Alberto Savoldelli, Gianluca Misuraca and Cristiano Codagnone
Figure 6, Impact measurement indicators selection process in PiTER
Table 3: eGEP‐2.0 application to the eGovernment Telematics and Informatics Plan of the Emilia‐Romagna region in Italy
POLICY GUIDELINES
# of policy objectives addressed on total
# of eGovernment projects assessed and funded
# of assessment indicators selected
Average # of assessment indicators per project
Average # of project per policy objective
Average # of indicators per policy objective
ICT Networks for all |
6( 86 %) |
4 |
12 |
3,0 |
0,7 |
2,0 |
Information and knowledge inclusion for all ages |
6( 100 %) |
7 |
21 |
3,0 |
1,2 |
3,5 |
eGovernment services for citizens and companies |
4( 100 %) |
11 |
37 |
3,4 |
2,8 |
9,3 |
Open data and open government |
5( 80 %) |
4 |
12 |
3,0 |
0,8 |
2,4 |
Smart cities and smart territory 5( 71 %) 8 26 3,3 1,6 5,2 TOTAL 26( 87 %) 34 108 3,2 1,3 4,2
eGEP‐2.0 was used in the year 2012 for a second measurement stage and for other 35 e‐Government projects and for measuring the in‐itinere impacts of the projects selected in the first application of eGEP‐2.0( year 2011). allowing us to The feedback from these two stages of application of eGEP‐2.0 to the Telematics Plan of the Emilia‐Romagna Region clearly shows considerable advantages for the policy planning process of e‐ Government in the territory, such as:
• a significant time reduction in implementing the planning process;
• an increase of transparency and traceability of information and data processed;
• an increase of participation of stakeholders in policy‐making;
• a significant reduction of the risk of failure of individual projects;
• a better allocation of financial resource with greater“ social‐value for money” perspective;
• a better quality of data collection from three‐stage measurement process which, in mid‐term perspective would be beneficial for an evaluation of the impact of the plan through a counterfactual approach.
5. Conclusions and future work
In this paper we have discussed the issue of measuring e‐Government and analysed some of the main frameworks of measurement used in practice and at policy level. In light of the comparative analysis of
449