A first step in any approach to the digital divide problem is to consider a country's ability or "readiness" to integrate information and communications technology (ICT), in order to provide a baseline that can be used for regional comparisons and planning. It is important to understand what it means for a country or economy to be "e-ready" and conduct an evaluation based on objective criteria to establish basic benchmarks. It means considering whether the necessary infrastructure is in place, but also looking beyond that to whether ICT is accessible to the population at large and whether there is an appropriate legal and regulatory framework to support its use. If we are to narrow the digital divide, all of these issues need to be addressed simultaneously in a coherent, achievable strategy which is tailored to meet the needs of a particular country.

Go to the Table of contents.

An e-readiness assessment process can be used as an information-gathering mechanism for governments as they plan their national and international strategies for ICT integration. It can help governments focus their efforts from within, and identify areas where external support or aid is required. A range of assessment tools have been developed to measure a country or economy's e-readiness, and assessments have already been conducted in dozens of countries. The tools use widely varying definitions for e-readiness and different methods for measurement, and the assessments are very diverse in their goals, strategies and results. The right tool depends on the user's goal. The user should choose a tool that measures what they are looking for, and does it against a standard that fits their own view of an "e-ready" society.

There is a lot of focus at the international level about e-readiness assessments, and there is the potential for a lot of money to be spent in the developing world to conduct assessments. But no one else has started by reviewing what has already been done in this area, and no comprehensive review of the existing assessment tools had been conducted before now.

The bridges.org Comparison of E-Readiness Assessment Models describes the various tools that are available and what they measure, including the tools' underlying goals and assumptions which shape their outcomes. With this report, we aim to foster informed decisions about approaches to e-readiness assessment, as national governments consider their ICT policies and undertake development initiatives.

Table of contents

E-READINESS TOOLS COMPARISON
1. Ready-to-use tools – questionnaires
2. Case studies
3. Third party surveys and reports
4. Other e-readiness assessment models
Digital divide reports
Position papers
COMPARING E-READINESS ASSESSMENT TOOLS: WHICH IS BEST AND WHY?
1. Topics covered and level of detail
2. e-Economy versus e-Society
3. Assessment methodology
4. Assessment results
5. Analysis
What is the most accurate definition of “e-readiness”?
What assessment tool is the best? The right tool depends on the user’s goal.
What is the correct focus for assessment: e-economy or e-society? Again, it depends on the user’s goal.
What should a country be measured against?
THE MAIN E-READINESS ASSESSMENT TOOLS CURRENTLY USED
1. Ready-to-use tools / Questionnaires
1.1 Harvard University’s Center for International Development (CID)Readiness for the Networked World: A guide for developing countries
1.2 APEC’s e-Commerce Readiness Assessment
1.3 CSPP’s Readiness Guide for Living in the Networked World
2. Case studies
2.1 International Telecommunications Union’s (ITU’s) Internet Country Case Studies (report) / Mosaic methodology
2.2 USAID (tool and report)
2.3 InfoDev’s flagship e-readiness initiative and Country Development Gateway programs
2.4 SIDA
2.5 Asean e-readiness assessment
3. Third party surveys and reports
3.1 McConnell International’s risk e-business: seizing the global opportunity of e-readiness
3.2 WITSA’s International Survey of e-Commerce
3.3 Crenshaw & Robinson’s Cyber-Space and Post-Industrial Transformation: a cross-national analysis of internet development
3.4 CIDCM’s Negotiating the Net Model
3.5 The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU): e-business readiness rankings
3.6 Statistical Indicators Benchmarking the Information Society (SIBIS)
3.7 Metric-Net Worldwide IT benchmarking report
3.8 World Bank’s Knowledge Assessment Methodology
3.9 IDC Information Society Index
3.10 Networked Readiness Index (NRI) in the Global Information Technology Report
3.11 InfoDev and Pyramid Research’s Information Infrastructure Indicators, 1990 – 2010
3.12 Kenny’s Prioritizing Countries for Assistance to Overcome the digital divide (World Bank)
3.13 AT Kearney / Foreign Policy Magazine Globalization Index
3.14 World Telecommunication Indicators (WTI)
3.15 ITU Digital Access Index (DAI)
3.16 Orbicom’s Monitoring the Digital Divide…and beyond
E-READINESS TOOLS COMPARISON TABLES

Acknowledgements

No funding directly supported this work; bridges.org staff members conducted this work because we thought it would be a useful and important contribution to a field full of duplication.

Like all of our work, this report was a collaborative effort that drew on many members of the bridges.org team in various roles. We would especially like to recognise the contributions of Ewan McPhie, Jennifer Huesler, Ntombi Masakazi, Joy Olivier, Liam Smit, Leonie Vlachos and Steve Wendel.

This report benefited from a diverse range of opinions and input from experts working in this field. Bridges.org received many valuable comments and additions to the report, including from the authors of the tools themselves.  We would like to thank everyone who contributed, including:

• Joseph Alhadeff
• Jennifer Bremer
• John Daly
• The Information Technologies Group of the Center for International Development at Harvard University (see website)
• Philip Maggi, Center for Computer Systems Policy Project
• Bruce McConnell, McConnell International (see website)
• Larry Press and Peter Wolcott, Mosaic Group (see summary of project)
• Ernest Wilson, Kelvin Wong, Anne Pitsch of the Center for International Development and Conflict Management (CIDCM) at the University of Maryland (see website)

The following individuals or organizations requested that their attribution include a summary of their contribution to the report. (NB. Contributors had a range of attribution options, including no attribution, in order to respect their desires.)

• Ernest Wilson, Kelvin Wong, Anne Pitsch of the Center for International Development and Conflict Management (CIDCM) at the University of Maryland provided additional information on CIDCM's method.
• Information Technologies Group of the Center for International Development at Harvard University provided additional information on CID's method; suggested additional factors that should be included in a more comprehensive assessment method; requested clarification in report for 'E-Economy and E-Society' categories, Mosaic method; suggested including more tools in the comparison; suggested more detailed analysis of e-commerce assessments.
• Larry Press and Peter Wolcott, Mosaic Group, provided additional information on Mosaic's method; requested clarification on (previous) categories of "questionnaires" and "country specific methods".
  

If a listing is in error, or you or your organization would like a summary of your contribution included, please contact us.