An integrated STOPE framework for e-readiness ... - Semantic Scholar

An integrated STOPE framework for e-readiness assessments Khalid Al-Osaimi, Abdulmohsen Alheraish and Saad Haj Bakry

An integrated STOPE framework

College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh,, SSaudi Arabia

Keywords e-Readiness assessments, STOPE, organizations, Framework Framework. Abstract e-Readiness assessments, for countries and organizations, are becoming of increasing importance, as they specify the current states from which planning for ICT “information and communication technology” toward supporting sustainable development, should start. This paper is concerned with providing an approach, based on the STOPE “strategy, technology, organization, people, and environment” framework for conducting e-readiness assessments. The approach views the previous literature on e-readiness assessment through the eye of the STOPE domains, providing an integrated framework of the factors that has been taken into account in such assessments. In the mean time, the approach also keeps the light on for adding and integrating other potential factors. In addition, the approach introduces an analytical method for the assessment of the various factors considered, both individually and collectively, according to the STOPE domains. The paper also gives an example illustrating the results that can be obtained from using the approach. Finally, the paper calls for the use of the approach for practical cases to produce, STOPE based, real life e-readiness assessment results according to a standard approach that supports sound relative evaluations and comparisons.

1

Introduction Using ICT and networking the world are becoming of increasing importance for sustainable development, thanks to the many resulting benefits including: saving time and cost, exploring new development opportunities, and paving the way toward building the digital economy and developing the knowledge society (Bakry, 2006). A recent study by the Center for International Development (CID) at Harvard University defined the term “e-readiness” as the “preparedness for the networked world” (Geoffery, 2002). According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), “e-readiness assessments are meant to guide development efforts by providing benchmarks for comparison and gauging progress (Sergey, 2004). They help diagnosing ICT problems, advocating required ICT changes, and developing sound ICT plans. Although most e-readiness assessment studies were performed at the country level, for different countries, it has been emphasized that the e-readiness of organizations, in a country, is an integral part of the overall e-readiness of that country (Leading Growth Firms Series, 2001 and Dawn, 2002). The trend toward enhancing e-readiness has been emphasized by the UN summit meeting of September 2000, which issued the widely known UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG) (UN, 2000). It has also been stressed by the Lisbon European summit, held in March 2000 (EC, 2000), and by the European Community in its drive toward the “knowledge society” (EC web site). In addition two World Summits on the Information Society were initiated by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) during the last two years: the first in Geneva, in December 2003; and the second in Tunisia, in November 2005 (World information summit web site). Although many studies have introduced various e-readiness assessments, as mentioned above, these studies were based on different assumptions, and included different factors. This paper is concerned with providing a comprehensive framework, for e-readiness assessments, that integrates the various factors considered in previous studies. For this purpose the paper uses Bakry’s STOPE, “strategy, technology, organization, people, and environment” framework; and in the mean time, it keeps the light on for adding and integrating other potential factors. The STOPE framework has been developed and used for the evaluation of different ICT problems, including e-business and e-government planning (Bakry, 2001 and Bakry, 2004), information security management (Bakry, 2003), and the emerging enterprise resource planning tools (Bakry, 2005). The paper introduces an approach concerned with using STOPE for e-readiness assessments. The approach addresses the integration of e-readiness factors using STOPE, and provides a mathematical model illustrating how STOPE based assessments can be evaluated at different levels of detail. Applying the approach, the paper derives an integrated STOPE framework for e-readiness assessments, and provides an illustrative example showing how assessment results can be evaluated. Finally, the paper calls for using the work in the future, as a standard approach, for practical real-life e-readiness assessment studies, as this would support sound relative evaluations and comparisons.

18th National Computer Conference 2006 © Saudi Computer Society

The STOPE Approach The STOPE approach introduced below is concerned with the integration of the e-readiness assessment factors, the evaluation of the integrated factors, and the practical application of the approach. STOPE Integration of Assessment Factors The integration of e-readiness assessment factors is considered to be of three levels. • The first is the level of the main STOPE domains, that is the e-readiness “strategy”, “technology”, “organization”, “people”, and “environment”. • The second is the level of the sub-domains, which are the main issues branching from each of the main STOPE domains; and • The third is the level of sub-sub-domains, which includes the issues associated with each of the sub-domains of the main domains.

2

The factors of previous studies on e-readiness assessments can be mapped upon these levels to produce an integrated STOPE framework. In addition, other factors associated with complimentary or emerging new issues can also be mapped and integrated on the framework. This would enable the development of more comprehensive and more flexible e-readiness assessments on the one hand, and it would also contribute to the development of the needed agreed policy standards for such assessments on the other. Comprehensiveness and flexibility for such assessments would provide better results; and policy standards for these assessment to follow would help relative evaluations and comparisons.

STOPE Evaluation Model The integrated factors of the STOPE framework would need to be evaluated individually and collectively. For this evaluation, a mathematical model has been developed, considering the three general levels given above. Each factor, at any level,Grades would be evaluated according to a scale of five Table 1. The Evaluation grades as shown in Table 1. The practical resulting values for the various factors, at different levels, five grades would not necessarily be discreet, as they may range between different grades. considered 0 1 2 3 4 for the Table 1. The Evaluation Grades evaluation of five grades e-readiness considered Table 1. factors None Poor Average Good Excellent 0 1 2 3 4 for the The five grades considered for of evaluation thee-readiness evaluation of e-readiness factors factors

None

Poor

Average

Good

Excellent

Table 2 introduces the evaluation at the level of the main domains. Each of the five STOPE domains is “indexed”, and is associated with a “measure” and with a “weight”. Each main domain can be evaluated independently using the sub-domains associated it. Individual results forat the main of domains be graphically integrated together Tablewith 2 introduces the evaluation the level the maincan domains. Each of the five STOPE domains by a “radar graph” of five dimensions representing STOPE. Collectively, the results of Table 2 introduces the evaluation at the level of the main domains. Each of the can fivebe is “indexed”, and is associated with a “measure” and with a “weight”. Each main domain the main domains can be the represented by aassociated single value for STOPE tothe themain STOPE domains is “indexed”, and is associated with a “measure” andaccording with “weight”. evaluated independently using sub-domains with it. Individual resultsa for domains can be graphically integrated together by aexample “radar using graph” of five dimensionsassociated representing equation ofdomain Table 2.can This illustrated by the given the below. Each main beisevaluated independently sub-domains STOPE. Collectively, the results of the main domains can be represented by a single value for with it. Individual results for ofthe main domains can be by graphically integrated together STOPE according to the equation Table 2. This is illustrated the example given below.

by a “radar graph” of five dimensions representing STOPE. Collectively, the results of

Table 2. MEASURES: MAINbyDOMAIN STOPE the main domains can be represented a single LEVEL: value for STOPE according to the Evaluation equation MAIN DOMAIN Strategy Technology Organization People Environment of Table 2. This is illustrated by the example given below. of the main SYMBOL S T O P E domains INDEX i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 i=5 (STOPE) MEASURE M[1] M[2] M[3] M[4] M[5] Table 2. MEASURES: MAIN DOMAIN LEVEL: STOPE Table 2. WEIGHT w[1] w[2] w[3] Evaluation MAIN DOMAIN Strategy Technology Organization w[4] People w[5] Environment Evaluation i�5 STOPE main SYMBOL S STOPE T� � w [ i ]. MO[ i ] P E ofof thethe main MEASURE domains domains INDEX i=1 i = 2i � 1 i=3 i=4 i=5 (STOPE) (STOPE) Individual MEASURE M[1] M[2] M[3]graph for STOPE M[4]mainM[5] One radar domains GRAPHICAL evaluation WEIGHT w[1] w[2] w[3] w[4] w[5] RESULTS Collective i�5 One value for STOPE using equation STOPE evaluation � � w [ i ]. M [ i ] STOPE

MEASURE

i�1

Individual One radar graph for STOPE main domains GRAPHICAL Table 3 presents the evaluation evaluation at the level of the sub-domains. Each of the five STOPE RESULTS Collective domains is considered to have a number of sub-domains, and each of these sub-

Table 3 presents the evaluation at the level of the sub-domains. Each of the five STOPE domains is considered to have a number of sub-domains, and each of these sub-domains is “indexed”, and is associated with a “measure” and with a “weight”. Each sub-domain can be evaluated independently using the lower sub-sub-domains associated with it. Individual results for the sub-domains of a certain main domain can be graphically integrated together by a “radar graph” of a number of dimensions equivalent to the number of sub-domains associated with that main domain. In this way, each main domain would have its own “radar graph”. Collectively, the results of each main domains can be represented by one value using the equations of Table 3. This is shown in the illustrative example given below.

Table 3. Evaluations of the subdomains

MEASURES: SUB-DOMAIN LEVEL: S / T / O / P / E MAIN DOMAIN Strategy Tech. Org. People SUBDOMAINS

Env.

INDEX

j1

j2

j3

j4

j5

NUMBER

J1

J2

J3

J4

J5

M[1, j1] w[1, j1]

M[1, j2] w[1, j2]

M[1, j3] w[1, j3]

M[1, j4] w[1, j4]

M[1, j5] w[1, j5]

MEASURE WEIGHT STRATEGY MEASURE: S

S �

3

j1� J 1

� w [ 1 , j 1 ]. M [ 1 , j 1 ]

j1�1

TECHNOLOGY MEASURE: T

T �

ORGANIZATION MEASURE: O

O �

PEOPLE MEASURE: P

P �

ENVIRONMENT MEASURE: E

E �

GRAPHICAL RESULTS


j 1� J 2

� w [ 2 , j 2 ]. M [ 2 , j 2 ]

j 2 �1

j 3� J 3

� w [ 3 , j 3 ]. M [ 3 , j 3 ]

j 3 �1

j4�J 4

� w [ 4 , j 4 ]. M [ 4 , j 4 ]

j 4 �1

j 5� J 5

� w [ 5 , j 5 ]. M [ 5 , j 5 ]

j 5�1

Individual evaluation Collective evaluation

One radar graph per main domain: S / T / O / P / E One value per main domain using equations

Table 4 gives the evaluation at the level of the sub-sub-domains. Each of the five STOPE domains Table 4 gives the evaluation at the level of the sub-sub-domains. Each of the five isSTOPE considered to have a number of sub-domains, and each of these sub-domains is also considered domains is considered to have a number of sub-domains, and each of these subto have a number of sub-sub-domains, with each of the sub-sub-domains “indexed” and associated domains is alsoand considered to haveEach a number of sub-sub-domains, withindependently each of the subwith a “measure” with a “weight”. sub-sub-domain can be evaluated using sub-domains “indexed” withto athe “measure” and with a “weight”. Each lower “measurable entities”. and In a associated similar manner above, individual results for the sub-subdomains of a certain can sub-domain of a main domain can be graphically together by a “radar sub-sub-domain be evaluated independently using lower integrated “measurable entities”. In a graph” of a number of dimensions equivalent to the number of sub-sub-domains associated with similar manner to the above, individual results for the sub-sub-domains of a certain that sub-domain. In this way, each sub-domain would have its own “radar graph”. Collectively, the sub-domain of a main domain be graphically integrated together by a “radar graph” results of each sub-domains can be can represented by a single value using the equations of Table 4.

of a number of dimensions equivalent to the number of sub-sub-domains associated

The evaluations presented In in Tables 1 through 4 are of integrated natureits starting with evaluation with that sub-domain. this way, each sub-domain would have own “radar graph”. grades, and moving on toward the evaluation of the factors at the various levels, from the Collectively, the results of each sub-domains can be represented by a single valueSTOPE using main domains to the sub-sub-domains. The suggested graphical representation at each level would the equations of Table 4. illustrate graphically the strengths and the weaknesses of the various factors considered.

The evaluations presented in Tables 1 through 4 are of integrated nature starting with evaluation grades, and moving on toward the evaluation of the factors at the various levels, from the STOPE main domains to the sub-sub-domains. The suggested graphical representation at each level would illustrate graphically the strengths and the weaknesses of the various factors considered.

Table 3.

Evaluations of the subdomains

MEASURES: SUB-SUB-DOMAIN LEVEL: S [j1] / T [j2] / O [j3] / P [j4] / E [j5] Table �. MAIN DOMAIN Strategy Tech. Org. People Env. Evaluations INDEX k j1 k j2 k j3 k j4 k j5 of the subSUB-SUBsubDOMAINS NUMBE K j2 K j3 K j4 K j5 K j1 R domains. WEIGHT

M [1, j1, k j1] w [1, j1, k j1]

STRATEGY MEASURE: S [j1]

(J1) Measures

S [ j 1] �

TECHNOLOGY MEASURE: T [j2]

(J2) Measures

T [ j2] �

ORGANIZATION MEASURE: O [j3]

(J3) Measures

O[ j 3] �

PEOPLE MEASURE: P [j4]

(J4) Measures

P[ j4] �

ENVIRONMENT MEASURE: E [j5]

(J5) E [ j 5] � � w[5, j 5, kj 5]. M [5, j 5, kj 5] Measures kj 5 �1 Individual One radar graph per sub-domain: S [j1] / evaluation T [j2] / O [j3] / P [j4] / E [j5] Collective One value per sub-domain using evaluation equations

MEASURE

4

Table 4.

Evaluations of the sub-subdomains.

GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION

M [1, j2, k j2] w [1, j2, k j2]

M [1, j3, k j3] w [1, j3, k j3]

M [1, j4, k j4] w [1, j4, k j4]

M [1, j5, k j5] w [1, j5, k j5]

kj 1 � KJ 1

� w[1, j1, kj 1].M [1, j 1, kj 1]

kj 1 � 1

kj 2 � KJ 2

� w[1, j2, kj2].M[2, j2, kj2]

kj 2 � 1

kj 3 � KJ 3

� w[3, j3, kj3].M[3, j3, kj3]

kj 3 � 1

kj 4 � KJ 4

� w [ 4 , j 4 , kj 4 ]. M [ 4 , j 4 , kj 4 ]

kj 4 � 1

kj 5 � KJ 5

Using the STOPE Approach Using thethe STOPE Approach Following above, the STOPE approach enables the development of a generic STOPE framework that can be used for different This is considered in the following parts of the Following the above, thee-readiness STOPE assessments. approach enables the development of a generic paper, together with an illustrative example. STOPE framework that can be used for different e-readiness assessments. This is

considered the following parts ofofthe together with an need illustrative example. For practical in assessments, the factors thepaper, sub-sub-domains would to be refined further into “measurable entities”. These entities may of differ to the target assessment, is the case For practical assessments, the factors the according sub-sub-domains would need to that be refined study considered, as explained in the following. further into “measurable entities”. These entities may differ according to the target that ismay the be case considered, in the following. •assessment, The assessment forstudy a country, or it mayasbeexplained for an organization. �

The assessment may be for a country, or it may be for an organization.

• If� forIfanfor organization, the type the of the organization would be important; is itimportant; banking, education, an organization, type of the organization would be is it or related to other different fields.

banking, education, or related to other different fields. Therefined refined measurable entities represent corepractical of the assessment. practical assessment. The measurable entities wouldwould represent the corethe of the They would be part of awould practical for the practical casesheet study for considered. The sheet maystudy take the They beevaluation part of asheet practical evaluation the practical case form of a fixed questionnaire to be answered independently by the ICT experts concerned, a dynamic considered. The sheet may take the form of a fixed questionnaire to be answered questionnaire to be answered through interviews, or a hybrid questionnaire that may involve both. independently by the ICT experts concerned, a dynamic questionnaire to be answered throughFramework interviews, or a hybrid questionnaire that may involve both. STOPE

The development of the framework according to the above approach is addressed here. Figure 1 illustrates the framework in its basic form, which is explained in the following. STOPE Framework

The development of the framework according to the above approach is addressed here. Figure 1 illustrates the framework in its basic form, which is explained in the following.

Figure �. The STOPE framework for ereadiness assessment


STRATEGY Leadership Plans

5

ICT Basic Infrastructure ICT eServices

PEOPLE

Regulations

Awareness

Cooperation

Jobs

ORGANIZATION

Education

Management

Support

Provisionin

TECHNOLOGY: ICT

ENVIRONMENT Knowledge General Infrastructure

Economy

Organization

Management

Developing the Framework Developing the Framework For developing the framework, the factors of “ten selected previous e-readiness For developing the framework, the factors of “ten selected previous e-readiness assessment studies” assessment studies” have beenwith considered, together with other complimentary factors. have been considered, together other complimentary factors. � Three studies were associated with academic centers: one in the USA • Three (Geoffery, studies were2002), associated centers: one in the USA other the with otheracademic in Russia (Sergey, 2004), and(Geoffery, the third2002), in thethe UK in Russia (Sergey, 2004), and the third in the UK (Al-Solbi, 2004); 2004); • Three(Al-Solbi, studies were supported by international organizations: one was supported by the UNDP � Three supported by international one was supported (UNDP, 2004),studies anotherwere by the ITU (ITU, 2003), and theorganizations: third by “infodev” of the Worldbank (Mohsen, by2003); the UNDP (UNDP, 2004), another by the ITU (ITU, 2003), and the third by • Two “infodev” studies were by specialized firms:2003); one by McConnell International (McConnell of given the Worldbank (Mohsen, international, 2002), and the other by Bridges (Bridges, 2002); � studies Two studies were given specialized firms: one McConnell • Two were concerned withby e-readiness assessments in by firms, with each International supported by the (McConnell international, 2002), andSeries, the other Bridges 2002); government concerned (Leading Growth Firms 2001byand Dawn, (Bridges, 2002). Framework Description The resulted framework is explained in the following according to the five STOPE domains. The sub-domains and the sub-sub-domains of each domain are addressed.

Figure 1.

The STOPE framework for e-readiness assessment

supported by the government concerned (Leading Growth Firms Series, 2001 and Dawn, 2002). Framework Description The resulted framework is explained in the following according to the five STOPE domains. The sub-domains and the sub-sub-domains of each domain are addressed. Table 5. e-readiness “strategy” issues

6

Table 5.

e-readiness “strategy” issues

STRATEGY “Directions, commitments and plans toward ICT development and utilization” ISSUE FACTOR EXPLANATION Priority: e-Business / Knowledge society Vision Directions / Initiatives Government Plans / Projects / Funds / Other support support President involvement ICT Leadership Position of ICT managers: CIOs Commitment E-Business team: Members from all departments / Reporting to the president ICT Managers / Qualifications / Position (Influence) Responsibilities Basic ICT communication & information Technology (ICT) infrastructure / ICT e-services infrastructure / ICT Plan provisioning / ICT support Future Organization ICT ICT government regulations / ICT cooperation / ICT Development Plan management Plans ICT awareness / ICT education and training / ICT ICT HR Plan qualifications and jobs / Management of ICT skills Related Non-ICT Knowledge / Resources and the economy / Plans: Environment Organization / Basic services infrastructure

The “strategy” domain integrates the factors concerned with “future directions, commitments and plans ICT development and utilization”. Two sub-domains considered to be associated Thetoward “strategy” domain integrates the factors concernedarewith “future directions, with this domain: “leadership” and “future development plans”. Table 5 provides an account of this commitments and plans toward ICT development and utilization”. Two sub-domains main domain, presenting the sub-sub-domains of each sub-domain with explanations toward further are considered to be associated with this domain: “leadership” and “future development refinement to enable the derivation of measurable entities.

plans”. Table 5 provides an account of this main domain, presenting the sub-sub-

The “technology” domain integrates the factors concerned with the “current state of issues concerned domains of each sub-domain with explanations toward further refinement to enable the with ICT facilities”. Four sub-domains are considered to be associated with this domain: “ICT basic derivation of measurable entities. information infrastructure”, “ICT e-services infrastructure”, “ICT provisioning”, and “ICT support”. In a similar manner to the “strategy” domain, Table 6 provides an account of the “technology” domain, presenting the domain sub-sub-domains of the eachfactors of its sub-domains, with the explanations further The “technology” integrates concerned with “current for state of refinement toward obtaining measurable entities. issues concerned with ICT facilities”. Four sub-domains are considered to be associated

with this domain: basic information The “organization” domain“ICT integrates the factors related toinfrastructure”, the “current state “ICT of issuese-services concerned infrastructure”, “ICT provisioning”,Three and sub-domains “ICT support”. In a similar to the with ICT regulations and management”. are considered to bemanner associated with this domain: “ICT government regulations”, “ICT cooperation among organizations”, and “ICT “strategy” domain, Table 6 provides an account of the “technology” domain, presenting management”. In a similarofmanner domains, Table describes the “organization” the sub-sub-domains each tooftheitsabove sub-domains, with7 explanations for further domain in terms of its sub-domains and sub-sub-domains, with explanations given to the sub-subrefinement toward obtaining measurable entities. domains for further refinement toward specifying measurable entities. The “people” domain integrates the factors associated with the “current state of issues concerned with ICT users and skills”. The domain is considered to consist of four sub-domains: “ICT awareness”, “ICT education and training”, “ICT qualifications and jobs”, and “management of ICT skills”. Table 8 describes the “people” domain in terms of its sub-domains and sub-sub-domains, with extra explanations given to the sub-sub-domains for further refinement toward the measurable entities. The “environment” domain integrates the factors associated with the “current state of the basic non-ICT issues surrounding and affecting the current state of ICT”. The domain has four subdomains: “knowledge”, “resources and the economy”, “organization” including general regulations, cooperation and management, and the basic “non-ICT infrastructure”. Table 9 describes the “environment” domain in terms of its sub-domains and sub-sub-domains, with extra explanations of the sub-sub-domains for further refinement.

Table 6. e-readiness “technology” issues

TECHNOLOGY “Current state of issues concerned with ICT facilities” ISSUES FACTORS EXPLANATION Computers / Fixed telephones / Cellular phones / ICT Basic Availability High speed lines / Internet / Intranet (for Communication & organizations) Information Installation delay / Failures / Speed (Rate) / Infrastructure Performance Congestion / Delay: Measures Portals & Webs / G2G services / G2B services / Government G2C services: e-Transactions ICT e-Services Utilization / Performance: Measures Infrastructure Portals & Webs / B2G Services / Business / B2B Services / B2C Services: e-Transactions Organizations Utilization / Performance: Measures Communications / Hardware / Software: Market size (purchasing) / Imports / Local production Products / Market (Exports) / Security products ICT Provisioning National language products Contracts: Utilization / Delivery of products / Performance Updating and upgrading Availability and use of standards: Local / Standards National / International ICT Support Availability of operation and maintenance Operation & sources: Local / National / International Maintenance Performance: Measures

ORGANIZATION “Current state of issues concerned with ICT regulations and management” The “organization” domain integrates the factors related to the “current state of issues ISSUE FACTOR DESCRPTION “organization” concerned with ICT regulations and management”. Three sub-domains are considered Legal framework for ICT business issues to be associated withBasic this ICT domain: “ICTAdaptation government “ICTNational cooperation of ICTregulations”, technical standards: / Regulations among organizations”, and “ICT management”. In a International similar manner to the above / Software Piracy domains, Table 7 describes the “organization”Computer domain Crimes in terms of its sub-domains and ICT Business Foreign investment / Competition sub-sub-domains, with explanations given to the sub-sub-domains for further ICT Government Regulation Pricing / Tariffs Regulations refinement toward Internet specifying measurable entities. Services Domain name (DN) registration Regulations Authorization of Internet services providers (ISPs) The “people” domainE-Business integrates the factors associated thekey“current state(PKI) of issues Digital Signature with / Public infrastructure Services concerned with ICT users and skills”. The domain is considered consist of four subBusiness transactions to / e-Taxation Regulations domains: “ICT awareness”, “ICT education and training”, “ICT qualifications and Knowledge Cooperation: Industrial and professional sector / Education jobs”, and “management of ICT Sharing for skills”. Table 8 describes the “people” domain in terms (Innovation / Development) ofICT its Cooperation sub-domains and sub-sub-domains,and withresearch extra sector explanations given to the sub-subInnovation Partnerships / e-Business: Customers / Suppliers / Outsourcing (Value chain domains for further refinement toward the measurable entities. Services / Value system): Local / National / International Measures Evaluation measures


7

Table 6.

e-readiness “technology” issues

Table 7. e-Readiness

Change ICT Management

Quality

Flexibility and adaptation to emerging requirements Timely service/ Quality Service / Impact of Competition Use of modern management techniques

Cost / Affordability

Cost of ICT facilities / Cost of access, use and maintenance: Relative to income.

The “environment” domain integrates the factors associated with the “current state of the basic non-ICT issues surrounding and affecting the current state of ICT”. The

Table 7.

e-Readiness “organization” issues

Table 8. e-Readiness “people” issues

ISSUE

ICT Awareness

8

Table 8.

e-Readiness “people” issues

ICT Education & Training

ICT Qualifications & Jobs Management of ICT Skills

PEOPLE “Current state of issues concerned with ICT users and skills” FACTOR DESCRPTION Understanding ICT advantages ICT literacy Resistance / Adaptability to ICT change ICT / Internet use ICT in general education and training Education System ICT and Internet access in education and training Support institutions / e-Learning Media Support ICT in the public media ICT Qualifications

Programs and graduates: School level / University level / Professional level / Training Support: ICT facilities

e-Education / e-Learning

On-line courses at all levels

Jobs

ICT skills in ICT jobs / ICT skills in non-ICT jobs / Non-ICT skills in ICT jobs

Skills

Availability of ICT skills / Need for ICT skills: Matching

Performance Satisfaction

Productivity of ICT skills Retaining ICT skills

ENVIRONMENT An Illustrative Example Table �. “Current non-ICT issues surrounding affecting the current of ICT” e-readiness An illustrative example on the use of the and above framework forstate practical e-Readiness ISSUE FACTOR DESCRPTION “environment” assessments is given here. The example considers the five main STOPE domains and Identity10 andillustrates profile the sub-domains associated with each main domain. Table the domains issues Culture Literacy: Technology / ICT and the sub-domains considered. Each sub-domain is assigned a “value” representing Knowledge of English its “measure” according to the “grades” of Table 1, and another “value” giving its Quality the education system values are Knowledge “weight”, that is its relative importance. In addition, forofevery main domain, Education concluded from the values and& weights ofScience the sub-domains, equations of and technology: using Schoolsthe / Universities Training Table 3. Weights are also assigned to theResearch main domains, and a value representing and development: Technology parks & the incubatorsof Table 2. The substate of the STOPE framework, is concluded using the equation Resources Availability sub-domains are notNatural considered in the example, as these can be/ Value related to their subRevenues / domains in the same way sub-domains are related, inProductivity the example, to the main domains. / Profitability Resources & Profitability Figures 2-a through 2-f illustrate the results of the example using the “radar graph”. Economy Trade Import / Export The light line in the graphs represents the ideal reference state, while the heavy line Income per capita / Income relative to cost of living: gives the assessment. Income Standard of living

Table9.

e-Readiness “environment” issues

Rule of law

Government Regulations

Business opportunities

Cooperation

Local / National / International Impact of culture on work: Positive / Negative

Organization Management

Technological development and change: Acceptance / Response

ENVIRONMENT Use of modern management techniques “Current non-ICT issues surrounding and affecting the current state of ICT” Retaining Skills

Infrastructure

Basic services: Electricity / Transportation / Postal System / Health care

Figures 2-a through 2-f illustrate the results of the example using the “radar graph”. The light line in the graphs represents the ideal reference state, while the heavy line

An Illustrative Example An illustrative example on the use of the above framework for practical e-readiness assessments is given here. The example considers the five main STOPE domains and the sub-domains associated with each main domain. Table 10 illustrates the domains and the sub-domains considered. Each sub-domain is assigned a “value” representing its “measure” according to the “grades” of Table 1, and another “value” giving its “weight”, that is its relative importance. In addition, for every main domain, values are concluded from the values and weights of the sub-domains, using the equations of Table 3. Weights are also assigned to the main domains, and a value representing the state of the STOPE framework, is concluded using the equation of Table 2. The sub-sub-domains are not considered in the example, as these can be related to their sub-domains in the same way sub-domains are related, in the example, to the main domains. Figures 2-a through 2-f illustrate the results of the example using the “radar graph”. The light line in the graphs represents the ideal reference state, while the heavy line gives the assessment. Figures 2-a through 2-f illustrate the results of the example using the “radar graph”. The light line in the graphs represents the ideal reference state, while the heavy line gives the assessment.


9

• Figure 2-a provides the overall e-readiness assessment of the five STOPE domains. • Figure 2-b gives the assessment of the “strategy” domain according to its two sub-domains: the ICT leadership and the ICT development plans. • Figure 2-c shows the assessment of the “technology” domain considering its four sub-domains: ICT basic infrastructure, ICT e-services infrastructure, ICT provisioning, and ICT support. • Figure 2-d presents the assessment of the “organization” domain considering its three sub-domains: ICT regulations, ICT cooperation, and ICT management. • Figure 2-e provides the assessment of the “people” domain considering its four sub-domains: ICT awareness, ICT education and training, ICT qualifications and jobs, and the management of ICT skills. • Figure 2-f shows the assessment of the “environment” domain considering its four sub-domains: knowledge, resources and thethe economy, organization, the general The differences between light lines and the and heavy lines ininfrastructure. the graphs illustrate the

relative strengths and weaknesses of the various domains and sub-domains.

The differences between the light lines and the heavy lines in the graphs illustrate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various domains and sub-domains.

Table ��. e-Readiness evaluation results: an illustrative example considering “domains” and “subdomains”, with “equal weights”.

DOMAIN Strategy

Technology

Organization

People

Environment

e-Readiness Illustrative Example SUB-DOMAIN M ICT leadership 2 ICT future development plans 3 ICT basic infrastructure 3 ICT e-services infrastructure 1 ICT provisioning 3 ICT support 2 ICT regulations: government 2 ICT cooperation 1 ICT management 1 ICT awareness 1 ICT education and training 2 ICT qualifications and jobs 2 Management of ICT skilled 2 Knowledge 2 Resources and economy 4 Organization 2 General Infrastructure 3 OVERALL GRADE

DOMAIN M w

w 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.30 0.30 2.2 0.20 0.20 0.4 1.4 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.35 1.75 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.4 3.1 0.2 0.2 2.16 / 4

0.25

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.15

Conclusions and Future Work The STOPE framework for e-readiness Conclusions and Future Work assessment introduced in this paper has been built according to a “multi-level integrated approach” based on five main distinct domains. The framework enjoys The STOPE framework for e-readiness assessment introduced in thisof paper has been the feature of “comprehensiveness” in integrating the various related factors such assessments built to aof“multi-level approach” based on five modifications main distinct over theaccording main domains STOPE. The integrated framework is also “flexible” in allowing of

domains. The framework enjoys the feature of “comprehensiveness” in integrating the various related factors of such assessments over the main domains of STOPE. The framework is also “flexible” in allowing modifications of the factors under STOPE to match with the requirements of the case-study considered, whether a country or an

Table 10.

e-Readiness evaluation results: an illustrative example considering “domains” and “subdomains”, with “equal weights”

the factors under STOPE to match with the requirements of the case-study considered, whether a country or an organization associated with a specific field, such as banking, education or other different fields. It is also “flexible” with regards to responding to change, that is to emerging new factors that need to be incorporated within the framework in the future. In addition, the framework is also distinguished for its “measurability”, as it provides interrelated “measures” for the factors considered at different levels, with “weights” that reflect their relative importance. Because of its distinct features, the framework represents a “potential standard” for e-readiness assessments both for countries, and for organizations in different fields. The use of the framework would not only provide e-readiness assessments based on “sound features”, but it would also help “fair comparisons” between different studies. The framework is recommended for consideration by organizations concerned with “ICT standards” that support “sustainable development” through enhancing “preparedness for the networked world”.

10 �. Figure e-Readiness assessment results: an example at the subdomain level

Leadership

Strategy

4

4

3

3

Environme

2

1

2

Technolo

1

0

0

Organizatio

Peopl

Figure 2-a. STOPE

4

ICT Plans Figure 2-b. Strategy

ICT basic

ICT regulations:

3

4

2

ICT Provisioni

1

0

ICT Suppor

3

ICT Manageme

2

1

0

ICT Cooperati

Figure 2-d. Organization

ICT e-services Figure 2-c. Technology

ICT education &

Resources & 4

4

Figure 2.

e-Readiness assessment results: an example at the sub-domain level

ICT Skill

3

3

2

2

1

0

ICT jobs

1

Knowledge

0

Organizati

ICT awareness

General infrastructure

Figure 2-e. People

Figure 2-f. Environment

References Al-Solbi A (2004), “Evaluating and improving e-readiness assessment methods and tools: Questionnaire will be distributed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Bakry S. H., Bakry F. H. (2001), “A strategic view for the development of e-business”, International Journal of Network Management, vol.11, pp.103-112. Bakry S. H. (2003), “Development of security policies for private networks”, International Journal of Network Management, vol. 13 pp. 203-210.

References Al-Solbi A (2004), "Evaluating and improving e-readiness assessment methods and tools: Questionnaire will be distributed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia", University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Bakry S. H. (2004), “Development of e-government: A STOPE view”, International Journal of Network Management, vol.14 No.5 pp. 339-350. Bakry S. H. , Bakry A. H. (2005), “Enterprise resource planning: a review and a STOPE view”, International Journal of Network Management, vol. 15 pp. 363-370. Bakry S. H. (2006), “Transformation to the Knowledge Society”, King Abdulaziz Public Library, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, (in Arabic).


Bridges (2002), “e-Readiness assessment: who is doing what and where: an open content report”, http://www.bridges.org. Dawn J, Peter B, and Jasbir D. (2002), “Government support for e-readiness of small and medium sized enterprises(SMEs)”, Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society. EC (March 2000), European summit in Lisbon, Portugal. European community, http://www.europa.eu.int. Geoffery S, Carlos A, and Jeffrey D. (2002), “The networked readiness index: measuring of nations for the networked world”, Center for International Development at Harvard University; Massachusetts, USA. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2003), “World telecommunication development report”, Geneva, Switzerland. Leading Growth Firms Series (2001), “The wisdom exchange e-business readiness assessment”, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Ontario, Canada, http://www.ontariocanada.com. McConnell international (2002), “Ready net go: partnerships leading the global economy”, http://www.mcconnellinternational.com. Mohsen A, Michael F, Bruno D, Vivek C. (2003), “INDIA: E-Readiness Assessment Report”, Thompson Press, InfoDev, Worldbank, http://www.infodiv.org. Sergey S. (2004), “Russia e-readiness assessment”, Institute of Information Society, Moscow, Russia, http://www.russia-gateway.ru/ index.php. The United Nations Development Program (2004), “ICT for Development”, http://www.undp.org. UN (September 2000), “UN MDG: Millennium Development Goals”, http://www.developmentgoals.org / http://www.unmillenniumproject. org. World information summit, http://www.itu.org.

11