1. eEurope2002/03: Statistical Glance at e-Activities Assoc. Prof. dr. Nerute Kligiene, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Vilnius, LITHUANIA, 2004 ISSS / LORIS 2004 Conference Prague & Hradec Kralove

2. PLAN OF THIS LECTURE Introduction Objectives Methodology used to derive data summaries Description of Measuring NAS achievements in the EU15 context Conclusions

3. INTRODUCTION  eEurope-plus: EU15+NAS10 (less advanced) creates a need to evaluate a real situation: SIBIS – IST 5FP project measuring and benchmarking Information Society SIBIS – IST 5FP project measuring and benchmarking Information Society Results – the arrays of percentages and data charts on 84 indicators, updated – 133 indicators Results – the arrays of percentages and data charts on 84 indicators, updated – 133 indicators Difficult to compare the results in separate areas, to see a position of any country or their groups; Difficult to compare the results in separate areas, to see a position of any country or their groups;  A general view of situation focused on EU – NAS differences is badly needed.

4. Data Examples

5. Data Chart’s Example

6. SIBIS INVESTIGATION AREAS BASIC ACCESS AND USAGE (10 indicators) INFORMATION SECURITY (8 indicators) eCOMMERCE (10 indicators) eWORK (14 indicators) eGOVERNMENT (10 indicators) eHEALTH (7 indicators) DIGITAL LITERACY (9 indicators) LEARNING AND TRAINING (4 indicators) DIGITAL DIVIDES (12 indicators) All together IS data covered by 84 indicators

7. OBJECTIVES The goals of this study are: The goals of this study are: (A) To visualize a situation in the areas defined by SIBIS to see a position of any separate country or countries’ groups in the context of EU and NAS results; (A) To visualize a situation in the areas defined by SIBIS to see a position of any separate country or countries’ groups in the context of EU and NAS results; (B) To develop a measure, expressing EU - NAS differences numerically; (B) To develop a measure, expressing EU - NAS differences numerically;

8. OBJECTIVES (continued) (C) To get at a glance a clear picture of eEurope-plus in order to identify: The areas where the NAS are dramatically behind the EU; The areas where the NAS are dramatically behind the EU; The topics in the enlarged EU where the IS development is not sufficient; The topics in the enlarged EU where the IS development is not sufficient; The areas where the NAS countries have a readiness to reach the EU level. The areas where the NAS countries have a readiness to reach the EU level.

9. SOME BASIC FACTS AND NOTATIONS  EU15 European Union, 15 countries, plus US, CH  NAS10 Newly Accessing States, 10 countries  Sample – the percentages of population having a property investigated in some indicator in every of 27 countries: x 1, …, x N. (N=500-1000 sample size per country).  Ordered countries sample: x min, …, x max  Median - a value of an ordered countries sample in the middle of it, denote it Me  EU-15, NAS-10 the weighted averages of EU and NAS, provided by SIBIS, let D = EU-15 – NAS-10

10. SOME BASIC FACTS AND NOTATIONS  Q1 – the first quartile – the value in the middle of the first half  Q3 – the third quartile – the value in the middle of the second half  IQR = Q3 – Q1 – the inter-quartile range representing a spread of data under consideration  The Box Plot – a graphical display that simultaneously display Me, IQR, departure from symmetry  Let us consider the statistics Δ = D / IQR S = (D – λ) / [ Var (D) ] 1/2

11. Visualization of Lithuania’s Results in EU Context

12. Visualization of Austria’s Results in EU Context

13. Comments Internet usage by intensity and by location are close to 10%, the concerns on information security matters are located around 20%, the middle values of e-mail and experience of Internet users are approaching 30%; Data spread (IQR) is largest in the e-mail usage and security concerns in online shopping, the smallest - in the Internet usage over 6 hrs/week intensity; Mobile technologies have a wide spread of data and are visibly different; Almost all indicators show departures from symmetry in data distributions; Lithuania’s results in many indicators is near the first quartile Q1 – fairly good results, while Austria – nearly Q3, shows much better results.

14. COMPARISON OF BALTIC COUNTRIES

15. COMPARISON OF V4 COUNTRIES COMPARISON OF V4 COUNTRIES

16. Comments There is no discernible difference between V4 and Baltic countries groups in the considered indicators from the Basic access and usage/Information security areas; CZ is a leading country among the V4 countries (except concerns on security matters); LT and LV performed rather similarly in all considered indicators while EE has visibly outstanding results

17. Numerical Measures in the Area of Basic Access and Usage SIBIS No Indicator title Q1, Me, Q3IQREU-15NAS- 10 DΔ 6 Intensity online 7, 10, 13613671.16 5 Usage location 4, 11, 1713164120.92 12 E-shopping security 6, 20, 2822286221.0 11 Concerns on data security 11, 21, 2817262420.12 4 Experience 16, 26, 36203013170.85 9 E-mail users 13, 29, 45293714230.79 8 SMS users 34, 43, 5016403460.37 8a Mobile phones ownership 55, 68, 76216944251.19

18. The Values of Δ for Indicators 6 - Intensity of online usage > 6h/week, 5 - Internet usage at work and at home 12 - Security concerns to e-shopping, 11 - Concerns online data security 4 - Internet users 2 and more years, 9 - E-mail users, all intensities 8 - SMS users, 8a - Personal mobile phones ownership

19. Measuring NAS Achievements in the EU15 Context (1) Let Δ1, …, Δ k – are the values derived for each indicator (in the considered area) λ – the threshold value The DECISION RULE on the i-th indicator contribution in the area: if Δi λ, the contribution is significant; Let r values among k were significant, introduce MARK = 1 – r/k

20. Measuring NAS Achievements in the EU15 Context (2) Evidently 0 < MARK < 1 Small MARK values mean small NAS achievements compared to EU15 If the value is approaching 1 – the NAS and EU15 achievements are comparable If the value is close to 0.5 – a middle NAS success discovered in that area. Each SIBIS area such as Basic Access, eWork, Digital Literacy and others acquire own MARK value.

21. RESULTS IN SIBIS AREAS The MARK values, derived for λ = 0.9, indicate: Learning and Training, e-Health, Digital Literacy are the areas where NAS are clearly behind the EU,Learning and Training, e-Health, Digital Literacy are the areas where NAS are clearly behind the EU, E-Government is a topic where the NAS is closest to the EU level. E-Government is a topic where the NAS is closest to the EU level.

22. Conclusions Box Plot was applied to SIBIS data in order to see a position of any separate country in the context of enlarged EU and to see how the inclusion of 10 new NAS countries do affect the common results The measure MARK expressing EU-NAS differences numerically have been developed and applied to get a clear picture of eEurope-plus at a glance Notice, that in principle the results derived here have an “optimistic” trend, because the data of EU – GPS 2002 survey has to be compared with the NAS – GPS 2003.

23. THE CONTACT INFORMATION dr. Nerute Kligiene (IMI) Address for contacts nerute@ktl.mii.lt nerute@ktl.mii.lt N. Kligiene, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, A. Gostauto 12, LT- 01113, Vilnius, Lithuania. Phone: (370 5) 2660386, Fax: (370 5) 2619905 THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION !