On Diffusion and Confusion – Why Electronic Signatures Have Failed

  • Heiko Roßnagel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4083)


Even seven years after the directive was enacted the market share of EC-directive conforming signature cards is disappointingly low, failing to meet any involved party’s expectations. Also the lack of customers discourages companies from investing in signature products and applications. As a result almost no commercial usage for qualified electronic signatures exists. Consequently no customers seek to obtain signature products. With this contribution we examine, if economic principles are responsible for the missing adoption of qualified electronic signatures in Europe. We show that their attributes related to the rate of adoption are far from optimal. We then take a look at efforts being undertaken to increase the adoption of qualified electronic signatures. We conclude the contribution with some recommendations on how to structure a future signature market in order to speed up the diffusion process.


Critical Mass Relative Advantage Technology Acceptance Model Early Adopter Electronic Signature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quaterly 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Cock, D., Wouters, K., Preneel, B.: Introduction to the Belgian EID Card. In: Katsikas, S.K., Gritzalis, S., Lopez, J. (eds.) Public Key Infrastructures, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dialogin Brezen mesic internetu (accessed February 28, 2005),
  4. 4.
    Dumortier, J., Kelm, S., Nilsson, H., Skouma, G., Van Eecke, P.: The Legal and Market Aspects of Electronic Signatures. In: Interdisciplinary centre for Law & Information Technology, Leuven (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    EC-Directive 1999/93/EC. Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliment and of the Council on a Community framework for electronic signatures (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fritsch, L., Roßnagel, H.: Die Krise des Signaturmarktes: Lösungsansätze aus betriebswirtschaftlicher Sicht. In: Ferderrath, H. (ed.) Sicherheit 2005, Bonn. Köllen Druck+Verlag GmbH, pp. 315–327 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hvarre, J.: Electronic signatures in Denmark: free for all citizens. e-Signature Law Journal 1(1), 12–17 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koppe, V.: Die Geldkarte der deutschen Kreditwirtschaft: Aktuelle Situation und Ausblick (accessed February 28, 2005),
  9. 9.
    Lippmann, S., Roßnagel, H.: Geschäftsmodelle für signaturgesetzkonforme Trust Center. In: Ferstl, O.K., Sinz, E.J., Eckert, S., Isselhorst, T. (eds.) Wirtschaftsinformatik 2005, pp. 1167–1187. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lopez, J., Opplinger, R., Pernul, G.: Why Have Public Key Infrastructures Failed So Far? Internet Research 15(5), 544–556 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mahler, A., Rogers, E.M.: The diffusion of interactive communication innovations and the critical mass. Telecommunications Policy 23, 719–740 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I.: Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research 2(3), 173–191 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oren, S.S., Smith, S.A.: Critical Mass and Tariff Structure in Electronic Communications Markets. The Bell Journal of Economics 12(2), 467–487 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reichl, H., Roßnagel, A., Müller, G. (eds.): Digitaler Personalausweis: Eine Machbarkeitsstudie. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roßnagel, A.: Eine konzertierte Aktion für die elektronische Signatur. Multimedia und Recht 1, 1–2 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roßnagel, A., Fischer-Dieskau, S.: Elektronische Dokumente als Beweismittel. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 59, 806–809 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roßnagel, H.: Mobile Signatures and Certification on Demand. In: Katsikas, S.K., Gritzalis, S., Lopez, J. (eds.) Public Key Infrastructures, pp. 274–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shapiro, C., Varian, H.R.: Information Rules. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taylor, S., Todd, P.A.: Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models. Information Systems Research 6(2), 144–176 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Varian, H.R.: Price Discrimination and Social Welfare. The American Economic Review 75(4), 870–875 (1985)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Whitten, A., Tygar, J.: Why Johnny Can’t Encrypt:Why Johnny Can’t Encrypt: A Usability Evaluation of PGP 5.0. In: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 169–183 (August 1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiko Roßnagel
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Mobile Commerce and Multilateral SecurityJohann Wolfgang Goethe- University FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations