Content uploaded by Jonas Hedman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jonas Hedman on Jan 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Designing Digital Payment Artifacts
Mia Olsen
Department of IT Management,
Copenhagen Business School
Howitzvej 60
2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
+ 45 3815 3815
mo.itm@cbs.dk
Jonas Hedman
Department of IT Management,
Copenhagen Business School
Howitzvej 60
2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
+ 45 2479 4310
jh.itm@cbs.dk
Ravi Vatrapu
Department of IT Management,
Copenhagen Business School
Howitzvej 60
2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
+ 45 2479 4315
vatrapu@cbs.dk
ABSTRACT
Ubiquitous and pervasive computing is fundamentally
transforming product categories such as music, movies, and books
and the associated practices of product searching, ordering, and
buying. This paper contributes to theory and practice of digital
payments by conducting a design science inquiry into the mobile
phone wallet (m-wallet). Four different user groups, including
young teenagers, young adults, mothers and businessmen, have
been involved in the process of identifying, developing and
evaluating functional and design properties of m-wallets.
Interviews and formative usability evaluations provided data for
the construction of a conceptual model in the form of sketches
followed by a functional model in the form of low-fidelity mock-
ups. During the design phases, knowledge was gained on what
properties the users would like the m-wallet to embody. The
identified properties have been clustered as ‘Functional
properties’ and ‘Design properties’, which are theoretical
contributions to the on-going research on m-wallets. One of the
findings from our design science inquiry into m-wallets is that
everyday life contexts require that evaluation criteria have to be
expanded beyond “functionality, completeness, consistency,
accuracy, performance, reliability, usability, fit with the
organization, and other relevant quality attributes” [12] that are
used within current design science work.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
K.4.4 [Electronic Commerce]: Payment schemes
General Terms
Design, Human Factors.
Keywords
M-wallet, e-wallet, mobile payments, digital payments, design
science, cashless society.
1. INTRODUCTION
The digital revolution continues to transform most aspects of our
daily life. In particular, the digital revolution has resulted in the
vertical convergence of business channel capacities and the
horizontal integration of marketing departments [16]. The digital
revolution also continues to transform the public sector
organizations and services [15] towards an envisioned cashless
society [9]. Additionally it is now possible to make purchases on
the go with mobile payments transacted through mobile phones
[2].
With this comes the need for a personal information system to
manage such mobile transactions. Further, ubiquitous and
pervasive computing is fundamentally transforming product
categories such as music, movies, and books and the associated
practices of product searching, ordering, and buying. Therefore, a
potential next step in the digital revolution is the transformation
of the time honored traditional physical wallet into the mobile
phone wallet (m-wallet).
There are many mobile payment solutions, but most of them have
failed or their adoption rate has been lower than expected [17].
One reason for this is that payment is an institutional act integral
to every day life, which cannot be easily changed. Payment is
transacted in almost the same way worldwide. Further issues arise
when companies additionally develop their own electronic
payment systems, such as those for public transportation and retail
chains [4]. So, there is a need for standardization of mobile
payments [13]. Additionally, it has been suggested that
technological development of such solutions should be directed
towards a closer cooperation with users [7], and that future mobile
payment research should focus on usability, as this is an
unexplored area of mobile payments [17, 21]. Therefore, it was
expected that some research had been done on how to involve
consumers in the development of mobile payments, together with
usability and interface design of an m-wallet. But searching for
these topics in the library and Google Scholar resulted in case
studies and papers on technical design [5, 23, 29], security [10,
18, 19] adoption, and diffusion, and understanding user
motivations [6, 17, 27] Consequently, there is a need for working
with usability and user involvement when designing mobile
payments solutions for the future. Set within this context, the
purpose of this paper is to identify the functional and design
properties of m-wallets, with functional referring to what
functions the m-wallet should hold and design referring to how
the user can interact with and navigate the m-wallet.
2. M-WALLETS
A wallet is typically “a flat, folding pocketbook, especially one
large enough to hold paper money, credit cards, driver's license,
etc., and sometimes having a compartment for coins.”1
An m-wallet is a personalized digital artifact that contains
electronic payments instruments such as virtual currencies and
Building
on the above, we offer the following definition of an m-wallet:
1 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wallet
(c) 2012 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges
that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee,
contractor or affiliate of the national government of Denmark. As such,
the government of Denmark retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to
publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for
Government purposes only.
International Conference on Electronic Commerce ’12, August 7-8,
2012, Singapore Management University, Singapore.
Copyright 2012 ACM 978-1-4503-1197-7/12/08…$10.00.
161
payment cards, repository for receipts and tickets, identification
cards such as passports, drivers’ licenses and insurance cards,
and personal items such as pictures and shopping lists.
However, both in the extant literature and in commercial solutions
the m-wallet has been understood in the very limited and
restricted sense of a digital payment tool, such as PayPal and M-
PESA. This study is the first step towards addressing the previous
limitations in conceptualizing and implementing m-wallets. It
seeks to investigate realistic use cases and usage scenarios, in
order to provide a holistic design of m-wallets.
The idea of paying with mobile phones is, however, not new.
Since the beginning of the 2000’s it has been possible to buy
digital content such as ring tones and games through mobile
phones, and pay for it through mobile telecom operator billing
systems. This made mobile payment services a critical issue of
concern, and they were commonly perceived as a “killer
application” for mobile commerce. Many mobile and electronic
payment solutions have been introduced ever since, but most of
them have failed or have had a low penetration rate [17]. One
exception is Sony, NTT DoCoMo, and local banks in Japan that
formed a joint venture in 2004 and launched a mobile payment
system. Another exception is M-PESA (‘M’ is for mobile and
‘PESA’ is the Swahili word for cash) in Kenya. Yet another
successful new electronic payment system is PayPal. Initially
PayPal enabled people to perform transactions of small payments
by means of e-mails. Back in 2006 PayPal launched PayPal
Mobile, but even though it was improved and adjusted a couple of
times to be compatible with several smartphones, it never
provided an ability to transact through the phones to buy goods or
services wirelessly.
It is argued that electronic payments have several advantages such
as accessibility, convenience, speed, privacy and control, and that
electronic payments are preferred in simple routine service
transactions. It is suggested that mobile payments should not
imply advanced multi-step procedures; PIN codes are preferred
for identification and authentication; and consumers consider
mobile payment useful if it is able to constitute several plastic
cards [6]. The reasons for using traditional human assistants are
security concerns and the opportunity to get help when skills with
new technologies are lacked or the system malfunctions. A mobile
payment channel should therefore furthermore communicate a
high level of security and contain a helpful design that guides the
user by means of careful communication, in order to make the
user feel as comfortable using the new payment channel, as when
using the traditional payment channels [17]. With regard to design
properties the results show that mobile payments should be
deducted from an already existing account [17], that payments
should be made through another technology other than text
messages [17], and that transactions need to be recorded locally
on the mobile phone for documentation matters as well as on the
distributed databases. An additional design property identified in
the literature is the display of current balance that can be seen
before making a transaction [20]
Besides what can be found in the literature, a look at the cashless
payment systems themselves gives us an idea of how they work.
In a review of 10 payment applications (including VISA
payWave, MasterCard PayPass, PayPal Mobile, Google Wallet,
Paybox, Banxafe, Oyster Card, Octopus Card, M-PESA, and
SMART Money) 65 different design properties were identified. In
Table 1, a selection of the systems and the most frequent
properties are shown.
Table 1. Emerging Payment Systems and their Properties
Systems
Properties
VISA /
Master
Card
PayPal
Mobile Google
Wallet Banxafe Oyster
Card Octopus
Card M-PESA SMART
Money
SMS and app based system
X
X X
App access to system
X
X
X X
NFC based X
X X
Purchasing list
X X
X
Multiple accounts
X X
X
Balance in SMS
X
X X
Balance on receipt
X X X
Recipient list
X
X X
Merchants must activate the
sale / initiate sales
X
X
X
Many steps to complete the
transaction
X
X
X X
Transfer of money to friends
X
X X
On-line access to user account
X X
X
Payment history
X X
X X
X
Bank account prerequisite X X X X X
Creation of virtual account
prerequisite
X
X X X X X
PIN code for purchase
X X X
X X
User account needed
X X
X X X X
162
3. METHOD
The choice of method for this study was driven by the research
problem, which is the identification of m-wallet properties with
focus on the interaction between the user and the artifact. The
focus on human-computer interaction leads to issues that are
complex and grounded in multiple disciplines. Consequently,
questions frequently arise that have a thin or no theoretical
background, and exploring these, is where Design Science
Research – exploring by building – proves useful [11, 25].
3.1 The design process
There are several guidelines and approaches on how to conduct
design science projects [12, 25, 26]. In this project we draw upon
Takeda et al.’s [24] design science model. The model has clear
stages with deliverables and it has been recently applied in recent
information systems research [25]
The process starts with an Awareness of the Problem phase, which
typically comes from wonder or a problem in current practice that
the researcher aims to solve. The output of this phase is a
description of the problem and a proposal for researching this
problem. The following phase is Suggestions for a Problem
Solution phase and drawn from existing knowledge (literature and
existing artifacts), followed by an attempt to implement an artifact
based on the suggested solution (called the Development phase).
Knowledge in the Suggestions phase may refer both to solutions
from other areas, theories, or idea from potential users. In the
Development phase, an attempt to develop and implement an
artifact according to the suggested solution is performed. It is in
this Development phase that most of the design takes place. The
techniques for implementation vary, depending on the artifact to
be constructed. The implementation itself can be very ordinary
and does not need to involve innovation beyond the state-of-
practice for the given artifact; the innovation is in the design, not
the construction of the artifact. The output of this phase is
findings about the artifact’s application and functionality.
Afterwards an Evaluation phase starts where the implementations
is assessed, and finally, a Conclusion phase indicates that the
design project is finished by deciding that the results are “good
enough”, and by summarizing what the contributions of the
artifact are. The phases Development, Evaluation, and further
Suggestions are iterative until the results reach saturation [24].
3.2 User involvement and data collection
The 42 users (study participants) involved in this project were
mainly found at Facebook among peripheral acquaintances and
friends of friends, in order to keep prior knowledge of the
interviewees to a minimum and minimize biases. A further
selection criterion for the study participants was the degree of use
of technology in their everyday lives, as this was estimated to be
necessary in order for them to be able to understand the m-wallet
concept. The number of study participants was 26 for the
Suggestion phase and 16 for the Evaluation phase (See Table 2
for a summary). They were all Danish and mixed from the
Copenhagen area and the western part of Zealand. The
participants representing the Young Teenagers were mainly
female, the participants representing the Young Adults were a mix
of male and female, the Mothers are obvious, and the participants
representing Business People were all male. None of the study
participants from the Suggestion phase participated in Evaluation
phase.
The study participants for both phases represented four different
user groups: Young Teenagers, Young Adults, Mothers and
Business People. The reason for choosing these four user groups
is that they loosely cover the phases of Wells and Gubar’s widely
used consumer life cycle [28]. The interaction time between
researcher and study participant varied from 15 to 60 minutes and
were conducted in the autumn of 2010. To avoid the issue of the
artificial environment intimidating the study participant, the
interviews were held at a place chosen by them, mainly their
residence or work place.
Table 2. Study participant demographics
User groups Participants Age Time
Period Location
Suggestion phase
Young
Teenagers
8
13-
15
Sep-Dec
Home&School
Young
Adults
8
19-
25
Sep-Dec
Home&Library
Mothers
5
32-
37
Sep-Oct
Home&Work
Business
People 5 46-
53 Sept-
Dec Home&Work
Evaluation phase
Young
Teenagers
4
15
Jan
Home
Young
Adults
4
20-
22
Jan
Home
Mothers 4 30-
37 Jan Home
Business
People 4 46-
53 Jan Home&Work
4. RESULTS
4.1 The Awareness and Suggestion phase
The starting point of the design process was the identified
shortcoming of a real m-wallet and knowledge about its design
properties. This Awareness was grounded in the literature and in
review of existing mobile payment solutions.
In the Suggestion phase the work with the proposal from the
previous phase (Awareness) was initiated. The work with the
Suggestion phase took its starting point in the users; 26 people
were interviewed during this phase. We recruited study
participants from the four user groups based on the assumption
that the groups would differ from each other, regarding their
needs and expectations to the wallet. Munck [20] emphasizes that
the understanding of end-users’ behaviors and needs is a success
criterion for contactless and mobile payments. This phase
involved three steps: Usability goals, sketching and scenarios.
4.2 Development phase
In the development phase, we created four m-wallet mock-ups
based on the input from the 26 interviews in the Suggestion
phase. The creation of the four mock-ups included usability goals,
sketching, personas and scenarios. The usability goals were
written based on what the interviewees had said during the
163
interviews; the sketches were based on initial sketches of the m-
wallet drawn by the interviewees; the personas were created based
on the interviews and corresponding to the four user groups; and
the scenarios covered the four personas interacting with each their
m-wallet sketch.
Usually, a mock-up is used as a topic for conversation in for
example an interview, but the mock-ups in this study were used as
prototypes. A prototype is a more or less functional model that
enables stakeholders to interact with the imagined product. Figure
1 shows the prototype that was developed for the Business
Person. In that way, the prototype can be tested by the intended
users in realistic environments, which leads to the designers’
becoming aware of design issues they had not thought of
themselves. A prototype is of great help in the design process
because of the fact that the designers are brought to perceive
completely new considerations, when they are going to take
something from inside their minds and turn it into something
physical and/or digital.
Figure 1. The Business Person's first m-wallet prototype.
4.3 Evaluation phase
After having developed the mock-ups, they were used as
prototypes for the Evaluation phase, which consists of reflection
through interaction and discussion with users to understand to
what extent the artifact fills in the imperfections made explicit in
the proposal from the Awareness of Problem phase. As Hevner et
al. [12] explain it: “A design artifact is complete and effective
when it satisfies the requirements and constraints of the problem it
was meant to solve.”
The Evaluation phase focuses on what went good or badly, and
decides whether or not an iteration more is needed. During this
phase we involved 16 people; four study participants from each of
the four user groups evaluated their own user group’s prototype
during two rounds of user tests. The questions asked were
concerned with:
• The study participants’ understanding of the m-wallet’s
properties
• What impression they got when they first saw the m-wallet
• What they thought about the properties that was specific for the
m-wallet compared to the physical wallet
• If they would like to have any other properties in the wallet
• Three things that they liked and three things that they disliked
from the m-wallet
In the interaction with the study participants a revision of the
prototypes was conducted, which formed input to the conclusion
phase.
4.4 Conclusion phase
Based on the user tests in the Evaluation phase, some overall
findings were made, e.g. the study participants for the second
mock-up of the Young Teenager’s m-wallet, reflected upon how
many items in the m-wallet, they would like to secure with PIN
code or a password, in order to prevent strangers spending their
money or using personal data, if the mobile phone should get lost
or stolen. The study participants furthermore considered it
insecure to have the passport in the m-wallet, but disagreed on
how many of the m-wallet’s cards should be secured. One of the
usability goals that were identified in the Development phase was
safety, and this has thus not been fully reached, as the m-wallet
that was tested not made the participants feel completely safe.
The study participants additionally proposed new properties for
the m-wallet, e.g. a text appearing when payment is completed, a
‘Cancel’ and a ‘Load’ button on the payment page, bus passes, a
possibility to change the structure of the m-wallets front page, a
bank application, and many more. All these additional properties
indicate that more functionality is needed in the m-wallet, and
therefore one of the other usability goals set up in the
Development phase, the goal of utility, has not been reached.
During the user tests regarding the second mock-up of the
Mother’s m-wallet, one of the study participants proposed a text
appearing on the m-wallet’s screen when payment is completed.
The adding of an eBanking function, a receipt option, and an
automatic scanning of membership cards were proposed as well.
A further suggestion was that the payment methods should
include the user’s different accounts, as a user might have more
than one bank account. Moreover, the participants had different
suggestions for what should happen to the receipts if an m-wallet
was introduced, and a further investigation of this matter is
therefore needed. All these things lead to the conclusion that the
usability goal of utility is far from being reached by this version of
the m-wallet. Through the user tests of the second mock-up
representing the Business Person’s m-wallet it became clear that a
category structure was preferred to the structure with all cards
visible on the wallet’s front page. The m-wallet would therefore
reach one of the other usability goals, the goal of learnability, to a
greater extent, if the category structure were applied. An
additional thing that would improve the learnability is the moving
of the receipts from their present place, into the ‘Payment
methods’ where the test users thought they belonged.
4.5 Functional and design properties
Besides what can be concluded on an overall level from the user
tests of the four mock-ups, specific user requirements were also
derived from the sketches drawn by the interviewees and from
what the study participants said during the user tests of the mock-
ups. In Table 3 these user requirements are clustered into
functional and design properties across the four user groups. The
functional properties are clearly representing the role of a wallet
in everyday life and it varies greatly among the user groups. The
Business Person has the greatest demand regarding the
functionality of the m-wallet – it has to support all the business
people’s requirements. For instance, it was required that the m-
wallet should be able to hold many different cards for both credit
and loyalty program. The passport and other travel documents
were also clear requirements. In addition, business people put
164
more emphasis on convenience and ease of use and less on
security. The Young Teenagers, Young Adults, and Mothers had similar requirements.
Table 3. Functional and Design Properties of m-wallets
User Groups
Functional Properties Young Teenager Young Adult Mother
Business
Person
Health card X X X X
Passport
X
X
X
X
Driver’s license
X
X
X
Payment card(s) X X X
Membership cards
X
X
X
‘Membership cards’ category
X
Receipts X X X
Gift vouchers
X
Hotel / car rental cards
X
‘ID cards’ category X
Balance
X
X
X
X
Purchasing list
X
X
X
Automatic currency conversion X
Currency converter X
Amounts given in two currencies when abroad
X
Total amount of goods being bought X X X X
Headline on front page saying ‘Your electronic wallet
X
Headline on payment page stating the payment method
X
Service message (illustrated as yellow circle with a number) X
‘Pay’ button X X X X
‘Load’ / ‘Transfer’ button
X
X
X
Shortcuts to most used functions
X
Design properties Young Teenager Young Adult Mother Business
Person
Optional background picture X
‘Settings’ button
X
X
Icon representing ‘paying cash’ and leading to payment page
X
Icon leading to the choice of payment method X
Radio buttons for choosing payment method X
eBanking shortcut
X
‘Back’ button on the payment page X
An icon structure X X X X
Icons placed from the top of the wallet and downwards
X
X
X
Icons placed in the bottom of the wallet X
Balance a part of the ‘Pay’ button on the front page X X
Balance placed near the ‘Pay’ button on the front page
X
Balance placed above the list of what is being bought on the payment page X
‘Pay’ button in the bottom of the wallet’s front page X X
‘Pay’ button in the middle of the wallet
X
‘Pay’ button on the payment page
X
X
X
Payment card icon in the bottom of the wallet next to ‘Pay’ button X
‘Load’ button in the bottom of the wallet next to ‘Pay’ button
X
‘Load’ button on the payment page
X
165
‘Transfer’ button above the icons
X
Total amount of goods being bought visible on the payment page X X X
The design properties represent how the users would like to
interact with the m-wallet. Here the requirements were more
diverse than for functional properties across the user groups.
The only common requirement is the icon structure. Otherwise it
is clear that personal preferences and experience have influence
on the design. Only five functional and design properties are
universally required across the four user groups, including
health card, passport, balance, total amount, and icon structure.
Interestingly, the Business Person user group identified 27
functional and design properties and was thus the user group
requiring the largest variety of properties. In summary, this tells
us that functionality might be more important for the
professional user segment, while aesthetic and experiential
aspects of design should be prioritized for the young teenager
and young adult user groups. For the Mother user group and
other user groups with time pressures, a minimalistic m-wallet is
to be designed.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In the final section we discuss the findings of the m-wallet
design project in relation to the design of m-wallets and its
practical relevance. We then conclude the paper.
5.1 Design of m-wallets
A finding that emerged from our project is that the functional
and design properties of m-wallets are somewhat different to
those of mobile payment (when comparing Table 1 to Table 3).
Another finding is that the way the user tests of the mock-ups
were conducted proved to be useful for this project, as this
approach provided explanations when needed. Some of study
participants had difficulties grasping the idea of an m-wallet. On
the other hand, those who understood the concept of m-wallet
right away had many questions, especially concerning security
and other aspects of mobile payments that are still uncertain.
Security issues are one aspect that needs to be further explored
and not only in the case of m-wallet but also for mobile
shopping. Further, designing for security issues might be in
conflict with other usability goals such as efficiency and
learnability. The user tests also revealed that it is of great
importance when testing an innovative product to ask the study
participants to ignore the questions of whether they would use it,
as this showed to affect a couple of the tests. Another
observation showing that some participants did not quite grasp
the idea was made when some of them suggested that the m-
wallet should hold the possibility of reading text messages and
checking Facebook, as they would not want to be without it.
Along the way, it was therefore decided to explain to the study
participants that they still had all the other functions on the
mobile phone, and that the m-wallet was just another function or
just like another mobile app. Moreover, the user tests did inform
further questions that had not been originally planned and which
might not have been asked to all the participants. For example, if
a participant proposed an idea that had not been proposed
before, the participants in the subsequent tests were asked about
this proposal, in order to have their opinion. This project was,
however, an explorative design project, and nothing was given
in advance. It was therefore a conscious research design
decision to test several ideas. The design expert, in our context,
is the person who has tested several kinds of solutions, in order
to find the right one, and to learn from those who went badly.
5.2 Practical relevance
A big challenge in the work with the m-wallet was to clarify
what functionalities it should ideally embody. There were almost
as many opinions as there were study participants. Several new
ideas were proposed through the last iteration of user tests and
other user groups’ designs of the m-wallet kept inspiring the
study participants. The evaluation results showed that the
usability goals had not been reached, and that another design
iteration is needed. It is therefore concluded that the m-wallet
proposed by this project, is not yet ready to be launched. That
said, it was neither the purpose nor the scope of this project to
design a fully functional m-wallet. Instead, the objective was to
document design and functional properties that can help inform
further research into mobile payments in general and m-wallets
in particular. This has been achieved by proposing the set of
design and functional properties for the m-wallet based on user
centered design methods and by comparing these empirically
derived design properties with those found in the extant
literature and existing mobile payment solutions.
The design and functional properties for m-wallets identified as
being important to the four user groups in this study, is offered
as theoretical contributions to the on-going research on m-
wallets.
5.3 Concluding Words and Future Work
It is argued that IS researchers should ‘engage deeply and
seriously with the artifacts’ [22], and this is the kind of
engagement that this paper presents, with the artifact being the
m-wallet.
As a point of departure, this paper presented guidelines for the
design of an m-wallet, found in the literature and existing
solutions, and used these when developing prototypes of m-
wallets and when comparing these m-wallets to existing mobile
payment solutions. Thus the research for this paper contributes
to a cumulative tradition as defined by Keen [14].
The user tests of these m-wallet prototypes that followed were
carried out in settings far from where the m-wallet is supposed
to be used. This has inevitably impacted the test results.
Therefore, we propose that future user tests, should be carried
out in the actual contexts in which the m-wallet is supposed to
be used, in order to avoid treating the IT artifact as a ‘black box’
[1, 3]. ‘Black boxing’ belongs in the connection view of IS,
which is an early perspective of how IT related to the world.
Today this perspective has changed to a fusion view of IS, which
means that IT artifacts are no longer separable from users and
the contexts in which they are used [8], and therefore IT artifacts
have to be tested by real users, in real-world settings.
In future work, we furthermore propose to create and test one
single m-wallet for all users, by having participants from one
user group to test another user group’s mock-up. This would
explore how the prototype would work for them and what
changes they would propose. By switching mock-ups through
several iterations of tests, the possibility of having one standard
166
design with customization options satisfying all the users could
thus be tested. However, this project did not take this approach
and instead focused on developing different wallets for different
user groups.
Finally, it was from the beginning assumed that a standardized
m-wallet would hold many customization options and thereby
be confusing to the user. This could lead to a situation where the
user would not want to use the m-wallet. However, the
evaluation revealed that all the user groups had actually
suggested a settings function to be added to the wallet to allow
for customization and personalization. However, it needs to be
empirically explored if it is desirable for the users to have a
multitude of options and the ensuing user interactions and user
experience in real-world contexts as well as simulated living lab
settings. We suggest that such an empirical project should be
informed by a holistic concept of an m-wallet that is closer to
the physical wallet both as a socio-cultural artifact as well as a
socio-technical practice of payment.
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was carried with the generous support of Copenhagen
Finance IT Region (www.cfir.dk) and was funded by the Danish
Enterprise and Construction Authority grant number ERDFH-
09-0026.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Agarwal, R. and Lucas Jr. H.C. 2005. The information
systems identity crisis: Focusing on high-visibility and
high-impact research. MIS Quarterly. 29, 381-398.
[2] Bakkegaard, J. 2009. Danmarks nationalbank, working
papers. 63.
[3] Benbasat, I. and Zmud R.W. 2003. The identity crisis
within the is discipline: Defining and communicating the
discipline's core properties MIS Quarterly. 27, 183-194.
[4] Bourreau, M. and Verdier M. 2010. Cooperation for
innovation in payment systems: The case of mobile
payments. Communications & Strategies. 1, 79, 95-114.
[5] Chen, J.J. and Adams C. 2004. Short-range wireless
technologies with mobile payments systems. Proceedings
of the Sixth International Conference on Electronic
Commerce (ICEC), Delft, The Netherlands, October 25–
27, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 60.
[6] Dahlberg, T. and Mallat N. 2002. Mobile payment service
development-managerial implications of consumer value
perceptions. Citeseer.
[7] Dahlberg, T., Mallat N., Ondrus J. and Zmijewska A. 2008.
Past, present and future of mobile payments research: A
literature review. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications. 7, 2, 165-181.
[8] El Sawy, O.A. 2003. The is core ix: The 3 faces of is
identity: Connection, immersion and fusion. The
Communications of the Association for Information
Systems. 12, 39, 588-598.
[9] Garcia-Swartz, D., Hahn R. and Layne-Farrar A. 2006. The
move toward a cashless society: A closer look at payment
instrument economics. Review of Network Economics. 5, 2,
175-197.
[10] Herzberg, A. 2003. Payments and banking with mobile
personal devices. Communications of the ACM. 46, 5, 53-
58.
[11] Hevner, A. and Chatterjee S. 2010. Design science research
in information systems. Design Research in Information
Systems. 9-22.
[12] Hevner, A.R., March S.T., Park J. and Ram S. 2004.
Design science in information systems research. Mis
Quarterly. 28, 1, 75-105.
[13] Hilavuo, S. 2005. Business evolution of mobile services.
Managing mobile services-technologies and business
practices, Chichester. 17-45.
[14] Keen, P.G.W. Mis research: Reference disciplines and a
cumulative tradition. Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Information Systems, (Philadelphia, PA,
December 8-10 1980). 9-18.
[15] Knights, D., Noble F., Vurdubakis T. and Willmott H.
2007. Electronic cash and the virtual marketplace:
Reflections on a revolution postponed. Organization. 14, 6,
747.
[16] Li, H. and Leckenby J.D. 2007. Examining the
effectiveness of internet advertising formats. Internet
advertising: theory and research. 203.
[17] Mallat, N. 2007. Exploring consumer adoption of mobile
payments: A qualitative study. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems. 16, 4, 413-432.
[18] Me, G. 2003. Payment security in mobile environment.
Proceedings of the ACS/IEEE International Conference on
Computer Systems and Applications, Tunis, Tunisia, July
14–18.
[19] Misra, S.a.W., N. . 2004. Security of a mobile transaction:
A trust model. Electronic Commerce Research. 4, 4, 359-
372.
[20] M(29[unck, M.G. The future is contactless. Presentation
from a get fit meeting at nets on the 30th of november
2010. 2010 [cited 2010 6th of December]; Available
from: http://www.cfir.dk/Forside/Arrangementer/GetFIT-
Novemberthe30th/Slidesfraarrangementet.aspx
[21] Ondrus, J. and Pigneur Y. 2006. Towards a holistic
analysis of mobile payments: A multiple perspectives
approach. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications. 5, 3, 246-257.
[22] Orlikowski, W.J. and Iacono C.S. 2001. Research
commentary: Desperately seeking the “it” in it research – a
call to theorizing the it artifact. Information Systems
Research. 12, 2, 121-134.
[23] Pradhan, S., Lawrence E. and Zmijewska A. 2005.
Bluetooth as an enabling technology in mobile
transactions. Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Information Technology: Coding and
Computing (ITCC), Las Vegas, NV, USA, April 4–6.
[24] Takeda, H., Veerkamp P. and Yoshikawa H. 1990.
Modeling design process. AI magazine. 11, 4, 37.
[25] Vaishnavi, V. and Kuechler W. 2008. Design science
research methods and patterns: Innovating information
and communication technology, Boca Raton: Auerbach
Publications xvi, 226 p.
[26] Van Aken, J.E. 2005. Management research as a design
science: Articulating the research products of mode 2
knowledge production in management. British Journal of
Management. 16, 1, 19-36.
[27] Van der Heijden, H. 2002. Factors affecting the successful
introduction of mobile payment systems. Proceedings of
the 15th Bled eCommerce Conference, Bled, Slovenia, June
17–19.
167
[28] Wells, W.D. and Gubar G. 1966. Life cycle concept in
marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research. 3, 4,
355-363.
[29] Zmijewska, A. 2005. Evaluating wireless technologies in
mobile payments – a customer centric approach.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Mobile Business (ICMB), Sydney, Australia, July 11–13.
168