Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 25–34

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /gov inf

Varying criticality of key success factors of national e-Strategy along the status ofeconomic development of nations

Jeongwon Yoon a, Myungsin Chae b,⁎a National Information Society Agency, 77 Moogyo-Dong, Jung-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Koreab Seoul University of Information and Venture, 37-18 Samsungdong, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: yjw@nia.or.kr (J. Yoon), mlee31@n

0740-624X/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.giq.2008.08.006

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 12 November 2008

Keywords:

Many studies mention the idevelopment. However, itStrategy should be defined

National e-StrategyE-GovernmentCritical success factorse-ReadinessDelphi

and applied by the target country. This creates more confusion for policy makers.This paper reviews previous research on national e-Strategies to recognize its significance as a majorcontributing factor. Based on that, this research defines the critical success factors of national e-Strategy andinvestigates the possibility of prioritizing factors by the scale of economy through a Delphi survey. Byreviewing the evaluated status of e-Readiness and co-relating the evaluation with economic status, we may

mportance of national e-Strategy as it is a vital contributing factor for ICT-enabledis difficult to find a conceptual framework that suggests how the national e-

further investigate the significance of the digital divide and national e-Strategy. The outcome of this researchmay be applicable in differentiating critical success factors from general ingredients of National e-Strategy.

© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

National strategy for ICT, or sometimes called ‘national e-Strategy’may be set in place to contribute to national growth. According to theWorld Bank's study, a country needs to have a significant stock of ICTor users in place and perhaps be more advanced in using that stock foreconomic transformation (Hanna, 2003). Many countries have puttheir effort into promoting “National e-Strategy” as a way ofenhancing their respective countries' economic growth. For example,in South Korea, comprehensive national e-Strategy has been a keydriving factor in the phenomenal rebound of its economy from the1997 financial crisis: the ICT industry's contribution to GDP growthrose from a mere 4.5% in 1990 to an astounding 50.5% in 2000 (Hanna,2003). However, it is still difficult to understand the criticalingredients of the strategy because there are different definitionsand interpretations of critical success factors for national e-Strategy(Lavin, 2005; Hanna, 2003; Heeks, 2003). Moreover, looking at thestatistics analyzed by monitoring institutions such as the UN, e-Readiness shows the seriousness of digital divide between developedcountries and developing countries. According to the report from theTechnical Assistance Program, jointly performed by the NationalInformation Society Agency and the World Bank, most of the clientcountries (Morocco, Republic of Congo, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, andArgentina) have national e-Strategy plans already set in place(National Information Society Agency, 2004a). However, it is unlikelythat these countries would exercise the plans effectively consideringtheir strategic targets and environment. In reality, those strategies are

aver.com (M. Chae).

l rights reserved.

planned by benchmarking strategies taken from developed countries.Thus, it is important to find a conceptual framework that suggests hownational e-Strategy should be defined and effectively applied accord-ing to the characteristics of the target country or region.

This paper reviews the research on the critical success factors ofnational e-Strategy. This research also reviews the evaluated status ofe-Readiness of countries, and co-relates the economic status and e-Readiness status to figure out the significance of the digital divideamong developed, developing, and underdeveloped countries. Finally,this paper investigates the possibility of prioritizing the criticalsuccess factors of national e-Strategy by the scale of economy on thebasis of Delphi analysis. The outcome of this research may beapplicable to differentiating critical success factors from generalingredients of national e-Strategy, and selectively applying criticalsuccess factors according to strategic priorities.

2. Literature review

2.1. Defining and classifying critical success factors (CSFs) of nationale-Strategy

Strategies help constituents understand where organizations willbe primarily focusing their resources for the time frame of thestrategic plan (Allison & Kaye, 2005). The World Bank defines an e-Strategy as a set of coordinated actions and policies that seek toaccelerate the social, economic, and political development of a givencountry or region through the use of telecommunications, informationnetworks, and the technologies associated with them, based on theexperiences of developing countries (World Bank, 2005a). Based on‘Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit for e-Strategies Results’ developed

Fig. 1. Logical framework pyramid of e-Strategy(Lavin, 2005).

26 J. Yoon, M. Chae / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 25–34

by the World Bank (Lavin, 2005), the e-Strategy pyramid has fourhierarchical structures: policy, strategic priorities, implementationplan, and monitoring and evaluation (Fig. 1). At the policy level, thetarget country will determine how and why specific themes arepriority objectives. Strategic priorities are then determined. Mostbusiness strategies begin with a review or assessment of the currentstate of business. A similar approach is required for the developmentof national e-Strategies. Based on the priority objectives defined at thepolicy level, strategic priorities may be assessed to determine whatneeds to be done for the target countries.

Prioritizing strategy is one of the mandatory steps in determiningwhat needs to be done for the target countries. The strategic prioritiesare essential ingredients in drawing up an implementation plan, andcan include key initiatives and action plans. And, these assessedpriorities become critical success factors of national e-Strategy. Theconcept of Critical Success Factor (CSF) of national e-Strategy is knownby a variety of terms and definitions. According to the World Bank, it

Table 1Classification of CSF: critical success factors

CSF Low cost/policy-oriented

High cost/tech.-oriented

Examples of CSF at national-level initi

ICTInfrastructure

✓ Broadband Infrastructure, PSDN, DSL, FMobile Mobile Network

Funding ✓ Financial Investment, National ICT BudHuman Capital ✓ Trained IT Professionals, Public's InternEducating Public ✓ Reducing Digital Divide

Culture ofCivil Service

Culture of Civil Service, Public's AcceptInternet Internet Usage

Literacy ✓ Internet illiteracyICT Services ✓ ISP, e-Commerce, G2C, B2C, B2B, Web

ContentsInstitutionalStructure

✓ E-Government Committee

InternationalCooperation

✓ Technology Transfer, Applying Loan

Privacy &Security

✓ PKI, Encryption, Digital Certificates, AnProgram

Legal Framework Information Act, Security Act, Privacy PProtection Law

e-Participation e-Voting, Public Feedback, e-PressMonitoring &Evaluation

UN e-Readiness Evaluation, Auditing

PoliticalLeadership

Leader's Commitment, National CIO

PrivatePartnership

Promoting IT Industry

used the term “strategic priorities” or “identification of the pre-requisites for success” (Lavin, 2005). Other research used self-definedterms such as “Guiding Principles” (Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, 2003), “Success Barriers” (Ministry of Science, Technol-ogy and Higher Education, 2005), “Success Indicators” (Lavin, 2005),and “Strategic Responses” (Heeks, 2003). These various terms allimply CFSs. By reviewing previous literature, this research identified15 CFSs as strategic priorities of national e-Strategy (see Table 1).These CFSs can be characterized by policy, technology, and cost. Thesecharacteristics may be applied in determining strategic priorities ofnational e-Strategy with appropriate considerations given for thetarget country's environment and available resources.

2.2. Strategic priorities and the scale of economy

In the WSIS (World Summit for the Information Society) 2003,world leaders adopted a Plan of Action encouraging national e-Strategies be developed (ITU, 2008b). In the WSIS 2005, the TunisAgenda clearly stated that developing countries were to be encour-aged to prioritize some indicators such as funding, ICT Infrastructure,Training and etc (ITU, 2008a). The Agenda also pointed out that therewas a distinctive gap between developed countries and developingcountries in the capacity to build ICT-enabled economy and society.The World Bank study also indicated that e-Strategy must focus ongovernment priorities in ICT development and evolve along withcountry's development needs and implementation capacities (WorldBank, 2006). Due consideration must be given to the issue of whetheror not strategic priorities should be determined and applieddifferently according to the scale of economy. Research that focusedon CSFs of developed countries emphasized ICT service's extraordin-ary impact on ICT-enabled economies. Also the “Culture of CivilService” could be one of the influential priorities because one of thekey focuses of E-Government is to increase the public's satisfaction byadopting and applying ICT technology toward the public services. Onthe other hand, the United Nations (Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, 2005a) pointed out the success factors for developingcountries by looking into several best practices, such as Korea andEstonia, including: “ICT Infrastructure,” “Funding,” “Human Capital,”

atives References

ixed Line, Lavin (2005), World Bank (2005a), Heeks (2003), Janssen et al. (2004),Oh and Hong (2006)

get, Loan Lavin (2005), Oh and Hong (2006), World Bank (2005b), RTR (2006)et Access Lavin (2005), World Bank (2005a), Heeks (2003),

Issak (2005), Heeks (2003), Oh and Hong (2006), Ministry of HomeAffairs (2005)

ance of IT, Oh and Hong (2006), Lawrence & Samuel (2000)

Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2004)Portals, Internet Kunstelj and Vintar, (2004), Janssen et al. (2004)

Heeks (2003), Ministry of Home Affairs (2005)

Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2004)

ti-Hacking Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2003; 2004),

rivacy Heeks (2003), RTR (2006), Oh and Hong (2006)

Ministry of Home Affairs (2005), Oh and Hong (2006)Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2004), Ministry of HomeAffairs (2005)Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2003), Heeks (2003), RTR(2006)Lavin (2005), World Bank (2005a), RTR (2006), Oh and Hong (2006)

Fig. 2. PPP vs UN e-Readiness index.

Table 2Grouping experts

Expertgroup

Origin ofcountry

Experiences Expertise ofexperiences

Surveyed CSFs oftarget country group

Group A Developedcountry/

10 yearsb Planning andimplementing

Developed country,developing country,

27J. Yoon, M. Chae / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 25–34

“Political Leadership,” “Monitoring and Evaluation,” and “e-Participa-tion.” The World Bank (2005b) specifically emphasized the impor-tance of “Private Partnership” and “Educating the Public” as one of thecore factors in many developing countries because those are thedominant factors in reducing digital divide.

These research studies or survey results imply that different CSFscould be applied to each of the countries based on its economic status.To confirm this conjecture, this study reconfigured the e-Readinessindex1 published by UN (Department of Economic and Social Affairs,2005a) based on PPP (Purchasing Power Parity of US$), of eachmember country. The blue dots of Fig. 2 represent the e-Readinessstatus of each country during the last three years. By plugging in the Xaxis with the e-Readiness Index (scale of 0.0–1.0) and Y axis with PPP,the dots at the cross section of X and Y axes represent the status of thecountry. For instance, the U.S. ranks first with 0.9062 (X axis of e-Readiness Index) and is one of the top five countries by holding 42,000USD per capita (Yaxis of PPP). Therefore, if the dot moves further awayfrom the origin, the country becomes more competitive in e-Readiness and economically strong. It is observed that only 29countries marked in the index scored more than 0.65. Among thesecountries, most are considered developed countries or have transitioneconomies moving toward being developed, except for a few excellentplayers such as Chile, the Czech Rep., Estonia and Hungary. The graphimplies that there is a positive relationship between a country'seconomic status and the e-Readiness level of the country. However, itis not difficult to see that the national e-Strategies of underdevelopedcountries are very similar to developed ones, yet these clearly do notseem to work for them.

1 Each year the UN publishes a report on E-Government readiness that monitors andevaluates the current status of e-Readiness. The report evaluates several categories ofindices: “e-Participation,” “Human Capital,” “Telecommunication Indicators,” and“Technology Infrastructure.” In the 2005 survey, it assessed more than 50,000 websitesof the 191 UN member states to ascertain how ready the Governments around theworld are in employing the opportunities offered by ICT to improve the access to, andthe use of, ICTs in providing basic social services (Department of Economic, 2005).

3. Methodology

3.1. Delphi analysis

The purpose of this research is to identify strategic prioritiesdiscriminated by the target country's economic status. It has pointedout that there is no single established way, no one best practice,leading to successful E-Government, so the interpretation andimplementation of E-Government must be invented locally (Depart-ment of Economic and Social Affairs, 2005b). Thus, different CSFswould need to be applied depending upon environmental conditionsand available resources.

To achieve the research purpose, the Delphi method was used togather and analyze data for the research. The Delphi method is astructured, multi-pass experts' group decision process by means of aseries of questionnaires with controlled feedback. It is usually used toexplore creative ideas or produce suitable information for researchquestions where rigid answers are rarely established (Buckley, 1995;Brancheau et al., 1996). Even though the importance of strategic

int'l org. e-Strategy, Technicalassistance, training

Underdevelopedcountry

Group B Developingcountry

10 yearsb Planning andimplementinge-Strategy, training

Developing country

Group C Under-developingcountry

10 yearsN Planning andimplementinge-Strategy

Underdevelopedcountry

Fig. 3. Process of Delphi analysis.

28 J. Yoon, M. Chae / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 25–34

priorities are perceptively well recognized, the question of which CSFis more effective has been distinctively absent in academic debates.Moreover, there has not been a concrete framework or a case study forprioritizing CSFs for different environments. Therefore, the Delphisurvey was chosen to identify CSFs from national e-Strategy bystrategic importance and economic scales.

However, the Delphi method is limited by its low level ofreliability of judgment among experts (Makridakis & Wheelright,1978). Many researchers have tried various research designs toincrease the readability. One of these methods is to set up variousgroups and compare their perspective on the same issue (Keil et al.,2002). The problem that arose while selecting E-government expertsfor this study was that most of them were from developed countries.Thus, this study set up two additional comparative groups to confirmwhether Delphi experts had enough expertise and experience toknow and understand the needs of developing and underdevelopedcountries.

Based on the participants' backgrounds and experiences, partici-pants were put into 3 Groups: A, B, or C (see Table 2). Group A wasthe main survey group and Group B and Group C were comparativegroups. Twenty one participants in the Group A were asked to givetheir views on prioritization of CSFs for all three groups of countries:developed, developing, and underdeveloped countries. Participantsof the Group A, the main target group for the Delphi analysis, hadinternational experience in consulting, analyzing and/or implement-ing e-Strategy of developed,2 developing,3 and underdeveloped4

countries. Group B participants were from developing countries andwere involved in their countries' E-Government projects and strategy.They were expected to be sensitive to developing countries' problemsand issues in terms of national e-Strategy and E-Government

2 PPP(Purchasing Power Parity)/Capita more than 20,000USD.3 PPP(Purchasing Power Parity)/Capita more than 10,000USD.4 PPP(Purchasing Power Parity)/Capita less than 10,000USD.

adoption. So they were supposed to respond to questions related todeveloping countries only and their responses were to be statisticallycompared to the Group A's responses. For the same reason, Group C'sresponses were compared with Group A's responses to questionsrelated to underdeveloped countries. If main group's perception wassimilar to comparative groups, then the expertise of the main groupwould be determined to be sufficiently reliable as the main surveygroup. Upon confirmation of the reliability of the participants of maingroup's expertise on the issue, only their responses were used fordata analysis.

3.2. Data collection

Four phases were implemented for the Delphi analysis as shown inFig. 3. For the first phase, expert groups were identified and selected.The experts were asked to give their views and comments on the 15CSFs chosen from previous research (see Table 1). They had the optionto add or delete CSFs based on their opinions. In that way, the selected15 CSFs were verified once again through experts' view. Based on theircomments, 15 CSFs were confirmed. For the second phase, expertswere surveyed on their perceptions on the importance and necessityof strategic priorities for national e-Strategy. Moreover, they wereasked to comment on good practices to improve the effectiveness ofnational e-Strategy. For the third phase, enlisted critical successfactors were ranked by their significance and importance to a specifictarget group of countries, such as developed, developing, andunderdeveloped countries. Each expert had the choice of weightingthe importance of factors by giving out points on a scale of 1 (the leastimportant) to 15 (themost important). Duplicated ranks were allowedif the experts thought the level of importance was identical. For thefourth phase, a second round of the survey was conducted to confirmthe ranking. The confirmed ranks were then evaluated to observe thesignificance of differences, importance, and priorities according to thescale of economy.

Table 4Expert's perception on national e-Strategy and strategic priorities

Survey on perception of National e-Strategy Yes No

National e-Strategy is essential for ICT-enabled development 86.11% 13.89%Strategic priorities are needed to adequately design Nationale-Strategy of the target country

97.22% 2.78%

Strategic priorities could be different by the target country'seconomic status

88.89% 11.11%

29J. Yoon, M. Chae / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 25–34

3.3. Selecting, grouping, and interviewing Delphi experts

With regards to the selection of experts, it was important to haveexperts with experience with e-Strategy planning and implementa-tion of various countries and international institutions. The expertsshould be familiar with the concepts of success factors and strategicpriorities. Therefore, working experience in these areas was manda-tory. Selected experts had at least 10 years of experience in national e-Strategy. The position level was of at least manager or above who wasresponsible for conducting, planning, and implementing national e-Strategy in governments, international organizations, consultingfirms, academia, or private sectors. Thirty-six experts from eightcountries and three international organizations participated (seeTable 3). All of the selected experts had more than 10 years ofexperience in E-Government and national e-Strategy. Only the expertsfrom Mongolia had less than 10 years of experience because very fewpeople in Mongolia were available or eligible with more than 10 yearsof experience. Considering that Mongolia has a relatively short historyof ICT development, it was reasonable to have these experts for thesurvey for an underdeveloped country group.

Table 3Distribution of Delphi participants

Country/org.

No. % Background Position Experience Group

Austria 1 2.78 Government CEO, RTR 30 yearsb AEstonia 1 2.78 Academic

institutionPresident, e-Gov.Academy

20 yearsb A

Korea 5 13.89 Government Vice President, NIA(Former)

20 yearsb A

Director, NIA 10 yearsbDirector, NIA 10 yearsbResearch, Fellow, NIA 30 yearsbSr. Researcher, NIA 10 yearsb

U.S. 5 13.89 Government Director, USAID 30 yearsb AGovernment Director, OMB

(Former)30 yearsb

Academicinstitution

Sr. Consultant, U ofMaryland

30 yearsb

Privateindustry

CEO, McKnightConsulting

30 yearsb

Privateindustry

Sr. Consultant, WorldBank

30 yearsb

OECD 1 2.78 Internationalorg.

ICCP, OECD 20 yearsb A

IDB 1 2.78 Internationalorg.

Director, IDB 20 yearsb A

World Bank 7 19.44 Internationalorg.

Program Manager,ISG

20 yearsb A

Sr. Consultant, ISG 10 yearsbSr. Consultant, ISG 10 yearsbSr. Consultant, LAC 20 yearsbSr. Consultant, EPG 10 yearsbProgram Manager,GICT

20 yearsb

Sr. Consultant, ISG 10 yearsbChile 3 8.33 Government Director, CORFO 20 yearsb B

Academicinstitution

Professor, U of Chile 20yearsbCEO, ACTI 30 yearsb

Mexico 4 11.11 Government Korea–Mexico ITCC 10 yearsb BKorea–Mexico ITCC 10 yearsbInfotec 10 yearsbe-Mexico Systems 10 yearsb

Mongolia 4 11.11 Government ICTA b10 years CICTA b10 yearsICTA b10 yearsICTA b10 years

Myanmar 4 11.11 Government Ministry of Post &Telecom.

10 yearsb C

Ministry of Post &Telecom.

10 yearsb

Ministry of Defence 10 yearsbMinistry of Defence 10 yearsb

Total 36 100% – – – –

Recruiting experts was done through the Technical AssistanceProgram supported by NIA (National Information Society Agency),Korea. Between 2004 and 2007, there have been approximately 1200visitors from 45 developing countries and 10 international organiza-tions who have come to NIA to discuss training, collaboration, andjoint projects. (National Information Society Agency, 2004b; 2005)Among them, 2 countries classified as having an under-developedeconomy, 3 countries classified as having developing economies, 3countries and 3 international organizations classified as havingdeveloped economies were selected.

Experts from the developed group were carefully chosen not onlybased on their expertise on shaping e-Strategy but also for theirexperiences in assisting developing countries. International organiza-tions are extremely active in assisting developing countries on the issueof national ICT strategy and development. They have better access toinformation on country status and analysis study than academicinstitutions. Also, they have much practical experience in helping theclient countries with developing economies. Mexico and Chile werechosen because of well-established cooperation channels and activeICT programs in their governments. SinceNIAestablished andoperatedKorea–Mexico and Korea–Chile ICT cooperation centers in Mexico Cityand Santiago, jointly with e-Mexico Systems of Mexican Governmentand Ministry of Economy of Chile, both countries were extremelycooperative and showed enthusiasm in participating in the survey. NIAis also providing ICT technical assistance to Myanmar and Mongolia.These countries set up a national e-Strategy and have beenworking onthe implementation as well. They are recognized as one of the mostactive participants in ICT programs among under-developed countries.

The survey was conducted by a visiting resident country of eachrespondent, to increase the accuracy and response rate of the surveys.The researchers met physically with all respondents to explain thepurpose of research, in order to increase the accuracy of responses andresponse rate. The survey took more than 6 months from January toJune in 2006. Most of the participants preferred to use e-mail for theirresponses. Some experts used international post mail to send backtheir responses.

4. Data analysis

4.1. Expert's perception on strategic priorities

Looking at Table 4, among thirty six participants from Groups A, B,and C, 86.11% of the experts responded positively that national e-Strategy is essential for ICT-enabled development. Only 13.89% ofexperts responded that the impact of national e-Strategy toward thenational economy was minimal and/or unproved. They claimed thatcountries that planned and implemented national e-Strategy hadn'tshown the effectiveness of the strategy in terms of economic impact.They specifically mentioned that national e-Strategy was not effectivein the developing country's economy. 97.22% of all experts agreed thatstrategic priorities were needed to adequately design national e-Strategy of a target country because it was vital to have strategicpriorities in planning national e-Strategy. This was deemed to be dueto previous reports done by international organizations, such as theUN, which emphasized utilization of available local resources to makea more effective national e-Strategy. 88.89% of the experts also agreedthat strategic priorities could be different according to a target

Table 5Comparisons of strategic priorities of CSF of the developing country (Groups A and B)

CSF Group A Group B Mann–Whitney U Z Significancea

Total Average Rank Total Average Rank

ICT Infrastructure 224 11.2 2 77 11.0 2 63.00 −393 .722Funding 198 9.9 5 77 11.0 3 62.00 − .448 .673Human Capital 206 10.3 4 71 10.1 4 59.00 − .614 .557Educating Public 151 7.6 7 61 8.7 6 54.50 − .863 .403Culture of Civil Service 144 7.2 8 49 7.0 10 67.50 − .139 .904Literacy 108 5.4 12 46 6.6 11 49.50 − .1.141 .266ICT Services 109 5.5 11 53 7.6 9 49.50 −1.139 .267Institutional Structure 193 9.7 6 71 10.1 4 68.00 − .111 .924International Cooperation 105 5.3 14 32 4.6 13 61.50 − .474 .652Privacy & Security 106 5.3 13 30 4.3 14 67.50 − .140 .903Legal Framework 208 10.4 3 60 8.6 7 53.00 − .949 .358e-Participation 71 3.6 15 25 3.6 15 49.50 −1.156 .264Monitoring & Evaluation 136 6.8 9 38 5.4 12 56.50 − .749 .471Political Leadership 249 12.5 1 88 12.6 1 56.00 − .823 .430Private Partnership 136 6.8 9 56 8.0 8 53.50 − .17 .375

a Fisher exact test.

30 J. Yoon, M. Chae / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 25–34

country's economic status. 11.11% responded that national e-Strategyshould be same for all countries because objectives and goals of thestrategies were same for all countries, regardless of the economicstatus of the target country.

4.2. Testing the reliability of Group A's expertise on E-Governmentimplementation in developing under-developed countries

Prior to data analysis of the Delphi survey, Group A's responseswere compared to Group B and Group C to test the reliability of theGroup A's expertise on developing and under-developed countries' E-Government projects. For the comparison, the Mann–Whitney U testwas used. It is used to test differences between two independentsamples with ordinal data. The Fisher exact test was applied forsignificance testing because of small sample size.

As shown in Table 5, Group A selected “Political Leadership” as themost important CSF for developing countries followed by “ICTInfrastructure (2nd),” “Legal Framework (3rd),” “Human Capital(4th),” “Funding (5th),” and “Institutional Structure (6th).” Group Branked the critical success factors almost identically to Group A (seeTable 5). Looking at the patterns of CSFs of developing countriessurveyed by Group A and Group B, their perceptions on CSFsresembled each other. The Results of Mann–Whitney U test confirmed

Table 6Comparisons of strategic priorities of CSF of the underdeveloped countries (Groups A and C

CSF Group A Group C

Total Average Rank Total

ICT Infrastructure 261 13.1 2 102Funding 239 12.0 3 101Human Capital 237 11.9 4 96Educating Public 167 8.4 7 65Culture of Civil Service 130 6.5 10 49Literacy 141 7.1 9 55ICT Services 101 5.1 12 60Institutional Structure 179 9.0 5 84International Cooperation 158 7.9 8 81Privacy & Security 105 5.3 14 41Legal Framework 170 8.5 6 90e-Participation 71 3.6 15 14Monitoring & Evaluation 113 5.7 11 24Political Leadership 268 13.4 1 85Private Partnership 101 5.1 12 70

a Fisher exact test.⁎ pb .1.

that there was no significant difference between two-groups at thesignificance level of 0.05.

Table 6 summarizes the comparison of perceptional similaritybetween Group A and Group C to test Group A's expertise on thestrategic priorities of CSF of underdeveloped countries. Group Aselected “Political Leadership” as the most important CSFs forunderdeveloped countries, followed by “ICT Infrastructure (2nd),”“Funding (3rd),” “Human Capital (4th),” and “Institutional Structure(5th).” Group C ranked the CSFs almost identically to Group A (seeTable 6). Looking at the patterns of CSFs for underdeveloped countriessurveyed by Group A and Group C, their perceptions on CSFswere verysimilar. Even though Group C gave more weight on the “LegalFramework,” the difference in rankwasminimal. The results of Mann–Whitney U test also confirmed that there was no significant differencebetween the two groups at the significance level of 0.05 (see Table 6).

With a series of comparisons of Group A vs. Group B, and Group Avs. Group C, the perception of Group A of the developing andunderdeveloped countries, in terms of prioritizing CSFs for e-Strategy,was similar to the experts working in those countries even thoughmost members of Group A came from developed countries. Group Aproved to have enough expertise and experiences with developed,developing, and underdeveloped countries thus, to be a main surveygroup.

)

Mann–Whitney U Z Significancea

Average Rank

12.8 1 79.00 − .052 .96512.6 2 52.00 −1.466 .14912.0 3 73.50 −335 .7538.1 8 73.00 − .359 .7346.1 12 65.00 − .767 .4586.9 11 80.00 .000 1.0007.5 9 42.50 −1.918⁎ .056

10.5 6 70.500 − .485 .64210.1 7 57.50 −1.154 .2595.1 13 47.50 −1.682 .09711.3 4 55.00 −1.278 .2101.8 15 70.00 − .527 .6053.0 14 61.50 − .949 .355

10.6 5 45.00 −1.858⁎ .0688.75 9 47.50 −1.682⁎ .097

Table 7Comparisons of strategic priorities of CSF by the scale of economy (Group A)

CSF Developed Developing Underdeveloped

Total Average Rank Total Average Rank Total Average Rank

Privacy & Security 212 10.6 1 106 5.3 13 105 5.3 14Political Leadership 180 9.0 2 249 12.5 1 268 13.4 1Legal Framework 179 9.0 3 208 10.4 3 170 8.5 6ICT Infrastructure 174 8.7 4 224 11.2 2 161 13.1 2Monitoring & Evaluation 168 8.5 5 136 6.8 9 113 5.7 11Human Capital 167 8.6 6 206 10.3 4 237 11.9 4ICT Services 162 8.1 7 109 5.5 11 101 5.2 12Private Partnership 156 7.8 8 136 6.8 9 101 5.2 12Funding 152 7.6 9 198 9.9 5 239 12.0 3Institutional Structure 148 7.4 10 193 9.7 6 179 9.0 5e-Participation 146 7.3 11 71 3.6 15 71 3.6 15Culture of Civil Service 144 7.2 12 144 7.2 8 130 6.5 10Educating Public 120 6.0 12 151 7.6 7 167 8.4 7International Cooperation 101 5.1 14 105 5.3 14 158 7.9 8Literacy 63 3.2 15 108 5.4 12 141 7.1 9

31J. Yoon, M. Chae / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 25–34

4.3. Comparative analysis of CSFs on the developed, the developing andthe underdeveloped country (analysis with Group A's responses)

As stated earlier, Group A prioritized critical success factors ofdeveloped, developing, and underdeveloped countries and the finalranking had been decided through the 1st and 2nd round of survey.The final analysis was a comparison of priority of CSFs among thethree country groups with Group A's response. Table 7 and Fig. 4 showthe result of the comparison of Group A's perception. For the 2ndquestionnaire using e-mails, Group Awas informed of the result of the1st questionnaire and was requested to re-prioritize critical successfactors. However, most of the experts in Group A showed theirsatisfaction with the result from the 1st round of the surveyquestionnaire and did not change their preferences for the criticalsuccess factors. According to the observation of patterns of prioritizingcritical success factors, shown in the Fig. 4, developing and under-developed countries were similar. On the other hand, developedcountries were quite different compared to the other two economicgroups. The factors ranked high for the developed countries such as“Privacy & Security” (1st), “Legal Framework” (3rd) and “Monitoring &Evaluation” (5th), were ranked lower in the developing countries'ranking of “Privacy & Security” (13th) and “Monitoring & Evaluation”(9th). Along the same lines, those factors were similarly ranked in

Fig. 4. Pattern of strategic priorities of CS

underdeveloped countries (“Privacy & Security” (14th), and “Monitor-ing & Evaluation” (11th)). In the case of developed countries, harmfulor negative side effects are likely to be caused in proportion to thelevel of ICT development, and this could be why “Privacy & Security”was chosen as the most important critical success factor in thosecountries (Choi & Kim, 2004). As shown in Fig. 4, the expert'sperception of Group A for CSFs of each group of economy shows thatthere exists some significant differences between CSFs of developedand the CSFs of developing economies.

To observe and prove the differences statistically, the researchused a statistical approach called the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, also known as the WilcoxonMatched Pairs Test, is a non-parametric test used to test the mediandifference in paired data (Crichton, 1998). Table 8 summarizes thetest results. According to the test, the values of several criticalsuccess factors measured by Group A for different groups such asdeveloped, developing, and underdeveloped countries showedsignificant differences in the results of Group A. Based on Z-value,some CSFs clearly showed that there were significantly differentperceptions between developed and developing countries (P-valueb0.1, 0.05, or 0.01), such as “ICT Funding,” “Human Capital,”“Literacy,” and “Privacy and Security.” Also there were not manydifferences in terms of priorities in CSFs between developing and

F by the scale of economy (Group A).

Table 8Statistical comparisons of Group A's perception on CSF for each economic group usingWilcoxon signed rank test

Variable Comparative groups Z-value P-value

ICT Infrastructure Developed vs. developing −2.941 0.003⁎⁎⁎Developed vs. underdeveloped −3.054 0.002⁎⁎⁎Developing vs. underdeveloped −1.618 0.106

Funding Developed vs. developing −1.471 0.141Developed vs. underdeveloped −2.530 0.011⁎⁎Developing vs. underdeveloped −1.812 0.070⁎

Human Capital Developed vs. developing −2.251 0.240Developed vs. underdeveloped −2.702 0.007⁎⁎⁎Developing vs. underdeveloped −1.701 0.089

Educating Public Developed vs. developing −1.796 0.072Developed vs. underdeveloped −2.127 0.003⁎⁎⁎Developing vs. underdeveloped −0.986 0.324

Culture of Civil Service Developed vs. developing −0.370 0.711Developed vs. underdeveloped −0.783 0.461Developing vs. underdeveloped −0.355 0.723

Literacy Developed vs. developing −2.328 0.020⁎⁎Developed vs. underdeveloped −3.415 0.001⁎⁎⁎Developing vs. underdeveloped −1.323 0.186

ICT Service Developed vs. developing −2.306 0.021⁎⁎Developed vs. underdeveloped −2.515 0.012⁎⁎Developing vs. underdeveloped −1.065 0.287

Institutional Structure Developed vs. developing −1.925 0.054⁎Developed vs. underdeveloped −1.892 0.058Developing vs. underdeveloped −0.459 0.646

International Cooperation Developed vs. developing −0.485 0.627Developed vs. underdeveloped −2.148 0.032⁎⁎Developing vs. underdeveloped −2.914 0.004⁎⁎⁎

Privacy & Security Developed vs. developing −3.241 0.001⁎⁎⁎Developed vs. underdeveloped −3.356 0.001⁎⁎⁎Developing vs. underdeveloped −1.719 0.086⁎

Legal Framework Developed vs. developing −0.947 0.344Developed vs. underdeveloped −0.787 0.431Developing vs. underdeveloped −1.884 0.060

e-Participation Developed vs. developing −2.487 0.013⁎⁎Developed vs. underdeveloped −2.774 0.006⁎⁎⁎Developing vs. underdeveloped −0.997 0.319

Monitoring & Evaluation Developed vs. developing −1.331 0.183Developed vs. underdeveloped −1.991 0.047⁎⁎Developing vs. underdeveloped −2.121 0.034⁎⁎

Political Leadership Developed vs. developing −2.836 0.005⁎⁎⁎Developed vs. underdeveloped −3.087 0.002⁎⁎⁎Developing vs. underdeveloped −0.874 0.382

Private Partnership Developed vs. developing −1.196 0.232Developed vs. underdeveloped −2.777 0.005⁎⁎⁎Developing vs. underdeveloped −2.809 0.005⁎⁎⁎

⁎ pb .10.⁎⁎ pb .05.⁎⁎⁎ pb .01.

32 J. Yoon, M. Chae / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 25–34

the underdeveloped countries. The results mostly matched with thepattern observed from Fig. 4.

5. Discussions

The objective of this research was to prioritize the critical successfactors of national e-Strategy based on a country's economic status.The results of the Delphi study showed strong indication that therewere significant differences on strategic priorities of national e-Strategy depending on the scale of economy. The findings of the studyindicate that policy makers should consider the possibility ofdifferentiating strategic priorities according to the target country'sstatus. The detailed implications are as follows:

5.1. Prioritizing the CSFs of national e-Strategy

According to the analysis, Group A distinctively showed theirperceptional differences of CSFs on different economic groups. Thisstudy selected the five highly ranked CSFs of each group to observe the

difference in perception. Fig. 5 illustrates differences and thesimilarities among the three groups. The numbers in the parenthesesof Fig. 5 represent the rank of the CSFs in each group in the order ofdeveloped, developing, and underdeveloped countries.

It is observed that “Political Leadership” and “ICT Infrastructure”were commonly recognized as the most highly weighted factors indeveloping national e-Strategy for all three target economic groups.These two factors were acknowledged as the foundation of allstrategic priorities (RTR 2006; Department of Economic and SocialAffairs, 2003). The cases of Korea, Chile, and Estonia, exemplary in E-Government implementation, showed that strong support from topdecision makers was the most important factor of all. And E-Government adoption in those countries began by developing ICTInfrastructure first. Besides “Political Leadership,” “ICT Infrastructure,”and “Funding and Human Capital” were equally important factors forboth developing and underdeveloped countries.

“Legal Framework” is the common important factor for bothdeveloped and developing countries. However, it is also regarded asan important factor in underdeveloped countries as it was ranked 6th.“Privacy & Security” and “Monitoring & Evaluation” play importantroles for developed countries. Current studies strongly emphasizethese factors along with ICT Service for E-Government evolution ofdeveloped countries, because reducing harmful side of ICT, likeenhancing “Privacy & Security,” and “Monitoring & Evaluation” havean extraordinary impact on an ICT-enabled economy (World Bank,2006).

“e-Participation” is an important critical success factor fordeveloping and under-developed countries to disseminate ICTservices to the public. Considering that preceding conditions ofnurturing “e-Participation” can be “Funding” and “ICT Infrastructure”(Oh & Hong, 2006), it is easy to understand why “e-Participation” isranked lower among experts. In Fig. 4, e-Participation for thedeveloped group is ranked much higher. Since developed countrieshave well-established infrastructure and funding mechanism, e-Participation is strongly encouraged to stimulate the public'sparticipation.

Fig. 5 shows Group A's perceptional differences on some of CSFs.Group A gave more weight to “Political Leadership” for developingand underdeveloped countries because a developing economy needsmore attention from the top leader to obtain the political and financialsupport to sustain the development. Group A put “Privacy andSecurity” on top of many other CSFs for developed countries. Sincedeveloped countries provide various ICT services being enjoyed by thepublic, “Privacy and Security” issue is a more distinctive CSF for stableand reliable ICT services and development (National InformationSociety Agency 2005: World Bank 2006). Considering that there arehuge increases of usage rate on E-Government services in manysectors, it is obvious that there is a need to give more priority forsecurity and privacy issues in national e-Strategy.

5.2. CSFs and 5 phases of development process

The UN (2003) suggests five (5) steps in benchmarking E-Government which is one of the main areas shaped by national e-Strategy. The study categorized the CSFs into 5 phases of developmentprocess: Initiation, Development, Inter-operation, E-Commerce, andIntegrated System. It is observed that underdeveloped and some ofdeveloping countries belonged to the Level 1 (Initiation) or Level 2(Development) phases. Initiation phase has extremely limited func-tionality to provide information. In other words, it lacks the ICTInfrastructure and shows high illiteracy rate, hindering the public'saccess to the information. During the development phase, countriesare capable of periodically updating information enabling partial E-Government functions, but still lacks in bi-directional exchange ofinformation that is vital in creating an impact on society and economy.At the inter-operation phase, the government is able to communicate

Fig. 5. Group A's perception represented by rank CSF identification (Numbers in parentheses represent the rank of CSF for developed, developing and underdeveloped countriesrespectively).

33J. Yoon, M. Chae / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 25–34

with the public through the exchange of e-mail or electronic forms.The ICT Infrastructure is able to support bi-directional activities with ahigher impact to the public. Most of the developing countries fall intothis category. The e-commerce stage lets the target country exerciseits digital economy. For the digital economy to flourish, ICT-services,and legal support on privacy and security should be well established.Advanced countries such as U.S., Korea, U.K., and Singapore belongto this category. At this stage, target countries have the capabilityto have a fully functional online processing of civil service and securee-payment system. The final stage, which is an integrated system,provides cross-agency online service and converged public/civil

Fig. 6. Categorized CSFs wit

services. There are no countries with claims of achieving this levelof ICT development.

Fig. 6 shows the categorization of CSFs according to the develop-ment phase. The four development phases display the differences inCSFs' weighted values. For example, based on our research at theinitiation level, which tends to have a provision of limited information,a stronger “Political Leadership” is required as well as more “Funding,”“Human Capital,” and improved “Education.” At the e-Commercephase, it is definitely required to consider “Privacy & Security,”“Evaluation & Monitoring,” and various “ICT services” as majorstrategic priorities of national e-Strategy.

h development phases.

34 J. Yoon, M. Chae / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 25–34

6. Conclusion

6.1. Summary of the study

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) declarationemphasized the critical importance for the establishment of a nationale-Strategy in bridging the digital divide (Cho, 2005; ITU, 2008a; ITU,2008b), creating an information society, and strengthening nationalcompetitiveness. Accordingly, the study gives a clear indication of theimportance of identifying strategic priorities in effectively establishingnational e-Strategies. The need to take into account the limitedresources and circumstances specific to each country, and linking withnational development strategy in establishing a national ICT strategyby identifying strategic priorities was indirectly verified through theviews of experts. Furthermore, the experts' opinions on criticalsuccess factors and tailored approaches applicable according to atarget country's economic level and environment, and the compara-tive analysis of the different types, can be used as references in amacro view-point towards establishing future national e-Strategies. Inparticular, inadequate infrastructure, poor financing, low level of IThuman resources, and lack of information awareness are common tomany developing countries, and these work to reduce the effective-ness of support initiatives from international organizations anddeveloped countries. The experts' opinion on a tailored approach byapplying critical success factors according to the economic level andenvironment of target countries can be of valuable use in establishinge-Strategy for the developing countries in the future.

6.2. Limits and suggestions for future study

The transparency issue has beenmentioned as a possible candidateof critical success factor but disregarded due to several reasons. Duringthe Delphi survey, many experts mentioned the seriousness ofcorruption in certain developing and underdeveloped countries.Corruption actually lowers the effectiveness of national e-Strategyand its implementation. However, it is hard to measure or prove theimpact due to its secretive nature. It is well agreed among experts thattransparency indeed has a serious impact on the implementation ofnational e-Strategy. However, this study could not explore the relationof political transparency and national e-Strategy.

Impact analysis and evaluation of national e-Strategy according toeconomic levels is a future research task, and is an important researcharea that should be accompanied by amore thorough study, taking theimpact of ICT utilization into account. This study used the Delphisurvey to analyze expert perceptions and is not suited for directutilization in a practical application, such as a technology assistanceproject. Nevertheless, the surveyed results from this study can be usedas a basis for determining future research directions and applicabilityin practice.

In addition, there has been no single country claiming to have afailure in applying national e-Strategy efficiently. By nature, govern-ments do not normally admit their policy as a failure. Officialmeasurement such as “e-Readiness index” measured by the UnitedNations may indirectly show each country's strategic performance.However, further study needs to be done to monitor governments'performance of planned strategy based on resource allocation,monitoring assessment of virtuous circling from plan to evaluation,and feedback of outcomes.

References

Allison, M., & Kaye, J. (2005). Strategic planning for nonprofit organizations: A practicalguide and workbook, (2nd ed) New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Brancheau, J. C., Janz, B. D., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1996). Key issues in information systemmanagement: 1994–2005 SIM Delphi results. MIS Quarterly, Vol.20(No.2),225−242.

Buckley, C. (1995). Delphi: Methodology for preferences more than predictions. LibraryManagement, Vol. 16(No. 7), 16−19.

Cho, J. (2005). WSIS and digital divide.KADO ISSUE Report, Vol. 05(No. 07) (KoreanPublication).

Choi, M., & Kim, S. (2004). Analysis of knowledge and skill for security professionals.Management Information Systems, Vol. 14(No. 4), 72−85 (Korean Publication).

Crichton, N. J. (1998). Statistical considerations in design and analysis. In B. Roe, & C.Webb (Eds.), Research and development in clinical nursing practice (pp. 209). London:Whurr.

Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2003). World public sector report:E-Government at the crossroads New York: United Nations.

Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2004). Global E-Government readinessreport 2004 New York: United Nations.

Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2005a). Global E-Government readinessreport 2005 New York: United Nations.

Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2005b). Understanding knowledge societyNew York: United Nations.

Hanna, N. (2003). Why national strategies are needed for ICT-enabled development. ISGStaff Working Papers, Vol. 3, 2−17.

Heeks, R. (2003). E-Government in Africa: Promise and practice. Information Polity, Vol.7(No.2–3), 97−114.

Issak, R. (2005). Globalization gap. New York: Prentice Hall.ITU (2008a). World summit on the information society, Tunis agenda for the

information society. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html

ITU (2008b)World summit on the information society, Plan of action. RetrievedMay 30,2008, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html

Janssen, D., Rotthier, S., & Snijkers, K. (2004). If you measure it they will score: Anassessment of international E-Government benchmarking. Information Polity, Vol.9(No.3), 121−130.

Keil, M., Tiwana, A., & Bush, A. (2002). Reconciling user and project managerperceptions of IT project risk: A Delphi study. Information Systems Journal, 2002Dec, 103−119.

Kunstelj, M., & Vintar, M. (2004). Evaluating the progress of E-Government develop-ment: A critical analysis. Information Polity, Vol. 9(No. 3–4), 131−148.

Lavin, B. (2005). E-strategies; Monitoring and evaluation toolkit (pp. 1−25). : World Bank.Lawrence, E., & Samuel, H. (2000). Culture matters. New York: Basic Books.Makridakis, S., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1978). Interactive forecasting: Univariate and

multivariate methods, (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Holden-Day.Ministry of Home Affairs. (2005). 2005 E-Government project annual report Seoul:

Ministry of Home Affairs (Korean Publication).Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education. (2005). A technological plan for

growth towards a knowledge society in the Portuguese Republic GovernmentProgram for 2005–2009 Lisborn: Ministry of Science.

National Information Society Agency. (2004a). Technical assistance report for IT policySeoul: National Information Society Agency (Korean Publication).

National Information Society Agency. (2004b). International IT cooperation centeroperation report (1st Year) Seoul: National Information Society Agency (KoreanPublication).

National Information Society Agency. (2005). International IT cooperation centeroperation report (2nd Year) Seoul: National Information Society Agency (KoreanPublication).

Oh, J., & Hong, H. (2006). Progress and impact of national informatization, NIA IssueReport, No. 06-01. : (Korean Publication).

RTR(Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH) of Austria, (2006). ICT best practices,October.

United Nations. (2003). Benchmarking E-Government: A global perspective New York:UN-Division for Public Administration and Development Management.

World Bank. (2005a). E-Development from excitement to effectivenessWashington DC:World Bank.

World Bank. (2005b). World Bank reports: Public–private sector Partnership narrowdigital divide. Digest of Electronic Commerce Polity and Regulations, Vol.28,96b−100b.

World Bank. (2006). Information and communications for development: Global trendsand policies Washington DC: World Bank.

Jeongwon Yoon received his Ph.D in MIS from Seoul University of Venture andInformation at Seoul, Korea in 2006. He is a Director of Department of GlobalConsulting, National Information Society Agency. He is involved in numerousinternational E-Government projects.

Myungsin Chae received her Ph. D in MIS from the University of Illinois at Chicago in2003. She is a professor in the department of MIS at Seoul University of Venture andInformation at Seoul Korea. She teaches courses and conducts research in e-businessand mobile business, and strategic IS management.