Dr. Alexander SchellongBerlin, 30/09/2011
EU E-Government Benchmark Benchmarking Open Government
Why benchmarking?
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 2
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
• Evaluate• Control• Budget• Motivate• Promote• Celebrate• Learn• Improve
Curent / Past EU eGovernment benchmark
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 3
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Full-On line Availability
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Austria
Malta
Portug
al
Slovenia
Unite
d King
domNorw
ay
Swed
en
Germ
any
Estonia
France Ita
lySp
ain
Finlan
d
Denm
ark
Netherla
nds
Belgium
Czech
Rep
ubl ic
Turke
y
Hungary
Icelan
d
Irelan
d
Cyprus
Greec
e
Luxembo
urg
Lithu
ania
Romania
Slova
kiaLa
tvia
Polan
d
Switzerla
nd
Bul gar i
a
Full online availability EU27+
Country Reports
AnnexService Results & Definitions
•More informed / structured Landscaping
Management Summary
Pilot / Elective Measures:
- Service Directive
- Life Events
- PEGS3
National Portal E-procurement
4
Sophistication User-Centricity
12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Austria
Slove
niaMalta
Portu
gal
Unite
d King
d omFra
nce
Sweden
Eston
ia
No rway
German
ySpa
in
Nethe
rlands
Finland
Belgi
um
Denm
arkIta
ly
Ireland
Czec
h Rep
u blic
Hungar
y
Turke
y
Greece
Iceland
Luxe
mbourg
Cypru
s
Lithua
nia
Switz
erland
Roman
ia
Slovakia
Latvi
a
Polan
d
Bulga
ria
Online sophistication EU27+
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Austria
Slovenia
Malta
Portuga
l
Un ited K
ingdom
Franc
e
Sweden
Eston
ia
Norway
Germany
Spain
Ne therland
s
Finland
Belgi
um
Denmark
Italy
Irelan
d
Czech R
epubli
c
Hungar
y
Tur ke
y
Greece
Icela
nd
Luxe
mbourg
Cypru
s
Lithu
ania
Switz
erland
Romania
Slovakia
Latvi
a
Poland
Bulga
ria
Online sophistication EU27+
Basic 20 Services
User Satisfaction5
Timetable EU eGovernment benchmark
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 4
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
March Kick OffApril Revision of measurements
Expert group peer review of approachMethodology & indicator definitions acceptedCountry list finalizedStart of execution of web surveys
May-June Execution of web surveysPilots
July-August Processing of PilotsQuality Control Findings
August-September Validation with member states
Meeting to review draft reportOct Completion of final reportNov: Presentation of report at e.g. Malmoe
Phase 1: Methodological preparations
Phase 2: Survey Benchmark Preparations
Phase 3: Conduct Benchmark study
Phase 4: Process results and reporting
March April May June July August September October
Methodology & Indicators
Agreed
Country DataObtained
Preliminary report
Final report
Phase planning & milestones
Basic 20 services: Sophistication / Online AvailabiityPolicy Goal: i2010 – Efficiency and Effectiveness, Service
Transformation
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 5
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Commentary• A shift from a supply-side indicator towards a smart indicator: case-oriented view of e-government
services. Requires revision of: - List of services- Definition of services
• Value of International Expansion• Ongoing review of measurement procedures to ensure maximum burden reduction towards MS.
Current Position Indicator: 5-stages maturity modelStage 1 – InformationStage 2 - InteractionStage 3 - Two-way interactionStage 4 - TransactionStage 5 - Proactive and/or automatic delivery of service.Unit of analysis:List of URLs
2009Indicator: Indicator will remain stable in 2009 to allow for comparability.- Possible addition to review of 20 services: Pan-European interoperability, participation/consultationAction: - Approach requires rapid validation by Member State representatives.- Piloting in 2009 of alternative methods (e.g. webcrawlers)
Unit of analysis:.Action: Validation and Update of list of URLs is required.
Future Direction-To be evaluated post 2009 measurement-Gov 2.0 policy priorities, global policy priorities, life/customer events- Benchlearning exercise to measure connected government (Lot 2)
User Centricity (citizen satisfaction, business climate)Policy Goal: i2010 – No citizen left behind, Effectiveness of
online services
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 6
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Commentary• Data fields subindicator failed• Accessibility testing (logo) was contested by many MS, Webcrawler methodology reviewing agreed
standards will provide much richer information• Extension of authentication subindicator to businesses, Investigation of relevance of STORCK to
Authentication• Benchlearning method for additional subindicators (link to Lot 2) beyond measurement Lot 1.
Basis: Capgemini measurements 2007
Current Position Indicator:- Authentication / eID- Compliance with
accessibility standards
- Number of data entry fields
- Multi-channel access
Unit of analysis:- Validated list of
URLs previously used
2009Indicator: shift to customer satisfactionReview of subindicators:- Data Field (AB Measure) will be dropped- Looking into feasibility of review of Accessibility of 20 services by Webcrawler- Identification of relevant maturity levels sub-transaction-Addition of user centricity review of national-level portalsAction: Agree on relevance of reporting on
citizen satisfaction / business climate
Future DirectionTo be re-evaluated post 2009 measurement
Strategic Alignment of methodology with user satisfaction measurement
eProcurement
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 7
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
20 public services rank distribution (2007) & (2009)
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 8
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Online Public Service # ranks 2009 MS 1st 2009 # ranks 2007 MS 1st 2007
Job search services 2 29 out of 31 3 29 out of 31
VAT 2 30 out of 31 3 28 out of 31
Corporate tax 3 28 out of 31 4 26 out of 31
Customs declaration 3 29 out of 31 3 26 out of 31
Social contributions for employees 3 29 out of 31 4 25 out of 31
Income taxes 2 23 out of 31 3 20 out of 31
Declaration to the police 4 20 out of 31 4 18 out of 31
Public procurement 3 25 out of 31 3 16 out of 31
Submission of data to statistical offices 2 19 out of 31 4 15 out of 31
Registration of a new company 3 19 out of 31 4 15 out of 31
Car registration 5 21 out of 31 5 14 out of 31
Enrolment in higher education 15 15 out of 31 15 11 out of 31
Public libraries 8 14 out of 31 7 11 out of 31
Announcement of moving 9 13 out of 31 11 11 out of 31
Certificates 9 13 out of 31 13 9 out of 31
Environment-related permits 11 8 out of 31 10 5 out of 31
Health related services 11 7 out of 24 10 4 out of 23
Application for building permission 21 8 out of 31 21 4 out of 31
Personal documents 12 8 out of 31 11 2 out of 31
Social security benefits 18 9 out of 31 23 1 out of 31
Comparison of major eGovernment benchmarks / ranks
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 9
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
EUeGovBe (07/09)N: EU27+4
Brown/Brookings (2008)N: 198
UN (08/10)N: 184
Austria (1/4) Austria (65) Austria (16/24)
Slovenia (2/5) Slovenia (112) Slovenia (26/29)
Malta (2/1) Malta (56) Malta (29/30)
Portugal (3/2) Portugal (18) Portugal (31/39)
United Kingdom (4/8) United Kingdom (35) United Kingdom (10/4)
France (5/11) France (15) France (9/10)
Sweden (6/3) Sweden (72) Sweden (1/12)
Estonia (7/6) Estonia (59) Estonia (13/20)
Norway (8/15) Norway (60) Norway (3/6)
Germany (9/12) Germany (7) Germany (22/15)
Spain (9/13) Spain (14) Spain (20/9)
Netherlands (10/14) Netherlands (33) Netherlands (5/5)
Finland (11/7) Finland (28) Finland (15/19)
Belgium (12/12) Belgium (105) Belgium (24/16)
Denmark (12/10) Denmark (62) Denmark (2/7)
Italy (13/17) Italy (25) Italy (27/38)
Ireland (14/9) Ireland (8) Ireland (19/21)
Czech Republic (15/19) Czech Republic (55) Czech Republic (25/33)
Benchmark framework 1/3: Guiding principles
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 10
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Dimensions DetailsPolicy Which policies should guide the design? e.g. i2011-15
Frameworks / Cause-and-effectrelationships
Which underlying frameworks guide the design? e.g. eGovernment,citizen satisfaction, government transformation, online sophisticationmodel, etc.
Priorities/Scope Which priorities? On a macro-level, what should be measured?Compared with what?
Governance & Responsibility e.g. How does the process of deciding on measures or guidingFrameworks look like? Which parties are involved (EC, MS,citizens,academia)?
Benchmark framework 2/3: design
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 11
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Dimensions DetailsFramework e.g. Online sophistication model
Unit of analysis e.g. 20 public services and national portal in a country
Measures/variables/indicators Natural, proxy, constructed e.g. Service compliance with accessibilitystandard
Scoring and metric e.g. How are measures translated into values or ranks?
Frequency How often?
Data collection e.g. timeline, questions to ask, resources required on governemnt side
Data sources e.g. Who provides the data?; sample size
Data analysis e.g. Type qualitative and quantitative methods
Costs e.g. Value for money of the benchmarking activities
Limitations What are the weaknesses and gaps of the benchmark? Which data ismissing and how can it be made available?
Execution e.g. Who conducts data collection and analysis?
Benchmark framework 3/3: Learning and reporting
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 12
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Dimensions DetailsResults e.g. Which results are presented? How are they presented?
Access e.g. Which data is accessible? Who has access? How can it beaccessed?
Overall Scope: Potential design
The future benchmark should have five focus areas
I. Government 2.0 / Open Government
II. European ICT projects
III. eGovernment services
IV. Information society & User opinion
V. Impact
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 13
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.PPTX
Focus area I: Government 2.0 / Open Government
This area tracks the progress and innovations in five domains of Government 2.0 / Open government through a variety of indicators.
• Open data portals
• eParticipation (in policy; policy-cycle)
• Collaboration (co-production of service / public management support)
• Social media tools
• Transparency
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 14
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.PPTX
Focus area II: European ICT projects
This area tracks the progress of European wide government ICT projects initiated by DGs or EU agencies through a variety of indicators.
• VIS (DG Home)
• Single Point of Contact 2.0 / Service Directive (DG Internal Market)
• IMI (DG Internal Market)
• INSPIRE (Environment)
• Safesea Net (EMSA)
• National alert platforms (Cyber Security; Digital Agenda)
• REACH (Environment)
• Prüm treaty data exchange
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 15
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.PPTX
Focus area III: eGovernment services
This area introduces new eGovernment services that should be offered on a transactional basis as well as the implementation of EU Large Scale Pilot (e.g. eID/STORK) / European interoperability elements. Particular interest is on the life events of studying, working, retiring and receiving healthcare (Digital Agenda).
• eprocurement
• certificates
• building permits
• visa application
• enrolling in university
• application and management fo childcare / kindergarten
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 16
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.PPTX
Focus area IV: Information society & User opinion
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 17
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
This area introduces a set of indicators that describe the state of information society and user opinions.
• user satisfaction surveys
• information society indicators (e.g. internet penetration, ICT 4 schools, ICT R&D investment)
Focus area V: Impact
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 18
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
This area introduces a comprehensive review of projects that are a case in point for X in a annually changing policy area.
• Significant budget savings
• eparticipation
• project failure
EU eGovernment index (Ranking)
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 19
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
NEWeGovernment index
Government 2.0
EU ICT Projects
eGov Services
INFSO / User
One eGovernment index with four subindexes that will compose the key eGovernment index.
5 sub indexes
8-10 sub indexes
5-10 sub indexes
5-10 sub indicators
Gov 2.0 pilot scope
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 20
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Reference to previous measurement framework
Pillar in new measurement framework
Correspondence with eGovernment Action Plan 2012-2015 Priority
Group 1 of the Participation framework: Policy strategy and Monitoring
PARTICIPATION INDICATORInvolvement of citizens and businesses in policy-making processes
Group 3 of the Participation framework: Participation in policy making -- Openness of policy processGroup 5 of the Participation framework: Presence on social media
COLLABORATION INDICATOR Collaborative production of services
Group 1 of the Transparency framework: Transparency of Service delivery
TRANSPARENCY INDICATOR Improvement of TransparencyGroup 2 of the Participation framework: Passive participation -- Organizational transparency and accountability Group 3 of the Transparency framework: Personal data
Gov 2.0 pilot: collaboration indicators 1/3
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 21
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Question Answer options Classification of indicator Data collection method
Does this administration involvecitizens in the co-production ofservices?
YesNo
Binary benchmark indicator0-100% availability score
Web survey of Institutional websites
If yes, for which services and how? YesNo
Binary benchmark indicator0-100% availability score (if a portfolio of services can be determined for the assessment)
Web survey of Institutional websites
Is it possible for citizens to track theirco-production inputs?
YesNo
Binary benchmark indicator0-100% availability score
Web survey of Institutional websites
Does the website provide evidence onhow the citizens’ input was used?
YesNo
Binary benchmark indicator0-100% availability score
Web survey of Institutional websites
Are the data and tools needed for coproduction up to date?
YesNo
Binary benchmark indicator0-100% availability score
Web survey of Institutional websites
Gov 2.0 pilot: collaboration indicators 2/3
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 22
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Does the website include an an explicit social media policy by the administration?
YesNo
Binary benchmark indicator 0-100% availability score
Web survey of Institutional websites
In which of the following channels is the administration active?
• Social networking sites (like Facebook)• Media sharing sites (like Youtube)• Other (such as Second life)
YesNo
Binary benchmark, answers for each option0-100% availability Composite score (weighted by type of option)
Web survey of Institutional websites
Does the administration provide information and communication through the following tools?
• Tweeting• Blogging• Wikis• social bookmarking, tagging, canvasssing• polling / voting• petitioning• games• data visualization and/or analytics tools• other (please specify)
YesNo
Binary benchmark answers for each option0-100% availability Composite score (weighted by type of option)
Web survey of Institutional websites
Gov 2.0 pilot: collaboration indicators 3/3
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 23
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Does the administration provide open data for mashing up new content, services, apps, etc.
YesNo
Binary benchmark answers 0-100% availability
Web survey of Institutional websites
Is the use of social media framed around:
• The institution• Specific topics/issues suggested
by the government• Specific topics/ issues suggested
by citizens or businesses• other (please specify)
YesNo
Binary benchmark answers for each option0-100% availability Composite score (weighted by type of option)
Web survey of Institutional websites
Open data portals measures
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 24
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Question Variable Data provider
Is there a national OGD portal Yes / No Contractor
Is there a satistics portal Yes / no
Type of formats Formats (e.g. rtf, xls, csv)
SLF criteria: Completness MS
SLF criteria: primary contractor
SLF criteria: timeliness Not measurable
SLF criteria: Is there a registration contractor
SLF criteria: Is the registration fee of charge contractor
SLF criteria: Can disabled access the data contractor
SLF criteria: Tags and other navigation contractor
SLF criteria: machinereadable / API MS
Connected to social media platform Contractor
Statistics & metadata contractor
Open data portals measures
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 25
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Question Variable Data provider
RSS feeds Yes / no contractor
Is there a forum? Yes / no contractor
Are users allowed to post apps? Yes / No Contractor
Are users allowed to rate user apps? Yes / no Contractor
Type of formats Formats (e.g. rtf, xls, csv) Contractor
Does the government have an open data policy Yes / no contractor
How should we measure?
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 26
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
• Open data
• eParticipation (policy)
• collaboration (service)
• Transparency
• Impact
© 2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved. 27
EU E-GOVERNMENT BENCHMARK_BARCAMP.P
PTX
Thank [email protected]
Blog: http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov
Twitter: /schellong
www.capgemini.com
The information contained in this presentation is proprietary. ©2011 Capgemini. All rights reserved
Top Related