@Justus
You need some form of measures. It helps people focus. It has a management tool that should not be underestimated. Gov is different so a universial benchmark seems unrealistic.

@Justus
You need some form of measures. It helps people focus. It has a management tool that should not be underestimated. Gov is different so a universial benchmark seems unrealistic.

There are many reasons for such a change:

1. It is impossible to create a broad, low cost benchmark. Either one tries to measure a broad range of government online activities, or one measures a small selection. The former is expansive, the second one vulnerable to back door dealing (What will be measured?) as described and will leave most likely key areas out of the picture.

2. Technology and behaviour is changing to fast to create a benchmark that covers the most important current G online activities and is still comparable to former benchmarks.

3. The important issue for citizens is not whether a country has a high rating or not, the question is whether the G. activities are effective, or not. But if a benchmark exists the most important incentive for politicians is suddenly to get a high rating – to have an “success”.

4. Governments may react therefore to the criteria and set up services, procedures only to reach higher ratings. Thereby resources can be distracted from helpful activities to mere criteria fulfilment efforts. Does this happen? I have no prove but I am sure it does.

5. Can one central benchmark be useful as a guideline for G. in very different situations (resources, citizen needs, current online activities…)?

Given all these reasons do I think benchmarking will stop? It won’t. The results are perfect for glorious press releases (see 3), especially since one can pick and choose from different categories and different benchmarks.

There are many reasons for such a change:

1. It is impossible to create a broad, low cost benchmark. Either one tries to measure a broad range of government online activities, or one measures a small selection. The former is expansive, the second one vulnerable to back door dealing (What will be measured?) as described and will leave most likely key areas out of the picture.

2. Technology and behaviour is changing to fast to create a benchmark that covers the most important current G online activities and is still comparable to former benchmarks.

3. The important issue for citizens is not whether a country has a high rating or not, the question is whether the G. activities are effective, or not. But if a benchmark exists the most important incentive for politicians is suddenly to get a high rating – to have an “success”.

4. Governments may react therefore to the criteria and set up services, procedures only to reach higher ratings. Thereby resources can be distracted from helpful activities to mere criteria fulfilment efforts. Does this happen? I have no prove but I am sure it does.

5. Can one central benchmark be useful as a guideline for G. in very different situations (resources, citizen needs, current online activities…)?

Given all these reasons do I think benchmarking will stop? It won’t. The results are perfect for glorious press releases (see 3), especially since one can pick and choose from different categories and different benchmarks.