THAILAND S ICT READINESS FOR THE ASEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Transcription

1 1 THAILAND S ICT READINESS FOR THE ASEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY Jittima Wongwuttiwat Assumption University, Thailand jittima@scitech.au.edu ABSTRACT ICT development in Thailand and the other ASEAN members must be prepared for the environment of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) which will start formally at the end of the year The Ministry of ICT in Thailand has established several ICT policies and programs for ICT administrative management in both public and private enterprises in order to create a strong network of relationships to deal with competitors in ASEAN. This study compares Thailand with the other ASEAN Plus 3 member nations based on their stage of economic development and three important indicators of competitiveness (the higher education system, technology readiness, and business innovation). The findings identify Thailand s position with respect to ICT development relative to the other ASEAN Plus 3 nations and point to strategies and partnerships that need to be developed in Thailand in order to maintain a competitive position within the AEC. KEYWORDS: ASEAN members, ASEAN Economic Community, ICT Readiness, Quality of Educational System, Business Innovation, Country Competitiveness 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to report on Thailand s position with respect to ICT development and then to compare that position with that of the other nine members of ASEAN (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam) and its three dialogue partners (China, Japan, and the Korea Republic) referred to collectively as ASEAN Plus 3. The Plus 3 members were included in the study because they are considered to be technologically advanced nations with strong influences on the ASEAN market. The nation s position ranking can present the overall situation of each particular country in relative to other countries. Each of these ASEAN nations can evaluate and compare itself with the other members and the ASEAN ICT master plan. As one main focus of ASEAN is to reduce the gap within the digital divide, this comparison will help inform each nation s position in each specific area whether it is lagging behind, more advancement than, or equality to their neighbors. Thus, supports will be circulated among each ASEAN members properly. In addition, these nations comparison should lead to the competitions and better improvement. The nation government and responsible units of each area are able to response to the situation correctly to improve their competitive strategy. This purpose was achieved by using a theoretical framework with four components: the stage of economic development using the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI); the higher education system; technology readiness; and business innovation. The World Economic Forum (2014) reported that these four components are basic to the determination of the state of a nation s ICT development and there is a strong relationship among education and training programs, the availability and usage of ICT resources, and business innovation and competitiveness. Even though unemployment of university graduates is reported as a problem in most countries worldwide there is an expectation that knowledgeable and skillful workforces can help develop innovative capacity for organizations and ultimately will promote a country's competitiveness.

2 2 This article begins with a review of literature related to Thailand s ICT policies and development throughout the past decade and a description of the theoretical framework used for analyses (section 2). Section 3 describes the study research design and methodology. Section 4 shows the results of data analyses concerned with the assessment of the ASEAN Plus 3 members on each of the four components in the theoretical framework. Section 5 presents a discussion of the findings in relation to the purpose of the study which is expected to provide useful guidance for the ICT administrative management in both public and private organization in Thailand. Section 6 presents overall conclusions. 2. RELATED LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Related Literature The review is organized in three sections dealing with ASEAN ICT Master Plan, Thailand s ICT policies, and ICT education and organizations in Thailand ASEAN ICT Master Plan ASEAN community has team up to develop and transform their economic and culture. Four key outcomes were addresses in ASEAN ICT Master Plan (2015): 1) utilizing ICT for competitiveness, 2) recognizing ASEAN as a global ICT hub, 3) enhancing the quality of ASEAN people life, and 4) fostering collaboration across ASEAN business and citizens. Six strategies; Economic transformation, People empowerment and engagement, ICT innovation, ICT infrastructure development, Human capital development, and Bridging the digital divide; have been established to achieve the mentioned outcomes. ICT is expected to be a key enabler for ASEAN s economic integration. ICT will be utilized to promote ASEAN transforming into a single market. They will help bridging gaps of digital divide to promote greater ICT adoption. With ASEAN community cooperation, the ASEAN expects to be a recognized global ICT hub as having high quality ICT infrastructure, full of skilled human capital, and technological innovation. ASEAN community tries to enable the ASEAN members with ICT utilization then using ICT to support the way their people live, learn, work, as well as recreation. Human capital will be developed with ICT competency and skills to support the growth of the ICT sector, thus it will turn to support the growth of other sectors of economy. ICT knowledge and skills are deemed as an instrument of growth which can help promoting the country s competitiveness. ASEAN ICT Master Plan (2015) reported that Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) has been established and implemented for ICT standard and skills certification. All technical standards were addressed as the ASEAN working language and cross-certification of digital certificates within ASEAN has been generated. These ICT skill standards for ASEAN have been shaped to ensure quality of ICT talents and to promote the movement of ICT professional within ASEAN. ASEAN Broadband has also been considered to enable seamless usage of broadband services across ASEAN community, which will further boost up the development of ICT and other sectors. This broadband service is expected to enhance the quality of business operation and education, ensuring that workforces and students can access to broadband internet, remain engaged, and informed with updated knowledge Thailand ICT Policies Thailand s first national IT policy appeared as IT It centered on investment in: information infrastructure; a knowledgeable human resource base with adequate technology literacy; and good governance with anticipation of IT helping to reduce social and economic gaps (Intarakumnerd and Panthawi, 2003). IT-2010 covered the period and addressed required foundations and five application domains: e-government; e-commerce; e- industry; e-education; and e-society (Winley et. al, 2007). The government expected that IT

3 3 would be utilized for these 5 domains in order to enhance the economy and quality of life of the Thai people. The National ICT Master Plan ( ) addressed seven strategic plans for IT which included: elevate the Thai ICT industry to become a regional leader; utilize ICT to enhance the quality of Thai society; reform and enhance ICT research and development; develop human resources; enhance entrepreneurial leadership; promote the use of ICT in small and medium enterprises; and utilize ICT for the purpose of public administration and services (Intarakumnerd and Panthawi, 2003). The Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) has extended the IT-2010 framework to the next 10 years which is called ICT policy framework ( ) or ICT2020. The ICT2020 covers five main areas for ICT development: key concept of sustainable development in three aspects of social, economic, and environment; utilizing ICT to lessen inequality and provide equally opportunity for the people; compliance with sufficiency economy philosophy for economic development; connectivity and continuality with the existing policy and plan; and promotion of private sectors involvement (National ICT Policy Framework at For IT-2010, National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC) produced report related to the Thailand ICT Indicators for series 1 in 2003 (NECTEC, 2003) and Series 2 in 2005 (NECTEC, 2006). The result included: a survey of the Internet users profiles; a readiness survey of government web-based services; and a web statistics service. The Series 2 includes statistics related to: broadcasting; computer usage; telecommunications; Internet; e-commerce; the ICT market and industry; ICT in Government; ICT human resources; and research and development activities. The indicators of Series 2 indicated progress in most aspects of national concern (NECTEC, 2006). Wiggins et al. (2006) undertook a SWOT analysis of Thailand's ICT in 2006 as shown in Table 1. It was seen that Thailand s strengths were on the internal ICT infrastructure, business operation and environmental costs, and an education system at both primary and secondary levels. Several industries were strengths and could be the regional hubs in the Asian region. However, Thailand's weaknesses were ICT recognition at the nation and the firm levels, ICT-research facilities, technology investment, political stability, government vision and support for the ICT sector, and the limited scale of the workforce. Table 1: SWOT analysis of ICT in Thailand (Wiggins et al., 2006) 1. Regional hub for several industries 2. Reasonable internal infrastructure Strengths 3. Relatively inexpensive to conduct business and a pro-business environment 4. Primary and secondary education system 1. Lack of: Recognition as an ICT nation; regional IT firm or brand; ICTresearch facilities; technology investment capital and startup culture; project completion, accountability; certainty in the political environment; clear ICT Weaknesses vision from Government and support for IT sector; focus in ICT sector and too many IT industry organizations; and adherence to international best practices and standards 2. Expensive international Internet gateways 3. Limited scale of the workforce 1. Aggregate ICT talent from Indochina; leverage talent of visitors; and attract global talent to Thailand 2. Partner with firms from India and China Opportunities and compete with Malaysia for regional hosting 3. Develop national R&D plan for ICT 4. Deregulate telecommunications 5. Leverage benefits from Government projects and mega projects 6. Development of animation and mobile applications and call center facilities Threats 1. Autocracy 2. Corruption 3. Time taken to resolve international Internet

4 4 Gateway issues 4. Shortage of ICT trained talent 5. Plans but not enough actions 6. Deficiency in technical competency in government Wiggins et al., (2006) also compared Thailand ICT characteristics with other Asian countries as shown in Table 2. It is confirmed that during that particular period Thailand s strengths were related to the internal ICT infrastructure. The education system and labor costs were just satisfied. However, Thailand's weaknesses when compared to other Asian countries concerned the government vision and support for the ICT sector, the standard level of English language in the workforce, and data and Internet gateway security. Table 2: ICT development characteristics (Wiggins et al., 2006) Characteristic Country India Philippines China Malaysia Thailand Vietnam English Language Excellent Excellent Fair Very Good Poor Poor Education System Excellent Good Very Good Good Good Fair Labor Pool Excellent Good Excellent Fair Fair Poor Labor Cost Very Good Very Good Very Good Fair Good Excellent Infrastructure Fair Fair Very Good Very Good Very Good Fair Government Support Excellent Excellent Excellent Very Good Poor Poor Political Stability Good Fair Good Good Fair Good Data/Internet Security Good Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Education System and Organizations in Thailand The study of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that by the year 2014 all industry sectors would have a high demand for technical proficiency especially in the areas of: network systems and data communications, computer systems, database administration, and application and system software engineering (Maguire, 2006). ICT experts will be required to obtain a combination of technical, soft, and business expertise (Bullen et al., 2007; McAdams, 2007; Foote, 2005). In Thailand this was confirmed by Wongwuttiwat (2009) where most organizations predicted more demand for versatilist IT professionals with deep skills, a wide scope of roles, and an acceptance in various fields of work. In particular, organizations in the Thai ICT sector continue to place a high demand on ICT specialist, who have deep skills, narrow scope of roles, and are accepted within the ICT work domain (Winley and Wongwuttiwat 2012). In relation to ICT2020, the Thai government continues to push the Thai ICT industry to become a leader among ASEAN countries. The government tried to establish plans focused on human resources development in order to create and obtain ICT knowledge and skills needed and to promote the use of ICT in all types of enterprises. By the end of 2015, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) integration will greatly influence the ICT industry, especially the increase in labor mobility, technological transfer and investment, and education programs development. As a result, Thailand's Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity has been created with an expectation that it will help enhance Thailand's ICT competitiveness (Peter, 2011). In line with the ASEAN connectivity, Thailand s ICT Industry Promotion Bureau has been conducting various projects with the objective to support the ICT industry and to develop ICT professionals with knowledge and skills that meet national and international standards. Thailand s ICT Ministry intends to establish an ICT center which will represent Asian countries and will certify standard qualifications for ICT professionals in various positions (Wongwuttiwat, 2009). These ICT professionals will be recognized in any of the

5 5 Asian countries. ICT professions were revised and divided into five areas: Software Development, ICT Project Management, Enterprise Architecture Design, Network and System Administration, and Information System and Network Security. As a consequence, these ICT professionals will be acknowledged in any of the Asian countries (MICT, 2012). The Networked Readiness Index (NRI) (Dutta et al., 2011) and the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) (Saala-i-Martin et al., 2011) reports addressed the adoption of ICT in developing nations. In 2011 the NRI ranked Thailand at position 59 out of 138 countries, while the ICT environment, readiness, and usage were ranked at positions 64, 53, and 61, respectively. At the same period, the GCI ranked Thailand at position 39 out of 142 countries, in which Thailand was classified as an efficiency-driven economy. In this stage Thailand national ICT policies focus on the use of ICT for developing a knowledge based society. At present, it is essential for the Thai government, Ministry of ICT, Ministry of Education, and other responsible units to focus their attention on the available and the usage of ICT in all sectors and especially ICT education program development since it is a primary activity to produce appropriate knowledge and skilled ICT graduates to fulfill the high quality of human resource which are needed by both internal and international labor markets, in particular for the ASEAN market demand. 2.2 Theoretical Framework The World Economic Forum (WEF) framework is chosen because this framework has enrichment of data related to all ASEAN members in various aspects that can be used to determine strengths, weaknesses, and finally nation s competitiveness. This framework can also be used to evaluate the progressive and the achievement of each nation comparing to the pre-defined ASEAN ICT Master plan The theoretical framework for this study involves four related components: 1. The stage of economic development classified as: (a) Stage 1 Factor-driven; (b) Transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2; (c) Stage 2 Efficiency-driven; (d) Transition from Stage 2 to Stage 3; and (e) Stage 3 Innovation-driven. 2. The higher education system involving: (a) the quality of the educational system; and (b) the Internet access in schools. 3. Technology readiness including: (a) Availability of latest technologies; (b) Firm-level technology absorption; (c) Foreign direct investment and Technology transfer; (d) Percentage of the Internet users; (e) Fixed broadband internet subscriptions per 100 population; (f) International Internet bandwidth (kb/s) per internet user; and (g) Mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 population. 4. Business innovation considering: (a) Capacity for innovation; (b) Quality of scientific research institutions; (c) Company spending on R&D; (d) University-industry collaboration in R&D; (e) Government procurement of advanced technology products; and (f) Availability of scientists and engineers. These components were selected because they are recommended by important annual reports as effective means of assessing and comparing national development (World Economic Forum, 2012; 2013; 2014). Data used in this study was derived from the Global Competitiveness reports for 2012, 2013, and 2014 published by the World Economic Forum.

6 6 3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The study used existing data and statistics derived from the Global Competitiveness Reports. The stage of the country s development and the country's GCI for three consecutive periods of analysis ( , , and ) were examined and compared for the 13 ASEAN Plus 3 members. The study also examined and compared indicators related to ICT readiness, the higher education system, and business innovation from recent analyses published in the World Economic Forum (2014). The rankings of countries for the main indicators in this study represent the country's position among 144 countries shown in the Global Competitiveness report The value scales used in these reports ranged from 1 to 7 which represented the worst and the best possible outcomes, respectively. Any individual indicators with a rank higher than the economy's overall GCI rank are taken to represent a competitive advantage. These details are shown in Tables A1, A2, and A3 in the Appendix. Where appropriate the values of each indicator were used to rank the countries from 1 most competitive to 144 least competitive. For the purpose of this study these ranks were further categorized as excellent, fair, or poor depending on whether they were in the top (positions 1 to 48), middle (positions 49 to 96), or bottom (positions 97 to 144) third of the distributions of the rankings. 4. DATA ANALYSES This section presents the results of data analyses based on the four components of the theoretical framework. The discussion and interpretation of the results are presented in the next section The Stage of Economic Development Figure 1 presents the components of the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) which were used to measure the competitiveness of each nation. The GCI includes 12 components referred to as Pillars (World Economic Forum, 2014). Figure 1: Pillars of the GCI (World Economic Forum 2014). According to the three stages of the economic theory of development, there are two criteria used for categorizing countries into a stage of development. These criteria include the level of GDP per capita at market exchange rates and the average income (World Economic Forum, 2014). In factor driven economies the GCI competition is based on inexperienced

7 7 workers and lack of natural resources. Competitiveness is based on the price of the basic products that are sold and low levels of productivity are reflected in low wages. Economies in the efficiency-driven stage show more efficient production processes and increased product quality. Competitiveness is increasingly driven by higher education and training, wellfunctioning labor markets, and the ability to benefit from existing technologies. Productivity increases and wages rise with development. Economies with competitiveness based on new and unique products move into the innovation driven stage where production processes are efficient and innovative. Economies in this stage have high wages. Any countries falling between any two stages are considered to be in transition. Table 3 shows the classification of the stage of economic development for each of the ASEAN Plus 3 members. Table 3: Stages of Economic Development (World Economic Forum, ) Stage 1: Transition from Stage 2: Transition from Factor-driven Stage 1 to Stage 2 Efficiency- driven Stage 2 to Stage 3 Year Reported Stage 3: Innovationdriven 2012 Cambodia, Brunei Darussalam, China, Indonesia, Malaysia Japan, Singapore Vietnam Philippines Thailand Korea Republic Cambodia, Brunei Darussalam, China, Indonesia, Malaysia Japan, Singapore 2013 Lao PDR, Philippines Thailand Korea Republic Myanmar, Vietnam Cambodia, Philippines China, Indonesia, Malaysia Japan, Singapore 2014 Lao PDR, Thailand Korea Republic Myanmar, Vietnam Notes: (a) The assessment for Lao PDR and Myanmar started in 2013; (b) Assessment for Brunei Darussalam was not included in the 2014 report; (c) Plus 3 members are highlighted. From Table 3 we can see that: (a) Singapore, Japan, and Korea Republic have been classified as innovation-driven in each of the three reporting periods; (b) Malaysia is the only ASEAN nation that is transitioning from efficiency-driven to innovation-driven but it has been in this transition state for the last three reporting periods. Thailand, along with China and Indonesia, has been classified as an efficiency-driven economy across the three reporting periods. Philippines and Brunei Darussalam appear to be moving from factor-driven to efficiencydriven economies but they have been in transition for all of the reporting periods. The other four ASEAN members (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Vietnam) have been consistently classified as factor-driven economies. The Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) in the World Economic Forum Report (2014) defined competitiveness as the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country which is also used to determine the level of prosperity of an economy. The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) predicts that ASEAN will become a single market and production base, a highly competitive economic region, a region of equitable economic development, and a region which is fully integrated into the global economy (World Economic Forum 2014). The same report also identified that ASEAN members have implemented nearly 80 percent of the measures that were set in the AEC Blueprint in However, the differences in development among the ASEAN members are notable and evident in Table 4.

8 8 Table 4: Global Competitiveness Index (Source: World Economic Forum ) Year of Report Country/ Economy Ranking among 144 Ranking among 148 Ranking among 144 (Score 1-7) (Score 1-7) (Score 1-7) Switzerland 1 (5.70) 1 (5.67) 1 (5.72) Singapore 2 (5.65) 2 (5.61) 2 (5.67) United States 3 (5.54) 5 (5.48) 7 (5.47) Finland 4 (5.50) 3 (5.54) 3 (5.55) Germany 5 (5.49) 4 (5.51) 6 (5.48) Japan 6 (5.47) 9 (5.40) 10 (5.40) Hong Kong SAR 7 (5.46) 7 (5.47) 9 (5.41) Netherlands 8 (5.45) 8 (5.42) 5 (5.50) United Kingdom 9 (5.41) 10 (5.37) 8 (5.45) Sweden 10 (5.41) 6 (5.48) 4 (5.53) Malaysia 20 (5.16) 24 (5.03) 25 (5.06) Korea Republic 26 (4.96) 25 (5.01) 19 (5.12) Brunei Darussalam Not Available 26 (4.95) 28 (4.87) China 28 (4.89) 29 (4.84) 29 (4.83) Thailand 31 (4.66) 37 (4.54) 38 (4.52) Indonesia 34 (4.57) 38 (4.53) 50 (4.40) Philippines 52 (4.40) 59 (4.29) 65 (4.23) Vietnam 68 (4.23) 70 (4.18) 75 (4.11) Cambodia 95 (3.89) 88 (4.01) 85 (4.01) Lao PDR 93 (3.91) 81 (4.08) Not Available Myanmar 134 (3.24) 139 (3.23) Not Available Note: ASEAN PLUS 3 members are highlighted. From Table 4 we can see that: (a) The 10 best performing countries have remained the same across the three reporting periods. Singapore is the only ASEAN member included in the top 10 group and it is consistently in second position behind Switzerland in first place. The only other ASEAN Plus 3 member consistently in the top 10 is Japan. Korea Republic has declined from position 19 to position 21 across the reporting periods while China is consistently ranked around position 29. In particular, the World Economic Forum (2014) notes that scientific research has been one of important factors that has placed Switzerland first and productivity has been enhanced by a business sector that usually offers excellent support and on-the-job-training. Switzerland's people and companies are also proactive at adopting the latest technologies. Moreover, (b) Apart from Singapore the rankings of the other ASEAN members have improved across the reporting periods for six nations (Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam) but worsened for three members (Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar). The most improvement is for Indonesia moving up 17 rank positions followed by the Philippines with an improvement of 13 rank positions.

9 9 4.2 The Higher Education System Table 5 shows which countries were ranked as excellent, fair, and poor on the two indicators for the higher education system that were considered: (a) the quality of the education system; and (b) Internet access in schools. Table 5: Quality of the Higher Education System Compared to Internet Access in Schools Ranking Internet Access in Schools Categories Excellent Fair Poor Philippines - Quality of the Excellent Indonesia, Education Malaysia, Singapore, Japan System Vietnam, China, Korea Thailand, Lao - Fair Republic PDR Poor - - Cambodia, Myanmar Notes: (a) * Indicates data collected from CGI ; (b) Plus 3 members are highlighted. From Table 5 we can see that: (a) Among the Plus 3 members only Japan has a ranking of excellent on both indicators while both China and Korea Republic are ranked excellent on Internet access but only fair on quality of education. (b) Forty percent of the ASEAN members (Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, and Indonesia) are ranked as excellent on both indicators, 20 percent are ranked as fair on both indicators (Lao PDR, Thailand), while 20 percent (Cambodia and Myanmar) are ranked as poor on both indicators. (c) In the Philippines the quality of the education system is ranked as excellent and Internet access in schools is fair while the reverse is true in Vietnam. (d) Overall, about 70 percent of the ASEAN Plus 3 members have the same ranking for both indicators which enhances their use as valid measures of the higher education system. 4.3 Technology Readiness Table 6 shows separately the seven Technology Readiness indicators identified in Appendix Table A2 and the manner in which ASEAN Plus 3 members were ranked on these indicators. Table 6: Rankings of ASEAN Plus 3 members on indicators for Technology Readiness Indicator Ranking (Abbreviation) Excellent Fair Poor Availability of latest technologies (ALT) Japan, Singapore, Korea Republic, Malaysia Indonesia, Philippines, China, Lao PDR, Vietnam, Myanmar Firm-level technology absorption (FLTA) Foreign direct investment and Technology transfer (FDITT) Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea Republic, Philippines, Indonesia Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia Thailand, Cambodia Thailand, China, Lao PDR Cambodia, Japan, Lao PDR, Vietnam, China, Korea Republic, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar Myanmar

10 10 Internet users (%) (IU) Fixed broadband internet subscriptions per 100 population (FBIS) International Internet bandwidth (kb/s) per internet user (IIB) Mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 population (MBS) Japan, Korea Republic, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam* Korea Republic, Japan, Singapore Singapore, Philippines Singapore, Japan, Korea Republic, Thailand China, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand China, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines Japan, Thailand, Korea Republic, Myanmar, Malaysia, Vietnam Indonesia, China, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia Notes: (a) * Indicates data collected from CGI ; (b) Plus 3 members are highlighted. Indonesia, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Myanmar Indonesia, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Myanmar Indonesia, Lao PDR, Cambodia, China Lao PDR, Cambodia, Myanmar From Table 6 we can see that: (a) As expected for the Availability of latest technologies Japan, Singapore, Korea Republic, and Malaysia have excellent rankings. Seventy percent of the ASEAN members have a ranking of at least fair but the other 30 percent (Lao PDR, Vietnam, and Myanmar) along with China are ranked poorly. (b) For Firm-level technology absorption, all Plus 3 members and 70 percent of ASEAN members are ranked at least fair while 30 percent of ASEAN members (Cambodia, Vietnam, and Myanmar) are ranked poorly. (c) Foreign direct investment and technology transfer is ranked poorly in Brunei Darussalam and Myanmar but 50 percent of ASEAN members are ranked as excellent and all Plus 3 members are ranked as fair. (d) The percentage of the Internet users is at least fair for all Plus 3 members and 60 percent of ASEAN members. However, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Cambodia, and Myanmar are ranked as poor. (e) Rankings for the rate of fixed broadband internet subscriptions are very similar to those for the percentage of the Internet users but Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam ranked are ranked as fair rather than excellent. (f) International Internet bandwidth per internet user is ranked as at least fair for 70 percent of ASEAN members and all Plus 3 members except for China. Thirty percent of ASEAN members are ranked poorly (Indonesia, Lao PDR, and Cambodia) as well as China. (g) Mobile broadband subscriptions are considered to be at least fair for all Plus 3 members and 70 percent of ASEAN members. However, Lao PDR, Cambodia, and Myanmar are ranked poorly. Table 7 provides a different perspective on the Technology Readiness indicators to that in Table 8 and shows separately for each ASEAN Plus 3 member the manner in which they were ranked across all of the seven indicators for Technology Readiness. The abbreviations for the indicators are as identified in the previous Table 6.

11 11 Table 7: Each country's ranking on indicators for Technology Readiness Country/Economy Ranking Excellent Fair Poor Singapore ALT, FLTA, FDITT, IU, - FBIS, IIB, MBS - Japan ALT, FLTA, IU, FBIS, FDITT, IIB MBS - Korea Republic ALT, FLTA, IU, FBIS, FDITT, IIB MBS - Malaysia ALT, FLTA, FDITT, IU FBIS, IIB, MBS - Philippines FLTA, FDITT, IIB ALT, IU, FBIS, MBS - Thailand FDITT, MBS ALT, FLTA, IU, FBIS, IIB - Brunei IU, IIB ALT, FLTA, FBIS, FDITT Darussalam* MBS Indonesia FLTA, FDITT ALT, MBS IU, FBIS, IIB Vietnam - FDITT, IU, FBIS, IIB, ALT, FLTA MBS China - FLTA, FDITT, IU, ALT, IIB FBIS, MBS Cambodia - ALT, FDITT FLTA, IU, FBIS, IIB, MBS Lao PDR - FLTA, FDITT ALT, IU, FBIS, IIB, MBS Myanmar - IIB ALT, FLTA, FDITT, IU, FBIS, MBS Notes: (a) * Indicates data collected from CGI ; (b) Plus 3 members are highlighted. The entries in the rows in Table 7 have been organized to display the sequence of ASEAN Plus 3 members which reflects a decrease in their overall performance across the seven indicators which are assumed to be equally important indicators of Technology Readiness. From Table 7 we can see that: (a) Singapore has an outstanding performance with excellent rankings for all of the seven indicators. (b) The two Plus 3 members (Japan and Korea Republic) and the three ASEAN members (Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand) appear to have the next best overall performance. Brunei Darussalam and Indonesia form the next group while the remainder (Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar) have weak performances and in particular none of this group has an excellent ranking on any of the seven Technology Readiness indicators. 4.4 Business Innovation Table 8 shows separately the six indicators used to evaluate Business Innovation as identified in Appendix Table A3 and the manner in which ASEAN Plus 3 members were ranked on these indicators.

12 12 Table 8: Rankings of ASEAN Plus 3 members on indicators for Business Innovation Indicator Ranking (Abbreviation) Excellent Fair Poor Japan, Malaysia, Cambodia, Capacity for Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Lao PDR, Myanmar innovation Korea Republic, Vietnam (IN) Philippines, China Quality of Scientific research institutions (QSR) Company spending on R&D (CS) University-industry collaboration in R&D (UIC) Government procurement of advanced technology products (GPT) Availability of scientists and engineers Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea Republic, China, Indonesia Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Korea Republic, China, Indonesia, Philippines Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Korea Republic, Indonesia, China, Thailand Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Korea Republic, Japan, Vietnam, China Japan, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Korea Republic Thailand, Philippines Lao PDR, Vietnam Lao PDR, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia Philippines, Lao PDR, Vietnam Lao PDR, Philippines Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam Cambodia, Myanmar Myanmar Cambodia, Myanmar Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar (SE) Notes: (a) * Indicates data collected from CGI ; (b) Plus 3 members are highlighted. From Table 8 we can see that: (a) The Plus 3 members are ranked as excellent on each of the six indicators and so are the three ASEAN members: Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. With the exception of Cambodia, and Myanmar, which are poorly ranked on almost all of the six indicators, the remaining 70 percent of ASEAN members are mainly ranked as fair. (b) As a group the ASEAN members appear to do best on the Indicator Company spending on R&D with 90 percent ranked as fair or excellent and only Myanmar ranked poorly. In terms of the number of fair and poor rankings the ASEAN members worst performances are for the two related indicators: Quality of Scientific research institutions and Availability of scientists and engineers where, in both cases 70 percent of the ASEAN members are ranked as fair or poor. Table 9 provides a different perspective on the Business Innovation indicators to that in Table 8 and shows separately for each ASEAN Plus 3 member the manner in which they were ranked across all of the six indicators for Business Innovation. The abbreviations for the indicators are as identified in the previous Table 8.

13 13 Table 9: Each Country's Ranking on Indicators for Business Innovation Country/Economy Ranking Excellent Fair Poor China IN, QSR, CS, UIC, GPT, - - SE Japan IN, QSR, CS, UIC, GPT, - - SE Korea Republic IN, QSR, CS, UIC, GPT, - - SE Indonesia IN, QSR, CS, UIC, GPT, - - SE Malaysia IN, QSR, CS, UIC, GPT, - - SE Singapore IN, QSR, CS, UIC, GPT, - - SE Philippines IN, CS QSR, UIC, GPT, SE - Vietnam GPT IN, QSR, CS, UIC, SE - Brunei Darussalam* GPT IN, QSR, CS, UIC, SE - Thailand UIC IN, QSR, CS, SE GPT Lao PDR - IN, QSR, CS, UIC, SE GPT Cambodia - CS IN, QSR, UIC, GPT, SE Myanmar - - IN, QSR, CS, UIC, GPT, SE Notes: (a) * Indicates data collected from CGI ; (b) Plus 3 members are highlighted. As for Table 7 above, the entries in the rows in Table 9 have been organized to display the sequence of ASEAN Plus 3 members which reflects a decrease in their overall performance across the six indicators which are assumed to be equally important indicators of Business Innovation. From Table 9 we can see that: (a) As noted above in relation to Table 8 all of the Plus 3 members with Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia form an outstanding group with excellent rankings for all of the indicators. (b) The Philippines is next with a slightly better performance than the next group (Vietnam, Brunei Darussalam, and Thailand) which are ahead of the mainly fair rankings for Lao PDR. The worst performances are for Cambodia and Myanmar with mainly poor rankings on all indicators. 5. DISCUSSION The discussion is focused on relating the results from the data analyses presented in the previous section 4 to the purpose of the study which was to report on Thailand s position with respect to ICT development and then to compare Thailand s position with that of the other 12 ASEAN Plus 3 members. In order to facilitate the discussion of the findings Table 10 presents an overall summary of the performance of each member on the indicators associated with the four components in the theoretical framework that was used to assess their positions with respect to ICT development.

14 14 Table 10: Summary of Members Performances Component in the Theoretical Framework Higher Country Stage of Technology Business Education /Economy Economic Readiness Innovation System Development (7 Indicators) (6 Indicators) (2 Indicators) Plus 3 Members Excellent(5), Japan Innovation Excellent(2) Excellent(6) Total (15 Indicators) Excellent(13), Fair(2) Fair(2) Korea Excellent(1), Excellent(5), Excellent(12), Innovation Excellent(6) Republic Fair(1) Fair(2) Fair(3) China Efficiency Excellent(1), Fair(5), Excellent(7), Excellent(6) Fair(1) Poor(2) Fair(6), Poor(2) ASEAN Members Singapore Innovation Excellent(2) Excellent(7) Excellent(6) Excellent(15) Malaysia Efficiency Excellent(4), Excellent(12), Excellent(2) Excellent(6) Innovation Fair(3) Fair(3) Excellent(2), Excellent(10), Indonesia Efficiency Excellent(2) Fair(2), Excellent(6) Fair(2), Poor(3) Poor(3) Philippines Factor Efficiency Brunei Darussalam Factor Efficiency Excellent(1), Fair(1) Excellent(2) Thailand Efficiency Fair(2) Vietnam Factor Excellent(1), Fair(1) Excellent(3), Fair(4) Excellent(2), Fair(4), Poor(1) Excellent(2), Fair(5) Fair(5), Poor(2) Excellent(2), Fair(4) Excellent(1), Fair(5) Excellent(1), Fair(4), Poor(1) Excellent(1), Fair(5) Lao PDR Factor Fair(2) Fair(2), Poor(5) Fair(5), Poor(1) Cambodia Factor Poor(2) Fair(2), Poor(5) Fair(1), Poor(5) Myanmar Factor Poor(2) Fair(1), Poor(6) Poor(6) Note: indicates a state of transition. Excellent(6), Fair(9) Excellent(5), Fair(9), Poor(1) Excellent(3), Fair(11), Poor(1) Excellent(2), Fair(11), Poor(2) Fair(9), Poor(6) Fair(3), Poor(12) Fair(1), Poor(14) In Table 10 the total across those indicators ranked as Excellent, Fair, and Poor was used to sequence the ASEAN members and the Plus 3 members separately into an order of worsening performance. Among ASEAN Plus 3 members it is seen that Thailand is in 9 th position and in 6 th position among the ASEAN members. Thailand is only better than the four ASEAN members (Vietnam, Lao PDR, Cambodia, and Myanmar). Overall, Singapore is the clear leader. Regarding the Plus 3 members, Japan is in 2 nd place, Korea Republic is in the same level with Malaysia in 3 rd place, and China is ranked lowest around 6 th position with the Philippines.

15 The Stage of Economic Development In terms of the 2014 estimates of the GCI Thailand s ranking of 31 among 144 countries worldwide has improved since Among ASEAN members Thailand is in third place behind Singapore and Malaysia and in sixth place when the Plus 3 members are included. Thailand s status as an efficiency-driven economy indicates reasonably efficient production processes and product quality. Its economic development is ranked ahead of China and all of the ASEAN members except for Singapore and Malaysia. However, Thailand has been classified as an efficiency-driven economy for the past three years and in order to transition to the next level as an innovation-driven economy it will need to develop competitiveness based on new and unique products with production processes that are efficient and innovative. As noted by the World Economic Forum (2014) in order to make the transition Thailand will need to develop its scientific research, be proactive at adopting the latest technologies, and foster a business sector that offers excellent support and on-the-job-training. Innovation requires: a smoothly functioning workforce market; an excellent education system; close relationships among enterprises, universities, and research institutes (World Economic Forum, 2014). Strong collaboration between academic and business sectors together with a high level of business investment on R&D should ensure that research work will translate into innovative products and services. The economies of Singapore, Japan, and the Korea Republic have been classified as innovation-driven for more than three years and are leaders in ASEAN Plus 3 producing new and unique products. Thailand should take note of innovative practices in these countries and adapt these practices to the context of Thailand. 5.2 The Higher Education System The quality of Thailand s higher education system is only ranked as fair. Among ASEAN members it has the same ranking as for Vietnam and Lao PDR and it is only better than the poor rankings for Cambodia and Myanmar. In Thailand, Philippines, and Lao Internet access for schools is only ranked as fair and among ASEAN members Thailand s ranking is only better than the poor rankings for Cambodia, Myanmar. Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, and Indonesia have excellent higher education systems and excellent Internet access in schools while at the other end of the scale Cambodia and Myanmar have poor rankings on both indicators. Given the strong relationship between the higher education system and the development of an innovation-driven economy it is strongly recommended that Thailand investigate carefully the relevant aspects of the higher education systems in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore and attempt to adopt the best practices. 5.3 Technology Readiness For technology readiness Singapore is a clear leader among ASEAN plus 3 members. Thailand in 6 th position among the ASEAN Plus 3 members and in 4 th position among the ASEAN members. It is encouraging to see two indicators (Foreign direct investment and technology transfer and Mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 population) are ranked as excellent even though the other five indicators are ranked as fair for Thailand. In particular, it will be necessary for Thailand to improve its ranking on the indicators Availability of latest technologies, Firm-level technology absorption, and International Internet bandwidth (kb/s) per internet user in order to transition to an innovation-driven economy. Approaches used in the more technologically advanced nations of Singapore, Japan, Korea Republic, and Malaysia should be studied and adapted for use in Thailand.

16 Business Innovation For business innovation the leaders are Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia as well as the Plus 3 members. Thailand is in 10 th position among the ASEAN Plus 3 members and in 7 th position among the ASEAN members. Thailand has a relatively low level of performance on these business innovation indicators. This further evidenced by the only fair ranking of the indicator Capacity for innovation, which is directly related to Thailand s current economic status as an efficiency-driven rather than an innovation-driven economy. The poor ranking for the indicator Government procurement of advanced technology products points to a role that Government must play in improving business innovation in Thailand. For Thailand the only business innovation indicator ranked as excellent is University-industry collaboration in R&D and this is encouraging because it may assist with improving the fair rankings for the three indicators Quality of Scientific research institutions, Availability of scientists and engineers, and Company spending on R&D. Thailand still obtains at moderate level for quality of higher education system with having just fairly Internet access level. In addition, the quality of scientific research institutions and company investment on research development are also considered merely satisfy. These considered weak characteristics are confirmed by having just adequate level of latest technologies availability, small percentage of Internet users, and simply quality of Internet services in Thailand. As a consequence, the capacity for business innovation is just at acceptable level. Since, ICT is anticipated to be an engine for boosting other economic sectors, ICT professional will need to obtain broad scope of knowledge and skills with involving ICT technical and business expertise, especially in the area of network and communication system as well as business applications. These might help increase the capability for developing and adopting new and advance technologies in various aspects thus enhance the capacity of business innovation. They all are considered importance for sustainable development which has been addressed as key components of ICT2020. Thus, Thailand ICT2020 strategies needs to be seriously monitored especially the utilization of ICT to lessen inequality and provide equally opportunity for the Thai people in order that a sustainable development of social, economic, and environment can be achieved. The Thai government and responsible units need to pay more attention on these lagged progressions and seek for efficient means to expedite the achievement of these strategies. 6. CONCLUSION In relation to ICT development it is evident that only two ASEAN members (Singapore and Malaysia) are well positioned for participation in the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). Singapore is a clear leader among the ASEAN members and that is also true when the Plus 3 members are taken into consideration. Singapore is considered to be an innovation-driven economy and Malaysia is transitioning to that status. All of the other ASEAN members economies are at lower levels of economic development and are confronted by many areas for improvement in order to reach the same level as Singapore. Consequently, initially the playing field is not level among the members of the AEC. Across the four components in the theoretical framework used in this study to examine ICT development in the ASEAN plus 3 community Thailand appears to be ranked in sixth position among the 10 ASEAN members and ninth among the ASEAN plus 3 members. Consequently, Thailand has to make improvements in several key areas in order to transition from an efficiency-driven economy to an innovation-driven economy. The quality of the higher education system must be improved and Internet access in schools must be extended. In relation to technology readiness there need to be increases in: the availability of the latest technologies; firm-level technology absorption; penetration rates for Internet use; broadband

17 17 internet subscriptions; and international Internet bandwidth. Business innovation must be improved by increasing: the capacity for innovation; the quality of scientific research institutions; the availability of scientists and engineers; company spending on R&D; and Government procurement of advanced technology products. On the other hand, Thailand is ranked as excellent with regard to: foreign direct investment and technology transfer; mobile broadband subscriptions; and university-industry collaboration in R&D and all of these may assist in forming a sound basis for the required improvements in other aspects of Thailand s ICT readiness for AEC membership. It is concluded that the theoretical framework adopted for this study and the associated sources of existing data and statistics have provided valuable detailed information in relation to the ICT readiness of Thailand for membership in the AEC. Most of the sources of data are parts of reports that a published regularly and it is recommended that these sources be monitored to track changes in Thailand s relative position among ASEAN Plus 3 members. 7. REFERENCES Aasheim, C., Lee, C.K. and Reichgelt, H. (2006) An Implementation of the IT Fundamentals Knowledge Area in an Introductory IT Course, Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, ASEAN ICT Masterplan 2015, publications/asean-publications/item/asean-ict-masterplan-2015 ATCI, Association of Thai Computer Industry (2001) IT Market Outlook Australian Government, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. (2006) Building Australian ICT Skills: Report of the ICT Skills Foresighting Working Group, 80 pages. Bullen, C.V., Abraham, T., Gallagher, K., Kaiser, K.M. and Simon, J. (2007) Changing IT Skills: The Impact Of Sourcing Strategies On In-House Capability Requirements, Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 5, 2, Dutta, S., Mia, I. and Geiger, T. (2011) Chapter 1.1 The Networked Readiness Index : Celebrating 10 Years of Assessing Networked Readiness, The Global Information Technology Report , World Economic Forum. Foote, D. (2005) Managing IT Organization and Professionals, Presentation to the Advisory Council, Foote Partners, LCC. Intarakumnerd, P. and Panthawi, P. (2003) Science and Technology Development: Toward a Knowledge-bBsed Economy, Chapter 3 in Makishima, M. and Suksiriserekul, S. (Eds.), Human Resource Development: Toward a Knowledge-Based Economy: The Case of Thailand, IDE Publications, Bangkok, Maguire, J. (2006d) Top Five Fastest Growing IT Jobs. earthweb.com/career/article.php/ McAdams, J. (2007) The Hottest Skills for 2007: With fewer openings this year, expect these five premium skills to win the jobs. /article.do?command=viewarticlebasic&articleid= Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. (2011) Executive Summary of Thailand ICT Policy Frame Work: Period (ICT2020), 39 pages. National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC) (2006).

18 18 National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NEXTEC), National Science and Technology Development Agency and Ministry of Science and Technology. (2003) Series1: Thailand ICT Indicators. /indicators2003.pdf. National Information Technology Committee Secretariat (NITC). (2002) IT-2000 Evaluation, Report Submitted to the National Information Technology Committee Secretariat. Pimchangthong, D., Plaisent, M. and Bernard, P. (2003) Key Issues in Information Systems Management: A Comparative Study of Academics and Practitioners in Thailand, Journal of Global Information Technology, 6, 4, Saala-i-Martin, X., Bilbao-Osorio, B., Blanke, J., Hanouz, M.D. and Geigar, T. (2011) Chapter 1.1 The Global Competitiveness Index : Setting the Foundations for Strong Productivity, The Global Competitiveness Report, World Economic at: Forum Warr, P.G. (2011) Thailand's Development Strategy and Growth Performance, Working Paper of World Institute for Economic Development Economic Research. Wiggins, D., Hayward B. and Johnson, G. (2006) An Honest Look at Thailand s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats, Gartner Group Seminar Presentation, Bangkok, Thailand. Winley, G.K., Arjpru, C., and Wongwuttiwat, J. (2007) National Information Technology Policy in Thailand: A Comparison among Organizational Sectors, Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 31, 7, Winley, G.K., and Wongcuttiwat, J. (2012) The Structure of the Information Technology Profession: A Comparison Among Organizational Sectors in Thailand, Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 51, 5, Wongwuttiwat, J. (2009) The Nature and Structure of the Information Systems Profession in Thailand, Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 39, 5, Wongwuttiwat, J., Arjpru, C., and Winley, G.K. (2008) Information Technologies in Thailand: An Organizational Perspective. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 7, 3, World Economic Forum Global Competitive Report World Economic Forum Global Competitive Report World Economic Forum Global Competitive Report

19 19 Appendix Tables A1, A2, and A3 show the rankings of the ASEAN Plus 3 members among 144 countries worldwide. The values of the indicators ranged from 1 to 7 with 1 as the worst and 7 as the best outcome. Table A1: Higher education and training (GCI Report ) Country/Economy Quality of the Education System (Mean Value = 3.7) Internet Access in Schools (Mean Value = 4.3) Rank Value Rank Value Brunei Darussalam* Cambodia Indonesia Lao PDR Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam China Japan Korea, Rep Notes: (a) * Used data collected from CGI ; (b) Highlighted values are below the mean value.

20 20 Table A2: Technological Readiness (Source: World Economic Forum, 2014) Notes: (a) ** Used data collected from World Economic Forum 2013 report; (b) Highlighted values are below the mean value.

21 21 Table A3: Innovation (Source: World Economic Forum, 2014) Notes: (a) ** Used data collected from CGI ; (b) Highlighted values are below the mean value.