Developing the SAPS website for optimal service delivery

6 Development of a websites evaluation instrument

In order to assess the SAPS website, a websites evaluation instrument was subsequently developed. Its development was based on the findings and recommendations derived from the following:

The Customer Expectations Measure
The literature review
The GCIS audit of government websites
The SAPS website query analysis
The evaluation of best practices of other police agency websites

The various findings and recommendations elaborated on above were applied to develop the websites evaluation instrument. In addition, sources used to develop the website evaluation framework were also consulted. The website evaluation instrument had seven categories, namely content, architecture (overall design), information architecture (information structure), technology, style, service delivery and delivery of e-Government services.

Mouton (1996:31) explains the purpose of peer evaluation, namely to serve as a control mechanism in the search for truth. “The search for truth is not just another option or a matter of choice. Scientists who are engaged in scientific research are bound, as it were, in a ‘moral contract’ to commit themselves to the search for truth” (Mouton 1996:31). Mouton (1996:57) refers to “the market of intellectual resources”; such “market” could include peer evaluation as an item. Further, he explains (1996:57) that there are two types of resources, theoretical and methodological resources. Methodological resources include all the methods and approaches in the research process. Peer evaluation would be one such approach.

Four persons were approached and appointed as evaluators of the police agency websites. Evaluators were requested to undertake the evaluation of the SAPS website during December 2002 to March 2003, using the websites evaluation instrument. They were the following:

Evaluator 1: A website designer. She was selected because of her experience and ongoing work in the field.
Evaluator 2: An independent website consultant.
Evaluator 3: A visitor to the SAPS website (she is a regular visitor) who surfs the World Wide Web daily and has experience in collating information for websites.
Evaluator 4: A technology designer. He was also selected because of his experience and ongoing work in the field.

The rating system the evaluators used was a four-point scale, and evaluators were encouraged to add comments to explain their ratings. Ratings were remarkably consistent, and where there were differences, the comments usually provided sufficient clarification to effectively interpret the differences, The fact that there were some differences is also important, because these differences highlighted each individual evaluator’s perceptions of the site.