Some benchmarking issues

BENCHMARKING E-GOV

Source: Deakin, M. (2010) SCRAN’s Development of a Trans-National Comparator for the Standardisation of eGovernment Services”, in Reddick, C. ed., Comparative E-government: An Examination of E-Government Across Countries, Springer (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

2

Learning

Intellectual Capital

RegionUniversity

Communal Environmental

City

SocialKnowledge

Arch

Curve

Customisation

Multi-channelling

User-profiling

Built on

Bus

ines

s

Gov

ernm

ent

Net

wor

king

Monitoring & evaluation

Capacity building

Co-design

Enterprise architectureBusiness modelling

CustomisationMulti-channelling

User-profilingCapacity building

Co-design Monitoring and evaluation

Triple-helix of knowledge-

based learning and generation of intellectual

capital

Edinburgh Conference:

towards Smarter Cities

Underpinned byM

arc

h 2

00

9

Triple-helix model

Benchmarking ofeGovernment services• Using the typology of administrative systems put forward by Torres et

al (2005), it is evident the democracies of the North Sea roughly approximate to the Nordic (Norse, Danish, Swedish and Finish) nation-states and are a mix of Anglo-American (UK) and European Continental administrations (those of Netherlands, Germany and Belgium)

• As such they are said to be: consumer-centred, client orientated, citizen-based, consultative and increasingly deliberative in their search for efficiency and effectiveness from the development of eGov services

• Torres et al (2005) have gone on to use these characteristics as a means to review the e-readiness of each European member-state and assess levels of provision in terms of both the depth and breadth of the service available on city websites. The outcomes of this exercise have in turn been used to construct a “maturity index” of such developments

4

Benchmarking ofeGovernment servicesUsing this index of eGov service development, the exercise uncovers three “city groupings” These are the: • Innovative group: with a strong position in delivering services online (up to

60% of total) and good situation with respect to the stages of development i.e. informational, interactive and transactional.

• Steady achiever: offering great potential for the development of the Internet, but with a limited range of online services (between 45-30%).

• Platform builders: web sites offering the lowest level of services online and benefits to citizens (less than 30%, with little more than the power to offer information).

Within this classification of city websites, all those within the North Sea fall into the “steady achiever‟ category with modest online presence, either at the informational, interactive, or transactional level of provision.

5

EU i2010Benchmarking report

6

the North Sea now has an average score of .....

EU i2010Benchmarking report

7 Source: EC (2009)Smarter, Faster, Better Government

BENCHMARKING CO-DESIGN

8

Co-designTransforming the citizen

10

ICT Novice ICT ExpertP

assi

ve c

itize

nA

ctive citizen

“The value of Community Informatics to participatory urban planning and design: a case-study in Helsinki”Joanna Saad-Sulonen and Liisa Horelli, 2010Journal of Community Informaticshttp://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/579/603

?

The context

Level of active involvement of citizens in service delivery

High Low (or none)

Level of active

involvement of

service profession

als

High Co-production &Co-design

Traditional professionally-led services

Low(or none)

User-led self-organising services

Volunteer-led self-organising services

11

Initiation DesignImplement-

ation &Delivery

Evaluation & Maintenance

Why benchmark?

Questions• What are our peers doing, and how are we

placed in relation to them?• What is acceptable good practice, and how are

we placed with regard to these practices?• Based upon these comparisons, can we be said

to be doing enough?• How do we identify what is required to be done

to reach an adequate level of activity?

13

Organisational capabilityfor co-design

0

•Non-existent.

1

•Initial/Ad Hoc

2

•Repeatable but Intuitive

3

•Defined Process

4

•Managed and Measurable

5

•Optimised

14

WORKSHOP II

15