Ninoslava Savić and Zoran Radojičić
• definition of the organization in charge of data collection and analysis, which can ensure the homogenization of data, measures and weights for benchmarking,
• selection of e‐Government services to be measured, according to strategic priorities of EU and agreed with country members.
eGEP( 2006a) has defined a conceptual framework for measurement of e‐Government, expressed through an analytical model. The model identifies three value drivers( Figure 2):
• efficiency,
• democracy,
• effectiveness, whose influence causes the creation of three different types of public value:
• financial and organizational value,
• political value,
• constituency value.
Source: eGEP( 2006a) Figure 2: eGEP measurement framework analytical model
If certain measuring tool includes composite indices, a good practice in creating and using them for benchmarks would include the following recommendations( eGEP, 2006b):
• developing a theoretical framework for the composite indices,
• identifying and developing relevant variables,
• standardizing variables to allow comparisons,
• weighting variables and their groups,
• conducting sensitivity tests on the robustness of aggregated variables.
There are many projects and studies on the international level covering the topic of defining the measuring methodology for expression the level of the digital divide in different fields( Barzilai‐Nahon, 2006; Chin‐Chang and Shu‐Fen, 2006; Cuervo and Menendez, 2006; Selhofer and Hüsing, 2002; Stiakakis, Kariotellis and Vlachopoulou, 2009). However, there is no uniquely accepted methodology. All methodologies mainly create different social divide, according to different criteria chosen to be relevant for digital divide analysis( for example: according to gender, education level, income level etc.). A certain number of social groups are monitored in each divide. Finally, various transformations of chosen indicators formulate compound indices of digital divide.
435