Alberto Savoldelli, Gianluca Misuraca and Cristiano Codagnone
Figure 4: eGEP‐2.0 measurement models. Logic flow of measurement and their relationships with policy actors stages
• Defining e‐Government projects to be evaluated / funded. In the figure this is represented by the steps placed in the lower‐left side of the diagram. The involvement of stakeholders is foreseen through the fulfilment of a web‐based project description template( Carbone, 2012), which allows to reach a consensus among policy actors on key dimensions constituting the project ' s characteristics;
• Choosing indicators suitable for measurement projects in coherence with the policy guidelines( left side of the flow‐diagram). This is guided by a feasibility‐check procedure that allows verifying the compliancy of project ' s objectives with policy guidelines;
• defining weighting system needed for hierarchical re‐composition of the impact assessment model and the quantification of the e‐Government adoption index. This is represented in the right side of the figure. In this case the key difference with eGEP re‐composition approach consists in the adoption of weighting systems based upon stakeholders preferences and the usage of a negotiation process amongst policy actors based upon a sensitivity analysis of the weight assigned to the various levels of the hierarchical model( Munda, 2004; Gasparotos et al., 2008; Nordstrom et al., 2012).
4) Types of impact assessment stages supported. As the majority of the impact assessment framework analysed, also eGEP has been designed to support mainly ex‐post impact assessment. Its applicability to other assessment stages, even if it could be possible in theory, in practical terms it is difficult, especially for ex‐ante expected impacts estimation, because it does not have enough flexibility neither in modelling the policy plan, nor in supporting participative measurement of the related implementation projects.
4. eGEP‐2.0 applied: the case of the Emilia‐Romagna region
In this section we describe the experience conducted in the last three years( 2011‐2013) in the Emilia‐ Romagna Region in applying the eGEP‐2.0 assessment framework to the Telematics Plan of the Region( namely“ Piano Informatico e Telematico della Regione Emilia‐Romagna – PiTER 2011‐2013). Figure 5 below presents the first three levels of the Assessment Model of PiTER, based upon the eGEP‐2.0 model structure described in the upper‐left side of figure 4. The first three levels of the model are constructed in coherence with the objectives of the political guidelines of PiTER and in agreement with the technical and political committees that constitute the governance structure of the ICT policy implementation in the Emilia‐Romagna territory( Carbone, 2012; PiTER, 2012). In particular, level 1 of the eGEP‐2.0 model applied to the Telematics an Informatics Plan of the Emilia‐Romagna Region is based upon the key policy elements of the European Digital Agenda( European Council, 2010) declined on the specific needs of the Emilia‐Romagna territory. The selected criteria of level 2 of the eGEP‐2.0 applied to the Plan have been based upon a consultation process involving all key actors in the Region and it has given us the possibility to design the measurement model in a transparent and trustworthy way. Level 3 in the model is constituted by the impact measurement indicators dynamically
447