Alessio Gugliotta, Francesco Niglia and Laura Schina
• Identify potential opportunities and threats in the service provision.
The analysis is completed by assigning a weight to the four different factors so to identify what is the factor with the main impact and which can be the main constraints at the transferring of the service in another context, i. e. if the political factor plays a critical role, its applicability in other country will be strictly related to the policy of the country.
4.4 The comparison and International positioning of cases
All the cases have been subject to a quantitative evaluation with the aim to provide a first classification through a score board and be an example for future analysis. Both PEST and SWOT have been referred to an“ absolute measurement” of the potentialities of each case in its e‐Government field; the results allow the cross‐comparison among cases because of the assignment of comparable scores( see metrics below). The full detail of PEST and SWOT are visible in the free‐web‐retrievable document( NET‐EUCEN D2.1). All the 40 cases have been scored and positioned in a 2‐dimensional matrix [ USER CENTRICITY: REPLICABILITY ] for a better vision of which of them could be actually used for proposing them to Public Administrations and Policy makers.
As additional target, we provide a partial vision of the level of competitivity of each selected service in terms of application of user centricity and replicability in the other countries. This analysis is going to be presented as a preliminary check of the actual value of the scouted services against the other international initiatives, thus to give an idea of the gap – if any – of the Europe with respect the U. S. and Asia Area. The quantitative evaluation followed a procedure that gave the results in a bi‐dimensional, 3‐degree environment that, as the following figure suggests, help us to actually differentiate the cases of interest in four different categories: [ no, low, medium, high ] interest.
4.5 The metrics used The metric and rationale used for assigning the scores to the cases are described in the sub‐paragraphs:
4.5.1 The user‐centric metric
The user‐centric paradigm has been defined in( NET‐EUCEN D1.1) and its measuring exploited in( NET‐EUCEN Working document on indicators), the metric we use in this analysis relates to the application of the methodology in each of the three steps.
Given the pre‐selection of cases, we start with a list of services that are all characterised by the application of the user centricity in their overall deployment. We define 3 degrees of user‐centricity in the cases, depending on the overall judgment or score of their indicators: Low, Medium and High.
For the BP document analysis, as well as for the respondent to the survey, we take into account four factors belonging to two different categories:
• User centred approach: P1 Share ideas and co‐create content, P2 Provide information to improve the service
• Best Practice Evaluation: P3. user satisfaction, P4. Participation in decisions
Each of the four abovementioned factors has been analysed and assigned of a qualitative weight, then, each weight will be assigned to a score( table 2). For the analysis we summed all the four factors to arrive at a score in the window [ 0‐4 ]. This metric is defined by 3 degrees of potentialities of user centricity of the cases basing it on the overall score achieved in either one or the other measuring.
4.5.2 The replicability / transferability metric
The replicability is meant as the actual potential of a service to be provided in other socio‐economic environments, in terms of transfer of in another Country, for other user targets, for other e‐Government domains. In this survey, this issue is evaluated through the P. E. S. T. analysis; the replicability, indeed, could be actually realised if one or more of the following issues are taken into account:
• P5 Political: check how much a service is specifically linked to a local constraint or need.
• P6 Economic: check how much a service is self‐sustainable and if it could raise to a business for providers.
234