-

Smarter, Faster, Better eGovernment

8th Benchmark Measurement | November 2009
PREPARED BY: CAPGEMINI, RAND EUROPE, IDC, SOGETI AND DTI FOR: EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INFORMATION SOCIETY AND MEDIA

European Commission Directorate General for Information Society and Media Smarter, Faster, Better eGovernment 8th eGovernment Benchmark Measurement | November 2009

The opinions expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission

For more information about this survey, please contact: European Commission Directorate General Information Society and Media Unit C.4 Economic and Statistical Analysis E-mail: [email protected]

Project Team Leadership Graham Colclough Vice President Global Public Sector Capgemini [email protected]

Dinand Tinholt Programme Manager eGovernment Benchmark Capgemini [email protected]

Executed by Barbara Lorincz, Graham Colclough, Dinand Tinholt, Constantijn van Oranje, Gabriella Cattaneo and Laurent Jacquet. With contributions from: Wendy Carrara, Gwendolyn Carpenter, Helen Schindler, Rosanna Lifonti, Dominic Huggins and Jeremy Millard.

Table of contents
Introduction 1.1 The 2009 report: context setting 1.2 The 2009 report : purpose and structure 2. The eGovernment Benchmark Method 2.1 The benchmark metrics 2.2 Transforming rankings into insights 3. Results for the 20 basic services 3.1 Sophistication of Services 3.2 Ranking full online availability 3.3 Growth and governance 4. eProcurement Results 4.1 Policy Background 4.2 eProcurement Availability Benchmark 4.3 eProcurement Development Models 4.4 eProcurement Process Benchmark 4.5 eProcurement Post-Award Process Benchmark 5. Adding the user perspective 5.1 What has been measured 5.2 Key findings for Europe 5.3 Best practices across Europe 5.4 Trends in User Experience 5.5 User satisfaction monitoring 5.6 Learning from world leaders to develop the piloted method 6. Context 7. Development of the Measurement Approach 8. Insights from the Country Reports 8.1 Top Priorities for Participating Countries 8.2 Approach to Governance and Implementation 8.3 Europe viewed on a worldwide stage 9. Better for Customers 9.1 Use of Online Services 9.2 Increasing Take-Up 9.3 A paradigm shift towards customer-centric services 10. Better for Businesses 10.1 Doing business with Government: state of play 10.2 The Single Market & the impending Services Directive 11. Better for the Public Purse 11.1 From an Economic to a Fiscal and Budgetary Crisis 11.2 eProcurement as a vehicle for efficiencies and cost savings 11.3 Achieving Internal Administrative Efficiencies 11.4 Reaching beyond the Tipping Point 1. 15 15 16 20 20 23 24 24 27 29 31 31 32 34 36 38 40 40 41 42 45 46 50 54 55 56 56 57 58 59 59 61 61 63 63 64 66 66 66 68 68

12. Country Reports 12.1 Summary text 12.2 Key facts 12.3 Societal Figures 12.4 EU activity 12.5 Key organisational facts 12.6 Close-up: results in the EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 12.7 Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 12.8 Biggest eGovernment success stories in the last 2 years? 12.9 Best practices and URLs: 13. Detailed results for the 20 services 13.1 Income taxes 13.2 Job search 13.3 Social security benefits 13.4 Personal document 13.5 Car registration 13.6 Building permission 13.7 Declaration to police 13.8 Public libraries 13.9 Certificates 13.10 Enrolment in higher education 13.11 Announcement of moving 13.12 Health-related services 13.13 Social contributions 13.14 Corporate tax 13.15 VAT 13.16 Company registration 13.17 Statistical data 13.18 Customs declaration 13.19 Environment-related permits 13.20 Public procurement 14. The 20 services- method 14.1 The data collection and management process 14.2 Scoring rules for the Full Online Availability indicator 14.3 Non-relevant (sub-)services 15. The eProcurement- method 16. The User Experience- method 16.1 Usability 16.2 Accessibility 16.3 User Satisfaction Monitoring 16.4 One stop shop approach - Availability of 20 online services 16.5 User focus portal design 16.6 Accessibility web crawler References

72 72 72 72 74 76 76 77 77 77 140 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 161 165 165 168 172 172 172 173 173 173 173 176

Table of figures
Figure 1: Full online availability trend from 2001 to 2009 for EU27+ ................................................................. 3 Figure 2: Sophistication of service clusters in the EU27+.................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Sophistication and growth in the EU27+ .............................................................................................. 4 Figure 4: Full online availability 2007-2009 ......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Sophistication 2007-2009 ..................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 6: Sophistication 2007-2009 ..................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 7: User experience in the EU27+ .............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 8: Online sophistication by country size and governance type .............................................................. 10 Figure 9: eGovernment take-up gap ................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 10: Status of Business Services Maturity ................................................................................................ 12 Figure 11: Beyond the Tipping Point ............................................................................................................... 14 Figure 12: The 2009 report structure ................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 13: The benchmarks five-stage maturity model 20 Figure 14: The eProcurement Value Chain........................................................................................................ 22 Figure 15: Sophistication 2007-2009.. 20 Figure 16: Sophistication 2007-2009 for EU27+ ................................................................................................ 25 Figure 17: Sophistication of service clusters in the EU27+................................................................................ 25 Figure 18: Pro-active 5th sophistication level 2007-2009 .................................................................................. 26 Figure 19: Full online availability 2007-2009 ..................................................................................................... 27 Figure 20: Full online availability trend from 2001 to 2009 for EU27+ ............................................................. 27 Figure 21: Full online availability trend from 2001 to 2009 EU15, Non-EU15 and EU27+ ............................ 28 Figure 22: Sophistication and growth in the EU27+ .......................................................................................... 29 Figure 23: The eProcurement Availability Benchmark of Contracting authorities ........................................... 33 Figure 24: The eProcurement availability benchmark by government tier ...................................................... 34 Figure 25: The top 10 in the eProcurement Availability Benchmark ................................................................ 34 Figure 26: The eProcurement Availability Benchmark by Development Model Clusters ................................. 35 Figure 27: The eProcurement Pre-Award Process Benchmark ......................................................................... 36 Figure 28: The top 10 in the eProcurement Pre-award Benchmark ................................................................. 37 Figure 29: The eProcurement Pre-Award Process Benchmark by Subphase .................................................... 37 Figure 30: User experience in the EU27+ .......................................................................................................... 41 Figure 31: Online sophistication versus usability of the 20 eGovernment services.......................................... 42

Figure 32: Framework for User Satisfaction Monitoring ................................. 47 Figure 33: Societal challenges requiring ICT innovations in the next decade......................................... 55 Figure 34: The eGovernnment take-up gap for citizens ............................................................................ 59 Figure 35: The eGovernnment take-up gap for businesses ...................................................................... 60 Figure 36: Sophistication of services by delivery level .. 63 Figure 37: Sophistication of services by delivery level ............................................................................. 64 Figure 38: Beyond the Tipping Point 69 Figure 39: Income taxes. 140 Figure 40: Job search services. . 141 Figure 41: Social securities benefits . 142 Figure 42: Personal documents.. .143 Figure 43: Car registration 144 Figure 44: Application for a building permission . 145 Figure 45: Declaration to the police . 146 Figure 46: Public Libraries (catalogues, search). 147 Figure 47: (Birth and marriage) Certificates 148 Figure 48: Enrolment in higer education 149 Figure 49: Announcement of moving .. 150 Figure 50: Health-related services . 151 Figure 51: Social contribution to employees 152 Figure 52: Corporate tax 153 Figure 53: VAT ..154 Figure 54: Registration of a new company 155 Figure 55: Submission of data to statistical offices. 156 Figure 56: Customs declaration 157 Figure 57: Environment related permits. 158 Figure 58: Public Procurement . 159

Abbreviations and terms

We recognise with a multiplicity of different readers, there will be many unfamiliar terms and abbreviations. There are also many common terms that are understood in different ways (e.g. cloud computing). We have captured some terms below particularly for the benefit of the reader of the Extended Executive Summary. Most other terms are defined throughout and/or in the Appendices. This is not an exhaustive list.

Country Abbreviations
AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IS IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Switzerland Cyprus Czech Republic Germany Denmark Estonia Greece Spain Finland France Croatia Hungary Ireland Iceland Italy Lithuania Luxembourg Latvia Malta The Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Sweden Slovenia Slovakia United Kingdom

Term

Explanation

EU27+

This term refers to the participating countries, which includes all EU Member States (MS) and Croatia, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland. The 12 citizen and 8 business services that have been measured since 2001. Governments services are described according to the following stages, as used in previous reports: (i) information, (ii) one-way interaction, (iii) two-way interaction, (iv) transaction, and (v) targetisation/automation. A core benchmark indicator used to assess the 20 basic services against the 5-stage maturity model. A core benchmark indicator used to assess the 20 basic services against the fourth and fifth stages of the 5-stage maturity model. New benchmark indicator assessing whether eProcurement is visible and available to potential suppliers online. Process New benchmark indicator measuring the availability of the main process phases of eProcurement, divided into the pre-award and the post-award phases. This term is measured using 5 criteria described in Part B. Other terms that are commonly used and related include: customer centricity; customer friendly personalisation; user-focused. The consolidation and virtualisation of computing assets and data, including the use (by customers / partners) of web/internet-based services (thus both back and front office related).

20 Basic Services 5-stage maturity Model

Sophistication Full Online Availability

eProcurement Availability

eProcurement Benchmark User Experience

Cloud Computing

Extended Executive Summary

Extended Executive Summary

Key Points
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

EU27+ advancement: Full OnLine Availability 71% (59%: 07); Sophistication 83% (76%: 07). eProcurement (new) Availability: 56% EU27+ ave.; well behind 2010 target of 100%. Key for single open market. Several good practice examples of nationally controlled public expenditure. Some countries show leapfrog results; some continued high performance. Reasons offered. Increased focus on ICT as a means to address fiscal and budget constraints User Experience (pilot) measures show EU27+ averages from 34% to 81% for the five measures, with some notable examples of leading practices. Personalised services gaining ground and becoming more commonplace across Europe. User empowering technologies push Governments to redesign their eGovernment services. Upgrade of measurement system is needed and planned in collaboration with countries.

I. THE POLICY CONTEXT

This 2009 report opens a new chapter in EU eGovernment benchmarking. We are now two years on from the last th measurement in September 2007. The report captures the results of the 8 measurement of eServices across Europe. It establishes the foundations for the progressive and planned modernisation of pan-EU eGovernment comparison. This benchmark has proven to be a policy-informing tool at both a European and Member State level since its inception in 2001. As we approach the end of the Lisbon i2010 policy timeframe, we now need new eGovernment policies to suit the next planning horizon. Technology is changing our lives in many ways, and changing the way that public services are governed and delivered. We therefore need new eGovernment Action plans. We are confronted by a new paradigm. One where the heightened expectations of customers must be delivered with constrained public resources. The short term economic crisis has resulted in a long-term fiscal and public budget crisis. This will lead to a decade of austerity. Yet there is much more than just economic and budget considerations that will cause grass root changes. New policies will be required that address global challenges in areas such as public security, climate change, and energy. New policies will be required for the very local challenges of societal cohesion: the result of continuing demographic changes, mobility, and urbanisation. And new policies will also be required that address national challenges like escalating healthcare costs, through aging society and life-style change; exacerbated by the imbalance between working and non-working populations. These represent a growing and substantial financial burden on society. This calls for transformational change. The key question is: what role can eGovernment play in support of this? Society will not stand and watch as politicians govern. Public Administrations serve citizens holding greater opinion and greater sway in what can and will happen. Society will expect more and they will hold Government to account more. This is already tangible. What is needed is a more mature and deeper relationship between the public and the private sector; sustained political will and strategic leadership; greater collaboration at all levels of government (including international); and different service delivery models. This will cause blurring of the boundaries between customer and administration, and between public, private, and third sectors. We can only address these new challenges by ensuring that we actively engage with stakeholders. What role then does technology play in policy setting? What we know is that we live in an era of highly dynamic evolution of technology. With many new tools and many new possibilities. Society has realised this and is gaining from 1 it; Administrations must do so too. It was observed that every policy initiative becomes sooner or later an ICT project. It is in this policy context that this eGovernment benchmarking report sits.
1

Wolfgang Schuble, German Minister of Interior, Statement at eGovernment Conference April 2007, Berlin

Extended Executive Summary

II. TECHNOLOGY AS A TOOL FOR TRANSFORMATION
ICT is no longer the servant to business operations; it has become an integral partner. New devices (the 4 screen ) have become commonplace. Social networking is very much on the rise. We are offered access through multiple (technology) channels that offer substantially lower costs and in many instances better service levels. Such change offers profoundly greater opportunities for active engagement and participation. Technologies enable visibility, structuring and transfer of information that can deliver more seamless services, from need to fulfilment. Business intelligence systems offer the potential to deliver customer insights to support choice and tailoring of services. It will also enable performance to be managed in far better ways. Technology is no longer the inhibitor. It is the mindset and resource of Administration, and of the customer that will make the difference. Recent steps are evident to change the model of government: to make Administration more open and transparent. Are these early signs of a fundamental change in user-centric service delivery and true participative democracy? There are challenges however in these developments. Building and retaining citizen confidence in the ability of Administration to appropriately manage personal information is a prerequisite. Providing choice in how personal information is managed will be important. Data security has thus become a priority concern. Whilst significant steps have been taken to advance the use of technology in public service delivery, there remains a significant gap between those digitally enabled and those not through choice or circumstance. Closing this gap is crucial to the economic performance of Europe. And it is important to the social cohesion of Europe too. The vital ingredient that all public agencies must focus on is the development of trust. This underpins many if not all of the ambitions to transform public services through technology. The sector has invested heavily in technology over the last decade. It is time to reap returns from these investments. Leaders and decision makers seek proof that these investments were wise. They need confidence in the ability of the technology to make evidence-based gains. It is time for the digital assets that have been created to be used and to add value. It is time for delivery.
th 2

III. HOW WE MEASURE EUROPES PROGRESS

This eGovernment benchmark is well established. We now start the process of modernisation. In doing so we will address: what is considered progress in eGovernment? And how do we measure progress towards this? Fundamental to the measurement process is the active participation of the Member States. The design, method enhancement, data collection and validation, are done in collaboration with Member State representatives. This year we have 31 participating countries including all EU Member States, Croatia, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland We envisage further expansion in upcoming years. This becomes more important as the need increases to shift from internal EU comparison, to compare Europes progress to leading countries and regions across the world. We have measured the 20 basic public services since inception. These remain. They assess the availability of these services, and the sophistication of them as offered through 14,000 public service provider websites across Europe. For some countries these measures have become less relevant as they reach high levels of maturity. For others they are still of great relevance. What it does provide is a consistent progress measurement over time; something that we should not lose. This year already sees some enhancements to the measurement system. We have put focus on high impact service areas. eProcurement is one such area that is included in the survey. It is also a high-impact area that is receiving focus as one of the CIP (competitiveness and innovation programme) large scale pilots. Public Procurement represents approximately 16% of the European Unions GDP. Providing visibility of public tenders to the multiple suppliers across Europe is vital to the goal of a vibrant economy and an open single European market. Targets were set in 2005 for advancing eProcurement. We must measure how we are progressing in achieving these. The availability of eProcurement has been measured for 746 authorities across all tiers of Government. The single data point that measured eProcurement in past years, principally only on national platforms,
2

The 4th Screen (1st Movie Screen; 2nd TV; 3rd PC; 4th Mobile)
2

Extended Executive Summary

now evaluates 19 process data points that consider the pre-award sourcing, and post-award transaction phases . These have been applied to 134 public eProcurement platforms. eProcurement is thus in its first year of measurement in much greater depth. User Experience is now recognised as being an essential gauge to the take-up of online services. This is a more complex area to measure as it is affected by culture and norms. It also requires more in-depth measurement, beyond the front-of-office website. We have piloted a User Experience measurement, and envisage that this will develop considerably going forward. A continuous process of enhancement to the benchmarking method is now underway, to create a dynamic measurement instrument that will retain the existing comparability over time, and the principle of open collaboration with participating countries. This will enable new (policy) areas to be investigated. As these may be more or less relevant to participating countries, a system is foreseen with elective measurement building blocks. Such developments may consider: citizen and business life-events (in many instances an aggregation and enhancement of some of the 20 basic services); channel migration; the development of cloud services; openness and transparency; back-office development; regional progress; and domain specific measurement. We also intend to make full use of other available and relevant measurements to enrich the findings and insights that can be drawn from the process.
3

IV. BENCHMARK RESULTS

The 20 BASIC SERVICES
Europe shows continued steady progress in terms of full online availability. The overall EU27+ measure has risen to 71% in 2009 from 59% in 2007. This can be seen in the accompanying figure. The difference across countries is still significant, with a range of 68% but with a marked reduction with respect to 2007 (85% range). In terms of sophistication, Europe stands at 83%, compared with 76% in 2007. This assesses the degree of interaction between service provider and user, from simple information provision to personalised proactive case handling. Europe is presently th classified at the top of the transactional 4 (of 5) eGovernment levels. On this measure there is less difference between countries: a range of 44%. The most advanced countries show saturation against both of these measures for many of the 20 services. This underpins the need to refresh the measurement system.

Full online availability Trend from 2001 to 2009 for EU27+

100

80 in %

Businesses
60

40

All services

Citizens

20

0 2001

2003

2005 Years

2007

2009

Figure 1: Full online availability trend from 2001 to 2009 for EU27+

As in the past, there remains significant variance (20% fully online; 12% sophistication) between the results of services for businesses (of which there are 8) and services for citizens (of which there are 12). This reflects the inherent nature of business services, being more homogeneous in form. Services for citizens, by comparison, are highly diverse in range, and citizens have far more heterogeneous needs and behaviours.

As is explained in the eProcurement chapter, only the pre-award data will be presented in this report.

Extended Executive Summary

For all 20 services, four clusters have been assessed: income generating (for government); registration (e.g. births, company, moving); service returns (e.g. health, social, libraries); and permits and licences (e.g. building, education, passport). The progress for each of these since 2007 is shown in the accompanying figure. This shows the greater maturity of income-generating services. Their form (homogeneous, high volume, income generating) make them more attractive to technology-enable first. Greater progress is however observed for the other clusters, notably permits and licences.
Sophistication of service clusters in the EU27+
Features
Taxes, social contributions, VAT, customs . Mainly delivered at national level. Top scores for all countries.

Income generating
100

2009 2007

75

50

25

Permits and licences

Features
Building, passport, education, environment Often delivered at regional and local levels. Least sophisticated cluster but shows good progress.

Registration
Features
Car, company, birth & marriage, moving, statistical data Covers one-off life events. Average performance and growth.

Returns
Features
Health, libraries, procurement, policing, job search, benefits Comprises frequently used services. Average performance and growth.

Figure 2: Sophistication of service clusters in the EU27+

We also observe a small number of countries making very significant improvements essentially leapfrogging their peers. This is shown in the figure below.

Sophistication and growth in the EU27+

Leapfroggers

Fast growers

Moderate adopters

Saturated top

Sophistication 2009

8 countries

8 countries

12 countries

HIGH LOW

2 countries

Latvia Poland

Bulgaria Denmark Finland Ireland

Lithuania Luxembourg Sweden Slovakia

15 to 25%

10 to 15%

5 to 10%

0 to 5%

Growth over the period 2007-2009

Figure 3: Sophistication and growth in the EU27+

Extended Executive Summary

The leading six nations on the full online availability of the basic 20 services are: Austria, Malta, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Slovenia with the top 4 having the same score.
Full online availability 2007-2009
100 90 80

71%
70 60
in %

59%

50 40 30
Full online availability in 2009

20 10

Full online availability in 2007 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

0 AT MT PT UK SE SI EE FI DK IE FR NO ES NL DE BE IT LU LV HU CZ LT IS SK PL CY EL RO BG HR CH Countries

Figure 4: Full online availability 2007-2009 With regard to the online sophistication of the 20 basic services, the leading six nations are Malta, Portugal, Sweden, Austria, Slovenia and Estonia.
Sophistication 2007-2009
100 90

83%
80 70 60
in %

76%

50 40 30 20 10 0 MT PT SE AT SI EE FI UK IE DK FR BE DE ES NL NO LU IT LV CZ LT IS HU PL SK CY EL CH BG RO HR Countries
Sophistication in 2009 Sophistication in 2007 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

Figure 5: Sophistication 2007-2009

5

Extended Executive Summary

ePROCUREMENT MEASURE (New)
With 12 million companies, of which 99% are SMEs, and the value of public procurement advertised at EU level 4 amounting to around 1500 billion , Europe has substantial opportunity to benefit from a single market approach. There are no or few single market measurement targets, in itself an opportunity. eProcurement targets were set in 2005 to achieve 100% online availability, and 50% electronic capture of above-EU5 threshold public procurements by 2010 . EU27+ average eProcurement availability is 56% on a comparable sample of 746 national, regional and local EU27+ Public authorities. Although far from the 100% European target, it reflects rapid growth across all government tiers. The previous more limited measurement focused only on national eProcurement platforms or a few national Authorities, and also did not reflect the value chain of government processes as our present indicator does.

eProcurement Availability Benchmark

100
100 100 98 92

90 80

78

77

70 60
in %

75 71 67 62 62 61 58

EU27+ average is 56%

58 57 53 52 50 50 49 44 42 41 38 36 36 34 34 32

50 40 30 20
eProcurement availability in 2009

21 15

10 0

EU27+ average 2009

Countries

Figure 6: eProcurement Availability Benchmark

The survey produced a comprehensive mapping of the European eProcurement landscape, including 134 eProcurement platforms: websites providing a suite of services for eProcurement such as eTendering, eAuctions, Electronic Markets. It also found many more websites providing supporting eProcurement services, publishing tenders in various ways to better inform suppliers, or specialising in single phases of the procurement process. It assessed the development of the major phases of eProcurement. This includes pre-contract-award (with 3 major phases and 14 process steps), and post-award-transaction (5 process steps). The EU27+ average Pre-Award Process measure is 59%. Data for the post-award measure proved hard to collect as this is related to back-office operations, and so is typically not reported. Of the 3 main pre-award phases: eNotification scores 68%, eSubmission 56%, and eAward (incl eAuctions) 48%. National platforms typically have higher scores. The major shortfalls include the level of interaction, and personalization of transactions with potential suppliers throughout the process. Implementation models vary across Europe. We found 10 countries that have mandated the use of their national platform: at least for central authorities. As a result some report capturing 95% of public tenders through their national site. Others take a more decentralised approach with several eProcurement platforms. For instance Germany has 46.

4 5

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/public-proc-market-final-report_en.pdf Ministerial Manchester Declaration, 24th November 2005 http://www.epractice.eu/node/282708

Extended Executive Summary

Also at times, as in the UK, public platforms compete with private eProcurement service providers. Results at a country level are shown in figure 6. eProcurement is evolving to a networked more controlled process, cutting across the silos of Governments, and making public procurements more visible to suppliers, both within countries and across borders. This is an important step in making Europe a competitive and single market. There are also several examples of delivery of substantial savings.

V. USER EXPERIENCE
Part B of the report includes results of the pilot measures for User Experience and National Portals. Five sub-indicators have been used to assess User Experience: Accessibility: A web-crawler performed an automated assessment of compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG1.0 standards) of the national portal. Is the national portal accessible to people with disabilities? Usability: Can you use a channel of choice, does the website allow for progress tracking, is there help functionality available and is there a form of privacy protection in place? User Satisfaction Monitoring: Do websites allow for user feedback and reporting on this? One-stop-shop approach: What proportion of the 20 basic services are available on the principal portal(s)? User-focused portal design: What is the ease of finding information on the different websites and are they structured by theme or life-events for instance? The evaluation process considers all tier one (i.e. national) websites across the 14,000 sample, and 30% of regional and local sites. It also includes all national portals, and principal portals (for instance business, domain, sub-national). Average results for Europe show: a solid one-stop-shop approach, sound user centric portal design, room for improvement in usability, and limited user satisfaction monitoring. The latter suggests that public administrations, although considering, are not actively listening to their customers. The shift in country policies towards customercentricity is likely to cause a marked improvement in these areas.

User experience in the EU27+

EU27+ 46.8% Min 12% Max 92%

Usability
100

75

Assesment made on 20 services and national portals

50

User-focused portal design

EU27+ 71.5% Min 0% Max 100%

Accessibility-automated
25 EU27+ 0 64.2% Min 10% Max 99%

Assesment made on national portals only

One-stop-shop approach
EU27+ 81.6% Min 0% Max 100%

User satisfaction monitoring

EU27+ 34.8% Min 0% Max 100%

Figure 7: User Experience in the EU27+ There is very limited difference in results between business and citizen services.
7

Extended Executive Summary

The leading countries, for each of the User Experience indicators, are shown in the table below. Malta, Finland, and UK appear regularly. Accessibility
Webcrawler: Compliance of the national portals to WCAG10 standards

Usability
Layout, channels, progress tracking, help, privacy protection

User satisfaction monitoring

User feedback mechanism

One stop shop

Proportion of 20 services available

User focused portal design

Ease of finding information. Arranged by theme, life-event etc

Austria Netherlands Denmark Norway Germany

Finland UK Malta Estonia Poland

Finland Malta UK Portugal Luxembourg

Czech Rep Ireland Iceland Malta Slovakia Spain Switzerland UK EU27+ Ave = 81,6%

Austria Cyprus Croatia Denmark Estonia Finland France

Iceland Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Portugal Slovenia Slovakia Spain

EU27+ Ave = 64,2%

EU27+ Ave = 46,8%

EU27+ Ave = 34,8%

EU27+ Ave = 71,5%

Note: countries in bold are at the maximum possible score (100%)

It must be emphasised that this is a pilot indicator and further enhancements to the process are anticipated, designed in collaboration with Member States. Portals, perhaps not surprisingly, offer a better overall User Experience than service-specific web sites. Income generating services also offer a better User Experience: paying taxes may not be nice, however it can be made easy. Good practices were observed in a number of countries. Several countries have developed national portals that can be personalised by the citizen. We note that some service areas (or life events) are better served with multiple channels of access (web, phone etc). Of note is job search, representing a significant life-event where there is important satisfaction and economic gains from providing a quality User Experience where that leads successfully to employment.

VI. EMERGING INSIGHTS

The survey and benchmarking exercise provides a valuable snapshot of Europe on which to draw useful observations. The combination of the evidence from the service evaluations, the findings from the User Experience measure, and the insights from reading across the country reports all go to support the emerging insights captured in Part C of the report. Several points of interest are noted. As such the benchmarking process can play an important and greater role in increasing learning. (i) WHAT DRIVES HIGH PERFORMANCE? A number of countries have been observed to leapfrog in the rankings. Others are seen to have maintained top-level performance over the years. Certain characteristics are in place in these cases that are revealed from the country reports that suggest means to achieve and maintain high performance. These include: Top level political sponsorship and sustained professional leadership of eGovernment Broad coverage of the eGovernment strategy that focuses on key business priorities, and the customer, and addresses skills, inclusion, and joint working Governance mechanisms that enable collaboration across public bodies (e.g. the likes of pan-Government CIO/CTO councils); that provide central solutions and leadership, and build local capacity where appropriate

Extended Executive Summary

A customer mindset and unified access for the customer a no wrong door approach, with due care to data privacy and security A focus on delivering discrete tangible visible eGovernment programme gains that build confidence and passion for results and learning. (ii) IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVICES MEASUREMENT The current maturity and saturation against the 20 basic services within many of the leading European countries is evidence that the measurement system warrants review. The continuity of the measures since 2001 provides a sound and important basis for comparison. However improvements are required to ensure full relevance to all countries. The 20 basic service measures can be further developed, whilst maintaining the current comparison base. Additional services could be added that are most relevant to governments, citizens and businesses. These may include contemporary topics like energy, environment, transport and the like. Services can also be grouped and augmented to represent a life-event or themed approach that will ensure more relevance to the customer. Such an approach will require deeper assessment of user expectations, needs and experiences. Of note, particularly for customer practices, we draw qualitative comparisons with some leading nations on a worldwide setting. Increased international comparison and benchmarking is an important element of assessing how Europe is progressing towards the worldwide aspects of i2010 goals. More attention will be required to measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of governments. In itself a complex exercise, requiring more than just a web-survey approach. It requires looking behind the website, through the end-toend fulfilment chain into the back office, assessing the enabling building blocks, and the governance structures that support delivery. Such augmentations will be part of the measurement development process which will be undertaken in collaboration with the participating countries. (iii) A COLD WIND OF BUDGET CUTS IN SIGHT The current economic crisis will result in long-term fiscal and budget constraints and high levels of public debt. This places potentially severe limitations on eGovernment investment plans. Against a backdrop of demographic change, aging, retirement of a high proportion of the public workforce, spiralling healthcare costs, environmental and climate change awareness, and growing customer expectations, this will place continued and heightened pressures on public service providers to improve service performance. Past investments that countries have made in eGovernment therefore must be maximised, and returns realised. The cost of government is going up. So achieving quantum savings, whilst securing service levels in tandem, is required. Countries are seen to be placing greater emphasis on consolidation and sharing of infrastructure and collaborative (service) delivery models as a means to use funds wisely. The goal set by some countries to implement shared services; often with mixed public/private/third sector delivery models in mind, has failed to materialise at the intended pace. Impending capital and revenue budget constraints will put additional emphasis on this, and could make these ambitions a reality. Several Member States have already proven the financial benefit of moving administration online, with notable savings being delivered. An EC-funded bench-learning pilot will shortly report in excess of 10 million annual savings potential from single processes in Greece, Slovenia and Belgium. Streamlining presents considerable challenge for the more fragmented regional and local Administrations, and thus for countries with stronger sub-national tier structures. Cloud computing the virtualisation and sharing of computing assets across organisations is seen to provide an additional lever to cost savings and efficiency gains. It also supports the achievement of other policy objectives notably sustainability goals (through green IT). Government-cloud (G-cloud) is in debate, and some early initiatives are in place in countries. However to date the skies over Europe are relatively clear. All these changes present informational and technical challenges. Political and structural barriers to consolidation will 6 also have to be overcome to achieve these ambitions. As Gartner posed , Will Politics 1.0 swallow Gov 2.0?

Gartner, Andrea Di Maio blog, 5th October

Extended Executive Summary

(iv) KEY PRIORITIES EMERGING FROM COUNTRY REPORTS The country reports highlight a number of important shifts of focus towards: the customer; maintaining emphasis on the productivity; increased levels of collaboration; and a focus on delivery. As regards implementation, an increased emphasis is put on piloting as opposed to large scale programmes, particularly in newer Member States, where priorities are also biased towards establishing core (technical) infrastructures. eGovernment is generally well established in Government under Ministries of influence (Prime Minister; Finance; Interior, and Administrative Reform). eGovernment is more integrated than in the past with government operations (business-technology), and with overall information society goals. Plans to implement shared infrastructure and services are frequent, and are generally sponsored by high ranking officials. Neither the tier structure of a country nor its population would appear to affect performance, based on the results. The figure below segments countries by Federal and Central control, and by populations above and below 10 million. Centralised steering, longevity of eGovernment focus, (and strength of economy) provide conditions more conducive to strong eGovernment performance.

100 90 80

Population size < 10M

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Population size > 10M

Federal

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CH 100 90 80 70 AT

BE 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

ES

DE

Central

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 MT SE SI EE FI IE DK NO LU LV LT IS SK CY BG HR

PT

UK

FR

NL

IT

CZ

HU

PL

EL

RO

Sophistication in 2009

Sophistication in 2007

Average 2009

Figure 8: Online sophistication by country size and governance type

Increasing involvement of non-governmental parties is emerging in (eGovernment) strategies to support the development of policies and plans. This is important given the greater involvement that non-governmental parties (including the private sector) have in services delivery. And the increased expectations that citizens have of open, transparent Government also enabled through new media, technologies, social networking, and the like. With 2010 targets nearing, many countries are revisiting their eGovernment strategies. Some include ambitious plans, to address mature or stagnating eGovernment positions, or to close the gap to leading nations (typically newer Member States). Several contemporary challenges are best addressed by a more pan-European eGovernment approach to service design and delivery, like environmental, public security, and indeed economic performance. These benefit from a coordinated approach, and common building block solutions across Europe. The large scale (CIP) pilots for high-impact services like eProcurement (PEPPOL), electronic Identity Management (STORK), the new EU Services Directive (SPOCS), and eHealth (epSOS) are clear evidence of this need. Many of the advanced countries are playing an active role in these pilots. They thus benefit from the collective learning, stay current with (indeed influence) EU eGovernment plans.

10

Extended Executive Summary

(v) BETTER FOR THE CUSTOMER: USER-EMPOWERING TECHNOLOGIES DRIVE SERVICE DEVELOPMENT Increased focus on and involvement of the customer in service delivery is a common trait across Europe. Features like personalisation (e.g. myportal); orientation of service information and provision in a way that is more meaningful to the customer (e.g. life-event); access through multiple connected channels; participation in service delivery process (e.g. problem reporting); and progress tracking of cases (e.g. job search) are all examples of this shift. Alongside providing better quality services, this can offer cost and efficiency savings for Public Administrations. New technologies (devices, mobility) and technology capabilities (interoperability, security, data analytics) offer new ways to make this achievable. And they are all being embraced by the sector to different extents and in different ways. The desire to be more open and transparent to the public is emerging in several countries, notably Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Slovenia, and UK. Here, comparison with and learning from other leading nations worldwide would be advisable: notably the US, Canada, and Australia. An ambition through such initiatives is to increase the engagement with the customer, attract usage, develop increased levels of trust, and improve the brand of government. This is important for many reasons. Empowerment and inclusion of citizens is of particular importance. The i2010 policy goals of no citizen left behind, and strengthening participation and democratic decision making in Europe are noted. The digital divide is very much more understood, if not perhaps the gap closed. Participation on the other hand is presently low. The availability of web 2.0 technologies (social networking and the like) offers an opportunity to address this. Much must be done to understand and engage the citizen through user-centred service provision, as a foundation to built trust and confidence. This will help increase online participation. Significant gaps have been observed in customer insight, usercentred web design, unified access, whole customer view, data security, channel choice, theme and life-event orientation, and customer involvement in service design. Low levels of user take-up, particularly for citizen services, are observed. Comparing measured availability figures 7 with (Eurostat) take-up highlights these gaps.

eGovernment take-up gap

100 90

83%
80 70 60

53%
in %

50 40 30
Online sophistication in 2009

20 10 0

eGovernment take-up in 2008 EU27+ take-up in 2008 EU27+ sophistication in 2009

MT PT SE AT SI EE FI UK IE DK FR BE DE ES NL NO LU IT LV CZ LT IS HU PL SK CY EL CH BG RO HR Countries

Figure 9: eGovernment take-up gap

7 8

Individuals or Businesses Using the Internet for interaction with Public Authorities, 2008 Eurostat No takeup data available for CH

11

Extended Executive Summary

Steps must be taken to close these gaps in order to reap rewards from past eGovernment (and other) investments. Much can be done to change the current Administration-out approach to the design of service delivery. A number of good practices have been noted that address steps taken before, during, and after service delivery to make improvements. Most include greater involvement of customers, as well as the likes of no wrong door approaches to align service delivery around the customer, not Administration. For many parties, this represents a paradigm shift. (vi) BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY: IMPROVING THE TASK OF DOING BUSINESS WITH GOVERNMENT Take up of business services is generally more advanced, much the result of a growing set of incentives or indeed mandates for businesses to use online services. Making it easy for businesses to comply with Government requirements, and do so efficiently online, is a vitally important step to secure a vibrant European economy: both within countries and across borders. Reducing the barriers to business start up is particularly important for the SME community (representing 99% of businesses by number) where the administrative burden involved in dealing with Government is a factor of around 4 greater in comparison to larger companies. Many of the 8 business services measured relate to the process of business start-up. Results indicate a spread of maturity for these services with notably lower scores (see figure) for those that are provided by local service providers.

Figure 10: Status of Business Services Maturity

More needs to be done to make compliance requirements for business start-up bureaucracy free, thus freeing companies to focus on their core business. This is consistent with the ambitious 25% target for reducing administrative 9 burden (to businesses) by 2012 that has been set by the Commission .

Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/better-regulation/administrativeburdens/index_en.htm

12

Extended Executive Summary

The Services Directive seeks to reduce the barriers for service providers across Europe, and thus support Single th Market goals. The Directive, which comes into force on 28 December 2009, is cited in many of the country priorities. Focus on the necessary compliance requirements within the Directive must shift towards supporting the value-added services that help make businesses competitive within and across Europe. (vii) BETTER FOR THE PUBLIC PURSE: eProcurement is an important enabler to far better management of public procurements. This is vitally important, particularly given budget pressures. There are a number of examples of countries that are benefiting from consistent and consolidated eProcurement approaches. We discussed in past reports the need to shift the focus from availability of on-line public services to take-up, and impact. eProcurement is one service area where there are clear examples of countries and regions that have corralled very high percentages of public procurement through a common platform. Frequently this has been through central government dictate or persuasion. This gives suppliers (across Europe) greater visibility of public procurement competitions, and Administrations greater visibility of public expenditure. This makes doing business with government far easier for suppliers. It enables Administration to make better sourcing decisions, and manage transactions more efficiently. The proof is in higher levels of use of the on-line service, efficiency savings for both suppliers and Administration, and more effective use of public funds. Denmark, Ireland, Italy, and Scotland are countries that in particular can cite such benefits. The productivity of Administrations is clearly a heightening priority, and will continue to remain so with long-term forecast budget constraints. Complex administrative procedures and the unnecessary and disproportionate administrative costs they incur severely hamper government operations. Administrative burden reduction initiatives that support business-to-government efficiencies are in place and significantly supported by eGovernment. Likewise government-to-government productivity improvements in the form of better regulation, administrative burden reduction, and streamlined processing can also benefit from eGovernment. Increased attention to this are is required and expected. To achieve such improvements, increased sharing of information, cross-agency working and collaboration is required. From an eGovernment standpoint, service-oriented architectures, standards, and interoperability provide important building blocks.

VII. NEW eGOVERNMENT ACTION PLANS

The five objectives of the i2010 Action Plan will be reviewed in preparation of the new eGovernment 2015 Action Plan. Recent work to outline actions for the 2015 timeframe has identified four areas of focus: Support to the single market Empowerment of businesses and citizens Administrative efficiency and effectiveness Enabling building blocks. These themes will underpin the longer-term transformation of public services across Europe. And what is undeniable is that in setting the forward plan, ICT and eGovernment will play a major role in realising this transformation. Ambitious goals must be set, clear plans must be put in place, and rigorous management of these plans will be required. Technology has and will continue to prove to be a vital enabler to delivering smarter, faster and better eGovernment. Heightened customer expectations; desires for more open and transparent Government; pressures to make Europe a more open market for businesses; and economic reasons for Administrations to collaborate and deliver efficiencies are all motives for transformational change.
The five objectives of the i2010 Action Plan: 1. No Citizen left behind 2. Making efficiency and effectiveness a reality 3. Implementing highimpact key services 4. Putting key enablers in place 5. Strengthening participation and democratic decision making in Europe

Our future challenge will be to change the mindset of Administrations, and change the model of public services delivery to one that is clearly engaging and involving the customer in all aspects of the process. This opens the door to opportunities to reduce the cost-to-serve the customer, and improve service quality. We must go over a tipping point to reap such rewards, and in so doing move from an Administration-centric to a Customer-centric service delivery

13

Extended Executive Summary

model. Setting our ambitions to deliver services that are twice as good, in half the time, for half as much, and maximising the potential that eGovernment offers, will take us a long way towards that.

Beyond the Tipping Point

Cost to Serve
EU + 27

Gov-Driven Customer Centricity

Customer-Driven Customer Centricity

Customer Engaged

Customer Aware Administration Centric

Nascent

Emerging

Government focus on efficient service delivery, setting customer service levels, and basic customer segmentation Developing

Government takes positive steps to engage its customers and design its services to be customer oriented and efficient Maturing

Customers are actively engaged in service design, and help reduce consumption through agreeing their responsibilities with Government delivering a more sustainable solution Innovative

Maturity Stage / Time

Figure 11: Beyond the Tipping Point

VIII. THE FULL REPORT STRUCTURE

The full report is structured in four discrete and inter-dependent parts: Part A: 20 Basic Services: outlines the method and provides this years results for the survey of 20 basic services. It also includes the results for the new eProcurement indicator. Part B: User Experience: outlines the method and provides the results of the pilot indicators for User Experience and National Portals. Part C: Emerging Insights: captures the insights from the above measurement and from a scan across the country reports (in part four). These have been related to i2010 goals. Part D: Country Reports: provides key points of detail on the eGovernment setting and development for each of the participating countries. These include overall results; key facts on the country, information society indicators, position in international rankings, and EU activities; an overview of Governance; benchmark results for each of the indicators; and eGovernment good practices. The report contains Appendices that give full detail on the method and results for each of the 20 Basic Services, eProcurement, and User Experience. In recognition of the important focus on delivery, the report also includes examples of good practices as they relate to the pertinent sections. These have been offered forward by participating countries.

14

Introduction

1. Introduction
1.1 The 2009 report: context setting
eGovernment is the most powerful enabler of the public sector Nowadays, every policy initiative becomes sooner or later an ICT project10. Technology, broad band and eServices are becoming the norm when seeking information and performing transactions with administrations. Moreover, eGovernment has been endorsed by countries as a means to deliver simpler, faster, cost effective services for citizens and businesses. eGovernment and more widely the i2010 Action Plan offer a whole-of-government picture of what can be achieved through consistent public sector transformation. What better place than here, in Europe, the worlds most st competitive region, what better time than now at the dawn of the 21 century to set such ambitious targets: leaving no Citizen behind, making efficiency and effectiveness a reality; implementing high-impact key services; putting key enablers in place; strengthening participation and democratic decision making in Europe. During the Manchester Ministerial eGovernment Conference in 2005, the phrase "Transforming Public Services" was coined, becoming a European motto. Thus, over the past years, European countries have been continuously linking technology to policy by setting up national eGovernment strategies. In turn, business operations enabled to visualise the results at hand, thus confirming the role of ICT to transform governments and more generally, public sector. In implementing eServices and streamlining the recourse to IT enabled solutions, countries have encountered larger societal challenges: transformation must be thought as user-focused, tackling technology discontinuities users face, and guaranteeing take up.

To master the 2020 challenges Whereas the i2010 Action Plan fostered transformation stemming from a common understanding of the availability of eGovernment. Competitiveness acquired through service maturity creates greater value for all: administrations, businesses and citizens. As tailor-made services and one-stop-shop approaches shape Europes landscape, large national differences arise, clearly showing eGovernment developments do not share level playing field in Europe. Indeed, Europe is a very heterogeneous place: eGovernment in some Member States is pass the policy agenda has moved to transformation. In others, eGovernment now embraces the whole networked (Gov 2.0) agenda and is thus receiving heightened attention. And in yet others (typically the new Member States) it is the new agenda to do well in the EC eGovernment rankings. Beyond targetisation and pro-activity of services, a series of grassroot concerns stem across Europe. What about panEuropean services, simply at cross-border level are we interoperable? Are we mobile? How develop further agility? Global but also situational challenges, such as the Services Directive, cause us to concentrate more on fixing things as Europe not just as individual Member States. Along these lines, a pan-European eGovernment approach to service design and delivery has developed. Within the 11 frame of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) , large scale pilots for high impact services have been set up to accelerate the deployment of EU-wide services; contribute to the development of the EU Market and avoid both geographical and qualitative fragmentation; help SMEs and service providers by bringing the EU Market to their doorstep. These projects, whether tackling eProcurement, eHealth, eID or the Services Directive, benefit from a coordinated approach, common building blocks for solutions, service-oriented architectures, and inter-operability across Europe. Although support from the European Union is growing in setting large scale challenges for the years to come, eGovernance remains a matter of national take up. Political will and strategic leadership are key. Top level political sponsorship and sustained leadership of eGovernment are key factors of success. So are governance mechanisms that

10 11

Wolfgang Schauble op cit. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/ict_psp/index_en.htm

15

Introduction
enable collaboration across public bodies (e.g. the likes of pan-Government CIO/CTO councils); that provide central solutions and leadership, and build local capacity where appropriate. The initial outline of the nascent i2015 Action plan confirms the trend: supporting the single market; empowering business and citizens, fostering administrative efficiency and effectiveness, addressing key enablers. These themes will underpin the longer-term transformation of public services across Europe. What is undeniable is that in setting the forward plan ICT and eGovernment will play a major role in realising this transformation, and changing the way that public services are governed and deliveredjointly with citizens and businesses. It is a commonly held view that technology is changing our lives in many ways. Bringing the eService to the right level, thus empowerment of businesses and citizens is of particular importance. The i2010 policy goals of no citizen left behind, and strengthening participation and democratic decision making in Europe are noted. Developing a customer mindset, and unified access for the customer a no wrong door approach are in progress along with new communication instruments such as public service marketing. With 12 million companies of which 99% are SMEs, and a public purchasing expenditure of 1500 billion, Europe has substantial opportunity to benefit from a single market approach. Thus governments continue prioritizing the development of business services, with higher (sometimes mandatory) uptake and more tangible impact on a countrys economic performance. Accordingly, services for businesses have developed at a faster pace than their counterparts for citizens. The latter must not be left out. Society will not stand and watch as its expectations rise in demanding governments to over-deliver. What is needed is a more mature and deeper relationship between the public users and the public sector; meaning different service delivery models that will blur the boundaries between customer and administration, and between public, private, and third sectors. We can only address these new challenges by ensuring that we actively engage with stakeholders. The power of mass consultation (eParticipation) only touched upon by countries, could thus contribute more widely to building trust in government and governance. The future challenge will be to change the mindset of administrations and change the model of public services delivery to one that is clearly engaging and involving the customer in all aspects of the process. Whilst availability and sophistication of public eservices are enhanced, there remains a significant gap between those digitally enabled and those not through choice or circumstance. 30% of potential users do not and will not do eGovernment! Closing this gap is crucial to the take up of these services, in turn contributing to the economic performance of Europe. And it is important to the social cohesion of Europe too. The vital ingredient that all public agencies must focus on is the development of trust, thus guaranteeing robustness, data protection, privacy and security. This underpins many if not all of the ambitions to transform public services through technology. Then again, accessibility, inclusiveness, usability of services must be tackled as well, in order to support the willing, but unable.

1.2 The 2009 report : purpose and structure

Benchmarking: The reason why The eGovernment benchmark is now well established. Elaborated and decided upon with European countries, it serves both countries and the European Union. Two building blocks drive the measurement: the actual, hard-wired benchmark metrics and the transformation of ranking into insights. Assessment and consecutive learning and knowledge transfer. The eGovernment benchmark reports have achieved high political impact by supporting policy makers to build the case for better eGovernment. Acting as a policy accelerator, its findings must serve policy makers at EU-level, national and subnational level. Its main purpose is to demonstrate improvements in eGovernment service delivery, i.e. the way users experience eGovernment. This interlinks with internal efficiency and effectiveness improvements through the use of ICT in Government. Fundamental to the measurement process is active participation of the Member States and the European Commission. The design, method enhancements, data collection and validation are all done in collaboration with Member State representatives at every phase of the process. This approach fosters not only interest, but also ownership of the outcome of the measurement. The number of countries has grown over the years. This year we have 31 participating countries which include all EU Member States, plus Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Croatia. We envisage further expansion in upcoming years. This

16

Introduction
becomes more important as the need increases to shift from internal comparison to compare Europes progress to leading countries and regions across the world. This years new tender of the benchmark offers a unique opportunity to modernise the instrument and pertaining methodology so a need for a new approach and a more flexible collaborative sustainable process. In some aspects, the 2009 measurement has been kept similar in order to enable comparison over time, notably with 2007 results. In others, this year already witnesses significant enhancements as well as detailed exploration of emerging trends. We have measured the 20 basic public services since inception. These remain. As in previous years, sophistication and online availability are benchmarked, as well as evaluated per country. The availability of these services and their sophistication are offered through 14,000 public service provider websites across Europe. For some Member States these measures have become less relevant as they reach high levels of maturity. For others the measures are still of great relevance. What it does provide is a consistent progress measurement over time; something that we should not lose. This year already sees some enhancements to the measurement system. High impact service areas have been added. eProcurement is one such area that is included in the survey. Indeed, eProcurement is a major driver for competitiveness and growth for public sector business It is also a high-impact area that is receiving focus as one of the CIP (competitiveness and innovation programme) large scale pilots. This indicator was piloted in 2007 and is applied to all countries in 2009. Thus assessing both pre-award and post award transaction processes. eProcurement is hence in its first year of measurement in much greater depth. Further high impact areas are envisaged to be benchmarked in future. User Experience is now recognised as being an essential gauge for high usage of eGovernment services and inclusiveness of eGovernment service provision. This is a more complex area to measure as it is affected by culture and norms. It also requires more in-depth measurement including a common understanding of User Experience versus user centricity, beyond the front-of-office website. We have piloted a User Experience measurement, and envisage that this will develop considerably going forward. Emerging insights have also been explored, highlighting key policy priorities across the EU27+ countries. Accordingly, the structure of the report has evolved to bring further qualitative analysis. The new report structure is illustrated in the figure below.

Web survey of 31 countries A

20 Public Services Full Online Sophistication Availability
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Au str ia S lov en ia M alt P a i ted ortug K ing al do m Fra Ita ly Ire lan Re d pu bli Hu c ng ary Tu rke Gr y nc Sw e ed en Es ton No i a rw Ge ay rm an y S pa the in rla nd Fin s lan Be d lgi De um nm ark ee ce Ice l xem and bo urg Cy pru Lit hu s Sw an itz ia erl an Ro d ma nia lov ak ia La tvi Po a lan d lga ria
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

Pilot indicators B
20 Public Services User experience

Emerging insights C

Country Reports D

Performance Progress

Country Reports

Ne

Un

Cz

ec

Lu

Bu

Online sophistication

EU27+

0%

Au str ia Ma Po lt a rtu ga Slo l ve Kin nia gd om No rw Sw ay ed Ge en rm an Es y t on ia Fra nce Un ited

New in-depth eProcurement Indicator

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
nc e ed en E sto nia No rw Ge ay rm an y Ne S pa the in rla nd Fi s nla Be nd lgi De um nm ark xe lan mb d ou Cy rg pru Lit hu s Sw an i tze ia rla Ro nd ma Sl nia ov ak ia La tvia Po lan Bu d lga ri a A ust Slo ria ve nia M alt Po a rtu K ing ga l do m Fra Ita ly Ire lan d pu bli Hu c ng ary Tu rke Gr y ee ce Ice Sw h Re ited

It aly Sp ain Fin lan De d Ne nm the ark rla nd Cz Be s ec lgi h Re um pu bli Tu c rke Hu y nga I cel ry an I rel d an Cy d pru Gr s ee Lu ce xe mb ou Lith rg ua Ro nia ma Slo ni a va kia La tv Po ia Sw lan itz d erl an Bu d lga ria
Full online av ailability EU27+

National portals User experience

User Empowernment The 2015 agenda

Annexes

Online sophistication

Cz

Un

ec

EU27+

Lu

Refreshing the Meausrement ... Annex on Method and Detailed Results

Figure 12: The 2009 report structure

17

Introduction
Part A: Building on 7 successful benchmarks, this supply-side benchmark allows the continued mapping of progress in online availability and sophistication in the EU27+. Importantly, eProcurement is added as a fully-fledged indicator to this years measurement. Part B: A composite User Experience indicator piloted to mirror to what extent service delivery is designed around user needs. Thus comprising a multitude of usability aspects, ranging from accessibility for different skills levels and the handicapped to user focused portal design. Part C: Emerging Insights showing the relevance of e-government to key policy areas, building on core bencharmking data, external sources as well as on enriched country reports. This section is deliberately meant to be qualitative to show progress and detect emerging trends upfront for policy makers. Part D: Country reports enriched by an introduction of relevant key facts covering the structure of government, information society indicators and policy priorities for the eGovernment agenda. Thus allowing the report to become much more relevant for learning processes across member countries

The 2009 measurement pushes the current benchmark and methodology to the limits. The need to refresh and explore new indicators is commonly agreed by all. The current maturity and saturation against the 20 basic services within many of the leading European countries is evidence that the measurement system should be refined. The continuity of the measures since 2001 provides a sound and important basis for comparison. However enhancement is required to ensure full relevance to all countries. Where next with regards to new a benchmark? A continuous process of enhancement to the benchmarking method is now underway. This will retain the principle of open collaboration with participating countries. It will retain the existing consistent foundation measurements. It will enable new (policy) areas to be investigated that are most relevant to governments, citizens and businesses. These may include contemporary topics like energy, environment, transport and the like. The 20 basic service measures can be further developed, whilst keeping the current comparison base, and adding additional services. They can also be grouped and augmented to represent a life-event or themed approach that will ensure more relevance to the customer. Such an approach may require deeper assessment of the User Experience, and a more joined-up evaluation through the service delivery chain. Thus potentially fewer sites analysed, with more attention to back-office operations. This augmentation will be part of the measurement development process. To remain relevant to all participating countries, so a system can be implemented with elective measurement building blocks. Such developments will consider: citizen and business life-events (in many instances an aggregation and enhancement of some of the 20 basic services); channel migration; the development of cloud services; openness and transparency; back-office development; regional progress; and domain specific measurement. Building on emerging insights, there lays the 2015 Action Plan. Single market. Empowerment. Efficiency and effectiveness. Countries are increasingly looking to provide integrated service platforms, and are looking to review the potential for seamlessness between front, mid and back office. A key feature of eGovernment benchmarking in future will be to review interoperability across Government, as well as the future maturity of pan-European eGovernment services.

18

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

Part A:
The 2009 eGovernment Performance Benchmark

19

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

Part A provides an overview of the method (section 2) and the 2009 results (sections 3 and 4) for the core, 20 services and eProcurement benchmarks.

2. The eGovernment Benchmark Method

The eGovernment benchmark method elaborated and decided upon with European countries is cornerstone to the success of the overall benchmarking process. Two building blocks drive the measurement: the actual, hard-wired benchmark metrics and the transformation of ranking into insights. The method description of the traditional indicators on public services sophistication and availability has been abridged as they have not changed compared to previous measurements. Further details on the metrics used to benchmark the 20 public services and eProcurement can be found in the annexes.

2.1 The benchmark metrics

Throughout the past eight years, web-based research has proven to be the most appropriate means to collect the inputs needed to benchmark and rate the eGovernment supply-side. For our research, we have recurred to a data base of more than 14.000 URLs of national, regional and local government authorities, including 746 procurement authorities and 134 eProcurement platforms. The online sophistication and full online availability metrics To enable comparison with the 2007 results, the supply of 20 core public services12 has been benchmarked similarly according to the method used in 2007. The indicators for online sophistication and for full online availability were maintained and assessed against a five-stage maturity model. The model reflects how businesses and citizens can interact with public authorities. Governments service delivery processes are described according to the following stages: (i) information, (ii) one-way interaction, (iii) two-way interaction, (iv) transaction, and finally (v) targetisation. This five-stage maturity model is shown in the figure below.

The benchmarks five-stage maturity model

100 %

Full online availability

Targetisation Targetisation
((pro - active, pro active, automated) automated)

80 %

Transaction Transaction
((full electronic full electronique case handling) case handling )

60 %

Two way Twoway interaction interaction

( ( electronique electronic

forms) forms)

40 % One Oneway way interaction interaction 20%

(downloadable forms) forms)
(downloadable

Maturity

Sophistication stages

Figure 13: The benchmarks five-stage maturity model

12

See the annex for a full list and services taxonomy

20

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

The third and the fourth level, two-way interaction and transaction, have become a standard for many countries: electronic forms are available for most services; transactional - also called full electronic case handling where the user applies for and receives the service online, without any additional paper work, is increasingly becoming mainstream. The fifth level, targetisation, provides an indication of the extent by which front- and back-offices are integrated, data is reused and services are delivered proactively. The fourth and fifth levels are jointly referred to as full online availability. The eProcurement metrics The eProcurement benchmark builds on a 2007 pilot study conducted for the European Commission. The web survey method has been further developed in close interaction with Member State and European Commission representatives in this years benchmark and has been rolled out for the first time throughout all 31 rated countries, across the government tiers. The sample comprises 746 procurement authorities and 134 eProcurement platforms. The 746 procurement authorities are split into 352 national procurement authorities and 394 regional, federal and local authorities. For each country, the sample size varies on the basis of the countrys population, from 50 authorities for the largest countries to 10 authorities for the small countries. The sample of eProcurement Platforms also varies depending on the countrys population and ranges from only one platform for the smaller Member States to more than 10 platforms in large, countries. eProcurement consists of the end-to-end digitization of public procurement processes, from the sourcing phase (preaward: before the supplier is selected) to the purchase phase (post-award: after the supplier is selected). As described in the figure below, the eProcurement metric of the benchmark subdivides the pre- and post-award phases further into 6 subphases: Pre-Award Phase: eNotification, the publication of tenders and procurement notices on the web eSubmisssion, the submission of proposals online eAwards, the final selection of suppliers (including eAuctions)
13

Post-Award Phase: eOrdering, the automatic placement of orders online (including eCatalogues); eInvoicing, the delivery of electronic invoices ePayment, the online payment of contracts

13

Benchmarking online Public Services - To develop and improve the eGovernment indicators, Second Year Contract, Final Report January 2008.

21

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

eProcurement Availability Benchmark
Contracting Authorities

Responsible for

Pre-Award Indicator

Post-Award Indicator

Needs Analysis

Select eProcurement strategy

eNotification

eSubmission

eAward

eOrdering

eInvoicing ePayment

Supplier and Supplier and Contracts Contract Management Management

Involved in

eProcurement platforms and portals

eProcurement Process Benchmark

Figure 14: The eProcurement Value Chain

The provision of these services can be more or less sophisticated, interactive and personalized. For example, eNotification can include the sending of email alerts to potential suppliers, not as generic email alerts but according to the suppliers profiles. As shown in the above figure, there are two main groups of actors in the eProcurement process: the contracting authorities (public administrations of all kinds like ministries, regional and local governments) and service providers providing and managing eProcurement portals or platforms. Contracting authorities rely on these specialized service providers of eProcurement portals or platforms to e-enable the procurement process or to receive support. In the latter case, the specialized service providers act as eProcurement Agents providing advisory to authorities. Mirroring the landscape of eProcurement actors, the eProcurement benchmark consists of two indicators: The eProcurement Availability Benchmark of Contracting Authorities. In this benchmark, we have verified, by visiting the web sites of authorities, whether eProcurement is visible and available to potential suppliers online. The eProcurement Process Benchmark of eProcurement Platforms. For this indicator, we have measured, by visiting the eProcurement platforms, the availability of the main process phases as outlined above, divided into the pre-award and the post-award phases. Sometimes contracting authorities offer eProcurement services directly. For reasons of consistency we have, however, not measured the level of development of eProcurement on authorities web sites, but only on the platform sample. Both indicators are assessed on a range from 0 to 100%, where 100% means full availability.

22

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

2.2 Transforming rankings into insights
The rankings are often described as the most visible output of the benchmark. However, the eGovernment benchmark captures greater value: offering Europe a unique opportunity to turn the hard-wired metrics into insights on its eGovernment fundamentals. Namely, how eGovernment services are governed and which organizational and institutional arrangements deliver the highest performance; which best-practices have been the most impactful and could be copied; which policy priorities are at stake and how Europe can help to jointly achieve the desired outcomes; and alike. The benchmark is mouthpiece for expert viewpoints from 31 countries and builds on strong and continuous collaboration with the European Commission and country representatives. The 2009 benchmark was kicked off at two Member State workshops on 17 March and 14 April 2009. The workshops brought together the EU27+s country representatives at the European Commissions eGovernment i2010 Subgroup to shape the groundwork. Key decisions were taken on the extent the benchmark should be revised, the design of the new indicators and policy targets to watch out for. Following the workshops, like in the past years, Member States were requested to fill in a survey on their service delivery structures. The aim of such a request is both to guarantee that the list of service providers examined in the benchmark is relevant and up-to-date, and to foster ownership of the outcome of the measurement. In 2009, two new sections complemented the service landscaping: a separate set of questions on Member States governance of electronic services and good practices, plus a new section regarding the in-depth eProcurement indicator. The qualitative insights gained from these questionnaires are intertwined in the report. Once the web survey completed, results were discussed and validated with each country bilaterally. The validation procedure ensures that results are accurate and that the benchmark remains a widely accepted flagship across Europe. The following section describes the results of the quantitative assessments for the 2009 measurement of the 20 services and eProcurement.

23

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

3. Results for the 20 basic services

3.1 Sophistication of Services
In terms of sophistication, Europe stands at 83%, compared to 76% in 2007. Sophistication assesses the maturity of core 20 eGovernment services across the 27+ European countries; thus focusing on the interaction between service provider and user, from simple information provision to personalised pro-active case handling. Achieving an average th score of 83%, places Europe at the top of the 4 level sophistication level for full electronic case handling. Discrepancies between countries performance are moderate, with a range of 33%.
Sophistication 2007-2009
100 90

83%
80 70 60
in %

76%

50 40 30 20 10 0 MT PT SE AT SI EE FI UK IE DK FR BE DE ES NL NO LU IT LV CZ LT IS HU PL SK CY EL CH BG RO HR Countries
Sophistication in 2009 Sophistication in 2007 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

Figure 15: Sophistication 2007-2009

The top 10 countries all score above 90% in terms of sophistication, illustrating the inherent saturation of the indicator. Malta and Portugal have both obtained the maximum achievable sophistication score and share the podium; followed closely by Austria and Sweden both having achieved 99% of service sophistication. Slovenia and Estonia are the best-performing Eastern European countries, with 97% and 95% sophistication marks respectively. Only seven percentage points separate the best performance amongst the top ten. The top 10 has slightly changed compared to 2007. This year, Finland, Ireland and Denmark have joined the top ranks and confirm the leading role of Anglo-Celtic and Nordic countries in Europes eGovernment landscape, whilst France, Norway and Germany have lost a few positions. Both France and Germany seem to be struggling with the size of their country and its complex, fragmented administrative structure. Other countries have leapfrogged, for example Latvia, gaining 24 percentage points, and Poland gaining 20 percentage points compared to 2007. Like in previous years, business services remain more mature than their citizen counterparts. This confirms the global trend that governments continue prioritizing the development of business services, with higher (sometimes mandatory) uptake and more tangible impact on a countrys economic performance. Sophistication for businesses now stands at 90% compared to 84% in 2007. Average sophistication of citizen services scores 12 points lower, standing at 78 % in 2009, compared to 70% in 2007. Four countries have reached 100% sophistication for business services: Austria, Denmark, Malta and Portugal; Malta and Portugal now also scoring 100% for citizen services.

24

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

Sophistication 2007-2009 for EU15, non-EU15 and EU27+ 2007
2009

100 90 80 70 60
in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 EU15 Others
Figure 16: Sophistication 2007-2009 for EU27+

EU27+

For all 20 services, four clusters have been assessed: income generating (for government); registration (e.g. births, company, moving); service returns (e.g. health, social, libraries); and permits and licences (e.g. building, education, passport). The progress per cluster made since 2007 is depicted in the figures below.
Sophistication of service clusters in the EU27+
Features Taxes, social contributions, VAT, customs . Income generating
100

2009

2007

75

50

25

Permits and licences Features Building, passport, education, environment

Registration Features Car, company, birth & marriage, moving, statistical data

Returns Features Health, libraries, procurement, policing, job search, benefits

Figure 17: Sophistication of service clusters in the EU27+

25

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

The advancement made yet again underlines the ongoing growth of income-generating services, and the challenge of enabling more local thus fragmented, heterogeneous (citizen) services. An additional analysis has been carried out to evaluate only the online services with a fifth sophistication level.
Pro-active 5th sophistication level 2007-2009
100 90 80 70 60

in %

50%
50 40 30
Sophistication in 2009

37%

20 10 0

Sophistication in 2007 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

MT AT FI DE SI PT NL EE BE FR SE NO DK ES IE IS UK BG SK IT LU RO HU LT CZ LV EL PL HR CY CH Countries

Figure 18: Pro-active 5 sophistication level 2007-2009

th

The mediocre results depicted in the ranking above show that relatively few countries reach the fifth sophistication level. And that despite the evident potential technology is offering to turn government processes inside-out. From 15 those services that could be delivered either in an automated14 or personalized (my service) way, only about 50% reach this maturity stage. Malta tops the rank with a maximum possible score followed by Austria, Finland and Germany, which- besides Germany showing a particularly sound performance in this ranking- overlaps strongly with the top countries in the sophistication and full online availability rankings.

The notion of automated services has been evaluated for income taxes, submission of statistical data and social security benefits. For the exact definition of the fifth level for these services please see the service taxonomy in the annex. 15 The notion of personalized services has been evaluated for public libraries, personal documents and environment-related permits. For the exact definition of the fifth level for these services please see the service taxonomy in the annex.

14

26

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

3.2 Ranking full online availability
Europe shows continued steady progress in terms of full online availability. The overall EU27+ measure has risen to 71% in 2009 from 59% in 2007. The figures below offer an overview of the progress made. The difference across countries remains significant with an overall range of 68%.
Full online availability 2007-2009
100 90 80

71%
70 60
in %

59%

50 40 30
Full online availability in 2009

20 10

Full online availability in 2007 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

0 AT MT PT UK SE SI EE FI DK IE FR NO ES NL DE BE IT LU LV HU CZ LT IS SK PL CY EL RO BG HR CH Countries

Figure 19: Full online availability 2007-2009

The top 10 countries all score above 80% in terms of online availability. The top four countries, Austria, Malta, Portugal and the United Kingdom have achieved 100% online availability, followed closely by Sweden and Slovenia that are only 5 points behind. The following four countries, Estonia, Finland, Denmark and Ireland, have scores ranging from 83 to 90%. Thus the difference in range between the top ten is of 17 percentage points. Full online availability The top 10 has slightly changed compared to 2007. Trend from 2001 to 2009 for EU27+ Although Austria, Malta and Portugal remain in the lead, the United Kingdom has considerably 100 progressed to the maximum level, gaining 10 points compared to 2007. Sweden, Finland and Denmark 80 have progressed by an average of 20 points. Ireland has joined the top ten even gaining 33 points compared to 2007, thus confirming the European 60 trend depicting important progress in terms of Businesses availability. However, the span of the progress 40 All services achieved is not consistent among European countries: the fastest growers have gained up to 35 20 Citizens points, whereas some countries remain at the same level or witness progress of only a few points. This 0 is the case notably for Germany and Norway, who 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 have left the top ten and whose decentralised Years governance models remain a challenge for the development and procurement of shared services and systems. Figure 20: Full online availability trend from 2001 to 2009 for EU27+
in %

27

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

Similar to sophistication, in terms of availability, there is an important discrepancy between services for businesses and services for citizens. In 2009, availability of services for businesses scores 20 points higher than services for citizens. Already in 2007, there was a 19 point difference. This reflects the inherent nature of business services, being more homogeneous in form. Services for citizens, by comparison, are highly diverse in range, and citizens have far more heterogeneous needs and behaviours. and frequently revenue-earning for government. They are therefore more attractive to technology-enable.
16

Full online availability Trend from 2001 to 2009 - EU15, New Member States and EU27+
100

80

60
in %

EU15
40

EU27+ New Member States

20

0 2001

2003

2005 Years

2007

2009

The New Member States have joined the benchmark in 2004. As the above trend figure shows, the average availability of services throughout Europe first dropped with the New Member States joining the ranking. Since, the New Member States have steadily improved their eGovernment performance but are, with an average performance of 63% for online availability, still lagging behind by almost 20% compared to the former EU-15. This is shown in the adjoining 17 figure. Eastern Europe displays a particularly mixed eGovernment landscape, with a few countries such as Estonia and Slovenia significantly outperforming the others; and some countries with though moderate results but significant investment striving to catch up with the pace, like Poland, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Figure 21: Full online availability trend from 2001 to 2009 EU15, Non-EU15 and EU27+

16
17

Countries having joined the European Union in 2004 or 2007: BG, CY, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK. This figure includes results for Turkey in 2007, and results for Croatia in 2009.

28

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

3.3 Growth and governance
The most advanced countries show saturation against both the sophistication and full online availability measures for many of the 20 services. This underpins the need to refresh the measurement system. We also observe a small number of countries making very significant improvements essentially leapfrogging their peers. This is shown in the accompanying figure.

Sophistication and growth in the EU27+

Leapfroggers

Fast growers

Moderate adopters

Saturated top

Sophistication 2009

8 countries

8 countries

12 countries

HIGH LOW

2 countries

Latvia Poland

Bulgaria Denmark Finland Ireland

Lithuania Luxembourg Sweden Slovakia

15 to 25%

10 to 15%

5 to 10%

0 to 5%

Growth over the period 2007-2009

Figure 22: Sophistication and growth in the EU27+

18

Countries with the steepest relative growth are Latvia (growth of 24.3% compared to 2007 sophistication performance) and Poland (growth of 20.6% compared to 2007 sophistication performance). These are followed by Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden and Slovakia, all having improved their relative performance by at least 10%. On an average, Europes relative growth is moderate with 7,4% compared to the 2007 sophistication results. Strong and focused leadership and greater controls across the tiers seem to be characteristics which are favourable of good performance. Rather than size and governance structure. Good governance includes: top level political sponsorship and sustained leadership of eGovernment broad coverage of the eGovernment strategy that focuses on key business priorities, and the customer, and addresses skills, inclusion, and joint working governance mechanisms that enable collaboration across public bodies (e.g. the likes of pan-Government CIO/CTO councils); that provide central solutions and leadership, and build local capacity where appropriate Austria, one of the top performers of the benchmark, is a clear example of a federal state with successful steering across the tiers. The federal governance structure is streamlined by strong political leadership from the centre and very effective eGovernment cooperation across all levels of administration. The compact organisational structure and

18

(i.e. growth relative to the sophistication score obtained in 2007 as opposed to absolute growth in percentage points)

29

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

management of eGovernment initiatives is widely recognised and adopted by all layers of government for its value-add as compared to the impact one-on-one, decentralised initiatives would procure. Germany, in the middle field of the rankings, has several acknowledged best practice examples but these remain rather disparate across the country. The different Lnder are mostly developing eGovernment solutions in a decentralized manner thus becoming challenging to achieve progress on national level. Switzerland, as a federal State, shares this struggle. France has, as anticipated earlier, lost a few ranks in this years benchmark and seems to be struggling with the size of the country and its complex administrative structure. Scoring results are weaker for those services that are delivered in a decentralized manner, such as Passports, Application for Building Permission, Enrolment in Higher Education, Healthrelated Services and Environmental Permits. The United Kingdom, despite its size, has achieved good results in the benchmark across its administrations. eGovernment Governance is centralized and controlled by the Cabinet Office. It is supported by a CIO Council (chaired by the Government CIO) of 30 CIOs from all levels of government. More technical aspects are dealt with by the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) Council. Central government departments and agencies are in charge of eGovernment deployment. The CIO oversees the implementation. Spain also demonstrates good results despite its size. Coordinative governance mechanisms such as the Sectoral Committee of eGovernment ensure coherent eGovernment development across the tiers. Deployment as such is highly decentralized but backed up by legal provisions and separate multilateral and bilateral agreements with regional authorities.

30

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

4. eProcurement Results
4.1 Policy Background
Ambitious targets to reach in 2010 Public Procurement represents approximately 16% of the European Unions GDP and is one of the most direct ways in which the public sector impacts the economy. In 2004 the volume of procurement advertised at EU level amounted to 19 around 1500 billion - double the level advertised in 1995 . Leveraging public demand is even more important today, in the aftermath of the global economic crisis. EU governments are under pressure to improve efficiency and effectiveness of their purchase processes, and to promote innovation, sustainability, transparency and fair competition in the Single Market. This benchmark study provides clear evidence that governments are increasingly relying on eProcurement to achieve these goals. Already in 2002, the European Union had identified eProcurement as a high impact service, able to generate significant benefits for citizens, businesses as well as administrations. The 2004 eProcurement Action Plan initiated the revision of the legal frameworks enabling electronic procurement. The Manchester Ministerial Declaration of 24 November 2005 finally set specific eProcurement objectives, which were confirmed and detailed in the i2010 eGovernment Action Plan as follows: By 2010 all public administrations across Europe will have the capability of carrying out 100% of their procurement electronically (where legally permissible). By 2010 all public administrations across Europe will ensure that at least 50% of public procurement above the EC threshold is carried out electronically. The i2010 Action Plan focused on the development of the enabling conditions (for example eSignatures) and promoted 20 the launch of national and pan-European large-scale pilots, such as the ongoing PEPPOL project. There is no doubt that these initiatives have created the conditions for a shift from traditional to electronic procurement in the entire EU. Appropriate legal frameworks are now in place in all Member States for eProcurement. In 2004, only 6 Member States had already implemented an electronic procurement system. Today, the benchmark illustrates, 29 out of the 31 surveyed countries have a national eProcurement platform or portal in place. The only exceptions to the rule are Greece and Iceland which both have imminent plans to implement a platform. Progress is manifest across the board, also in the New Member States. However, measuring Europes progress towards the eProcurement targets remains extremely complex. Lack of data and comparability problems have so far prevented a reliable assessment of availability and take-up of eProcurement, save for individual countries or case studies. Thus, the availability benchmarks presented in this report provide the only comparable information about the level of development of eProcurement in Europe. As first time benchmarks, their methodology will need to be fine-tuned; and their significance must be interpreted within the context of each Member States institutional and market conditions. The information value the benchmarks provide is nevertheless undeniable. A dynamic European landscape of eProcurement Before we present the actual benchmark results, it is important to set the stage. The contracting authorities engaged in public procurement in the EU27+ could be as many as 100 000, perhaps just 25-30 000 if we consider only those 21 administrations responsible for tenders over the EU threshold Even though we dont know how many actors actually procure online, we know that they form a large and varied universe. Contracting authorities are present in all government tiers, with very different roles and responsibilities, depending on each country's institutional profile, administrative culture and practices. As for all government processes, in the last years there has been a trend towards aggregation and rationalization of purchasing processes to achieve economies of scale and scope. This has led to the emergence of centralized
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/public-proc-market-finalreport_en.pdf&ei=Q0b5Ssa4O9WfjAeW0rG6Cw&sa=X&oi=nshc&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAgQzgQoAA&usg=AFQjCNFtzsI5t5X5vC41AdWCUBJsya8NA
20 21

19

PEPPOL (Pan European Public Procurement online),project funded by the EC CIP-ICT PSP Programme The EU threshold ranges from 80 000 euros for small lots of suppliers contracts to over 5 million euros for large public works..

31

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

procurement agencies at the national and territorial level (regional or federal, in countries such as Germany, Italy, Spain). Or procurement agencies specialized in a particular sector (mainly healthcare, social services, public transport and public works procurement agencies). This years benchmark excluded procurement agencies specialized in sectors and focused only on government procurement authorities. For the first time, the benchmark report provides a comprehensive mapping of European eProcurement platforms and their interaction with government authorities. Key findings can hence be drawn on the EU27+s eProcurement landscape: Several countries are on the verge of implementing new, more powerful national procurement platforms (e.g. Austria, Finland, The Netherlands). Many regional or federal procurement agencies use the introduction of eProcurement as an opportunity to centralize the sourcing and purchase activities of local authorities. In parallel, regional and federal agencies are taking over more strategic functions, such as needs analysis and supplier management. These strategic functions are also increasingly ICT-enabled. The survey found over 270 eProcurement service providers, providing supporting services for governments, publishing tenders, or specializing in select phases of the procurement process. In many countries, national infrastructures for eProcurement have evolved into fully-fledged portals, guiding authorities to select procurement tools or services according to their needs (Belgium, Spain, UK). Contracting authorities are learning to use more than one eProcurement platform or service provider; this is clearly illustrating that eProcurement is evolving towards a networked process linking many different actors and cutting across governmental silos. A key success factor of eProcurement platforms is the recruitment of specialized skills. Contracting authorities cannot afford to develop and maintain specialized personnel for the variety of competences required to procure, from legal expertise to green procurement. Electronic Markets are starting to become popular for routine, low value purchases, also for SME suppliers, including micro-enterprises under 10 employees. Thanks to the Internet, fears and ignorance of technology are decreasing.

4.2 eProcurement Availability Benchmark

The eProcurement Availability Benchmark has been measured for the first time on a comparable sample of 746 contracting authorities from all government tiers: national, federal, regional and local. The new benchmark hence stands in contrast to the traditional online sophistication indicator measured since 2001 as part of the 20 services benchmark. The latter indicator has been measured on national platforms only. Currently the new, in-depth availability benchmark reaches 56% for the EU27+. The score achieved by the 352 national procurement authorities of the sample stands at 58%. With 52%, results are only slightly lower for the 394 federal, regional and local authorities of the sample. These results indicate that more than half of the European government authorities surveyed point their potential suppliers to the availability of eProcurement services on their web site. Although far from the European target of 100% availability, the benchmark actually reflects a very dynamic scenario where the availability of eProcurement is growing fast. First of all, the EU27+ average hides a very wide range of values, from the full 100% score of Ireland and Estonia, to the 15% of Iceland. The 4 top countries all score above 90%, and there are 8 more countries which perform above 60% on the indicator. Another large group of countries scores closely to the EU27+ average, whilst only 8 countries score less than 40%. In other words, approximately half of the surveyed countries are effectively on their way to achieving the Manchester availability target.

32

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

eProcurement Availability Benchmark
100 90 80
78 77 100 100 98 92

70 60
in %

75 71 67 62 62 61

EU average is 56%
58 58 57 53 52 50 50 49 44 42 41 38 36 36 34 34 32

50 40 30 20
eProcurement availability in 2009

21 15

10 0

EU27+ average 2009

Countries

Figure 23: The eProcurement Availability Benchmark of Contracting authorities

There is a positive correlation between the achievements of national authorities and regional/local authorities in the benchmark. This indicates that the development of eProcurement, originally driven by national governments' initiatives, has spilled over into regional and local projects. Developments are mainly driven by large authorities who can afford the investment and can reap economies of scale and scope.

EU27+ eProcurement availability Benchmark By Government Tier

100 90 80 70 60 58 52

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 Central Government Authorities Regional/Federal/Local Authorities

Figure 24: The eProcurement availability benchmark by government tier

The top performers for the Availability Benchmark are a group of 4 countries: Estonia, Ireland, Malta and Luxembourg. In these countries, a strong proactive policy for eProcurement has succeeded in aligning availability and visibility for most contracting authorities. Others, such as Slovenia, Bulgaria and Cyprus, are about to achieve similar results. In the case of Ireland, for example, it is estimated that over 95% of the country's tender notices are published through the National Portal for a total estimated contract value of 11Bn euro in 2008. Undoubtedly, there is a

33

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

correlation between the size of the population of a country and the Availability Benchmark, since it is easier to achieve widespread diffusion of the enabling infrastructures for eProcurement in smaller and more centralised economic systems. The benchmark proves, though, that the New Member States have adopted eProcurement policies willingly and strongly, given their relatively recent investments. The other countries appearing in the top 10 of the Availability Benchmark of contracting authorities are Spain, Denmark, Germany and The UK, closely followed by Austria. For many of them the regional/local authorities availability score is higher than the national authorities one, showing a geographically distributed diffusion of services.

Figure 25: The top 10 in the eProcurement Availability Benchmark

4.3 eProcurement Development Models

The European eProcurement landscape is characterized by different development models, influenced by the institutional and administrative structure of each country. The main differentiation factor is whether or not there is a Mandatory National Procurement Platform. While each country has its own specificities, we have classified the EU27+ in four main groups: 1) Mandatory National eProcurement Platform: eProcurement policy is centralized and the use of the National Platform is mandatory for all contracting authorities (Luxembourg, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia, Switzerland), or for National contracting authorities (Austria, France, Italy and Portugal). Such a centrally steered approach encourages centralization and coordination but does not per se exclude the development of independent regional, local platforms or private platforms. 2) Mandatory National eProcurement Portal: it is mandatory to publish tenders on a single National Portal (Estonia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Croatia, Finland and Romania). This obligation can be bound to certain criteria: European tenders, or tenders above a national threshold, or tenders within a specific sector such as ICT. Portals normally do not provide for eProcurement services beyond publication. Notice that countries in this group may also have a national eProcurement platform in place which can be used by authorities on a voluntary basis. 3) Non-Mandatory National eProcurement Platform/Portal: there is a National eProcurement infrastructure, whose use is recommended but not mandatory for contracting authorities (Ireland, Denmark, Germany, UK, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Hungary, Netherlands, Belgium, Latvia, Slovakia and Spain). There are some

34

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

nuances within this group of countries. For example, Belgium and The Netherlands both strongly encourage the publication of notices on the central portal and provide a wide range of services. Ireland mandates the use of the national platform only for ICT products and services. In Spain the National eProcurement Platform is mandatory for Central Government Contracting authorities. In the case of Germany and The UK, the eProcurement infrastructure is strongly decentralized. In the Scandinavian countries, The Netherlands and The UK public service providers are in competition with private ones to provide eProcurement services. For example, The UKs National eProcurement Portal Buying solutions offers consulting support and links to more than 600 service providers. 4) No National eProcurement Platform/Portal (yet): This is the case for Greece and Iceland only.

Looking at the eProcurement Availability Benchmark ranking by development model (see figure below) we find top performers in all groups (see Ireland, Estonia, Luxembourg and Malta as depicted in the figure below). The critical success factor seems to be the existence of a well-managed policy, as the low availability score of the two countries without a national infrastructure (Greece and Iceland) confirms.

The eProcurement Availability Indicator by eProcurement Model Clusters

81-100

IE

EE

LU

MT

61-80

DK ES UK

DE PL NO NL LV BG CY CZ HR FI RO

AT

SI

Availability Score

41-60

SE HU

FR IT PT

LT

21-40

BE SK

CH

0-20

EL

IS

No Platform

Non-Mandatory Platform

Mandatory Portal

Mandatory Platform

Platform/Portal classification
Figure 26: The eProcurement Availability Benchmark by Development Model Clusters

35

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

4.4 eProcurement Process Benchmark
eProcurement Pre-Award Process Benchmark The eProcurement Pre-Award Process Benchmark measures the availability of 14 distinct, so-called elementary steps constituting the procurement process from the publication of the tender, to its submission by the supplier to the awarding of the contract. The average score for the EU27+ on the Pre-Award Process Benchmark is 59%, which is slightly higher than the average score achieved in the Availability Benchmark. This achievement reflects an encouraging level of development of eProcurement across Europe. The process indicator also reveals a wide range of variance in the performance of the surveyed countries, ranging from the 29% score of Iceland to the 93% scores of Cyprus and Estonia. Strikingly, the top 5 performers- Cyprus, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, and Romania- only have 1 National Platform in place. Countries with many platforms (such as The UK with 29, France with 21, Germany with 14, Italy with 11 and Poland with 9 platforms) obtain process scores close to the EU27+ average but are not amongst the top performers. This again shows that small countries with a single integrated National Platform at the core of their proactive strategy more easily reach high levels of eProcurement development. In certain cases though, a single platform may also signify low activity, or delay in the implementation of eProcurement, as is the case for Iceland, currently positioned at the last rank in the benchmark, where the national platform is under construction.
eProcurement Pre-Award Process Benchmark
100 90 80 70 60
in %
93 93 86 86 86 79 75 73 69 67 64 64 59 58 57 57 56 50 50 50 50 50 48 48 46 43 43 40 39 33 29

EU average is 59%

50 40 30 20
eProcurement pre-award in 2009

10
EU27+ average 2009

Countries

Figure 27: The eProcurement Pre-Award Process Benchmark

The top 4 performers for the Pre-Award Process Benchmark miss the 100% score for lack of availability of the same elementary step: the SMS alert to potential suppliers in the eNotification subphase. Continuing with the assessment of leading nations, Ireland and Lithuania further do not have a functioning eAuctions system, or it is not up and running. Even if the service is technically feasible on the Irish National Platform for example, no Irish authority has requested it so far. The other countries in the top ten- Belgium, Malta, Sweden, Denmark and Austria- score between 79% (Belgium) and 67% (Austria) on the eProcurement Pre-Award Process indicator. Some governments prefer not to provide eAuction services, while others find it very useful to promote competition among their suppliers.

36

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

Top 10
ESTONIA

eProcurement Pre-award
BELGIUM

93%
CYPRUS MALTA

79%

93%
ROMANIA SWEDEN

75%

86%
LITHUANIA DENMARK

73%

86%
IRELAND AUSTRIA

69%

86%

67%

EU+

59%

Figure 28: The top 10 in the eProcurement Pre-award Benchmark

The Pre-Award Process Benchmark by Subphase Split into three subphases, the Pre-Award Process Benchmark is the highest for eNotification (68%), followed by eSubmission (56%) and eAward (48%) in the EU27+. This is shown in the figure below.

100 90 80 70 60

EU27+ eProcurement Pre-Award Process Benchmark by Subphase

68 56 48

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 e-Notification e-Submission

e-Award

Figure 29: The eProcurement Pre-Award Process Benchmark by Subphase

eNotification includes the simple publication of tenders online (by now a standard government practice in all countries) and some interactive functions aimed at personalizing the relation with potential suppliers. This includes for example giving suppliers the opportunity to identify their areas of interest and to ask for personalized email alerts. The

37

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

latter two functionalities are in particular offered by the more advanced providers. The use of SMS alerts to warn potential suppliers of contract notices is the elementary service with the lowest availability in Europe. eSubmission focuses on 7 steps of the process of searching for and submitting tenders online and on the interaction between the platform and the tenderer. Availability is lower for the more sophisticated services, such as the possibility for the supplier to compile personalized profiles, or the presence of online screening tools to pre-qualify suppliers for certain calls for tenders. There is clearly quite a long way to go to complete availability for these activities, which are the core of the eTendering process. eAward includes the publication of awarded contracts and the availability of eAuctions. The availability of the second service is much lower than that of the first. and hence significantly lowers the EU27+ average on the process indicator. According to a recent DG Markt assessment, there were 1707 eAuctions organized in Europe in the period 2006-2008. (The study confirms that the Member States can be divided into two groups: agroup of frequent users (including Germany, France, Italy, Romania and the UK) and another group which doesnt use eAuctions at all (such as Austria, Ireland and others).

4.5 eProcurement Post-Award Process Benchmark

The eProcurement Post-Award Process Benchmark measures the availability of 3 distinct, so-called elementary steps constituting the procurement process after the award of the contract, including eOrdering (and eCatalogues), eInvoicing and ePayments. The Post-Award benchmark is not presented in this report, because only partial data has been gathered, due to the difficulty to measure back-office processes with the web survey. However, we can make first considerations. The eOrdering subphase, meaning the placement of online purchase orders, for example through eCatalogues but not only, is more frequently present in eProcurement Platforms than the other two Post-Award subphases. This service It is usually offered by the large countries platforms (in Spain, France, and Italy for example) and some of the small countries (Cyprus, Lithuania). There is anecdotal evidence that the presence of eCatalogues, a key element of Electronic Markets, is becoming quite popular for routine purchases among government authorities and smaller suppliers. The post-award phases tend to be implemented by the contracting authorities themselves. This is particularly the case of eInvoicing and ePayments, which tend to be managed by the public authorities ERP systems. At the European level, the availability of these subphases, according to the web survey of the benchmark, appears very low. This result probably underestimates availability, but there is no doubt that the availability of elements of the Post-Award phase is less advanced than that of the Pre-Award Phase. It will need to be investigated, in the preparations for the 2010 benchmark, how to assess the Post-Award phase.

38

Part A: The 2009 Performance Benchmark

Part B:
The User Experience Pilot indicator

39

Part B: The User Experience

Part B provides an overview of the method (section 5.1) and the 2009 results for the User Experience pilot measure (sections 5.2-5.4). Section 5.5 provides for the qualitative findings made in terms of User Satisfaction Monitoring. Finally, Section 5.6 concludes with an outlook to the 2010 measurement.

5. Adding the user perspective

Europe has shown great progress in putting government services online. The goal of improving eGovernment services however by far extends beyond merely providing services. There is no use in delivering eGovernment services if these are not used or do not deliver the expected benefits to users. The end results must reflect the outcome they deliver for citizens, businesses and government itself. This outcome proves itself through usage, delivery of relevant high impact services, convenience, and time- and efficiency gains. A positive User Experience is a pre-requisite for repeat visits and inclusiveness of eGovernment services. The 2009 study has been used to define, measure and report on various components of User Experience that can be measured through the web. It must be emphasised that the User Experience indicator is a pilot indicator and further enhancements are anticipated and to be designed in collaboration with Member States for the 2010 study.

5.1 What has been measured

The evaluation process considers all tier one (i.e. national) websites across the 14 000 sample, and 30% of all measured regional and local sites. It also includes all national portals, and principal portals (for instance business, domain, subnational, ...). In total, 80 portals have been examined. Five indicators have been used to assess User Experience: Accessibility: A web-crawler performed an automated assessment of compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG1.0 standards) of the national portal. Is the national portal accessible to people with disabilities? Usability: Can you use a channel of choice, does the website allow for progress tracking, is there a help functionality available and are privacy policies duly mentioned and explained? User Satisfaction Monitoring: Do websites allow for user feedback and reporting on this? One-stop-shop approach: What proportion of the 20 basic services are available on the principal portal(s)? User-focused portal design: What is the ease of finding information on the different websites and are they structured by theme or life-events for instance? The detailed research questions used for the User Experience pilot can be found in the annex. The accessibility metric is based on an entirely automated evaluation of all EU27+ national portals against compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG10). The benchmark assessment is restricted to tests that do not require manual testing of a site. The web crawler detects elements that reduce the usability of web sites for the impaired and groups with low skills levels such as blink, non-text and deprecated elements. The Usability metrics looks at the ease-of-use of an eGovernment service. When applying for a service, is progress tracked and are earlier versions saved? Does the user need to complete the service application at once, or can he return to the site, ideally at the point where he left the application? And what happens if personal data are misused? Is there a privacy statement on the site and is it clear to the user which steps he needs to take to revert the situation? Difficulties using a site can be numerous. They can be of technical nature, or a simple matter of plain language. In this case Frequently-Asked- Questions produce relief, or a helpdesk for example. Finally, if the e-channel is not the preferred one or cannot be used, the user should have the choice of another, alternative channel. Users need to have their say so on which eGovernment services work and which dont. The User satisfaction monitoring metric looks into whether users can give feedback on or rate a web site. In addition, best practices have been identified through qualitative research. The One Stop Shop indicator shows the proportion of the 20 services available on the principal portal(s). Governments are often organised in a functional way where every function is a separate
40

Part B: The User Experience

organisation and often tiers of government add to the complexity of the service delivery structure. In one stop shop approaches, the user can access a variety of services from one entry point, independently of the governmental structure in the back office.

5.2 Key findings for Europe

Average results for Europe show a significant variance in performance. This is shown in the spider plot below where achievements range from average scores of 34% to 81%. The measure illustrates a solid One Stop Shop approach and sound User-focused Portal Design. This proves that most European countries clearly group information on their portals and use the portals as a unified entry point to their government services. There is room for improvement in usability, where less than half of the screened web sites respond positively to the assessment criteria. And most markedly, there is limited user satisfaction monitoring, as not even one third of government web sites can be rated and commented upon by the user. The shift in country policies towards customercentricity is likely to cause a marked improvement in these lagging areas.

User experience in the EU27+

EU27+ 46.8% Min 12% Max 92%

Usability
100

75

Assesment made on 20 services and national portals

Accessibility-automated

50

User-focused portal design

EU27+ 71.5% Min 0% Max 100%

25 EU27+ 0 64.2% Min 10% Max 99%

Assesment made on national portals only

One-stop-shop approach
EU27+ 81.6% Min 0% Max 100%

User satisfaction monitoring

EU27+ 34.8% Min 0% Max 100%

Figure 30: User Experience Assessment Results

Finland, UK, Malta, Estonia and Spain appear regularly among the top countries in terms of User Experience. But good practices are very wide-spread across the whole of the EU27+ and there is still a significant need to enhance learning. Some particularly good performers still seem to little advertise their success stories. There is very limited difference in results between business and citizen services if it is not that business services score slightly better on usability. Perhaps not surprisingly portals offer a better User Experience than service-specific web sites. The portals with the best User Experience are business portals, which seem to be more usable and more feedback-oriented than their citizen counterparts. Nine countries have provided a business portal for the benchmark: The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, The United Kingdom. Looking solely at the usability dimension of User Experience, there is very limited difference in the scores achieved on track and trace, help, privacy and multi-channel. Throughout the EU, services generating state income (such as Income taxes, VAT and the like) have both the highest sophistication and highest usability scores. Job search services and unemployment service sites most often propose an alternative channel. Services often delivered by multiple instead of one central service provider, such as building permission, personal documents and environmental permits still feature a relatively low usability.
41

Part B: The User Experience

The figure below maps usability against service sophistication, indicating how countries perform against these two variables. Certain countries, like Malta and Estonia, and also The United Kingdom and Finland, provide highly mature and user-friendly services.

Online sophistication versus Usability of the 20 eGovernment services

100 90 80 70
Sophistication in %
AT

DK

FR DE

LV

IS SK CH RO BG
HR

IE ES BE NL NO EU27+ IT LU CZ LT HU CY EL

SI

SE

PT

EE

MT UK FI

PL

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20

30

40

50 60 Usability in %

70

80

90

100

Figure 31: Online sophistication versus usability of the 20 eGovernment services

5.3 Best practices across Europe

Top 5
AUSTRIA

Accessibility of national portals (automated)

99%
NETHERLANDS

94%
DENMARK

90%
NORWAY

90%
GERMANY

88%

EU+

64%

The accessibility crawler reveals a mixed EU27+ landscape. Only two countries, Austria and The Netherlands, have passed the automated test obtaining the green/letter B, i.e. the best possible score in this category. The majority of Europe achieves medium scores between orange and red indicating that the technical usability, embedded in the programming code of web sites, needs to be improved. Further details on the accessibility tests conducted

are provided in the annex. Austria has been found to set the example for accessibility. Austria regularly proceeds to selfevaluations of government web sites and has recently published a detailed study applying WCAG 2.0, the next generation of accessibility standards of the World Wide Web Consortium.22 The Netherlands have set an ambitious accessibility deadline for their public sector. All new web sites set up since September 1 2006 have to be designed conform to strict accessibility guidelines; existing websites need to comply by December 31 2010.23
22 See www.digitales.oesterreich.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=34322 and www.digitales.oesterreich.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=34323

42

Part B: The User Experience

Five countries have scored particularly well on Usability: Finland, The FINLAND United Kingdom, Malta, Estonia and Poland. The 92% United Kingdoms business UNITED KINGDOM link portal, 89% http://www.businesslink.go MALTA v.uk/bdotg/action/layer?r.l1 76% , is a strong example of how ESTONIA government supports 67% business competitiveness by providing added value and POLAND easy-to-use advisory. 64% Estonias portal, www.eesti.ee, offers track EU+ and trace to authenticated 47% users. Users can enter their personal space using an ID card, a mobile telephone or even an Internet banking application. They can also set up their personal linkbook, memorizing their preferred government web sites. Several Polish business service sites were also found to be particularly intuitive, for example the tax returns site http://www.edeklaracje.gov.pl/ which uses a few, simple click-on symbols to guide the user to the relevant information.

Top 5

Usability

Top 5
FINLAND

User satisfaction monitoring

100%
MALTA

89%
UNITED KINGDOM

85%
PORTUGAL

As anticipated, only about one third of the EU27+s web sites can be rated by the user online. However, there are countries which clearly set the example in this field and illustrate that online satisfaction monitoring is an integral part of a user-friendly web site.

83%

All Finnish web sites tested had a feedback icon, such 77% as http://www.mol.fi/mol/en EU+ /index.jsp (job search services), 35% http://www.kela.fi/in/inter net/english.nsf (social security benefits) and http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/index_eng (passports and drivers licenses). The user can immediately, whilst using the service, share his experience with the government. Malta has, on http://www.gov.mt/index.asp?l=2, revamped is customer-support system by introducing servizz.gov.mt to which the portal links through a How can we help? icon. The portal itself groups public consultations and contains a contact data base. A Have your say icon is embedded in most public service websites.
LUXEMBOURG

The Portuguese portal http://www.portaldocidadao.pt/PORTAL/pt is a good case in point of how government can incite suggestions and opinions through the portal site. Users can also call in to provide feedback. Luxembourg has placed a concise user satisfaction survey across the board of its public sector sites, see for example http://www.guichet.public.lu/fr/. In addition to the web survey, the benchmark project included research on the when, how, why, how often of monitoring user satisfaction in the EU27+. Information has been collected, as agreed upon

23

http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/besluit/tekst-besluit-en-toelichting/

43

Part B: The User Experience

with participating countries, through the online community eGovMoNet24 hosted by the European Commission and a secure document share site made available to country representatives for the benchmarks purposes. Key results of this qualitative assessment are presented separately, at the end of this section.

One-Stop-Shop Approach
CZECH REPUBLIC

8 countries at 100%

MALTA

Eight EU27+ countries have reached the 100% mark for the One-StopShop metric. The Czech Republic (see for example www.portal.gov.cz) and Slovakia (see for example portal.gov.sk/Portal/sk/De fault.aspx) set the example for Eastern Europe. Spains www.060.es is a particularly comprehensive One-StopShop; a call-centre and a network of face-to-face offices complement the

100%
SPAIN SLOVAKIA

100%

100%
IRELAND

100%
UNITED KINGDOM

100%
ICELAND

100%
SWITZERLAND

100%

100%

EU+

82%

portal. Irish users can access services through the national portal and a citizen and business portal (http://www.gov.ie, www.citizensinformation.ie and http://www.basis.ie respectively). Iceland offers all in one through http://www.island.is/forsida. The Swiss portal ch.ch is the national gateway to Switzerlands federal government, cantons and local authorities. Information is available in German, French, Italian, Romansh and English. This portal is a joint project of the federal government, the cantons and the communes, operated by the Federal Chancellery. The User-focused portal design component User focused portal design 15 countries at 100% assesses whether Member State portals LUXEMBOURG AUSTRIA are organized by theme 100% 100% and/or target group. MALTA CYPRUS Organization by theme 100% 100% or target group increases NETHERLANDS DENMARK 100% 100% the findability of ESTONIA PORTUGAL information as 100% 100% information is organized SPAIN SLOVENIA from the user standpoint 100% 100% rather than the FINLAND SLOVAKIA governmental one. The 100% 100% segmentation makes it FRANCE ICELAND 100% 100% easier for users to CROATIA identify what is relevant EU+ 100% for them within the vast 72% piles of public sector information. It only takes one mouse-click and the user is redirected to a site that serves his purposes. 15 countries have obtained the 100% score for this metrics. France has recently introduced the personalized edition, mon-service-public, of its portal
http://www.service-public.fr/ . The number of users has doubled between August and September 2009,

24

available on the European Commissions ePractice site www.epractice.eu/community/egovmonet

44

Part B: The User Experience

as more and more public bodies are joining the initiative. A personalized dashboard tracks the users administrative procedures, a secure postbox allows to safely store electronic documents. Finally, Croatia and Slovenia leapfrog with regards to this indicator. Croatia has successfully put the greenfield portal http://mojauprava.hr/ into place. Slovenias portal site http://e-uprava.gov.si/euprava/ is an all-in-one gateway both to the Slovenian government and EU initiatives.

5.4 Trends in User Experience

As shown above, there is an extensive range of eGovernment best practices in Europe. Practices which show golden nuggets of leading edge implementation in different areas. Looking across the broad range of practices identified through the web survey, three key trends for eGovernment service delivery emerge: Tailor-made, personalized offerings The use of Online agents Private sector mash-ups

5.4.1

Personalisation

Personalization is all about making sure that the user is only confronted with relevant information and not flooded with random data. The public sector holds huge quantities of information. Only a very small proportion is relevant to the user. And: much is same and held in multiple organizations and in different forms. To counterbalance the information overload, there is a strong trend in Europe towards Personalized Internet Pages (PIPs) by governments, where web sites sort the information according to user profile. Examples of PIPs are websites that filter information according to life situation of an individual or perhaps even the location of a citizen. An example is the Danish national citizens portal, www.borger.dk. The portal displays over 600 digital self-services solutions for citizens. In October 2008, a new edition of borger.dk was launched with increased personalization options including a MyPage section. Currently, borger.dk has close to 100,000 visitors every week and numbers are rising steadily. The Danish national business virk.dk portal displays over 1,300 digital self-service and reporting solutions. As with borger.dk, virk.dk offers personalization options. As per the end of 2008, over 120,000 reportings were made through virk.dk every month. The Austrian website Myhelp.gv.at is a prime example of personalization. It links to a secure post box 25 26 for the receipts of administrative documents, and to the e-Tresor (e-safe) , a secure storage space which citizens can purchase for a lumpsum to store documents of any kind: certificates, diplomas, insurance certificates, diagnostic findings, etc. The individual or a notary can sign the documents electronically. From that moment on, these documents have legal validity in Austria. The German city of Dortmund has also gone virtual (see for example https://www2.domap.de/web/guest/home). The customer visits the city administration once to obtain a log-in and can from that point on apply for, track and trace and obtain his tailor-made eGovernment services without getting lost in the public sectors information overload.

5.4.2

Online agenct (live support)

Many of those eServices that governments propose are used occasionally only, for example at a life event. Users dont necessarily want to learn how a service functions. They want to use the service with minimum effort and avoid errors. Online demos and videos pave the users way. The Dutch Studielinks video demo, as one good practice, step-by-step explains how the enrolment procedure 27 works and that in several languages. Slovenias One Stop Shop for companies, e-VEM, has recently received the United Nations Public Service Award. The website http://evem.gov.si/evem/navodilaUporabaSkupna.evem links to a list of quick demos of the business registration solutions offered.

25 26

http://www.meinbrief.at/ http://www.e-tresor.at/ 27 http://studielink.imtechvelocity.nl/Style%20Library/Studielink/studielink-demo-v2/hoe-werkt-studielink.htm

45

Part B: The User Experience

5.4.3 Private sector mash-ups

Governments need to be present were citizens need them the most and the most frequently. Why not be present on private sector web sites or mash up with private sector firms to keep in touch with stakeholders? In Belgium, the government uses digital television for its job advertisements because of the significant coverage. The Belgian railways have connected with the government and now offer the possibility to 28 travel without a printed ticket, by simply booking the ticket online with an eID. The ticket collector 29 verifies the reservation using the citizens ID data. Sweden is now moving away from the One Stop Shop approach to mashed up, thousand shops. The formerly central portal www.sverige.se is being phased out. Instead, thematic portals are being built. A number of agencies cluster around a theme, possibly with private sector actors, and set up their 30 own portal. As part of this initiative, health, crisis, GIS portals have been built. The above are out-of-the-box ideas we have identified through the User Experience web survey. They all make use of the power Public-Private-Partnerships can discharge. And of allocating the service delivery tasks to those that are best-placed to serve customers, may it be the private or the public sector, or both.

5.5 User satisfaction monitoring

About half of European businesses and citizens are not using eGovernment, and that despite decades of heavy investments. And those using eGovernment services are only moderately satisfied. In a 2008 study for the European Commission, one third of survey participants have even rated their 31 eGovernment experience as not satisfactory. The risk of failing on user expectations and needs is evident: an unsatisfied user will avoid the echannel. And he wont make a difference between the eGovernment service and the public sector 32 generally but will just keep a negative experience with government in mind. So are the benefits: A satisfied user will voluntarily return to the site. Incite his peers to do so as well. And is more likely to contribute actively to public service design and content. Monitoring user satisfaction is a key element of better understanding user behavior and consolidate the shift to the e-channel. According to the quantitative metrics on User satisfaction monitoring, only 35% of the screened web sites can be rated by users directly online, i.e. precisely when the User Experience is taking place. This finding requires further investigation. Online monitoring is just one of the many ways to gather user feedback. The qualitative research of the benchmark has looked deeper into the when, how, why, how often aspects of user satisfaction monitoring practice. For the qualitative research for this section, a secure document share site has been opened on which 17 government representatives have stored relevant documentation. On Member State request and to ensure synergies with other ongoing European Commission initiatives, use has also been made of country evidence gathered through the eGovMoNet network for 11 countries. Clear policy shifts towards more user-centric, user-driven government are causing a marked change in user satisfaction monitoring practice. The number of countries which report undertaking user satisfaction measurements of eGovernment is increasing steadily. In most cases, this improvement is due to a sharper and more determined focus on a user-centric approach. Taking users into account, either through indirect or direct measurement, is increasingly become mainstream for improving the
http://vdab.be/magezine/2001-03/sms.shtml http://www.b-rail.be/nat/F/popup/private/eid/index.php www.verksamt.se -Theme: Public services for businesses: www.vardguiden.se - Theme: eHealth; http://www.geodata.se/sv/Geodataportalen---geodatase/ - Theme: Access to geographical information; http://www.krisinformation.se/ - Theme: Crisis information; http://www.korkortsportalen.se/ - Theme: Drivers license. 31 http://www.epractice.eu/en/library/288705 32 http://www.euser-eu.org;
29 30 28

46

Part B: The User Experience

quality of services, encouraging take-up and acting as a spur to the back-office changes often necessary.

5.5.1

The approaches and metrics

The framework below presents the approach taken to the qualitative assessment of user satisfaction monitoring. The main research goal was to capture: the tools and approaches in place; the metrics being reported on, how often, to whom and for what purpose; practices that are to be considered as good examples. There are at least as many approaches to user satisfaction as service providers. As the framework used for the benchmark shows, the tools, metrics, and good practices in place include monitoring of user needs before a service is put online; Tracking of user satisfaction during usage; And satisfaction surveys after the service has been used. The country examples identified in the benchmark project are outlined further below.

TOOLS

DURING

METRICS

Online for specific service Online general

FULFILMENT Satisfaction score

Online Feedback forms Completeness Pop-up survey

METRICS

Return? Recommend?
METRICS France Italy Slovenia

EASE OF USE Error rates Time savings Cost savings Convenience Accuracy

Mystery user
Greece

SERVICE IMPROVEMENT Channel mix POLICY GOALS Inclusion Transparency

BEFORE

Belgium

USER SATISFACTION MONITORING

AFTER

Switzerland

EMOTIONS & PERCEPTIONS Privacy and Security/Trust

The Netherlands

User co-design
TOOLS

Face-to-face/phone interviews
The United Kingdom Denmark

Ethnographic work User charter Living labs

Portal & Websites data

TOOLS

Househould/Business surveys Focus Groups/Panels

Figure 32: Framework for User Satisfaction Monitoring Before A few countries have started involving users in the design phase of their eGovernment services. They 33 use ethnographic work and observatory methods, like testing environments where users are observed trying out the eGovernment services in a live-lab. A prime example, albeit from outside of Europe, is Australia where the department of immigration and citizenship has a user centred design competency centre. This centre is solely dedicated to designing, implementing and improving all aspects of usability, accessibility and user acceptance testing by means of usability labs, solution visualisations and benchmarking. A few countries have set usability standards or have defined a User charter for the public sector as a universal framework with which eGovernment services have to comply. Some also invite users to participate directly in the design or production of services which they will use.

Ethnographic work groups future users according to socio-cultural criteria such as age and educational level. The aim of ethnographic work is to assess the particular needs of each group and design services accordingly.

33

47

Part B: The User Experience

Amongst the most frequent metrics that are deployed during the design phase are usability metrics. They capture the benefits the online solution should procure such as convenience, ease-of-use, error rates, potential time and cost savings. During It is crucial that users can provide feedback on a government site during their actual User Experience. This can be seen as a give and take approach where the user is provided a service and government is in return provided feedback on its offering. Today, many governments are already using pop-up or drop-down questionnaires, or have integrated a feedback icon on their web sites. Similarly to live-labs used during the design phase, governments have started implementing mystery user techniques. Mystery shoppers posing as normal customers perform specific tasks and then provide detailed reports or feedback about their experience. Here, the most widespread metrics are aimed at capturing the users perception, in real-time so to say. Users can score a service or aspects of it. They can express whether their expectations have been fulfilled, e.g. on completeness and accuracy of information, getting what one wanted. Governments find out whether the user will return to the site and/or recommend it to others. Perception reflects culture, skills, capabilities and the situational context of the individual. After Some governments have launched in-depth or systematic user satisfaction measurements to inform their implementation and policy choices. They track and trace hard data, like usage on portals and web sites. Or interview users to obtain deeper insights. Interviews of people visiting a government office or elsewhere (such as on the street or at home), user panels, focus groups, public meetings, etc., are also used. Next comes telephone surveys, and particularly computer assisted telephone interviews, often undertaken across a sample of a whole population to enquire into general eGovernment service experiences. Such surveys can also capture feedback from non-users thus obtaining an insight into why services are not used and the barriers there may be. The most widespread metrics used after usage touch upon improvements to implementation. Is government providing the right channel mix? What are channel switch points? Which personalized services are wanted? Other metrics link to policy goals such as transparency & accountability, inclusion, and accessibility. This is also where users can voice concerns as to the more emotional fundamentals, such as trust in the service, and privacy and data protection concerns.

5.5.2

Select good practices in user satisfaction monitoring

The qualitative research conducted as part of the 2009 benchmark, has allowed us to highlight good practice cases. They shed a light on methods employed, reasons to track user satisfaction, frequency of assessments, whom they are reported to and how results of the reporting are used. Before The Belgian federal portal has been upgraded using eye-tracking technology where users have tested the different portal functions during the implementation phase in a living-lab. 34 The initiative has received several Content Management System awards in 2008. The United Kingdom has recently introduced the power of information and customer journey mapping approaches, which aim to better understand the daily life of users and the impact service use has on this, in order to design eServices before they are launched. The Netherlands bases service design on rights embedded in an eCitizen charter consisting of ten quality standards defining what the relationship between the public sector and citizens should be. During Greece has tested the mystery user method for the online tax service as a participatory approach involving users undertaking set tasks during service use and filling in a questionnaire in real time.

34

See http://www.cms-awards.be/

48

Part B: The User Experience

In March 2009, the Italian government launched the use of emoticons for its public services. These are colored smileys with a selection of reasons for dissatisfaction including waiting time, need to return, and quality of support. France has adopted several approaches including an annual survey of sites where users give their perception of the site, the time used, and rate their overall satisfaction level, which, when multiplied by the number of visits, provides a site performance indicator. Awareness of eGovernment by both the online and offline population is also surveyed, together with the impact of awareness campaigns. Focus groups have been set-up to validate the impact of a change to the eGovernment service, both for users and non-users. In 2009 an innovative content analysis of feedback from users was carried out, visualised through pictograms of which the results fed back to users and invited dialogue via blog facilities and a mini survey.

After

In Slovenia, satisfaction forms part of five surveys of government services: First, a computerassisted telephone interview (CATI) survey of citizens amongst others covering ease of access and of use, completeness, security/privacy; second, a similar survey for businesses amongst others covering trust, access to records or databases, job searching, data transmission, public procurement; third, an email survey of public servants ICT use as part of their work, including usage of personal computers, email, internet, digital certificate, basic information tools and specialised applications; fourth, a postal survey of societies (third sector), and; fifth, a field survey of citizens visiting public offices, both covering the same issues as the citizens CATI survey. In addition, public websites also employ pop-up surveys and online feedback forms. Offline methods are also used in the form of focus groups, ethnographic surveys and usability testing. The Danish government regularly self-assesses its sites. Every year since 2001 the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has evaluated and benchmarked the quality of public websites under the concept of Top of the Web. In 2009, Top of the Web examined around 600 public websites. The websites and their digital services are evaluated on navigation, usability, and user value. Public website owners are asked to self-evaluate their service strategies and implementation progress. The best public websites are awarded with prizes and a benchmark of all the competing sites is published. From 2009, user satisfaction monitoring plays a more significant role in the project than before. Before 2009, websites received points for merely employing user satisfaction monitoring, whereas now, the results of the monitoring are taken into account, so that only websites scoring high on user satisfaction augment the benchmark result. Switzerland also uses CATI to survey citizens about their use and experiences of eGovernment services at different levels: federal, canton and municipality, for example in relation to user friendliness. CATI is also used for enterprise surveys to ascertain customer friendliness, ease of contact, data exchange, service completion, and confidence/trust. Both CATI and interviews of authorities are used for indirect measurement of user satisfaction as part of a wider survey of eGovernment service supply characteristics.

In summary, it is now clear that most European countries are starting to use user satisfaction assessments as powerful tools for fine-tuning eGovernment initiatives, as these can constantly update the perception the user community has of an eService and thereby enable government activities to be re-evaluated. eGovernment services set up by taking into account user needs are able to target their reference audience in a relatively short time frame, thus accelerating investment amortisation dynamics. Many policy initiatives, measurement frameworks, and surveys launched in recent years confirm this conclusion, thus making user satisfaction one of the main drivers of excellence in public service delivery processes. Despite good progress at the country levels, efforts to date could be joined up further at the EU level. Several European initiatives are aiming at encouraging learning and harmonization such as the establishment of a thematic network by the European Commission on eGovernment monitoring 35 eGovMoNet and the Benchlearning project. The benchmark is another accelerator of user-centric eGovernment.

35

http://www.epractice.eu/community/benchlearning

49

Part B: The User Experience

There are clear advantages in having some cross-country measurement standards and common frameworks in order to assist in this learning process, not least because of the burgeoning number of cross-border and even EU-wide eGovernment services. These are likely to become much more important over the next five years, for example, in support of the Single Market and the Services Directive.

5.6 Learning from world leaders to develop the piloted method

Europe is at a turning point from administrative-centric to user-centric eGovernment. Most benchmarked countries have integrated the user in their eGovernment philosophy. There is a range of good practices available, many of them could be identified through the benchmark. But there is room for growth. And enhanced learning. The current User Experience landscape resembles a rag rug with a multitude of approaches, speeds of development and differing results. Europe needs to further agree on what good and best looks like. And continue setting the right targets for inciting performance and learning. The likes of the United States set the example on User Experience measurement. They have developed umbrella methods to help their public authorities improve the User Experience. In these respects, Europe can learn from them. The United States has set up http://usability.gov/, a comprehensive One-Stop-Shop, the United States governments website for developing usable and useful web sites. Please dont make me think, the web site states. The measurement guidelines include36 Ease of learning - How fast can a user who has never seen the user interface before learn it sufficiently well to accomplish basic tasks? Efficiency of use - Once an experienced user has learned to use the system, how fast can he or she accomplish tasks? Memorability - If a user has used the system before, can he or she remember enough to use it effectively the next time or does the user have to start over again learning everything? Error frequency and severity - How often do users make errors while using the system, how serious are these errors, and how do users recover from these errors? Subjective satisfaction - How much does the user like using the system

The principle is to test the government web site in a living-lab environment and immerge users into a real-life situation where they complete tasks associated with the web site. Each test scenario prioritizes different metrics ranging from successful task completion to the number of critical (preventing the accomplishment of the task) and non-critical errors, and many more. The measure distinguishes between performance data (what actually happened) and preference data (what participants thought). Time is an important success factor too, but qualitative measures like the users experience and perception may be of equal or even higher importance. The United States have also introduced a plain language initiative . Its goal is to improve communication from government to users, because the American public deserves plain language communication from its government. If instructions are clear and unambiguous, the User Experience will improve, and both governments and end users will save time, resources and money in the service delivery process. The Australian government provides a User Profiling and Testing Toolkit to Australian authorities. A usability checklist lists fifty questions, regrouped into architecture and navigation, layout and design, content, forms, platform and implementation and accessibility. 38 The Canadian government offers a standard tool for evaluating the User Experience of a web site. Metrics relate to
37

36 37

http://usability.gov/basics/measured/index.html http://www.plainlanguage.gov/ 38 http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/user-profiling-and-testing-toolkit/usability-checklist.html

50

Part B: The User Experience

interface, structure and navigation, content, graphic design, interactivity, privacy and security, search, and help.39 The benchmark 2009 provides a proxy of User Experience in Europe. Many of the dimensions cited in the non-EU examples echo in this years metrics. The benefits of better User Experience and user satisfaction are evident, both for the users themselves as for governments. There is no reason why Europe should not join up forces to even better reap these benefits. The 2009 measurement method is on the right track but needs to improve. In short, the benchmark has shown that most metrics tested in 2009 are suitable for a supply-side benchmark. They look at features that are clearly visible on the web site and can easily be identified. And they build on simple and unambiguous research questions. The next measurement round will reflect on this years experience, modify and add components and help Europe to make a significant step towards a common definition of User Experience. Of course, no universal definition of User Experience exists or should be applied in every Member State. However, there is by far sufficient experience in Europe to understand what a good web site looks like. The benchmark is meant to incite Europes race to the top.

39

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ig-gi/e/wse-esw/wse-esw3-eng.asp

51

Part B: The User Experience

52

Part B: The User Experience

Part C:
Emerging Insights

53

Part C: Emerging Insights 6. Context

Part C: Emerging Insights has been developed by scanning across all other sections of this benchmarking report: the results of the 20 basic services; eProcurement; Pilot User Experience measure; and the Country Reports. It includes additional facts and insight drawn from other identified sources. It is intended: To provide a basis for continuous improvement of the benchmarking method and process To offer insight for policy setting To support bench-learning This benchmark has since its inception been shaped by the EUs policy goals. It is one of the tools that enable Europe to demonstrate progress against set targets. Europe set ambitious Information Society goals in its i2010 action plan (see box to right) and these goals are monitored regularly to ensure all European countries act appropriately. Further targets are set within this context, like the Manchester eProcurement target that have a bearing on action plans and measurement. Undoubtedly, service provision has progressed greatly across the EU27+. Much less benchmark and benchlearning evidence is available on the quality of services, their impact and empowerment potential; and on internal efficiencies. Change is needed to ensure that the benchmark triggers the right actions and remains relevant to EU policy makers. As the i2010 agenda approaches its term it becomes important to look forward and prepare Europe for the next decades challenges. Significant preparatory work has already been done by the Commission and Member States to prepare for the 2015 agenda. The main results have been outlined in an Orientation Paper by the i2010 eGovernment Sub-group, bringing together European Commission and Member State officials. The thrust of this orientation paper is to continue to foster innovation in eGovernment; monitor actions; increase efficiency and effectiveness of European governance systems, and in particular support the development and provision of cross-border services. The political priorities that determine the way forward beyond 2010 have been outlined as regards eGovernment: Support to the Single Market Empowerment of businesses and citizens Administrative efficiency and effectiveness Provision of key enablers This represents both a continuation of the current focus, and includes further developments. The present economic and budget challenges, forecast demographic change, emerging (global) priorities, and increasing user expectations all lend themselves to create a very dynamic future landscape. The benchmark method, process, and output must adjust itself to suit the emerging new agenda.

The five objectives of the i2010 Action Plan: 1. No Citizen left behind 2. Making efficiency and effectiveness a reality 3. Implementing highimpact key services 4. Putting key enablers in place 5. Strengthening participation and democratic decision making in Europe

54

Part C: Emerging Insights 7. Development of the Measurement Approach

The current maturity and saturation against the 20 basic services within many of the leading European countries is evidence that the measurement system should be further developed. That said, the continuity of the measures since 2001 provides a sound and important basis for ongoing comparison. However enhancement is required to ensure full relevance to all countries. The collaborative process by which the measurement system is designed and executed, actively involving participating countries in the process, is a strength that should be maintained. This could also enhance the learning process by grouping like countries, and focusing on specific topics. The 20 basic service measures can be developed further, whilst maintaining time series comparison. This feature is important for the many countries that have not yet reached saturation. The eProcurement measurement has proven to be successful and offers a unique landscape of eProcurement across Europe. The results are robust in the pre-award (sourcing) phase. Further work is required to develop the post-award (transaction) phase. The User Experience measurement addresses a new and complex theme, with many variables. It is undoubtedly an important area to address. Further work is warranted to develop a flexible or building-block measurement framework that can be made relevant to the naturally different settings of each country, whilst providing a basis for comparison and learning. The present method is seen to be directionally correct. In terms of further method enhancements, considerations could be given to: Adding additional domains and services that are most relevant to stakeholders. These could include contemporary topics like energy, environment, transport and the like. The chart below shows the result of a survey of what European leaders feel will be the challenges that will benefit most from ICT innovations. Such research points to new areas of focus.
Most important societal challenges requiring ICT innovations in the next decade
60,00%
3

50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00% Health and social care systems Ageing Population Energy EnvironmentalEducation and Better efficiency sustainability learning security for systems citizens Efficient Transport Better Governance

2 1

Other

Figure 33: Societal challenges requiring ICT innovations in the next decade Grouping measures as life-events or themes to be more relevant to the customer. Such an approach may require deeper assessment of the User Experience, and a more joined-up evaluation through the service delivery chain. Thus potentially fewer sites analysed, with more attention to back-office operations. Usage and impact measurements will complement the current supply-side measurement. Measuring efficiency and effectiveness of governments. This may require more than just a webbased survey approach: involving looking behind the website, into the back office, the end-to-end fulfilment chain, and the governance structures that support delivery. Trust, privacy, openness, and transparency are all contemporary topics that presently have few or weak measurements. Pan-European (international) services and collaboration is becoming more prevalent and important. The new Country Reports provide a richer basis for countries to see their results in context; compare with like countries (tier, structure, size, culture, etc); and draw overall insight from reading all reports.
55

Part C: Emerging Insights 8. Insights from the Country Reports

This section covers key priorities; governance and implementation; and worldwide comparison.

8.1 Top Priorities for Participating Countries

The top 5 priorities for each participating country were captured as part of the landscaping exercise. 40 These are included for each country in the country reports. The key operative words for each country have been extracted and are shown in the illustration below. This is by nature a coarse analysis however it does provide an interesting scan of what is on the agenda for the European eGovernment.

It is also of interest to review this by old and new Member State grouping. This shows an intriguing change of focus between the two groups. Old Member States would appear to be more focused on customer interaction than new Member States. The new Member States appearing more focused on (foundational) technology. Old Member States would also appear to be more biased towards productivity, delivery, administrative efficiency and cooperation (between agencies and tiers). New Member States more on strategy, piloting initiatives, governmental and legislative aspects and notably on readiness for the Services-Directive. This is highlighted in the table below. Old Member States New Member States

About Customer: Portal; Citizen; Business; User; customer; Personalised; Comprehensive; single; burden (reduction); Democracy; About Technology: Digital; Open About Governance: Delivery; Cooperation; Productivity; Shared; Programme; Comprehensive; projects; governance.

About Customer: Personal; communication; one-stop; access; contact About Technology: eID; Infrastructure; Network About Governance: Strategy; Pilot; framework Other: Services-Directive Interoperability; open;

Legislative;

government;

40

Tag Clouds produced using www.wordle.com, based on key words extracted from top 5 priorities responses for all countries

56

Part C: Emerging Insights

8.2 Approach to Governance and Implementation
Europe is an administratively and culturally diverse society. So observations from one country may or may not add value to another. Conclusions are hard to draw, however there are a number of observations that can be made in regard to aspects of governance and the like, that are viewed as being informative. Business-Technology: Review of the top priorities for the old member states in particular highlights a shift that is seen in advanced public administrations and private sector organisations. That is that technology is no longer viewed as a topic that can be taken in isolation. It is hard wired into mainstream operations. From a policy perspective this connection is now also more understood. 41 The quote every policy initiative becomes sooner or later an ICT project highlights the deep interdependency that ICT has to the core of Government business. The term business-technology rather than information technology (IT) is now perhaps more appropriate. The (Technology) Transformation Agenda: A number of countries have opted for radical change and these fall roughly into two categories. The first are mature eGovernment countries experiencing stalling performance, that now opt for real change attempting to either use eGov to transform government or to finally deliver the potential of eGovernment for better and more efficient service delivery. (e.g.France, Germany, Sweden, Spain). The second are the newer eGovernment countries seeking to close the gap and use eGov as a way to leapfrog some of their entrenched disadvantages (e.g. Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria). eGovernment Organisation: We see a trend to more concentration of eGovernment in focused organizations with the support of executive agencies. The eGovernment organisations are placed at different levels and sections of government. There are roughly 5 models evident: o o o o o Prime Ministers office: Austria, Iceland, UK Ministry of Finance: Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland Ministry of the Interior: Czeck republic, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland Ministry for Administrative Reform: Bulgaria, Croatia, Norway, Slovenia Ministry of Economic Affairs (often in combination with other ministries): Belgium, Estonia, Spain

Several countries have combinations of these. A regular combination would be the Prime Ministers office as overall coordinator at the political level and the ministry of Finance or Interior as the executive arm (e.g. France, Hungary, Italy). eGovernment is usually part of a wider Information society policy. However, the organisation of IS and eGovernment is frequently split. IS policy would typically fall under responsibility of the ministry of Economic Affairs and eGovernment either with a dedicated agency, the Ministry of the Interior and/or the Ministry of Administrative reform. Collaborative Delivery: Many countries opt for an executive agency to handle the development, roll out and management of shared services and infrastructures: Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Sweden. Others choose for a strong CIO option: Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, United Kingdom. Notwithstanding the different models all countries have dedicated a high ranking civil servant or state secretary as CIO, to participate in EU coordination activity. eSkills development: Aligned with the rapidly changing technology landscape a number of countries explicitly highlight the development of eskills for their civil servants within their strategies. Examples include Austria, Bulgaria, Latvia, Malta, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. Non-Governmental Stakeholder Involvement: Governments are progressively moving more towards eGovernment policy informing and policy making processes that involve key stakeholders. Business and academic input to research and policy formulation is rare, however noted in Austria. The need fro private sector input in acknowledged in a number of strategies, however more in an advisory capacity. A larger number of countries involve non-governmental bodies (including the private sector) actively in the delivery and dissemination of services, and development of eskills. This becomes important where service delivery is passed from Government to other sectors the shift from a provider to commissioner model. As regards the formal involvement of citizens in the
41

Wolfgang Schauble, German Ministry of Interior at eGovernment Conference Apr 2007, Berlin

57

Part C: Emerging Insights

process of policy setting, progress is slow, though more recent statements of intent abound. eParticipation and eDemocracy appear in a number of strategies (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Poland, The Netherlands) though not as a core feature. This will become increasingly important as Governments seek to engage the citizen in democratic and service delivery processes. Constant Beta Testing: The technology landscape is changing fast. The word pilot appears regularly in country plans. In the technology Industry sector an approach to put new products on constant beta test is seen more often: involving experts and the customer in an ongoing dialogue to develop and improve the product. In essence there is no longer one major hard product launch. Likewise Governments appear to be moving away from large-scale programmes, and are tending towards pilots and smaller developments. Thus providing greater nimbleness in the execution of this plans. Germany is an interesting example in that it is turning a potential complication of developing shared services in a decentralised federal environment to its advantage, by using different federal states to develop and test new services. It thus benefits from diversity as a test bed for innovative eGovernment approaches. Pan-EU eGovernment Participation: eGovernment for most countries is a national affair. No countries have explicit targets for cross-border service development. Newer Member States would appear to look more to European policy for guidance (i2010), potentially as in some of these countries the management of eGovernment and structural funds falls within the same organisation. A growing and now considerable number of EU countries have elected however to participate in pan-European large scale pilots. The four major CIP ICT PSP (competitiveness and innovation programme) pilots are actively supported, notably by several of the higher performing countries. Austria for example is active across all large-scale CIP pilots (pilot A). This affords the opportunity to observe, learn from, and potentially influence technology developments within Europe. ePractices: We captured statistics for good practice cases submitted from each country to the EC ePractices website. This is not considered a benchmark criteria, nor is the quality of these cases reported. However sharing project learning is an important element of improvement. Approximately 1,300 (good practice) cases are reported across all countries. Perhaps not surprisingly, the majority of these are associated with the higher ranking countries. 70% of the cases being recorded from the top half of the basic 20 services countries; 87% from the top 2/3rds of the ranking.

8.3 Europe viewed on a worldwide stage

The country reports provide overall rankings for each country against a number of international benchmarks: specifically the UN eGovernment Readiness Index (08), World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness (09/10), and Networked Readiness (08/09)Indices, and the Economist Intelligence Unit eReadiness Rankings (09). These cover from 70 to 190 different countries. Generally the Nordic countries and Netherlands appear within the top 10 of these rankings, generally highlighting a developed technical infrastructural landscape and relatively high degrees of broadband and internet up take and use. The countries that appear in the upper few of the basic 20 services results are generally in the upper quartile but are not top performers (or top ten) of these rankings. This would suggest that improvements in eGovernment are more readily achieved through Government and/or policy action than infrastructural developments and behavioural changes, which typically involve non-governmental actors like IT service providers and end-users. In many countries these are influenced through regulatory and fiscal measures. Legacy infrastructures also tend to have a positive effect on these benchmarks, as well as individuals and business propensity to engage with new technologies. Making comparison between the various available international instruments must be done with caution, however there is benefit from doing so. Considerable insight can be drawn from comparing the landscape, policies and programmes, and results from such nations as: Canada and Singapore (customer engagement); US (technology policy and approach); South Korea; Japan, and Australia. These are frequently cited as leaders in eGovernment and leaders in international benchmarks. Comparison of Europe to leading countries worldwide will help lift Europes collective sights, and ensure that Europes ambition to be the leading Information Society in the world is based on factual evidence.

58

Part C: Emerging Insights

9. Better for Customers

This section covers the current use online services; increasing take-up, and the shift to a new model.

9.1 Use of Online Services

It has been noted in past benchmark studies that although availability of online services may be increasing, the usage of these online services is not developing at a fast enough rate to reap the benefits of the investments made either for government or for the customer. Many policy makers hoped that this supply-demand gap would close, recognising that there would be a time lag between putting the service online and the service being used. This does not seem to be the case in most instances. Governments are providing services online; however citizens and businesses would appear to be using them far too little. The matrix below groups countries, in terms of online sophistication of citizen services (x-axis) and 42 eGovernment usage by citizens (y-axis). It clearly shows: governments are providing eGovernment, but citizens are not using the services enough.

Figure 34: The eGovernnment take-up gap for citizens Looking at the match of citizens eGovernment supply and demand, there are a few top performers. These countries provide very mature services and display relatively high take up rates between 52% and 63%. The data comes from two different research sources, so observations should be taken in that light. Users who might want to use the online channel would in most cases be able to do so.

42

Based on Eurostat indicator for 2008: Individuals using the Internet for interaction with public authorities (tin00105)

59

Part C: Emerging Insights

The same matrix is provided for business services. Here, both service maturity and take up are higher than for citizens. The leading countries provide mature business services and their supply is matched with usage figures close to or even above 90%.
43

Figure 35: The eGovernnment take-up gap for businesses

So there must be fundamentally different reasons that keep citizens and businesses from engaging online. In some countries internet use and broadband penetration are low, which will limit take-up. A recent study for the European Commission reveals that the reasons for non-use lie in lack of awareness; lack of willingness 44 to use; and a lack of added-value, much more than lack of skills and capabilities. Europe needs to develop a clearer view on how to attract, engage, and incentivise users to adopt online services. There is a very substantial difference in the cost-to-serve through the online channel in comparison to others. Coarse estimates by the authors of this study indicate a ratio of 10 (face-to-face) : 1 (telephone) : 0.1 (web) costs for government. This presents substantial cost savings potential for Administrations without even considering the cost benefits to citizens or businesses yet. It also should be noted that online services do not necessarily detract from service delivery quality; indeed at times it can improve quality (e.g. 24x7 access and savings in the back office may lead to strengthening the customer facing capacity of the government). Considering inclusiveness of service delivery, the policy goal of creating a more e-Inclusive society has shown significant progress over recent years. The digital divide is now very much more understood and is 45 being addressed in most Member States plans. However, with broadband and high speed requirements of modern content, a new risk of increasing digital divides is emerging between the broadband haves and have nots. Our challenge is to achieve higher levels of usage, in order to reap the positive impact. How then can this be achieved?

43
44

Based on Eurostat indicator for 2008: Enterprises using the Internet for interaction with public authorities (tin00107) Deloitte user satisfaction study 45 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/policy/i2010_initiative/index_en.htm

60

Part C: Emerging Insights

9.2 Increasing Take-Up
Across Europe we observe significant gaps in user satisfaction monitoring; continued use of a push rather than pull model of service delivery; and resistance of silos to open up to enable cross-agency information visibility and service delivery. It has been noted that the more mature and / or old Member States have a greater focus on the customer in their top five priorities. So what observations can be made as regards the steps that the leading nations are taking? The setting of such countries typically can be characterised as one or several of: heightened customer expectations of service; embracing a Tell us Once or No-wrong-door approach; a localism agenda for customer service delivery; recent emergence of social networking and mash-ups in the public domain; and initiatives or a stated desire for transparency and open government. Approaches that are observed include: the use of life-event or life situation approach; multi-channel strategies and approaches to service delivery; greater engagement of the customer to enable co-design of services; initiatives on eDemocracy and consultation; the use of intermediaries and agents to support easeof-use and inclusiveness; and initiatives to address privacy and security of data. The framework outlined in Part B addresses initiatives that can be made before, during, and after online service delivery to engage the customer. It also makes note of leading practices (in non-EU countries) to for instance engage the customer in the online website design experience. Belgium received awards (http://www.cms-awards.be/) in 2008 for stakeholder testing during portal development, engaging real users at different steps during the implementation phase, and applying for instance eye-tracking technology. When complemented with: a deep understanding of the customer journey through service delivery (frequently across organisational silos); a clear view of the customer life situation (e.g. segmentation and event-based approach); and good communication, the barriers to take-up (of lack of awareness; lack of willingness; and lack of added-value) can be more meaningfully addressed. It is still too early to draw any significant evidence-based conclusions on take-up. The ultimate prize is however to be able to measure and show the financial and social benefits that result from high levels of take-up.

9.3 A paradigm shift towards customer-centric services

The present model of public service delivery can (still) be crudely characterised as one of administrative silos with limited cross-agency information sharing and service design. The resulting customer experience is suboptimal, involving multiple transactions with multiple agencies for many needs, with limited information and knowledge transferred between agencies; and limited or no choice even if the customer would wish it so. This model brings with it much internal efficiency with high levels of duplication and rework that could be avoided through information sharing and shared services. It is depicted as the You-Centric model in the figure below.

Level 2 Level 3 Dept Dept Dept Dept Data Dept Dept Data Dept Data

The YOU-Centric model

The ME-Centric model

A different model is emerging: a Me-Centric model. Where the service is built around the customer, where information can be provided and managed more by the customer, and where the experience is far more satisfying. This presents fundamental change: to policies, service design, information architecture, and
61

Part C: Emerging Insights

potentially also legislation, skills and ways of working for service providers, as well as a change in customer responsibilities. Modern technologies and devices (prevalence of the fourth screen ) are bringing this shift very much closer to now. Also, terms like social networking and Gov 2.0 abound. Participation and empowerment goals are a vital component of the shift. The opportunities presented by Web 2.0 technologies, and the (particularly recent) political ambitions to establish transparent and open government are likely to cause marked changes it this area. Empowerment goes hand in hand with Inclusion and Participation. But it also goes one step further by shifting the role of the user from the one of a passive viewer and user to an active creator and manager of the public service delivery chain. This only works if users engage voluntarily and see the added value of using ICT: to express their creativity, use the potential for innovation and benefit from the new patterns of relationships that emerge. In terms of Gov 2.0, Europe increasingly needs to look beyond its borders; compare with the worlds best; and accelerate progress by embracing the potential ICT is offering for government transformation. The Gartner Hype Cycle gives a historical view of how eGovernment has evolved and how it may be 47 predicted to develop. Following the past predictions of Gartner, Europe should be in the midst of the eGovernment hype. Blogs and wikis, and wireless applications should dominate the landscape. Today, there are no clear signs of whether Europe has reached or is going to enter this hype. Indeed, recent Gartner 48 comparison of Europe to the US suggests significant gaps remain . The end result is rather that the private sector offers agile, dynamic and real time services. By contrast, most governments have not managed to reach these levels of sophistication. Are Governments too stuck in a Web 1.0 world?
46

46
47

The Fourth screen: (i) Movie Screen; (ii) TV; (iii) PC; (iv) Mobile Device [Source: The eGovernment Hype Circle Meets Web2.0 Andrea Di Maio, Gartner Industry Research October 2007] 48 http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2009/10/30/why-north-americans-will-get-government-2-0-and-europeans-wont/

62

Part C: Emerging Insights 10. Better for Businesses

This section reviews performance of G2B services, and assesses the impact of the Services Directive.

10.1 Doing business with Government: state of play

The European Single Market is home to around 12 million companies, among them 99% by number are SMEs. So making services easy and useful, particularly for this community, is of importance. Of particular relevance is the cost for a small (and large) business to comply with the multitude of application and reporting obligations imposed by government: tax declarations, VAT declarations, customs declarations, permits, labour regulation, and alike. Studies indicate the cost per FTE ratio between small companies and large is roughly a factor of four. This presents a considerable barrier for SME start-up and operations. Governments must make sure compliance is achieved with minimum business effort, if we are to develop an open market and vibrant economy. Eight services for business are evaluated in this benchmark. These represent many of the high impact service areas, from the standpoint of information obligations for provision of compliance data to Government. Public services for businesses are generally more mature throughout Europe more so than their citizen service counterparts. In 2009, the sophistication score for businesses reached on EU average 90%, as compared to 78% for citizens. However, not all business services reach this high sophistication level. And not all government actors perform equally well. Services that generate income for state treasury still score significantly higher. The more decentralized the service delivery structure, the less sophisticated the service offering typically is. Obtaining permits online, for example, is wishful thinking in most countries, rather than reality. Performance is weak across the board, with sophistication rates lingering between 22% and 54%. This is shown in the figure below.

Figure 36: Sophistication of services by delivery level

63

Part C: Emerging Insights

As shown in the next figure, company registration for example splits the benchmarked countries into three: the best performers i.e. countries where a business can be started-up entirely online medium performers i.e. countries where the process of registering can be started online, via an electronic form, but then requires additional paper-based interaction with authorities and low performers only providing downloadable paper forms to start a business. In the latter group of countries, the rest of the start-up procedure still requires future entrepreneurs to visit public administrations physically, queue, print and fill in paper forms etc. Seemingly, achievements still do not always reach the goal set by the 2006 Spring European Council to create One-Stop-Shops for business registration until 2007 and reduce the time and costs of starting up to a strict minimum.

Registration of a new company

100 90 80 70 60

Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 AT BE CH CZ DK EE ES FR IT MT NO PT SE SI UK HU LU PL SK HR CY DE Countries IE IS FI LV BG EL LT NL RO

Figure 37: Sophistication of services by delivery level

Compared to the globe, Europe is by the way far from the best-in class. The World Banks Doing Business 49 Report ranks countries across the globe according to the ease of starting a business. New Zealand, Canada, Australia and Singapore lead this ranking. In terms of the number of procedures required before start-up, New Zealand and Canada are down to one procedure, Australia to two procedures. Followed by Belgium, Sweden, Finland and Denmark with three procedures each. On an average, six procedures are still required before starting a business in Europe- number which potentially could be halved through joining up procedures in the back-office and e-enabling them further. In terms of the number of days required before an entrepreneur can operate a business, New Zealand has reduced the time lag to one day, Australia to two days. Belgium and Hungary are the best European performers in this category, with a time lag of four days between the business registration and the taking up of activity. In Europe, the variance in the number of days a future entrepreneur has to wait before he can operate is significant, with a range of 46 days. Despite overall good sophistication scores for businesses, room for improvement remains and further steps are required to better serve businesses end-to-end, throughout their life-cycle.

10.2 The Single Market & the impending Services Directive

Europes stated goal is to develop the worlds leading Information Society by 2010. The Single Market is one of the cornerstones of this ambition, and its realisation will improve the openness and competitiveness of Europes economy internally, and on a worldwide scale. Competiveness is of increasing importance in the present time of economic downturn. Europes approach to the Single Market respects a number of particular characteristics:

49

http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/?direction=Asc&sort=2

64

Part C: Emerging Insights

Europes goal is to improve the efficacy of the internal market, but not to achieve a single economic area. Some sectors of the economy, in particular public services, will remain subject to national laws, which implies that service delivery will differ across Member States. European Directives grant countries significant implementation margin through transposition into national law. This results in different implementation approaches and outcomes. Europes policy goals, documented in the various Ministerial Declarations and Actions Plans, are designed around voluntary compliance and collaboration of Member States. So the approach is more to name and fame good performers, than implement hard-wired performance targets. There are however opportunities to consider new Single Market targets. The Services Directive is an important step to increase the competitiveness of Europes service economy. It th will come into fore on 28 December 2009. It sets a compliance-based goal that will require eGovernment actions, across all levels of Administration. The Directive will enable service providers to establish themselves in any EU country swiftly and conveniently, including the free movement of their services. Article 6 of the Directive requires countries to set up a 'Point of Single Contact' (PoSC) through which service providers can access the relevant information, forms and applications for their establishment. Article 8 states that all procedures and formalities may be completed at a distance and by electronic means. Hence the PoSC is understood as a source of information, as well as a means of transaction of applications. Several of the services that are required to set up a company are covered by the current set of 20 basic services. However, besides compliance requirements, governments should support business competitiveness. This includes providing added-value information and advisory services, like location-based information and services that help businesses thrive. These support growth and mobility beyond country borders. So the Directive requires the implementation of Compliance Services, and benefits from the implementation of Competitiveness Services. Much current focus within Member States is on the PoSC. Use existing structures or create new ones? Combine electronic and physical PoSC, or implement online versions only? How many PoSCs should there be? Most countries opt for one PSC, whilst about one third are putting multiple PSCs in place. The main drivers for choosing multiple PSCs seem to be the administrative structure of the country (e.g. Austria; Germany); the desire to integrate existing decentralized contact points (e.g. France; Belgium); and decisions on PoSC roles and accountabilities. Countries that opt for one PoSC typically integrate the functionalities 51 into existing business portals. Less attention would appear to be placed on what goes on behind the PoSC, through the entire crossAdministration information chain. In many ways the Services Directive turns public administrations back-office structures inside out. Service providers applications are bundled through PoSCs, and each connected authority needs to keep track of the applications received, and follow up on workflows and deadlines. Efficient information flow is a requirement, yet security and privacy present challenges to ensure that data retained are accessible only to those that need it. A series of legal, organisational and technical requirements need to be met. The exchange of electronic documents, including sending, receipt and storage, needs to be enabled. Key documents (e.g. insurance certificates and proof of qualifications) need to be readily available online. The link between the Services Directive and the development of further eGovernement services for businesses goes unchallenged. Both article 6 (PoSC) and article 8 (online availability of procedures) lay the burden proof on countries to implement these services by the end of 2009. However continued improvement of such services is implicit beyond this date. The Services Directive has also raised awareness for the need to develop and scale further enabling building blocks, like: eDocuments, eAuthentication, eSafes, eDelivery, eID, and eSignature. Not just within countries, but also across borders. The various CIP pilots launched (SPOCS, STORK, PEPPOL) will play a key role in supporting such ongoing developments, and will result in improved availability and sophistication of eGovernment services. This benchmark can be further developed to track progress in these areas, and incite good performance.
50

50 51

DIRECTIVE 2006/123/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, 12th December 2006 http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=32145

65

Part C: Emerging Insights 11. Better for the Public Purse

11.1 From an Economic to a Fiscal and Budgetary Crisis
The current global economic crisis is set to have a marked effect on fiscal and budget plans for most if not all participating countries. The planning basis for public budgets has been affected markedly, resulting in an expected - very substantial - increase in public debt that is likely to last for many years. The implications of this will be twofold. Firstly, a likely short term and significant reduction in capital expenditures. Secondly, continued and prolonged pressure on annual revenue budgets. In some cases double-digit savings are targeted. Expectations are that ICT / eGovernment will play a more prominent role in supporting the accelerated delivery of efficiency savings. Consolidation initiatives are being put in place, addressing both the procurement and management of technologies. Virtual data centres are being planned. Cloud computing, public-clouds (G-cloud), and green-IT are in debate. Service orientation, shared delivery models, publicprivate commercial models, and information governance are all key components to support these expectations. Alongside these very real financial constraints is a parallel track of an advancement in technologies that relate more to front-office developments. Particularly social computing, used by individuals and also for professional purposes. These frequently go hand-in-glove, with heightened expectations for greater transparency of public information (on e.g. expenditures), and a more open approach to Government. The cost reduction potential from these Gov 2.0 developments has yet to be proven. These two (back, and front-office) topics are inextricably linked. Most notably, in areas like information governance and cross-administration streamlining. So plans must be integrated.

11.2 eProcurement as a vehicle for efficiencies and cost savings

Governments and other public authorities are major purchasers of goods and services, accounting for estimates of 1500 billion worth of procurements in the European Union each year. Better visibility of expenditure by Government, and more efficient transactions between Government and suppliers are key components to making considerable savings vitally important in the present climate. The latter is also important in making doing business with Government better for suppliers. The Manchester Declaration targets of 100% eProcurement availability by 2010, and 50% take-up are both at risk. The eProcurement benchmark provided a unique and thorough landscaping of eProcurement across Europe. Although the results demonstrate a large gap to targets, considerable progress has been made and several examples of good practice are available to learn from. As part of the Single Market, public contracts should now be open to bidders from anywhere in the EU as a result of directives covering services, supplies and works in many sectors, including water, energy and telecommunications. This is regardless of whether the contracts are awarded by national, regional or local authorities. It is self-explanatory that putting procurement processes online is a precondition for opening competition and encouraging cross-border tendering. Data availability for post-award transaction processes proved extremely hard to come by, however this will be necessary to prove the move from eProcurement availability, to captured spend (i.e. take-up), and evidenced resulting savings. What we can however do is learn from good practices. There is general consensus that the cost-benefits ratio of eProcurement is very positive, based on a recent survey commissioned by DG Markt (Oct08 - Jan09). EU Member States, Contracting Authorities and Public Procurement representatives declared that eProcurement investments had already paid off, or were expected to do so in the near future. Based on our analysis, there is a learning period of 2-3 years after the launch of eProcurement Platforms before the volume of online transactions really starts to pick up. This is due to the need to motivate and train the buyer and supplier communities. Several countries have moved
66

Part C: Emerging Insights

on from this early stage and are entering a phase of widespread implementation. We gathered some evidence from a few of these cases. Scotland has one of the most advanced implementations, in the eProcurementScotl@nd platform which processed 2.75B in 2008 (a 69% increase on 07), representing ~25% capture of total public spend. According to Audit Scotland, this generates annual savings of 110m. Over 1.6million transactions go annually through the system, used by over 58,000 registered users and more than 78,000 suppliers. This highlights the economies of scale and scope which can be achieved. The implementation is not mandated, however agencies are encouraged to provide the reason why they are not using the service if they are not. Collaborative Procurement has delivered over 66m in savings, 80% of which is from the NHS centre of expertise. Staff efficiency savings, attributable to the eProcurement service, are estimated up to 25m. One Contracting Authority (North Lanarkshire Council) estimated a 40% efficiency gain in processing of purchase orders. Since moving to a centrally funded model in April 2008, the user numbers have increased by over 50 per cent. Italy was one of the pioneers of eProcurement since 2001. The volume of eProcurement transactions reached 3.22B in 2008, corresponding to 2.5% of the total public spending. Half of this is transacted on the National Procurement Platform "Acquisti in Rete" which is mandatory for central administrations. Growth rates are very high (+233% for the national platform from 2007). Italy is interesting as it highlights the emerging network of central and regional eProcurement Agencies. The most important Regions (Emilia Romagna, Lombardy, Piemonte) have launched Regional Procurement Agencies aggregating all regional spending. Emilia Romagna's agency Intercent is now the reference point for 539 administrations (90% of local agencies), and processed transactions for 419mln in 2008, with a 122% increase on 2007. The platform offers all eProcurement services, including eTendering, Electronic Market, eCatalogues and eAuctions. Intercent reports efficiency benefits of 67.5mln in 2008, and 45 manyears savings. The key success factors of the agency are a clear vision, a strong political support, and a constant activity of training and support for the Contracting Authorities and Suppliers. eAuctions have shown price savings of approximately 10%. DG MARKT commisioned an assessment of the diffusion and benefits of Electronic reverse auctions (eAuctions). Based on the analysis of all contract award notices published on the European Tender Journal, 1,707 eAuctions were organized in the period 20062008, with a continuing increase over time. The greatest users of e-auctions are Germany, France, Italy, Romania and the UK, although many Member States do not use them at all. Savings measured as the difference between initial estimated price and final price for the contract awarded are consistent both over the years and between categories at a level of around 10% per purchase. As expected, e-auctions are mostly used for supplies contracts, for which the specifications can most easily be determined with precision, compared to services and works contracts. In Germany, the Procurement Agency of the Federal Ministry of the Interior has developed the Federal Store (KdB), offering eCatalogues and automatic ordering with similar results. Conservative calculations estimate that each electronically executed order via KdB saves at least 6hrs (equating to 195 of personnel cost) compared to the simplest form of a single tender action. In 2008 more than 32,500 order transactions were electronically processed through KdB, which was twice the amount of 2007. Yet another sharp increase is expected for 2009. The French National eProcurement Platform (www.marches-publics.gouv.fr) highlights the gap between expectations and reality. The system serves 16 central government departments, 10,000 public buyers and has 100,000 registered suppliers. Recent statistics show that less than 2% of the download of electronic notices results in an electronic offer. According to the French Administration, enterprises are reluctant to place electronic bids, because they do not completely trust the process, because they consider the electronic signature process too cumbersome, and because they are not ready to invest to adapt their own IT systems to prepare the bids in electronic format. In addition, while all technical tools are in place, some of the user-friendly features (for example virtual company dossiers eliminating the need to present again and again the same documentation) are perhaps not fully implemented. This confirms that while the eNotification phase is mature and well-accepted, there are still organizational and cultural barriers against the implementation of eTendering. The Danish NemHandel system highlights the benefits of an important building block of eProcurment that of eInvoicing. In Denmark, electronic invoicing to Government is mandated by law, a policy estimated to lead to savings of 120 Million Euro per year and a cost-benefit ratio of 1 : 10. In order to accommodate SMEs, the government had created service centres where traditional invoices could be scanned and sent on to public customers. The NemHandel system is an open framework, enabling businesses to send
67

Part C: Emerging Insights

standardized electronic invoices directly from their PC in a secure and reliable fashion, thus avoiding the scanning of paper invoices. The official communications and dissemination campaign was initiated in April 2009. By September a total of 53,213 businesses had used the NemHandel infrastructure. In September, more than 18,000 electronic invoices were sent to public sector customers through the system. Business take-up is ~1,000 new businesses per week. The savings potential for businesses has been estimated to be EUR 590 mln per year, and the project is considered on track to realise this potential within 2-3 years. Ireland has chosen to strengthen the role of the central eProcurement platform www.etenders.gov.ie, as the single point of access for all Irish public sector procurement opportunities for both suppliers and purchasers. Its use is mandatory by law only for ICT purchases (since February 2009) but is strongly recommended by the Irish Government, who has centralized procurement policy through the NPPOU (National Public Procurement Operations Unit). By and large, the platform is now used by all public bodies with 2,159 Awarding Authorities registered on the website. It has been a hugely successful initiative with 53,221 suppliers registered on the platform. Over 11bn of business was conducted through eTenders in 52 2008 with approximately 6bn of tendering opportunities above the EU thresholds being conducted through the platform. The estimated value of other tenders over national threshold (50,000) for advertising on eTenders in 2008 was approximately 5bn.

11.3 Achieving Internal Administrative Efficiencies

eGovernment can help Europe to make very significant efficiency savings. Several participating countries are forecast to lose a considerable proportion of their public sector staff through retirement in the next years, which increases the need to make savings, irrespective of the budgetary pressures to do so. To provide services in an effective and efficient manner requires several things to be in place: an integrated back-office; collaborative working across agencies, and business process streamlining (not just putting existing administrative procedures online). From an eGovernment standpoint, service-orientated architectures, standards, and interoperability provide important building blocks. Complex administrative procedures and the unnecessary and the disproportionate administrative costs they generate severely hamper government operations, and economic activity. The latter is often an important 53 irritation factor for businesses. The European Commission presented an Action Programme to reduce administrative burdens on businesses in the EU by 25% by 2012, which was endorsed by the Spring 2007 European Council. This focused on the burden to businesses, however the shift to better regulation and internal (g2g) efficiencies is anticipated. To support the Action Programme, significant measurement activities have been put in place across Europe. 10,000 information obligations were measured with a total administrative burden assessed at some 100 54 billion . eGovernment offers significant potential to reduce this burden. Slovenia for example has estimated the administrative savings of putting the business registration 55 procedure online at a One-Stop-Shop at 10.7 million. Data sharing, clearing houses acting as information brokers, and intelligent eGovernment services featuring pre-populated forms are prominent examples of administrative burden reduction through eGovernment. The Dutch Government has attempted to measure the administrative savings generated through prefilled forms, by counting data fields and attributing a financial value to the time required to fill in a form, before and after pre-population.

11.4 Reaching beyond the Tipping Point

There is a combination of drivers that can help shift Europe from a Government-driven model of public services delivery to a Customer-driven model: Heightening expectations from individuals for better services

52

Residual procurements below the national threshold (50,000) have not been considered in the valuations. COM (2007)23 (24 January 2007) - Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/better_regulation/docs/docs_admin_b/com_2007_23_en.pdf.
53

54 55

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/better-regulation/administrative-burdens/index_en.htm www.epractice.eu/community/benchlearning 68

Part C: Emerging Insights

Their increasing involvement and participation in the service design and delivery process The need to make Governments more open and transparent Business pressures to make Europe a more open and efficient market Economic motives for Administrations to collaborate and deliver efficiencies Technologies of all kinds offer a vital means to support this. Our task is to define what it means to achieve this new over the tipping point state, and to measure our way towards it.

Beyond the Tipping Point

Cost to Serve
EU + 27

Gov-Driven Customer Centricity

Customer-Driven Customer Centricity

Customer Engaged

Customer Aware Administration Centric

Nascent

Emerging

Government focus on efficient service delivery, setting customer service levels, and basic customer segmentation Developing

Government takes positive steps to engage its customers and design its services to be customer oriented and efficient Maturing

Customers are actively engaged in service design, and help reduce consumption through agreeing their responsibilities with Government delivering a more sustainable solution Innovative

Maturity Stage / Time

Figure 38: Beyond the Tipping Point

69

Part C: Emerging Insights

70

Part D: Country Reports

Part D:
Country Reports

71

Part D: Country Reports

12. Country Reports

This years country reports contain far greater detail than in previous reports. Each 2-page report includes the quantitative results of the survey, plus further valuable information on key facts, performance metrics, process insights, governance information, and best practices. The detailed information, gathered for the first time in 2009 makes the eGovernment performance comparison more meaningful, based on the description of contextual aspects such as population, delivery structures, service maturity, and the like. This preface will help the reader to understand the Country reports, by explaining how to interpret the various indicators and describing the rationale behind each section and element of these reports. To save space the reference sources are not repeated in each report, and are instead presented in this preface. In the text below the source and content of each section is described.

12.1 Summary text

As an introduction, we provide a high level summary of the country report, including important insights, benchmark results and other statistics.

12.2 Key facts

This section provides an overview of statistics that describe the environment in which eGovernment is deployed. It is important to note that some figures could have been forecasts from the relevant statistical agencies at the time the study was conducted and may thus in the meantime have been replaced by different finalized numbers. Population GDP per capita in PPS: Growth rate of GDP volume - percentage change on previous year. Gross domestic product (GDP) is a measure of the economic activity, defined as the value of all goods and services produced less the value of any goods or services used in their creation. The calculation of the annual growth rate of GDP volume is intended to allow comparisons of the dynamics of economic development both over time and between economies of different sizes. For measuring the growth rate of GDP in terms of volumes, the GDP at current prices are valued in the prices of the previous year and the thus computed volume changes are imposed on the level of a reference year; this is called a chain-linked series. Accordingly, price movements will not inflate the 56 growth rate . Eurostat (2009 provisional value) Eurostat (2008 EU27=100 forecast) Eurostat (2009 forecast)
57

Societal Figures
Societal figures provide high level insight in the state of society. This includes employment and skill levels, as well as demographic indicators, to show how old and physically concentrated society is. The latter three indicators help explain the contexts for various digital divides. Unemployment rate Eurostat (June 2009) % of labour force with tertiary education - levels 5-6. This indicator describes the knowledge level and propensity to use electronic services. Labor force with tertiary education is the proportion of the (total, male, female) labor force that has a tertiary education, as a percentage of the (total, male, female) labor force. (Data Source: International Labour Organization) Eurostat (June 2009)

56 57

Description taken from Eurostat 2009. Date of extraction 20/8/2009.

72

Part D: Country Reports

Size of rural population; % of total population Rural population (% of total population): Because of national differences in characteristics that distinguish urban from rural areas, the distinction between urban and rural population is not amenable to a single definition applicable to all countries. National definitions are most commonly based on size of locality, with rural population as the residual of population that is not considered urban. % of population >65yrs. Population ages 65 and above is the percentage of the total population that is 65 or older. World Bank estimates from various sources including census reports, the United Nations Population Division's World Population Prospects, national statistical offices, household surveys conducted by national agencies, and Macro International. Worldbank (2007)

Worldbank (2007)

Government Figures The Government figures describe a countrys constitutional form and provide a snapshot of the size and engagement of the public sector in a country. Public Sector Employees; % of labour force. Combining two Eurostat indicators Eurostat 2008 (overall employment and Employment in the public sector).This indicator is relevant to demonstrate the size of the government, as the impact of eGovernment on bigger public sectors is likely to be higher, whilst effective changes may be harder to achieve. Public Procurement Expenditure, without social security funds, separated in central Eurostat (2004). This data government: and regional/local government spending. covers only public advertised in the Official Journal (as a % of total public procurement and as a % of procurement published in GDP) the EU Official Journal. Information Society Indicators The Information Society Indicators look at Internet access and experience with eGovernment, as well as disparities in skills and capabilities and actual usage in disadvantaged groups of society. Digital Divide: The digital divide is an output as well as an input indicator. A small digital divide may indicate effective policies, but also lower barriers to the deployment of inclusive eGovernment. To illustrate the digital divide the report uses the index of internet use in at risk groups in 2008 (Eurostat). The country report presents the overall figure, which combines the results of the sub-indicators listed below. The difference from 1 indicates the level of disadvantage for the specific risk group as compared to the mean, or the comparable non-risk group. Total at risk index (combining results of: Aged 55-64; Aged 65-74; Women; Low educated; Inactive; Unemployed; Rural) Overall ICT expenditure in the country as a percentage of GDP (Eurostat 2006) ICT expenditure by type of product Percentage of GDP o % of households with broadband connection (Eurostat 2008) Households who have Internet access at home Percentage of households with at least one member aged 16 to 74 % of enterprises with broadband connection (Eurostat 2008) Enterprises which have broadband access - Percentage of enterprises with at least 10 persons employed in the given NACE sectors. eGovernment usage by individuals (Eurostat 2008) E-government usage by individuals by gender - Percentage of individuals aged 16 to 74 using the Internet for interaction with public authorities eGovernment usage by enterprises (Eurostat 2008) E-government usage by enterprises - Percentage of enterprises which use the Internet for interaction with public authorities

2. Positioning International Benchmarks In this section we present each countrys ranking in selected international benchmarks produced by the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and the Economist Intelligence Unit. The rank can be compared with the number of countries involved in the benchmark. International Benchmark EU eGovernment Benchmark results (A/S) Description Here we present the rankings of the country achieved in this current benchmark (Availability
73

Nr of Countries in the benchmark 31

Part D: Country Reports

ranking / Sophistication Ranking) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 From e-Government to Connected Governance presents an assessment of the new role of the government in enhancing public service delivery, while improving the efficiency and productivity of government processes and systems. A nations level of competitiveness reflects the extent to which it is able to provide rising prosperity to its citizens. This benchmark measures the presence of an ICTconducive environment, the degree of preparation needed to use ICT for individuals, business, and government; and the actual use of ICT. E-readiness is a measure of the quality of a countrys ICT infrastructure and the ability of its consumers, businesses and governments to use ICT to their benefit. 189

WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 20082009

133

134

EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009

70

The benchmarks were chosen to put the result of the EU benchmark into international perspective. It was decided to add benchmarks that are not eGovernment specific to allow a wider view of the countrys performance as an Information Society. This provides the reader with a better understanding of the countrys propensity for modernisation and digitisation of government, and the uptake and use of electronic services by its citizens and businesses.

12.3 EU activity
This section intends to capture the countrys engagement with EU policy development and activities. This is taken as a proxy for the countrys willingness to link up with other EU Member States and support the development of the Internal Market. The large scale pilots (Pilot A) and the smaller pilots (Pilot B) under the CIP ICT PSP programme are the most concrete vehicles for actual joint service development among Member states, and a possible prelude to the establishment of Pan-European eGovernment Services. The table below lists the Pilots A and B, and describes their objectives and the countries involved. The countries are those that were official partners at the time of writing (i.e. September 2009). CIP ISP PSP participation: Pilot A Acronym epSOS Description Smart Open Services - Open eHealth Initiative for a European Large Scale Pilot of Patient Summary and Electronic Prescription Countries Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Slovak Republic, Spain, The Netherlands, United Kingdom Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Norway The Netherlands, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Greece Spain, Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, UK

PEPPOL SPOCS STORK

Pan European Public Procurement OnLine Simple Procedures Services Online for Cross-border

Secure Identity Across Borders Linked

CIP ISP PSP participation Pilot B Acronym BEPMS Description Building Energy Performance Management System
74

Countries UK, Italy, Bulgaria, Sweden France

Part D: Country Reports

Improving energy efficiency in public buildings & street lighting, by the ICT-based centralized monitoring and management of the energy consumption and production, and providing decision makers with the necessary tools to plan energy saving measures Clinical Leading Environment for the Assessment and validation of Rehabilitation Protocols for home care Common Platform Services for Ageing Well in Europe CommonWell ElDeRly-friEndly Alarm handling and MonitorING. Pilot to demonstrate new services to support independent living of elderly people Digital Television for All EUROPEAN CIVIL REGISTRY NETWORK e-Guidance and e-Government Services; to create a prototype of integrated public services related to employment based on the integrated use of ICT in order to easy the access to information and guidance (group and individual counselling sessions ) and employment general services (active job search, selection of human resources and job matching services) Urban Freight Energy Efficiency Pilot. Urban Freight Energy Efficiency Pilot: FREILOT consortium has developed a new approach to deal with the issue of reducing fuel consumption, CO2 emissions and emissions of other pollutants HosPilot seeks to address energy reduction in the hospital domain, specifically in the areas of lighting and HVAC - the largest energy-consuming areas. Intelligent and Efficient Travel management for European Cities project focuses on Multimodal Real Time Traffic and Travel Information (RTTI) services; to reduce energy consumption in urban areas by changing the mobility behaviour (modal shift) of the single traveller. Adapting iSAC to serve as the EU common specialized services for citizens' attention (SAC) platform. It is an OSS tool, tested in the city of Terrassa (Catalonia-Spain), to be challenged at EU level for diversity and robustness. Intelligent System for independent living and self-care of seniors with cognitive problems or mild dementia Market validation of an integrated ICT platform combining stateof-the-art mental exercises against cognitive deterioration with physical activity in the framework of an advanced ambient assisted living environment. Supporting Healthier and Independent Living for Chronic Patients and Elderly REACH112 will implement an accessible alternative to traditional voice telephony that will be suitable for all citizens needing help. REACH112 Rural-Inclusion aims at adopting an innovative, state-of-art infrastructure to facilitate the offering of semantic web services by public administration in rural areas
75

Spain, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Portugal

BEST Energy CLEAR CommonWell

Italy, Spain

Netherlands,

Poland,

Germany, Ireland, NL, Spain, UK Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Spain, Sweden UK, Denmark, Italy, Germany Spain Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Belgium, Germany Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Spain Iceland, ,

Dreaming DTV4All ECRN

eGOS

Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands

FREILOT

The Netherlands, Finland, France, Monaco, Spain Austria, Belgium, Republic, Germany, Norway, Romania, Netherlands Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, UK Czech Italy, The

HosPilot

In-Time

Germany,

iSAC6+ ISISEMD

Denmark, Italy, UK

Finland,

Greece, France,

Greece, Austria, Germany, Spain, UK

Long Lasting Memories NEXES

Spain, Greece, Italy, Norway Italy, Belgium, Finland, France, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, UK Spain, France, Greece, Ireland, Republic of Latvia

Rural-Inclusion

Part D: Country Reports

SAVE ENERGY SOCIABLE T-SENIORITY Accessible digital Audiovisual systems Motivating platform for elderly reinforcement and social interaction networking, mental Portugal, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, united Kingdom Greece, Italy, Norway, Spain Spain, Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, UK

Expanding the benefits of the information society to older people through digital TV channels
58

Postings on ePractice

Cases (all submitted cases of a country as part of a total of 1207 by October 2009) Award Finalist 2009 (viewed in September 2009) Good Practice 200759 2008

The ePractice data base and portal is the central hub for all eGovernment activity in the EU and associated states. The engagement with and through this platform, by posting cases, sharing best practice, organising events and entering in discussions with fellow practitioners is a good indicator for a countrys awareness of European eGovernment activity. The ePractices editorial board and community also qualifies cases (Good and Best Practices, Editors Choice) and selects Award nominees for the Best Practice Award. The overall number of cases provides an indication of the level of a countrys activity and willingness to share. The total number 62 is the sum of all best practice listings per country in the period 20072008. As some best practices are collaborative efforts of 2 or more countries (which are therefore counted under more than one country), the total number of Best Practice cases listed in the ePractice database for 35 contributing countries is in fact lower at 60 cases for the period 2007-2008.

12.4 Key organisational facts

This section gives a brief overview of the positioning of eGovernment policy within a wider set of policies relating to the Information society, competitiveness, administrative transformation and technology deployments. It describes the main actors, responsibilities, scope of eGovernment policy, governance and deployment mechanisms and also the continuity (or change) of the organisational structure for delivering eGovernment. The content of this section is based on the September 2009 versions of ePractice country fact sheets and has been reviewed by country representatives. Due to size restrictions of the 2 page Country reports not all contributions provided by representatives of the countries during the validation round could be taken on board. Positioning and Scope: Describes who is politically responsible and what the primary focus of the eGovernment policy is (e.g. policy for administrative transformation; part of a wider Information Society policy, dedicated eGovernment policy, etc) Key actors and line of reporting: Lists the main actors in charge of policy development and execution Governance and Deployment: Discusses how other layers of government and stakeholders are involved, and through which mechanisms eGovernment is deployed (e.g. regulation, coordination, persuasion, facilitation, etc) and through which actors (e.g. business involvement) Organisational Continuity: Observes recent changes in eGovernment organization, governance, or strategy

12.5 Close-up: results in the EC eGovernment benchmark 2009

From this section on, the country report focuses on presenting the various results, starting with the scores of maturity and level of sophistication of 20 key eGovernment services. The score is presented as a time series to indicate relative progress or decline; and will be off set against data of user satisfaction and uptake. Overall sophistication is broken down further into citizens, and business. The dynamics of the development of these services is described in a few bullet points; including service delivery information like decentralisation and outsourcing to the private sector. The main source of information is the benchmark survey; complemented with Eurobarometer user satisfaction data and the IDABC country reports 2009. The time series graph expresses the level of sophistication of 20 eGovernment services compared to the EU average. The overall results are disaggregated for citizens and businesses. The bar chart shows the development of online availability over the last nine years compared against the EU average.
58 59

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the MS of this country report 'This value indicates the quality of the cases presented to ePractice, as judged by the editorial board of ePractice. As 2009 Best practices had not been reviewed at the time of analsys it was decided to present an aggregate value of the best practices of the last two years 2007-2008.

76

Part D: Country Reports

Both figures are followed by brief explanatory text.

eProcurement eProcurement is a new indicator in the benchmark, and will thus be treated separately from the 20 services. Like the previous section, the results of the benchmark are presented in graphical format and bullet point text. The data originate from the benchmark study and are complemented with insights from IDABC country reports; Europe Digital Competitiveness report; WEF Global Competitiveness Index; EIU eReadiness Ranking; OECD country reports.

User Experience The diagram displays the percentage scores a country has achieved against the User Experience sub-indicators: usability, user satisfaction monitoring, accessibility of national portals, one-stop-shop approach and user-focused portal design. The coloured box beneath the spider web represents the countrys achievement in the automated, web crawler testing of accessibility of national portals, where 0-10% barriers correspond to the green letter B i.e. best possible performance, 10%-25% to the yellow letter C, 25%-50 to the orange letter D, and 50%-100% to the red letter E i.e. worst possible performance.

12.6 Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009:

This section provides a bullet point list of the strategic priorities, which were indicated by the country respondents in the benchmarks landscaping phase. It should be noted that the choice of priorities is the sole responsibility of the national eGovernment respondents who participated in the survey and the subsequent validations. Some contributions have been summarised to fit the available space.

12.7 Biggest eGovernment success stories in the last 2 years?

Under this heading the country representatives were asked to provide the most impactful eGovernment success story. No definition of impact was given, nor any description of the subject. Therefore the choice indicates the internal perception of the government of its best performing, most used, or most innovative service, solution, policy or other initiative in the field of eGovernment.

12.8 Best practices and URLs:

Under this heading the country representative was asked to provide the URLs of services that are considered as best practice by the country itself. The list should help illustrate the positive progress a country has made and serve as a potential learning opportunity for other eGovernment actors. Under this heading the country representative was asked to provide the URLs of services that are considered as best practice by the country itself. The list should help illustrate the positive progress a country has made and serve as a potential learning opportunity for other eGovernment actors.

77

Part D: Country Reports

Austria
Austria has held a leading position in eGovernment in the EU for the last few years. eGovernment is a fully integrated aspect of government, which is demonstrated by 100% level of services on line. Austrias strategy and organisation demonstrate a high level of consistency, continuity and inclusiveness. Different layers of government and other stakeholders are effectively engaged in the development of the eGovernment strategy and its implementation. Austria, through its federal CIO has also been advocating pan-European eGovernment and has played an active role in the EUs activities. The quality of the supply of eGovernment services is not fully matched by the usage of eGovernment services by business and citizens, which are still slightly lagging. A likely explanation is the somewhat cautious uptake and use of the internet and access to broadband. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 6.8 1.68 6.4% 60 3.05 4.4 18.8% 33.06 16.67 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 8355660 123.1 -4 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 61 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 epSOS, SPOCS, STORK, PEPPOL Long Lasting Memories, In-Time Total 65 1207 4 52 1 0 Ranking 1/3 16 17 16 14 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.69 2.8 69 76 39 80 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: Responsibility for Austrias eGovernment policy lies with the State Secretary in the Federal Chancellery at the heart of the government. eGovernment in Austria is a fully integrated element of the way administration conducts its business; in the front as well as the back office, having users as its primary focus. Key actors and line of reporting: The key body responsible for eGovernment strategy and execution is the ICT Strategy Unit at the Federal Chancellery. The federal CIO is a personal function (i.e. not an institution) supporting coordination of eGovernment activity, advising the government and representing Austria abroad. The federal CIO also chairs the Platform Digital Austria, which is the central forum for eGovernment, comprising representatives of the federal government, regions, cities, municipalities, private and public sector bodies. Operational support to the Platform is provided by the ICT Strategy Unit. Governance and deployment: Platform Digital Austria is the overarching institution for all eGovernment activity, engaging all levels of government and other stakeholders. It is chaired by the federal CIO and contains a number of task forces, and thematic working groups. Coordination at the federal level is done by the ICT Strategy Unit. Apart from overall strategy, coordination and cross-cutting projects for which the Federal Chancellery is responsible, each ministry and agency carries out its own projects. Organisational Continuity: The eGovernment strategy and organisation is still based on the same fundamentals since 2001; though many activities are now under the auspices of the Platform Digital Austria. The federal ICT board of departmental CIOs and the eCorporation board for decentralized government continue to exist under the ICT strategy unit and are both chaired by the federal CIO to avoid overlap and ensure coordination

60 EU 25 61

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

78

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Austria - Full online availability
100 80 60 40 EU27+ 20
0 20 100 80

Austria - Online sophistication

Austria

60 40

0 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Overall
Austria

Businesses

Citizens

Austria has maintained a top position in the EC eGovernment benchmark for several years. In 2009, Austria again achieves 100% full online availability and shares the podium with Malta, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. In terms of online sophistication, Austria achieves a 99% score and is positioned right behind Malta and Portugal. The sophistication score can be split into a sophistication of 98% for citizen services and 100% for business services. The service Public Libraries is the only eGovernment service that has not yet obtained the maximum score according to the benchmark method. Services like Medical Costs and Drivers license are delivered through a one-stop-shop approach were intermediaries (medical serviceproviders, driving schools, and alike) are by law obliged to use the online service on behalf of the citizen. Through such a one-stop-shop system, medical costs are reimbursed automatically and drivers licenses are automatically delivered, without any citizen-government interaction. eProcurement
Austria - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Austria

Austrian online procurement is based on a national platform, which is mandatory for the federal government authorities, and is also used by federal states. A new platform is under construction (BBG E-shop). In addition, there is a Public Procurement Platform (PEP online) for the publication of tender notices. The indicators for the 3 surveyed platforms are above the EU average for eNotification and eSubmission and lower for eAward (eAuctions are not practiced).

e-Award

User Experience
Austria - User experience
Usability
100 75 50

Austria EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

Austria is among the only two European countries which score UWEM letter Bthe best possible score- in the automated Accessibility assessment of their national portal. This illustrates Austrias significant focus on e-Inclusion policy. Austria regularly proceeds to self-evaluations of government web sites and has recently published a detailed study applying WCAG 2.0, the next generation of accessibility standards of the World Wide Web Consortium. Further, Austria sets the example for User-focused Portal Design, having put lifeevent and thematic presentation modes high on its eGovernment agenda. On User Satisfaction Monitoring, Austria scores above the EU27+ average, whilst scores are slightly below average for Usability and One-Stop-Shop Approach.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7 Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. Creation of interoperable systems, which are open for all e-government actors, based on open source building blocks 2. Usability improvements for the users 3. International cooperation to realize cross border government procedures 4. Cooperation between different levels of government to implement shared services 5. e-inclusion 8. Biggest eGovernment success stories in the last 2 years? Positive development of HELP.gv.at together with personalised offer called myHELP.gv.at Best practices and URLs: eGOVLABS: This open source repository offers software modules for electronic identification, eSignature, eSignature validation, and delivery. (www.egovlabs.gv.at) Finanzonline (https://finanzonline.bmf.gv.at/) RIS : The Legal Information System of the Republic of Austria (RIS) is a computer-assisted information system on Austrian law, providing authentic texts of laws and regulations , which is coordinated and operated by the Austrian Federal Chancellery. (www.ris.bka.gv.at) 79

Part D: Country Reports

Belgium
Belgium has embraced eGovernment and has recently propelled itself into a leading position in the EU in a number of domains, notably eIDM. Through FedICT, the federal eGovernment agency for development of central infrastructures, implementation, and support, Belgium has notably advanced the integration and reordering of its back office, to provide the critical central infrastructures and platforms like common standards, eSignature, eIDM, etc. Belgian performance in the delivery of online services remains average. One of the main challenges in Belgium is the relative low level of internet usage and broadband penetration. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 9.8 3.15 6.4% 62 3.05 8.1 37.7% 2.66 17.35 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 10754528 114.6 -3.5 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts Positioning: eGovenment in Belgium is seen as an instrument for organizational change to improve back office coordination and integration of different levels of government and departments, and to reduce administrative burden and improve public service delivery. Key actors and line of reporting: The federal agency FedICT is in charge of coordinating and ensuring the uniform and consistent implementation of the eGovernment strategy within the Federal Administration. Key actors at regional level are The Coordination Cell for Flemish e-Government (CORVE) in Flanders, the eAdministration and Simplification Unit (EASI-WAL) in Wallonia, and the Brussels Regional Informatics Centre (BRIC) in the Brussels-Capital Region. The Crossroads Bank (CBSS) initiates and coordinates the implementation of eGovernment services in the social sector. Governance and deployment: Individual Administrations are responsible for the implementation of their own ICT/eGov projects, with the support of the key actors above mentioned (e.g. by using their eGovernment building blocks). Regional eGovernment efforts are coordinated by dedicated units or bodies set up by the regional executives: Organisational Continuity: The basis for eGovernment policies is still the agreement in 2001 between all layers of government. The agreement has been updated in 2005
63

2. Information Society Indicators 0.69 2.8 64 91 16 69 EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

Ranking 16/12 24 18 24 20

Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70

STORK In-Time, REACH112, Dreaming, ECRN, FRIELOT Total 83 1207 3 52 0 2

62 EU 25

63 Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

80

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Belgium - Full online availability
100 80 60 40 20 0 2003 2005 2007 2009 EU27+ Belgium

Belgium - Online sophistication

100 80 60 40 20 0 Overall Businesses
Belgium

Citizens

In this years benchmark, Belgium achieves a full online availability of 70% and maintains its ranking stable as regards this metric, at position 16. In terms of online sophistication, Belgium has moved two ranks upwards this year, to 12th. For this second metric, Belgium obtains a score of 89%, splitting into a sophistication of 85% for citizen services, and 96% for business services. For Belgium, the biggest room for improvement remains in the permits and licenses cluster of the benchmark. eProcurement
Belgium - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Belgium

Belgium has a non-mandatory public eProcurement platform, that serves as a knowledge base for all public procurement related aspects. It is also the point of entrance towards e-Procurement tools such as e-Notification, e-endering and e-Catalogue for public administrations. Belgium is in the top ten for the preaward process indicator with high availability for all the 3 subphases.

e-Award

User Experience
Belgium - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Belgium EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

In terms of User Experience, Belgium performs above the EU27+ average for most metrics. It obtains 38% on User Satisfaction Monitoring, 90% on OneStop-Shop Approach and 79% on User-focused Portal Design. Belgiums Usability score is only one percentage point below the EU27+ average. Belgium undertakes a wide range of offline User Satisfaction Monitoring activities. Administrations survey both the overall satisfaction of users with government, and their satisfaction specifically with eGovernment services. Several regional studies have been undertaken lately.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Further development of the citizen personalised portal mybelgium.be Promotion of the use of eID and development of new applications eInclusion: promotion of the use of computers and Internet Development of the basic components for the business personalised portal Fostering of data exchange between administrations back offices to alleviate citizens and businesses form filling

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: eID: complete roll-out for all Belgian citizens, including the creation of eID for children (Kids-ID) and for foreigners. (http://eid.belgium.be/). Best practices and URLs: Personalised citizen portal: www.belgium.be and Mybelgium.be Fiscal dossier: Myminfin.be: Front Office Employment: http://www.autravail.be/ Prefilled online forms (walloon region): http://formulaires.wallonie.be/index.jsp: Automatic payment of child benefits to children over 18 years old. (Flanders): http://www.corve.be/overegov/publicaties/artikel_2007_kinderbijslag.php

81

Part D: Country Reports

Bulgaria
Bulgaria has made progress on most Information Society and eGovernment indicators, but is still trailing in Europe, especially in citizen up take and also the supply and adoption of eGovernment services. It has acknowledged this challenge and addresses it by concentrating all eGovernment and Information Society activity in one Ministry for Administrative Reform; and through a National Information Society Strategy (2008) and the eGovernment Act (2006). The strategys focus has been on developing central infrastructures. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP Not Available 8.48 6.4% 3.05
64

2. Information Society Indicators 7606551 40.1 -1.6 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 65 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 Ranking 29/29 43 76 68 47 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.45 2 25 62 8 58 EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

100

6.8 25.2% 29.2 17.31

EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97%

eGos, BEPMS 7 0 0 Total 1207 52 0

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment is considered a central tool in transforming Government and the economy to improve competitiveness of Bulgaria. Ministry of State Administration and Administrative Reform is responsible for both eGovernment and the wider information Society and IT issues. Key actors: executive responsibility lies with the directorate for eGovernment in the Ministry of State Administration and Administrative Reform. Coordination and support is provided by the State Agency for Information Technology and Communication (SAFITC) Governance and deployment: The chairman of SAFITC chairs the Ministerial Coordination Council for Information Society that is intended to provide oversight and political backing for eGovernment activities. Local government develop own eGovernment strategies, but are heavily supported and coordinated by (SAFITC) and are provided centralized services. Organisational Continuity: All eGovernment activities are now concentrated in one ministry since 2007, working on the basis of a strategy from 2006 and within an Information society strategy of 2008.

64 EU 25 65

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

82

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Bulgaria - Full online availability
100 80
60

Bulgaria - Online sophistication

100 80

60
40

40 20 0 2007

EU27+
20

Bulgaria

0 Overall Businesses
Bulgaria

Citizens

2008

2009

This year, Bulgaria achieves a full online availability of 40% which is a notable increase from the 15% score obtained in 2007. Full online availability now reaches 25% for citizens, and even 63% for businesses. In terms of online sophistication, Bulgaria scores 65%, with a sophistication of 53% for citizen services and 83% for business services. Bulgaria is among the top ten fast runners , with a growth of more than ten percentage points between 2007 and 2009. Whilst services falling under the cluster Income generating (for government) score well, further progress will need to be made on the more heterogeneous and locally delivered citizen services like Personal Documents, Public Libraries and Announcement of Moving. eProcurement
Bulgaria - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Bulgaria

In Bulgaria there is a web-based Public Procurement Register, managed by the Public Procurement Agency (PPA). Contracting authorities are obliged to publish their tender notices on the Public Procurement Register as well as in the Bulgarian State Gazette and the European Journal. The pre-award process benchmark is below the EU27+ average, mainly because of no availability of the eAward subphase services.
e-Award

User Experience
Bulgaria - User experience
Usability
100 75 50 25

Bulgaria EU27+

User-focused portal design

User satisfaction monitoring

Bulgaria also clearly needs to improve the User Experience of its eGovernment web sites. It currently obtains a score of 33% on Usability, but only reaches 5% on User Satisfaction Monitoring. Bulgaria has further not scored at all on the OneStop-Shop and User-focused Portal Design metrics. The technically embedded Accessibility of eGovernment services, tested through the web crawler on the national portal, also requires further attention.

One-stop-shop approach

7. Top strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009 : To meet the needs of society for quality and easily accessible administrative services. Tasks related to the development of centralised systems for eGovernment: provision of a centralised integrated information environment, delivery of centralised services by proposing standardised solutions; activities related to the security of centralised information and systems; launch of a communication strategy aimed at raising awareness and explaining eGovernment services. Technical and methodological support to regional and local Administrations:. Training the Administration's employees in information technologies and the implementation/use of eGovernment services. 8. Biggest eGovernment success stories in the last 2 years? eGovernment portal providing a single entry point to information and transactional public services organised according to life-events. This portal, named 'egov.bg' - www.egov.bg - was launched in October 2007.

66

66 Section 7 and 8 are taken from the ePractice factsheet and were not provided by the country representative in the survey.

83

Part D: Country Reports

Croatia
Croatia is making up for a late start in eGovernment, and has not yet reached a state of maturity. It has made considerable efforts to increase availability of online services and to deliver these in a user-friendly manner. eGovernment in Croatia used to be part of a general ICT strategy eCroatia. In 2009 it has gained more prominence, after a dedicated eGovernment strategy was adopted. The strategy focuses primarily on putting in place back office building blocks for the development and effective delivery of eGovernment services. eGovernment activities are strongly aligned with the EUs policies, inspired by Croatias bid for EU membership. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Not Available Public Procurement as a % Not of GDP Available 6.4% 3.05
67

2. Information Society Indicators 4435056 63 -3 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups 100 ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 68 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 Ranking 30/31 47 72 49 Not Listed Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 Not Available Not Available Not Available 88 8 57 EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

9.7 20.3% 42.98 17.35

EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97%

7 0 0

Total 1207 52 0

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment has been part of the governments ICT policy eCroatia, and has recently been identified as a specific policy area under responsibility of the Prime Minister. Key actors and line of reporting: Croatia has a dedicated CIO function in the State Secretary in charge of the Central Administrative Office for eCroatia (CAOeC) who reports to the Prime Minister. This Office is responsible for the eCroatia programme, rationalization of the ICT investments and international cooperation. Governance and Deployment: Governance is decentralized with some involvement of non-government actors through the mixed National Council for the Information Society, which advises the government on issues relating to the development of the Information society as a whole. CAOeC has a supporting role. Organisational Continuity: The eCroatia strategy, which contains eGovernment policy is regularly updated and exists since 2003. In 2009 an eGovernment strategy was adopted. The Central Administrative Office for eCroatia has been in charge since its inception in 2003.

67 EU 25 68

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

84

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Croatia - Full online availability
100
100

Croatia - Online sophistication

80
80

60
60

40
40

20 0 2009
Croatia

20 0 Overall
Croatia

Businesses

Citizens

Croatia has participated in the European Commissions benchmark for the first time this year. Hence, no time series is available for the benchmark. In terms of full online availability, Croatia obtains 35%. Business services are by far more mature: they obtain a score of 63% on full online availability as compared to the citizen services score of 17% for this metric. In terms of online sophistication, Croatia marks 56%. This score can be split into an online sophistication score of 44% for citizen services and 74% for business services, with again a marked gap between the quality of supply for businesses and citizens. eProcurement
Croatia - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Croatia

Croatia is one of the best performers for both the e-Notification and eAward subphases, but scores very low in the eSubmission subphase, which still needs to be developed. Overall, the pre-award indicator is not very far from the European average. Croatia has a national eProcurement platform that is mandatory for tenders above the threshold of 70.000 HRK (approx. 10.000 EUR).
e-Award

User Experience
Croatia - User experience
Usability
100 75 50

Croatia EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

As regards User Experience, Croatias results are particularly sound for Userfocused Portal Design (where Croatias score stands at 100%) and One-StopShop Approach (where Croatias score reaches 80%). The portal Mojauprava bundles government information and serves as gateway to Croatias eGovernment services. On Usability, Croatia achieves 34% whilst 24% of the screened web sites score positively on the User Satisfaction Monitoring metric. On Accessibility of the national portal, Croatia obtains letter D according to the UWEM scale which places it in the middle field of the EU27+27 countries. With its participation in the benchmark, Croatia is showing increasing commitment to the European eGovernment agenda. Already since 2008, Croatia has been participating in the European Commissions eGovernment Benchlearning Project which aims at elaborating and piloting eGovernment impact indicators, among others on User Satisfaction Monitoring.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. The implementation framework for the Strategy for the development of Electronic Government 2009 2012 Developing a networked government assisted by ICT within two years Priority projects: interoperability framework; eOffice pilot project; Pilot project of the integrated authentication and authorisation system; Pilot project of inventory listing of IKT resources of state government bodies; and Upgrade of HITRONet network.

8. Current, Next and Leading Practice Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: Establishment of central government portal Mojauprava Development of electronic service for company registration in 24 hours Adoption of the first Croatian comprehensive e-government strategy for the period 2009-2012. Best pratices and URLs: HITRO: Company registration (www.hitro.hr) OIB: Personal identficiation number (http://www.oib.hr/) eCharter: Maritime integrated information system (http://ecrew.pomorstvo.hr/

85

Part D: Country Reports

Cyprus
Cyprus has steadily improved performance on key Information Society indictors, like access to broadband and internet use, though it is still seeking to perform at and above the EU average scores. It also shows progress in eGovernment, especially in business use and the availability of eGovernment services, though performance is still below EU average. eGovernment is part of Information Society policy or more specifically: the deployment of ICT, closely resembling the EU i2010 programme in many ways. It is currently emphasising improvements in back office and core central services to improve the fundamentals of its eGovernment infrastructure. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 7.9 5.15 6.4% 69 3.05 5.4 37.1% 30.3 12.48 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 793963 94.6 -0.3 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 70 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 Ranking 26/26 35 34 33 Not Listed Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.53 Not Available 43 79 16 65 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

T-Seniority 7 0 0 Total 1207 52 0

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment is strongly associated with computerization of government processes, and deployment of Information Technology policy. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for most aspects of eGovernment. Key actors and line of reporting: The Department of Information Technology Services (DITS) at the Ministry of Finance is responsible for effective IT deployment in support of Government policies and objectives. Information Society policy is set by the Minister of Communications and Works, and the Department of Electronic Communications in particular. Governance and deployment: The Council of Ministers has overall responsibility for the Information Systems Strategy. Monitoring of the implementation of the Information Systems Strategy is delegated to a Computerisation Executive Board. The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Communications and Works chairs an advisory committee for Information Society policy, involving, representatives of relevant Ministries, industry and academia. Organisational Continuity: The organization of eGovernment remains largely the same, but the Information Society organization has recently been overhauled. Strategies tend to follow (changes in) EU policies.

69 EU 25 70

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

86

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Cyprus - Full online availability
100 80 60 40 20 0 2005 2007 2009 EU27+
100 80 60 40 20

Cyprus - Online sophistication

Cyprus
0 Overall
Cyprus

Businesses

Citizens

Cyprus achieves a full online availability of 50%. Progress has in particular been made on the supply of business services of which two-thirds are now fully online. Online sophistication reaches 70%, splitting into an online sophistication of 59% for citizen services and 87% for business services. Cyprus eGovernment performance is growing steadily but the speed of growth could be enhanced. All Income generating (for government) services are fully online in Cyprus. Business services are much advanced, with the only exception of Environmental Permits. For citizens, several good practices are on their way such as a web-enabled eBooking system for medical appointments. Through this system, patients can pay for their visit and medical charges online. Certain services, like Declaration to the Police, cannot be further e-enabled due to legal barriers. eProcurement
Cyprus - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Cyprus

Cyprus has chosen to develop a centralized national eProcurement Platform, which was completed in February 2009 and covers all the phases of the process from eNotification to eInvoicing, in line with IDABC Directives. The platform is managed by the Public Procurement Directorate of the Treasury and is mandatory for all Contracting Authorities. The pre-award process availability score is the highest in the EU27+, and is also very high for Post-Award services (excluding only e-Payment). The availability Benchmark is lower, but will increase as more Authorities are linking with the Platform.
e-Award

User Experience
Cyprus - User experience
Usability
100 75 50

Cyprus EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

Cyprus reaches 57% on the Usability metric and 10% on User Satisfaction Monitoring. The Accessibility of the national portal needs to be improved further. Evidently, the Cypriote portal is well-developed and obtains 89% in terms of OneStop-Shop Approach and 100% for User-focused Portal Design. Through the Cyprus Government Portal the public can access a wide range of information and services through a single entry point, designed around themes and life events. Portal visitors can participate in an evaluation survey which aims to collect information and suggestions that will be used to improve the quality of the portal content and the services provided through it, the portals user friendliness and its efficiency where necessary.

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. Refine the Information Systems Strategy 2015, compliant with EU policies 2. Enhance the existing eGovernment infrastructure (e.g.Government Secure Gateway, eID, the Government Data Warehouse, the Government Help Desk) 3. Training of government employees for IT and organizational change. 4. Monitor user satisfaction of eGovernment services and gain feedback on the usage 5. Develop (EIF compatible) National Interoperability Frameworks and promote the use of Open Specifications. 8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: The overall increase in the usage of some eServices and the deployment of new ones (Citizen Service Centres, Road Transport eServices, eProcurement) Best practices and URLs: Road Transport eServices (http://rtd.mcw.gov.cy info at: http://www.epractice.eu/en/cases/ertd) Citizen Service Centres (CSC): This is a One-stop-shop service. No on-line access. info at: http://www.epractice.eu/en/cases/cscs eOAS: This is a Service for Government employees. No online access at the time. info at: http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/dits/dits.nsf 87

Part D: Country Reports

Czech Republic

The Czech Republic has a focused and simple eGovernment organisation within the Ministry of the Interior. It has set an ambitious strategy and has improved its position on various information society indicators and level of availability online services. It has also established a One-Stop-Shop approach. However, Czech eGovernment performance remains under the EU average, and usage by citizens and business, has stagnated. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 6.5 4.10 6.4% 71 3.05 6.3 16.1% 26.5 14.58 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 1046754 2 80.4 -2.7 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: All eGovernment activity is now firmly positioned in the Ministry of the Interior. eGovernment focuses on public service delivery and the reform of government, and is clearly distinct from general Information Society policy. Key actors: Political responsibility lies with the Minister of the Interior, and the Deputy Minister for Public Administration, Informatics, Legislation and Archiving. The CIO function is assumed by the Executive Director of the Department for Informatics in the same ministry. The ministry is responsible for policy formulation, support and implementation. Governance and deployment: Coordination across central government is conducted by the Government Council for the Information Society. The ministry also provides support to decentralized eGovernment development. Organisational Continuity: A new strategy was launched in 2008, following a complete overhaul and simplification of the eGovernment organisation, closing down the Ministry of Informatics and moving all eGovernment activity to the Ministry of Interior.
72

2. Information Society Indicators 0.6 3.2 46 79 14 73 EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

100

Ranking 21/19 25 31 32 31

Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70

epSOS BEST Energy In-Time 28 0 0 Total 1207 52 0

71 EU 25 72

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

88

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Czech Republic - Online sophistication
Czech Republic - Full online availability
100

100 80

80

60
60

40
40 20 0 2005 2007 2009 EU27+ Czech Republic

20 0 Overall Businesses
Czech Republic

Citizens

The Czech Republic has reached 60% on the full online availability indicator, which is close to the EU27+ average. Citizen services obtain a full online availability score of 33%, whilst all business services are fully online. The difference in performance between citizen and business service offerings is hence significant. The same marked difference in performance can be observed when looking at the Online Sophistication Indicator. This metric stands at 78% for all services, obtains a moderate mark of 66% for citizen services and a much higher score of 95% for business services. Services falling under the cluster Registration, like Car Registration, Birth and Marriage Certificates and Announcement of Moving, offer significant room for improvement. Participation in the European Commissions Large Scale Pilot epSOS, that the Czech Republic has joined through its IZIP system on electronic patients records, can help the Czech Republic to develop its eHealth services further. eProcurement
Czech Republic - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Czech Republic

The Czech republic pre-award indicator is close to the EU27+ average. While the eNotification subphase registers the highest score; the eSubmission subphase still needs to be improved. The national platform is mandatory for the publication of tenders above the national threshold (2 000 000 CZK 76 000 EUR and 6 000 000 CZK 230 000 EUR for constructions) and to purchase ICT commodities and services. Currently, 92% of notifications are sent electronically, the rest by paper-mail and fax.

e-Award

User Experience
Czech Republic - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Czech Republic EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

In terms of User Experience, the Czech Republic displays a mixed picture. It obtains a score of 38% on Usability but only achieves 3% on User Satisfaction Monitoring, indicating that only very few web sites can be rated by users online. The Czech Republic performs particularly well on the accessibility of their national portal and falls under the first quartile of countries regarding this metric. It scores 100% on the indicator One-Stop-Approach and 50% on the indicator Userfocused Portal Design.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. System of data-boxes (launched 1 July 2009) for communication within public administration and with private companies CzechPOINT - eGovernment one-stop shop, network of more than 3500 contact points providing eGov services Interconnected and interoperable basic public registers Digitalisation of documents and their archiving Specific eGovernment services

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: CzechPOINT is the Chech republics successful one-stop-shop solution. Best practices and URLs: CzechPOINT (www.czechpoint.cz) Datov schrnky (www.datoveschranky.info) eJustice portal (http://portal.justice.cz/) 89

Part D: Country Reports

Denmark
Denmark offers a mature Information Society with high levels of internet use and broadband access. It is also a leading nation in eGovernment usage, especially by business. eGovernment is organized along delivery domains. There is a strong focus on improving the delivery of public service and thus on the interfaces and ways people and business interact with government. The front office in particular the citizens and business portals is used to help improve back office integration and the development of standards and shared services. Its cross-government decision making processes are highly inclusive, aiming at more coherent policies and more collaborative and efficient organisation of government. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 6.1 3.23 6.4% 73 3.05 6.2 31.1% 13.58 15.63 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 5511451 118.3 -3.3 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: The eGovernment activities of Denmark are focused on improving digital services, efficiency, and collaboration across all levels of government. The key public authorities within eGovernment are the ministries of Finance, Science, Technology and Innovation, Economics and Business Affairs, Interior and Social Welfare, Health and Prevention, Taxation. Key actors and line of reporting: The most important policy functions related to eGovernment reside within the Ministry of Finance, and its Digital Task Force. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has political responsibility for national IT policy development, delegating executive responsibility to the National IT and Telecom Agency. Operation and support of state level general IT systems is currently being consolidated in the new Agency for Governmental IT-services under the Ministry of Finance. Governance and deployment: Coordination of eGovernment is done by the Steering Committee for Joint Government Cooperation (STS), chaired by the Minister of Finance, containing permanent secretaries of the key ministries, and directors of the associations of local and regional governments. Implementation is largely decentralized and left to departments and local authorities. Cross-governmental policies are implemented through mutually binding agreements rather than legislation. Digitization boards have been set up under the STS for each policy domain (e.g. Health, Social welfare, Business, etc.), to ensure proper coordination, involving all relevant authorities. Organisational Continuity: Denmark is experiencing its third eGovenment strategy. The STS replaced the existing Joint Board in 2005. Overall, the governance model of eGovernment development and deployment in Denmark has remained largely unchanged since 2005.
74

2. Information Society Indicators 0.79 3.2 82 80 44 90 EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

Ranking 9/10 2 5 1 1

Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70

epSOS, PEPPOL BEST Energy; ISISEMD DTV4ALL; Dreaming 65 4 3 Total 1207 52 1

73 EU 25 74

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

90

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Denmark - Full online availability
100
Denmark - Online sophistication

80 60 Denmark 40

100 80 60 40

20 0 2001

EU27+
20 0

2003

2005

2007

2009

Overall

Businesses
Denmark

Citizens

Denmark has leapfrogged from its 14th rank in 2007 to position 9 in 2009 for full online availability. Within two years, it has increased its full online availability by more than twenty percentage points to currently 84%. Similarly, Denmark has gained five ranks in the online sophistication benchmark, where it now stands at rank 10 and marks 93%. The difference in performance between citizen services (currently at 89%) and business services (currently at 100%) is smaller than in most European countries. For Denmark, the service with the greatest improvement potential is Personal Documents. Both Passports and Drivers Licenses are being delivered at the municipality level, at varying degrees of sophistication. Also, the Car Registration procedure could be further e-enabled. eProcurement Denmark has a non-mandatory public procurement portal (DOIP). The Public Procurement Portal is an electronic market place to which both private and public purchasers and their suppliers have access, and whose functionality, interface, security and transaction costs are regulated by the public sector. The use of DOIP is recommended for all public bodies. The pre-Award indicator is well over the European average, with a good performance especially for the eSubmission and the eAward sub-phases.

User Experience
Czech Republic - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Czech Republic EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

In terms of User Experience, the Danish portals perform particularly strongly. Here, Denmark scores 90% on One-Stop-Shop Approach and 100% on Userfocused Portal Design. Denmarks Usability score, assessed both on the national portal and 20 services sites, only reaches 23%. User Satisfaction Monitoring is rated at 0% but this score requires further interpretation. In fact, User Satisfaction Monitoring is conducted systematically, once a year, as part of the Bedst p Nettet (Top of the Web) initiative, combining both online and offline assessments. With a few exceptions, all authorities responsible for delivering the 20 public services, including all national portals, and the vast majority of municipalities, participate in this user-side benchmark.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Single sign on solution (EasyLogin) by 1 November 2010, for all national citizen-oriented services Visual integration into the national citizen portal, borger.dk, by 1 November 2010 for all national citizen-oriented services Digital document box solution for all public authorities by 1 November 2010 Digitisation of all relevant written communication between businesses, citizens and the public sector by 2012. National digital signature in 2010; usable for internet banking as well as the regular public and private digital self-service solutions.

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: Three eDays. The eDay concept, commits all public authorities to use specific digital solutions by a certain date. :eDay3 is planned for 1 November 2010 Best practices and URLs: The Central Customs and Tax Administrations (SKAT) self-service website: http://www.tastselvskat.dk/) MyPage: https://www.borger.dk/MinSide/ NemHandel of EasyTrade (http://www.nemhandel.dk 91

Part D: Country Reports

Estonia

Estonia has rapidly progressed in uptake of broadband and Internet access. In eGovernment Estonia has performed above EU average with high levels of online availability, user-friendliness, and sophistication. Citizens use of eGovernment services seems to have stagnated. Estonian eGovernment policy is part of a wider Information Society policy. Its central actors are in the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, with a coordinating role for the Ministry of the Interior in local eGovernment development. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 5.8 7.39 6.4% 75 3.05 17 35.3% 30.56 16.72 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 1340415 67.2 -10.3 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 76 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 STORK Dreaming 16 2 1 Total 1207 52 1 Ranking 7/6 13 35 18 24 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.71 2.9 58 88 34 77 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment is part of broader Information society policy under responsibility of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Key actors: There is no clear CIO role. In the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, the Department of State Information Systems (RISO) is responsible for coordination and implementation of the state information system and state IT strategies. The Estonian Informatics Centre in the same ministry is the agency for the development and maintenance of common information systems in the Estonian Administration. Governance and deployment: Deployment is largely decentralized, with a facilitating, and coordinating role for central government, and in developing shared services. The Estonian Informatics Council is the expert committee for advice and coordination for the Government. The Ministry of Internal affairs coordinates policies at the local level. Organisational Continuity: Information Society strategy from 2006, with .bi-annual implementation plans. No recent organizational changes.

75 EU 25 76

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

92

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Estonia - Full online availability
100
Estonia - Online sophistication

80 60 40 20 0 2005 2007 2009 Estonia

100 80 60

EU27+

40 20 0 Overall
Estonia

Businesses

Citizens

Estonia is one of Eastern Europes best performing countries in the benchmark. 90% of services are fully available online. This result can be split into a full online availability of 83% for citizens and 100% for businesses. In terms of sophistication, Estonias progress is above the EU27+ average. Estonia now ranks 6th in the sophistication ranking, with an online sophistication of 95%. With five percentage points, the difference in sophistication between citizen and business services is small. The services with the biggest improvement potential are Student Grants, Drivers License and Application for Building Permission. The Business Registration Service at https://ettevotjaportaal.rik.ee/?chlang=eng is one of Estonias showcase examples and is already now available to foreign entrepreneurs from select countries. eProcurement With Cyprus, Estonia is one of the top performers for the Pre-Award Process Benchmark. Only eNotification (lack of SMS based alert services) marks a perfect record. Estonia has a national eProcurement platform, that is mandatory, for the publication of contract notices and contract award notices. In Estonia there is not a central procurement agency, each administration arranges its own public procurements.

User Experience
Estonia - User experience
Usability
100 75 50

Estonia EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

The User Experience of Estonian websites is well above the EU27+ average. Usability stands at 67%, User Satisfaction Monitoring at 68%. Estonias score for One-Stop-Shop Approach is at 85% and the User-focused Portal Design indicator is rated at 100%. In terms of accessibility of the national portal, Estonia is the second best performing country in Eastern Europe.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Improving the knowledge and skills of and opportunities for participation for all members of society Development of electronic business environment Transition to paperless management of business in the public administration Further development of public services, including notification services Ensuring the security of electronic environment and promoting wide take-up of eID

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: eID infrastructure (achieved ubiquitous level). http://id.ee Best practices and URLs: Internet voting: http://www.vvk.ee/index.php?id=11178 eTax Board, e-Customs: http://www.emta.ee/?id=12223 Citizen portal (maturity level) . http://www.eesti.ee Interoperability framework http://www.riso.ee/et/koosvoime/raamistik Document exchange centre (maturity level) http://www.ria.ee/28567 93

Part D: Country Reports

Finland
Finland has been and still is one of the top performing nations in most Information society and eGovernment benchmarks. It has considerably improved online availability and leads in eGovernment usage and user-friendliness. Finland has a truly citizen centric vision of (e)Government and an inclusive approach to eGovernment strategy formation, involving experts from all layers of government, nongovernment actors and experts. It has deliberately sought to concentrate its eGovernment efforts (IT deployment and administrative transformation) under one ministry with support of a powerful CIO function. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 4.6 3.56 6.4% 77 3.05 8.5 36.2% 37 16.26 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 5326314 115 -4.7 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B PEPPOL HosPilot, REACH112, T-Seniority, ISISEMD, SAVE ENERGY
78

2. Information Society Indicators 0.77 3.2 72 92 53 95 EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

Ranking 8/7 15 6 6 10

Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70

ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts

40 1 0

Total 1207 52 4

Positioning and scope: eGovernment is an integrated part of government reform under responsibility of the Ministry of Finance (MoF). MoF works in cooperation with the Ministry of Transport and Communications, which is responsible for the Information society policy. Key actors and line of reporting: The MoFs Public Management Department is responsible for IT in State agencies and co-ordination of IT in municipalities. The State IT Management Unit of the department develops and implements the governments IT strategy and is responsible for the planning and preliminary studies of centralized, shared IT services. This unit is headed by the state IT Director (CIO). IT development in municipalities is coordinated by another unit in the same department. The IT Service Center in the State Treasury is responsible for organizing the production of shared IT services and delivering them to other government bodies. Governance and deployment: eGovernment strategy involves a wide range of public and private stakeholders and experts. The Ministry of the Interior supervises inter-ministerial and inter-agency coordinating groups on electronic services. The Advisory Committee on Information Management in Public Administration, JUHTA, promotes cooperation in information management between the State and the municipalities Organisational Continuity: The IT Service Center in the State Treasury was established in 2009.The strategy for state level eGovernment exists since 2006; For the whole of Public Sector in eGovernment, eServices and eDemocracy the strategy was recently launched and will last from 2009 to 2014.

77 EU 25 78

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

94

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Finland - Full online availability
100
100

Finland - Online sophistication

80
80

60 Finland 40 EU27+ 20 0 2001

20 0 60 40

2003

2005

2007

2009

Overall
Finland

Businesses

Citizens

Finland ranked 13th on full online availability in 2007, and this year stands at position 8, illustrating steep growth. In terms of online sophistication, Finland has also improved its positioning from rank 13 to 7. Full online availability scores at 89%, marking an improvement of more than twenty percentage points as compared to the last benchmark. In terms of online sophistication, Finland scores 94%, result which can be split into a 92% score for citizen services and 97% for business services. Passports and Application for Building Permission perform somewhat weaker than the other rated services. The Registration of a Company service, though already at a sophistication level of 75%, may further be improved so to fully put the registration procedure online, for national and eventually certain foreign enterprises. eProcurement
Finland - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Finland

Finland performs very well in the e-Notification subphase, while it needs a significant improvement in the eSubmission subphase, and the eAward subphase needs to be developed. This leads to a pre-award process score lower than the EU average. Finland has a mandatory notification database service for ongoing public tenders. Common platforms for other phases of eProcurement are under production. The use of these future platforms will not be mandatory.
e-Award

User Experience
Finland - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Finland EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

Finland performs strongly on all User Experience metrics, and appears regularly among the best performers. It has obtained full marks on User Satisfaction Monitoring and User-focused Portal Design and scores 92% on Usability. Finlands One-Stop-Shop metric reaches 81%. The accessibility of the national portal, as assessed through the automated web crawler, appears to be weak and needs to receive further attention.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009 1. New eGovernment programme called SADe (rain in Finnish and it comes from eServices and democracy) 2. eService cluster based on life situations (10-12 clusters0) 3. Stronger corporate governance; from decentralised to more centralised decision making, new legislation to support this goal 4. More coordination between central government and municipalities 5. Stronger steering of large IT-projects. 8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: Strong political support (SADe-programme), two clear governmental decisions about IT development priorities this year. Best practices and URLs: Pre-filled tax forms for citizen (www.vero.fi) Joint business information system of the National Board of Patents and registration and the Tax Administration (www.ytj.fi) Customs eServices for businesses (http://www.tulli.fi/en/businesses/eServices/index.jsp) City of Helsinki Service Map Tax Return Online 95

Part D: Country Reports

France

France is seeking to reconnect to the group of leading nations in eGovernment, which is demonstrated in improved online availability. Usage of eGovernment in France still remains average compared to other EU Member States, especially among business. Internet access and broadband connectivity have increased considerably in 2007-2008, even though France continues to be an average performer in these domains. eGovernment has become a pivotal part of administrative reform, under presidential coordination. France has recently reorganised and concentrated its effort in a new Directorate General (CIO function), which encompasses modernisation of the administration, deployment of ICT in government and eGovernment. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 10.3 3.38 6.4% 79 3.05 9.4 31.3% 22.86 16.29 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 64351000 107.3 -3 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B epSOS, SPOCS, , STORK, PEPPOL Rural-Inclusion, Long Lasting Memories, HosPilot, iSAC6+, BEPMS, REACH112, FRIELOT, TSeniority Total 59 1207 0 52 4 1 Ranking 11/11 9 16 19 15 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.74 3.1 62 92 43 73 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts

80

Positioning and scope: eGovernment is part of a wider transformation programme for the public administration and the policies concerned with the deployment of ICT in government. Key actors and line of reporting: Political responsibility lays with the Ministry of Budget, public Accounts and the Civil Service. Day to day management is delegated to the State Secretary for Forward Planning and the Development of the Digital Economy, and the Director General (CIO function) of the inter-ministerial Directorate General for State Modernisation (DGME). Governance and deployment: The President of the Republic chairs the Council for the Modernisation of Public Policies (CMPP), which is responsible for coordinating and directing the governments reform programme. The process of modernization of the administration is governed centrally by DGME and coordinated by the President through CMPP. Coordination will be strengthened further by establishing a National Delegation for Digital Matters, bringing together the 10 most relevant ministries. Local and regional activities comply with national eGovernment policy. Government departments are responsible for deployment sometimes supported by public-private interest groupings (e.g. SESAM-Vitale) and public companies (e.g. Caisse des Dpts). Organisational Continuity: The organization and programming of eGovernment policy have been overhauled and concentrated in DGME to focus strongly on administrative reform. The process is poised to last until 2012.

79 EU 25 80

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

96

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
France - Full online availability
100
100

France - Online sophistication

80
80

60 40

France

60 40

EU27+ 20 0 2001
20 0

2003

2005

2007

2009

Overall
France

Businesses

Citizens

France scores 80% in terms of full online availability and 90% in terms of online sophistication. Both scores are above the EU27+ average. The difference between full online availability for citizens and businesses is thirteen percentage points, with a stronger performance of business services. The difference is much less marked in terms of online sophistication, where citizen services stand at 89% compared to a sophistication score for businesses of 93%. The following services have the greatest improvement potential: Passports, Application for Building Permission, Enrolment in Higher Education, Health-related Services and Environmental Permits. France is seemingly struggling with the size of its country (in terms of population to serve) and its often complex service delivery structures. eProcurement
France - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Fran ce

The French pre-award process Benchmark is very close to the EU27+ average. At the subphase level, the indicator is also close to the European average for the eSubmission and eAward subphases, while the availability of eNotification is below the European average. eProcurement is based on a national platform that is mandatory for the central Administrations. The platform allows public sector bodies to publish call for tenders online and to receive electronic bids. There are several regional platforms.

e-Award

User Experience
France - User experience
Usability
100 75 50

France EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

In terms of User Experience, France scores close to or above the EU27+ average. It obtains 37% for the Usability metric and 42% on User Satisfaction Monitoring. The French portal receives particularly good scores and achieves 85% on the OneStop-Shop Approach indicator and 100% on the User-focused Portal Design metric. The personalized portal launched recently will further improve the User Experience.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Bring administration to the digital age (user expectations, best practices, accelerate State reforms) Provide added-value to users through better service delivery (enter same information only once; user centric; web based services) Design information systems that enhance service delivery and help administrative to improve their performance (optimal use of ICTs; improve working environments; increase productivity of information systems) Develop and mainstream partnerships across government to create further integrated public services. Enhance national portal www.service-public.fr by digitising new services: 11 new services by end 2009, at least 20 by end 10.
81

8. Biggest eGovernment success stories in the last 2 years : Mon.Service-Public.fr, the next generation eGovernment portal goes live nation-wide. It aims to offer unified, personalised and secure access to online Government services Best practices and URLs: MedicFrance: www.medicfrance.sante.gouv.fr and www.portailmedicaments.sante.gouv.fr. One-stop shop access to a structured and exhaustive directory of the departmental circulars: www.circulaires.gouv.fr

81 Section 8 is taken from the ePractice factsheet as it was not provided in the survey.

97

Part D: Country Reports

Germany
Germany achieved growth in broadband access and internet use. However eGovernment availability, and usage, particularly among business has slightly stagnated. Germany has a very comprehensive eGovernment programme, which is in a state of change, towards the new 2.0 paradigm of (e)participation, administrative innovation including downsizing bureaucracy, and putting the Internet at the core of public service delivery. At the same time it is focusing on managing the challenges of enduring legacy systems and integrating different levels of government. Recently the governance and management of eGovernment and public ICT policies have consolidated into one federal CIO function at state secretary level and an IT Council for coordinated roll out of eGovernment and horizontal ICT issues across all levels of government. The fragmentation caused by Germanys federal structure also has advantages for piloting services and testing new solutions in different states. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 7.2 1.12 6.4% 82 3.05 7.7 26.0% 26.44 19.63 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 82002356 115.8 -5.4 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B epSOS, SPOCS, STORK, PEPPOL Long Lasting Memories, BEST Energy, In-Time, iSAC6+, DTV4ALL, CommonWell, Dreaming, ECRN Total 100 1207 2 52 0 3 Ranking 15/12 22 7 20 17 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.74 2.9 75 84 33 56 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts

83

Positioning and scope: eGovernment is recently refocused and placed at the heart of the governments service delivery strategy. It is also an instrument for better coordination and collaboration between layers of government under responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior. Key actors and line of reporting: The State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of the Interior, responsible for Administrative Modernisation and Information Technology is appointed as Federal Commissioner for Information Technology (Federal CIO). Additionally, all government departments have set up Chief Information Officers (CIO) with wide-ranging powers, together forming the IT Council which is chaired by the Federal CIO. Governance and Deployment: at the federal level there is a new Federal IT Steering System in which governance is provided by the Federal CIO system and the new IT Planning Council with high level representatives of federal, state and local level government to deal with important cross-cutting IT issues. Deployment is largely decentralized, following Germanys federal structure. Different states are responsible for piloting new services. Organisational Continuity: in 2008 the new Federal IT Steering System came into force. The national E-Government Strategy DeutschlandOnline was launched in 2003 and has remained largely unchanged. At the federal level, in 2000, the BundOnline2005 Programme was launched, which was later followed up by the E-Government 2.0 Programme.

82 EU 25 83

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

98

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Germany - Full online availability
100
100

Germany - Online sophistication

80 Germany 60
60 80

40 20 0 2001 EU27+

40 20 0

2003

2005

2007

2009

Overall

Businesses
Germany

Citizens

Germany scores 74% on full online availability. This score can be split into a full online availability of 64% for citizen services and 84% for business services. In terms of online sophistication, Germany obtains 89%. With an online sophistication of 83%, citizen services score reasonably well, whilst business services obtain the very good score of 97% on this indicator. The German eGovernment landscape has a series of good practice examples in place. However, due to the size of the country and its complex administrative structure, it seems particularly difficult to achieve progress across the board. New ways of sharing knowledge, experience, and the more technical building blocks may need to be explored to speed up the pace at the country-level. The updated joint national eGovernment strategy (2010-2015) of the federal states and municipalities level encourages a more streamlined development. eProcurement
Germany - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Germany

Germany's pre-award process benchmark is close to the EU27+ average. While eNotification and eSubmission are over the European average, the eAward subphase needs an improvement. The national eProcurement platform is not mandatory. The platform enables authorities to publish and notify call for tenders electronically, and bidders to submit offers over the Internet. This system is the outcome of the Public Procurement Online Programme managed by the Office of Procurement of the Federal Ministry of the Interior.
e-Award

User Experience
Germany - User experience
Usability
100 75 50

Germ any EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

In terms of User Experience, Germany obtains 39% on Usability, 24% on User Satisfaction Monitoring, 70% on One-Stop-Shop Approach and 71% on Userfocused Portal Design. In terms of Accessibility of the national portal, Germany is among the top performers in Europe and has achieved results close to the UWEM letter B (best possible score in the web crawler assessment). Germany is making significant efforts to design services around user needs. A toolkit has been made available to authorities responsible for the development and operations of eGovernment services, providing advice on how to analyze user requirements, survey users, evaluate eGovernment offerings and improve communication with users. Similar guidelines exist for the measurement of target achievements of individual eGovernment projects. These are based on the Standard Cost Model methodology and the national eGovernment measurement system WiBe.

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Updating the joint national eGovernment strategy (2010-2015) Implementation of the new article 91c of the German Constitution Improvement of security and trust in eGovernment through the German electronic ID card and De-mail Improvement of user-orientation of eGovernment Implementation of the IT Investment Programme under the new Federal CIO.

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: Changing German Constitutional Law; including establishing a new IT Planning Council Introduction secure mail infrastructure: De-Mail and (November 2010) of the new German electronic ID card Best practices and URLs: Elster, electronic tax declaration: http://www.elster.de Digital Picture Archive of the Federal Archive: http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/index.php?switch_lang=de Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) of the Federal Environment Agency: http://www.prtr.bund.de/frames/index.php?&gui_id=PRTR 99

Part D: Country Reports

Greece
Greece is taking on the challenge to enable a step change in its Information Society performance. It is prioritising its investment in information technologies to become more competitive. eGovernment is part of this strategy, though organisationally positioned in another ministry (Interior) suggesting that eGovernment is also seen as an instrument for government reform. Greeces recent efforts have lead to a stable and relatively high eGovernment usage among business. However eGovernment use by citizens has stalled and online availability remains below the EU average. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 8.3 3.50 6.4% 84 3.05 Not Available 26.0% 39.2 18.53 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 11257285 95.3 -0.9 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B epSOS, SPOCS Long Lasting Memories, RuralInclusion, SOCIABLE, NEXES, TSeniority, FRIELOT, ISISEMD Total 40 1207 2 52 1 2 Ranking 27/27 44 71 55 33 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.46 1.2 31 74 10 83 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts

85

Positioning and scope: eGovernment is part of a wider information society strategy to enhance Greeces competitiveness and improve quality of life under the Ministry of the Economy and Finance. However eGovernment policy belongs to the remit of the Ministry of the Interior. Key actors: The General Secretariat for Public Administration and eGovernment, within the Ministry of interior is in charge of eGovernment issues. The Special Secretariat of Public Administration Reform from the same ministry is responsible for operational programmes; whilst the overall Information Society strategy falls under the responsibility of the Special Secretariat of Digital Planning in the Ministry of Economy and Finance Governance and deployment: The national Governments Information Technology Committee is the highest policy making authority for Information Technology strategy development. The eGovernment Forum of the Ministry of Interior is a multi-stakeholder forum specific to eGovernment. eGovernment is deployed in a prescriptive manner, by legally defining what services should be developed. Implementation support across levels of government is provided by two agencies: Information Society S.A. and Digital Aid S.A Organisational Continuity: Most institutions have evolved from earlier incarnations, but display a considerable level of continuity.

84 EU 25 85

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

100

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Greece - Full online availability
100 80 60 40 20 0 2001 100 80 60 40 EU27+ 20 Greece 0 Overall 2003 2005 2007 2009
Greece

Greece - Online sophistication

Businesses

Citizens

Greece achieves 45% in the full online availability ranking. This score comprises a full online availability of 33% for citizens and 63% for businesses. In terms of online sophistication, Greece achieves 68% for all services, 62% for citizen services and 78% for business services. Greeces scores have remained largely unchanged compared to 2007, indicating that eGovernment development is stagnating. There is, however, a series of initiatives under way to further e-enable governmental processes and services, among them, a project to eenable the start-up procedure for businesses. Greece has already assessed and quantified the significant administrative savings such implementation projects will procure both to government and end users, amongst others through the European Commissions Benchlearning project. eProcurement
Greece - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Greece

Currently Greece has no central eProcurement infrastructure, which is under construction. In conjunction with the introduction of the eProcurement legislation, targeting the harmonisation with the relevant EU Directives, additional efforts have been undertaken by the Greek Government to also revise the Greek public procurement legal framework. The pre-award process Benchmark is very low, in the bottom worst rankings. All 3 subphases show low availability, but eNotification is particularly low.
e-Award

User Experience
Greece - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Greece EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

In terms of User Experience, some clear improvement areas can be identified for Greece: on User Satisfaction Monitoring, Greece only achieves 7%; on Userfocused Portal Design, Greeces current score is even at 0%. On Usability and One-Stop-Shop Approach Greece scores above the EU27+ average, with 54% and 88% respectively. For Accessibility of the national portal, Greece performs in the middle field of the EU27+.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009 : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Improved quality of services to citizens and enterprises by public administrations at central, regional and local level; Development of online applications and ICTs to re-engineer procedures within and amongst government departments Support the creation of geographical and environmental mapping and management of information systems Use of IT in order to promote and support a broader strategy for providing higher quality health and welfare services to all citizens. Introduction of telematic applications in land, sea and air transport

86

8. Biggest eGovernment success stories in the last 2 years: The National Public Administration Network SYZEFXIS, connecting over 2 000 agencies and being the largest and most sophisticated public administration broadband network in Europe; http://www.syzefxis.gov.gr/Default.aspx?lang=2 Best practices and URLs: The social security online services, offered by the Social Insurance Institute http://www.ika.gr/

86 Section 7 and 8 are taken from the ePractice factsheet and were not provided by the country representative in the survey.

101

Part D: Country Reports

Hungary

Hungary has progressed on most information Society and eGovernment indicators, though it is still behind the EU average on all but the sophistication level of services for citizens. It has recently consolidated the number of committees and departments involved to concentrate its eGovernment effort in the Prime Ministers Office, making it a key element of administrative reform. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 7.1 4.51 6.4% 87 3.05 10.3 22.3% 32.9 15.52 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 10031208 62.9 -6.3 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 88 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 PEPPOL Total 1207 52 0 Ranking 20/22 30 58 41 35 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.64 2.5 48 72 25 60 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

25 0 0

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: Hungary has a dedicated eGovernment strategy: ePublic Administration 2010 Strategy, focused on back office reform and shared services, under responsibility of the Prime Ministers Office. Key actors and line of reporting: The Senior State Secretariat for Informatics (SSSI) in the Prime Ministers Office fulfils a CIO like function with an executive State Secretariat for ICT & eGovernment (SSIeG) Governance and deployment: SSSI coordinates policy across the government. The Committee for IT in the Administration (KIB) is responsible for coordination of policy and implementation and supports cooperation between departments and helps improve interoperability. KIB, SSIeG and SSSI are all involved with local eGovernment as well. Organisational Continuity: Biannual action plans. SSIeG and SSSI replaced the former Electronic Government Centre in the Prime Ministers Office, and KIB replaced three interdepartmental committees.

87 EU 25 88

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

102

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Hungary - Full online availability
100 80 60 40 Hungary 20 0 2005 2007 2009 20 0 Overall Businesses
Hungary

Hungary - Online sophistication

100 80 60

EU27+ 40

Citizens

Since 2007, Hungary has improved its full online availability score by 13% and now reaches 63% in terms of full online availability which is close to the EU27+s average. This progress is sufficient to keep the Hungarian position stable in the full online availability ranking. Strikingly, citizen and business services are equally available online. In terms of sophistication, Hungary has obtained 76% which is also slightly below the EU27+ average. Citizen services reach 68% in terms of online sophistication, whilst business services perform better and now stand at 86%. In the online sophistication ranking, Hungary looses a few ranks as compared to the previous benchmark. eProcurement
Hungary - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Hungary

Hungary has a non-mandatory National eProcurement Platform. Electronic procurement solutions are kept by the Ministry of Economy and Transport. The Directorate of Central Services is responsible for centralised public procurements, but public procurement as an activity is supervised by the Council of Public Procurement, subordinated to the Parliament of Hungary. The pre-award process indicator is under the EU27+ average, mainly because of the low availability score in the eSubmission phase.
e-Award

User Experience
Hungary - User experience
Usability
100 75 50

Hungary EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

The User Experience of Hungarian websites is on track but room for progress remains. On Usability, Hungary achieves 54%. On User Satisfaction Monitoring, Hungarys score is at 35%. Hungary acts as an observer to the European Commission funded eGovMon Network to increase its knowledge on User Satisfaction Monitoring practices. Hungarys score for the One-Stop-Shop metric is very close to the EU27+ average. User-focused Portal Design and Accessibility of the national portal are two aspects which the benchmark has clearly identified as areas of need for eGovernment development.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Integrated client service Interoperability Online infrastructure Government functions Shared eGovernment services

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: - ePublic Administration Framework project to define standards, requirements and regulations Best practices and URLs: CIT4 - Passports and driverss licence (www.magyarorszag.hu) CIT1 - Income taxes (www.magyarorszag.hu www.apeh.hu www.pm.gov.hu) BUS4 - Registration of a new company (www.birosag.hu http://ceginformaciosszolgalat.irm.gov.hu/)

103

Part D: Country Reports

Iceland

Iceland is a leading Information Society with high internet access, and consistently high use of eGovernment by business and individuals. However its online availability of services, and level of sophistication remain lower than the EU average. eGovernment policy is highly concentrated in the Prime Ministers office under an Information Society Directorate. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 5.4 Not Available 6.4% 89 3.05 Not Available 28.7% 7.76 11.97 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 319368 118.8 -11.6 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups 100 ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 90 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 STORK eGos 9 0 0 Total 1207 52 0 Ranking 23/22 21 26 7 Not Listed Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 Not Available Not Available 88 99 63 91 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment is part of a wider Information Society policy which has a strong focus on government reform and simplification. The Prime Ministers Office holds political and operational responsibility for the entire process. Key actors and line of reporting: Department of Information Society at the Prime Ministers Office is operationally responsible for eGovernment and Information Society policies. A steering group called the Information Society Taskforce coordinates and supervises policy under the auspices of the Prime Ministers Office, which also controls a special project management team, The eGovernment Taskforce. The Taskforce focuses on eGovernment issues in Information Society policy and coordinates central eGovernment projects. Governance and deployment: Policy and strategy are developed centrally at the Prime Ministers Office, but implemented in a decentralized manner. Organisational Continuity: New (third) Information Society policy was launched in 2008 with the title Iceland the eNation.

89 EU 25 90

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

104

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Iceland - Full online availability
100 80 60 40 20 0 2001 Iceland
Iceland - Online sophistication
100 80

EU27+
60 40 20 0

2003

2005

2007

2009

Overall
Iceland

Businesses

Citizens

Iceland improves its full online availability slightly, by five percentage points, and now stands at 55% for full online availability. eGovernment growth seems to be curbed since a peak in performance in 2004. In terms of sophistication, Iceland reaches 76% which is somewhat below the EU27+ average. Online sophistication for citizen services is at 71%, whilst business services score better on this metric and reach 83%.

eProcurement
Iceland - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Iceland

Iceland does not have a national eProcurement platform yet, since it is under construction and should be launched in 2010. There will only be one eProcurement Platform. Iceland is the last performer for both the Benchmarks, showing very low availability for all scores.

e-Award

User Experience
Iceland - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Iceland EU27+

In terms of User Experience, Iceland achieves 25% on Usability and 20% on User Satisfaction Monitoring, indicating that these two areas require further attention. Icelands portals achievement in the Accessibility assessment of the national portal is similarly poor. The Icelandic portal achieves maximum scores both for One-Stop-Shop Approach and User-focused Portal Design. Like many other European governments, Iceland measures User Satisfaction Monitoring indirectly, offline. The Threads and Merits of Government Websites study evaluates websites each year on content, Usability and Accessibility. Statistics Iceland surveys usage of Internet amongst businesses and citizens. While developing new web sites or upgrading them, some public agencies perform a Usability testing of their web sites to steer implementation efforts.

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Self services online eIDs My pages at Island.is, the national portal Free and open source software Benchmarking public services

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: The eGovernment toolbox which includes a central authentication, electronic document delivery and a service layer. http://www.ut.is/verkfaerakistan Best practices and URLs: Your pages for tax declaration:http://www.skattur.is Your pages for social insurance administration: http://www.tryggur.is Your pages for student loan fund: http://www.lin.is 105

Part D: Country Reports

Ireland

Ireland has shown significant improvements on all Information Society indicators, and is closing the gap with the EU front runners in Internet use and broadband access. Its eGovernment performance has also seen considerable improvements, notably in online availability and the usage by business, with some challenges remaining in Citizens use of eGovernment. eGovernment in Ireland is placed in the context of a comprehensive programme of public service transformation. The Minister for Finance assumed political responsibility for eGovernment policy and coordination in 2008. His Department manages those processes, ensures the effective involvement of all relevant public bodies, and provides the Government with regular progress reports and strategy proposals. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 5 3.34 6.4% 91 3.057 12.2 37.8% 38.94 11.11 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 4465540 139.5 -9 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: The Government renewed its focus on and set a new policy for eGovernment in 2008. eGovernment is part of administrative reform and all policy and coordination activities now fall under the Department of Finance. Key actors and line of reporting: The Department of Finance has overall responsibility for developing and coordinating the implementation of eGovernment policy across the public service in Ireland and for the provision of central eGovernment infrastructure and services. Governance and deployment: The Cabinet Committee on Transforming Public Services, chaired by the Prime Minister, is overseeing the implementation of the Transforming Public Services (TPS) Programme which includes eGovernment. The Department of Finance provides regular reports to this Cabinet Committee. Implementation of eGovernment at local level is supported by the Local Government Computer Services Board (LGCSB) Organisational Continuity: The Irish eGovernment organisation was overhauled in 2008 to concentrate and consolidate responsibility for eGovernment policy in the Department of Finance
92

2. Information Society Indicators 0.64 1.5 63 83 27 91 EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

Ranking 10/7 19 25 23 18

Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70

iSAC6+, Rural-Inclusion, CommonWell Total 45 1207 2 52 1 1

91 EU 25 92

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

106

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Ireland - Full online availability
100 80 60 Ireland 40 EU27+ 20
0 20 40 100 80 60

Ireland - Online sophistication

0 2001

Overall

Businesses
Ireland

Citizens

2003

2005

2007

2009

Ireland illustrates strong growth and joins the top 10 of the Benchmark this year. Full online availability now stands at 83%, improving Irelands positioning to number seven. Both citizen and business services have leapfrogged with regard to this indicator and now score at 80% and 88% respectively. In terms of online sophistication, Ireland ranks 9th and achieves 94%. This good score can be split into an online sophistication of 93% for citizens, and 94% for businesses. eProcurement
Ireland - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Ireland

Ireland is a top performer for both indicators, and all the subphases. Ireland has a non mandatory National eProcurement platform, with the exception of ICT and telecommunications competitions. While not mandatory for others, approximately 95%+ of all public contracts published on OJEU are advertised via the site.

e-Award

User Experience
Ireland - User experience
Usability
100 75 50

Ireland EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

In terms of User Experience, Ireland scores above the EU27+ average on all metrics. It reaches 55% on Usability, and 42% on User Satisfaction Monitoring. The Irish government portals are well developed and obtain 100% for One-StopShop Approach and 67% for User-focused Portal Design. Ireland provides a threefold entry point to its government services: a mother portal, and a business and citizen portal. In terms of Accessibility of the national portal, Ireland is positioned in the EU27+s middle field. Ireland continuously engages in online, offline and third-party/non-government monitoring of user satisfaction. Guidelines and customer charters form a framework for many of the initiatives undertaken.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Develop a comprehensive electronic identity management infrastructure Leverage mobile phone and voice recognition technologies to provide assistance to people claiming unemployment benefits Publish online comprehensive details of Census data from 1901 and 1911 Single Point of Contact for customer engagement All public bodies must produce comprehensive eGovernment plans based on the definitions of the Department of Finance.
93

8. Biggest eGovernment success stories in the last 2 years?

'Transforming Public Services' Programme which sets out actions aimed at a radical overhaul of the Irish Public Service placing the citizen/user of public services at the centre: http://www.onegov.ie/eng/Publications/Government_Statement_on_TPS.html Best practices and URLs: Digital Books Services: http://digitallibrary.southdublin.ie/7E534429-A341-4E2A-B3AC-2880554DCEAE/10/382/en/Default.htm TV Licence Online Service: http://www.anpost.ie/AnPost/MainContent/Personal+Customers/More+from+An+Post/TV+Licence/tvlicence250108.htm

93 Section 7 and 8 are taken from the ePractice factsheet and were not provided by the country representative in the survey.

107

Part D: Country Reports

Italy
Italy still has relatively low internet usage and broadband access, which impacts the access to and use of eGovernment services. Overall Italy remains an average performer on most eGovernment indicators. It has embarked on a comprehensive and ambitious strategy of administrative reform, putting eGovernment at its core. eGovernment is explicitly identified as a way to improve efficiency and client friendliness of government, to strengthen coherence between all levels of government, and to develop shared services. In setting its strategies Italy has aligned itself with Europes policy frameworks like eEurope, and i2010. A typical feature of its eGovernment approach is the choice to give eGovernment solid legal backing to ensure compliance. Italy is an active contributor to EU projects and programmes. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 6.1 2.30 6.4% 94 3.05 Not Available 16.7% 32.08 20.09 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 60053442 100.5 -4.4 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B epSOS, SPOCS, STORK,PEPPOL In-Time, iSAC6+, REACH112, eGos, CLEAR, NEXES, Dreaming, T-Seniority, ECRN, FRIELOT, BEPMS, ISISEMD, DTV4ALL, SOCIABLE Total 144 1207 4 52 2 2 Ranking 16/18 27 48 45 26 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.57 1.7 47 81 15 82 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts

95

Positioning and scope: eGovernment is at the heart of a policy for administrative reform, aiming at improving efficiency, digitization, and enhanced cooperation across all layers of government. Political responsibility resides with the Minister for Public Administration and Innovation Key actors and line of reporting: Strategic and operational responsibility for eGovernment lies with two departments of the Ministry for Public Administration and Innovation: the Departments for the Civil Service and for PA Digitization and Technology Innovation. Implementation, monitoring, advice and execution are delegated to the Italian National Agency for Digital Administration (CNIPA). Governance and deployment: The Committee of Ministers for the information Society, chaired by the Minister for Public Administration and Innovation ensures political coordination. He and the Prime minister are advised by a Standing Steering Committee of senior civil servants. CNIPA is responsible for measurement and evaluation. Strategy development is an inclusive process, backed up by a code containing legal instruments, thus making certain eGovernment actions obligatory and enforceable by law. Organisational Continuity: The eGovernment structure changed with the appointment of the Minister for Public Administration and Innovation in 2008. The Minister operates on behalf of the President of the council of ministers. The eGov 2012 plan was launched in 2009.
94 EU 25 95

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

108

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services

Italy - Full online availability
100
100

Italy - Online sophistication

80
80

60 Italy 40 20 0 2001 EU27+

60 40 20 0

2003

2005

2007

2009

Overall
Italy

Businesses

Citizens

Italys score for full online availability stays stable as compared to 2007 at 70%. There is a gap of 30% between full online availability for citizen and business services, which obtain 58% and 88% respectively on this metric. In terms of online sophistication, Italy slightly improves its score to 80%. Citizen services now score 76% on online sophistication, while business services score 86%.

eProcurement
Italy - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification
Italy

Italy has a national eProcurement platform. It is mandatory only for central public administrations (Ministries). Italy is one of the countries with the largest number of eProcurement Platforms, mainly at the regional level. Balanced in all the eProcurement subphases, the Pre-Award Process indicator is at a level close to the EU27+ average.

e-Submission

e-Award

User Experience
Italy - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Italy EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

In terms of User Experience, Italys performance is on track. Usability reaches 47%, similarly to the EU27+ average. Italy scores 70% on One-Stop-Shop Approach and 75% on User-focused Portal Design. Only 16% of web sites can be rated or commented upon by users online, which is clearly below the EU27+ average. In terms of Accessibility of the national portal, Italy is positioned in the first third of all benchmarked countries. In March 2009, the Italian government launched the use of emoticons for the assessment of its public services as part of its Put your face on it initiative. Online users can express their dis/satisfaction with government by using colored smileys. Users who choose the red emoticon (and hence make a negative assessment) get the opportunity to express the reasons for their dissatisfaction.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. E-school and university Wi-Fi connection E-health E-justice E-business portal Digital Administration Code

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: Transmission of medical certificates by general practitioners (http://www.inail.it/Portale/appmanager/portale/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PAGE_CLIENTE&_nfls=false)

109

Part D: Country Reports

Latvia

Latvia has seen eGovernment use rise in business and decline among citizens, with relatively low overall use. Online availability has doubled since 2007 but is still below EU average, which corresponds to low scores on most information society indictors. To deal with these challenges Latvia has reorganised its eGovernment effort to increase focus and concentrate resources within a clear and inclusive organisational frame. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 7.7 12.34 6.4% 96 3.05 17.2 26.3% 31.92 17.04 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 2261294 55.7 -13.1 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 97 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 Ranking 19/19 36 68 48 37 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.6 2.3 53 62 16 55 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

Rural-Inclusion 5 0 0 Total 1207 52 0

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment is part of administrative reform and wider information society policy. eGovernment activity is concentrated in the Ministry for Regional Development and Local Government. Key actors and line of reporting: The day to day responsibility is with the Minister for Regional Development. The State Regional Development Agency is specifically charged with eGovernment implementation, and service development. Governance: Central political leadership of eGovernment policy is with the National Development Council, dealing with Government reform, eGovernment and Information Society strategy, under chairmanship of the Prime Minister. The Electronic Government Coordination Council is the central coordinating body dedicated to eGovernment, including all levels of government. Organisational Continuity: Latvia has restructured its eGovernment organisation to consolidate it in one Ministry. It also recently launched two new strategies, for Government reform and for support of the Information society both affecting eGovernment, whilst the eGovernment Development Programme comes to and end this year.

96 EU 25 97

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

110

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Latvia - Full online availability
100
100

Latvia - Online sophistication

80
80

60 40 20 0 2005 2007 2009

60

EU27+ Latvia

40 20 0 Overall
Latvia

Businesses

Citizens

Latvia is the country with the biggest benchmark progress since 2007. It improves its positioning in the full online availability ranking by nine ranks and now achieves a full online availability of 65%. In terms of sophistication, Latvia leapfrogs its peers and even ranks 10 positions better than in 2007. The overall online sophistication of eGovernment supply reaches 78%. Citizen services have an online sophistication of 72%, business services score at 89%. Business services and Income generating (for government) services are mature across the board in Latvia. Citizen services display very mixed maturity levels, ranging from information to full-online availability. eProcurement
Latvia - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Latvia

Latvia has a non-mandatory national eProcurement platform. This year the government will decide on the proposal to oblige state and municipal authorities to the use of the National platform. Since June 2009 the State Regional Development Agency has taken over the management of the Electronic Procurement System (EPS). Latvia's pre-award process indicator isn't nearly EU27+ average because of its underdeveloped eSubmission phase.
e-Award

User Experience
Latvia - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Latvia EU27+

In terms of User Experience, Latvia in general scores below the EU27+ average. Latvia reaches 12% on Usability, 0% on User Satisfaction Monitoring, 73% on OneStop-Shop Approach and 25% on User-focused Portal Design. The Accessibility of the national portal also requires further attention.

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. National One-stop Agency Network / Single Point of Contact for the Services Directive Development of Electronic identification cards concept Ensuring availability and transparency of information in the electronic environment within the decision-making processes eDocument standardisation and development of unified exchange environment Development of functionality of shared service infrastructure and usability of service portals

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: Document Circulation and assignment control system at the State Chancellery and public administration institutions. Best practices and URLs: Electronic Declaring: http://www.vid.gov.lv/default.aspx?tabid=11&id=513&hl=2, Public Service Directory: https://www.latvija.lv/LV/PublicServices/Default.aspx Electronic Declaration of living place: https://www.latvija.lv/LV/LDV/EServiceDescription.aspx?catid=14_VISI_E_PAKALPOJUMI&srvid=URN%3aIVIS%3a100001%3aEPEP26-v1-1

111

Part D: Country Reports

Lithuania

Lithuania has seen a steady rise in access to broadband and Internet use, though its performance is still below average in the EU. In eGovernment a similar picture is apparent of improved performance with online availability approaching the EU average. Usage by business is higher; whereas use by individuals is lower than average. eGovernment policy and implementation activity is organised under the Ministry of the Interior, as an instrument of administrative reform and has been focused on improving back office functions. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 5.5 4.23 6.4% 98 3.05 15.8 33.4% 33.16 15.73 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 3349872 61.3 -11 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 99 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 Ranking 21/21 28 53 35 32 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.56 1.8 51 56 20 86 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

17 0 1

Total 1207 52 0

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment strategy forms part of a wider Information Society policy accompanied by simultaneous Public Administration reforms, for which the Ministry of the Interior is responsible. Key actors and line of reporting: The Information Policy Department of the Ministry of the Interior is tasked with the coordination of eGovernment projects in the state institutions and many eGovernment related activities. The Information Society Development Committee is responsible for the creation of eGovernment tools and services, and the supervision of electronic signatures. Governance and deployment: The Minister of the Interior and the Director of the Information Society Development Committee report to the Prime Minister. Individual ministries and state institutions implement the eGovernment projects pertaining to their respective areas of competence, usually involving the development of their back and front office services. Strategic responsibility for eGovernment at local levels lies with individual municipal authorities. Organisational Continuity: eGovernment strategy is part of the Lithuanian Public Administration Development Strategy until 2010 and is based on the 2002 position paper; and the Information Society Development Programme from 2006.

98 EU 25 99

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

112

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Lithuania - Full online availability
100
100

Lithuania - Online sophistication

80
80

60 EU27+ 40 Lithuania 20 0 2005 2007 2009

60 40 20 0
Overall Businesses
Lithuania

Citizens

Lithuania has progressed more than twenty-five percentage points in terms of full online availability and now marks 60% on this indicator. With this performance improvement, Lithuania moves up three positions in the full online availability ranking since 2007. In terms of online sophistication, Lithuania achieves 77%, positioning it slightly below the EU27+ average and improving its positioning by four ranks. Services with the most significant room for progress are Birth and Marriage Certificates and Environment-related Permits. Clearly, Lithuanias Income generating (for government) cluster and business services score best. eProcurement
Lithuania - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Lithuania

Lithuania has a very high score for the Process Indicator, one of the best in Europe, Above all, Lithuania scores high for the eNotification and eSubmission phases. Lithuania has a mandatory central eProcurement platform, enabling contracting authorities to implement the whole online process of public procurement.

e-Award

User Experience
Lithuania - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Lithuania EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

On User Experience, Lithuania scores below the EU27+ average in terms of Usability, User Satisfaction Monitoring and User-focused Portal Design. User Satisfaction Monitoring is mainly done offline, through citizen surveys, for each particular electronic service. As such, User Satisfaction assessments are embedded in more general progress assessments of online service delivery. The Lithuanian portal is well developed and scores above the EU27+ average for OneStop-Shop Approach and Accessibility.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. To improve quality and accessibility of electronic public services for citizens and businesses To develop the process of enactment of public administration decrees by using safe ICT Updating the gates of the eGovernment portal with personal eID, centralised access services, online payment , etc

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: Lithuanian e-ID cards New interoperability system of public administration information systems (PAIISIS) Central information system for public procurement Approval of specification of official electronic document ADOC-V1.0, Best practices and URLs: - Tax declaration: http://deklaravimas.vmi.lt/PublicPages.aspx - Job search: www.ldb.lt - eProcurement: http://www.cvpp.lt/

113

Part D: Country Reports

Luxembourg
Luxembourg is leading in Europe on Information Society indicators like broadband and internet access, and in eGovernment indicators for usage by businesses and citizens. These strong contextual factors translate in online availability and sophistication just close to EU27+ average, although the user-friendliness score is remarkable. Luxembourgs comprehensive programme for supporting eGovernment, and administrative reform and recent organisational changes are poised to address this challenge in back office improvements and also by focusing on the development of specific services. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 11.7 1.24 6.4% 100 3.05 6.4 37.6% 17.44 14.12 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 493500 252.8 -3 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 101 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 STORK Total 1207 52 0 Ranking 18/17 14 21 21 Not Listed Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.76 Not Available 80 87 48 90 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

7 0 0

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment specific strategy, for addressing all aspects of state computerisation, under responsibility of the Ministry of the Civil Service and Administrative Reform Key actors and line of reporting: The State Information Technology Center (CTIE) is most like a CIO function. It implements policies and supports administrative transformation as well as the electronic exchanges within the public administrations Governance and deployment: The Interministerial Committee for Information Technology coordinates policy at the national level. Local government eGovernment is directed from the Ministry of the Interior, with implementation support provided by the Inter-Communal Informatics Management Association Organisational Continuity: eGovernment Master Plan. Adopted in April 2005. New institutions established in 2009: Interministerial Committee, and CTIE

100 EU 25 101

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

114

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Luxembourg - Full online availability
100 80 60 40 EU27+ 20 0 2001
20 100 80 60 40

Luxembourg - Online sophistication

Luxembourg
0 Overall Businesses
Luxembourg

Citizens

2003

2005

2007

2009

Luxembourg has significantly progressed since the previous measurement and has gained six ranks in both the full online availability and the online sophistication rankings. 68% of the benchmarked public services are now fully available online. The gap in performance between citizen and business services is less marked than in many other EU27+ countries. In terms of sophistication, Luxembourg achieves 81%; citizen services score 76% on this metric, business services obtain 88%. In Luxembourg, business services are in general very mature. And only a few citizen services are not yet transactional such as Announcement of Moving, Passports, Unemployment benefits, and Application for Building Permission. eProcurement
Luxembourg - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Luxembourg

Although there is lack of availability of the eAward subphase, the process score for Luxembourg is at a high level in Europe. Luxembourg has a mandatory national eProcurement portal. This portal includes an informational part on legal issues related to eProcurement as well as a platform for publication of calls for tenders, tender documents and terms of reference, electronic submission of tenders, electronic catalogues, electronic auctions, etc.

e-Award

User Experience
Luxembourg - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Luxembourg EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

On User Experience, the performance of Luxembourg is strong. Luxembourg achieves the following scores: 51% for Usability, 77% for User Satisfaction Monitoring, 75% for One-Stop-Shop Approach and 100% for User-focused Portal Design. Many web sites were found to link to a user satisfaction survey. Luxembourg is also among the best-performing European countries in terms of Accessibility of the national portal.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. Increase efficiency and effectiveness of public service provision 2. Reduce administrative burdens for citizens and businesses 3. Increase productivity by adapting business processes 4. Provide a higher quality public service, develop electronic services 5. Improve customer satisfaction through better service perception 8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: The launch of www.guichet.lu, a new internet portal which enriches the internet offerings of the Luxembourg Government Best practices and URLs: Tax declaration for residents and non residents http://www.guichet.public.lu/fr/citoyens/impots-taxes/exercice-activitesalariee/declaration-revenus-salaries-resident/remplir-declaration-impot-resident/index.html Application for financial aid - child allocations http://www.guichet.public.lu/fr/citoyens/famille/parents/naissanceenfant/allocations-familiales/index.html Application for financial aid housing http://www.guichet.public.lu/fr/citoyens/logement/acquisition-vente/aides-etat/aidefinanciere-etat/index.html 115

Part D: Country Reports

Malta
Malta has set an ambitious and comprehensive strategy for reforming government and the economy. It has shown significant progress on Information Society indictors, and is performing above the EU average. Its eGovernment performance has been remarkable in achieving full online availability and sophistication and high user-experience scores. This drive is only partly reflected in eGovernment usage levels of business, while citizens up take has stalled slightly below the EU average. Maltas eGovernment policy is only one out of seven Information Society policy areas that all fall under responsibility of one Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Communication (MITC) and its executive Agency MITA. Its service delivery is also done through trusted third parties. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 8.8 2.03 6.4% 102 3.05 7.3 17.5% 5.96 13.67 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 413627 76.4 -0.9 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 103 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 Ranking 1/1 29 52 26 23 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.62 Not Available 59 89 20 74 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

19 2 0

Total 1207 52 0

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment is seen as a main instrument for transforming Government and is one out of seven priority areas of a wider ICT and Information Society policy, under responsibility of the Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Communication (MITC). Key actors and line of reporting: The e-Government Department within the Malta Information Technology Agency (MITA) is the central driver of Governments ICT policy, programmes and initiatives. ICT falls under the responsibility of the Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Communications (MITC). Governance and deployment: eGovernment strategy is developed with broad Stakeholder involvement. Services are delivered through trusted third parties serving as service-delivery agents and brokers. Deployment is done in a decentralised manner through departmental CIOs. Organisational continuity: on-going integration of MITTS into the new MITA. Current policy is based on the 2002 eGovernment policy. The MITA has reecntly published its 2009-2012 strategy online at http://www.mita.gov.mt.

102 EU 25 103

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

116

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Malta - Full online availability
100 80 Malta 60 40 20 0 2005 2007 2009
Malta

Malta - Online sophistication

100 80 60 40 20 0 Overall Businesses Citizens

EU27+

Malta confirms the steep upward trend in its performance since it has joined the benchmark in 2004. It again moves up a rank and now leads the benchmark, jointly with Portugal. eGovernment services are fully online and achieve the 100% mark also for online sophistication.

eProcurement
Malta - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Malta

Malta has a pre-award process indicator clearly higher than the EU average, with a nearly complete score for the eNotification subphase. Malta has a mandatory national eProcurment platform. Maltese individuals and organisations have to register at the portal through the national e-ID framework. Foreign bidders need to register themselves and their respective organisations directly from the portal.

e-Award

User Experience
Malta - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Malta EU27+

Malta also performs strongly in terms of User Experience. Usability stands at 76%, User Satisfaction Monitoring at 89%. The portal achieves maximum scores both for User-focused Portal Design and One-Stop-Shop Approach. The Accessibility of the national portal may require further attention, the web crawler assessment suggests. Malta monitors User Satisfaction, both online (through feedback forms and online surveys) and offline (for example through Computer-aided Telephone Interviews). Online surveys are designed around two pillars: user satisfaction with the 20 public services benchmarked for the European Commission; and evaluating the take-up of eGovernment services in general.

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. Placing all government services online and in real time. 2. Implementing e-filing of documents as the principal channel of communication with the government. 3. Further developing the eGovernment Agents model as one of the primary channels of extending Public Services to the client. 4. Using ICTs to release at least 500 FTE from administrative tasks to deliver further front-line operations. 5. Developing Governments ICT Agency to be one of the top five government-serving IT firms in the EU. 8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: Transformation of the lifecycle of purchasing and owning/driving a motor vehicle: Best practices and URLs: Malta Environment and Planning Authority eServices: http://www.mepa.org.mt Inland Revenue Online Services: http://www.ird.gov.mt eVERA Online Vehicle Licence Renewal: http://www.licenzji-vetturi.gov.mt

117

Part D: Country Reports

Norway
Norway is a leading Information Society, with a strong performance in implementing ICT in the public sector, particularly in citizen use of eGovernment. Progress is also made in usage by business and online availability of eGovernment. In Norway eGovernment is part of a wider Information Society policy, with a focus on servicing the citizen and developing the required back office infrastructures. Norway has recently consolidated its eGovernment organisation, to improve coordination and consistency. Its highly decentralised governance model remains a challenge for the development and procurement of shared services and systems. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Not Available 34.7% Not Available Not Available EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 4799252 190 -3.4 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment is part of a wider ICT/Information Society policy, under overall political responsibility of the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform (FAD) Key actors and line of reporting: The Department of ICT and Renewal of the FAD is operationally responsible for Information Society policy. The Government Administration Services (GAS) is a government agency under FAD responsible for coordination, and implementation of central services and infrastructure. The Agency for Public Management and eGovernment (DIFI) also under the FAD - provides support and advice. Governance and deployment: The Ministry is supported by the Coordinating Body for eGovernment (KoeF) made up of the heads of 14 state organisations and 2 representatives from the municipal sector. Development and deployment of eGovernment is highly decentralised. Organisational continuity: The department of management development and the department of IT-policy have merged into the Department of ICT and Renewal. DIFI is established in 2008 after merger of Statskonsult, and the Norwegian eProcurement Secretariat. 6.1 Not Available 6.4% 104 3.05 CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 105 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 PEPPOL In-Time, SOCIABLE, NEXES Total 33 1207 1 52 0 2 Ranking 11/15 3 14 8 4 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.82 2.4 84 86 62 76 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

104 EU 25 105

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

118

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Norway - Full online availability
100 80 60 40 20 0 2001 EU27+ Norway 100 80 60 40 20 0 Overall 2003 2005 2007 2009 Businesses
Norway

Norway - Online sophistication

Citizens

Norway reaches 80% on full online availability. This score can be split into a full online availability of 75% for citizen services, and a full online availability of 88% for business services. Norways online sophistication currently stands at 87%, with an online sophistication of 81% for citizens and 95% for businesses. Business services have evolved more strongly than their citizen counterparts since the last benchmark. Since 2007, the benchmark suggests that Norways eGovernment development pace has slowed down somewhat. Norway continues to perform above the EU27+ average but has lost a few ranks in the 20 services assessment. eProcurement
Norway - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Norway

Norway has a non-mandatory national eProcurement platform. There is also a Database for public procurement, supporting Norwegian public authorities in regulation compliance with the creation and publication of tender notices. This database is managed by the Agency for Public Management and eGovernment (DIFI), and funded by the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform (FAD). Norway has a pre-award process indicator lower than the EU27+ average, mainly because the eAward subphase still needs to be developed.
e-Award

User Experience
Norway - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Norway EU27+

In terms of User Experience, Norway scores above the EU27+ average on the One-Stop-Shop metric. Performance is somewhat weaker in terms of Usability, User Satisfaction Monitoring and User-focused Portal Design. Norways Accessibility of the national portal results are sound, placing it among the benchmarked countries top three.

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. IT-architecture Common governmental infrastructure components eID Open standards Open software

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years:: Policy for widespread use of eID to the Norwegian citizens Implementation of a common public IT-architecture Best practices and URLs: Fully electronic provided income tax proposal: (www.skatteetaten.no www.altinn.no) Application and enrolment system for upper and higher education (www.samordnaopptak.no)

119

Part D: Country Reports

Poland
Poland made progress on most Information Society indicators, but is still at the low end of performance in the EU. This picture of progress notwithstanding low overall scores, is similar in eGovernment. While online availability and sophistication of services for business is relatively high, services for citizens tend to lag behind. Its eGovernment organisation is concentrated in the Ministry of the Interior and is part of a wider Information Society strategy. eGovernment policy focuses on improving basic infrastructures across all levels of government. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP Not Available 5.84 6.4% 3.05
106

2. Information Society Indicators 38135876 57.5 -1.4 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 107 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 SPOCS CLEAR 23 0 0 Total 1207 52 0 Ranking 25/24 33 46 69 39 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.55 2.6 48 59 16 68 EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

100

8.2 24.5% 38.62 13.34

EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97%

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment is part of a wider Information Society strategy and closely linked to EU policy and structural funding. The Ministry of the Interior and Administration is responsible for all computerisation of administration and Information society policies. Key actors and line of reporting: Polish Ministry of Interior and Administration is responsible for devising the national eGovernment policy. Day to day responsibility lies with the Undersecretary of State for IT issues, who is in charge of the Information Technology and the Information Society Departments of the Ministry. Governance and deployment: The Council of Ministers is responsible for preparing the Plan of State Computerisation according to the act of computerisation of public bodies. The Council of Ministers Committee for Computerisation and Communications coordinates and monitors implementation of the computerisation of Public Administration. The Computerisation Council advises the ministry. It consists of twenty highly-acclaimed experts in the field. Regional eGovernment is designed at the regional level in accordance with the national strategy and is coordinated with the central systems. Binding regional programs define eGovernment at the respective government levels. Organisational Continuity: Current Plan of State Computerisation exists since 2007 until 2010. The Strategy for the Development of the Information Society in Poland until 2013 was signed in December 2008.

106 EU 25 107

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

120

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Poland - Full online availability
100 80 60 40 20 Poland 0 2005 2007 2009
0 100 80 60 40

Poland - Online sophistication

EU27+
20

Overall
Poland

Businesses

Citizens

Poland has significantly progressed since the 2007 benchmark and has by consequence leapfrogged in the ranking. In terms of full online availability, Poland has achieved 53% (which is twenty seven percentage points higher than in 2007). In terms of online sophistication, Poland now stands at 74% (which is twenty percentage points higher than in 2007). Business services are by far more mature than citizen services. eProcurement
Poland - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Poland

Poland presents a very low pre-award process Indicator for all the subphases, with the exception of eAward where it is slightly higher. Being a large country, the study found a relatively high number of active eProcurement platforms. In Poland there is no particular central eProcurement infrastructure, but a Public Procurement Office (PPO) Portal managed by the Public Procurement Office, which has been essential for the functioning of public procurement in Poland. Operating in parallel to the website of the Public Procurement Office, the PPO portal contains information and tools aimed at developing the eProcurement system. This portal is not mandatory.
e-Award

User Experience
Poland - User experience
Usability
100 75 50

Poland EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

The User Experience of Polish websites is on track. Poland achieves 64% on Usability and 38% on User Satisfaction Monitoring. The portal-related scores, One-Stop-Shop Approach and User-focused Portal Design, are rated below the EU27+ average and may require further attention. Poland scores reasonably well in terms of Accessibility of their national portal. In terms of User Satisfaction Monitoring, the Polish government regularly tracks usage indicators such as reports on web site visits, frequency of downloads, regularly used links and alike. Government helpdesks recur to tools which support the automated analysis of entering queries. This helps to track the most frequently asked questions and act on them.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Extending the eElectronic Platform of Public Administration Services (ePUAP) integrating all public registries The PESEL Register (General Census Electronic System) as the main reference database for individuals. The development of a 'Multifunctional Personal Document' (MPD), to replace the traditional plastic ID card Ensuring proper co-ordination between central and regional eGovernment eGovernment projects supported by the EU structural funds

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: Tax form submission without the need to use qualified electronic signature. Best practices and URLs: Tax forms: http://www.e-deklaracje.gov.pl/ Repository of e-government forms and services: http://epuap.gov.pl/wps/portal Distributed catalogue of Polish libraries KaRo, Provider Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toru: http://karo.umk.pl/Karo/

121

Part D: Country Reports

Portugal

Portugal has made a substantial effort in providing public services online and increasing the level of sophistication. This has resulted in a leading position in Europe. However, this success in supply of electronic services stands in contrast with the low usage of eGovernment, particularly by citizens. This is likely to be due to at least in part limited Internet access and broadband uptake. Its broad drive towards more competitiveness through ICT deployment and administrative simplification is poised to improve this situation. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 6.6 1.78 6.4% 108 3.05 9.3 16.0% 41.16 17.1 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 10627250 75.3 -3.7 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 109 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 STORK BEST Energy, SAVE ENERGY Total 55 1207 3 52 0 0 Ranking 1/1 31 43 30 28 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.54 1.8 46 81 18 75 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment is part of a wider Information Society policy aiming increased competitiveness. In addition it is associated with a comprehensive administrative and legislative simplification programme under the responsibility of the Minister for the Presidency. Key actors: The Secretary of State for Administrative Modernisation has primary responsibility for eGovernment, and is positioned under the Minister of the Presidency. The State Secretary is supported by the Agency for Public Services Modernisation (AMA) that develops policies to modernise and simplify public administration. Governance and deployment: The national Coordinator of the Lisbon Strategy and the Technological Plan (CNEL) coordinates Information Society policies. The Government Network Management Centre (CEGER) under the Prime Ministers Office provides IT support to government bodies, and manages the technological infrastructure of the Government network. The Ministry for Internal Administration Services is in charge of coordinating central government policies with local authorities Organisational Continuity: Overall Information Society policy originates from 2005, with considerable organisational and policy changes in 2007 establishing the State Secretary position and AMA.

108 EU 25 109

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

122

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Portugal - Full online availability
100 80 Portugal 60 40 20 0 2001 EU27+
60 40 20 0 Overall Businesses
Portugal

Portugal - Online sophistication

100 80

Citizens

2003

2005

2007

2009

Portugal confirms its steady eGovernment growth. In 2007 it ranked 3rd in terms of full online availability and 4th in terms of online sophistication. This year it shares the podium of the eGovernment benchmark with Malta on the two traditional benchmark indicators. Both citizen and businesses services are fully online. eProcurement
Portugal - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Portugal

The pre-award process indicator is high and well balanced in each of the subphases. So its score is higher than the EU27+ average. Portugal has a national eProcurement platform. It is mandatory only for central administrations. By the end of 2009 all Public Administration entities tendering process under framework agreements.

e-Award

User Experience
Portugal - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Portugal EU27+

In terms of User Experience, Portugal scores 55% on Usability, 83% on User Satisfaction Monitoring, 86% on the One-Stop-Shop metric, and 100% on Userfocused Portal Design. All User Experience scores are hence above the EU27+ average, except the Accessibility of the national portal score which is relatively low and requires further investigation. The 83% score on User Satisfaction Monitoring is significantly higher than the EU27+ average. In terms of good practices in User Satisfaction Monitoring, an eGovernment measurement framework came into force in 2007 covering realisation, result and impact indicators, plus global user satisfaction enquiries.

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Use eGovernment to reduce administrative burdens for citizen and business Integrated multichannel services (citizen's shop) Electronic Identification and Interoperability for Public Administration Promotion of Electronic Democracy and stimulation of co-production in public services Knowledge Network for Public Administration
110

8. Biggest eGovernment success stories in the last 2 years:

Simplex Programme for Administrative and Legislative Simplification, designed to reduce bureaucracy, increase the States transparency and the Public Administrations efficiency, and finally improve peoples relationship with public departments. http://www.simplex.pt/downloads/2008ProgrammeSimplex.pdf Best practices and URLs: RePe; a repository of e-portfolios enabling the creation and management of electronic records for students in Basic Education: http://eportefolio.ese.ipsantarem.pt/repe/ Portal for all information on contracts covered by the Public Contracts Code: http://www.base.gov.pt/Paginas/Default.aspx

110 Section 8 is taken from the ePractice factsheet as it was not provided in the survey.

123

Part D: Country Reports

Romania
Romania has shown some progress on Information Society indicators, like internet access and broadband availability. In eGovernment online availability of public services has increased, but usage by business is stalling and citizens up take remains limited. Romanias eGovernment organisation strategy falls into a wider Information Society policy which aims at modernising Romanias administration and the economy. It has a dedicated ministry for ICT in administration and has recently reviewed its policy and organisation to increase the speed and effectiveness of eGovernment deployment. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 5.1 7.36 6.4% 111 3.05 Not Available 15.7% 45.94 14.87 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 21498616 45.8 -4 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B Ranking 27/30 51 64 58 48 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.46 2.1 30 44 9 39 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

In-Time eGos ECRN

112

ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts

24 0 0

Total 1207 52 0

Positioning and scope: eGovernment is part of a wider ICT/Information Society strategy, and focuses mainly on back office infrastructures and services. Political responsibility lies within the Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reform (MIRA), whilst the dedicated Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) has executive control. Key actors and line of reporting: Within the MCIT the Agency for Information Society Services (ASSI) is responsible for implementing policy and operating the systems that provide eGovernment public services at national level. The MCIT Knowledge-Based Economy project management unit is in charge of Information Society policy. Governance and deployment: MIRA coordinates the eAdministration across government, including regional and local authorities. Organisational Continuity: Dedicated ministry set up in 2001. The Government emergency ordinance 2008 made considerable changes to the organization of government, including the set up of the ASSI. The most recent eGovernment strategy launched in 2008

111 EU 25 112

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

124

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Romania - Full online availability
100
100

Romania - Online sophistication

80
80

60 EU27+ 40 20 0 2007 Romania

60 40 20 0

2008

2009

Overall

Businesses
Rom ania

Citizens

Romania has joined the benchmark in 2007 and shows steady but moderate progress since. In terms of full online availability, Romania achieves 45%. In terms of online sophistication, Romania marks 61%. The gap between the maturity of business and citizen eGovernment services is very marked. eGovernment services for businesses obtain an online sophistication score of 84%, whilst their citizen counterparts only score 47% which is far below the EU27+ average. Even though growth is steady and in line with the EU27+s average growth rates, Romania needs to step up the pace to further e-enable its administration and reap the significant benefits and impacts eGovernment can procure.

eProcurement
Romania - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Romania

Romania is one of the best performers for the eProcurement ranking. Romania has a national eProcurment platform, which is mandatory only for publications. The system, initially managed by the General Inspectorate of Communications and Information is now placed under the responsibility of Agency for the Information Society Services. Pursuant to the public procurement legislation (2006) all Romanian contracting authorities must publish, on the platform, their notices within the framework of public procurement procedures, and all companies wanting to sell products or services to a public authority have to access to the platform.
e-Award

User Experience
Romania - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Romania EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

The User Experience of Romanian web sites is strongly lagging behind. Romania has obtained a 0% score in two aspects of User Experience: User Satisfaction Monitoring and User-focused Portal Design. The other indicators show modest results. Usability stands at 25% and One-Stop-Shop Approach achieves a score of 10% only. In terms of Accessibility of the national portal, Romania scores slightly below the EU27+ average.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. To ensure unique access between the public institutions and the beneficiaries of their services. To become the central provider of back office services for common and specific processes of several institutions. To ensure data reusability between public institutions. Cooperation with local authorities in order to achieve a metropolitan communications network City Net as a management information system

8 Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: Romanian National Education Database: http://harta.edu.ro Best practices and URLs: ePetitions management system in the city of Constanta: http://www.primariaconstanta.ro/PrimariaConstanta/English/Machete/Macheta6Eng.aspx 125

Part D: Country Reports

Slovakia
Slovakias Information Society and eGovernment performance offers a mixed picture. It has average internet use, but low broadband access, high eGovernment use by business and low usage by citizens. Online availability and sophistication levels remain low. Slovakias eGovernment policy is part of a wider Information Society strategy, which focuses on the deployment of ICT (informatisation of society) in government and society as a whole and to improve back office infrastructure of the administration. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 6.9 3.59 6.4% 113 3.05 11.7 16.5% 43.56 11.9 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 5412254 71.9 -2.6 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 114 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 epSOS Total 1207 52 0 Ranking 23/25 38 47 43 36 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.55 2.5 58 79 30 88 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

7 0 0

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment has a strong technology and back office focus. It is a specific policy under the overall Information Society strategy and falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance. Key actors and line of reporting: eGovernment policymaking and responsibility lies with the Directorate of the Information Society of the Ministry of Finance. The Slovak Government Office is responsible for certain national infrastructure projects and acts as a Managing Authority for the Operational Programme Informatisation of Society. Governance and deployment: Policy coordination and advice is bestowed on the Government Plenipotentiary for the Information Society; but the Ministry of Finance is in charge of all (central) aspects of the Information Society and eGovernment. Development and implementation is largely decentralized at departmental level. Organisational Continuity: In 2008, the Slovak Government adopted a new eGovernment Strategy, thus defining the vision for 2013 and the National Concept of eGovernment.

113 EU 25 114

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

126

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Slovakia - Online sophistication
Slovakia - Full online availability
100

100 80

80

60
60

40
40 20 0 2005 2007 2009 EU27+

20
Slovakia

0 Overall Businesses
Slovakia

Citizens

Slovakia has been improving its scores steadily and with growth rates well above the EU27+ average since 2005. It now marks 55% on full online availability, and 72% on online sophistication. Both scores have improved significantly over the past two years but remain well below the EU27+ average. Seen from the growth perspective, Slovakias eGovernment development seems to be on track. The healthy growth of nearly twenty percentage points in the two traditional benchmark rankings shows that Slovakia is ready to progress further. Business services are particularly well developed with the exception of Environmental Permits, currently only available at the informational level. eProcurement
Slovakia - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Slovakia

Slovakia has a score under the EU27+ average: the scores of each subphase are similar and relatively low. Slovakia has a non-mandatory national eProcurement platform. The system of eProcurement covers only some procedures and phases of procurement (preparation, planning, eNotification, and partially eTendering and eAwarding). The current platform supports e-submission of tenders electronically for above and below the limit contracts for open and restricted procedure.

e-Award

User Experience
Slovakia - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Slovakia EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

In terms of User Experience, the Slovak portal excels and obtains the maximum score both for User-focused Portal Design and One-Stop-Shop. Usability, Accessibility of the National Portal and User Satisfaction Monitoring need to be paid additional attention to. Slovakia failed about half of the Accessibility tests performed by the web crawler which indicates that there is room for improvement.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. Feasibility studies for eGovernment architecture, services and ICT infrastructure at the central, regional, and local level. Electronic registries of public authorities. Amendments to law No. 275/2006 coll. regarding information systems of public administration to government proceedings Analysis of the legislative environment, and legislative requirements for implementation of eGovernment

4.

8: Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: The National Concept of eGovernment, defining the architecture of integrated information systems in public administration and the standards for their building, with the aim of ensuring their interoperability and technology neutrality. Best practices and URLs: Business Register: www.portal.gov.sk Registry of surplus state-owned immovable property: www.ropk.sk Digital library for sightless people: http://www.skn.sk/index.php?dk 127

Part D: Country Reports

Slovenia
Slovenia has consistently improved its performance in Information Society indicators and has achieved internet and broadband access levels at the EU average. It has excelled in bringing public services online, especially for citizens, giving it a leading position in the benchmark. Business uptake of eGovernment is also high, while use by citizens is at par with the EU average. A uniform eGovernment organisation is embedded in the Ministry of Public Administration, focused on back office reform and infrastructures. Currently the strategy is being refocused to improve user-satisfaction. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP Not Available 6.56 6.4% 3.05
115

2. Information Society Indicators 2032362 89.8 -3.4 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 116 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 STORK ECRN 17 0 0 Total 1207 52 0 Ranking 5/5 26 37 31 29 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.56 2.2 59 84 31 88 EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

100

6.1 24.8% 51.1 15.96

EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97%

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment is an integral part of administrative reform, to bring services closer to citizens and businesses; under responsibility of the Slovene Ministry of Public Administration. Key actors and line of reporting: The Ministrys Directorate for e-Government and Administrative Processes is in charge of coordination, policy development and implementation as well as building and maintaining critical central infrastructures. Governance and deployment: The Ministry of Public Administration is in charge of all aspects of eGovernment and government reform. Deployment is left to government departments. eGovernment at local level is supported by the Government Office for Local SelfGovernment and Regional Policy Organisational Continuity: eGovernment strategy and action plan in force since 2007, under continuous responsibility of the Ministry of Public Administration.

115 EU 25 116

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

128

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Slovenia - Full online availability
100
100

Slovenia - Online sophistication

80 Slovenia 60 40 20 0 2005 2007 2009

80 60 40 20 0 Overall Businesses
Slovenia

EU27+

Citizens

Slovenia is the best performing Eastern European country in the benchmark and ranks 5th in the two core benchmark rankings full online availability and online sophistication. In terms of full online availability, Slovenia now achieves 95%. In terms of online sophistication, Slovenia marks 97%. Citizen services obtain an online sophistication score of 99%, whereas business services are only 5% less mature.

eProcurement
Slovenia - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Slovenia

Although Slovenia has one of the best scores for the eNotification subphase, its Pre-Award Process indicator is under the EU27+ average. Its eAward and e Submission scores are among the lowest in Europe. Slovenia has a mandatory national eProcurment platform. This portal was established in June 2007 and is managed by the public company National Gazette. Slovenian and foreigners, can access the platform free of charge and without prior registration. The utilization of the eProcurement system requires participants to use an e-signature contracting authorities are obligated to sign the tender documentation electronically, tenders submitting an offer or bid electronically are olbiged to sign it electronically. On User Experience, Slovenia scores well in the portal assessment around OneStop-Shop Approach and User-focused Portal Design. The Usability of web sites and online User Satisfaction Monitoring could be improved. At this stage, online User Satisfaction Monitoring is mainly conducted on Slovenias national and business portals. On portals, satisfaction is being monitored systematically and thoroughly though. On the very well developed business portal eVEM, Slovenia has implemented a pop-up questionnaire. This questionnaire can be filled in by businesses during the online start-up procedure. On the national portal, Slovenia publishes monthly opinions polls. Users can further provide feedback by clicking on the write to us icon and rate contents in a five-star system.

e-Award

User Experience
Slovenia - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Slovenia EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. Strategy on IT and electronic services development and connection of official records (SREP) 2. Project start up: Services Directive 3. Project start up: e- Social Affairs 4. e-Inclusion: setting up of priorities, development of first services 5. e-Democracy (back office integration with e-legislative process, public consultations) 8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: One-Stop-Shop for companies - receiving The United Nations Public Service Award UNPSA 2009 Best practices and URLs: -One-stop-shop for companies (G2B): http://evem.gov.si/evem e-CRP portal (G2G): http://ecrp.gov.si e-Renewal of Car Registration Licence (G2C): http://e-uprava.gov.si/storitve/epodaljsanje

129

Part D: Country Reports

Spain
Spain has demonstrated consistent progress on most Information Society and eGovernment indicators. Internet and broadband access and use remain low, possibly affecting eGovernment usage by business and citizens. However, supply side indicators show that Spain is now performing above the EU average in user-friendliness, availability and sophistication of online services. The eGovernment policy is part of Spains Information Society resembling the EUs i2010. An accompanying legal act is the basis for administrative reform. After the last government reshuffle there has been a change in the ministry responsible for eGovernment policies (Ministry of the Presidency) and the launch of the second phase of Spains Information Society strategy have recently given new impetus to Spains eGovernment activity. Spain is also an active contributor to EU projects. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 6.3 4.09 6.4% 117 3.05 18.1 32.1% 23.02 16.95 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 45828172 103.9 -3.2 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B epSOS, STORK iSAC6+ REACH112, Rural-Inclusion, Long Lasting Memories, BEST Energy, HosPilot, FRIELOT, DTV4ALL, SOCIABLE, Com monWell eGos, CLEAR, NEXES, Dreaming, TSeniority Total 124 1207 6 52 3 8 Ranking 11/12 20 33 34 25 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.56 1.4 51 92 29 64 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts

118

Positioning and scope: eGovernment is part of an overall Information Society strategy modelled to the likes of i2010, under responsibility of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade. The Ministry of the Presidency is in charge of the specific eGovernment strategy. Key actors and line of reporting: The Ministry of the Presidency develops and implements eGovernment across central government departments and is responsible for cross departmental infrastructures and shared services. The State Secretariat of Telecommunications and the Information Society is in charge of the Information Society policy. In most regional governments eGovernment and Information society fall under different departments. Governance and deployment: The eGovernment Higher Council (CSAE) is in charge of the preparation, design, development and implementation of the ICT policy, as well as the promotion of eGovernment in the National Public Administration. It is supported by the Directorate for the Promotion of eGovernment of the Ministry of the Presidency. Coordination across levels of government is the responsibility of the Sectoral Committee of eGovernment. Deployment is highly decentralized but backed up by legal provisions and separate multilateral and bilateral agreements with regional authorities. Organisational Continuity: eGovernment organization has remained largely unchanged since its origin. The current eGovernment strategy is the continuation of past action plans aligned with EU policy

117 EU 25 118

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

130

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Spain - Full online availability
100 80 60 Spain 40 EU27+ 20 0 2001
40 20 0

Spain - Online sophistication

100 80 60

2003

2005

2007

2009

Overall
Spain

Businesses

Citizens

Spain continues to perform well above the EU27+ average. This shows that the upturn illustrated in the 2007 study continues, after a period of limited progress. Currently, full online availability stands at 80%. Online sophistication reaches 89%. Business services are slightly more mature than their citizen counterparts. The former reach an online sophistication level of 94%, whilst the latter reach a sophistication level of 85%. eProcurement
Spain - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Spain

For the pre-award process indicator Spain is in the top ten countries of the EU27+ ranking, with all the subphases developed in a balanced way. Spain has a National eProcurement Platform. Although it is open to all public sector procurement authorities, its usage is mandatory only for the Central Government procurement authorities. As a general rule, every regional government has its own eProcurement Platform and the landscape in local government is a mix of usage of the national, regional or its own eProcurement Platforms.

e-Award

User Experience
Spain - User experience
Usability
100 75 50

Spain EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

In terms of User Experience, the Spanish portal excels and achieves the maximum score on both User-focused Portal Design and One-Stop-Shop Approach. The Usability of Spanish web sites is also above the EU27+ average. The Accessibility of the national portal may require further attention, the web crawler used in the benchmark suggests. User Satisfaction Monitoring is currently concentrated on the portal site. All Spanish public e-services, no matter which administration is providing them, can be ranked and commented upon through the national portal.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Get online all national public administration services by the end of 2009 Increase the use of eGovernment services and promote the adoption of eDNI both in public and private e-services Fulfil the deadline established by the Services Directive Extend the functionalities of the National eProcurement Platform and promote the usage among Local and Regional Government New eGovernment horizontal tools, improvement and deployment of the existing ones

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: The Spanish Citizens Electronic Access to Public Services Act approved in 2007 providing a comprehensive legal framework for the use of digital signatures in the Public Administration. The promotion of eGovernment accessibility is firmly anchored in law, in particular the legal norms related with the promotion of Information Society (Ley 56/2007, RD 1494/2007). Best practices and URLs: Validation system called @firma: http://www.epractice.eu/en/cases/afirma A Service Intermediation Platform or data broker: http://www.epractice.eu/en/cases/identityresidence The new electronic Official National Diary (BOE): http://www.boe.es

131

Part D: Country Reports

Sweden

Sweden is a mature Information Society and leading on most eGovernment benchmarks. It has progressed significantly in online availability, and sophistication, though eGovernment use by business has stalled and user-friendliness of its services is at EU average. Sweden has recently rearranged its eGovernment organisation to streamline it, improve coordination and underpin its priorities. This revitalisation intends to break stalling levels of citizen and business usage of eGovernment, to match the steady rise of broadband access and Internet use. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP Not Available 3.09 6.4% 3.05
119

2. Information Society Indicators 9256347 121.4 -4 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008
120

100

0.84 3.8 84 89 52 78

EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

9 31.3% 15.54 17.57

EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97%

Ranking 5/3 1 4 2 2

Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70

epSOS, STORK REACH112, SAVE ENERGY, Dreaming, FRIELOT Total 33 1207 2 52 2 1

5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment is seen as an important tool for improving government efficiency and effectiveness. It is now coordinated by the Ministry of Finance Key actors and line of reporting: Operational responsibility for eGovernment lies with the Minister and the State Secretary for Local Government and Financial Markets, residing in the Ministry of Finance. The central policy making authority is the eGovernment Delegation, chaired by the Director General of the Swedish Tax Agency. Governance and deployment: The eGovernment Delegation develops, streamlines and coordinates eGovernment policy across government. It consists of the directors of the major public agencies involved with IT deployment. Municipal governments act independently from central government but play an important role as participants in the eGovernment Delegation. Organisational continuity: The 'Swedish Administrative Development Agency, was replaced in March 2009 by the e-Delegation, which is currently developing a new eGovernment strategy to be published on 19 October 2009.

119 EU 25 120

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

132

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Sweden - Online sophistication
Sweden - Full online availability
100

100 80

80

60
60 40 20 0 2001 EU27+ Sweden

40 20 0 Overall
2003 2005 2007 2009

Businesses
Sweden

Citizens

Sweden performs particularly strongly in this years benchmark. Full online availability of the 20 eGovernment services is now at 95%. This score leads to an improvement of Swedens positioning by two ranks from seventh to 5th. Looking at online sophistication, Sweden now shares the third rank with Austria and achieves the very high score of 99%. eProcurement
Sweden - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Sweden

For the pre-award process indicator Sweden is in the top ten countries of the EU27+ ranking, with all subphases developed according to high standard notices. Sweden has a non-mandatory national eProcurement platform. Besides there are several privately owned and operated portals.

e-Award

User Experience
Sweden - User experience

Usability
100 75 50 25

Sweden EU27+

In terms of User Experience, Sweden scores closely to the EU27+ average, either above or below. For Usability and User Satisfaction Monitoring, Sweden achieves 45%. For User-focused Portal Design Sweden obtains a score of 60%. The OneStop-Shop metric is not relevant for the Swedish case as Sweden has deliberately shut down its national portal to implement a thousand rather than a one-stop shop approach. In fact, the formerly central portal www.sverige.se is being phased out. Instead, thematic portals are being built. A number of agencies cluster around a theme and set up their own portal. As part of this initiative, health, crisis, GIS portals have been built.

User-focused portal design

Accessibility- web crawler

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Putting a new governance structure for eGovernment in place Deciding on an updated system for eID Getting more and better integrated e-services in place Getting a service-oriented architecture in place Financing of inter-agency projects

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: The continuous growth of e-services Best practices and URLs: Business services (www.verksamt.se) Tax services online (www.skatteverket.se) Map-based search of archaeological remains in Sweden (http://www.fmis.raa.se/cocoon/fornsok/search.html) 133

Part D: Country Reports

Switzerland
Switzerland is a highly mature Information Society, scoring at the top of international competitiveness and connectivity benchmarks. However, online availability of public services remains at the low end of the EU benchmark. The eGovernment organisation contains many actors mostly organised under the Department of Finance, actively involving internal and external stakeholders. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 4.9% n.a. 6.4% 121 3.05 3.7% (2007) 33.0% n.a. n.a. EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B 122 ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts Positioning and scope: eGovernment is positioned as a policy for administrative reform, supported by a federal ICT strategy. Under the Interministerial Federal IT Council (FITC), chaired by the President of the Swiss Confederation Key actors and line of reporting: The FITC bears overall strategic responsibility for all ICT use in the Federal Administration. It is an interministerial body under the Ministry of Finance. The FITC is supported by the Federal Strategy Unit for IT (FSUIT). A Steering Committee under the same Ministry containing three high-ranking representatives each from the Confederation, the cantons, and the communes is responsible for the coordinated implementation of the eGovernment Strategy. This committee is supported by the eGovernment Switzerland Programme Office (www.egovernment.ch), which is part of FSUIT Governance and deployment: The Interdepartmental Information Society Committee (IISC) coordinates implementation of Information Society strategy, including eGovernment. Swiss eGovernment is supported by all levels of government and external experts through various institutions: the Advisory Board, the Swiss eGovernment Architecture Community (SEAC); eCH (setting eGovernment standards); and the parliamentary initiative for public awareness "ePower for Switzerland. Implementation of the eGovernment strategy is driven by project leader organisations. Organisational continuity: eGovernment strategy was adopted in 2006 for a five year period, and an action plan in 2008 Ranking 31/28 12 2 5 12x Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 7 593 500 137.1 (2007) 1.6% Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups 100 ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises Not Available Not Available 31% (2007) Not Available Not Available Not Available 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

BEPMS 12 0 1 Total 1207 52 2

121 EU 25 122

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

134

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Switzerland - Full online availability
100
100

Switzerland - Online sophistication

80
80

60
60

40 EU27+ 20 Switzerland 0 2005 2007 2009

40 20 0 Overall Businesses
Switzerland

Citizens

Switzerland achieves a full online availability of 32% as compared to 21% in 2007. We notice a marked increase of full online availability for citizens, from previously 9% to now 27%. On the indicator online sophistication, Switzerland obtains 67%. This result can be split into a sophistication score of 63% for citizen services, and 73% for business services. As in most EU27+ countries, business services are better developed than their citizen counterparts. The business services Social Contribution for Employees and Customs Declaration have for example already reached the 100% mark. Many services are delivered at the Canton-level, resulting in a heterogeneous eGovernment landscape with one-off good practice examples. eProcurement
Switzerland - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Switzerland

Switzerland's pre-award process indicator is lower than EU27+ average, mainly because of the eSubmission subphase, which is underdeveloped. Switzerland has a mandatory national eProcurment platform. The Platform provides facilities for accomplishing the entire process ranging from the issue of an invitation to tender to the announcement of a contract award on a seamless manner, in particular by avoiding media discontinuity.

e-Award

User Experience
Switzerland - User experience
Usability
100 75 50

Switzerland EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

The User Experience of Swiss web sites is on track. Switzerland achieves 23% on Usability, and scores above the EU27+ average for all other metrics: User Satisfaction Monitoring for example reaches 53%; Switzerland uses Computer Aided Telephone Interviews to survey citizens about their use and experiences of eGovernment services at different levels: federal, canton and municipality, for example in relation to user friendliness. On Accessibility of the national portal, Switzerland even positions itself in the first third of the EU27+. The scores obtained for the portal are also high, with 98% for One-Stop-Shop Approach and 83% for User-focused Portal Design. The Swiss portal ch.ch is the national gateway to Switzerlands federal government, cantons and local authorities. Information is available in German, French, Italian, Romansh and English. This portal is a joint project of the federal government, the cantons and the communes, operated by the Federal Chancellery.
123

7. Top strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009

1. 2. 3.

The electronic conduct of administrative procedures between (in order of priority): (i) businesses and authorities, (ii) authorities themselves and (iii) citizens and authorities. Prioritisation of services, selected on the basis of a favourable cost-benefit ratio when provided electronically. Fulfillment of Legal, procedural, organisational and technical preconditions to offering services. Processes have to be harmonised and infrastructures made available either centrally or jointly.

8. Biggest eGovernment success stories in the last 2 years Swiss eGovernment Architecture Community (SEAC), bringing together industry, government authorities and academia, aims to set guidelines for next-generation IT architectures in the Swiss public sector. http://www.epractice.eu/node/284930 Best practices and URLs: Portal related to debt enforcement: https://www.e-service.admin.ch/eschkg/cms/navigation/Betreibung/99_index_html_fr

123 Section 7 and 8 are taken from the ePractice factsheet and were not provided by the country representative in the survey.

135

Part D: Country Reports

The Netherlands
The Netherlands are among the leading countries on most Information Society indicators. Its eGovernment performance provides a more mixed picture with close to average online availability, sophistication and user-friendliness scores and high rates of business and citizen use of eGovernment. The Netherlands are a mature Information Society with traditionally high internet use and broadband penetration; thus presenting a strong environment for deployment of eGovernment. eGovernment is part of the countrys wider ICT strategy with a focus on delivering new services in a more efficient way and reducing administrative burden by investing in shared facilitating services and infrastructure. The eGovernment organisation resides mostly within the Ministry of the Interior, and contains a number of advisory and coordination forums and two executive agencies. The Netherlands is an active contributor to EU projects. 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 6.6 1.80 6.4% 124 3.05 3.3 31.6% 18.72 14.55 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 16486587 134.9 -3.5 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B epSOS, SPOCS, STORK HosPilot, In-Time, REACH112, SAVE ENERGY, CommonWell, CLEAR, ECRN, FRIELOT Total 65 1207 6 52 2 0 Ranking 14/15 5 10 9 3 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.85 3.3 86 86 54 85 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts

125

Positioning and Scope: eGovernment is an integrated part of the national ICT agenda. The ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations has overall responsibility. Key actors and line of reporting: Political responsibility for eGovernment lies with the State Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. eGovernment execution is split over two organizations: ICTU develops projects, and programmes (including eSkills development in government) and GBO Overheid is in charge of management of infrastructure and basic facilities. Governance and deployment: National eGovernment policy is coordinated in the Interministerial Committee on Administration, the Council on Administration and the Council of Ministers. The State Secretary chairs the Services and eGovernment Management Committee, containing the most senior civil servants of all relevant departments and agencies, and political representatives of regional and local government. It coordinates and develops strategies. Deployment remains largely decentralized. Local governments and departments have large discretionary powers and thus have considerable freedom to choose to develop their own solutions or to participate in a national scheme. Integration of the shared building blocks in the service delivery process is the responsibility of the service providers. Organisational Continuity: With the founding of GBO Overheid more emphasis has been given to the back office building blocks, but overall the Dutch eGovernment structure has been relatively consistent.

124 EU 25 125

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

136

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
Netherlands - Online sophistication
Netherlands - Full online availability
100

100 80

80 Netherlands 60

60 40

40 20 0 2001 EU27+

20 0 Overall Businesses
Netherlands

Citizens

2003

2005

2007

2009

The Netherlands continue to perform just above the EU27+ average and mark 79% on full online availability. In terms of online sophistication, The Netherlands obtain a score of 87%. This score can be split into an online sophistication of 89% for citizen services and 86% for business services. Citizen services have particularly progressed since 2007 and The Netherlands are one of the few European countries that provide more mature services to citizens than to businesses. In terms of the rankings, The Netherlands have improved their positioning slightly in the full online availability benchmark, where they now rank 14th (as compared to 15th in 2007). In terms of online sophistication, The Netherlands have lost three ranks and are now positioned in the middle field on position 15. eProcurement
Netherlands - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
Neth erlands

The Netherlands has a non-mandatory national eProcurement platform. This is a platform for e-Notices (and specifications) for all European Tenders and for quite a number of National tenders; the usage is not mandatory. The pre-Award process benchmark is lower than the EU27+, mainly because the national platform is focused only on eNotification, while a new platforms is under construction.
e-Award

User Experience
Netherlands - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

Netherlands EU27+

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

In terms of User Experience, The Netherlands perform well above the EU27+ average on all parameters. Notable is the sound score achieved on the Accessibility of the national portal metric, where The Netherlands are among the only two countries which have obtained the letter B score according to the UWEM method. The Netherlands are also very active in terms of monitoring user satisfaction. The ambition has been formulated to have users rate government services at a score of 7 on a 10 points scale. Satisfaction is being measured around eGovernment life events, at the more general level of citizens satisfaction with government and around the portal.

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top 5 strategic eGovernment priorities for 2009:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

e-access, including: personalised integrated services (mijnoverheid.nl). e-authentication, authorization facility, personal DigiD, business DigiD. Key registers. e-information exchange, including government service bus, ID-nrs for citizens and businesses. Flagship projects.

8. Biggest eGovernment success story in the last 2 years: Wide take up and usage of the he common government e-authentication for citizens (DigiD) Best practices and URLs: The flagship project on digital work and income: www.werk.nl www.dkd.nl www.epractice.eu/en/cases/dkd2 Regelhulp, on-line assistance for persons applying for care: www.regelhulp.nl www.epractice.eu/en/cases/regelhulp Submission of environmental permits http://www.omgevingsvergunning.vrom.nl http://www.epractice.eu/en/cases/lvopermit 137

Part D: Country Reports

The United Kingdom
The UK performance based on Information Society and eGovernment indicators is high on average, especially in online availability of services. Scores are relatively weaker on the use of eGovernment, especially by Business. The UK eGovernment strategy is focused on transforming government; by increasing professionalism, sharing services and integrating back offices and improving public service delivery. The strategy is centrally managed from the Cabinet Office. A typical feature is the separation between the CIO and CTO functions, emphasizing the importance of eGovernment for transformation as distinct from pure ICT implementation in government. The UK is an active participant in EU projects 1. Key facts EU27 Population: GDP per capita in PPS Growth rate of GDP volume Societal figures Unemployment rate % of labour force with tertiary education Size of rural population % of population >65yrs Governance indicators EU27 Public Sector Employees Public Procurement as a % of GDP 5.7 3.97 6.4% 126 3.05 Not Available 33.8% 10.14 16.22 EU27 9.4% 26.9% 28.58% 15.97% 61634599 117.5 -3.8 100 Digital Divide: Index of internet use in at risk groups ICT expenditure as a percentage of GDP % of households with broadband connection % of enterprises with broadband connection eGovernment usage by individuals eGovernment usage by enterprises 3. Positioning International Benchmarks Benchmark EC eGovernment benchmark 2009 (Avail./Soph.) UN eGovernment Readiness Index 2008 WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2010 WEF Networked Readiness Index 2008-2009 EIU eReadiness Ranking 2009 4. EU activity CIP participation: Pilot A: Pilot B epSOS, STORK iSAC6+, REACH112, Long Lasting Memories, CommonWell, TSeniority, ISISEMD, DTV4ALL, SAVE ENERGY Total 127 1207 3 52 5 5 Ranking 1/7 10 13 15 13 Size peer group 31 189 133 134 70 0.7 3.5 71 87 32 64 2. Information Society Indicators EU27 0.66 2.7% 60% 81% 28% 68%

ePractice postings (by October 2009) Total cases Award Finalist 2009 Good Practices 2007 versus 2008 5. Key organisational facts

127

Positioning: and scope: eGovernment is seen as government transformation policy towards better service delivery, under responsibility of the Cabinet Office. The technical ICT component is managed by a separate CTO function. Key actors and line of reporting: eGovernment resides in the Cabinet Office under the political responsibility of the Minister for Digital Engagement and Civil Service Issues. The governments CIO (Office of the Government CIO) is operationally in charge and leads the Transformational Government Group. Its tasks are: central policy making, developing, coordinating and implementing eGovernment and operating the national eGovernment infrastructure. This is supported by the Sub-Committee on Public Engagement and the Delivery of Services in the Cabinet office. Governance and deployment: Governance is centralized and controlled by the Cabinet Office. It is supported by a CIO Council (chaired by the Government CIO) of 30 CIOs from all levels of government, without involvement of other stakeholders. More technical aspects are dealt with by the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) Council. Central government departments and agencies are in charge of eGovernment deployment. The CIO oversees the implementation, Organisational continuity: eGovernment has since long been the domain of the Cabinet office, though it has taken on different forms (e.g. Office of the eEnvoy). The CIO and CTO functions and their respective Councils have been established in 2005. There is a new Sub-group in the Cabinet office for service delivery

126 EU 25 127

Includes all categories (eGovernment, eHealth, eInclusion) as well as multinational cases involving the Member State of this country report

138

Part D: Country Reports

6. Close-up: eGovernment benchmark 2009 Key aspects 20 services
United Kingdom - Full online availability
100
100

United Kingdom - Online sophistication

80
80

60 40 20 0 2001

United Kingdom

60 40

EU27+

20 0

2003

2005

2007

2009

Overall

Businesses
United Kingdom

Citizens

The United Kingdom shows a very strong performance in this years eGovernment benchmark. It achieves 100% online availability and a score of 94% on online sophistication. Sophistication of business services now stands at 95%. Sophistication of citizen services is only two percentage points lower. eProcurement
United Kingdom - eProcurement
100 80 60 40 20 0 e-Notification e-Submission
United Kingdom

The UK has a non-mandatory national eProcurement platform (Buying solutions). It is a national public portal considered as partner for public services, but not mandatory by law. The Procurement platform consists of an eProcurement hub including 3 features: an electronic marketplace containing details of Public Sector supplier contracts, a Purchase to Pay solution and a pan-Public Sector data warehouse. It is available through a single point of access for buyers and suppliers. Moreover the Office of Government Commerce operates a cataloguebased electronic procurement scheme.
e-Award

User Experience
United Kingdom - User experience

Usability
100 75 50

United Kingdom EU27+

The United Kingdoms web sites are highly usable. They score particularly well on Usability, User Satisfaction Monitoring and One-Stop-Shop Approach. Accessibility of the national portal and the segmentation of information (according to e.g. target groups and life events) assessed through the Userfocused Portal Design metric and the web crawler are on track. In terms of User Satisfaction Monitoring, The United Kingdom is one of the few European countries that engage with stakeholders before actually putting services online. The so-called power of information and customer journey mapping approaches aim to better understand the daily life of users and the impact service use has on this, in order to design and adapt eGovernment services adequately before their launch.

User-focused portal design

25 0

Accessibility- web crawler

One-stop-shop approach

User satisfaction monitoring

7. Top eGovernment priorities for 2009: 1. Focus on the citizen citizen-centred services 2. Joining up shared services 3. More professional project delivery 8. Biggest eGovernment success stories in the last 2 years : Directgov now has over 15 million visits a month, and the customer satisfaction rate for Businesslink.gov.uk enterprises portal over 90% Best practices and URLs: Information Technologists Company, assisting the lives of the disadvantaged: http://www.wcit.org.uk/members/anon/new.html Health information 'NHS Choices': http://www.nhs.uk
128

128 Section 8 is taken from the ePractice factsheet as it was not provided in the survey.

139

Appendices

13. Detailed results for the 20 services

13.1 Income taxes
Income taxes
100 90 80 70 60
in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 AT BE BG CY DE DK EE EL ES FI FR IT LT MT NL NO PT SE Countries SI IE IS PL SK HR CH CZ HU LV UK LU RO
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

Figure 39: Income taxes

Description of the public service Income taxes: declaration, notification of assessment Research definition Standard procedure to declare labour income tax of an employee.Sophistication Model Remark: Pre-filled forms sent to the taxpayer by post will not be taken into account for the quantitative analysis. Only online transactions are measured, qualitative information on alternative delivery modes will be asked and reported separately.

Sophistication Model Stage 0 The service provider does not have a publicly accessible website or The service provider does not qualify for any of the criteria for the levels 1 to 4. The information necessary to declare income taxes of an employee is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider. The service provider offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to declare income taxes of an employee in a non electronic way. The service provider offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to declare income taxes of an employee. The service provider offers the possibility to completely treat the declaration of income taxes of an employee via the website. No other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via paperwork. The income tax declaration is automatically delivered or is pre-filled with all relevant data that, in conformance with data protection regulations, the agency providing the service already knows about the employee.

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

140

Appendices
13.2 Job search
Job search services
100 90 80 70 60
in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 HR AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IS IT LT LV MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK UK CH LU Countries
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

Figure 40: Job search services

Description of the public service Job search services by labour offices.

Sophistication Model Stage 0 The service provider does not have a public accessible website or The service provider does not qualify for any of the criteria for the levels 1 to 4. The information necessary to obtain job offerings is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider. The service provider offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to receive job offerings in a non-electronic way. The service provider offers the possibility to consult databases with job offerings. The service provider offers the possibility of an electronic supply of pre-selected jobs related to a given profile of the job searcher. NOT APPLICABLE

Research definition Standard procedure to obtain job offerings as organised by official labour offices, no private market initiatives. Stage 2 Stage 1

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

141

Appendices
13.3 Social security benefits
Social security benefits
100 90 80 70 60
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 NL NO SE AT DE FI MT IS BG FR ES DK BE SI UK PT IT LU EE CZ LT IE SK PL HR LV RO CY CH EL HU Countries

Figure 41: Social security benefits Description of the public service Social security benefits: Unemployment benefits Child allowances Medical costs (reimbursement or direct settlement) Student grants Research definition Standard procedure to obtain social security benefits Unemployment case of unemployment Child allowance: standard procedure to obtain child allowance Medical costs: standard procedure to obtain reimbursement of costs covered by obligatory medical insurance Student grants: standard procedure to obtain student grants for higher education Stage 5 benefit: standard procedure to obtain replacement income in Stage 4 Stage 3 Sophistication Model In the following table, only the definition of the public service Unemployment benefit is fully developed, the other three have the same structure The service provider does not have a publicly accessible Stage 0 website or The service provider does not qualify for any of the criteria for the levels 1 to 4. The information necessary to obtain unemployment benefits is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the Stage 1 service provider. The service provider offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to obtain unemployment benefits in a non-electronic Stage 2 way. The service provider offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to obtain unemployment benefits. The service provider offers the possibility to completely treat the demand for unemployment benefits via the website. Case handling, decision and delivery (ex. payment) of the standard procedure to obtain unemployment benefits are completely treated via the web. No other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via paperwork. Unemployment: NOT APPLICABLE Child allowances: Upon declaration of birth, all child allowances and fiscal advantages are automatically granted. Medical costs: Medical costs are reimbursed directly or by automated or electronic means. This automatic reimbursement system must be used by at least one provider. Student grants: The grant is automatic upon enrolment for those who are entitled to receive it.

The unemployment benefit service is non-relevant for the following country: DE. The child allowances service is non-relevant for the following countries: CH and MT.

142

Appendices
The medical costs service is non-relevant for the following countries: CH, DE, EL, IE, IT, LT, MT, NL, SE and UK. The student grants service is non-relevant for the following country: IS.

13.4 Personal document

Personal documents
100 90 80 70 60
in %
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

50 40 30 20 10 0 AT SI MT PT HU IE SE SK BE EE IT DE UK LV NL FR FI NO LT ES LU RO PL DK CY EL IS CH HR BG CZ Countries

Figure 42: Personal documents

Description of the public service Personal documents: passport and driver's licence Research definition

Sophistication Model Stage 0 The service provider does not have a publicly accessible website or The service provider does not qualify for any of the criteria for the levels 1 to 4. The information necessary to obtain an international passport is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider. The service provider offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to obtain an international passport in a non-electronic way. The service provider offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to obtain an international passport.

Stage 1 Standard international procedure passport to and obtain an standard Stage 2

procedure to obtain a drivers licence for a personal vehicle not for professional use: In the following table, only the case of the passport-delivery is fully developed, the driver's structure license-service has the same

Stage 3

Stage 4

NOT APPLICABLE

Stage 5

The service provider automatically prompts passport owners about an imminent expiry date (through email, sms, smail or other e-channels).

The passports service is non-relevant for the following countries: MT, PL and SE. The drivers license service is non-relevant for the following country: ES.

143

Appendices
13.5 Car registration
Car registration
100 90 80 70 60
in %
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

50 40 30 20 10 0 BE CY DE EL FI FR IE IT LU MT NL NO SE SI UK EE ES Countries IS PT RO HU LV PL CH DK SK CZ LT HR BG

Figure 43: Car registration

Description of the public service Car registration (new, used, imported cars) Research definition Standard procedure to register a new, used or imported car.

Sophistication Model The service provider does not have a publicly accessible website or The service provider does not qualify for any of Stage 0 the criteria for the levels 1 to 4. The information necessary to register a new, used or imported car is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider. The service provider offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to register a new, used or imported car in a non electronic way. The service provider offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to register a new, used or imported car.

Stage 1

Stage 2 Remark: The term new/used and imported cars comprises the total number of registered cars in a country. The level 4b implies an electronic communication link between the intermediary and the public registration authority for the final registration. The Member states will have to provide information on the take up of the electronic intermediary system.

Stage 3

The service provider offers the possibility to completely treat the registration of new, used or imported cars via the website. Case handling, decision and delivery of a standard Stage 4 a procedure to register a new, used or imported car can completely be treated via the web. No other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via paperwork. Registration of a new, used or imported car is possible Stage 4 b through a one-stop shop, possibly an intermediary, such as for instance an insurance broker, a website, a car dealer,

This service is non-relevant for the following country: AT.

144

Appendices
13.6 Building permission
Application for a building permission
100 90 80 70 60
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 AT MT SI UK NO PT LT SE CZ IE DK FR IT BE PL EE DE NL LU BG CH HR CY Countries FI SK IS ES LV HU RO EL

Figure 44: Application for a building permission

Description of the public service Application for building permission Research definition Standard procedure to obtain a building or renovation permission for a personal building (regular, initial request, i.e. not taking into consideration contesting and appeal).

Sophistication Model The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a publicly accessible website or the publicly Stage 0 accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 4. The information necessary to start the procedure to obtain a building or renovation permission is available on a publicly Stage 1 accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the Stage 2 possibility to obtain the paper form to start the procedure to obtain a building or renovation permission in a non electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the Stage 3 possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to start the procedure to obtain a building or renovation permission. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to completely treat a building or renovation permission via the website. Case handling, decision and Stage 4 delivery of a standard procedure to obtain a building or renovation permission can be treated via the web. No other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via paperwork Stage 5 NOT APPLICABLE

145

Appendices
13.7 Declaration to police
Declaration to the police
100 90 80 70 60
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 AT BE CZ DE DK EE ES FI IT LU MT NL PT SE SI UK FR Countries IE LV CH LT NO EL BG CY IS RO SK HR PL

Figure 23: Declaration to the police

Description of the public service Declaration to the police The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a publicly accessible website or the publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 3. The information necessary to start the procedure to make an official declaration of theft of personal goods to the local police is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to start the procedure to make an official declaration of theft of personal goods to the local police in a non electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to start the procedure to make an official declaration to the local police. NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE (e.g. in case of theft) Research definition Standard procedure to officially declare a theft of personal goods (ex. car or home burglary) to a local police office. Stage 1 Stage 0 Sophistication Model

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4 Stage 5

146

Appendices
13.8 Public libraries
Public libraries (catalogues, search tools)
100 90 80 70 60
in %
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

50 40 30 20 10 0 DE DK EE ES FI FR LU MT NL SI UK NO PT CZ SE IE CH AT CY IS IT LT HU PL SK LV BE EL BG RO HR Countries

Figure 46: Public libraries (catalogues, search)

Description of the public service Public libraries (availability of catalogues, search tools) Research definition Standard procedure to consult the catalogue(s) of a public library to obtain specific information regarding a specific carrier (Book, CD, )

Sophistication Model

Stage 0

The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a publicly accessible website or the publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 4. The information necessary to start the procedure to consult the catalogues of a public library to obtain a specific information carrier is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to start the procedure to consult the catalogues of a public library to obtain a specific title in a non electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to search for a specific information carrier (book, CD). The service provider offers the possibility to search for a specific title (book, CD) and to make an electronic reservation or to obtain an electronic copy. The service provider offers the possibility to warn the customer of new arrivals of specific information carriers.

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

147

Appendices
13.9 Certificates
(Birth and marriage) Certificates
100 90 80 70 60
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 AT BE EL ES FR MT PT SE SI DK EE CH LV LU HU IS UK Countries IE NL IT HR PL BG CY LT DE CZ NO SK RO

Figure 47: (Birth and marriage) certificates

Description of the public service Certificates (birth and marriage): request and delivery. Research definition Standard procedure to obtain a birth or marriage certificate (can be one document out of the National register of persons in some countries). Stage 1 Stage 0 The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a public accessible website or the publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 3. The information necessary to start the procedure to obtain a birth or marriage certificate is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to start the procedure to obtain a birth or marriage certificate in a non electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to start the procedure to obtain a birth or marriage certificate. The service provider offers the possibility to completely treat the delivery of a certificate via the website. The delivered certificate can be a legally binding electronic document (PDF e.g.) No other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via paperwork Sophistication Model

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

NOT APPLICABLE

This service is non-relevant for the following country: FI.

148

Appendices
13.10 Enrolment in higher education
Enrolment in higher education
100 90
EU27+ average 2009 Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007

80 70 60

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 AT EE FI HU IE LU NO PT SE SI UK NL MT DK DE IS CZ ES FR Countries IT LT SK CY BG BE HR EL CH RO LV

Figure 48: Enrolment in higher education

Description of the public service Enrolment in higher education / university. Stage 0 Research definition Standard procedure to enrol students in a university or another institution of higher education subsidised by an official Stage 1 administrative body in the country. Sophistication Model with partial Participation Module The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a publicly accessible website or the publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 4. The information necessary to start the procedure to enroll students in a university or another institution of higher education is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to start the procedure to enroll students in a university or another institution of higher education in a non electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to start the procedure to enroll students in a university or another institution of higher education. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to completely treat the enrolment of students in a university or another institution of higher education via the website. Case handling, decision and delivery of a standard procedure to enroll students in a university or another institution of higher education can be treated via the web. No other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via paperwork NOT APPLICABLE

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

This service is non-relevant for the following country: PL.

149

Appendices
13.11 Announcement of moving
Announcement of moving
100 90 80 70 60
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 AT DK EE ES FI FR LV MT NO SE SI PT LT NL HU CH BE HR EL Countries IS SK PL DE IT CY CZ RO BG LU

Figure 49: Announcement of moving

Description of the public service Announcement of moving (change of address). Stage 0 Research definition Standard procedure for the Stage 1 The information necessary to start the procedure to officially announce a change of address is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to start the procedure to officially announce a change of address in a non electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to start the procedure to officially announce a change of address. The service provider offers the possibility to completely treat the announcement of change of address of a private person moving within the country online. announcement of change of address of a private person moving within the country. Sophistication Model with partial Participation Module The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a publicly accessible website or the publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 3.

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

NOT APPLICABLE

This service is non-relevant for the following countries: IE and UK.

150

Appendices
13.12 Health-related services
Health-related services
100 90 80 70 60
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 MT PT SI UK EE SE DK BE PL ES EL BG FR RO IS LT IT SK NO CY LV CZ HR HU Countries

Figure 50: Health-related services

Description of the public service Health related services (interactive advice on the availability of services in different hospitals; appointments for hospitals) Research definition Standard appointment authority. procedure at a to obtain an hospital officially Sophistication Model with partial Participation Module The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a publicly accessible website or the publicly Stage 0 accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 4. The information necessary to start the procedure to obtain an appointment at a hospital is available on a publicly Stage 1 accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the Stage 2 possibility to obtain the paper form to start the procedure to obtain an appointment at a hospital in a non-electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the Stage 3 possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to start the procedure to obtain an appointment at a hospital. The service provider offers the possibility to completely treat the demand of an appointment via the website. Case handling, decision and delivery of a standard procedure to Stage 4 a obtain an appointment at a hospital can be treated via the web. No other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via paperwork An appointment in a hospital can be made by an Stage 4 b intermediary, a GP, via an electronic network that links him with the hospital. Stage 5 NOT APPLICABLE

recognised by a national, regional or local

This service is non-relevant for the following countries: AT, CH, DE, FI, IE, LU and NL.

151

Appendices
13.13 Social contributions
Social contribution for employees
100 90 80 70 60

in %

50 40 30
Sophistication in 2009

20
EU27+ average 2007

10 0

EU27+ average 2009

HR AT BE CY CZ DE EE EL ES

FI FR

IE

IS

IT

LU MT NL NO PL PT RO SE Countries

SI SK UK BG LT LV CH HU

Figure 51: Social contribution for employees

Description of the public service Social contributions for employees. Research definition Standard procedure to declare social contributions for employees affected by corporations. Stage 1 The information necessary to start the procedure to declare social contributions for employees is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to start the procedure to declare social contributions for employees in a non electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to start the procedure to declare social contributions for employees. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to completely treat the declaration of social contributions for employees via the website. Case handling, decision and delivery of a standard procedure to declare social contributions for employees can be treated via the web. No other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via paperwork Stage 0 Sophistication Model The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a publicly accessible website or the publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 4.

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

152

Appendices
Stage 5 NOT APPLICABLE

This service is non-relevant for the following country: DK.

153

Appendices
13.14 Corporate tax
Corporate tax
100 90 80 70 60
in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 HR AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FR HU IE IS IT LT LV MT NL NO PT RO SE SI SK UK FI PL BG LU CH Countries
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

Figure 52: Corporate tax

Description of the public service Corporate tax: declaration, notification Research definition Standard procedure to declare corporate tax for income from normal activities of a corporation. Stage 1 The information necessary to start the procedure to declare corporate tax is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to start the procedure to declare corporate tax in a non electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to start the procedure to declare corporate tax. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to completely treat the declaration of corporate tax via the website. Case handling, decision and delivery of a standard procedure to declare corporate tax can be treated via the web. No other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via paperwork Stage 0 Sophistication Model The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a publicly accessible website or the publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 4.

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

NOT APPLICABLE

154

Appendices
13.15 VAT
VAT
100 90 80 70 60
in %

50 40 30 20 10
EU27+ average 2009 Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007

0 HR AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IS IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PT RO SE SI SK UK BG PL CH Countries

Figure 53: VAT

Description of the public service VAT: declaration, notification Research definition Standard procedure for VAT declaration and/or notification for transactions Stage 1 The information necessary to start the procedure to declare VAT is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to start the procedure to declare VAT in a non electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to start the procedure to declare VAT. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to completely treat the declaration of VAT via the website. Case handling, decision and delivery of a standard procedure to declare VAT can be treated via the web. No other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via paperwork regarding normal activities of a corporation. Stage 0 Sophistication Model The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a publicly accessible website or the publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 4.

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

NOT APPLICABLE

155

Appendices
13.16 Company registration
Registration of a new company
100 90 80 70 60
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 AT BE CH CZ DK EE ES FR IT MT NO PT SE SI UK HU LU PL SK HR CY DE Countries IE IS FI LV BG EL LT NL RO

Figure 54: Registration of a new company

Description of the public service Registration of a new company Research definition Most important registration procedure to start a new company.

Sophistication Model The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a publicly accessible website or the publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 4. The information necessary to start the procedure to register a new company is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to start the procedure to register a new company in a non-electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to start the procedure to register a new company. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to completely treat the declaration of a new company via the website. Case handling, decision and delivery of a standard procedure to register a new company can be treated via the web. No other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via paperwork NOT APPLICABLE

Stage 0

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

156

Appendices
13.17 Statistical data
Submission of data to statistical offices
100 90 80 70 60

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 HR AT BE DE ES FI FR HU IS LU NL PT RO SE SI DK IE MT NO CH CY CZ EE EL Countries IT LT LV PL SK UK BG

Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

Figure 55: Submission of data to statistical offices

Description of the public service Submission of data to statistical offices Stage 0 Research definition Standard procedure to submit at least one statistical questionnaire with data to the National Institute for Statistics of the country. Remark: This indicator aims at finding in what way the government is making it easier to submit statistical data and cut company red tape via interoperability of data-sets. Stage 3 Stage 2 Stage 1 Sophistication Model The service provider does not have a publicly accessible website or The service provider does not qualify for any of the criteria for the levels 1 to 3. Necessary information to submit a statistical questionnaire to the National Institute for Statistics is available on a publicly accessible website The possibility to download at least one statistical questionnaire from the National Institute for Statistics to submit statistical data exists. The possibility of an official electronic form to submit at least one statistical questionnaire to the National Institute for Statistics exists. The service provider offers the possibility to completely treat the submission of statistical data to the National Institute for Statistics electronically. Data concerning company revenues already declared to tax administrations do not need to be resubmitted separately to statistical offices and data related to employees (proportion men/women, absenteeism on the work floor ) already submitted to Social Security or Employment administrations are automatically submitted for statistical purposes, the submitter does not need to resubmit data (administration must adapt, not the citizen/enterprises)

Stage 4

Stage 5

157

Appendices
13.18 Customs declaration
Customs declaration
100 90 80 70 60

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 AT BE CY CZ DE EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IS IT LT LU MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI UK BG LV SK DK CH HR Countries
Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

Figure 56: Customs declaration

Description of the public service Customs declarations Stage 0 Research definition Standard procedure for customs Stage 1 declarations related to the normal activities of a corporation. Stage 2 Sophistication Model The service provider does not have a publicly accessible website or The service provider does not qualify for any of the criteria for the levels 1 to 4. The information necessary to declare customs is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider. The service provider offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to declare customs in a non electronic way. The service provider offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to declare customs. The service provider offers the possibility to completely treat the declaration of customs electronically. Case handling, decision and delivery of a standard procedure to declare customs can be treated via e-services.

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

NOT APPLICABLE

158

Appendices
13.19 Environment-related permits
Environment-related permits
100
Sophistication in 2009

90
EU27+ average 2007

80 70 60

EU27+ average 2009

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 AT EE MT PT SI DE DK FI CZ IE UK LU SE LV BE HU NO BG ES CH HR EL FR Countries IS CY NL PL LT RO SK IT

Figure 57: Environment-related permits

Description of the public service Environment-related permits (incl. reporting) Stage 0 Research definition Standard procedure to obtain at least one environment-related permit, delivered at the lowest administrative level, concerning the start of a corporate activity (not taking into consideration contesting and appeal). The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to start the procedure to obtain an environment-related permit in a non electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to start the procedure to obtain an environmentrelated permit. The service provider offers the possibility to completely treat the delivery of environment-related permit electronically. Case handling, decision and delivery of a standard procedure to obtain an environment-related permit can be treated via e-services. The service provider offers the possibility for customized and segmented (by sector & size) relevant information on new environmental-related regulation and obligations to businesses. Stage 1 The information necessary to start the procedure to obtain an environment-related permit is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. Sophistication Model The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a publicly accessible website or the publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 4.

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

159

Appendices
13.20 Public procurement
Public procurement
100 90 80 70 60

in %

50 40 30 20 10 0 HR AT BE CH CZ DE DK ES FR IT MT NL PT RO SK UK EE IE Countries LT NO PL SE BG CY FI LV EL HU IS LU SI

Sophistication in 2009 EU27+ average 2007 EU27+ average 2009

Figure 58: Public procurement

Description of the public service Public procurement Research definition Standard procedure for a tender for public procurement, subject to national public announcement Stage 1 The information about the tender is available on a publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to obtain the paper form to tender in a non electronic way. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility of an electronic intake with an official electronic form to tender. The publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level offers the possibility to completely treat the tender via the website. Case handling, decision and delivery of a standard procedure to tender can be treated via the web. No other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via paperwork Stage 0 Sophistication Model The service provider or the administrative responsible level does not have a public accessible website or the publicly accessible website managed by the service provider or by the administrative responsible level does not qualify for any of the criteria for the stages 1 to 4.

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

NOT APPLICABLE

160

Appendices

14. The 20 services- method

14.1 The data collection and management process
The survey process has been maintained with its 4 modules since 2001: Module 1 - Landscaping of the governmental structure of countries Module 2 - Sampling of multiple service providers & identification of URLs Module 3 Web based survey and scoring Module 4 Validation and reporting

In the following paragraphs the different modules are briefly described. Module 1: Landscaping The traditional landscaping survey has been maintained for the description of each of the 20 basic public services, including: The description of the service The level it is organised at A self-evaluation of the sophistication level reached The description of the authentication used

Module 2: Sampling of URLs The process of defining the list of URLs per country includes: URL identification by the research team Sampling Validation of the URL list by country representatives

Every URL is checked by the researchers during the web search to ensure accuracy of the hyperlink. Two aspects are verified: Is the URL still functioning? Is this the official website of the concerning government of service provider?

Sampling techniques which have been used are: Stratification Systematic sampling with unequal probability Random sampling

A combination of stratification and systematic sampling has been used for those service providers organized on a specific regional base: municipalities, regional authorities, local police offices, libraries. Validation of URLs by country representatives ensures that the list of URLs is up-to-date, i.e. that all new websites are included in the web survey and that obsolete links are eliminated. Module 3: Web-Survey For the web survey, questions appear in a dialogue box, to which researchers only need to provide a binary, yes, no answer. Researchers are requested to go as deep as possible into the web sites tree structure. About 14.000 search actions have been realized corresponding to the number of service providers identified. For the 20 public services, the structure of the data allows the analysis per service and per country as well as by cluster of services (such as registration or returns) or super-cluster (Government to Citizen, Government to Business).

161

Appendices
Module 4: Validation & Reporting Validation of benchmark results has been done bilaterally, in close collaboration with Member States. Accounting for different levels of government For the calculation of the final score of the public services, the scored URLs are divided into three levels: Service providers organised on the highest national level, Service providers organised on the regional level, Service providers on the local level.

We have kept the scoring rules to calculate a unique score per service per country unchanged: In case of one website of a unique national service provider or responsible level on the highest level, the score of this site becomes the final score of the service (example: Income tax, the site of one federal ministry of Finance). In case of different websites of service providers organised on the national or organised on different levels, we take into account the score of the website of the highest scoring service provider, as this site is accessible for each applicant in one country. In case of different service providers on a lower level, the aggregated score of this higher level is introduced as the minimum score of the sites of each multiple service provider. Then the average score of the multiple service providers is calculated to become the final score of this service. In case of a list of URLs of multiple service providers, without a site of a higher level, the average score of these service providers is taking in account as final score. Translating the five maturity stages into percentages In essence, the stages 1 to 5 to measure the level of online sophistication of the services, translated into percentages. The percentages vary depending on what the maximum level is that can be reached. We recapture the scoring rules in detail below. In case the score of a service in a country is based on the analysis of the websites of multiple service providers, or a combination of unique and multiple service providers, the calculated percentage is an aggregate of the average scores of the websites and will be positioned on the scale between the start limits of the ranges.

Stage Stage 0

Percentage 0 to 19% percentage interval

Definition No publicly accessible website(s) or the website(s) do not qualify for any criteria for the stages 1 to 4. Information necessary to start the procedure to obtain the service available on the website(s). Interaction: downloadable or printable form to start the procedure to obtain the service on the website(s). Two-way interaction: electronic forms to start the procedure to obtain the service on the website(s).

Stage 1

20 to 39% percentage interval

Stage 2

40 to 59% percentage interval

Stage 3

60 to 79% percentage interval

162

Appendices
Stage 4 80 to 99% percentage interval Stage 5 100 %: new stage, meaning proactive full case electronic handling Transaction: full electronic case handling of the procedure by the service provider (incl. Decision, notification, delivery and payment if necessary). Proactive, automated service delivery.

Table 1: Stages, scores and definition

In case the score of a service in a country is based on the analysis of the website of a unique service provider the calculated percentage will always be on the limit of a range:
Stage Stage 0 Percentage 0% Definition No publicly accessible website(s) or the website(s) do not qualify for any criteria for the stages 1 to 4. Stage 1 20% Information necessary to start the procedure to obtain the service available on the website(s). Stage 2 40% Interaction: downloadable or printable form to start the procedure to obtain the service on the website(s). Stage 3 60% Two-way interaction: electronic forms to start the procedure to obtain the service on the website(s). Stage 4 80% Transaction: full electronic case handling of the procedure by the service provider (incl. Decision, notification, delivery and payment if necessary). Stage 5 100% Proactive, automated service delivery.

Table 2: Stages, scores and definition For services with a maximum score 3 (i.e. declaration to the police), the calculation of the percentages is as follows:
Stage Intervals Score Stage 0 0 0,99 Percentage 0 - 32% No publicly accessible website(s) or the website(s) do not qualify for any criteria for the stages 1 to 4. Stage 1 1 1,99 33% - 66% Information necessary to start the procedure to obtain the service available on the website(s). Stage 2 2 2,99 67% - 99% Interaction: downloadable or printable form to start the procedure to obtain the service on the website(s). Stage 3 3 100% Two-way interaction: electronic forms to start the procedure to obtain the service on the website(s). Definition

Table 3: Stages, scores and definition

163

Appendices

For services with a maximum score 4, the calculation of the percentages is as follows:
Stage Intervals Score Stage 0 0 0,99 Definition Percentage 0 - 24% No publicly accessible website(s) or the website(s) do not qualify for any criteria for the stages 1 to 4. Stage 1 1 1,99 25% - 49% Information necessary to start the procedure to obtain the service available on the website(s). Stage 2 2 2,99 50% - 74% Interaction: downloadable or printable form to start the procedure to obtain the service on the website(s). Stage 3 3 3,99 75% - 99% Two-way interaction: electronic forms to start the procedure to obtain the service on the website(s). Stage 4 4 100% Transaction: full electronic case handling of the procedure by the service provider (incl. Decision, notification, delivery and payment if necessary).

Table 4: Stages, scores and definition

Aggregating scores to the national or cluster level The final percentage per country is calculated as the average of the percentages of the 20 services for that country; the irrelevant services are not taken into account in this final percentage. The percentage per country for public services for citizens is the average of the percentage of the services 1 to 12. The percentage per country for public services for businesses is the average of the percentage of the services 13 to 20. The percentage of the service Social security benefits is calculated as the average scored percentage of the following services: Unemployment benefits; Child allowance; Reimbursement of medical costs; Student grants.

164

Appendices
14.2 Scoring rules for the Full Online Availability indicator
This indicator is measured on the basis of a two-level model: Stage 1 - Not full availability online; Stage 2 -Full availability online. Stage 1 contains the stages 0 to 3 of the sophistication framework. Stage 2 contains the stage 4 and above of the sophistication framework.

This indicator remains comparable over time, despite additions in 2007 to add a fifth level to certain services.

14.3 Non-relevant (sub-)services

Some of the public services are classified as not relevant for certain countries due to the legal context and administrative organisation of that specific country, for example when the services in that country is provided via intermediaries or for example when those that require certain services (e.g. certificates) have direct access to the relevant databases. Non-relevant services are not included in the calculation of the scores. When this applies not to a service but to a sub-service, the percentage score is calculated as the average score of the relevant subservices. An overview of the various non relevant (sub-)services per country is provided below. Service Certificates C ountry Finland Reason In Finland there is no need for the certificates because public authorities, churches and companies have direct access to the base registers. In Finland certificates are used only in making an estate inventory, but people, students etc. who work or study in the other countries need certificates. Services concerning social contributions for employees affected by corporations are not relevant in the case of Denmark. In the Danish labour market system, social contributions does not exist as part of the corporations obligations towards their employees. Instead, the analogous contributions are covered via the tax system. The service is provided by private sector intermediaries Appointments at hospitals and with physicians are services entirely outside the competence of national, regional or local authorities and thus not part of E-Government. Health and administration are separated sectors. Appointments are made by general practicitioners. The measurement does not apply to Germany due to the specifics of its centrally regulated universal health care system with its division in public and private health insurance. Germany has a universal multi-payer system with two main types of health insurance. Germans are offered three mandatory health benefits, which are co-financed by employer and employee: health insurance, accident insurance, and long-term care insurance. The is left up to hospitals in the districts and service level differs from district to district. Some of these are private services that have agreements with municipalities. It is not possible for an individual to obtain an appointment.

Social contribution for employees

Denmark

Car registration Health related services

Austria Austria

Switzerland Germany

Finland

Ireland

165

Appendices
Hospital appointments/referrals are obtained via ones doctor (General PractitionerGP), and not by citizen. Physicians have traditionally been in charge of arranging the appointments for their patients at the hospitals. They are using a multi channel approach to schedule these appointments but are still mostly using the telephone. Appointments are managed by individual hospitals. They are requested by individual patients or their referral physician Child allowances are an independent social contribution entirely financed by employers. Level 4 is in fact the maximum level of sophistication allowed by the Maltese legislation. Since not every child born in Malta is automatically eligible for an allowance, there is a legal requirement for the head of household who has the care of a child (or his/her spouse) to claim for Children's Allowances on behalf of the eligible child. This means that the allowance cannot become automatically granted upon birth. Health insurance is privately organised in Switzerland and therefore no eGovernment-Service Costs for medical treatment and medicine are usually covered by obligatory health insurance and there is usually no need for citizens to ask for any reimbursement. This service is not applicable. There is no connection with hospitals but every hospital has its own site and there isn't one service provider for this service There is no obligatory medical insurance in Ireland. The Italian Health System guarantees free or shared-cost essential health services, which are usually provided on payment of a fixed, low fee. No reimbursement is therefore needed, apart from a further reimbursement that may be requested through the tax declaration. This service is not relevant for Lithuania. There is no need for Lithuanian residents to ask for any reimbursement. Costs for some medicine are covered by mandatory health insurance and Lithuanian residents pay only part of the cost for such medicine, which is not reimbursed. Pharmacies register every such purchase and provide appropriate information to the State Patient Fund and are directly reimbursed. In Malta there is no need to apply for medical costs reimbursement benefits since healthcare as a social service is delivered free of charge to all Maltese citizens and thus no reimbursement is required. This is not a government service. The medical insurance is privatised. All Swedish citizens are automatically covered by the national health insurances, including a coverage of medical costs. Most treatment in the National Health Service (NHS) is free at the point of delivery. There can be charges for some things (NHS prescription and dental charges, optical and hospital travel costs), for which help with some health costs is limited to people living on a low annual income (maximum amount is decided for each tax year).

Luxemburg

Netherlands Child allowances Switzerland Malta

Medical Costs

Switzerland Germany

Greece Ireland Italy

Lithuania

Malta

The Netherlands Sweden United Kingdom

166

Appendices
Studen Grants Iceland Students at higher education (university) can only get loans. The only possibility to get grants is for students at secondary school level (gymnasium), typically in the age of 16-19. This grant can be applied for electronically at the agency for Student Loan Fund. Following the introduction of biometric passports, the Passport Office can no longer offer an online application process. A national identity management allows Government to access and retrieve the applicant's data electronically from the Central Data Repository. The applicant visits one of the Passport Offices on the islands, affects the relevant payment as per the rate card which is electronically available and may get his/her passport prepared as s/he waits. Due to the stringent requirements for the collection of biometric features, Malta has taken the approach of requiring capture to happen only at the Passport Offices. Due to the obligation of implementation of biometric passports based on physical features according to procedures a citizen must submit filled form, two photos, birth certificate (when submitting the form to obtain passport for the first time), marriage certificate (when the one got married abroad), administration fee proof and a fingerprint. The form is submitted directly by a citizen with an identity card to check. This is not relevant although the Swedish National Tax Board has an e-service that make it easy with eID to get the personal register certificate you need to get a passport (level 5). Electronic intake of the data needed to obtain the licence is possible through medical offices. The access to the e-service is only possible through approved medical offices. The majority of students do not convey to the web sites provided by the public administration but directly to the chosen higher schools enrolment service where they can find also other exhaustive and comprehensive information concerning their specific educational plans. There is no legal requirement for private persons to advise of change of address The service does not exist.

Passports

Malta

Poland

Sweden

Drivers License

Spain

Enrolment in higher education

Poland

Announcement of moving

Ireland United Kingdom

167

Appendices

15. The eProcurement- method

The eProcurement Availability Benchmark of Contracting Authorities This indicator measures whether the contracting authorities in the sample make available eProcurement services to potential suppliers on their web site. The indicator is based on answers to the below 3 questions. Positive answers to all 3 questions correspond to a 100 % score that is full availability. Only positive or negative, Yes/No, answers are possible.

Web Survey Questions- Availability Benchmark Q1 Does this website contain information about public procurement? Q2 Does this website publish procurement notices (call for tenders, contract notices, licenses) or offer the possibility to register online to access the list of procurement opportunity? Q3 Does this authority provide eProcurement services (beyond tenders publication)? (either directly, or through a link to a specialised eProcurement portal or platform) Total Contracting Authority website score

Score 10% 20%

40 to 70%

SUM of above

Remark on Q3: In countries where there is a mandatory national eProcurement platform, national contracting authorities automatically receive a minimum of 40 points for Q3, since availability is mandatory by law. 70 points are assigned when there is also a link to the eProcurement Platform on the authority web site, providing greater visibility of the platform to potential suppliers. For all other countries, the maximum score of 70 points is assigned only when there is a link to the eProcurement Platform on the authority web site. The country aggregate is calculated as the average of the scores of a countrys contracting authorities. The EU27+ indicator is calculated as the average of the EU27+ country scores.

The eProcurement Pre-Award Process Benchmark The eProcurement Pre-Award Process indicator measures the availability of 3 subphases constituting the eProcurement process, on a scale of 0 to 100% where 100% means full online availabilty of all subphases. These 3 subphases are: eNotification, eSubmission and eAwards. The questions the indicator is based upon are provided below. This indicator is only measured on websites providing eProcurement services (also called eProcurement platforms), identified through links from authority websites or indicated by the Member States in the landscaping survey. The Pre-Award Process Benchmark is further divided into 3 subphases:
Web Survey Questions - eNotification Q4 Does the website publish procurement notices (call for tenders, contract notices, licences) ? Q5 Does the website allow potential suppliers to register online? Q6 Does the website allow the supplier to identify areas of interest? Q7 Does the website allow the supplier the possibility of signing up for email alerts? Q8 Does the website allow the supplier the possibility of signing up for sms alerts? TOTAL eNotification subphase score Score Yes=20; Yes=20; Yes=20; Yes=20; Yes=20; No = 0 No = 0 No = 0 No = 0 No = 0

SUM of above (max. 100)

168

Appendices
Web Survey Questions eSubmission Q9 Does the registration form allow the registering supplier to profile himself? Q10 Can a bidder submit a tender/proposal online? Q11 Can the bidder revise and update his submission before the official deadline? Q12 Will the submission be stored in a secure way before the official deadline and only then accessed by the authority? Q13 Is there a user Help or support section? Q14 Are there remote communication channels enabling Q&A sessions with the bidders (e.g. eMail, chat. Audio, videoconferencing) Q15 Are there screening mechanisms used to short-list potential suppliers (e.g. with questionnaires) ? TOTAL eSubmission subphase score Score Yes=14.3; Yes=14.3; Yes=14.3; Yes=14.3; Yes=14.3; Yes=14.3; Yes=14.3; No = 0 No = 0 No = 0 No = 0 No = 0 No = 0 No = 0

SUM of above (max. 100)

Web Survey Questions eAwards Q16 Is information about awarded contracts published online? Q17 Does the website enable eAuctions, that is competing on price between potential suppliers? TOTAL eAward subphase score

Score Yes=50; Yes=50; No = 0 No = 0

SUM of above (max. 100)

The Pre-Awards Process Benchmark aggregate is calculated assigning a weight of 0.36 to eNotification, 0.5 to eSubmission and 0.14 to eAward. The country aggregate is calculated as the average of the scores of all country platforms. The EU27+ indicator is calculated as the average of the EU27+ country scores.

The eProcurement Sample The eProcurement sample was developed explicitly for this benchmark and is a significant move forward in the landscaping of eProcurement actors in Europe. The sample of contracting authorities was developed on the basis of three main criteria: Population of the country: the sample size varies from 50 for the largest countries to 10 for the smallest ones; Balance by government tier: the proportion of national government and federal/regional/local authorities allowed in the sample was calculated on the basis of public procurement spending by tiers, as calculated by DG Markt in 2004 on the basis of Eurostat data (most recent data available). Institutional representativeness: in the landscaping phase, Member States were asked to provide URL lists of contracting authorities, selecting the most important and largest ones by size and procurement expenditure. The sample of eProcurement platforms was developed as follows: The Member States provided the URLs of their national platforms and any other platform they considered relevant; and Through links provided on the web sites of contracting authorities. The final sample was validated by country representatives to ensure representativeness. The table below provides an overview of the sample size per country.

169

Appendices
Country Number of National Contracting Authorities Number of Federal/Regional/ Local Contracting Authorities 14 25 10 13 1 16 41 14 4 6 19 13 33 5 12 2 5 41 3 4 3 1 19 5 26 10 6 Total Number of Contracting Authorities Total Number of eProcurement Platforms 3 2 1 2 1 3 14 3 1 1 3 3 21 1 2 1 1 11 1 1 1 2 3 1 9 3 1

AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IS IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT RO

6 5 10 9 9 17 11 6 6 22 22 7 17 5 16 5 5 8 7 8 7 10 11 4 22 20 20

20 30 20 22 10 33 52 20 10 28 41 20 50 10 28 7 10 49 10 12 10 11 30 9 48 30 26

170

Appendices
SE SI SK UK EU27+ 7 6 14 30 352 13 4 6 20 394 20 10 20 50 746 4 2 3 29 134

171

Appendices

16. The User Experience- method

This Annex covers the research questions used for the evaluation of User Experience in 2009. All components (and their respective subcomponents) of the User Experience indicator were weighted equally. To obtain the aggregate score at country level, the average score of all services and the national portal(s) was calculated.

16.1 Usability
The International Standard Organization has picked up the term usability and defined a multi-dimensional 129 standard around it. Usability is also being used as an umbrella term for User Experience, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world. This years benchmark has defined key proxy areas of usability that can be assessed through the web-based survey. These areas in particular concern the ease of use of web services. Both the 20 online services and the national portals of Member States were examined.

Theme Progress Tracking Multi-Channel Privacy & Data protection

Web survey question During the course of the service, is progress tracked and are earlier versions saved? Are there alternative delivery channels in place (e.g. call centre, mobile device, public kiosk; but not classic paper-based channels)? Is there a privacy statement on the website? Is e a process mentioned if problems with data protection occur?

Support & Help

Is support available if the user runs into technical issues (e.g. pop-ups, hotlines)? Is there a Frequently-Asked-Question (FAQ) section?

16.2 Accessibility
Accessibility was assessed through the web survey and a web crawler. The manual testing looked at both the 20 online services and the national portals of Member States. As almost all web sites obtained a 100% score on the manual measure, it was decided to drop the metric in this report. The accessibility web crawler only examined national portals, though in a depth of approximately 300 subpages.

Theme Individuals with difficulties / impairments

Web survey question Can the page be viewed in various font sizes?

The web crawler method applied follows the UWEM (Unified Web Evaluation Methodology), which is a is a methodology for evaluating conformance of web sites to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG10), a recommendation published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). UWEM comprises 26 automated checkpoints which assess accessibility features which compromise the User Experience, particularly of

ISO/TR 16982:2002 "Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Usability methods supporting human-centered design", ISO 9241 is a multi-part standard covering a number of aspects for people working with computers. Parts 110 and parts 1119 deal with usability aspects of software, including Part 110 (a general set of usability heuristics for the design of different types of dialogue) and Part 11 (general guidance on the specification and measurement of usability).

129

172

Appendices
individuals with impairments and lower skills levels. Whenever a web site did not conform to these checkpoints, error messages were produced, resulting in a final score of identified deviations. Further details on the web crawler assessment can be found below.

16.3 User Satisfaction Monitoring

Users should be able to rate a service online, whilst or after having used the service, and provide feedback imminently. The research question makes no distinction between fully-fledged user satisfaction surveys and feedback icons. Both the 20 online services and the national portals of Member States were examined.

Theme User Satisfaction Surveys

Web survey question Are web-based user satisfaction surveys in place and/or is there a commentary box?

16.4 One stop shop approach - Availability of 20 online services

This research question counted, like in 2007, how many of the 20 services were available through the main portals.

Theme Availability of 20 services

Web survey question How many of the relevant 20 basic public services are available through the portal?

16.5 User focus portal design

The core concept for portal development should be the provision of user-focused information and services citizens, businesses and government officials should be able to access services as quickly and efficiently as possible. The national portals of Member States were surveyed to see whether services are organized in a manner that facilitates their access from the users point-of-view.

Theme By theme By target group

Web survey question Does the portal show a list of themes or life events on the front page (e.g. mothering, building a house)? Does the portal show a list of target groups (e.g. parents, job seekers, enterprises)?

16.6 Accessibility web crawler

The crawler for the 2009 eGovernment benchmark has previously been used to evaluate over 2000 European web sites in the EIAO project (European Internet Accessibility Observatory, co-funded under FP6). The EIAO project covered the countries Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Since the successful completion of this project the crawler has also been used to evaluate governmental web sites in individual countries.

The crawler conducts a series of automated tests. The method applied follows the UWEM (Unified Web Evaluation Methodology), which is a methodology for evaluating conformance of web sites to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG1.0), a recommendation published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 1999. The below table describes the tests to be run. Details on the tests can be found on http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem1_2/ .

173

Appendices

Test ID 1.1_HTML_01 1.1_HTML_06 3.2_HTML_01 3.2_HTML_02 3.5_HTML_03 3.6_HTML_03

Brief description check that non-text content has a text equivalent. nontext content embedded with the non-standard embed element, such as wrong use videos check that the document contains a valid document type declaration. find violations against the formal schema for HTML 4.x or XHTML 1.0. check that no levels are skipped in the heading hierarchy. find paragraphs, line breaks and numbers that are used to simulate numbered lists and which can be replaced with the old element check that mouse-specific event handlers have a keyboard specific (or device independent) version. find any blink elements. find marquee elements. (Will cause blinking) find elements that can cause page refreshing. find elements that can cause page redirecting. find server-side image maps. find out whether the latest versions of W3C technologies for HTML and XHTML have been used. find deprecated HTML elements. find deprecated HTML attributes. find frames without description. find fieldsets without legend. find optgroup elements without label. Optgroups are often used in menus. find form control elements without id. find form control elements without label element. find a elements with the same title and text with different different link target (href). If no title attribute is provided, only the element text is checked. find violations against the formal grammar for CSS 1.0 or CSS 2.x. find CSS rules that cause content to blink.

6.4_HTML_01 7.2_HTML_01 7.3_HTML_01 7.4_HTML_01 7.5_HTML_01 9.1_HTML_01 11.1_HTML_01 11.2_HTML_01 11.2_HTML_02 12.1_HTML_01 12.3_HTML_01 12.3_HTML_04 12.4_HTML_01 12.4_HTML_02 13.1_HTML_01

3.2_CSS_01 7.2_CSS_02

The crawler is designed to find up to 6000 pages from a site, and to evaluate and randomly selected a set of 300 of them. This is a statistically sound approach that preserves resources both for the evaluation and the web site owners. By default, the crawler identifies a web site by the complete domain name. In this way, the crawler will for example include www.gov.eu, and pages with names such as www.gov.eu/xxx. Subdomains like www.agency.gov.eu will only be included if explicitly listed for the crawler. As outlined in the method paper of the 2009 benchmarking, the tests will be conducted on the national portal(s) of each country.

174

Appendices
The scores are computed according to the procedures defined in UWEM, which in brief is using the ratio of tests that uncover barriers to the overall number of applied tests. Hence the score 0 is the best and 1 the worst.

The following letters can be obtained in the scoring, indicating the overall accessibility: 0-10% detected barriers correspond to the green letter B i.e. best possible performance 10%-25% detected barriers correspond to the yellow letter C 25%-50% detected barriers to the orange letter D 50%-100% detected barriers to the red letter E, i.e. worst possible performance.

For reasons of readability, the User Experience spider plots used in the benchmark report inverse this scoring, hence calculating the score presented in the spider as one minus the percentage of detected barriers.

175

Appendices
References
1. 2. Economist Intelligence Unit, 2009) Report on e-readiness ranking: the usage imperative, http://graphics.eiu.com/pdf/E-readiness%20rankings.pdf Economist Intelligence Unit, 2008, Report on e-readiness ranking: Maintaining Momentum http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20080331202303/graphics.eiu.com/upload/ibm_ereadiness_2008. pdf Europen Commission, 2003, Communication to Council et al.: The Role of eGovernment for Europe's Future. Brussels, Report COM (2003) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/2005/doc/all_about/egov_communication_en.pdf European Commission, 2004, A report on the functioning of public procurement markets in the EU: benefits from the application of EU directives and challenges for the future, Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/public-proc-market-final-report_en.pdf European Commission, 2005a, i2010 - A European Information Society for growth and employment. Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/key_documents/index_enhtm European Commission, 2005b, Ministerial Declaration: approved unanimously on 24 November 2005, Manchester, United Kingdom (November 24) http://www.egov2005conference.gov.uk/documents/proceedings/pdf/051124declaration.pdf European Commission, 2006a, Commission Staff Working Paper: i2010 - First Annual Report on the European Information Society. Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/key_documents/index_enhtm European Commission, 2006d, i2010 - First Annual Report on the European Information Society. Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/key_documents/index_enhtm European Commission, 2007, Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens, Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/better_regulation/docs/docs_admin_b/com_2007_23_en.pdf 10. 11. 12. 13. Eurostat, Individuals or Businesses Using the Internet for interaction with Public Authorities, 2008, Luxembourg. INSEAD, 2009, The Global Information Technology Report 20082009 Mobility in a Networked World www.insead.edu/v1/gitr/wef/main/fullreport/index.html OECD, 2007, ICTs and Gender, OECD Publishing, Paris OII, 2006, Learning from Experience in eGovernment: Why Projects Fail and Why They Succeed. Third workshop report. Oxford, http://www.egovbarriers.org/downloads/June26Workshop/Workshop_report_26th_June_2006.pdf UN, 2008, eGovernment Survey 2008 : From egovernment to connected http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028607.pdf governance,

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8. 9.

14. 15.

UNDPEPA, 2002, Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective. Assessing the Progress of the UN Member States. New York: United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration and American Society for Public Administration. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN021547.pdf World Economic Forum, 2006, Global Information Technology Report www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Information%20Report/index.htm 2006-2007,

16.

17. Worldbank, 2009, Information and Communications for Development (IC4D): Extending Reach and Increasing Impact, Washington DC http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECH NOLOGIES/EXTIC4D/0,,menuPK:5870641~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:5870636,00.html

176