The study tracks a total of 59 metrics, categorised in three sub indices, which are then integrated in a final score allowing for a global ranking of national ICT performance.  The first sub-index assesses the degree to which the country’s national environment is conducive to ICT development and diffusion.  This includes the market environment (e.g. venture capital availability, cluster development, taxation, intensity of competition), the political and regulatory environment (laws and the effectiveness of law-making bodies) and the infrastructure environment (e.g. the number of telephone lines and internet servers, electricity production, the availability of engineers & scientists, the quality of scientific institutes, internet bandwidth).  The next two indices assess, respectively, the ICT ‘readiness’ and ICT ‘usage’ for the three main stakeholders: individuals, business and government.  Thus, individual readiness includes metrics such as the quality of education, prices of communication services, and buyer sophistication, while individual usage is measured via factors such as the number of internet users and mobile users, internet access in schools, etc.  Business readiness is assessed on the basis of staff training, R&D spending, collaboration with universities and technology imports.  ICT usage in business is measured via factors such as the number of patents, technology exports, creative industries exports, internet use in business and firm-level technology ‘absorption’.  The third stakeholder, government, is evaluated on amongst other things the extent to which they prioritise ICT, their procurement of technology (readiness metrics) and e-government and ICT use in government agencies (usage metrics).  Quite a list, but what it makes clear is that technology ‘readiness’ or performance is a complex, multi-stakeholder issue.  To make the transition to a knowledge economy, all three stakeholders—individuals, business and government—need to be actively involved.

 

Government obviously plays a key role, in the sense that it is itself a major part of the economy and hence has opportunity to lead by example, but also in its role as a policy maker and regulator.  Government policy and investment can encourage individuals and businesses to engage with technology but other factors such as the structural character of the economy and even cultural factors are likely to play a role too.  This certainly becomes apparent looking at the results of the latest WEF ICT report.

 

In the 2009-2010 report, the Nordic countries were the top performers (which they have been for some years).  Sweden got the top spot and all the Nordic countries made the top 10.  According to the WEF report, Sweden is the conclusive showcase when it comes to the country’s ICT infrastructure, its regulatory environment, its educational system and the skills of its people.  Also, all three of the country’s stakeholders are capable, willing and active users of technology.  The other Nordic countries also scored very well in the environment and readiness indices but somewhat weaker in the usage index.  Singapore took the second spot in the global ranking, followed by Denmark, Switzerland and the USA.  While Singapore and Denmark were highlighted for their proactive government strategy, in Switzerland and the USA it is business that is driving ICT performance.  

 

The UK was 13th; Australia and New Zealand 18th and 19th respectively.  The Netherlands ranked 9th and Belgium, considering its potential, a not so pretty 22nd. Belgium scored particularly well on the quality of its education but got pulled down mainly by government readiness and usage.  Also, the country’s all-round usage scores, for business, individuals and government, were not great.  Perhaps the Belgians are indeed a conservative lot.

 

China and India are climbing fast to 37th and 43rd respectively.  South Africa got the top spot in sub-Saharan Africa but was beaten by Tunisia which topped the African list by a wide margin. Business pulled the South African score upwards while Tunisia was highlighted as a best-practice case for its government policies.

 

While some countries appear to be pushed forward mainly by business or government, it nevertheless is clear that the three stakeholders’ scores do not differ markedly for each individual country (with some exceptions like South Africa).  It suggests, therefore, that a multi-stakeholder, multi-facetted approach is required.  It is not sufficient to simply focus on the network infrastructure; countries also need to look at education and the broader ecosystem for entrepreneurship and innovation.  Also, it is clear that government can play a very proactive role in pushing the country into the digital world. This is well illustrated by Singapore, Korea, the Nordic countries, Ireland, Mauritius and Tunisia. Also in the US, much technological innovation has its roots in industrial policy, particularly from the military. In Belgium too, some of the main successes have a government angle to them.  For example, IMEC, Europe’s largest research institute in nano-electronics was set up with government money, as was VIB, the renowned Biotechnology institute in Flanders.  In Wallonia, proactive policy is beginning to bear fruit too, attracting investment from a range of technology players, including Google and Microsoft.  Government can also play a facilitating role, in the way it regulates the telecoms market.  For example, government can stimulate competition and hence innovation in the telecoms market; alternatively it can try to protect its incumbent monopolist and stifle innovation.

 

Perhaps the most interesting initiatives to come from government in recent months are the open data initiatives in the UK and the USA.  Government traditionally is a huge collator of data—in a range of areas: demographic, economic, health, geographic, environmental, transport, etc—and by making this data available to third-party developers it could unleash a wave of innovation.  In this way it is playing into the same open source principles that explain the success of projects like Wikipedia, Drupal and even the iPhone (via the iPhone apps platform).  But perhaps the biggest challenge ahead lies in education.  Our world is changing and the pace of change appears to be accelerating.  

 

Technology is changing our economic foundations and the way we work.  It is also, more subtly, changing the way we learn and think.  In the same way that companies are trying to bring technology management into the heart of their organisations, so our educational systems need to reflect on the way they are preparing young people for a world where technology will be everywhere.