icegov2012 proceedings

3. BENCHMARKING AS A POLICY
REVIEW TOOL
1. Translate obstacles into
more concrete concerns
2. Develop the basis of
specification of policy
actions
Policy Mission &Vision
Too general to measure
1. Measure output and
outcome of policy
implementation
2. Review and benchmark
the prevailing status
Policy
challenges
Policy
objectives
Policy
focus goals
Inter-regional
benchmarking
Indicators
Benchmarking:
1. Determine if goals Policy
been met
assessment
2. If no asses the reasons
Adapted from Selhofer 2003
Conclude and recommend
www.observatory.gr/files/meletes/
BISER_Benchmarking_Rep.pdf
Figure 1. Policy making roles benchmarking
Benchmarking has different meaning based on the institutional
and organization set-up in which it is applied. It can be used to
measure the success factors of a policy towards developing an
ICT society. There are several regional benchmarking options like
bottom-up, top down, horizontal approaches etc. In the bottom-up
approach, regions get together and agree among themselves on a
set of common indicators. Since the region has different policy
framework, it is not possible to apply the method initially. The
choice of indicators is a result of a compromise among different
regions without top-bottom coordination. This implies that the
same indicator can measure different parameter in different
regions for example a measure of policy output, results, and
impacts, or a simple framework of readiness indicator could be
adopted [19].
This paper considers the position of indicators into the policy
review process and benchmarking as stipulated in Figure 1. The
role of benchmarking is to determine policy challenges through
policy evaluation that have impact on the policy review process.
3.1 Policy Development, Review Process and
Stakeholders Involvement
The policy formulation of five selected countries demonstrate
several advantages of involving stakeholders like the private
sector, academia and civil society organizations such as
professional bodies in the policy processes. The process for
development of Australian, Canada, and Singapore, Malaysia and
Korea ICT policies had consultative meetings with a range of
stakeholders. Of interest is the case of Australia where the
stakeholders were approached by e-mail regarding their
discussions on effective use of ICT by citizens and consumers
across civil society [5] [5].
The government should involve key stakeholders in the policy
formulation process in order to affect its outcomes. Kenya did not
involve all key stakeholders [14]. In principle, the policy lacked
195
ownership of the majority of the stakeholders. The National ICT
Policy and Plan Development Committee of Ghana were involved
all key stakeholders and had an integrated approach to their
national ICT development process. The process became an all
inclusive venture and ensured that the policy development process
and final product is acceptable to all [8]. In principle, the policy
had ownership of the majority of the stakeholders and had clear
harmonized approach to its implementation strategies.
3.2. Benchmarking ICT Policy Vision,
Missions and Objectives of Selected Countries
Compared to the Ghana’s and Kenya’s
The policy vision, mission and objectives of Korea, Australia,
Canada, Malaysia and Singapore emphasize on addressing citizen
problems which are similar to those of Kenya and Ghana.
Furthermore, countries like Singapore [20] and Malaysia [16] [17]
have provided milestones in the policy. Malaysia’s vision is to
utilize ICT to transform progressively to information and a
knowledge society; and as the fifth economy pillar of the
economy and transforming the country to a regional ICT hub.
Ghana NICTP vision statement: “Ghana to improve the quality of
life of the people by significantly enriching their social, economic
and cultural well-being through the rapid development and
modernization of the economy and society using information and
communication technologies as the main engine for accelerated
and sustainable economic and social development; the vision
statement sets out the roadmap for developing Ghana’s
information society and economy and provides a basis for
facilitating the socioeconomic development of the country in the
emerging information, knowledge and technological age to be
dominated by information and knowledge-based economies” [8].
The Kenya policy vision is “A prosperous ICT-driven Kenyan
society” and the mission statement is “to improve the livelihoods
of Kenyans by ensuring the availability of accessible, efficient,
reliable and affordable ICT services” [14]. The policy vision,
mission and objectives of Kenya and Ghana lacks milestones of
how to achieve these compared to Singapore above. Emphasis on
universal access is lacking in the vision and mission statement as
the success of becoming the ICT hub depending on accessibility
issues; that includes the concept of digital divide between access
in urban/rural and national/international relations.
3.3. Strategic ICT Leadership
The objective of the Strategic ICT leadership involves an increase
in the use of ICT for equitable and sustainable socioeconomic and
cultural development, aiming at improving the awareness on the
role and potential of ICT. In so doing, creating an authoritative
national organization to effect, coordinate and review the ICT
policy. The role of prioritizing ICT investment in development
assistance policies and programs, enhancing synergy, economies
of scale and productivity in all ICT matters and creating a
favorable environment for cooperation and partnership in ICT
among public and private sectors, civil society became an
important ingredient to its development. This is in consistent with
best-practice in Singapore, Korea, Canada, Australia and Malaysia
picking a few supporting examples. The review process has to
follow this definitive focus. The case of Ghana and Kenya the
level of leadership is not ranked high like in Korea where ICT
policy committee is chaired by the prime minister. Ghana ICT
policy committee chair person is a university professor, while in