2002 06 mosaic dc
DESCRIPTION
[email protected] “Metrics” session Thursday, June 20, 11:00-12:30 • 2½years (since January 2000) • 15 nations studied • Purpose: • Using Mosaic methodology < mosaic.unomaha.edu/gdi.html > – Try to overcome lack of reliable ICT data in developing nations – Seek reasons which retard or accelerate Internet developmentTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 2002 06 Mosaic DC](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042822/568bd42d1a28ab203493cd07/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Assessing e-readiness:A review of the Mosaic methodology
�Metrics� sessionThursday, June 20, 11:00-12:30
![Page 2: 2002 06 Mosaic DC](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042822/568bd42d1a28ab203493cd07/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
ITU Internet Case Studies
� 2 ½ years (since January 2000)
� 15 nations studied� Purpose:
� Try to overcome lack of reliable ICT data in developing nations
� Seek reasons which retard or accelerate Internet development
� Using Mosaic methodology <mosaic.unomaha.edu/gdi.html>
![Page 3: 2002 06 Mosaic DC](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042822/568bd42d1a28ab203493cd07/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Mosaic framework
Measure characterizing usage from conventional to highly sophisticated and driving innovation
Sophistication of use
State of the ISP industry and market conditionsOrganizational infrastructure
Based on international and national backbone bandwidth, exchange points, and last-mile access methods
Connectivity infrastructure
Degree of Internet utilization in the education, commercial, health care, and public sectors
Sectoralabsorption
Concentration of the Internet within a nation, from none or a single city to nationwide availability with points-of-presence or toll free access in all first-tier political subdivisions and common rural access
Dispersion
Proportion of Internet usersPervasiveness
DefinitionCategory
Five values (0 to 4) for each category with 4 being best.Maximum total score of 24.
![Page 4: 2002 06 Mosaic DC](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042822/568bd42d1a28ab203493cd07/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The scorecard
13.51.92.52.11.92.52.6Average
Jan-008.01.03.01.01.01.01.0Nepal14
Feb-008.51.03.01.51.01.01.0Uganda13
Nov-019.01.02.01.51.01.52.0Laos12
May-0110.51.52.01.51.52.02.0Vietnam11
May-0011.51.52.02.01.03.02.0Bolivia10
May-0012.52.02.51.51.52.52.5Egypt9
Apr-0213.02.01.02.02.03.03.0Cape Verde8
DateTotalSophisticatio
n
Organizatio
nal
Connectivity
Absorption
Dispersion
Pervasiveness
Oct-0013.52.02.02.52.02.03.0Hungary7
Sep-0115.02.03.02.52.02.53.0Philippines6
Aug-0115.52.02.02.52.53.53.0Thailand5
May-0115.52.03.52.51.53.03.0Indonesia4
Apr-0118.52.53.52.52.53.54.0Malaysia3
May-0222.03.03.54.03.54.04.0Korea2
Jul-0022.03.53.53.04.04.04.0Singapore1
Jul-017.51.01.51.51.01.51.0Cambodia15
![Page 5: 2002 06 Mosaic DC](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042822/568bd42d1a28ab203493cd07/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Mosaic attractions & drawbacks
Attractions� Highlights where a
country�s relative strengths and weaknesses are
� Can be a sanity check for unreliable Internet user data
� Is a better overall measure of ICT potential than just Internet user penetration by including sector absorption
Drawbacks� Base data not always
available or unreliable� Some items require
subjective assessment� Often maps back to
Internet user or income� Does not factor in
universal access issues such as affordability or presence of Internet cafes
� Does not factor in �soft�factors such as education or literacy
![Page 6: 2002 06 Mosaic DC](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042822/568bd42d1a28ab203493cd07/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Quickly see relative strength and weakness
0
1
2
3
4Pervasiveness
Dispersion
Absorption
Connectivity
Organizational
Sophistication
![Page 7: 2002 06 Mosaic DC](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042822/568bd42d1a28ab203493cd07/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Pervasiveness & dispersion
� Reliable Internet user surveys lacking for many developing nations (and inconsistent ones for developed!!!)
� Not very granular� Geographic dispersion
hard to judge or not so relevant (e.g., 1st Tier political sub-divisions, nationwide Internet dial-up numbers versus POPs)
2'287
2'089
1'300
920
840
55%51%
33%
22%20%
Nielsen*(4/02)
NetValue(11/01)
IDA (mid 00)
IDA (end 01)
Nielsen**(4/02)
Users (000s)Penetration
How many Internet users does Singapore have?
* Used in last month** Universe
![Page 8: 2002 06 Mosaic DC](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042822/568bd42d1a28ab203493cd07/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Absorption & connectivity
� Absorption: � What level of government or
education should be considered? Should it be central/local government, primary/secondary/tertiary education?
� Connectivity: � Mixed values. Rep. Korea has
world�s highest broadband penetration yet its domestic & international connectivity would have low values according Mosaic
� Related to size of nation: Absolute values not as important as relative ones
2'249
330 267113
4
859
446
1'406
1'159
831
S'pore Indonesia Thailand Egypt Cambodia
International bandwidth (Mbps)
Per subscriber
(bps)
It�s all relative
![Page 9: 2002 06 Mosaic DC](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042822/568bd42d1a28ab203493cd07/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Organizational & sophistication
� Hard to measure: What is sophistication?
� Mixed values: Many ISPs but only one with international gateway
� Actual versus theoretical: Country may have �open� market on paper but only one ISP in operation
![Page 10: 2002 06 Mosaic DC](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042822/568bd42d1a28ab203493cd07/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Mosaic compared to income
Hungary
Korea (Rep.)
R2 = 0.8117
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
$100 $1'000 $10'000 $100'000
GDP per capita
Doing worse than expected? Or Mosaic
values too low?
Doing better than expected? Or Mosaic
values too high?
![Page 11: 2002 06 Mosaic DC](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042822/568bd42d1a28ab203493cd07/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Mosaic & Internet penetration
Indonesia
Hungary
R2 = 0.8574
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Internet users per 100 people, 2000
Mosaic values too low? Or Internet users over
estimated?
Mosaic values too high?
Or Internet users under estimated?
![Page 12: 2002 06 Mosaic DC](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042822/568bd42d1a28ab203493cd07/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
An Internet Development Index
Schools, business, householdsConnectivityInternational bandwidth (per subscriber, BMI)Internet subscribers per capita
PCs per capitaFixed telephone lines per capitaInfrastructurePrice of Internet accessAffordabilityLanguageSecondary+ education, tertiary enrolmentLiteracy, Newspaper circulationHumanIndicatorConcept