Background

During the last decade, many leaders in government, business, and social organizations around the globe have considered how best to harness the power of information and communication technology (ICT) for development. E-readiness assessments are meant to guide development efforts by providing benchmarks for comparison and gauging progress. Several e-readiness initiatives have been launched to help developing countries in this area, and numerous e-readiness assessment tools have been created and used by different groups, each looking at various aspects of ICT, society, and the economy.

However, the use and usefulness of e-readiness assessments is increasingly questioned, as many in the field consider whether these initiatives really help decision-makers or they are just a waste of time and money. Perhaps most important is the criticism from those working at ground level who find the focus on e-readiness to be a distraction from more critical development issues like health, education and environment: these detractors ask, "e-ready for what?" The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) may offer one answer. The MDGs, set out in 2000 as part of the Millennium Declaration, set clear targets for reducing poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women by 2015. The MDGs, and the strong political will that backs them, have effectively placed development at the heart of the global agenda through the next decade.

There are a few initiatives underway that look at measuring the impact of ICT on the MDGs. Although there appears to be some degree of collaboration among the various actors in this area, so far there is a lack of consensus on indicators and measurement. And, while a few have started to talk about the need for connecting ICT-based e-strategies with more concrete development goals, none have offered guidelines for how to do this. Adapting the concept of "e-readiness" and using it to frame strategies to tackle specific social and economic targets may offer a mechanism to help developing countries put ICT to work toward the MDGs.

The infoDev e-readiness initiative

To explore this idea further, the World Bank Information for Development Program (infoDev) put its e-readiness assessment initiative under examination. Building on the Y2K initiative, infoDev became a major funder in the area of e-readiness assessment during 2001-2003. InfoDev awarded grants averaging US$50,000 to developing countries to support them in conducting ICT infrastructure and e-readiness assessments and developing action plans. The funding was directed toward: (i) putting together multi-sector country e-readiness teams, (ii) customizing methodologies tailored to address country’s own needs, (iii) implementing the first assessments, and (iv) putting in place a firm foundation for long term e-development action plans. Grantees were expected to produce the e-readiness assessment report, an ICT-based strategy, and an ICT national action plan. Since the inception of the program, infoDev has awarded a total of 21 grants, including 9 grants to some of the poorest countries of the world. To foster best practice in the e-readiness field, infoDev also supported the production and dissemination of key e-readiness assessment resources. A grant was awarded in 2002 to GeoSINC International to establish an e-readiness Facilitation Center that would provide organizational and technical assistance to country grantees.

This study

The overall objective for this study is to provide an overview of e-readiness assessments in developing and emerging countries by focusing on the activities and outcomes of the infoDev e-readiness initiative. Based on the findings, the study explores possible ways to move forward the e-readiness agenda in the developing world, looking into the potential linkages between e-readiness action plans and the MDGs. To gauge the use and usefulness of e-readiness assessments and consider whether and how e-readiness strategies can be targeted toward the Millennium Development Goals, bridges.org looked at four key questions:

• What did the infoDev-supported e-readiness assessments measure?
• Have the e-readiness assessment processes improved these countries’ e-readiness and brought related socio-economic benefits, and were the assessments sufficient to target the use of ICT toward broader development goals? If not, why not?
• How effective were the e-readiness assessment processes themselves in terms of project management, implementation, and support?
• How can infoDev (and other e-readiness initiatives) improve or adjust an approach to ICT-based development that aligns e-readiness strategies with the MDGs?

As part of the foundation for the study, 13 case studies were conducted on country e-readiness assessments funded by infoDev. The study also considered how the entire infoDev-supported assessment process was conducted and the resulting strategies and outputs. Bridges.org framed this study by using a concept it has coined as "Real Access/Real Impact”, which looks at whether and how ICT-based development approaches lead to concrete improvements in people's lives.

The study involved three groups of stakeholders: the country government agencies and grantees, the assessment teams, and the infoDev e-readiness team. Information was collected from background documents and reports, questionnaires, field visits, workshops, and country interviews. This report and the attached Annexes (which include the 13 case studies) constitute the deliverables for this study.

It should be noted that when the country assessment teams embarked on their work, there was no stated objective for them to consider development goals specifically. This discussion and analysis is not intended to criticize grantees for failing to achieve something that they never planned to do. However, looking at the assessments through the lens of the Real Access criteria is a means of critiquing what has been done in the infoDev program, with an aim to identify opportunities for using ICT to make a Real Impact on people's lives and help developing countries put ICT to use to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Findings of this study

Who assessed what: authors and objectives

The infoDev grants were awarded to government departments and agencies, and non-profit organizations in the respective countries. The governments of the grantee countries were involved in executing the assessments, albeit to varying degrees. The definitions of "e-readiness" used vary in scope, so the assessments measured e-readiness in different ways. Most took a general view of e-readiness as the extent to which the country is prepared to integrate into the global information society/networked world/digital economy. For some, the objective of the assessment was only to evaluate the country’s level of e-readiness, however defined. Beyond this, there were four main objectives cited: informing policy, collecting baseline statistics for benchmarking, promoting and publicizing the country’s e-readiness, and improving e-readiness of a specific sector.

How assessments were conducted: tools and methodologies used

The majority of the assessments used the Harvard University Center for International Development’s (CID) Readiness for the Networked World: A Guide for Developing Countries as recommended by the GeoSinc Facilitation Center. Most countries adapted the model to suit their specific context, or incorporated elements from other assessment tools. Many assessments started with a review of relevant literature on e-readiness, including previous assessments. Where appropriate, the reports referenced or incorporated the results of previous and parallel efforts in the area. A number of assessment teams used centrally available statistics as secondary data to inform their report. The assessment teams’ approaches varied in the extent of and methodologies for primary data collection. The data collection tools mostly used included questionnaires, interviews and focus groups. The assessments involved and consulted a wide range of stakeholders, including variety of NGOs, Internet service providers (ISPs), higher education and training institutions, government departments and Ministries, national science councils, experts, businesses, and associations. Only a few assessment teams addressed the issue of bias in their methodology, data collection, or interpretation of results.

Key findings and recommendations of the infoDev-supported assessments

In terms of gauging whether and how countries have achieved Real Access to ICT, the reports measured the following:

Physical access to ICT: Most assessments calculated fixed-line and mobile teledensity, and Internet access, but other ICT infrastructure was looked at less intensely. However, sometimes even the most basic indicators do not give a full view on the real local situation affecting the availability of ICT. For example, Africa's "cell phone revolution" is widely celebrated because penetration is high, yet the majority of people cannot afford to make a call.¹ Again, each assessment measured even basic indicators in different ways, so country comparison is difficult if not impossible.

Appropriateness of ICT: Only a few assessments considered whether the ICT that is available is appropriate to local conditions, or which ICT might be most appropriate for future rollout. Most e-readiness approaches were too broad to assess appropriate technologies in specific contexts. Exceptions include those assessments that conducted case studies on certain industries or areas (such as banking or mobile services), where they looked in-depth at specific contexts, and recommended appropriate technologies (such as wireless or cable Internet access) for reaching particular goals.

Affordability of ICT in the local context: Despite significant variations in local economic conditions and prices, all assessments found that most ICT access and use is prohibitively expensive for the majority of people and organizations. Many country reports cited cost as the greatest obstacle to widespread access and use of ICT.

ICT capacity and training: Overall the assessments treated the use of ICT in education as a critical issue; however, few reports covered the sector thoroughly. Most looked at how many schools have computers and Internet access, and the general conclusion is that numbers are too low. Only a few assessments considered the computer skills of teachers, the use of ICT in higher education, or university degree programs offering ICT training, and again the general conclusion is that numbers are too low. While some reports included information on available training opportunities, almost none provided critical analysis of their effectiveness, or detailed how ICT is integrated into learning programs. Few assessments considered the country's literacy levels or the education system as a whole, or the impact these have on ICT uptake.

Availability of locally relevant content and services: Some assessments looked at the numbers of locally produced and/or hosted websites and a few looked at language. Although most were biased in their focus on web-based content, exceptions looked at the availability and use of content communicated via other, more ubiquitous, ICT-based media. Most of the assessments covered e-commerce and e-government services. Fewer considered other content and services critical for social development goals, such as e-health or e-learning. Although many assessments identified the need for more locally relevant content and services, only a minority suggested the means for improving the situation.

Integration of ICT into peoples’ lives: Very few reports looked at how ICT was integrated into people's lives, whether the use of ICT was an additional burden (such as the need to travel long distances to access telecentre services), or whether it reduced a burden (for example by improving work efficiencies). A few assessments explored how and why people used ICT in their daily lives (such as email for corresponding with family) or work.

Socio-cultural factors that affect ICT use: Inequalities in ICT access and use throughout society were considered by most assessments, albeit in varying degrees of detail. A few assessments considered socio-cultural factors that affect ICT access and use, specifically looking at geography, age, gender and economic status. One action plan included promoting the use of ICT by disabled persons. Those that compared the e-readiness of rural and urban areas found evidence of digital divides within the country. Similarly, every assessment that looked at age found that young people are far more prolific users of ICT (although most looked at Internet access only). The findings on access to ICT by gender varied between countries.

Legal and regulatory environment for ICT use: All assessments considered the liberalization of telecommunications an important issue, and concluded that liberalizing this sector helped (or would help) to reduce telecommunications costs. Some also considered whether a national e-strategy or ICT policy was in place, and looked at the role of an independent regulator. Others commented on areas where ICT policies are generally lacking, notably related to e-commerce, privacy, security and intellectual property. Only a few reports gave a comprehensive overview of the legal frameworks affecting the use of ICT.

Security and peoples' trust in ICT: People will not embrace the use of ICT if they do not trust it in terms of privacy, data protection, information security, or cybercrime. But few assessments considered whether people trust ICT or how user confidence affects ICT use in the country. Those that did looked predominantly at e-commerce transactions, including notably consumer protection issues. Some countries indicated that they intend to investigate e-justice and cybercrime issues, which could be considered an outcome of the assessment, but it was not actually considered as part of the assessment. Issues around political corruption, transparency, and democracy were considered by a few reports.

Use of ICT in business: All of the assessments looked to some extent at the access to and use of ICT in business. One country focused solely on SMEs. Another looked exclusively at electronic payments in the financial sector, with a strong focus on banks. Others indicated that the government intends to look in more detail at SMEs, and some have already started. Most assessments looked at how many businesses are using computers and the Internet; the number of local businesses with websites; e-commerce; hardware and software development and the local ICT sector, but none measured whether or how ICT affects businesses' efficiency or productivity.

Macroeconomic environment affecting ICT use: Some reports considered macroeconomic factors, covering issues such as competitiveness rankings with other countries, the contribution of the ICT sector to GDP, expenditure on ICT-based research and development, ICT creating and/or replacing jobs, export of ICT-related products and services, and state, civil society and private sector partnerships. The ICT industry, investment environment, and taxation issues were examined in some reports. A few reports offered ideas for promoting the acquisition of ICT by government.

Government's role in driving e-readiness: Governments were usually involved in the assessments, and most of the reports described the governments' active involvement and political will in this area. Very few reports provided statistics for actual government expenditure on ICT. Some assessments mentioned or provided summaries of major public-initiated and/or funded initiatives, while others made suggestions for establishing them. Very few critically analyzed the impact of already existing government initiatives. All of the assessments that mentioned public-private partnerships were in agreement about their benefits.

Analysis and discussion

Use of e-readiness assessments: content and measurements

Although GeoSINC International established a Facilitation Centre and produced documents to guide the grantees in their e-readiness assessments, grantees were given complete discretion in choosing and using assessment methodologies, and presenting the results. Each report was presented in a unique way. Reports generally described what ICT is available -- sometimes within a limited context, such as e-commerce -- but they generally failed to illustrate the extent to which ICT is not available in local settings. No assessments measured the impact (or gauge the potential impact) of ICT. Some reports were more critical than others of the government's role in fostering (or hindering) the use of technology and development of ICT infrastructure.

The following opportunities for improving content and measurements in e-readiness assessments were identified:

• Provide more information on assessment tools and how to use them comprehensively within the local context.
• Focus on ICT as a development tool.
• Measure ICT use and impact.
• Treat economic and social goals as interdependent.
• Use standard measurements and ICT indicators to make comparison possible.
• Refine and standardize data collection processes for benchmarking.
• Leave benchmarking to the benchmarkers and focus on deeper analysis.
• Create national clearinghouse databases of all available data.

Usefulness of e-readiness assessments: outputs and benefits

The significant effort and resources expended in conducting e-readiness assessments is only worth it if the e-readiness process leads directly to concrete positive change in the country. Although most assessments provided some level of action plan, however loosely defined, only a few were comprehensive. Most provided high-level recommendations without specific next steps for action. And overall, the reports have not been used enough. Nevertheless, in many cases the e-readiness assessments provided networking opportunities for experts and institutions that led to beneficial connections between stakeholders. Some assessments formed a foundation for further research.

The following opportunities for improving outputs and benefits from e-readiness assessments were identified:

• Provide guidance on how to influence change.
• Treat the assessment and action plans as a starting point.
• Do not proceed without government involvement and commitment.
• Ensure ownership of the process by key decision-makers and champions.
• Focus action plans on a particular sector.
• Set out action plans with specific tasks and timeframes.

The assessment process: management and implementation

The wide range in quality of the infoDev-supported assessments could be put down to the experience of the assessment teams; but it also seems to be related in large part to the varying levels of effectiveness of project management and implementation across the program as a whole. While best practice principles for e-readiness assessments are widely available, they could have been put to better use to inform the rollout of this initiative. Finding the balance between affording grantees independence in the assessment process and providing sufficient support proved to be a challenge for infoDev. Communication between infoDev, the governments and other grantees, the assessment teams, and stakeholders broke down frequently, and at various levels. A lack of institutional memory was a problem both at the country level, where government officials left their jobs and took all knowledge of the assessment with them, as well as at infoDev, where staff turnover also resulted in shortcomings of institutional knowledge about the program and grantees.

The following opportunities for improving project management and implementation were identified:

• Provide more detailed guidelines on processes.
• Strike a balance between providing sufficient support and affording independence in the process.
• Institutionalize knowledge about the e-readiness processes.
• No matter how enticing the opportunity, do not duplicate.
• Communicate, communicate, communicate with funders and clients.
• Target funding more directly to country project needs.

Linking e-readiness strategies and the MDGs: opportunities and obstacles

The infoDev-supported e-readiness assessments in and of themselves were insufficient to target the use of ICT toward broader development goals, much less the MDGs specifically. However, that was not a stated objective of the e-readiness initiative for either infoDev or the assessment teams. Nonetheless, this case study analysis has formed a useful basis for exploring whether -– and if so, how -– e-readiness can be harnessed for reaching the MDGs. It is obvious that ICT needs to be integrated into efforts working towards the MDGs. Are the MDGs the best goals for e-readiness? It depends on the country and the context.

The following opportunities for expanding the relevance of e-readiness assessments and action plans to the MDGs were identified:

• Begin with the Goals.
• Link e-readiness indicators with development goals.
• Be context specific and think local.
• Incorporate ICT approaches into sector-specific national policies (like health and education).
• Focus at the level of microeconomics, as well as the macro.
• Emphasize regional cooperation and integration needs.
• Address negative effects ICT integration may have.
• Be realistic.

Conclusions

The link between ICT and the MDGs translates meaningfully into the e-readiness arena. While being e-ready is certainly desirable, the question "e-ready for what?" hangs in the air. The MDGs provide much-needed compass points for e-readiness assessment efforts. Can assessments be used to help countries get e-ready to tackle the MDGs? Yes. But the focus needs to move on from "how much bandwidth?" to "how much bandwidth is needed for remote diagnosis to reduce child mortality?"

InfoDev is in a good position to build upon the lessons learned through its e-readiness flagship initiative. But the work involving e-readiness assessments and e-strategies needs to incorporate elements that will help enable developing countries to use ICT as part of concrete steps to tackle the MDGs.

There is a lot to be done, a lot of change and learning to be assimilated, and many opportunities to be explored and embraced. It is important that we build upon previous work and draw together current efforts in the field of e-readiness. And then we can begin to work towards becoming e-ready for reaching the MDGs.

---

¹ Many people maintain only the minimal service so they can receive calls on their cell phones (which costs nothing) Calls are generally made at public pay phones.

---

Download the report