basis

adoption

















related
Guides:

Security &
InfoCrime

Governance

Information
Economy

Consumers
& Trust

e-Publishing



related
Profiles:

Forgery
& Fraud

Identity
Theft

     adoption

This page considers adoption of electronic signatures, looking at statistics, costs, benefits and the e-signature industry.

It covers -

• introduction - visions of the 'paperless office' and perfect security
• how many signatures - questions about statistics and demographics
• the e-signature industry - signature specialists, the compliance sector, EDI solutions vendors and enthusiasts
• costs - implementation, maintenance and compliance costs
• benefits - enhanced reliability, timeliness, security, audit trails and other claimed benefits

Pointers to national/international legal frameworks, industry codes and technical or other studies are found in the broader discussion of authentication mechanisms.

     introduction

What is driving adoption of e-signatures?

One answer is that adoption reflects a hardheaded recognition of costs and benefits identified later in this page.

An alternative answer might be that adoption is being driven by visions of technology (and by the interaction of major solutions vendors and their clients, discussed below). Those visions embrace notions of the paperless office, of particular interest to organisations seeking substantial cost reductions and enhanced timeliness in data handling, along with the frisson associated with leading edge - or bleeding edge - solutions. They also embrace notions of perfect security, sometimes with a concentration on a particular technological fix at the expense of the broader problem of data management.

Adoption is an instance of what Paul Duguid and John Seely Brown characterised as the 'social life of information' (and Paul Strassman more tartly damned as the 'wasted computer'). It has been uneven, with stop-start acceptance by large government organisations - particularly those concerned with human services such as healthcare and welfare payments - and by major nongovernment entities with a substantial investment in ICT and concerns regarding data safety/integrity, particularly financial institutions.

Acceptance by SMEs and by domestic users has been low. That low acceptance - which is explored in the following page of this note - has indeed acted as a brake in establishment and expansion of some major government initiatives such as the Australian national government PKI program.

     how many signatures?

How many e-signatures are "out there"? What is the frequency of use? What are the demographics?

The answer is that nobody knows for sure. Much data is muddy or merely unavailable; much of the literature is founded on projections and anecdote rather than rigorous independent analysis. Hyperbole from some metrics vendors should be treated with caution.

That is partly because of disagreement about definitions. Is an e-signature the putative author's initials on a web form, based on signature dynamics or instead restricted to the product of twin key encryption?

It is also because although particular solutions vendors report on purchases of their products there are few recognised statistics about day to day use of those products. As noted in the discussion of browsers, 'download' does not necessarily equate to comprehensive ongoing use by an individual or organisation. Our small scale survey of government agencies, research organisations, service providers and high technology businesses during 2004 thus suggested that many potential users had 'tried once and abandoned'.

Finally it is partly because e-signature legislation has generally been generic rather than narrowly prescriptive, providing recognition for electronic signatures as such rather than mandating particular solutions.

It would appear that use in Australia centres on -

• large organisations (particular this with a defence, law enforcement or financial alignment) using commercial twin key solutions, often as part of large scale document management systems. Much documentation and correspondence from those organisations does not use the signature technology
• smaller organisations (in particular those with a health services, human resources or education alignment) using webform identifiers
• ICT professionals and enthusiasts, with solutions often being 'home grown' and much use apparently being a badge that identifies membership of a technical community rather than in day by day use for verification.