In this paper, a generalized state-of-the-art framework for measuring e-readiness of a nation is proposed. The framework is based on eight factors like macroeconomy, digital infrastructure, knowledgeable citizens, competitiveness, access to skilled workforce, culture, ability to invest, and cost of living and pricing. These factors are quantified using 52 indicators. Further, a set of computational steps in pseudocode form is described to measure the overall e-readiness index of a nation. The effectiveness of the proposed framework is demonstrated using the data contributed by different world organizations on these matrices for 10 East Asian and G7 countries for providing e-readiness assessments and in making national strategic decisions on infrastructure that is conducive to the new economy.

e-readiness indices are essentially evaluative frameworks used to assess nations (E-ASEAN Taskforce, 2002). A review of evaluation literature by Madon (2004) found that evaluation criteria ‘come from the field’ and reflect the felt needs and priorities of the users of the project rather than predefined objective criteria. However, the combined effort of the subjective and objective criteria may be more appropriate to measure the e-readiness of a nation which is at a developing stage.

Realizing the importance of e-readiness measurement and its implications for the economic growth of a nation, many governmental and world organizations have created their own instruments either in the form of self-assessment tools or surveys. The most prominent of these institutions are the World Bank (World Development Indicators, 2001; Knowledge Assessment Matrix, 2002; and Statistical Information Management Analysis Database Ltd., 2002), McConnell (WITSA, 2000; and 2001), Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU, 2009), ASEAN (2002), Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC, 2000), MOSAIC (2000), and Computer Systems Policy Projects (CSPP, 1998). Even though they set out to measure, presumably, the same e-readiness index, they share little commonality in terms of the standards they use. For example, APEC and Center for International Development (CID) considered only macroeconomic factors and digital infrastructure in estimating e-readiness, whereas MOSAIC includes knowledgeable citizens as an e-readiness measure. CSPP has the same number of factors as MOSAIC, namely, three, but they only share one common factor, macroeconomy with CSPP using two new factors called competitiveness and access to skilled workforce. However, McConnell uses six factors in estimating e-readiness, doubling the number used by ASEAN and CSPP, and tripling those of APEC and CID. The World Bank and EIU propose the largest inventory of factors, namely, seven, used as an instrument in evaluating ereadiness but they are not the same; World Bank uses a factor called culture and EIU uses a factor called cost of living and pricing, each of which is not shared by the other organization.

Management Research Journal, e-Readiness Framework, Economist Intelligence Unit, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Computer Systems Policy Projects, Center for International Development.