icegov2012 proceedings

These developments show that there is a growing expectation that
data will be available, not only in paper format, but also online in
open mashable formats, for example as maps, or data tables
comparing one country against other countries of choice. In
future, countries are likely to wish to create and update their own
website or data dashboard to plot and manage their own progress
in e-government by manipulating and presenting data in their own
way but which also has international comparability. Data are
likely to have their provenance in a variety of sources, including
universities, research institutions and even responsible companies
and civic institutions which could become actively involved in the
benchmarking process.
6. AN ENHANCED FRAMEWORK
Several international benchmarks cite a need for major revisions
to their models and one even changed its name to reflect this
trend, as the EIU’s e-readiness rankings became the digital
economy rankings. While a case can be made for a completely
different methodology, most reports also recognize the need to
balance progress with a measure of consistency over time,
allowing them to retain their particular focus and strength. For
example, the UN survey has always been unique because it
combines a worldwide measure through a supply-side approach.
The UN framework has worked remarkably well over time and is
a welcome endeavor in measuring the movement of information
and services online. However, most countries have now largely
accomplished this task and as a result, such a framework needs to
adapt to meet new measurement trends – and at all levels. The
following are first step suggestions, to be seen in the context of
the new trends and tools discussed in section 5 above, for
developing e-government frameworks, some of which are also
relevant for the UN survey.
6.1 Increase the Transparency of Survey
Methods and Data
Beyond conducting a survey, why not also release the data? Many
international reports (though certainly not all!) publish data in
either an appendix or on a website. The open government trend is
undeniable: opening up raw data to the world will allow
organizations to use the data in new and innovative ways,
hopefully mashing it into benefits far beyond a supply-side
survey, such as linking the data to performance (see section 4.4).
Releasing the full methodology and the questionnaire will allow
stakeholders to review, comment, and contribute to enhancing the
survey. It would also provide the opportunity to replicate the
results, enhancing the rigor of the whole process.
That organizations might try to ‘game’ the survey by
implementing specific indicators is a potential down-side of this
endeavor, but who has the most to lose by doing so? The survey
by ranking them one point higher, the agency by expending the
effort to put one more item online or the constituent receiving one
more service? If the survey indicators were indeed transparent and
agreed upon, it is likely to become a win-win-win.
6.2 Encourage Governments to Supply Data
When the UN survey began in earnest in 2003, even countries
with advanced e-government programs had a finite number of
websites associated with a specific topic. But the numbers of egovernment
websites have grown and their sophistication has
increased too. To spend hours looking for a specific indicator
437
across complex e-government websites, some of which will now
require authentication, is possible, but increasingly implausible.
This necessitates a fundamental shift in the supply side approach
away from having researchers manually look for each indicator to
preferably having governments provide them and verify their
existence.
A platform should be established where surveyed countries could
input data on what they offer constituents in order to ease the
survey process and enhance rigor. If the survey questionnaire and
data were public (see section 6.1) it would also strengthen
transparency and accountability while offering stakeholders the
opportunity to benchmark themselves – what do I offer according
to the list provided? – and come up with creative new ways of
measurement. It would also create a platform where changes
could be reported – and verified – in near real-time, helping
policy-makers understand where they are and where they need to
go instantly.
This should be part of a mixed approach given that not all
countries will be in a position nor wish to provide all relevant
data. So, survey work is likely to still be required, especially for
the UN survey where one of its strengths is that all countries are
covered. But participation would be in countries’ interest.
6.3 Automate and Innovate
While an effort to encourage governments to supply their data is
necessary, it is unrealistic to expect all to do so. But because the
supply-side undertaking is increasingly a growing burden to
researchers, innovation is also needed. One idea is to increasingly
use automation to assess e-government indicators (another is
search, see below).
Automated assessments have grown in sophistication and while
they may not be perfect, they will at least be consistently
imperfect. (See also section 5.2.3) Finding various tools to
automate surveys, or customizing one for the purpose, may have a
cost but it will pay dividends over time as – eventually – the
numbers of e-government websites will be insurmountable to
research manually.
One particular area in which automation is important is whether
websites are accessible by mobile devices. The increasing
numbers mean they are crucial to delivering services in a channel
people use. For example, one can use automated supply-side
assessment to verify that the websites on which government
services are found meet the most basic mobile standards.
6.4 Search for it
In order to make it easier for constituents to find the information,
data, and services they are likely to want, many governments
around the world have integrated information on central
government portals. Prominent examples of this approach include
usa.gov, direct.gov.uk, and australia.gov. Theoretically this would
make it easier to find government information; however, in
practice usage of such portals may not even have led to higher
usage. In the UK, for example, 40% of individuals used the
Internet in 2010 to engage the public sector. In Sweden, a country
without a central government portal, the equivalent number was
62%. [26]
While there are always exceptions, the question is whether such
portals work? More important, is the amount of money spent on