eParticipation initiatives in Europe: Learning from Practitioners

University of Macedonia

© Information Systems Lab

eParticipation initiatives in Europe: Learning from Practitioners

Eleni Panopoulou, Efthimios Tambouris,

Konstantinos Tarabanis



© Information Systems Lab 2

Contents

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion



Objective

Objective

– to investigate the use of ICT and derive the success factors of

eParticipation initiatives according to the practitioners’ view

By

– conducting a survey of eParticipation initiatives across Europe and at

different levels (from local to international)



Contents

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion



Methodology - in a nutshell

1. Identification of eParticipation initiatives across Europe

2. Drafting suitable questionnaire

3. Contacting the owners

4. Processing of results



1st step – Initiatives identification

Methods employed:

1. desktop research, i.e.

initiatives mentioned in the literature

initiatives identified through web surfing and the help of search engines

for the European level, we searched within the numerous EU institutions, the College of Commissioners, the EU policy documents as well as political parties and civil societies

2. databases of websites and award nominations, i.e.

epractice.eu,

e-participation.net,

eEurope Awards for eGovernment,

UK e-Government National Awards,

Stockholm Challenge awards,

etc.

3. through our network of experts and key actors in the field

In overall:

– 255 initiatives from 23 European countries – collected contact data for 230 of them

An extensive analysis of the survey cases is presented at:

Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E. and Tarabanis, K.: eParticipation good practice cases and diffusion. European eParticipation Study deliverable (2008), available at http://islab.uom.gr/eP/

Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E. and Tarabanis, K.: eParticipation initiatives: How is Europe progressing? European Journal of ePractice (2008), available at http://www.epractice.eu



2nd step – Questionnaire drafting

Based on:

1. a preliminary literature review of eParticipation evaluation frameworks, i.e.

– Rowe and Frewer (2000) Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation

– Tambouris, Liotas, and Tarabanis (2007) A framework for Assessing eParticipation Projects and Tools.

– Macintosh and Whyte (2008) Towards an Evaluation Framework for eParticipation.

– DEMO-net Consortium (2008) D13.3 DEMO-net booklet: eParticipation Evaluation and Impact

2. good practice criteria definitions in different contexts, mostly

– theory for eGovernment good practice

– awards for eGovernment initiatives

Developed as an excel workbook with 3 sheets/sections:

1. Identification

2. Management and Operation

3. Results and Impact



2nd step - Questionnaire SECTION A - IDENTIFICATION

1

2

3 Scope4 Start date End date5

6

7 Contact details Person 1

Name of the case in english

Name of the case in case's official language

Short title or acronym of the case in english

Short title or acronym of the case in case's official language

Web address of the case

Full address

Organisation

Email address

Role/position in project

Full name

Telephone and fax

Case abstract (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)

Country /City /Region

Date on which the case became operational

Person 2

SECTION B - MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION8

9

10

11

12

13Participant

(user)

Project

owner /

initiator

Decision

maker

Moderator /

facilitator

Data /

results

processor

User of

results

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 Check

24

What privacy/ security issues did you confront and how did you handle them? (max 700 chars/~100 words)

Description of the way you manage the participation process (max 2000 chars/~300 words)

Which is/are the operational language/s of your case? Additionally, have you considered the possibility to launch the

project in another language? (max 700 chars/~ 100 words)

Current case status

Streaming media Web 2.0 features

Ontologies Data mining

Geographical information systems Natural language processing

Mobile and wireless technologies Semantic web services

Check

Digital signature and security protocols Collaborative environments

Elected representatives

Government (executives and/or administration)

NGOs, CSOs, etc.

Technologies utilised Check

Participation focus Check

Consultation

Environment

Objective (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)

Stakeholders / Roles

Local/Regional community development

Policy Context and Legal Framework (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)

Check

Argumentation Support Systems

Consultation

Check

Discourse

CheckCheckSector

Mass communication media

Politics

Social Security

Health

If other, please explain:

Social Services

Spatial planning

Taxation

Travel, Transports and Motoring

Other

Culture and Media

Education, Science and Research

Employment

Crime, Justice and Law

Campaigning

Voting

Mediation

Electioneering

Deliberation

Political Parties and politicians

Other diverse stakeholders, other public sector partners,

quasi non-governmental organisations, etc

If other, please explain:

Other

Citizen Groups

Academia / Research

Industry (including IT and Consulting)

Description of target users or target groups (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)

Individual citizens

ICT tools used Check Check

Access facilitated by an intermediary or proxy access

Non ‘e’ channels (only when these are used together with ‘e’ channels)

ePetition systems Webcasts

eVoting and eReferenda Podcasts

eConsultation systems Wikis

Virtual community systems Blogs

Online surgeries and chat rooms GIS and mapping tools

Decision-making games Search engines

Online newsletters / listservs

ePanels Alert services

Suggestion tools for planning procedures

eParticipation discussion forums

Other tools (not listed above):

Quick polls

Please describe which non 'e' channels you utilised and in what way:

Groupware tools

Web portals

FAQseDeliberative polling

Mobile channel supporting the use of the tool through mobile phones, palmtops, etc.

Public Kiosks

Digital TV

Funding source Please, provide more details here:

Public funding EU

Public funding national

Public funding regional

Public funding local

Private sector funding

Charity, voluntry contributions

Implementation cost Exact numerical value

Yearly cost Exact numerical value

Managing organisation

Information Provision

Community building / Collaborative Environments

Participation area

Communication

Owning organisation

Hosting organisation

Channels utilised

Conventional Internet channel for use by PC

Check

Spatial planning

Polling

Active Participation

Delegation of Power

Provision of Information

Knowledge Management

Surveys

SECTION C - RESULTS AND IMPACT

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33 Project duration and sustainability34

35

36

37

38

(Potential for) replication or implementation of a similar formula in other contexts (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)

Visibility

Dissemination efforts and results (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)

Functionality

Evaluation of usefulness and functionality (max 2000 chars/~ 300 words)

Transferability and sharing of practice

Please insert here any additional information that is not previously covered in this questionnaire (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)

What problems did you encounter and which were the critical success factors of your project? (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)

Will the project be able to continue in the future? What are the implications? (max 700 chars/~ 100 words)

Sustainability and future development

Innovation and novelty (max 2000 chars/~ 300 words)

Lessons learnt

Lessons learnt (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)

What, in your project’s opinion, constitutes 'perfect participation’? (max 700 chars/~ 100 words)

What have you achieved in terms of improving participation? (max 700 chars/~ 100 words)

How would you rate the aforementioned achievements on a scale from 0-4 where 4 is perfect participation and 0 is none?

Results and achievements

Please provide an overall summary of real or expected achievements and results; if possible with figures (max 2700 chars/~ 300 words)

Innovation and novelty

Who benefits from your case and in what way? (max 2000 chars/~ 300 words)

Please provide a summary of the impact of your case from either a policy or a societal perspective (max 2000 chars/~ 300 words)

Societal impact



3rd and 4th step – Survey

1. Contacting initiative owners

3 to 4 months

allowing time to draft the answers, clarify questions, etc.

2. Processing of results



Contents

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion



Initiatives’ profile

40 initiatives

from 12 countries across Europe:

– Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany (6), Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (10).

active at all different levels:

– 1 international

– 9 European

– 14 national

– 4 regional

– 12 local

Ownership status:

– 80% initiated and owned by public authorities, bodies and organisations

– 20% owned by NGOs, private or independent institutions, Universities, or political parties



Use of ICT

10%

100%

18%

8%

3%

30%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Internet

Mobiles

Kiosks

Digital TV

Intermediary

access

Other non "e"

channels

Communication channels

Finding: A large number of initiatives use additional channels (usually

offline) in addition to the Internet



Use of ICT

Tools

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Web portals

eParticipation discussion forums

Online new sletters / listservs

eConsultation systems

FAQs

Search engines

Alert services

Surveys

Virtual community systems

ePetition systems

Quick polls

Groupw are tools

eVoting and eReferenda

Chat rooms

eDeliberative polling

Webcasts

Blogs

GIS and mapping tools

Suggestion tools for planning procedures

Wikis

Decision-making Games

ePanels

Podcasts

Finding: The vast majority of initiatives use “general-purpose” ICT tools (such as

discussion forums, FAQs etc) and not tools specifically designed for eParticipation



Success factors

Based on owners’ answers on questions related to:

– problems encountered

– critical success factors

– lessons learnt

Analysis indicated 7 groups of factors:

1. Commitment by the government

2. Usability

3. Combining different channels, both online and offline ones

4. A thorough communication and promotion plan

5. Security and privacy

6. Organisational issues

7. Topics complexity and quality of participation



1 - Commitment by the government

actual involvement of governmental bodies and agencies not only as owners but throughout the whole participation process:

– Drive to set up and support the initiative.

– Need for champions from within the organisation to embrace and promote internally the project backed up by an actual willingness of the organisation to hold a government-citizen dialogue.

– Support of the participatory process.

– Throughout all phases (design-operation-evolvement)

– From all parts of the organisation (from officials and management down to the secretariat of every operational unit)

– i.e. business integration of the relevant units/roles to the participatory process

– i.e. actual participation of officials/appointed civil servants in the initiative (virtual presence) and physical presence in related events and meetings

– Feedback and integration of results.

– experience shows the involved government bodies did not provide feedback to the issues and questions raised or that they provided answers either too generic or too selective (probably only to the “easy” issues raised)

– participants fear that “the whole process might lead to nothing” and demand a clear commitment, i.e.

– provide feedback on the overall results and explain how these will be used in the future

– integrate the results into the political process



2 - Usability

should be really easy and intuitive for all kinds of users (independent

of age, educational level, ICT literacy, etc)

special attention to user interface - dynamic development of technical

features whenever it is considered essential

aims of the initiative & usage rules clearly defined and explicitly

described online

provision of help-desk facilities was a positive lesson learnt

the need for simplicity should not become a barrier for enhanced

functionality

users expect to keep in pace with technological developments and

incorporate new features used in different settings, such as more

interactivity and social networking



3 - Combining different channels, online and offline

eParticipation initiatives rely heavily on traditional internet access

through personal PCs and laptops

43% utilise at least one additional online or offline channel

30% combine online with offline channels

channels mix facilitates inclusiveness - multiple channels increase the

participation figures, i.e.

– in consultation/deliberation initiatives: Combining online tools with offline

meetings and workshops contributes to enhanced inclusiveness and

satisfaction

– in initiatives performing any kind of voting (official national voting,

municipal, small scale voting): Citizens prefer different voting methods,

thus in order to raise the overall turnout a combination of channels is

needed



4 - A thorough communication and promotion plan

Owners directly linked promotion with actual success

absolute need for

– a detailed, professional and intensive communications strategy

– the will and the resources to back it up until the end

– develop appropriate branding

– distinct and easily recognised name and logo

– special attention to the key message that gets across to citizens

– one dedicated resource to promote the initiative, to be in constant

communication with all kinds of stakeholders and to engage in getting

users on board

marketing mix is to be decided by each initiative after considering its

own specificities



5 - Security and privacy

100% agree that it is extremely important, especially in initiatives that

implement any kind of voting

– all such initiatives have reported that they utilise security mechanisms of

different kinds and no security breaches were reported among these.

No unanimity on the ideal degree of anonymity in

consultation/deliberation initiatives

– most owners design their initiatives to be anonymous in order not to

intimidate users who are concerned whether their personal information

will be available online to the rest of the participants

– others are against anonymity: contributing users posting under their full

name bring integrity to their opinion as well as an overall trust towards

the whole initiative and the produced outcomes

– the ideal approach depends on the actual circumstances of each

initiative, the kind of users it targets, the prestige the owner brings to the

effort, etc.



6 - Organisational issues

Management

– strong project management is essential

– a senior person appointed as a dedicated resource responsible for the whole project

– establish an effective and sustainable management process with short tasks and checkpoints and defined communication channels among the team members

– need for generous timescales and contingency planning

Processes

– the initiative should offer an end-to-end effective, satisfying and timely experience

– start from the initial conceptualising phase

– take into consideration the particular needs and circumstances of the targeted audience

– devise a tailor-made participation methodology to fit the purposes of the initiative at hand

– active two-way communication between operators and users is a must

– keep the tools for users’ comments and contact as simple as possible

– get users involved in the development/enhancement process

– need for clear and realistic business processes

– ensure that all different roles/departments provide relevant content/feedback in due time and according to the promises made

Moderation

– heavy, active and timely moderation needed

– moderators need adequate training

– to be able to support and promote open, serious, and high quality participation

– to be able to keep up the commitment and enthusiasm of users

– possess sufficient awareness of participation principles and practices in order to identify and tackle inevitable difficulties such as the conscious or unconscious domination of the discussion by some extremely active users



7 - Topics complexity and quality of participation

The technocratic and legislative complexity as well as the limited

knowledge and expertise of users prevented a deep deliberation on

the issues at hand limiting thus participation at a superficial and trivial

level

The fact that many participants did not appear ready to be involved in

productive dialogue and they rather preferred to generally express

opinions, personal view points or convictions, which were rarely

supported by informed arguments, deteriorated the situation

Need for a preliminary processing of the data under discussion to

make it understandable by non-experts



Contents

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion



Relevant work in eGovernment

Benefits include avoid personal interaction, control over service delivery, convenience, cost, personalization and time; while barriers for adoption include confidentiality, easy to use, enjoyable, reliable, safe and visual appearance1

Barriers include IT infrastructure, security and privacy, IT skills, organisational (e.g. unclear vision, lack of communication between departments etc) and operational cost2

Our results vs relevant eGovernment work

– certain factors are common, such as usability, security and privacy

– certain factors deemed particularly important for eParticipation practitioners, do not seem to deserve particular attention in eGovernment. (i.e. combining online with offline channels, having a thorough communication and promotion plan, topics complexity and quality of participation)

– organisational aspects in eParticipation have somehow a different orientation as besides project management they also include participatory processes and moderation which are unique to eParticipation

1. Gilbert, D., and Balestrini, P.: Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-government. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4), 286-301 (2004)

2. Ebrahim, Z., and Irani, Z.: E-government adoption: architecture and barriers. Business Process Management Journal, 11(5), 589-611 (2005)



Contents

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion



Study Limitations

language of communication

– a large number of languages were employed for identifying eParticipation

initiatives

– the questionnaire was in English and all communication with initiatives’

owners was also performed in English

low response rate of returned questionnaires

– some initiatives had officially ended

– the questionnaire had a significant length

– English was the only language of communication

– our team used different media (e.g. email, telephone, fax) for a long

period of time



Contents

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion



Conclusion

Interesting results for

– practitioners: as they distil others’ experience in a usable form

– researchers: as they enable validating theoretical models and academic

frameworks based on real data

Future work

– in depth investigation of similarities and differences between

eGovernment and eParticipation success factors

– initial results indicate there might be considerable differences



Acknowledgments

Part of this work was conducted within “The European eParticipation

Study (2007-2009)” project, funded by the European Union.

The European eParticipation Study (2007-2009)

has been involved in, amongst others,

gathering eParticipation initiatives across

Europe and drafting recommendations for

the EU based on practitioners’ experience

DTI, University of Leeds and UOM partnered in this study

http://www.european-eparticipation.eu/



Thank you for your attention!

For more information please contact:

Eleni Panopoulou [email protected]

Efthimios Tambouris [email protected]

eParticipation initiatives in Europe: Learning from Practitioners

Presentations & Public Speaking

Transcript of eParticipation initiatives in Europe: Learning from Practitioners