2015
Institute of e-Government, Waseda University
Edited by: Prof. Dr. Toshio OBI[2015 WASEDA – IAC INTERNATIONAL
E-GOVERNMENT RANKING SURVEY]
June 2015, Tokyo[The Institute of e-Government at Waseda University, Tokyo in cooperation with the International
Academy of CIO (IAC) has released the results of its international e-Government rankings survey for2015.]

Executive Summary
The Institute of e-Government at Waseda University (Director: Prof. Toshio Obi),
Tokyo in cooperation with the International Academy of CIO (IAC) has released theresults of its international e-Government ranking survey for 2015. This researchpresents the eleventh consecutive year of monitoring and surveying worldwide
e-Government development by the research team of Professor Toshio OBI, Director of
the Institute of e-Government and experts with IAC member universities. The result of
the survey is that Singapore ranked for the first place, followed by the United States in
2nd, Denmark in 3rd, the United Kingdom in 4th and Korea in 5th place. Japan was in 6th,
Australia in 7th, Estonia in 8th, Canada in 9th and Norway ranked 10th.
During this one-year survey, research has been conducted through organizing theworkshops and forums and the team has arranged professional meetings and discussions
with a variety of international and national organizations to improve oversight andobjectivity. These groups include the Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD), Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU), the World Bank (WB), United Nations DESA andmany other government agencies, think tanks and NGO/NPOs with e-Government
responsibilities in their respective countries.
The 2015 ranking is the eleventh year of the Waseda e-Government Ranking, andsecondyearofcooperation
withInternational
Academy of
CIO(http://cio-japan.waseda.ac.jp/). To assess and evaluate the details of e-Government
preparedness and to align with new trends in e-Government, 9 main indicators with 32
sub-indicators have been evaluated. The 2015 ranking, which marks the first year the
Waseda-IAC e-Government Ranking removed Cambodia, Iran and Uzbekistan from theranking. These countries were at the bottom of the ranking from 2012 to 2014. In
addition, in order to obtain comprehensive findings on the e-Government around theworld, this year, five countries are added as subjects of this research: Ireland, Bahrain,
Morocco, Costa Rica and Oman. This makes a total of sixty-three surveyed countries
compared to sixty-one last year. These selected 63 nations are regarded as the better ICT
countries among approx.200 nations in the world.
In order to obtain the latest and the most accurate information and to assess therelevant data, the ranking was conducted by researchers around the world in cooperation
with partner universities. Comprehensive data assessment has been conducted by expert
groups from George Mason University (USA), United Nations University, Bocconi
University (Italy), Turku University (Finland), Peking University (China), Thammasat
University (Thailand), De La Salle University (Philippines), Bandung Institute ofiiTechnology (Indonesia), National University of Singapore, Federal Academy National
Economy (Russia) as well as main contributor, Waseda University (Japan).
This report contains Chapter 3 [e-Government Indicators], Chapters 4, 5, 6
[e-Government Ranking by Organizations, Populations and Regions] and Chapter 7[Methodology]. The full text with all 63 countries assessment report [10 years of Worlde-Government Rakings] will be published by IOS Press (www.iospress.nl), Amsterdam
in September, 2015.
An analysis of Waseda – IAC e-Government Ranking Survey 2015 indicates thefollowing eight interesting findings:(1) There is lack of ICT human resources development in capacity building,especially e-leaders such as CIO(2) Enough finance/funding for e-Government projects is the key for success(3) Citizen-engagement as digital inclusion in e-Government initiatives should be
more encouraged(4) Various applications for online service over the world are progressing indeveloped countries(5) More attention must be paid to local e-Government issues as well as linkage
between central and local governments(6) The best practices for M-government in developing countries may increase
active participation in developing countries with high usage of mobile devices(7) Open Government/Open Data should be implemented and shared with big data
(8) Digital gap has become wider among developing countries in terms ofaccessibility, usability and affordability

Contact: Institute of e-Government, Waseda University, Japan
Email: obi.waseda@gmail.com

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. v
I.

Total Ranking 2015 .............................................................................................. 2II.

e-Government Ranking by Indicators................................................................ 4

1. Network Preparedness/Digital Infrastructure......................................................... 6
2. Management Optimization ..................................................................................... 7
3. Online Services/ Applications ................................................................................ 7
4. National Portal/ Homepage .................................................................................... 8
5. Government Chief Information Officer (GCIO) .................................................... 9
6. e-Government Promotion ..................................................................................... 10
7. E-Participation/ Digital Inclusion .........................................................................11
8. Open Government Data ....................................................................................... 12
9. Cyber Security...................................................................................................... 12III.

e-Government Ranking by Organizations ....................................................... 13

1. Ranking of APEC Economies .............................................................................. 13
2. Ranking of OECD Countries ............................................................................... 14IV.

e-Government Ranking by the Size of Population and GDP ......................... 16

1. Ranking in Big Population Countries (higher than 100 million) ......................... 16
2. Ranking in Small Population Countries (Less than 10 million) .......................... 18
3. e-Government Ranking in Top 10 Countries with Highest GDP in World .......... 20
V.

e-Government Ranking by Regions.................................................................. 22
1. Ranking in Asia-Pacific Countries ....................................................................... 22
2. Ranking in Americas Countries ........................................................................... 23
3. Ranking in European Countries ........................................................................... 24
4. Ranking in Africa, Middle East and CIS Countries ............................................. 26

VI.

Methodology ....................................................................................................... 28VII. Contributors List................................................................................................ 30
iv

List of Tables
Table 1: Waseda – IAC e-Government Total Ranking 2015 ................................................................................ 2
Table 2: The Main Indicators and Sub-Indicators ................................................................................................ 5
Table 3: Top 10 Countries by 9 Individual Indicators .......................................................................................... 6
Table 4: e-Government Ranking in APEC Economies ...................................................................................... 13
Table 5: e-Government Ranking in OECD Countries ........................................................................................ 15
Table 6: e-Government Ranking in Big Population Countries........................................................................... 16
Table 7: e-Government Ranking in Small Population Countries ....................................................................... 19
Table 8: e-Government Ranking with Highest GDP Group ............................................................................... 20
Table 9: e-Government Ranking in Asia-Pacific Countries ............................................................................... 22
Table 10: e-Government Ranking in Americas Countries ................................................................................. 23
Table 11: e-Government Ranking in European Countries ................................................................................. 25
Table 12: e-Government Ranking in Africa, Middle East and CIS Countries.................................................... 26
Table 13: Weighted Scores Method ................................................................................................................... 30

List of Figures
Figure 1: Waseda-IAC Top 10 e-Government Ranking ....................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: e-Government Development Matrix..................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Top 10 Management Optimization 2014-1015 ..................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Top 10 Online Service 2014-2015 ........................................................................................................ 8
Figure 5: Top 10 National Portal 2014-2015 ....................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Top 10 Government CIO 2014 – 2015 ............................................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Top 10 e-Government Promotion 2014 – 2015 .................................................................................. 11
Figure 8: Top 10 E-Participation 2014 – 2015 ................................................................................................... 11
Figure 9: Top 10 Open Government Data 2014 - 2015...................................................................................... 12
Figure 10: Top 10 Cyber Security 2014 - 2015.................................................................................................. 13
Figure 11: Top 10 APEC Economies ................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 12: Top 10 OECD Countries .................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 13: Top 10 Big Population Countries in e-Government ......................................................................... 18
Figure 14: e-Government Ranking in Small Population Countries ................................................................... 20
Figure 15: Top 10 e-Government Ranking in Highest GDP Countries .............................................................. 21
Figure 16: Top 10 e-Government Ranking in Asia-Pacific Countries................................................................ 23
Figure 17: Top 10 e-Government Ranking in Americas Countries .................................................................... 24
Figure 18: Top 10 e-Government Ranking in European Countries .................................................................... 26
Figure 19: Top 10 e-Government Ranking in Africa, Middle-East and CIS Countries ...................................... 28
Figure 20: Processes Diagram ........................................................................................................................... 29v

I. Total Ranking 2015
The 2015 ranking marks Singapore’s return to first place scoring 0.22 points higher thanthe USA – the country ranked at second in the total ranking. Denmark ranked for 3rd
followed by the UK in 4th, compared to last year, Korea downturned from 3rd to 5th place
this year. Japan ranked 6th place. Australia jumped two places and ranked for 7th place inthe ranking this year. Estonia and Canada also slipped out of their positions compared tolast year and ranked for 8th and 9th place respectively. There was no significant structuralchange compared to last year in the top ten, except that Norway replaced Sweden andranked for 10th place, which marks the first time Norway appeared in the top ten during
the eleven years of the ranking. This year, the ranking added five new countries: Bahrain,
Costa Rica, Iceland, Morocco, and Oman. In this group, only Iceland has a good position
ranked for 19th place in the total ranking. Both Oman and Bahrain are in the middle of the
ranking and are ranked at 40th and 44th respectively, while Morocco and Costa Rica aretied at the bottom group in the total ranking. In the middle group of the ranking marks a
big change in the position of China, compared to last year, China slipped ten steps and isranked at 49th place.
No

Total Rankings

Score

No

Total Rankings

Score

No

Total Rankings

Score

1
2

Singapore
USA

93.80
93.58

22
23

ThailandIsrael

67.31
65.80

43
44

BruneiBahrain

51.06
50.50

4

UK

90.17

25

Malaysia

64.87

46

Argentina

50.32

3
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Denmark
Korea

Japan

Australia
Estonia

CanadaNorwaySwedenAustria

New ZealandFinlandGermany
FranceChinese Taipei
Belgium
IcelandNetherlands
Switzerland

91.25
89.39
87.77
86.30
84.87
81.45
79.63
77.95
77.26
76.66
76.49
76.46
73.39
72.76
71.69
69.73
69.53
69.17

24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

HK SAR

65.24

Portugal

Czech Republic
Italy

Indonesia

63.93
63.48
61.30
60.11

UAE

58.10

Poland

57.30

Spain

57.12

Vietnam

57.03

Russia

56.56

India

Macau SAR
Chile

Mexico

56.42
56.27
53.49
53.41

Romania

53.11

Oman

51.60

Philippines

51.47

Turkey

51.31

45
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63

BrazilColombia

South Africa
China

Kazakhstan

Saudi Arabia
Peru

Tunisia

Venezuela
Uruguay

MoroccoPakistan

Costa Rica
Georgia
Nigeria
Fiji

Egypt

Kenya

Table 1: Waseda – IAC e-Government Total Ranking 2015

2

50.37
49.36
49.30
48.36
47.73
47.48
46.21
45.87
44.65
44.01
43.13
42.94
42.06
40.73
38.37
37.54
37.19
32.91

Indonesia had a big jump and is ranked for 29th place compared to 32nd last year.
For ASEAN countries (except Singapore which is consistently at the top group),
Thailand has a good position in the middle of the ranking, and leads this group in 22nd
place, followed by Malaysia ranked at 25th place.
The bottom tier of this ranking still hosts familiar names from last year, such as
Nigeria, Fiji, Egypt and Kenya. In this group, Nigeria is the country that had the biggest
regression. It ranked for 60th place compared with 45th last year. Egypt also slipped
down from 56th place last year to 62nd place in the total ranking this year. Kenya ranked
at the bottom of the total ranking.

Figure 1: Waseda-IAC Top 10 e-Government Ranking

All top ten countries have held excellent achievement. But, as for GCIO, Norway as
the 10th post has poor score on it as well as e-Participation.
Figure 2 [e-Government Development Matrix] indicates the positive relationshipbetween network infrastructure and online public services. It is reported that thecountries with nice network infrastructure can extend to deploy online public services
easily.

3

Figure 2: e-Government Development Matrix

II. e-Government Ranking by Indicators
The Waseda – IAC e-Government Ranking contains comprehensive benchmarking
indicators in order to obtain an accurate and precise assessment of the latest
development of e-Government in the major countries in ICT section. In 2015 Waseda
team evaluated nine main indicators. This year’s ranking removed one sub-indicator in
Network Preparedness -PC users. Based on the new trends of ICT, citizens may use
smartphones, tablets or notebooks to connect with government and make transactions
by various tools. Therefore, PC users are not necessary for e-Government development
evaluation. Table 3 below shows all 9 indicators and their 32 sub-indicators.
Indicators

Sub-indicators

1. Network Preparedness/Infrastructure

1-1 Internet Users
1-2 Broadband Subscribers
1-3 Mobile Cellular Subscribers

2. Management Optimization/ Efficiency

2-1 Optimization Awareness
2-2 Integrated Enterprise Architecture
2-3 Administrative and Budgetary Systems
3-1 E-Procurement
3-2 E-Tax Systems
3-3 E-Custom Systems
3-4 E-Health System
3-5 One-stop service
4-1 Navigation
4-2 Interactivity
4-3 Interface
4-4 Technical Aspects

3. Online Services / Functioning Applications

4. National Portal/Homepage45-1 GCIO Presence
5-2 GCIO Mandate
5-3 CIO Organizations
5-4 CIO Development Programs
6-1 Legal Mechanism
6-2 Enabling Mechanism
6-3 Support Mechanism
6-4 Assessment Mechanism

5. Government CIO

6. e-Government Promotion

7-1 E-Information Mechanisms
7-2 Consultation
7-3 Decision-Making

7. E-Participation/Digital Inclusion

8-1 Legal Framework
8-2 Society
8-3 Organization

8. Open Government

9-1 Legal Framework
9-2 Cyber Crime Countermeasure
9-3 Internet Security Organization

9. Cyber Security

Table 2: The Main Indicators and Sub-Indicators
This ranking survey analyzes not only the development of national portal and ICT
deployment in governments, but also looks into real operations by participating theconferences, workshops and forums, such as management optimization, internal
processes, online services, and new trends in e-Government development and therelationship between governments and their stakeholders. The table 3 below shows the
top ten e-Government rankings by 9 indicators in 2015:
Network

Management

Preparedness

Optimization

Online Services

National Portal

No

Country

No

Country

No

Country

No

Country1

Denmark

2

Canada1

Estonia2

Estonia

3

Singapore

2

Denmark

1

Korea

2

Singapore

4

USA

2

Estonia

1

Singapore

2

USA

5

Iceland2

Netherlands

5

Iceland

5

Australia

5

Norway2

Switzerland

6

UK

5

Norway5

Switzerland

2

UK

7

Finland

7

France8

Finland2

USA

8

Austria

8UK

9France9Australia

8

USA

9

Japan

10

Korea

10

France10

Switzerland

10

Sweden1

Netherlands

1Singapore

1

e-Government

GCIO

Denmark

E-Participation

Promotion

1

Denmark

Open Government

No

Country

No

Country

No

Country

No

Country

1

Korea

1

USA

1

Estonia1

Canada1

Singapore

1

Sweden15Australia

1

Australia

1

USA

3

Singapore

1

UK

3

USA

4

Japan

4

Korea

4

Canada4

Denmark

5

Canada

5

Japan

4

Denmark

4

Germany6

Denmark

6

Australia

4

France

4

Korea

6

New Zealand

6

UK

4

Singapore

4

UK

8

HK SAR

8

Denmark

8

USA

8Singapore

9

UK

9

Chinese Taipei

9Israel

9

Japan

10

Thailand

10

Italy

10

Japan

10

Austria

Cyber Security
No

Country

No

Country

No

Country

1

Estonia

6

Singapore

8

USA

1

New Zealand

6

Japan

11

Canada4

Australia

8Austria

11

Norway1Denmark

5

UK

8

Germany

Table 3: Top 10 Countries on 9 Individual Indicators
1.

Network Preparedness/Digital Infrastructure

Network preparedness is the first indicator in Waseda-IAC ranking and it is thebasic infrastructural foundation for effective e-Government implementation. Different
stages of infrastructure have long been available in many countries and have become an
important tool to connect citizens and enterprises to government.
Infrastructure for e-Government development is no longer confined to Internet
users, mobile subscribers or the number of broadband connections. We recognize thatthe foundation for the development of e-Government in a country depends on a
backbone Network system. It is capable of connecting all bureaus and departments
together via the core Government Backbone Network.
The ability to connect between local governments and the central government oramong local governments is also the trend in the deployment of ICT infrastructure for
e-Government development. The ability to share data and synchronize between agencies
and government departments is also common in most developed countries. As the new
trends in ICT and e-Government development, the platform moves to “cloud computing”
and the number of “smartphones” rises daily. Consequently, mobile broadband will
become one of the key network preparedness factors. Effective broadband accessstimulates citizens to use such services and encourages the deployment of new services.
In the first place of the 2015 ranking for network preparedness are Denmark and theNetherlands. In Denmark, information infrastructure is very widely available, especiallyInternet with a broadband connection. Since 2010, the Danish government introduced
digital signatures. With this digital signature, citizens use the same user ID and the same6

password for online banking, government websites and a wide range of private services
online. They also launched e-procurement, e-authentication, e-passport and e-payment
in the very early stage. In the Netherlands, the backbone of the e-Government
architecture is the Netherlands Government Reference Architecture (NORA 3.0). All
government agencies have endorsed NORA. Through NORA, they can coordinate theactivities within their own organizations.
2.

Management Optimization

Management optimization reflects the utilization of ICT for improving government
business processes and internal processes (back office in each organization). Based on
this survey, we found that most of top ten countries in this indicator ranking have fullscores. It means that management optimization is very important indicator on
e-Government development, because it is related to the optimization awareness,enterprise architecture and also the administrative management system.
The Waseda – IAC e-Government Ranking considers “Management Optimization”
to be a critical business function that underpins the operational, financial, accounting
and strategic planning of business, social, health and administrative affairs within the
country. In this indicator, European countries are almost dominant with seven countries
on the list. Compared to last year, Singapore has a big jump and is ranked at 1st place,followed by seven countries in second place.
15.50
15.00
14.50
14.00
13.50
13.00
12.50
12.00
11.50

2015
2014

Figure 3: Top 10 Management Optimization 2014-1015
3.

Online Services/ Applications

There are many definitions on [e-services]; it is a wide concept which includes
services provided by organizations, companies or individuals using an Internet
connection. The e-service concept has been used by researchers from the beginning ofyear 2000, and e-service operations mean that all or part of the interaction between the7

service provider and the customer is conducted through the Internet, and e-service has a“front-end” Web-based system and a “back-end” information system.
In Waseda-IAC e-Government Ranking survey, this indicator refers to the systemsof e-procurement, e-tax, e-custom, e-health and one-stop service. When evaluating
e-Government development, the most recent trends show that some governments indeveloping countries have shifted to user-oriented strategies and have developed
one-stop service portals. They are also planning to gradually expand and enhance avariety of integrated service delivery.
In general, there are no significant gaps in online service delivery between
countries in the top 10. This year witnessed the enhancement of most countries in the
top 10, except Estonia, Singapore and Korea which scored slightly lower than they did
in 2014. Iceland for the first year being monitored by the ranking system stands in 5th
position of the e-service delivery ranking.
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

2015
2014

Figure 4: Top 10 Online Service 2014-20154.

National Portal/ Homepage

National portal or one-stop service is the foundation of e-Government and a basic
interface for stakeholders to access government in an electronic way. In public sector,
this means that the government makes all services via one portal; in e-Government
one-stop service is integrating all services and making them accessible via one gateway.
National portal offers many benefits to users for public services—from citizens andbusinesses to the public administrators themselves—including faster, cheaper andsuperior services. Throughout eleven years of ranking, we noted that the national portal
helps to reduce costs, improves perceptions of government efficiency on the part ofcitizens and also delivering benefits for both customers and government.
Many nations around the world integrated all services into one portal (national
portal or one-stop service). In the public sector, one-stop service is one of the most8

promising concepts of service delivery in public administration. Its implementation is
included in the e-Government strategies of most countries.
10.50
10.00
9.50
9.00

2015
8.50

2014

8.00
7.50

Figure 5: Top 10 National Portal 2014-2015
In this indicator, both Norway and Australia demonstrate a significant improvement
in comparison with the years before. Both Estonia and the UK have made a significant
improvement for their national portals this year gaining those 2 places in top 10
countries on national portal. Denmark found it in the first position of the national portal
ranking together with Estonia, Singapore and the United States. Other countries such as
the United States, Singapore, Australia, Norway, France and Sweden secured theirpositions on the table with little change in comparison with the previous year.
5.

Government Chief Information Officer (GCIO)

In the public sector, government CIO plays a very important role and has beenrecognized worldwide. Since 2005, in the first International e-Government ranking ofWaseda institute of e-Government, the important role of CIO for e-Government
implementation was well recognized. The CIO is expected to align management
strategy with ICT investment in order to achieve the balance among business strategy,organizational reform and management reform; hence, the Government CIO isconsidered by many governments to be one of the key factors in the success ofe-Government implementation.
CIOs are now expected to achieve quantum-leap efficiencies, produce previously
unheard-of capabilities, create information out of disparate data sets, and provide citizen
services that are so fast, accurate, and user-friendly that the public’s trust in government
achieves record heights.

914.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

2015
2014

Figure 6: Top 10 Government CIO 2014 – 2015
Striving for improvement GCIO quality, both Denmark and HK SAR have been
rewarded for their efforts with the 6th and 9th positions in the top 10, respectively.
Despite scoring lower than the previous year, Singapore, Korea, USA, Canada andJapan are still the leaders in this indicator and their positions remain unchanged
6. e-Government Promotion
The “e-Government Promotion” indicator measures the government’s activities
toward the promotion of e-Government and distribution of e-services to citizens,businesses and other stakeholders. It includes activities involved in supporting theimplementation of e-Government such as legal framework and mechanism (laws,
legislations, plans, policies and strategies). In other words, the government carries out
these activities in order to support the development of e-Services as well as
e-Government as a whole. This indicator is one of main indicators in Waseda-IAC
e-Government ranking because it shows the main legal framework in each country.
There are not many changes in the position of top 10 countries regarding
e-Government promotion activities, except in the case of Denmark. The country has
made a significant improvement in promoting e-Government - 8.67 score for 2015 incomparison with 5.33 as of the previous year - rewarding the country a place in the top
10 this year. By scoring full marks in this indicator, Sweden and the United States
secured their positions at 1st and 2nd respectively.

1012.00
10.00

8.00
6.00
2015

4.00

2014

2.00
0.00

Figure 7: Top 10 e-Government Promotion 2014 – 2015

7. E-Participation/ Digital Inclusion
In Waseda-IAC e-Government Ranking, e-participation refers to ICT-supported
participation in government and governance processes. Processes may be concerned
administration, service delivery, decision-making and policy-making. Throughout thissurvey, we found that the participation from both government officers and citizens play
an important role in the success of e-Government.
An e-participation indicator is used to take into account the “demand” side ofe-Government as well as to see to what degree the people are using e-Government
platforms especially in the light of Government 2.0. In this indicator, the Waseda
e-Government ranking for digital inclusion uses e-information, interactive ande-decision making process as sub-indicators.

10.20
10.00
9.80
9.60
9.40
9.20
9.00
8.80
8.60
8.40

2015
2014

Figure 8: Top 10 E-Participation 2014 – 201511

In figure 8: Australia, Estonia and the UK shared the top position and Estonia has
made a significant enhancement to e-participation by increasing its rank from 9th in2014 to 2nd in 2015. The similar effort could be witnessed in the case of Denmark
where the country jumped from 9th position in 2014, surpassing the United States torank in 4th place for e-participation.
8. Open Government Data
Open Government/Data is one of the newest indicators in Waseda-IAC
e-Government Ranking. This indicator evaluates an open and transparent of government.
The top ranking countries on this indicator have provided the citizens with anapplication programming interface (API) that could help developers and researchers tocreate innovative citizen-centric applications. There are a number of small-scaleutilization cases and application for smartphone and tablet.
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

2015
2014

Figure 9: Top 10 Open Government Data 2014 - 2015
The evidence for the presence of Open Data is to review whether the e-Government
application provides an RSS Feed, Web API Service, or an equivalent option.
Australia jumped over 4 steps to acquire the top position in Open Government
while Singapore made a strike by increasing its position from 18th last year to 8th in2015. Similar surprising found in the situation of Denmark which gained the 4th placefrom 14th last year.
9.

Cyber Security

The security measures associated with individual e-Government systems are
relatively similar to many e-commerce solutions. However, the span of control of
e-Government and its unique impact on its user base requires a network that is greaterthan the sum of each individual system. E-Government faces the same challenges that
faced e-business in the private sector.

1210.00
9.50
9.00

8.50
8.00

2015

7.50

2014

7.00

Figure 10: Top 10 Cyber Security 2014 - 2015
Both Denmark and Australia found themselves in the top 10 (1st and 4th
respectively) with a huge improvement in the national cyber security score comparedwith last year. Both Estonia and New Zealand demonstrated their stability in cybersecurity by sharing the 1st position with Denmark.

III.

E-Government Ranking by Organizations

1. Ranking of APEC Economies
APEC Economies

APEC Economies

APEC Economies

No

Economies

Score

No

Economies

Score

No

Economies

Score

1

Singapore

93.80

8

Chinese

72.76

15

Chile

53.49

Taipei
2

USA

93.58

9

Thailand

67.31

16

Mexico

53.41

3

Korea

89.39

10

HK SAR

65.24

17

Philippines

51.47

4

Japan

87.77

11

Malaysia

64.87

18

Brunei51.06

5Australia

86.30

12

Indonesia

60.11

19

China

48.36

6

Canada81.45

13

Vietnam

57.03

20

Peru

46.21

7

New Zealand

76.66

14

Russia56.56

Table 4: e-Government Ranking in APEC Economies
This is the fourth consecutive year of monitoring and surveying the development of
e-Government by organizations, APEC Economies, OECD countries. APEC Economies
includes 21 economy members, Waseda-IAC e-Government ranking covers 20
members. The Institute of e-Government at Waseda University has been responsible
for the management of APEC e-Government Research Center since 2005. Leading this13

APEC group is Singapore, where government objectives are to fulfill the needs of theirusers and achieve maximum value for money for the taxpayer in 2015 and focus to the
productivity and effectiveness improvement by using ICT. The top six countries in thisgroup are also in the top ten in the total ranking.
There is no significant structural change compared to last year, except that China
has slipped down from 16th place to 19th place in this year’s ranking while Chile jumped
from 19th place in last year’s ranking to 15th place. In the 2015 e-Government ranking,Chile is in full swing and one of the top countries in Latin America in terms of Internet
access and the Chilean government aims to provide better services as a main goal of
e-Government.
Compared to last year, Peru is in the same situation ranked at 20th place, but the
total score this year is higher than last year. Peru is still at the early stages of having an
integrated e-Government, the Peruvian Government is working steadily to develop
e-Government in Peru, but its pace is still slow compared to last year ranking. Figure 11
below shows the top 10 APEC Economies for e-Government development ranking.

Figure 11: Top 10 APEC Economies
2. Ranking of OECD Countries

14OECD Countries

OECD Countries

OECD Countries

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

1

USA

93.58

11

Austria

77.26

21

Portugal

63.93

2

Denmark

91.52

12

New Zealand

76.66

22

Czech Republic

63.48

3

UK

90.17

13

Finland

76.49

23

Italy

61.30

4

Korea

89.39

14

Germany

76.46

24

Poland

57.30

5

Japan

87.77

15

France

73.39

25

Spain

57.12

6

Australia

86.30

16

Belgium

71.69

26

Chile

53.49

7

Estonia84.87

17

Iceland

69.73

27

Mexico53.41

8

Canada81.45

18

Netherlands

69.53

28

Turkey51.31

9Norway79.63

19

Switzerland

69.17

10

Sweden77.95

20Israel65.80

Table 5: e-Government Ranking in OECD Countries
The 2015 ranking added Iceland as a new country and Iceland is also a member ofOECD. Most of the countries in the top ten of this group are also the top countries in theoverall world ranking, with the exception of Singapore as it is not an OECD member.
The leaders of group are the United States, Denmark, the UK, Korea and Japan. They
ranked for 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th, and 5th place respectively, followed by Australia at 6th, Estonia
at 7th and Canada at 8th. The two last countries in the top ten are Norway and Sweden,
both are Nordic countries.
Compared to last year Denmark jumped 9 steps from 10th place to a rank for 2nd
place. Denmark has come a long way since it made the decision to establish a modern,robust digital infrastructure for the public sector. As part of its efforts to counter thedigital divide, Denmark is promoting the enhanced accessibility of its public websites.
In the area of ICT and aging, Denmark has established drop-in centers for the elderly tolearn new ICT skills.
In the bottom of this group, Chile, Mexico and Turkey are developing countries.
Compared to last year, Chile ranked in a higher place and ranked for 26th while Mexico
downturn and ranked at 27th place. In Turkey, from the citizen point of view, despite
actions already taken, there is still a shortage of enabling services and a lack ofe-inclusion which is a barrier to achieving an information society. Therefore, for the2015 ranking, Turkey ranked at the bottom in OECD countries group. Figure 12 shows
the top 10 countries with matrix of 9 indicators in this group.

15

Figure 12: Top 10 OECD Countries

IV. E-Government Ranking by the Size of Population andGDP
1. Ranking in Big Population Countries (higher than 100 million)
Big Population Countries

Big Population Countries

Big Population Countries

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

1

USA

93.58

5

India

56.42

9

China

48.36

2

Japan

87.77

6

Mexico53.41

10

Pakistan

42.94

3

Indonesia

60.11

7

Philippines

51.47

11

Nigeria

38.37

4

Russia56.56

8

Brazil50.37

Table 6: e-Government Ranking in Big Population Countries
In 2015, the Waseda-IAC e-Government Ranking continues to do the ranking by
the size of population and GDP. For the size of population, Waseda-IAC selected
countries with population higher than 100 million people. Most countries with large
population often have a large territory as well. Therefore, these countries face many
unique developmental challenges in e-Government, such as building a nationwide
16

broadband network, and delivering e-services to all citizens. There are eleven countries
in this group.
The leaders of this group are the United States, Japan, and Indonesia. They are
ranked for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place respectively. The United States is very mature in keeping
up development in e-Government. And the Government is committed to delivering
public services. The United States’ objectives are to fulfill the needs of their users andachieve maximum value for money for the taxpayer. Currently, the focus is shifted tothe improvement of productivity and effectiveness by using ICT.
The government has steadily made efforts to expand the utilization of online
services as a main part of the e-Government initiative since 1999. In 2005, online
applications at the national level covered 96% of all the administrative procedures. The
use of this online application was 70% in 2014. To enhance e-Government, thegovernment is making a new action plan to improve online applications for the further
promotion of their use.
China, Pakistan and Nigeria are ranked at the bottom of this group. They ranked at
9 , 10th and 11th place. In China, several plans for the Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) development had been proposed and some have been implemented
already to improve service delivery through utilization of e-Government. Due to the big
population and great regional differences in this developing country, the lack of talented
government IT managers and integrated service system as well as transparency are still
the main factor that restricts the development of e-Government. However, it is obviousthat China has been devoting so much to improve e-Government services.
thPakistan is one of the emerging countries in the world which is trying to make adifference by implementing e-Government at fast rate. The Pakistani government
believes that Information technology is a vital tool in order to accelerate economic
growth, efficient governance and human resources development. The Government ofPakistan focuses on enhancing the government operation by implementing
e-Government Strategy. The Government has approved the e-Government Strategy andPlan to implement across all organizations of the government. Pakistan has criticalissues in implementing the authentication scheme for full e-Government services,rollout of broadband in Pakistan. Community and citizen engagement initiatives bygovernment, digital divide and digital inclusion projects being managed by government
creation and use of digital content data repositories. And the development of digitalstrategies by government in Pakistan is delayed by the lack of ICT resources all over thecountry.
Nigeria is a developing country with a rapidly growing telecommunications market.
Both internet users and mobile users are increasing. The Government has many
strategies and plans to develop and improve e-services to citizens, and there is much17

evidence to show that e-services like e-payment and e-health are developing in thiscountry. But if the Nigerian government would like to spread e-services to citizens more,they must have a specific plan to improve these services through effective national
portal. Nigeria still needs to improve further on its ICT services and telecommunication
systems. All Nigerian states now have some form of mobile coverage, however, there
are still millions of Nigerians with limited or no access to ICT services due to lack of
network infrastructure.

Figure 13: Top 10 Big Population Countries in e-Government
Among the most populous countries, both the U.S. and Japan are the most advancedin e-Government development. They have good positions in all indicators.
2. Ranking in Small Population Countries (Less than 10 million)
Small Population Countries

Small Population Countries

Small Population Countries

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

1Singapore

93.80

8

Finland

76.49

15

Oman

51.60

2

Denmark

91.58

9

Iceland69.73

16

Brunei51.06

3

Estonia

84.87

10

Switzerland

69.17

17

Bahrain50.50

4Norway79.63

11

Israel65.80

18Uruguay

44.01

18

5

Sweden77.95

12

HK SAR

65.24

19

Costa Rica

42.06

6

Austria

77.26

13

UAE

58.10

20

Fiji

37.54

7

New Zealand

76.66

14

Macau

56.27

Table 7: e-Government Ranking in Small Population Countries
The 2015 ranking selected twenty countries in this group compared only ten
countries last year. This group consists of countries with a population fewer than 10
million citizens. Half of top ten countries are developed countries and other half ofcountries are developing countries. Leading in this group is Singapore, followed by
Denmark in 2nd and Estonia in 3rd place. Nordic countries are major players in the top
ten of this group. In the bottom of this group are Uruguay, Costa Rica and Fiji. They
ranked for 18th, 19th and 20th place respectively.
Singapore has implemented e-Government successful and effectively. This is an
excellent case study for the best practices for other countries to learn and apply.
Singapore, so called a city-state, has few local government divisions. In order tomonitor and manage its e-Government development better, the Singapore government
has chosen a centralized approach. The government also owns the entire central ICT
infrastructure, and manages all services and policies affecting the life and work of
citizens.
Fiji got low position in small population countries group and also near the bottomof overall ranking. The e-Government program of Fiji is at implementing stage todesign the infrastructure and provide government services online.
In small population countries, Network preparedness is not a major issue. Also, theindicators for GCIO and e-Government promotion have relatively low attention.

19

Figure 14: e-Government Ranking in Small Population Countries
3. e-Government Ranking in Top 10 Countries with Highest GDP in World
Highest GDP Group

Highest GDP GroupNoCountry

Score

No

Country

Score

1

USA

93.58

6

France

73.39

2

UK

90.17

7

Italy

61.30

3

Japan

87.77

8

Russia56.56

4

Canada81.45

9

Brazil50.37

5Germany

76.46

10

China

48.36

Table 8: e-Government Ranking with Highest GDP Group
This year the United States, China and Japan are the biggest economic powers in
the world based on size of GDP. In terms of e-Government, the United States and Japan
are in first and third place, respectively, while China ranked at the bottom and ranked at
10th place. Followed Japan is Canada ranked at 4th place, the country replaced India
compared last year. There are three European countries Germany, France and Italy
followed Canada and ranked for 5th, 6th and 7th place respectively. Compare to last year,
Russia stands in the same at 8th place.
20

In Russia, maturity of services provided through one-stop portal is not yet
uniformed among the country regions and is expected to be steadily enhanced. The
government aims at least 70% of services to be available through the portal by 2018 andE-Health systems are expected to be optimized and integrated expanding the services
available through one-stop e-Government portal to include requests of sick-leavecertificates, electronic prescriptions and electronic inquiries.
Brazil is now still struggling to improve the efficiency of the public policy andservice for societies via e-Government, and tries to improve efficiency and transparencyof the management process through giving opportunity for its citizens to accessgovernment information and to participate in some political administrative decisions.
Brazil is one of the biggest population and territory, therefore to provide the e-services
to all citizens are required to setup a good infrastructure, now the situation is low
awareness of e-Government services is a barrier preventing its effective use, therefore it
can be established that this is also an obstacle to the assessment of citizen demand. In
High GDP countries, management optimization has gained the good attention (figure
15)

Figure 15: Top 10 e-Government Ranking in Highest GDP Countries

21V. e-Government Ranking by Regions
1. Ranking in Asia-Pacific Countries
Asia-Pacific Countries

Asia-Pacific Countries

Asia-Pacific Countries

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

1Singapore

93.80

7

Thailand

67.31

13

Macau

56.27

2

Korea

89.39

8

HK SAR

65.24

14

Philippines

51.47

3

Japan

87.77

9

Malaysia

64.87

15

Brunei51.06

4Australia

86.30

10

Indonesia

60.11

16

China

48.36

5

New Zealand

76.66

11

Vietnam

57.03

17

Pakistan

42.94

6

Chinese

72.76

12

India

56.42

18

Fiji

37.54

TaipeiTable 9: e-Government Ranking in Asia-Pacific Countries
The Asia-Pacific region consists of fifty-two countries and territories, but thissurvey covered only eighteen countries, due to Cambodia has been removed for thisyear of the survey. Compared to last year, there has been no change in the top 9
countries. Both Indonesia and Vietnam got higher positions while India dropped andranked at 12th place. The bottom of this group is Pakistan and Fiji, they have the same
positions compared with last year.
The Korean Government has been expanding the integration of e-Government
towards the Smart e-Government promoting the usage of public service and active
participation in anytime and anywhere. Currently, the Ministry of Public Administrationand Security (MOPAS) is responsible for affairs related to national administration,
government organizations, personnel management, and e-Government and disastersafety. Under the slogan of “Moving toward a smaller and more efficient government”,
MOPAS actively supports the local government in terms of local administration, finance,and regional development for the promotion of greater local autonomy. In order toperform those strategies, Korean government needs to set up the agenda based on
prediction of social and technical changes, and analysis of future needs. Several
challenges could be identified along the development journey of Korea e-Government
are digital divide, internet addiction, and cyber ethic.

22

Figure 16: Top 10 e-Governments Ranking in Asia-Pacific Countries
2. Ranking in Americas Countries
Americas Countries

Americas Countries

Americas Countries

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

1

USA

93.58

5

Brazil50.37

9Venezuela

44.65

2

Canada81.45

6

Argentina

50.32

10

Uruguay

44.01

3

Chile

53.49

7

Colombia

49.36

11

Costa Rica

42.06

4

Mexico

53.41

8

Peru

46.21

Table 10: e-Government Ranking in Americas Countries
The 2015 ranking marks the new comer-Costa Rica has been added into the ranking
survey, it makes the total of countries in Americas becomes eleven members. The US
ranked for 2nd place in overall ranking but in this group, the US leads all countries andranked at 1st place, followed by Canada ranked for 2nd, Chile, Mexico and Brazil ranked
for 3rd, 4th, and 5th place respectively. Venezuela, Uruguay and Costa Rica stood at thebottom of this group and ranked for 9th, 10th, and 11th place.
In 2014, Canadian government has launched [Digital Canada 150]. The Digital
Canada 150 is aimed to take the full benefit of digital opportunity for Canadian. It is23

expected that in 2017, in a 150th anniversary of Canada, Canada will thrive the digital
Canada which accentuates five pillars; connecting Canadians, protecting Canadians,
economic opportunities, digital government, and Canadian content. E-Government
implementation is quite advanced in Canada with most of its services being not justinformational but also transactional. With the continuation of support from thegovernment, Canada is likely to continue to be one of the top leaders of e-Government
in the world. By introducing the Digital Canada 150, Canada has shifted its
e-Government to the digital government.

Figure 17: Top 10 e-Government Ranking in Americas Countries
3. Ranking in European Countries
EU Countries

EU Countries

EU Countries

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

1

Denmark

91.52

8

Germany

76.46

15

Czech Republic

63.48

2

UK

90.17

9

France

73.39

16

Italy

61.30

3

Estonia

84.87

10

Belgium

71.69

17

Poland57.30

4Norway79.63

11

Iceland

69.73

18

Spain

57.12

5

Sweden77.95

12

Netherlands

69.53

19

Romania

53.11

24

6

Austria

77.26

13

Switzerland

69.17

7

Finland76.49

14

Portugal

63.93

Table 11: e-Government Ranking in European Countries
EU countries are encouraged to deploy advanced technologies, institute better
governance and e-services while simultaneously pursuing greater transparency,
efficiency and inclusion.
This year, the new comer is Iceland, despite of the first time in the ranking. Iceland
got a high position and ranked in middle of this group. Compared to the last year,
Denmark replaced the UK to rank for first place, followed by the UK and Estonia
ranked in 2nd, and 3rd place. In this group Finland declined 4 steps and ranked at 7th thisyear, same with Finland, Italy also slipped 4 steps and ranked for 16th place. In thebottom is Romania, the country has not changed position compared last year survey.
The UK is very mature in keeping up development in e-Government. And thegovernment is committed to delivering public services. The UK’s objectives are tofulfill the needs of their users and achieve maximum value for money for the taxpayer.
Currently, the focus is shifted to the productivity and effectiveness improvement byusing ICT. New strategy was already set up in 2011 to implement this idea.
Italy recently launched an advance mobile application for people with rheumatoid
arthritis, called the Rheumatoid Arthritis App. Electronic health records have been also
implemented in all of Italy's autonomous regions and provinces by December 2013,
with digital prescriptions introduced in the country subsequently. Furthermore, in acountry burdened by paperwork, the new decree opens up the possibility of registeringbirths and deaths, and payments to public administrations online, through a simplified
system.
Since the beginning of the decade, Romania has passed fundamental ICT-relatedlaws, planned and implemented the first steps towards an Informational Society but
there is still much that needs improvement. Romania has the advantage of good ICT
infrastructure in place and of the great availability of IT professionals. The e-Romania
project has yet to be implemented. Local e-Government initiatives are underway inseveral regions but there are big differences among regions. A government oversightboard would be necessary. E-participation also needs to be enhanced.

25

Figure 18: Top 10 e-Governments Ranking in European Countries
4. Ranking in Africa, Middle East and CIS Countries
Africa, Middle East & CIS

Africa, Middle East & CIS

Africa, Middle East & CIS

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

No

Country

Score

1

Israel65.80

6Bahrain

50.50

11

Morocco

43.13

2

UAE

58.10

7

South Africa

49.30

12

Georgia

40.73

3

Russia56.56

8

Kazakhstan

47.73

13

Nigeria

38.37

4

Oman

51.60

9

Saudi Arabia

47.48

14

Egypt

37.19

5

Turkey51.31

10

Tunisia

45.87

15

Kenya

32.91

Table 12: e-Government Ranking in Africa, Middle East and CIS Countries
This group includes countries from Africa, Middle East and CIS, included new
countries – Bahrain, Oman, and Morocco, the 2015 ranking marks Uzbekistan and Iranhave been removed from ranking survey. In total this group ranking has fifteen countries.
Israel ranked in the 1st place, followed by UAE in 2nd and Russia in 3rd. The bottom of
this group is also the same countries in the overall ranking. They are Nigeria, Egypt and
Kenya.

26

In terms of e-Government, Israel is an advanced country within the region.
E-Government in Israel is well matured and widely used in administration implemented
using the five Layer model of e-Government. The overall e-Government strategy places
enhanced information access and integration. A strategic solution enabling thegovernment as a whole to perfectly harness information and knowledge resources inorder to achieve an order of magnitude improvements in effectiveness, efficiency andservice delivery.
The new trends of e-Government in UAE are interesting for the rest of the region.
The next phase for the UAE – which is seeking to establish itself as smart government
leader in the region – will be to win users over to the latest apps and building
m-government to help citizens have a better channel to apply for their services. The
future is going to be about interconnecting government to government, and morecollaboration on the government to citizen side.
The development of e-Government in Egypt has progressed hand in hand with
Egyptian efforts to establish public sector reforms and encourage the development of
the information society. These two trends constitute important existing drivers for
e-Government. Following the uprisings that culminated in the revolution led to theongoing transition process, a third e-Government driver has emerged, centered on theneeds of the citizens and the civil society.
Kenya as well as other developing countries is developing the e-Government
agenda with the assistance of other countries and international organizations. The
Kenyan e-Government master plan was developed by the Kenya ICT Authority, and isanchored in the constitution of Kenya.

27

Figure 19: Top 10 e-Government Ranking in Africa, Middle-East and CIS
Countries

VI.

Methodology

The Waseda – IAC e-Government Ranking survey is based on analyzing thedevelopment of mainly 9 major indicators and 32 sub-indicators in the public sector, as
well as the relationship between governments and their stakeholders. They include: (1)Network Preparedness; (2) Management Optimization; (3) Online Service; (4) National
Portal/ Homepage; (5) Government Chief Information Officer; (6) e-Government
Promotion; (7) E-Participation/ Digital Inclusion; (8) Open Government/ Data and (9)Cyber Security. To evaluate data, this survey is based on the following flowchart:

28

StartSearch information/data by 9indicators and 32 sub-indicators

Yes

Questionnaires

No

Draft scores

Experts group

Audit

Tabulate all scores

Ranking

Country Report
Figure 20: Processes Diagram
In addition to the research team of Institute of e-Government, Waseda University.
There are 12 prominent academia from 12 world class universities in 12 countries under
the umbrella of IAC who have served as global experts group for advising andmonitoring the survey
For evaluating the framework of researches, to check and review the methodology,
indicators and targeted countries as well as monitoring 63 country reports for 2015
edition, two global Experts group meetings have been organized by Institute ofe-Government, Waseda University and IAC in Singapore in June and in Guimaraes City,
Portugal in October 2014. Also, Researchers have attended many international
meetings/workshops/forums in Bangkok, Jakarta, Brussels, Geneva, New York andParis as well as Tokyo as home ground in 2014/15.
Mathematically, Statistics of the Waseda – IAC e-Government Ranking is aweighted average of the nine indicators scores. The scores are based on the table below:
29

No

1
2

Indicators
Network
Preparedness
Management
Optimization

Raw score

Max rawscore

Max
weighted
score

A

30

5%=W1

B

15

12%=W2

3

Online Service

C40

15%=W3

4

National Portal

D

35

8%=W4

5

Government CIO

E

25

12%=W5F

30

10%=W6

6

e-Government
Promotion

7

E-Participation

G

20

10%=W78Open Government

H

20

10%=W89Cyber Security

I

25

10%=W9

Scoring

Finalparametersscore

W1/30*100 =X1
W2/15*100 =X2
W3/40*100 =X3
W4/35*100 =X4
W5/25*100 =X5
W6/30*100 =X6
W7/20*100 =X7
W7/20*100 =X8
W7/20*100 =X9
Total score:

A*X1
B*X2
C*X3
D*X4
E*X5
F*X6
G*X7
H*X8
I*X9
∑

Table 13: Weighted Scores MethodVII. Contributors List (● indicate group leader)
1. List of Global Experts Group

Prof. Dr. Toshio Obi, Director, Institute of e-Government, Waseda University, Japan,
President, International Academy of CIO, Director APEC e-Gov Research Center.

-

Prof. Dr. J.P Auffret, Chair, MOT/CIO Program of George Mason University, USA.

-

Prof. Dr. Lim Swee Cheang, Director, Institute of Systems Science, National
University of Singapore.

-Prof. Dr. Luca Buccoliero, Marketing Department Bocconi University, Italy.

-

Dr. Elsa Estevez, Senior researcher, United National University, Portugal.

-

Prof. Dr. Suhono Harso Supangkat, Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia.

-

Prof. Dr. Francisco Magno, Director, Institute of Governance De La Salle
University, Philippines.

30-Prof. Fang Chun Yang, Dean, Academy of e-Government, Peking University,
China.

-

Associate Prof. Dr. Jirapon Sunkpho, Thammasat University, Thailand.

-Prof. Dr. Alexander Ryzhov, School of IT management, Federal Academy of
National Economy, Russia.

-

Prof. Dr. Brabec Zdenek, Czech Technical University in Praha, Czech Republic.

-

Prof. Dr. Tomi Dahlberg, Information System, University of Turku, Finland.

2. List of Professors and Experts at Institute of e-Government, Waseda
UniversityProf. Dr. Naoko Iwasaki, Waseda University
Prof. Dr. Tatsuyuki Negoro, Waseda University

Prof. Dr. Takashi Kobayashi, Tokai
University
Prof. Dr. Yoshio Tozawa, University ofIndustrial and Science-

Prof. Dr. Kiyoshi Nakamura, Waseda University

Mr. Keiichi Iwata, Manager NTT Data-

Prof. Kiyohide
University

LLC Naoko Mizukoshi, Lawyer-

Prof. Dr.
University-

Higuchi,

HirokoKudo,

Waseda Chuo -Mr. Akira Watari, ex-Director of IT,
Toyota Motors

3. List of Researchers and Research Assistants at Institute of e-Government,
Waseda University


Mr. Nguyen Manh Hien-

Mr. Pingky Dezar Zulkarnain-

Mr. Bandaxay Lovanxay-

Mr. James Giguere-

Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Anh-

Ms. Yang Yao-

Dr. Diana Ishmatova-

Dr. Nguyen Thi Thanh Hai

31