [41] U. Varshney, & R. Vetter, Emerging Mobile and Wireless Networks. Communic. of the ACM, 43(6), 2000, 73-81. [42] U. Varshney, & R. Vetter, R, A Framework for the Emerging Mobile Commerce Applications. Proc. 34th Hawaii International Conf. on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, January 3-6, 2001. [43] U. Varshney, R. Vetter, & R. Kalakota, Mobile Commerce: A New Frontier. Computer, 33(10), 2000, 32-38. [44] V. Venkatesh, & S. Brown, A Longitudinal Investigation of Personal Computers in Homes: Adoption Determinants and Emerging Challenges. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 2001, 71-102. [45] P. Vittet-Philippe, & J.M. Navarro, Mobile E-Business (MCommerce): State of Play and Implications for European Enterprise Policy. European Commission Enterprise Directorate-General E-Business Report 3, Dec. 6, 2000.

Wireless value dimensions

Mobile value dimensions Mobile Service

Mean

N

SP

TC

EN

EF

MO

OA

GF

WC

Make small payments Send/receive emails Book tickets (cinema/theatre/concerts/sport events)

83 76 80 67 54 48 47 43 33 33 24 33 26 14

60 64.5 70.3 77.7 47.2 70.4 68.5 71 17.2 59.4 58.4 57.6 47.9 32.2

53.2 77.7 57.6 73.9 28.3 49 65.2 53.2 15.7 42.2 47.8 41 46.2 21.4

24.4 39.5 26.6 6.9 70.2 28.2 13 1.2 77.4 6.3 29.2 7.6 24 78.6

26.2 61.2 41.2 58.5 22.7 31.3 14.1 51.2 23.5 14.2 33.3 18.2 17.3 25

48.2 60.5 44.9 53.9 34 50 67.4 45.4 31.3 39.1 41.3 42.5 46.2 46.5

18.2 33.6 17.2 26.2 12.2 17.7 23.9 12.8 6.3 14.1 20.9 6.1 9.6 10.7

7.6 15.2 13.9 7.7 8.5 10.5 10.8 4.7 11 3.1 10.4 7.6 0 7.1

25.7 38.8 27.6 32.1 22.2 13.6 34.8 18.7 10.9 15.7 30.4 30.3 23.1 14.3

Take part in e-auctions

3.82 3.77 3.68 3.46 3.08 2.99 2.96 2.95 2.62 2.53 2.41 2.38 2.33 1.92 1.46

Aggregated

2.82

44

57.3

48.0

30.9

8.4

24.2

Routine bank transactions Listen to/download music Browse the wireless Internet for information Routing / navigation services Make simple travel arrangements Play games

Automatic price comparison services Mobile betting / lotto services Remote activation/control of home appliances Personalized alerting services Watch TV or movies

2

Too few observations 31.3

46.5

16.4

TC = time-critical needs SP = spontaneous needs/decisions EN = entertainment needs EF = efficiency needs/ambitions MO = mobility-related needs OA = only access device GF= greater familiarity with mobile devices WC = wireless convenience

Appendix 1: Observed importance scores for different value dimensions

Fixed settings

Mobile settings Mobile Service

Mean

N

RE

TR

Make small payments Send/receive emails Book tickets (cinema/theatre/concerts/sport events)

83 76 80 67 54 48 47 43 33 33 24 33 26 14

47.6 47.4 42.5 24.6 17.6 33.3 23.4 9.2 22.7 37.9 12.5 27.3 26.9 25.0

58.4 71.7 46.3 36.6 47.2 55.2 68.1 21.3 71.2 28.8 39.6 51.5 32.7 67.9

Take part in e-auctions

3.82 3.77 3.68 3.46 3.08 2.99 2.96 2.95 2.62 2.53 2.41 2.38 2.33 1.92 1.46

Aggregated

2.82

44

28.4

49.8

Routine bank transactions Listen to/download music Browse the wireless Internet for information Routing / navigation services Make simple travel arrangements Play games

Automatic price comparison services Mobile betting / lotto services Remote activation/control of home appliances Personalized alerting services Watch TV or movies

RE = in restaurants / bars / cafés WE = at weekend / summer house

2

TR = in transportation HO = at Home

AB

ST

HO

WO

34.9 47.0 12.0 70.4 39.5 65.1 20.0 35.6 32.5 51.5 18.7 50.7 26.9 35.2 39.8 60.4 29.2 44.8 69.1 57.4 26.6 20.7 16.7 12.1 27.3 16.7 34.8 42.4 51.5 6.1 37.5 10.4 43.8 13.6 30.3 51.5 48.1 25.0 51.9 25.0 10.7 39.3 too few observations

12.0 47.4 56.3 70.9 62.0 44.8 17.0 22.4 60.6 28.8 58.3 36.4 25.0 21.4

51.2 51.3 49.4 50.7 42.6 47.9 17.0 20.7 48.5 25.8 41.7 36.4 40.4 39.3

39.1

40.2

40.2

30.3

AB = abroad WO = at work / school

WE

36.5

ST = in the street

Appendix 2: Observed interest scores for different usage settings.