A number of organizations have conducted e-readiness assessments in developing countries using a variety of tools. One report looks at where e-readiness assessments have been carried out, and by whom; a companion report evaluates the various assessment models used including what they measure, their definitions of e-readiness, and their underlying goals and assumptions which shape their outcomes. These reports provide a resource to policy-makers and others who want to use e-readiness assessment results to plan for the integration of technologies in society, and to organizations that are considering new assessments.

Executive Summary | Table of contents | Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

A first step to narrowing the digital divide is to consider a country’s ability or “readiness” to integrate information communications technology (ICT). Is the necessary infrastructure in place? Is ICT accessible to the population at large? Is there an appropriate legal and regulatory framework to support its use?

Governments, international bodies and the private sector have clearly identified the need to effectively coordinate work on the digital divide and avoid duplication of effort.Yet bridges.org’s investigations of e-readiness efforts across the globe show that even as these and other initiatives move forward, there is little certainty about which countries have already been assessed, and with what tool. Having a clear understanding of previous e-readiness assessment work is an important first step when embarking on a new assessment. Bridges.org’s 2002 “E-readiness assessment: Who is doing what and where” has proved a useful resource for those embarking on e-readiness assessments, and has been updated in order that it may continue to be so. It complements the “E-readiness assessment tools comparison” report, which has also been updated.

Once again, the reports show that significant duplication of effort has occurred in some countries, while others are devoid of useful data. However, there are four caveats.

• First, not all of the assessments that have been conducted are included here, since many are not publicly available or are not known about.
• Second, no two assessments are exactly alike; each has a different goal and measures different data.
• Third, global competitiveness reports, that rank numerous countries, have been included. These are not country-specific e-readiness assessments conducted as the basis for e-strategies, although they are useful for strategy in that countries can learn from those ranked both higher and alongside themselves in specific areas contributing to e-readiness.
• Finally, some of the assessments have been repeated intentionally, with a baseline study being replicated over time to map progress.

In compiling the data on e-readiness assessments, the goal is not to judge one assessment over another, or to diminish the value of work that has already been done.  Rather it is to provide a resource to policy-makers and others who want to use e-readiness assessment results to plan for the integration of ICT in society, and to organizations that are considering new assessments.  It is hoped that this information will have the effect of eliminating duplication, making better use of scarce resources and helping decision-makers move beyond assessment to planned action.

The updated tables in the “E-readiness assessment: Who is doing what and where” yield the following findings:

• A total of 1506 e-readiness assessments have now been conducted.
• A total of 188 countries have been assessed by at least one tool.
• 68 countries have been assessed between five and ten times by different organizations, while a further 69 countries have been assessed over ten times.
• Only four countries have never been assessed: North Korea, Tuvalu, Monaco and Nauru.

Table of contents

E-readiness assessment: Who is doing what and where
The survey is presented in seven tables:
Africa
Asia and Pacific
Central and Eastern Europe, and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
Latin and South America, and Caribbean
Middle East
Western Europe
North America

E-readiness assessment tools comparison
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.