Electronic identification inpractice– a case study of use and organizationof eID in public e-services in schoolsElin Wihlb...
•  To analyse from different perspectives the development of e-identification (eID) systems at policy level and in practice•...
Based on the presentation and the paper:Q1 Methodologicala)  What assumptions do you perceive I have had in this empirical...
eID in Sweden•  Introduced in 2002, 10 years of practice•  Used by the citizens in e-services provided by theThe Swedish T...
e aim for the study:Ø  … to present a case study of use of electronic identification toaccess ICT platforms in schools i...
e Research QuestionsØ What are the experiences of use of secure log in to the ICTplattfroms and e-services in the school...
Background•  Why study schools–  A large ammount of information, including sensitive information,passes through, is proces...
About 145 000 inhabitants4th largest city region in SwedenBase for high technology industries in Aviation, IT and environm...
ICT and e-services in schoolsFRONTER	  DEXTER	  SKOLA	  24	  Schoolso5	  Heroma	  Extens	  LINSAM	   X,	  Y,	  Z	  TRIO	  ...
The Sample•  Based on a preliminary mapping of schools using ICT plattfroms inthe municipality (A total of 84 undergraduat...
MethodSchools The MunicipalitySkolan	  1.	  Rektor	  –	  1	  intervju	  Lärare	  –	  1	  fokusgrupp	  Elever	  –	  1	  fok...
Data collection: interviews and focus groupsAk<vity	   Place	   Role	   Date	  Interview	   School	  1	   Principal	   201...
Data collection: documentsDocuments•  Municipal official documents: policy documents,anual reports, activity reports, scho...
Dexter log in page
Fronter log in pageKälla:	  SWEG	  paper	  
Statistics on the use of Fronter•  	  55	  776	  –	  total	  log	  ins,	  7	  821	  ac<ve	  user	  /oct,	  2012	  	  Källa...
Experiences of use/ a selection•  e schools differ in how long they have come usingFronter, depending on:•  the principal ...
The organizational set up for implementation of securelog in to ICT plattforms and e-services in schoolsØ Unclear ogranis...
Users perceptions of ICT plattforms’- and e-services’ security•  Security is perceived differently by the users:–  Most use...
Analytical findings 1(3)•  e value of information/sensitivity stored– Different actors perceived the information ashaving d...
Analytical findings 2(3)•  ere is an element of TRUST involved– Trust in LM to deal with security– Trust in eID as an arte...
Analytical findings 3(3)•  Security is PRIVATE–  eID is private (ex. teachers use of eID at work, public realm)–  Control o...
Analytical findings and further questions:•  Two important aspects: safety of operation and och datasecurity – differences...
Empirical findings:•  Unclear organisational set-up for inplementation ofFronter and Dexter.•  There is a need to integrat...
Potential Development•  A technical challenge: the need for an integrated, flexible,simple, intuitive AND secure system – i...
ank you!elin.wihlborg@liu.semariana.s.gustafsson@liu.se
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Elin Wihlborg, Mariana S. Gustafsson: Organizing safe on-line interaction and trust in governmental services

283 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
283
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
84
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Elin Wihlborg, Mariana S. Gustafsson: Organizing safe on-line interaction and trust in governmental services

  1. 1. Electronic identification inpractice– a case study of use and organizationof eID in public e-services in schoolsElin Wihlborg & Mariana S. GustafssonIEI, Departement of Management and EngineeringLinköping University
  2. 2. •  To analyse from different perspectives the development of e-identification (eID) systems at policy level and in practice•  From a social, organizational and technical perspective follow andcritically analyse development processes, implementation and use ofsecure eID systems.•  Analyse development processes from early solutions for eID thoughcurrently used eID-systems towards complex federation solutions.•  By analysing e-ID policy-making and practice to develop knowledgeabout the meaning of eID for factual and preceived informationsecurity in the private and public e-services.FUSe:22.05.13Our study
  3. 3. Based on the presentation and the paper:Q1 Methodologicala)  What assumptions do you perceive I have had in this empirical study?b)  What assumptions are common when studying information securitymattersQ2 Conceptuala)  Discuss what implies the construction of the concept of ’security’ amongthe people (citizens) in an organisational set-up (schools), using technicalartefacts (e-ID, ICT, e-services):o  Matter of TRUST (Wihlborg 2011, Melin & Wihlborg 2011, Rothstein 2009 )o  Private/public relationo  Perceived/factual security (Oscarson 2007)o  Matter of IDENTITY (Castells 1997, Wihlborg 2012)
  4. 4. eID in Sweden•  Introduced in 2002, 10 years of practice•  Used by the citizens in e-services provided by theThe Swedish Tax Authority, Försäkringskassan,Landstinget, the local municipality, the banks.•  Security software + BankID or ID card and a device,based on personal security number, issued by theBankID, Telia, SEB, Posten, Nordea•  Swedish e-Identification, requirements and symbolicmeaning
  5. 5. e aim for the study:Ø  … to present a case study of use of electronic identification toaccess ICT platforms in schools in order to analyze securityaspects, organization and potential development of theplatforms.Ø  e user/actor groups:Ø e Management (school principals)Ø e TeachersØ e AdministratorsØ e PupilsØ e ParentsØ LK OfficialsØ LK IT-coordinatorsØ Other stakeholders (ex. eID agency, other authorities)22.05.13
  6. 6. e Research QuestionsØ What are the experiences of use of secure log in to the ICTplattfroms and e-services in the schools today?Ø How is secure log in implemented in the schools today?Ø How is secure log in to the e-services and the plattformsperceived by the different users?Ø What development potential do the users perceiveconnected to the secure identification systems in generaland security in particular?22.05.13
  7. 7. Background•  Why study schools–  A large ammount of information, including sensitive information,passes through, is processed and exchanged among actors in schools.–  ere is a long history of use of ICT plattforms in schools.–  e New Education Act (Skollagen 2011) requires continous followup of the student performance and imposes written reporting anddigital Individual Development Plans (skriftliga omdömen, SO ochdigital IUP)–  Increasing administration in schools.•  e municipality authonomy–  e municipality administration/organisation vs the schoolsadministration/organization22.05.13
  8. 8. About 145 000 inhabitants4th largest city region in SwedenBase for high technology industries in Aviation, IT and environment84 schools: 66 primary and 18 secondary schoolsLinköpings eVision (2006)eServices shall faciliatate for everybody to live and work in LinköpingmunicipalityDigital Agenda (2012)
  9. 9. ICT and e-services in schoolsFRONTER  DEXTER  SKOLA  24  Schoolso5  Heroma  Extens  LINSAM   X,  Y,  Z  TRIO  •  Learning  pla/orm  •  SO,  IUP  •  E-­‐service:  applica<on  for  healthcare,  repor<ng  of  income,  Presence/absence  registra<on,  Skolvalet  •  E-­‐service  •  SO,  IUP  •  Presence/abs.  registra<on,  •  Personnel  administra<on  •  Learning  pla/rom  •  SO,  IUP  Pedagogics,  administraFon  &  communicaFon  The  Municipality  core  database  X,  Y,  Z  X,  Y,  Z  •  Intranet    
  10. 10. The Sample•  Based on a preliminary mapping of schools using ICT plattfroms inthe municipality (A total of 84 undergraduate schools: 55 public + 11private, ’free schools’)5  schools  (undergraduate  +  secondary)  from  different  geografical  school  areas,  out  of  which:  •  4  public  +  1  free  school  •  3  large  (˃  300  p.)  +  2  small  (˂  300  p.)    Linköpings  municipality  •  Educa<on  Adminsitra<on  unit  •  IT-­‐sub-­‐unit  
  11. 11. MethodSchools The MunicipalitySkolan  1.  Rektor  –  1  intervju  Lärare  –  1  fokusgrupp  Elever  –  1  fokusgrupp  Föräldrar  -­‐  1  fokusgrupp  Skolan  1.  Rektor  –  1  intervju  Lärare  –  1  fokusgrupp  Elever  –  1  fokusgrupp  Föräldrar  -­‐  1  fokusgrupp  Skolan  1.  Rektor  –  1  intervju  Lärare  –  1  fokusgrupp  Elever  –  1  fokusgrupp  Föräldrar  -­‐  1  fokusgrupp  Skolan  1.  Rektor  –  1  intervju  Lärare  –  1  fokusgrupp  Elever  –  1  fokusgrupp  Föräldrar  -­‐  1  fokusgrupp  Skolan  1.  Rektor  –  1  intervju  Lärare  –  1  fokusgrupp  Elever  –  1  fokusgrupp  Föräldrar  -­‐  1  fokusgrupp  EducaFon  administraFon  unit    5  officials  –  1  focus  group  2  syst.adm.            –  1  interview  EducaFons  administraFon  unit    2  IT-­‐coordinators  –  1  intervju  Skolan  1.  Rektor  –  1  intervju  Lärare  –  1  fokusgrupp  Elever  –  1  fokusgrupp  Föräldrar  -­‐  1  fokusgrupp  Skolan  1.  Rektor  –  1  intervju  Lärare  –  1  fokusgrupp  Elever  –  1  fokusgrupp  Föräldrar  -­‐  1  fokusgrupp  Skolan  1.  Rektor  –  1  intervju  Lärare  –  1  fokusgrupp  Elever  –  1  fokusgrupp  Föräldrar  -­‐  1  fokusgrupp  Skolan  1.  Rektor  –  1  intervju  Lärare  –  1  fokusgrupp  Elever  –  1  fokusgrupp  Föräldrar  -­‐  1  fokusgrupp  Skolan  1.  Principal  –  1  interview  Teachers  –  1  focus  group  Pupils  –  1  focus  group  Parents  -­‐  1  focus  group  •  Document  analysis  •  Semi-­‐structured  interviews  •  Explora<ve  interviews  •  Cumula<ve  data  collec<on  •  Interview  guide  for  each  respondent  group  Empirical  study  
  12. 12. Data collection: interviews and focus groupsAk<vity   Place   Role   Date  Interview   School  1   Principal   2012.11.27  Focus  group   School  1   Teacher  (4)   2012.11.27  Focus  group   School  1   Pupil  (9)   2012.11.27  Interview   School  2   Principal   2012.11.14  Focus  group   School  2   Teacher  (4)   2012.11.14  Interview   School3   Principal   2012.10.30  Focus  group   School3   Teacher  (5)   2012.10.30  Interview   School  4   Principal   2012.12.05  Focus  group   School  4   Teacher  (3)   2012.12.04  Focus  group   School  4   Pupil  (3)   2012.12.04  Interview   School  4   Teacher  (6)   2012.11.06  Interview   School  4   Fronter  administrator   2012.12.04  Interview   School  5   Fronter  administrator   2012.12.05  Interview   The  Municipality   IT-­‐coordinator  (2)   2012.10.22  Interview   The  Municipality   System  administrator  (2)   2012.11.07  Focus  group   The  Municipality   Officials  (4)   2012.10.23  
  13. 13. Data collection: documentsDocuments•  Municipal official documents: policy documents,anual reports, activity reports, school boardsmeeting protocols (a selection).•  Public records published on the municiaplity’swebsite.•  Brochures on Dexter and Fronter
  14. 14. Dexter log in page
  15. 15. Fronter log in pageKälla:  SWEG  paper  
  16. 16. Statistics on the use of Fronter•   55  776  –  total  log  ins,  7  821  ac<ve  user  /oct,  2012    Källa:  Linköpings  kommun  
  17. 17. Experiences of use/ a selection•  e schools differ in how long they have come usingFronter, depending on:•  the principal attitude towards Fronter,•  e school’s internal organization,•  work methods for IUP,•  leadership•  IT competence among teachers.•  eID is tested for some e-services. Technical problemsare discovered at the moment. An important question– eID - a hinder?
  18. 18. The organizational set up for implementation of securelog in to ICT plattforms and e-services in schoolsØ Unclear ogranisation of implementation. Unclear picture onusability of Fronter for some principals and teachers.Ø e id & password log in system is perceived as easy, but notsecure enough. eID is perceived as complicated by certain groupsof users.Ø e complicated picture of eID agency, with different actorsinvolved (BankID, Telia etc) raises questions of user supportresponsibility and efficiency.Ø eID is perceived as a private attribute by some teachers thatshould not be used in their regular log in at work.
  19. 19. Users perceptions of ICT plattforms’- and e-services’ security•  Security is perceived differently by the users:–  Most users rely on the municipality responsibility to deal with security issues,–  e Municipality perceives the Plattforms and the e-services as secure.–  Fronter shall fullfill more security requirements if SO and IUP are to be processedand stored on the plattfrom, according to the users.•  eID is perceived as a possible but still ’unripe’ solution by the IT-coordinators, officials and Fronter-administrators in schools.•  eID is perceived as a private attribute, not to be used at work, according tothe teachers.•  Unclear strategies:–  Sensitive infromation is stored on paper, on shelves.–  Sensitive work material is processed unsecurily, but saving it in Fronter is not anobvious solution.•  e schools raise demands for a flexible plattform that would match theschools work models and not vice versa.
  20. 20. Analytical findings 1(3)•  e value of information/sensitivity stored– Different actors perceived the information ashaving different value for themselves (ex, logbook,IUP, work material)– Heterogenous information (’we don’t have sensitiveinformation in school’)(technical-, organisational, security challenges)
  21. 21. Analytical findings 2(3)•  ere is an element of TRUST involved– Trust in LM to deal with security– Trust in eID as an artefact (social?/technical)– Trust in own competence to manage eID and ICT
  22. 22. Analytical findings 3(3)•  Security is PRIVATE–  eID is private (ex. teachers use of eID at work, public realm)–  Control of the individual by the organisation, by the state(ex. logg of the activities)–  Private matters, thoughts and other information included inwork material at school (SO and IUP, loggbooks)–  Security is subjective
  23. 23. Analytical findings and further questions:•  Two important aspects: safety of operation and och datasecurity – differences in perceptions between the users andthe administrators´.•  The need for secure ICT systems increases due toinccreasing amount of sensitive data flows in the schools andthe rquirements of the Education Act.•  Security – an issue of trust (Wihlborg 2012)•  Private vs public: eID as a private attribute to be used in thepublic sphere?•  eID - legitimizing identity, legitimacy (Castells, 2007, Wihlborg2012, Melin & Wihlborg 2011)•  eID – perceived and actual security (Oscarson 2007)
  24. 24. Empirical findings:•  Unclear organisational set-up for inplementation ofFronter and Dexter.•  There is a need to integrate the current plattformsand e-services that are used in school.•  There is a need to clarify roles and responsibilitiesfor user-support of Fronter•  Fonter – not an obvious solution for SO and IUP
  25. 25. Potential Development•  A technical challenge: the need for an integrated, flexible,simple, intuitive AND secure system – is it possible?•  Organisations challenge: the need for a clearorganiziational set-up•  Competence development and trust for the system•  Security challenge: current solutions do not match schools’work methods.
  26. 26. ank you!elin.wihlborg@liu.semariana.s.gustafsson@liu.se

×