13th European Conference on eGovernment – ECEG 2013 1 | Page 468

Alberto Savoldelli, Gianluca Misuraca and Cristiano Codagnone

represent complex realities where policy decisions should have to produce their effects( Svensson, & Pettersson‐Libdom, 2008; Garbarino & Holland, 2009; Hargraves, 2010; Misuraca et al., 2013). However the above description of the logical links between policy decisions and implementation projects allow us to organize a policy‐decision model easier to be adopted in a participative process aiming to achieve consensus among stakeholders. This is also the logic through which eGEP‐2.0 was designed. The main differences between eGEP and eGEP‐2.0 are described in table 2, by considering four comparison criteria which are further explained below.

Figure 3: eGEP‐2.0 logic model that provides a link amongst projects objectives and policy strategy

Table 2: Comparison eGEP‐2.0 ‐ eGEP in relation to their degree of applicability to an e‐Government decisionmaking process

1) Degree of flexibility in policy planning assessment. The majority of the assessment frameworks, including eGEP, are static by nature, based upon predefined criteria that are mainly related to projects that they are going to measure or compare, but rarely are designed to measure the link between policy objectives and e‐ Government projects( Savoldelli et al., 2013) as eGEP2.0 does;

2) Degree of flexibility in e‐Government project measurement. The eGEP model, as other models analysed is based upon a static hierarchy constituted by a fixed number of measurement criteria and indicators that do not allow addressing all the characteristics of an e‐Government policy plan and its related implementation projects. eGEP‐2.0 model instead is structured with a dynamic hierarchy( Schmoldt et al., 2001), that can be easily adapted to any policy plan;

3) Degree of flexibility in participative measurement through stakeholders and citizens involvement. The eGEP model, as all others, does not allow an effective participation of stakeholders and beneficiaries in the policy planning process. eGEP‐2.0 instead provides the necessary support to involve all relevant stakeholders since the beginning of the policy‐making process. Their involvement is foreseen in three stages of the measurement process as described in figure 4:

446