(A) study on preferences for the attributes of digital signature certificate : choice experiment analysis

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

With the enactment of the Digital Signature Act in 1999, accredited
certificate were introduced. Accredited certificate serve as a way to
identify individuals online and verify their legitimacy as users. This
certificate is legally supported under the Electronic Signature Act and have
established itself as a reliable authentication method in electronic
transactions since the 2000s. It has experienced explosive growth in
tandem with the rise of electronic transactions. However, various
inconveniences were continuously raised, including the need for program
installation, the complexity of the registration process due to annual
renewal, and the use of complex passwords. In response to these concerns,
the government took action by completely revising the Digital Signature
Act in 2020. The revised act aimed to diversify the types of certificates
available in the market and eliminate the monopoly of the accredited
- ix -
certificate. As a result, the accredited certificate system was abolished.
As of March 2023, following the abolition of the accredited certificate
system, a total of 21 digital signature certification providers emerged in the
market, releasing a significant number of certificates. With the introduction
of numerous certificates into the market, the government successfully
achieved its objective of offering diverse authentication methods to users.
There are market questions regarding the fate of existing accredited
certificate in the current era of certificate evolution. There is speculation
about whether a specific platform company will monopolize the market
based on predictions and trends. There is a question in which the market
is curious about what is good for a healthy certificate market structure.
The best way to address these market questions is to identify consumer
choice attributes. This is because consumer choice attributes will be helpful
for identifying the market, establishing corporate strategies, and serving as
a foundation for government policies. Therefore, in this study, what
certificate choice attributes are important to consumers in a time of
certificate upheaval. The choice attributes were identified, the relative
importance among the choice attributes and the utility value for the level
within each attribute were estimated.
Identified certificate choice attributes were issuer reliability, program
installation, authentication method, and where to use(scope of usage). As a
relative importance among the selected attributes, the place of use was the
most important, followed by program installation, issuer reliability, and
authentication method in order of importance. When forecasting the current
certificate market with estimated relative importance, accredited certificate
- x -
(35.7%), financial certificate (34.9%), and platform company certificate
(29.4%) appeared in the order. When forecasting the future certificate
market, it was followed by financial certificate (38.3%), platform company
certificate (32.2%), and accredited certificate (29.4%). Consumers preferred
reliability over convenience in issuer reliability, and bio preference was
high value in their 30s. Based on this, we would like to propose policies
and market strategies. Policy proposals should separate the current single
certificate policy into trusted and convenient certificate. As a proposal for
the market, digital signature authentication service providers recommend
introducing non-aware facial authentication to increase market share.
In details, first of all, the existing preceding papers were investigated to
identify the consumer's certificate choice attributes. These papers
summarized the factors involved in selecting certificate, which include
convenience, security, usefulness, and usage habit. Convenience, as a
detailed factor, was investigated by considering program installation,
validity period, and ease of use. Security was assessed in terms of the
security measures employed during issuance and the location of certificate
storage. Usefulness was evaluated by examining where the certificate can
be used and their overall usability. Lastly, researchers investigated
consumers' usage habits. It was possible to identify the attributes
influencing consumers' certificate choices attributes with previouse paper.
However, as the limitations of previous papers, determining the relative
importance of these attributes was not feasible. Furthermore, most of the
previous papers were conducted before the abolition of the accredited
certificate, which means they may not fully reflect the market's diversity
- xi -
following the abolition.
To refine the choice attributes identified from the previous papers, a
two-round expert Delphi survey was conducted. In the first round, the
participants were asked to provide input on any necessary additions,
changes, or deletions to the choice attributes. Additionally, the participants
rated the importance level of each choice attribute. Based on the findings
of the Delphi survey, it was determined that organizing the major
categories into "issuance" and "use," representing the life cycle of
certificate, would enhance consumer understanding. This reorganization was
preferred over the previous categorization of convenience, security, and
usefulness. Based on the findings of the first survey, a second expert
survey was conducted to finalize the selection of choice attributes. In the
second investigation, it was revealed that the majority of certificates have
a validity period of 3 years, thereby eliminating any discrimination based
on duration. Additionally, the storage location of certificate emerged as a
factor that consumers find challenging to recognize or evaluate. Based on
these findings, it was recommended to exclude the validity period and
storage location as choice attributes. These factors were deemed less
relevant to consumer decision-making. Additionally, there was a suggestion
to incorporate identity verification level in security at issue time and usage
habits as a component of issuer reliability, recognizing the importance of
considering consumers' habits in assessing the trustworthiness of
certificate issuers.
When summarizing the results of the secondary investigation, the
selected choice attributes are organized into two categories: the issuer
- xii -
reliability and program installation in relation to issuance, and the
authentication method and where to use in relation to use. The level of
issuer reliability is further divided into existing accredited certificate,
financial institution, and platform company. The level of program
installation was divided into three categories: security program installation,
app installation, and no installation. The level of authentication method was
categorized into password, PIN/pattern, and bio. As for the level of where
to use, it is classified as follows: most uses, e-Government + part of
financial institution (including some insurance companies and credit card
companies) + part of private institution, and limited to e-Government.
An experiment plan was developed using an orthogonal arrangement and
PBIBD (Partial Balanced Incomplete Block Design) with the selected four
certificate choice attributes, each having three levels. Initially, nine
certificate profiles were created using an orthogonal array test. The choice
attributes and levels were evenly distributed among the nine certificate
profiles through the orthogonal arrangement. To facilitate the experiment
with these nine certificate profiles, a set of questions was constructed
using PBIBD methodology. To ensure consistency and avoid duplication in
the question set, PBIBD was utilized. This construction method ensured
that pairs of two certificate profiles were not repeated within the question
set and were distributed at least once. The results of the PBIBD analysis
indicated that the question set consisted of nine unique questions, with
each question containing three certificates. Subsequently, a consumer
preference survey was conducted utilizing the nine questions generated
from the experimental plan.
- xiii -
The consumer preference survey was carried out in two stages: a
preliminary survey involving 30 participants and a main survey involving
330 participants. The analysis was performed using a conjoint method,
incorporating the results from the main investigation. Based on the
analysis, the attribute where to use received the highest preference score
at 57.7%. It was followed by program installation at 29.8%, issuer
reliability at 6.8%, and lastly, authentication method at 5.7%.
Firstly, In terms of the reliability of the issuer, the platform company
showed a score of -0.17 when compared to the existing accredited
certificate, suggesting a preference for the existing accredited certificate in
terms of reliability.
When considering program installation, app installation received a score
of -0.49 when compared to security program installation, indicating a lower
preference for app installation. On the other hand, no installation received a
score of 0.26, indicating a higher preference for not requiring any
installation compared to both security program installation and app
installation. In the authentication method, the preference was given to the
existing password input instead of using biometric information. However,
users in their 30s, who are more open to adopting new technologies,
showed a strong preference for biometrics. In terms of application areas,
when compared to the sole use of e-government, most scenarios exhibited
a preference rating of 1.45. Furthermore, a combination of e-government,
select financial institutions (such as certain credit card companies and
insurance companies), and specific private institutions displayed a
preference rating of 1.17.
- xiv -
Based on the study's findings, the market was predicted by considering
the relative importance of different attributes associated with the certificate
and the part-worth of each attribute level. By selecting three
representative certificate products available in the market and assigning the
same level as current market conditions, the following order was observed
in terms of market presence: the existing accredited certificate (35.7%),
financial institution certificate (34.9%), and platform company certificate
(29.4%). This forecast aligns closely with the actual usage of certificate by
the National Tax Service, supporting the accuracy of the results.
Additionally, the study found that to increase market share, digital
signature authentication service providers should focus on factor: expanding
the usage areas. The results indicated that broadening the place of usage
could lead to significant market share growth. For instance, the market
share of financial institution certificate could potentially increase from
34.9% to 38.3%, while platform certificate could see an increase from 29.4%
to 32.2%. However, this is a forecast of the entire population, and it is
forecast that financial certificate and platform company certificate will be
highly used by young people in the future, and when forecasting only
those in their 30s, the market share of financial certificate and platform
company certificate was high occupied (financial institution certificate:
46.6%, platform company certificate: 46.6%, accredited certificate: 6.7%).
Therefore, in the short term (2-3 years), it is analyzed that it will be very
difficult for the platform company's certificate to dominate the market as
predicted at the time of the abolition of the accredited certificate, but in
the long term, it is expected to occupy the market share 46.6% due to the
- xv -
influence in their 30s.
Based on the study findings, consumers showed a preference for the
reliability of existing accredited certificate over the certificate provided by
convenient platform companies. Taking this into account, we aim to
provide policy and market proposals based on the study results. Firstly,
considering that consumers prioritize reliability, it is recommended that
policies reflect this characteristic. Consumers place value on both the
convenience and reliability of certificate, particularly in non-face-to-face
transactions where certificate play a crucial role. However, convenience and
reliability often exist as a trade-off, making it challenging to achieve both
simultaneously. Hence, a certificate policy that differentiates between
convenience and reliability is necessary. Convenient certificate can offer
identity verification in a user-friendly manner and are suitable for general
services. On the other hand, trusted certificate require stringent identity
verification and are ideal for services that demand high reliability, such as
money transfers or stock trading. Secondly, digital signature certification
service providers need to make choices regarding convenience and
reliability during the issuance process. They should aim to maximize
consumer convenience by increasing the utilization of biometric information
whenever possible. Specifically, the proposal suggests enhancing the use of
non-awareness facial authentication method that leverage mobile phone
location information and facial recognition technology. This approach seeks
to strike a balance between user convenience and security measures.
The purpose of this study is to identify the choice attributes that
consumers consider when selecting certificates, particularly in a scenario
where multiple certificates have emerged in the market following the
complete revision of the Digital Signature Act, which led to the
- xvi -
abolishment of accredited certificate. The study aims to determine the
relative importance of these choice attributes and estimate the utility of
each level associated with each attribute. Despite the intense competition in
the market, the market share of accredited certificate is expected to decline
gradually rather than rapidly. This is attributed to the reliability that has
been established over the past two decades and the significance of
considering the scope of usage, which has been identified as a consumer
characteristic in research findings. Furthermore, platform company
certificate, initially projected to rapidly dominate the market, are expected
to gradually establish their dominance. This certificate will strive to
enhance both the issuer reliability and expand their usage across various
sectors. This strategic approach will enable platform company certificate to
solidify their position in the market over time.
This study is to find out what attributes are important to consumers in
choosing certificates in the current era of certificate evolution after the full
revision of the Electronic Digital Signature Act. In a scenario where the
accredited certificate has been abolished and no prior research on consumer
characteristics existed, this study utilized consumer surveys to identify
consumer characteristics. Based on these findings, policy proposals and
strategies were formulated for service providers, taking into account the
identified consumer characteristics. The study's significance lies in
predicting the market share of representative certificate using the
importance of choice attributes obtained from consumers and providing
insights into the future market prospects.  Key words : Digital Signature Certificate, Delphi, Conjoint Analysis,
Relative Importance, Part-worth

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Contents
• Contents ··························································································································ⅰ
• Figure Contents ············································································································ⅳ
• Table Contents ·············································································································ⅴ
• ABSTRACT ··················································································································ⅷ
• Chapter 1 Introduction ··································································································1
• 1.1 Background of Research and Issues ·····························································1
• 1.1.1 Abolition of Accredited Certificate System ··········································1
• 1.1.2 Emergence of Various Certificates in the Markets ····························4
• 1.2. Research Purposes and Necessities ······························································9
• 1.3. Methodology and Organization of Research ·············································13
• Chapter 2 Theoretical Considerations ·····································································15
• 2.1 Understanding Certificates ··············································································15
• 2.1.1 Emergence of accredited certificate ······················································15
• 2.1.2 Digital Signature ························································································17
• 2.1.3 Structure of Digital Signature Certificate ···········································19
• 2.1.4 Understanding the Digital Signature Act ············································21
• 2.3 Theoretical Backgrounds ···············································································28
• 2.3.1 Conjoint Analysis ·······················································································28
• 2.3.2 Conjoint Analysis of Similar Fields of Digital Certificate ············· 31
• 2.3.3 Previous Research on Certificate Choice Attributes ························34
• Chapter 3 Research Method ······················································································47
• 3.1 Research Model ·································································································47
• 3.3 Selection of Choice Attributes through Delphi Investigation ··············· 53
• 3.3.1 Delphi Survey ·····························································································53
• - ii -
• 3.3.2 The 1st Delphi Survey ·············································································54
• 3.3.3 Results of the 1st Delphi investigation ···············································55
• 3.4 Experimental Design ························································································59
• 3.4.1 Conjoint Analysis Method ·······································································59
• 3.4.2 Orthogonal Array Design ········································································61
• 3.4.3 Experiment Design with BIBD and PBIBD ·······································63
• 3.5 Certificate Utility Analysis Method ·····························································67
• 3.5.1 Random Utility Model ··············································································67
• 3.5.2 Utility Estimation ·······················································································70
• 3.5.3 The Reason of Choosing the Conditional Logit Model ···················72
• 3.5.4 Relative Importance and Part-worth ····················································74
• 3.6 Consumer Survey ······························································································74
• Chapter 4 Empirical Analysis ···················································································79
• 4.1 Analysis Result of Delphi Survey ································································79
• 4.1.1 Analysis Result of the First Delphi Survey ······································79
• 4.1.2 Analysis Result of the Second Delphi Survey ··································80
• 4.1.3 Analysis of the Number of Appropriate Choice Attributes after
• the Second Delphi Survey ·······································································91
• 4.2 Result of Conjoint Analysis ···········································································92
• 4.2.1 Conjoint Analysis Result of the Preliminary Survey ······················ 92
• 4.2.2 Conjoint Analysis Result of the Main Survey ··································94
• Chapter 5 Forecast of Digital Signature Market ············································126
• 5.1 Certificate Market Share ···············································································126
• 5.2 Forecasting Market Share in the Future ·················································132
• 5.3 Limitations and Future Market Outlook on Market Share Forecast ·· 136
• Chapter 6. Implications and Proposals ·································································143
• 6.1 Proposal Grounds ····························································································143
• 6.2 Policy Proposal ································································································148
• - iii -
• 6.2.1 Proposal for Digital Signature Types ················································148
• 6.2.2 Service Provider Qualification ······························································150
• 6.2.3 Proposals on Identification Methods upon Issuance ·······················152
• 6.3 Proposal to Service Provider ·······································································159
• Chapter 7. Conclusions ·····························································································164
• 7.1 Importance of Consumers Choice Attributes of Certificate, Market
• Prospects, Proposals ······················································································164
• 7.2 Limitations and Future Work ······································································173
• References ····················································································································175
• Abstract(in Korea) ·····································································································180

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 Johnson, R. M., "Trade-Off Analysis of Consumer Values", 11(2), p.121-127, 1974
• 2 Manski, C. F., "The structure of random utility models", 8(3), p.229-254, 1997
• 3 Lawshe , C. H., "A quantitative approach to content validity", 28(4), p.563-575, 1975
• 4 Cattin, P., Wittink, D. R., "Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update", 53(3), p.91–96, 1989
• 5 Jang, D., "λ Matrix for Evaluating an Incomplete Block Design", 24(4), p.647-656, 2011
• 6 Kim, S., "Factors affecting the user satisfaction with e-Authentication", 20(9), p.389-396, 2020
• 7 Richard, H., "An Introduction to Biometrics and Large Scale Civilian Identification", 13(3), p.337-363, 1999
• 8 Ryu, G., "Study on the Connection with Public Authentication and Bio Authentication", 1(1), p.39-44, 2015
• 9 Lee, J, "Gender Difference in Risk Attitudes and Personality Traits - An Experimental Study", 17(2) p.313-348, 2016
• 10 Hyun, Y., Shin, Y., Kim, B., "Conjoint analysis for the effects of cigarette warning label and packaging on intention to quit", 27(1), p.27-51, 2017
• 11 Jeong, W., "A Study of the Regulation(EU) on Electronic and Trust Services for Electronic Transaction(eIDAS 2014)", 10(3), p.683-720, 2017
• 12 Anderson, D. A., Lazari, A. G., "Designs of discrete choice set experiments for estimating both attribute and availability cross effects", 31(3), p.375–383, 1994
• 13 Cho, M., Son, H., Lee, S., "Influential Factors of College Students’ Intention to Use Wearable Device An Application of the UTAUT2 Model", 68(4) p.7-33, 2014
• 14 Kim, A. Oh, T., Oh, H., "Factors Influencing the intention to adopt new electronic authentication services : Focusing on mobile financial service", 43(2), p.461-474, 2018