Emerging Scenarios &Strategies in eGovernment

Gianluca Misuraca,

JRC IPTS, European Commission

Creating Smarter Cities 2011, 30th June – 1st July, Edinburgh, UK

The views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the EC

Outline

1. A decade of policy lessons from e-Government

e-Gov at the crossroads between the past and the future

2. State of play: the EU eGovernment Policy Context

Renewed Digital Plans (& the way of measuring progresses?)

3. The impacts of Web2.0 on society and eGovernment

Understanding eGov use and digital divides

4. A multidimensional perspective on Governance & ICTs

Building the Information Society addressing local challenges

5. Research and Policy Challenges

Re-thinking the way we assess eGovernment?

2

IPTS: Part of DG JRC of the EC: 7 Research Institutes across Europe

Mission: “to provide customer-

driven support to the EU policy-

making process by developing

science-based responses to

policy challenges that have both

a socio-economic as well as a

scientific or technological

dimension”

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

Information Society Unit

http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu

Setting the stage: a decade of working

together on e-Government in the EU

Como 03Brussels 01 Manchester 05 Lisbon 07 Malmö 09 Today

Modernisation

Access to all

Multi-channel

Privacy

Participation

Coh

er

en

ce

AccountabilityReorganisation

Efficiency

Improved service delivery

Productiveness

Mult

i-la

ye

r

Transparency

Indicators

Cooperation

Sharing of best practices

Inclusion by design

TRANSFORMATION

Use

r-c

entric

ity

Effectiveness

Innovation

eP

roc

ur

em

en

t

Electronic Identity

Interoperability

CROSS-BORDER

Mutually authenticated

Openness

Use

r N

eeds

QualityFlexibility

En

ga

ge

me

nt

Personalised services

Brussels 01 Como 03 Manchester 05 Lisbon 07 Malmö 09

The evolving eGovernment landscape

Results? An unclear & fragmented picture….

Source: The Economist, Special Reports, 14 Feb. 2008

The eGovernment paradox: widening unbalance growth of supply and consumption

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2001 2007

Full online availability index for citizens EU15

10% 50%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2003 2007

% of Internet users sending eGovernment

forms EU15 12% 24%

+ 400%+ 100%

Online availability index for citizens EU 15: 2001/2007

Online availability index Austria : 2001/2007

% of Internet users sending eGov forms EU 15: 2003/2008

% of Internet users sending eGov forms Austria: 2003/2008

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2001 2007

Full online availability index Austria

15% 100%

+ 567%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

2003 2007

% of Internet users sending eGovernment

forms Austria13% 20%

+ 54%

Sources: Elaboration by Codagnone & Osimo, European Commission, 2008

State of Play: eGovernment Policy ContextA renewed political interest?

eGovernment Ministerial Declaration (Malmö, Sweden, November 2009)

EU Swedish Presidency Conclusions from Visby Conference (Nov. 2009)

The Granada Strategy for a Digital Europe (April 2010)

Granada Ministerial Declaration on the DAE2020 (April 2010)

A Digital Agenda for Europe COM(2010)245 – 19.05.2010 to deliver sustainable economic and social benefits from a Single

Market based on fast and ultra fast Internet and interoperableapplications

Digital Agenda Implementation Guidelines

eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015 (December 2010)

eGoverment in the DAE2020 EU MS are committed to making user-centric,

personalised, multi-platform eGovernment services a reality by 2015 Develop and deploy cross-border public services online

Implement seamless eProcurement services

Mutual recognition of eIdentification and eAuthentication

Make eGovernment services fully interoperable Overcoming organizational, technical and semantic barriers

Supporting IPv6 implementation

Apply the EIF at national level by 2013

Trust and Security in the Digital Society Europeans will not embrace technology they do not trust – the digital

age is neither ‘big brother’ nor ‘cyber wild west’

Enhancing digital literacy, skills and inclusion The digital era should be about empowerment and emancipation;

background or skills should not be a barrier to access

Inclusive digital services

For, w

ith

, a

nd

by

Cit

ize

ns +

Bu

sin

esse

s

eGov Action Plan 2011-2015

Measure benefits

Establish pre-conditions

Promote innovation

weGovernment

eProcure

at local, regional, national and EU level

We

b2

.0

Sh

are

eID

Inte

rope

ra

bilit

y

roll out cross-border services

move towards openmodels of design, production,

& delivery

Empower users

Improve transparencyEnable efficiency & effectiveness

do more with less

Create common key enablers Clouds

SOA

Collaborateto produce

services

Set targets

Design for inclusionP

SI

Re-u

se

Involve citizens in policy makingSPOCS

STORK

PEPPOL

epSOS

ECMSs

Increase use of eGov services

Me

et u

se

rs’ r

ea

l n

ee

ds

From e-GOV expansion….

To Web 2.0 proliferation

Potential disruptive impacts of Web2.0

Users empowerment in content creation, peersupport and service delivery

Driver of social and organisational innovation

Improvement of internal work processes,products and services

New knowledge and tools for learning,healthcare management and socio-economicinclusion

Gathering of collective knowledge to enhancepolitical participation and mass-collaboration

Better informed and evidence-based policy-decision making

Source: IPTS, Impact of Social Computing, JRC-ST Report 2009

Social Computing uptake in EU27

26%

64% 36%

74%

0 100 200 300 400

Internet users

SC users

users non users

EU 27

500 millions

58%

91%

42%

8%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Internet users

SC users

users non users

Young (15-24)

millions

Source: IPTS estimation based on EUROSTAT 2008 & Flash EB N.241

Source: Codagnone & Osimo, European Commission, 2008

L M0 H

L

M

H

Digital inclusion

So

cia

l in

clu

sio

n

= currently potential eGov consumers

= currently eGov Non-consumers

basics:

simple,

but better

targeted services

DIGITAL

NATIVES

Colour of forms indicatesRadical

innovations:

Trendy & Mobile

(new services/ cross-

border services)

Web 2.0

Web 3.0

Highly

interactive

services

Mashed-up

govtDropouts :

multi-channel ,

eIntermediaries,

better policy and

service design, pre-

emptive solutions

Digital reluctant:

win minds

plus

simple

but useful

services

Potential

climbers:

ad hoc most

needed

services

eGov Users (and non users)

Limitations of current policy instruments / measurement approaches…?

How to cope with the multi-dimensional nature of ICTs

in developing the Information Society?

ICTs as monitoring,

productivity and

communication

Tools

ICTs as Structural

Effect transforming

society

ICTs as

Industrial

Domain of

their own

Governance

«with» ICTs

Governance

«of» ICTs

Management of technology Policy-making

Source: Misuraca, 2007

In spatial, economic and cultural terms, the Information Society is

dominated by cities and metropolitan regions [Graham, 2004]

around 70% of all Europeans live in cities

dominant space of ICTs industries and uses, but are also the area

where most of the poor, the disadvantaged and excluded live

government layer closest to citizens and neighborhood initiatives

most public services are offered on the city government level

in some EU-MS this share amounts to 70% of all public services

city governments are in an excellent position to engage in necessary

strategic partnerships across the public, private and third sector

Going local?

Multiple Initiatives and funding opportunities

FP7 (Pre-competitive research) and future CSF (FP+CIP+EIP+EIT)

CIP: Open Innovation for Future Internet Enabled services in Smartcities• City2020: an ICT driven transition strategy to the Low Carbon City• JPI Urban Europe

Smart Cities and Communities Initiative

Structural Funds Funds allocated to ICTs show an important absolute and relative increase to over

EUR 15 billion or 4.4% of the total cohesion policy budget.

Clear shift in the investment priorities from infrastructure to support for content development, both in the public sector (eHealth, eGovernment, etc.) and for SMEs (eLearning, eBusiness, etc.)

In the future SFs will also fund eInclusion initiatives in the ESF

Localizing the Digital Agenda…

….

Cities can play a key role in the development of the IS especially when their capacities are used in an integrated way

that allows the highest impact on social cohesion and local economies

It is at the city level that the appropriate use and integration of ICT in the governance mechanisms support better social and institutional innovation

However, so far, research has been examining mainly thesupply side and the sophistication of e-Services offered reliable data on measuring the effects of ICT-enabled

applications on governance and the impacts on specific policyareas are lacking

or where existing not yet harmonized, incomplete or difficult touse for comparison in other contexts or at EU level

Research & Policy Challenges

Measuring impacts of ICT onGovernance (not just eServices)

• The measurement of governance mainly suffers from the lack of relevantobjective data, which has forced many organisations, which attempt tomeasure governance to rely on subjective data (UN, 2002)

• According to the OECD (2009) there are several categories of internationalmeasurement frameworks and models to assess ICT-enabled user-focusedservices and modes of delivery:

– Internally focused approaches consisting of frameworks which aremainly applied within an organisation and focus on quality assuranceprocesses, addressing areas such as: leadership, strategy and planning,human resource management, process and change management, etc.

– Externally focused approaches consisting of frameworks assessing areassuch as: customer satisfaction, portal/site quality, and quality of servicefor web services.

Linking e-Government to

governance innovation & public value

• Adopting a broad definition of e-Government, such as the one suggested by

OECD (2003): e-Government can be considered as the process of innovation

of Public Administration in order to achieve innovative forms of government

and governance through the use of ICTs

– the evaluation of an e-Government system must be referred to its capacity of

improving on the whole the performance of the organisation adopting it

• In this perspective, the concept of public value can provide an interesting

point of view for the evaluation of the performances of PAs

• In a broad sense, public value refers to the value created by government

through services, law regulations and other actions

– Public value provides a broader measure than is conventionally used within the

NPM literature, covering outcomes, the means used to deliver them as well as

trust and legitimacy.

– It also addresses issues such as equity, ethos and accountability

Source: Kelly, Mulgan, Muers, 2002

Measuring Public Value(s) of e-Government

Taking into consideration different roles of stakeholders…

– external roles, in which citizens receive a value from PA as users of

services or participants in democratic processes;

– internal roles, in which citizens, as directly or indirectly involved in the

processes of production of value, nevertheless receive a public value

from PA (for instance in terms of good functioning of PA);

– mixed roles, external to PA and yet involved on different levels in the

production of public value

• …the evaluation of the outcomes of different ICT-enabled policies should

consider also their capability to increase:

– the degree of policy integration in homogeneous territorial areas;

– the organizational and operational simplification of the single

institutions forming the governance network;

– the capability to maintain cooperative relations with other

administrations, suppliers, and associations

Source: Bannister, 2002, and Castelnovo and Simonetta, 2008

gianluca.misuraca@ec.europa.eu

http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu