Dear GKD members,

I would like to join this interesting discussion on e-readiness,
especially since the Development Gateway was mentioned in the first
message from Mr. Hopmann, dated May 6, regarding the Harvard
e-Readiness Guide. My name is Calin Lupan and I am on the Development
Gateway team, my role being to help Country Gateways (our project
counterparts in developing countries) to elaborate their models and
strategies for the local ICT development initiatives. As part of this
process, Country Gateway teams perform an e-readiness assessment to
research and understand the context of the country where the project
will be implemented.

More than 20 of the currently over 40 Country Gateway teams have already
produced an e-readiness report. Most of them are indeed using the
Harvard Guide, although this was not a requirement, and teams are free
to choose the methodology they want to follow. My sense is that teams
choose to follow the Harvard Guide mostly because the methodology is
straightforward in its application, as well as being cost-effective.
These are important factors for many of the Country Gateway teams, which
are operating in countries where ICT research and analysis are still
very new.

As it relates to the context of a Country Gateway, I can also mention
some limitations that result from an ad-literam application of the
Harvard Guide. These are the quality of local Internet content, the
existence of a digital divide within the country itself, the existence
of an enabling legal framework (laws regulating e-commerce, copyright
protection, digital signature, etc), and the utilization of ICT
(particularly the Internet) to create wealth or to sustain a project.
(This is very important for Country Gateways, which aim to become
self-sustainable within a certain period of time.)

Nevertheless, I don't think the Guide should be dismissed as a tool for
e-readiness assessments. Our recommendation to any team that chooses
this tool is to adapt it to the local situation and to the scope of the
Country Gateway project in the particular country (which is also a
recommendation by the Guide's authors). The Guide gives an excellent
framework for organizing a "quest for knowledge," and its system of
assigning ratings is very useful -- this gives a project like a Country
Gateway (which aims at promoting ICT development and hence increasing
the e-readiness of a country) the possibility to assess over time its
impact. Some specific solutions we found to the limitations I mention
above include: assigning dual ratings for e-readiness factors to reflect
the internal digital divide, more focus on commercial utilization of
ICT, qualitative analysis of the local content, and analysis of ICTs
other than Internet for distribution of content.  I have to say that
most of those Country Gateway teams that customized the guide produced
some very good assessments and were able to position themselves as
competent and useful initiatives.

You might be interested to see the Country Gateway reports, which are
made public on a country-by-country basis on the Development Gateway
site, at: <>

Best regards,

Calin Lupan
Development Gateway
Web: Http://

***GKD is solely supported by EDC, an NGO that is a GKP member***
To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type:
subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd
Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at:

Reply via email to