Multicriteria decision support for global e-government evaluation

E-government refers to the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) by governments to provide digital services to citizens and businesses over the Internet, at local, national or international level. Benchmarking and assessing e-government is therefore necessary to monitor performance and progress by individual countries and identify areas for improvement. Although such measurements have already been initiated by various organizations, they scarcely highlight the multidimensional nature of the assessment. This paper outlines a multicriteria methodology to evaluate e-government using a system of eight evaluation criteria that are built on four points of view: (1) infrastructures, (2) investments, (3) e-processes, and (4) users’ attitude. The overall evaluation is obtained through an additive value model which is assessed with the involvement of a single decision maker–evaluator and the use of a multicriteria ordinal regression approach. Specifically, the UTA II method is used, whose interactive application process is divided in two phases. Its implementation is supported by MIIDAS (multicriteria interactive intelligent decision aiding system). This research work aims at supporting potential stakeholders to perform a global e-government evaluation, based on their own viewpoints and preferences. Finally, 21 European countries are evaluated and ranked considering the latest criteria data.

[1]  Christos Douligeris,et al.  Collaborative, Trusted and Privacy-Aware e/m-Services , 2013, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology.

[2]  Barney Warf,et al.  Global E-Government , 2013 .

[3]  Panagiotis Manolitzas,et al.  E-Government: A Comparative Study of the G2C Online Services Progress Using Multi-Criteria Analysis , 2010, Int. J. Decis. Support Syst. Technol..

[4]  Yannis Siskos,et al.  Multicriteria job evaluation for large organizations , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  Yannis Siskos,et al.  Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  Åke Grönlund,et al.  "You can't make this a science!" - Analyzing decision support systems in political contexts , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[7]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[8]  Issues and Challenges Global E-Government/E-Participation Models, Measurement and Methodology A Framework for Moving Forward , 2006 .

[9]  Åke Grönlund,et al.  The Effect of eGovernment on Corruption: Measuring Robustness of Indexes , 2011, EGOVIS.

[10]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Robust Ordinal Regression , 2014, Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis.

[11]  J. Siskos Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making , 1982 .

[12]  Ulrike Mandl,et al.  The effectiveness and efficiency of public spending , 2008 .

[13]  Yannis Psaromiligkos,et al.  Survey forest fire detection systems via multicriteria disaggregation-aggregation approach: the case of Lycabettus Hill , 2012 .

[14]  Y. Charalabidis,et al.  A review of the European Union eParticipation action pilot projects , 2011 .

[15]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area , 2008, Gov. Inf. Q..

[16]  Åke Grönlund,et al.  Connecting eGovernment to Real Government - The Failure of the UN eParticipation Index , 2011, EGOV.

[17]  Frank Bannister,et al.  The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons , 2007 .

[18]  Yannis Siskos,et al.  Using artificial intelligence and visual techniques into preference disaggregation analysis: The MIIDAS system , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[19]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  S. Dawes The Evolution and Continuing Challenges of E-Governance , 2008 .

[21]  M. P. Gupta,et al.  E-government evaluation: a framework and case study , 2003, Gov. Inf. Q..

[22]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2010 .

[23]  S. Greco,et al.  Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression , 2012 .

[24]  Denis Bouyssou,et al.  Conjoint measurement tools for MCDM, A brief introduction , 2004 .

[25]  Theresa A. Pardo,et al.  Benchmarking e-Government: A comparison of frameworks for computing e-Government index and ranking , 2011, Gov. Inf. Q..

[26]  B. Roy Méthodologie multicritère d'aide à la décision , 1985 .

[27]  Morten Goodwin Olsen,et al.  Benchmarking e-Government - A Comparative Review of Three International Benchmarking Studies , 2009, 2009 Third International Conference on Digital Society.

[28]  Lawrence M. Seiford,et al.  Models for performance benchmarking: Measuring the effect of e-business activities on banking performance , 2004 .

[29]  Åke Grönlund,et al.  eParticipation research: Systematizing the field , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[30]  Milosz Kadzinski,et al.  Selection of a representative value function in robust multiple criteria ranking and choice , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[31]  Irfan Syamsuddin,et al.  A new fuzzy MCDM framework to evaluate e-government security strategy , 2010, 2010 4th International Conference on Application of Information and Communication Technologies.

[32]  Carlos A. Bana e Costa,et al.  Applications of the MACBETH Approach in the Framework of an Additive Aggregation Model , 1997 .

[33]  Tomasz Janowski,et al.  Determining Progress Towards e-Government: What are the Core Indicators? , 2005, ECEG.

[34]  J. Siskos Comment modéliser les préférences au moyen de fonctions d'utilité auditives , 1980 .

[35]  N. Adler,et al.  Benchmarking airports from a managerial perspective , 2013 .

[36]  Dimitris Askounis,et al.  E-government Benchmarking in European Union: A Multicriteria Extreme Ranking Approach , 2013, I3E.

[37]  William Sheridan and Thomas B. Riley,et al.  Comparing e-government vs. e-governance , 2006 .

[38]  Herwig Ostermann,et al.  Benchmarking E-Government , 2005, Wirtsch..

[39]  Cengiz Kahraman,et al.  Prioritization of e-Government strategies using a SWOT-AHP analysis: the case of Turkey , 2007, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[40]  Richard Heeks,et al.  Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..