DigitalAgenda forEuropePublic Services Online‘Digital by Default or by Detour?’Assessing User Centric eGovernment performa...
This study has been prepared by Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, IS-practice and Indigov,RAND Europe and the Danish Technological I...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 3 of 74Executive SummaryContextThis “Insight Report” presents ...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 4 of 74MeasurementThe EU eGovernment survey hasprovided a benc...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 5 of 74Public agencies must put more focuson how they understa...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 6 of 74Studying is well served online,though more on the aspec...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 7 of 74Considering only those servicesthat are automated acros...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 8 of 74Table of Content1 INTRODUCTION............................
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 9 of 74Table of Figures/Graphs/TablesFigure 1.1: Explanation o...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 10 of 74Figure 4.1: Key Findings Key Enablers....................
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionTo enable Europeancitizens, businesses andgovernments to fullybenef...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionServing our end users isat the heart of what wedo, and remains ourn...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 13 of 74However, the emphasis shifts moreand more towards esta...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 14 of 74Figure 1.1: Explanation of objectives eGovernment Benc...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroduction28,000 internet-usingcitizens across all EU-27+ countries havebeen ...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsPage 16 of 742 Demand-sidesurvey: CitizenIn...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsPage 17 of 74Figure 2.2: key findings Deman...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen Insights2.1 Introducing thedemand-side citizensurve...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsWe also segmented users by theireChannel pr...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsThis approach leads to an overalleGovernmen...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsPage 21 of 742.3 Channel use andpreferences...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsFigure 2.6: Preference eChannel vs. traditi...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsPage 23 of 742.4 Barriers to usingeGovernme...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen Insights2.5 Citizen SatisfactionPublic eServices la...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsPage 25 of 74User satisfaction has droppeds...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen Insights2.6 Perceived BenefitsDelivery of the servi...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionLife events are packagedGovernment services,which a...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionPage 28 of 74Table 3.1: Key insights and results fo...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionEurope lags behind itscompetitors inentrepreneurial...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionAccording to EuropeanCommission PresidentBarroso, t...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionPage 31 of 74Figure 3.2: Generic process model for‘...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionPage 32 of 74Figure 3.3: Key findings Business Life...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionPage 33 of 74Insights into the user profileof an en...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionEase of use: this reflects thepersonal experience o...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionEntrepreneurs expectthat they can make anaccurate e...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionavailability. In particular it seemsthat the organi...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionExample of good practice: the Portuguese business p...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionTwenty-three millionEuropean citizenscurrently do n...
eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionPage 39 of 74Figure 3.8: Key Findings Citizen Life ...
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012

3,398

Published on

The eGov Benchmark study highlights the significant cost savings that can accrue by moving as many users as possible to digital channels. However, it also points out that satisfaction with eGovernment services lags that of eCommerce service, such as eBanking.
The three key findings are:
The shift in eGovernment thinking towards designing services around user needs is not yet fully embraced in Europe Governments are not fully reaping the possible benefits of eGovernment Transformation is needed to realize a new generation of eGovernment services

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

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,398
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Assessing user centric egovernment performance in europe e government benchmark 2012

  1. 1. DigitalAgenda forEuropePublic Services Online‘Digital by Default or by Detour?’Assessing User Centric eGovernment performance inEurope – eGovernment Benchmark 2012FINAL INSIGHT REPORTA study prepared for the European CommissionDG Communications Networks, Content &Technology
  2. 2. This study has been prepared by Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, IS-practice and Indigov,RAND Europe and the Danish Technological Institute for the Directorate Generalfor Communications Networks, Content and Technology.For more information about this paper, please contact:European CommissionDirectorate General for Communications Networks, Content and TechnologyUnit F.4 Knowledge BaseGianluca Papa – Project Officer for the eGovernment BenchmarkE-mail: gianluca.papa@ec.europa.euProject TeamDinand Tinholt – Vice President, EU Lead, CapgeminiExecutive Lead eGovernment BenchmarkE-mail: dinand.tinholt@capgemini.comNiels van der Linden – Managing Consultant, CapgeminiProject Manager eGovernment BenchmarkE-mail: niels.vander.linden@capgemini.comWritten and reviewed by Dinand Tinholt, Graham Colclough, Sander Oudmaijer,Wendy Carrara, Trudy Tol, Mark Schouten, Niels van der Linden (Capgemini);Gabriella Cattaneo, Stefania Aguzzi (IDC); Laurent Jacquet (Sogeti); HugoKerschot (IS-practice); Roland van Gompel, Jo Steyaert (Indigov); Jeremy Millard(DTI); Rebecca Schindler (RAND Europe).Internal identificationContract number: 30-CE-0217203/00-72SMART number: 2012/0034-2DISCLAIMERBy the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content &Technology.The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guaranteethe accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person actingon the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of theinformation contained therein.ISBN 978-92-79-29949-0DOI: 10.2759/13072© European Union, 2013. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to theEU. Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged.
  3. 3. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 3 of 74Executive SummaryContextThis “Insight Report” presents thefindings of the 2012 eGovernmentsurvey, discusses the implications,and makes some outlinerecommendations. It issupplemented by a more detailed“Background Report”, and openlyavailable “online survey data”; thelatter of which provide material forthose that design and manageeGovernment initiatives. Thecombination of reports, and theassessments made provide evidenceand insight to a number of differentgroups both within countries and ata European level. These includeleadership; policy advisers; publicservice owners, and technical staff.The report is titled, and poses thequestion of, “Digital by Default; orby Detour?” This could be read topre-suppose that digital is ‘the’answer; or that detour is ‘bad’.Neither is necessarily so. It is notmeant to be judgemental.The reality, and quite likely therecognition of most now, is thatdigital is happening; and in a waythat will have profound impact –positive impact, if embraced in aquality manner. The astonishingadoption and impact of socialmedia; the ever-intriguing andalmost daily innovations we see innew devices; the unseen yetextraordinary number of sensorsthat are embedded in what we buyand own; the vast canvas ofopportunity that big data offers us;the new provisioning models thatcloud technology opens up; are alltestament to the profoundlyimpactful role that information andtechnology play.What route to follow to makeadvances, indeed perhaps to ‘leap-frog’ improvements, and retainnational and European prominence?Europe comprises a diverse set ofcountries. Each with a multiplicity ofpublic services. Progressively, theneed for services to operate acrossborders rises in prominence. Thepeople they serve are mixed andvaried. There can therefore be nosingle route to follow; neither canwe deny the potential to learn fromothers!This comparative exercise seeks toinform and support individualnations and Europe at large as tohow we can employ technologies toadvance society, and our economy.In Europe, we are under intense andsustained pressures to remaincompetitive, on a global level, inresponding to a variety of now well-known and profound challenges(demographic change;environmental impacts; naturalresource shortfalls; social cohesion,worrisome waste streams, and thelike).Governments play a vital role in thisresponse. At a European level, policyinfluencing and setting throughHorizon 2020, the Digital Agenda forEurope (DAE), and the eGovernmentAction Plan are all important meansto guide our response. At a moreoperational level, the provision ofefficient and effective publicservices in each Member State is acore element of our response.However, for too many years wehave designed and delivered ourpublic services from the ‘inside out’– taking a department-centric view.The result too often has beendisjointed, inefficient and ineffective‘silo’ services.With the increased expectations andinfluence of the public we can nolonger continue to deliveradministration-centric services.Services must be designed anddelivered in a customer-centricmanner: ‘outside-in’. Services mustbe far more integrated acrossgovernment entities, and indeedacross borders. This represents afundamental transformation in theway services are constructed.The benefits are howeversubstantial: better quality services,more reliable delivery, far swifter,with less effort. Proof points areincreasingly emerging – yet we needmany more!Information and technology (ICT)play an increasingly vital role intransforming public service delivery.We must learn fast, and share ourknowledge openly, to help keepEurope most relevant.
  4. 4. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 4 of 74MeasurementThe EU eGovernment survey hasprovided a benchmark for onlineservice evolution since 2001: initiallymeasuring basic service availabilityand sophistication. It has helpedinform policy makers; provokevaluable discussions; set newambitions; and identify countries tolearn from.The 2012 survey is redesigned toalign with current policy prioritiesand has innovated to keep thesurvey current and relevant. Weprovide insight and detail in threebroad areas:1. A demand-side citizen view ofpublic services – based on arepresentative sample, of 28,000European internet-using citizens.2. Three life-event assessments ofvery relevant customerexperiences: (i) starting andearly trading of a business (ii)losing and finding a job (iii)studying. Three elements thatare core to a healthy economy.3. Assessment of five keytechnology enablers – thefoundations on which servicescan be delivered in a moreconsistent interoperable cross-departmental and cross-bordermanner.This measurement could not besuccessfully delivered without thecollaboration of EU countryrepresentatives, who play a vitalrole in the design and validation ofthe instrument, and for which weremain most grateful.Results1. Demand-Side Survey: What EUCitizens think about onlinepublic servicesThe demand-side citizen surveypolled 28,000 internet-using citizensacross 32 countries – a samplesufficiently robust to provide 95%relevancy – and asked them 27questions about 19 common citizenservices. This is a new instrument in2012 that offers insights into thereal views of the 600 million EUcitizens. The results show that:46% of respondents whointeracted with publicadministrations used onlinepublic services, though thevariance by segment, bycountry, and by service is wideSatisfaction with eGovernmentservices lags that of eCommerceservices (e.g. eBanking) – andsatisfaction is dropping; yetwhere public services have beenmodernised (for instance onlinetax) there is clear recognition ofimprovement and satisfactionThere is a wide variation insatisfaction of online services,from 41% to 73%, emphasisingthe wide variety of types ofpublic service.There is still a significantproportion of public servicecustomers (54%) that arewedded to traditional channels,though a growing proportion ofthem(30%) are potential userswith an online channelpreferenceA significant group of users ofeGovernment services (29%) arepotential ‘drop-outs’; followingtheir less than desirable onlineexperience. A large proportionof the total (38%) remain non-believersConsiderably morecommunication is required toinform those that are unawareof what public services areavailable on line (21%).More is needed to address theneeds and concerns of citizensthat are unwilling to use onlinepublic services: preferringpersonal contact (62%),anticipating that the servicerequires face-to-face contact(34%), seeing other channels aremore convenient (19%), or whoare not convinced of thebenefits (11%). Of theseunwilling, many are howeverdaily Internet users (62%)Personal data security concernsare significant, though perhapssurprisingly modest (11%)Time saving and flexibility in useare the most prominent benefitscited by citizens, followed bysimplification and money saving.Quality is, it would seem,relatively less relevant.
  5. 5. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 5 of 74Public agencies must put more focuson how they understand the needsand wants of their citizens. Andindeed align how this is done acrossagencies and government tiers. Onlythen will this customer insightprovide the clean signal by whichservices and channels can be bestdesigned, and the current barriersto use satisfactorily addressed.Much can be learned fromcomparison with practices used incommercial services.Given the variances that exist acrossservices, countries, and segments,there is considerable scope forstructured learning – contextuallyinformed of course!Given that this is the first year thatthis citizen demand-side survey hasbeen run, regular comparison overupcoming years will offer anintriguing picture to help us seewhat and where improvements lie.Importantly, this knowledgeprovides the food that shapes thenew “outside-in” model of servicedelivery.2. Life-Event ExperiencesCustomer-centricity and servicequality can also be assessed bymeans of life-events: i.e. baskets ofservices that are relevant in aparticular point in time to a businessor citizen. Importantly, such services– that are typically delivered in silosfrom individual agencies – arerequired to be streamlined acrosspublic (and at times private)organisations to adequately satisfythe customer.The life event measurement is avery contemporary and relevantway to look at the provision ofservices. It addresses the morecomplex (and costly) chains ofevents, more than perhaps thesimple, and at times frequent publicservices (like waste collection).Three life events have beenassessed – each including a basketof some 20-30 individual services; soa very thorough evaluation. Theseare:(i) Entrepreneur: “Starting abusiness, and early tradingoperations”(ii) Job Seeker: “Losing and findinga job”(iii) Student: “Studying”All three are all particularly relevantin the current economic conditions.This approach was first used in the2010 measurement, and has beenapplied again in 2012. Four morehigh-impact life-events will beassessed in 2013, which whencombined, will provide a suitablebasket of measures to comparecountry performance.The assessment addresses:availability of services (both basiccompliance services, and extendedvalue-added services), usability,transparency of service delivery,transparency of public organisa-tions, and transparency of personaldata. It also looks at cross borderdelivery where relevant.Life-Event results reveal:A very wide variance in results(51% for User Centricity)between countriesMore mature development forbusiness services – notablycompliance services (consistentwith previous years evolution)A growing pool of automatedservices (more is done withoutme having to do anything),which benefits from advancingalgorithms and data analyticstoolsA frustration for entrepreneurs,where their highest desiredbenefit is time saving, or at leastclarity of expectations on time –yet this is not well servedServices relating to finding a jobare the most available onlineacross Europe; however many ofthe associated supporting socialservices surrounding the eventare poorly served (housing, debt,health). This potentiallyintroduces a ‘spiral of decline’for this at risk group. Theseservices are also rated the mostusable of the three life events,though there is large variancebetween countries.Interesting approaches areobserved to channel mixthroughout the employment lifeevent (e.g. forced or coachedonline CV development)
  6. 6. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 6 of 74Studying is well served online,though more on the aspects ofenrolment than on those ofgrants and the like. The users ofthis life event are the most tech-savvy, and most demanding ofall the three examined.Interestingly 82% would use theonline channel again, suggestinggood satisfaction levels.Transparency of service deliveryand personal data rate below50%, indicating scope forimprovement across all lifeevents.Cross border services seem toprove complicated (perhapsunderstandably) to orchestrate.Life-Events are at the core of cross-cutting and often very complexmulti-channel customer interactionsthat we seek to improve. Theyengage various service owners, andICT staff. They bring to light wherepublic services can provide goodcustomer experiences, or not. Assuch they provide a very usefulfocus for measurement anddiscussion about joined-up publicservice improvement planning.3. Key ICT EnablersHaving competent ICT buildingblocks behind the web front end isvital for public services to bedelivered competently, and forcustomers to be provided withquality services. Without thesethere is a limit to how wellcustomers will be served, and onlineinvestment is less likely to deliverreal return on investment.In 2010 we evaluated nine ICTbuilding blocks, based on countryself-assessments – proving resourceintensive, and offering a lessconsistent output. The 2012 KeyEnabler measurement has beenbased on a ‘transversal’ evaluationof the life-events; addressing theextent to which five key enablershave been made available, and areused. These include:1. eIdentity – to what extent can agovernment-issued electronicform of identification andauthentication be used withinthe process?2. eDocuments – to what extentare authenticated documents(i.e. by eSignature) used totransmit information through theprocess?3. Authentic Sources – are baseregistries used by public agenciesto store and retrieve customerdata for (suitably secure) usethroughout the process, thusenabling e.g. pre-filling of formswith consistent and accuratedata?4. eSafe – are there secureelectronic means for customersto store and retrieve documents?5. Single Sign On (SSO) – is itpossible for users to access tomultiple systems without theneed for multiple log-on?Such ICT enablers will (i) addresschallenges of interoperability andstandardisation, (ii) decrease overallICT costs for development andmaintenance, and (iii) break downbarriers between organisations andcountries. All three are verylaudable goals!Clearly, such facilities are ofparticular importance when one isdealing with a customer’s life-event,which typically involves interactionthrough various channels and acrossvarious different public serviceproviders.Interoperability, and thus commonapproaches and building blocks, areof increasing prominence as we seekto make it easier for Europeans to‘live, work and retire’ across a singleEurope. Various directives, andongoing large scale pilots (LSPs),seek to set goals and means to makethis a reality (for instance theServices Directive, and the SPOCSLSP, in the case of enabling businessstart-up across Europe).Key Enabler evaluation indicates:In aggregate (i.e. across all threelife events and all countriesassessed), all five key enablerswere used in 54% of cases.There is clearly a considerablegap to be filled.Business life event is betterserved (58%), than citizens lifeevents (53%), consistent perhapswith the more homogenousnature of business services andthe purpose they serve.Single-Sign-On scoresconsistently higher in all cases(66%).eSafe facilities are the leastemployed (38%).Cross-border interoperabilitywill continue to presentsignificant challenges as legaland operational conditions ineach country vary substantially.
  7. 7. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 7 of 74Considering only those servicesthat are automated across thelife-events (i.e. requiring thepresence of key enablers), andmapping these against theextent to which key enablershave been integrated into theservice delivery chain shows awide variance of levels ofmaturity across Europe.We observe that some countrieshave a more advanced strategyclearly intended to establish keyenablers as a basis for streamliningservice delivery. The thesis beingthat a common set of interoperablecomponents should speed up theprocess by which services can betransformed from silo to cross-agency (cross-border) delivery. Wesee also examples where taking adigital approach to service deliverythrough establishing suchfoundations can lead to considerablesavings.However, there are a number of keyquestions that are raised as we lookto the future for these key enablers,notably (i) to what extent they canbe provided with mixed deliverymodels between public and privatesector providers (eg banks andauthentication), and (ii) howtechnology shifts like cloud, andsocial media can and will change howthese are provisioned and perceived.This cross-cutting agenda clearlywarrants further leadership focus,both within countries and across theEU, in order for it to bring thepromised rewards.Towards a new generation ofeGovernment servicesThree principal messages emerge:1. The shift in eGovernmentthinking towards designingservices around user needs is notyet fully embraced in Europe2. Governments are not yet fullyreaping the benefits ofeGovernment3. Transformation is needed torealize a new generation ofeGovernment services.Clearly then there is work to do. It iswork that must involve and connectthe technology community with the‘business’, and the customer.However that work needs to beinformed by other observations thatwe can make:Countries take different routesto increase take-up ofeGovernment servicesThere are mixed resultsregarding return on investmentsThe importance of soundtechnical foundations forimprovementDealing with decentralization isa challenge, but also anopportunityDigital by default, or by detour?Using legislation as a game-changerThe implications of these findingsand observations must be built intoplans for each Member State, andpolicy actions at a European level.Four considerations are made for EUCountries:1. Consideration 1: Implementstrategies to increase customercentricity, improve the design ofpublic services, and thusincrease online take-up2. Consideration 2: Increase use ofsocial media to involve hard-to-reach groups (‘non-believers’)3. Consideration 3: Open up datato unlock economic gains anddrive innovation4. Consideration 4: Addresscollaboration, commonality, andconsistent service foundationsThere are also some steps that areoffered at a European level:Consideration 1: Align and drawinsight from InternationalBenchmarksConsideration 2: Stimulatestructured learning andcollaboration between MemberStates up of servicesTransformation cannot beconsidered a short term fix. Thisreport highlights that it is bothnecessary, and desired (by customersat least!). The crisis that we faceoffers an opportunity for somecountries to put the leadershipcommitment in place to sustain therequired process. If not, thecustomer (and the ever-changingcapabilities of ICT) will provide anincreasingly vocal driver!
  8. 8. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 8 of 74Table of Content1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................111.1 Context of this report ...................................................................................................................... 111.2 How we report the findings ............................................................................................................. 131.3 What has been measured................................................................................................................ 151.4 How it has been designed and measured......................................................................................... 152 DEMAND-SIDE SURVEY: CITIZEN INSIGHTS................................................................................................162.1 Introducing the demand-side citizen survey..................................................................................... 182.2 Four types of attitudes toward eGovernment .................................................................................. 182.3 Channel use and preferences........................................................................................................... 212.4 Barriers to using eGovernment services........................................................................................... 232.5 Citizen Satisfaction .......................................................................................................................... 242.6 Perceived Benefits........................................................................................................................... 263 LIFE-EVENT SERVICE PROVISION .............................................................................................................273.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 273.2 Starting up a business and early trading operations......................................................................... 293.3 Losing and finding a job................................................................................................................... 383.4 Studying .......................................................................................................................................... 423.5 Cross-border mobility...................................................................................................................... 483.6 Transparency as an indicator for new attitudes towards change? .................................................... 504 KEY ENABLERS....................................................................................................................................544.1 Context............................................................................................................................................ 544.2 Introduction to the measurement ................................................................................................... 544.3 Findings: A gap to fulfil intentions.................................................................................................... 565 TOWARDS A NEW GENERATION OF EGOVERNMENT SERVICES.......................................................................605.1 Objective of the eGovernment survey ............................................................................................. 605.2 Key Findings .................................................................................................................................... 605.3 Implications for eGovernment Policies, Strategies, & Programmes .................................................. 615.4 Considerations for Member States to further stimulate progress..................................................... 665.5 Considerations for the European Commission to stimulate progress................................................ 72
  9. 9. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 9 of 74Table of Figures/Graphs/TablesFigure 1.1: Explanation of objectives eGovernment Benchmark................................................................................. 14Table 2.1: Key Insights User Survey ........................................................................................................................... 16Figure 2.2: key findings Demand-side survey ............................................................................................................. 17Figure 2.3: Four types of attitudes toward eGovernment (EU-27+) ............................................................................ 19Figure 2.4: Illustration of user survey sample (to the left), distinguished types of users and sentiments that build thefollowing paragraphs (to the right)............................................................................................................................ 20Figure 2.5: Use of eChannel vs traditional channels for 19 citizen services (EU-27+, %) .............................................. 21Figure 2.6: Preference eChannel vs. traditional channels for 19 citizen services (EU-27+, %) ...................................... 22Figure 2.7: Reasons for not having used the eChannel in contact with public agencies or officials (EU-27+, %) ........... 23Figure 2.8: User Satisfaction with private online services (in red, to the left) and public online services (in grey, to theright) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 24Table 2.9: online government services with high and low satisfaction........................................................................ 24Figure 2.10: user satisfaction with private and public online services, comparison 2007-2012.................................... 25Figure 2.11: eGovernment users that ‘in the end, got what was wanted or needed’ (%) ............................................ 26Figure 2.12: Perceived benefits for using the eChannel compared to other channels (%) ........................................... 26Table 3.1: Key insights and results for three life event measurements ....................................................................... 28Figure 3.2: Generic process model for ‘Starting up a business and early trading activities’ ......................................... 31Figure 3.3: Key findings Business Life Event ‘Starting up a business and early trading activities’ ................................. 32Figure 3.4: Indicators for User-Centric Government in life event of ‘starting up a business and early trading activities’(%)............................................................................................................................................................................ 33Figure 3.5: Average time (in days, vertically) and costs (in euros, horizontally) to start up a business (EU-27)............. 34Figure 3.6: Maturity of the Life Event of ‘Starting up a business and early trading operations’ (EU-27+) ..................... 35Table 3.7: Top five a) services delivered automatically and b) fully available online (EU-27+) ..................................... 36Example of good practice: the Portuguese business portal. ....................................................................................... 37Figure 3.8: Key Findings Citizen Life Event ‘Losing and Finding a Job’ ......................................................................... 39Figure 3.9: Generic process model for the life event of ‘Losing and Finding a Job’...................................................... 40Figure 3.10: Maturity of the Life Event of ‘Losing and Finding a Job’ (EU-27+)............................................................ 41Figure 3.11: Generic process model for the life event of ‘Studying’............................................................................ 42Figure 3.12: Key Findings Citizen Life Event ‘Studying’ ............................................................................................... 43Figure 3.13: Maturity of the Life Event of ‘Studying’ (EU-27+).................................................................................... 45Example of good practice: Lithuania’s approach to providing online ‘Studying’ services............................................. 45Example of good practice: Germany’s approach to enrolling in higher education (at the University of Applied SciencesHarz)......................................................................................................................................................................... 47Figure 3.14: Indicators for cross-border assessment of ‘business start-up’ and ‘studying’ (%)..................................... 50Figure 3.15: Indicators for Transparent Government (EU-27+)................................................................................... 53
  10. 10. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 10 of 74Figure 4.1: Key Findings Key Enablers........................................................................................................................ 55Figure 4.2: Integration of Key Enablers (eID, eDocuments, Authentic Sources) in life events (EU-27+)........................ 56Example of good practice: Estonia’s portal gateway .................................................................................................. 58Figure 4.3: Assessment of integration of key enablers, automated services and user satisfaction............................... 59Figure 5.1: Potential for cost savings in Denmark....................................................................................................... 61Figure 5.2: Online availability of services (average 3 life events) vs. ICT expenditure as percentage of GDP, with thesize of countries represented by percentage of eGovernment users.......................................................................... 63Figure 5.3: revealing percentage of citizens that came into contact with government (horizontal) and percentage ofcitizens that used the online channel when they came into contact with government (vertical)................................. 65All info graphs designed and produced in collaboration with Visual.ly (www.visual.ly).
  11. 11. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionTo enable Europeancitizens, businesses andgovernments to fullybenefit from this digitalrevolution and to addresscurrent societal andeconomic challenges,governments have toactively anticipate andexploit technologicaldevelopments1 Introduction1.1 Context of this reportInformation and CommunicationsTechnologies (ICTs) play anincreasingly important role in ourlives. The advent of cloud; themassive uptake of social media; thedramatic shift to smart devices; theextraordinary analytical capabilitiesof ‘big & open data’ – all aretestament to this ongoingtransformation.These modern technologies presentvery substantial opportunities for usto advance in all areas. They can helpenhance the quality of life of theelderly; make things very mucheasier for the operation ofbusinesses (particularly SMEs); helpcitizens participate in the governanceof their community; enable living,working, studying across borders.Europe has developed much neededplans to extract maximum value fromthe use of ICTs to improve (indeedtransform) public services.Budget constraints are forcinggovernments to radically improveefficiency. Global competition ismuch tougher, and a strongEuropean internal market is neededmore than ever to drive sustainablegrowth. It is a key condition tostrengthen the competitiveness ofEuropean companies, stimulateinnovation and create jobs for ahealthy and resilient Europeaneconomy. That is precisely wherepublic services are needed.The European Commissioncontributes to these themes invarious ways: through the 2020Strategy and its flagships such as theDigital Agenda.The Europe 2020 strategy1proposesan ambitious schedule to exit fromthe economic crisis and to create asmart, sustainable and inclusiveEurope that is able to competeglobally, across sectors. The schedulefor action focuses on five key areas:Employment, Innovation, Education,Social Inclusion and Climate / Energy.Improvement on these domains canbe accelerated by better use of ICT.ICT provides innovative solutions forglobal issues that are addressed inthe Europe 2020 strategy.Furthermore, ICT has proven to be apowerful tool to include people insociety, e.g. the ‘Arab Spring’ couldnot have happened in the way it didwithout social media. Mobilecommunications technology andapplications enable citizens (thatmight have been excludedpreviously) to access information andservices anytime anywhere.Technology can thus empowercitizens, not only to connect to otherpeople, but also to connect togovernments.1 European Commission (2012). Europe 2020. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm.
  12. 12. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionServing our end users isat the heart of what wedo, and remains ournumber one priorityLarry Page, one of the foundersof GoogleGovernments can more easilyexchange data and therefore betterinform citizens and businesses, andbetter engage them in policydevelopment, democratic decision-making and co-creation of servicesand content.Alongside benefits for citizens, ICTsoffer significant advantages forgovernments themselves. Smart useof data can provide governments’with valuable information toanticipate trends, combat crime, orincrease the effectiveness of publicservices. Through ‘crowd sourcing’opinion on policy, governments canuse ICT to solicit feedback fromcitizens to improve initiatives beforeimplementation. Importantly also,technology can be used bygovernments to significantly reducecosts, contribute to fiscal con-solidation, cause transform andinnovate. To enable Europeancitizens, businesses and governmentsto fully benefit from this digitalrevolution and to address currentsocietal and economic challenges,governments must activelyanticipate and exploit technologicaldevelopments. To be part of theglobal economy of the future, theynot only have to work towards aEuropean Single Market, but towardsa European Digital Single Market.One of the seven flagship initiativesof the Europe 2020 Strategy thatbuilds on this is the Digital Agendafor Europe2 (DAE).The DAE specifically addresses theneed for effective use of ICT basedon (very) fast Internet andinteroperable applications to deliversocial and economic benefits.The DAE targets are translated intospecific actions for governments inthe European eGovernment ActionPlan 2011-20153.The resulting eGovernment ActionPlan focuses on four areas:1. Empowerment of citizens andbusinesses2. Mobility in the Single Market3. Efficiency and Effectiveness ofgovernments andadministrations4. Legal and technical pre-conditionsActions are set out for each focusarea that help governments deployICT with the aim of using publicresources more efficiently, reducingpublic expenditure and at the sametime providing digital governmentservices across Europe that engage,enable and empower citizens.2 European Commission (2012). Digital Agenda for Europe. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm.3 European Commission (2010). The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015 - Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable &innovative Government. COM(2010) 743. Retrieved fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/egovernment/action_plan_2011_2015/docs/action_plan_en_act_part1_v2.pdf
  13. 13. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 13 of 74However, the emphasis shifts moreand more towards establishing theright pre-conditions to answer userneeds. “Serving our end users is atthe heart of what we do andremains our number one priority”,one of the founders of Google, LarryPage has stated numerous times.This quote demonstrates in similarfashion that governments shouldnot forget whom they represent andserve. Users, whether citizens orbusinesses, will be the instigators ofchange in bringing sustainablerecovery to the economy. Theemphasis on user needs is asignificant shift in eGovernmentthinking. The technologicaldevelopments described haveopened up opportunities for citizensand businesses and have raised theirexpectations.However, how well are we doing inusing modern technologies to makesuch improvements?Since 2001 there has been an annualprocess of benchmarking thedevelopment of eGovernmentacross Europe.This year our survey has developedfurther, and addresses three broadareas:1. Demand side citizen survey2. Life-event experiences3. ICT enablers1.2 How we report thefindingsThe results can be found in threeparts:This Insight report. Here weprovide context; summarymethod and factual findings;parallels with observedinternational leading practices;and draw some insights andconclusions as regards thefindings of the survey. This isaimed at Government leadership.A full “Background eGovBenchmark Report”; containingthe method, detailed pan-EUfindings, and country-specific factsheets. This is aimed at officersthat design, lead and implementeGovernment initiatives in EUcountries.The underpinning validated Data,which is made available onhttps://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/pillar-7-ict-enabled-benefits-eu-societyPDF version of both written reportscan be found on the EC website:https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/pillar-7-ict-enabled-benefits-eu-society.The reports and the research dataallow countries and other parties tomake detailed country level analysisto further drive out learning.The emphasis onuser needs is asignificant shift ineGovernment thinking
  14. 14. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroductionPage 14 of 74Figure 1.1: Explanation of objectives eGovernment Benchmark
  15. 15. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportIntroduction28,000 internet-usingcitizens across all EU-27+ countries havebeen surveyed,exploring 27questions, and 19typical user events.This provides apicture, with 95%confidence(relevancy), of theviews of the 600million Europeancitizens1.3 What has beenmeasuredThis report reveals the main insightsfrom the 2012 benchmark, whichbuilds on a new measurementframework, moving with the fastchanging times of ICT developments inpublic service delivery. It mixes provenindicators with substantial innovation.It links directly to the European policypriorities, and has adopted the shift todemand-side measurement. Itprovides a new start to eGovernmentbenchmarking.There are three broad areas ofmeasurement:Firstly, a new and true demand-side picture of how EuropeanCitizens perceive online publicservices.Secondly, an elaborate measure ofpublic service provision throughlife-event assessment.– We assess three high-impact life-events: (i) business start-up andearly operations (ii) losing andfinding a job (iii) studying. Eachone assesses 15 to 30 specificservices, looking at the user-centricity of provider services.These explore in-countryservices, as well as cross-borderservices, and transparency. Allthese life-events are relevant tofuelling and sustaining a healthyEuropean economy. With100,000+ data points thisprovides a very rich and in-depthanalysis of the state of play of theservices in these life eventsacross Europe.– These three life-events will bere-assessed again in 2014. In2013 a further four additionallife-events will be measured.The compilation of this basketof citizen and business life-events will then continue tobe biennially measured.Thirdly, as assessment of theunderpinning and vitalinformation and technicalenablers– Based on the thorough life-event analysis we take atransversal view of the use ineach country of five keyenablers, assessing how theyare integrated in servicedelivery.1.4 How it has beendesigned and measuredEuropean Member States and otherparticipating countries continue toplay a vital collaborative role in themeasurement process.Country representatives continue toplay an active role in the design of themeasurement instrument; in validationof the findings for their country, andthrough workshops, in the sharing ofideas and experiences in addressingpolicy and programmes as a result ofthe findings.The continued active engagement inthis learning process will enhance thevalue that can be derived from thiscomprehensive survey.
  16. 16. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsPage 16 of 742 Demand-sidesurvey: CitizenInsightsThe User Survey exercise provides anew and true-demand picture ofhow European Citizens perceiveonline public services. As far asknown, it is the first time thisexercise has been completed onthis scale, revealing representativeinsights at both country and EUlevel. The survey reached 28,000internet-using citizens across 32 EUcountries, exploring 27 questions,and 19 most common citizenservices. This provides a picturewith 95% confidence (relevancy) ofthe views of the 600 millionEuropean citizens.Building on the complete set ofdata per country, the results allowfor country specific analysis andwill provide useful insights forgovernments to improve theireGovernment strategy as well asspecific public services. Thebackground report and the datasets to be published will enablecountries to do so. The 2012e-Government benchmark is asignificant enhancement of the e-Government benchmark ofprevious years, moving with thefast changing times of ICTdevelopments in public servicedelivery. This insights report athand will focus on the insights atthe EU level regarding:eGovernment use and channelpreferences: explaining howmany citizens have usedeGovernment services andprefer the online channelBarriers for using online publicservices: describing reasons fornot using eGovernment services,providing governments withdirect recommendations forimproving take-upeGovernment satisfaction: withonline public and privateservicesFulfilment and benefits:revealing reasons for usingeGovernment services andindicating whether governmentsare able to meet expectationscitizens have when usingeGovernment servicesTable 2.1: Key Insights User SurveyeGovernment Use eGovernment use eGovernment SatisfactioneGovernment use46% of users of public servicesused eGovernment services54% preferred traditionalchannelsHowever 50% of all respondentsindicated to prefer theeChannel next time when theycontact governmentMost popular eGov service(among the 19 servicesexamined): ‘declaring incometaxes’ (73% of user will use theeChannel for this service nexttime), ‘moving/changingaddress within country’ (57%)and ‘enrolling in highereducation and/or applying forstudent grant’ (56%)Least popular eGov service:‘reporting a crime’ (41%),‘starting a new job’ (41%) and‘starting a procedure fordisability allowance’ (42%)21% was notaware of theexistence of relevant websitesor online services, mainlyyounger people (especiallystudents), who are moreable/skilled and willing to useeGov BUT less aware of relevantservices existing online80% indicates a lack ofwillingness to use eGovservices. This group consists ofrelatively more women andolder people but also 62% ofdaily Internet users11% did not use Internetbecause of concerns aboutprotection andsecurity ofpersonal data24% was not able to use eGovservices. Mainly older people,but also young people whoabandoned because the servicewas too difficult to useSatisfaction with eGovernmentservices is significantly (-2,0)lower than the satisfaction witheBanking services (resp. 6,5 &8,5)Satisfaction with eGovernmentservices is dropping since 2007,with 1,3 %‘Declaring income tax showsthat eGovernment services canlive up to citizens expectationsServices around(un)employment receive lowsatisfaction scores, reflectingtoday’s economic situation47% of eGovernment users fullygot what he wanted from thepublic administration46% only partially receives whatwas looked for5% did not get what hewanted at allTime and flexibility gains aremost important to users,followed by saving money andsimplification of a deliveryprocess. Apparently, quality of aservice is less relevant tocitizensBarriers that prevent Fulfillment & Benefits of
  17. 17. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsPage 17 of 74Figure 2.2: key findings Demand-side survey
  18. 18. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen Insights2.1 Introducing thedemand-side citizensurveyThis survey targeted the Internetpopulation of 32 countries with atotal of more than 600 millioninhabitants. This Internet populationrepresents 72% of the totalpopulation between 16 and 74 yearsold (based on Eurostat data onInternet use by individuals in the last12 months). For each country, arepresentative sample of theInternet population (interlaced age /gender and representative for NUTS1 regions) was determined4. Thetarget population was reached viaonline survey panels5. The resultsfrom the user survey on a Europeanscale represent a total of 28,177respondents. The survey examinesthrough 27 questions:User profiles and target groups:categorisation of eGovernmentusers / non-users(demographics, Internet use,levels of trust in using theInternet, contacts withGovernment, …)Usage of eGovernment servicesduring the last 12 months,including channel use andpreferences, and likelihood offuture useUser satisfaction: satisfaction incomparison to other explanatoryfactors such as satisfaction withnon-governmental eServices(eBanking, social networks,eCommerce), user expectationsand achievement of objectivesPerceived benefits (impact):perceived benefits of usingeGovernment channels andservicesBarriers to use for eGovernmentservices including awareness:explanatory factors that preventcitizens from using the onlinechannel including lack ofawareness.These parameters are key foreGovernment decision makers toposition eGovernment services inthe online market and ensure theefficiency and effectiveness ofGovernment operations.An extensive explanation of themethod can be found in theBackground report.2.2 Four types of attitudestoward eGovernmentTo gain insights into how usersexperienced their contact withgovernment and which types ofusers can be distinguished, it is firstnecessary to set two groups ofrespondents apart: on the one handthose that did get into contact withgovernment and on the other handa group with those who did not. Onaverage, 79% of citizens came intocontact with government withregard to one or more of the 19public services listed. Importantly,the eGovernment use indicators arebased on the percentage of thepopulation that expressed a “need”to contact public services. This isquite diverse in the differentcountries (between 62% and 91% ofthe Internet population).The respondents that came intocontact with government can bedivided in two groups: citizens whoused the online channel and thosethat did not. A remaining 54% canbe referred to as ‘non-eGovernmentusers’.46% of the Internetpopulation that cameinto contact withgovernment used theonline channel4 For 27 countries the minimum sample was 1000 respondents (confidence interval = +3,1%/-3,1% with a reliability of 95%);Luxemburg, Iceland, Malta, Cyprus and Croatia were represented with a sample of minimum 200 (confidence interval =+6,93%/-6,93% with a reliability of 95%). Please see background report how panels were constructed.5 With the exception of Cyprus where telephone surveys were used. Please see background report how panels were constructed.
  19. 19. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsWe also segmented users by theireChannel preference. This indicateswhether people are willing to usethe online channel in their nextcontact with government. This hasbeen asked to both theeGovernment users and non-eGovernment users.Combining the insights ofeGovernment use and channelpreferences four groups emerge(see adjoining figure).13% indicate thatthey will use anotherchannel next time(‘potential drop outs’)Figure 2.3: Four types of attitudes toward eGovernment (EU-27+)BELIEVERS (or loyal users) = % ofcurrent eGovernment Users withan eChannel preference(average % across life events)POTENTIAL DROP OUTS = % ofcurrent eGovernment Users withNO eChannel Preference(average % across life events)POTENTIAL USERS = % ofcurrent eGovernment Non Userswith an eChannel preference(average % across life events)NON-BELIEVERS = % ofeGovernment Non Users withNO eChannel Preference(average % across life events)Figure 2.3 indicates that 33% ofeGovernment users, prefer to keepusing online channels in theirgovernment contacts. Of all peoplethat came into contact withgovernment (‘government users’),54% did not use the online channel.However, approximately a third ofall non-users (16% in total) doesprefer the online channel and soneed to be convinced to use it in thefuture. Finally, the 4th group are‘non-believers’ that is ‘hard to getonline’. This group includes 38% ofall respondents that came intocontact with government over thepast 12 months. When consideringthat the panels for this user surveyconsist of people that belong to theInternet population – it is likely thatthe number of people that do notwant to use the online channel forgovernment services is even biggerif the total population would beconsidered.In this study, a quite strict definitionof eGovernment use is applied.This benchmark builds on thequalitative approach that citizensprefer eChannels for all contact withpublic administrations and not onlyfor some of the most successfulones. At least the priority servicesmust have a valuable eGovernmentsolution. Hence, calculatingeGovernment USE as the averageacross all 19 services is moreaccurate and reveals politicallyrelevant insights.Typology of attitude towardeGovernmenteChannel PreferenceYES NOeGovernment UseYES BELIEVER POTENTIAL DROP OUTNO POTENTIAL USER NON-BELIEVER33% 13% 16% 38%0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%BELIEVER: eGov User with eChannel Preference (loyal user) POTENTIAL DROP OUT: eGov Users NO eChannel PreferencePOTENTIAL USERS: eGov Non-UsereChannel PreferenceNON-BELIEVER: eGov Non-UserNO eChannel Preference (hard to get)
  20. 20. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsThis approach leads to an overalleGovernment use of 46%. ThougheGovernment use is defineddifferently by Eurostat, the overallfigure of 46% is very similar to the(slightly lower) Eurostat figures oneGovernment use6 (53%). Bothsurveys assess the Internetpopulation, however use ofeGovernment is defined by Eurostatas: “obtaining information frompublic authorities’ web sites,downloading official forms andsending filled in forms”, which is amore general definition ofeGovernment use compared to theassessment of eGovernment useacross 19 citizen services.The above typology will serve as thestarting point to further analyse theuser experience of:eGovernment users: channelpreferences, satisfaction,perceived benefits andfulfilment of expectationsnon-eGovernment users:channel preferences, thebarriers they perceived and howthese could be overcome toincrease useFigure 2.4 illustrates how the totalpanel of the user survey is composedand it also provides a reading guidefor the following paragraphs. Itshows that the user survey resultsrepresent (e)Government users thatare part of the Internet population.The answers to the questionnaire areprovided by regular Internet users.This should be kept in mind wheninterpreting results.Figure 2.4: Illustration of user survey sample (to the left), distinguished types of users and sentiments that build thefollowing paragraphs (to the right)6 More information on this EuroStat indicator see Digital Agenda Scoreboard: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard
  21. 21. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsPage 21 of 742.3 Channel use andpreferencesFigure 2.5 shows that ‘looking for ajob’ is currently the service thatrespondents have used most whencoming into contact withgovernment online. It is even higherthan ‘declaring income taxes’. Thefigure also shows that ‘enrolling inhigher education’ and ‘moving orpreparing to move to anothercountry’ are commonly used onlineeGovernment services. One can seequite a difference (35%) between themost-used online services (e.g.Looking for a job and Declaringincome taxes) and the least usedones.When looking at the preferences ofrespondents when coming intocontact with government for one ofthe 19 services, in general theeChannel preference has increasedfrom 47% to 50% after people used aservice. In other words: from all thepeople that came into contact withgovernment through either thetraditional or online channel, anincreased number will use the onlinechannel next time.Figure 2.5: Use of eChannel vs traditional channels for 19 citizen services (EU-27+, %)However, looking closely at theservices, the general increase doesnot apply for individual services.There are services that - after use -have increased in the number ofcitizens preferring the eChannel.These services include: ‘registering acar’ (+16%), ‘applying for a driver’slicense’ (+12%), and ‘needing apassport to travel to anothercountry’ (+12%). In general ‘declaringincome taxes’ is by far the servicewith the highest eChannelpreference (73% of users will use theeChannel for this service next time),‘moving / changing address withincountry’ (57%) and ‘enrolling inhigher education and / or applyingfor student grant’ (56%).There are also some services thatdrop as regards eChannelpreference. These services are:‘Looking for a job’ (-15%), ‘Buying,building or renovating a house’ (-5%)and ‘Starting a new job’ (-5%). Thehuge decrease as regards eChannelpreference for ‘looking for a job’ is ofparticular relevance in the currentclimate of high unemploymentacross Europe, where citizens stillprefer face-to-face contact. In somecases this is quite understandable,however coaching people to use theonline channel could lead to benefitsall round.Users are more critical towardsservices such as ‘reporting a crime’(41%), ‘starting a new job’ (41%) and‘starting a procedure for disabilityallowance’ (42%). These services alsoreceive lower satisfaction scoresthan other services, indicating thereis room for improvement.0 20 40 60 80 100Makinga doctor’sappointmentina hospitalReportingacrime (smaller offences, e.g. theft, burglaryetc.)RegisteringacarNeedingapassporttotravelto anothercountryDeathof a close relative and/orstarting an inheritance procedureApplyingfora driver’slicence (orrenewingan existingone)Startinga procedure fora disability allowanceMarryingor changing marital statusDeclaringthe birth of a child and/orapplying for a birth grantStarting a newjobBecomingunemployedMovingandchanging addresswithin one countryRetiringBuying, buildingor renovatinga houseMakinguse of the public libraryMoving orpreparing to move toanothercountry(ex. tostudy, work, retire…)Enrolling in higher educationand/orapplying fora study grantDeclaringincome taxesLookingfora job
  22. 22. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsFigure 2.6: Preference eChannel vs. traditional channels for 19 citizen services (EU-27+, %)0102030405060708090100Enrolling in higher educationand/orapplyingfora studygrantStartinga procedure fora disabilityallowanceRegisteringacarNeedingapassporttotravel to anothercountryMovingandchanging addresswithinonecountryApplyingfora driver’slicence (orrenewinganexistingone)Movingorpreparing to move toanothercountry (ex.to study, work,retire…)Buying,buildingor renovatinga houseRetiringLooking fora jobBecomingunemployedStarting a newjobMarryingor changing marital statusDeathof a close relative and/orstarting aninheritance procedureDeclaringthe birth of a child and/orapplyingfora birth grantMakinga doctor’sappointmentin a hospitalReportingacrime (smaller offences, e.g.theft,burglaryetc.)Declaringincome taxesMaking use of the public library%that usedthe eChannelforgovernment service%of usersthat indicated to preferthe eChannelnexttime fora governmentservice
  23. 23. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsPage 23 of 742.4 Barriers to usingeGovernment servicesWhy are people not using theonline channel?Four main barriers have beenidentified, based on the results ofthe ~5000 individuals who declaredthey used traditional channels for allof their contact with government.These eGov non-users aresignificantly in the oldest age group(55+ years old), among lower-educated people, and in groups whodo not use the Internet daily and /or via a mobile device.1. Lack of awareness: 21% of therespondents indicated they wereunaware of eGovernmentservices. Awareness can beincreased by communicationand information campaigns,tailored to specific segments.Key segments include those atrisk of digital exclusion; youngerpeople (especially students),who are more skilled, able, andwilling to use eGovernmenthowever are less aware thatrelevant online services exist.2. Lack of willingness to use: 80%highlight this as one of thearguments for non-use. Thisgroup consists of relatively morewomen and older people,however 62% of them are dailyInternet users!3. Lack of trust to use: 11% arenon-users due to concerns aboutprotection and security ofpersonal data. Perhaps lowerthan one might expect. All usergroups are more or less equallyrepresented.4. Lack of ability to use: 24% citeconcerns of ability as reason fornon-use.These barriers to use need morethan straightforwardcommunication. Consequentargument building is needed here:potential users need proof thateGov services save time and at theend of the day are more efficient. Soin some of the cases the servicesthemselves warrant robustinspection. Governments mustdeliver services that are easy to findand easy to use. This in conjunctionwith a focus on eSkills to address the‘ability’ barrier, can increase take-up.Figure 2.7: Reasons for not having used the eChannel in contact with public agencies or officials (EU-27+, %)11% did notuse the Internetbecause ofconcernsaboutprotection andsecurity ofpersonaldata21% wasnot aware of the existence ofrelevantwebsitesoronline servicesNotaware(21%)Notwiling(80%)Notable(24%)Nottrusting(11%)8% said not to have the skills or did not knowhowtogetwhat they wanted/neededviatheInternet13% (mostly olderpeople)couldnotfind oraccess the informationorservices theywanted/needed5%(mostlyyoung& students)tried butabandonedtheservice,because the service wastoodifficultto use5%(mostlyolderpeople) triedbutabandonedtheservice,because the serviceswebsite orapplicationhad technicalfailures11% did notexpecttosave time by using theInternettogetwhatthey wanted/needed62% preferredto have personalcontactto getwhatthey wanted/needed19% expectedto have things done more easilybyusingotherchannels34% thoughtthe relevantserviceswill requirepersonalvisits or papersubmission anyway
  24. 24. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen Insights2.5 Citizen SatisfactionPublic eServices lag behindcommercial eServicesAn important indicator to determinewhether users will return orcontinue to use an online service istheir user satisfaction. It isinteresting to make the comparisonwith private service providers, suchas banks, to see how expectations ofusers are being satisfied across thevarious sectors. The below figurereveals that citizens are significantlymore satisfied by the servicesprovided by banks (satisfaction 8.5)than for regular public services(satisfaction 6.5).The table to the right ranks theeGovernment services citizens weremost and least satisfied with.The fact that services aroundunemployment are ranked relativelylow is particularly pertinent givencurrent economic times, with highunemployment rates across Europe.It could also indicate that servicesaround unemployment are relativelycomplex compared to othergovernment services. Governmentsshould perhaps consider variousstrategies – further discussed in the‘losing and finding a job’ life eventassessment in section 3.3.That said, ‘declaring income tax’leads the way and proves thatgovernment services can live up tousers’ expectations. It would appearthat citizens are satisfied when aservice is effectively provided – evenwhen it concerns paying taxes!Figure 2.8: User Satisfaction with private online services (in red, to the left)and public online services (in grey, to the right)Citizens are significantly more satisfied by theservices provide by banks (satisfaction 8.5) than forregular public services (satisfaction 6.5).Table 2.9: online government services with high and low satisfaction7.68.56.56.96.07.6012345678910eCommerce eBanking eGovernmentServices(averageof 19services)Enrolling inhighereducationand/orapplying for astudy grantLooking for ajobDeclaringincometaxesServices with high satisfaction Services with low satisfaction1 Declaringincome taxes 7,6 Becoming unemployed 5,52 Making use of the public library 7,6 Starting a procedure for adisability allowance5,83 Making a doctor’s appointment in ahospital7,2 Lookingfor a job 6,04 Enrollingin higher education and/or applying for a study grant6,9 Retiring 6,05 Needinga passport to travel toanother country6,7 Death of a close relativeand/or starting aninheritance procedure6,1
  25. 25. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen InsightsPage 25 of 74User satisfaction has droppedsince 2007The user survey was piloted in 10Member States during 2007. Acomparison for these countriesshows that the satisfaction ofcitizens with both private and publiconline services is decreasing. Theexception is social networks, wheresatisfaction remains more or lessunchanged. ICT is also changingcitizen expectations towards(government) services.Although availability of digital publicservices in Europe has risen, usersatisfaction is dropping. The onlypositive exception is ‘Declaringincome taxes’ which as we haveseen reaches satisfaction ratescomparable to eCommerce services.In 1985, two renowned salesmenstated “Bad news travels fast. Adissatisfied shopper tells around 10other people about the shopper’sbad experience.” Today, withwidespread communication, thisquote could not be any further fromtruth. As depicted in figure below,results show that satisfaction withinteracting through social networksand blogs has only slightly decreasedover the past years (-0.4%), whilstsatisfaction with other onlineservices (both commercial andpublic) has significantly droppedsince 20077. Besides Social Mediaapplications, struggling to keep itsown level of satisfaction,satisfaction with governmentservices drops significantly(-1.1 for eGovernment information/ -1.3% for eGovernment services)in line with the decrease insatisfaction in the private sectorservices (-1.3 and -1.2 for resp.eCommerce and eBanking). Citizensbecome more critical when they aremore aware and use more publicand commercial services.Note: the comparison is madebetween results for 10 MemberStates who participated in the 2007pilot measurement, and the resultsfor these 10 countries in 2012. Thethird line represents the EU-27+ in2012 which is almost similar withresults for the 10 countries.Figure 2.10: user satisfaction with private and public online services,comparison 2007-201287 Comparison between user survey pilot in 2007 and 2012, based on 10 pilot countries in 2007/2012.8 eGov information is defined as: To obtain information from public administrations websites (for example: via search enginessuch as Google, via government portals or via websites of public agencies) eGov services is defined as: To send (upload)completed web forms that are necessary to obtain a public service (for example: to obtain a certificate, permit or subsidy)eGov participation consists of several questions: to contact political representatives, to consult policy documents on websites,to participate in online consultations and/or interactive discussions on policy issues, to participate in collaborative platforms5678910eCommerceserviceseBankingDeclaringincometaxesSocNetworkseGovInformationeGovServiceseParticipation2007 (10MS) 2012 (10MS) 2012 (27+)
  26. 26. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportDemand-side survey: Citizen Insights2.6 Perceived BenefitsDelivery of the service is notoptimalThe adjacent pie chart reveals thatalmost all users of an eGovernmentservice at least partially receivedwhat they needed. Albeit, half thisgroup remain only partially satisfied.Perceived benefits ofeGovernment useAll respondents that used onlinepublic services were asked whatthey perceived to be the benefits ofusing the online channel comparedto other traditional channels.Time and flexibility are seen to bethe key benefits.Money saving and simplification arein a second group.Quality of a service, interestingly, isless relevant to citizens (perhaps notthe case for public agencies’business customers?).There are however interestingdifferences when comparing atcountry level.Youngsters more often (strongly)disagree with the benefitstatements; older people morefrequently agree (or strongly agree).This suggests younger people sethigher expectations with regard toeGovernment services and addedvalue. They are the future, so wecannot be complacent in designingservices.Figure 2.11: eGovernment users that ‘in the end, got what was wanted orneeded’ (%)Time and flexibility gains are most important tousers, followed by saving money and simplificationof delivery processesFigure 2.12: Perceived benefits for using the eChannel compared to otherchannels (%)47%46%5% 2% Yes, totallyPartiallyNo, not at allI can’t say, myinteractions withpublic agencies arestill ongoing344448616276800 20 40 60 80 100I got better quality of serviceThe process of service deliverybecame more transparentI got better control over theprocess of service deliveryThe process of servicedelivery was simplifiedI savedmoneyI gained flexibility(intime and place)I saved time
  27. 27. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionLife events are packagedGovernment services,which are usuallyprovided by multipleGovernment agencies,around a subject thatmakes sense to thecitizen. The systems ofthe participating publicagencies then co-operate(interoperate) to provideseamless delivery of thee-services93 Life-Event Serviceprovision3.1 IntroductionWhereas the Demand-Side Surveyprovided insights into citizen demands,the life-event measurement revealsthe supply side of Governmentservices.This year’s benchmark assesses threelife events, and their consecutivechains of services: relevant toentrepreneurs (‘Starting up a Businessand Early Trading Operations’), jobseekers (‘Losing and finding a job’),and students (‘Studying’).A life-event approach changes the wayorganisations need to collaborate toprovide a seamless experience acrossagencies, and at times across borders.In each country two mystery shoppersassessed these life events againstseven criteria:1. Online availability of services:whether a service is fully online or onlyinformation about a service is availableonline, and assessing whether this canbe done through dedicated portals.A distinction is made between:- Basic services: services andprocedures needed to fulfil theessential ‘compliant’requirements of a Life Event, i.e.core registration and othertransactional services.– Extended services: services andprocedures that go beyond thebasic requirements of a Life Event,i.e. Government providing data orservices for convenience andcompetitiveness, facilitating andeasing the user on his journey.2. Online usability of services: theextent to which support, help andfeedback functions are online and apersonal assessment by the shoppers oftheir experience regarding ‘ease of use’and ‘speed of use’.3. Transparency of service delivery: keyaspects of service delivery such asestimates of time, service levels andreceipt of notification.4. Transparency of public organisation:the extent to which public organisationspublish relevant information andempower users.5. Transparency of personal data:whether it is possible to access andmodify the data the Governmentstores on the user.6. Key Enablers: the integration of keyIT enablers (such as eID and authenticsources) in the service delivery.7. Cross-border availability & usabilityof services: these assessments weremade by a foreign mystery shopper;the scope was slightly narrower.9 http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/1644/5848
  28. 28. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionPage 28 of 74Table 3.1: Key insights and results for three life event measurements(EU27+)Business Start-up and EarlyTrading OperationsLosing and Finding a Job StudyingKey insights Key services concerningregistration of business andTax are fairly mature acrossEurope7% of services in businesslife event is automatedImprovement possiblewhen authentic sources areused to take administrativerequirements and proofs ofqualification out of thehands of the entrepreneurEntrepreneur cannot makean accurate estimation ofthe time it will take touse/apply for a certainservice – whereas these arehis strongest perceivedbenefits of using the onlinechannelServices related tosearching for a job have thehighest online availabilityacross EuropeSocial support mechanisms(housing, debt counselling,health support) are notsufficiently integrated inthe life event. In currenttimes, these services areimportant in preventingpeople from becomingfurther alienated fromsocietySome countries prefer face-to-face contact at the startof this life event, whileothers choose to makeonline services mandatoryThe average usability ofeGovernment services forlosing and finding a job ishighest of all three lifeevents, indicating thatonline support andfeedback options aregenerally provided.However, there are bigdifferences amongcountries.Although only few servicesare automated, mostservices are to a largeextent online. However, theportal function does notwork as efficiently as inother life events.Services related to finances(‘student grants’, ‘socialbenefits’, ‘financial advise’)lag behind compared to‘enrolment’ and servicesprovided by universities.Providing transactionalstudy services cross-borderremains a challenge forgovernments.Students are used toparticipating in socialmedia, but onlinediscussion fora orconsultations provided bygovernment are onlysatisfactory in 25% of thecases.Online availabilityof services75% 73% 72%Online usability ofservices74% 79% 76%Ease of use 63% 65% 66%Speed of use 59% 61% 62%Transparency ofPublicOrganisations66% 72% 61%Transparency ofPersonal Data43% 41% 44%Transparency ofService Delivery47% 39% 37%Key Enablers 58% 56% 49%Cross-borderdimension56% (average for onlineavailability and usability)n.a. 46% (average for onlineavailability and usability)The results (with the exception of Ease and Speed of use) have been validated by Member States to ensure qualityinsights. The table above provides an overview of key insights and the most relevant statistics.
  29. 29. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionEurope lags behind itscompetitors inentrepreneurial attitudes.Yet at the same time weknow that SMEs are thebiggest source of new jobsand related growth103.2 Starting up a businessand early tradingoperationsThe importance of stimulatingand facilitatingentrepreneurshipEleven percent of European citizensare entrepreneurs, 45% would like tobe their own boss if they could.11Since 2008, Europe has beenexperiencing heavy economicweather: at the European level andglobally. With 17 countries in theeuro area, plus 10 additionalMember States, Europe is theworld’s largest economic bloc, aheadof the USA or China. To maintain itscompetitive positioning, businesses,entrepreneurship, pertaining jobsand growth have to be placed at theheart of the political action. Smalland Medium-sized Enterprises(SMEs) are of especially greatimportance for the Europeaneconomy in this respect.SMEs (enterprises with employeesbetween 1-249 employees) accountfor over 99% of all enterprises inEurope, accounting for around 70%of the total employment12. “Everyyear start-up firms in the EU createover 4 million jobs,” EuropeanCommission President, José ManuelBarroso, pointed out in his 2012State of the Union Address13. Thus, itis clear that SME businesses are atthe heart of the economy, they arecritical for economic growth in thenear future. SMEs can be seen as thebackbone of the economy, given theadded value and employment theycreate.10 European Commission Press Release, Entrepreneurship: consultation on future action at the EU level, Brussels, 17 July 2012.IP/12/797; quotation from Antonio Tajani, EC Vice President of the European Commission, Commissioner for Industry andEntrepreneurship11 European Commission Press Release, Entrepreneurship: consultation on future action at the EU level, Brussels, 17 July 2012.IP/12/79712 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-SF-08-03113 State of the Union 2012 Address President Barroso, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/12/596
  30. 30. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionAccording to EuropeanCommission PresidentBarroso, the SmallBusiness Act for Europe is“a step towards a Europeof entrepreneurs, withless red tape and morered carpet for Europe’s 23million SMEs”The EU has understood the need tofurther promote entrepreneurshipand is taking action. In March 2012,the European Council14 concludedthat “Europe must focus on creatingthe best possible environment forentrepreneurs to commercialisetheir ideas and create jobs.”Additional initiatives include DGEnterprise and Industry’s focus on‘digital entrepreneurship’, increasingthe digital possibilities forentrepreneurs. Another example isthe ‘promoting entrepreneurship’campaign15. Member States havecommitted to further leverage theSmall Business Act (SBA) for Europe,adopted by the European Council inDecember 2008 as part of theEuropean Economic Recovery Planwhich calls for additional reductionsin the procedures for starting up acompany16. The Act focuses onaccess to finance, on ways ofpreserving SMEs from bankruptcy,on promoting entrepreneurshipamong ethnic minorities andwomen, on attracting and recruitingthe first employee, and on helpingstart-ups by setting up one-stopshops for SME support.To achieve the goals stipulated in theSmall Business Act and to furthersupport entrepreneurship, seamlessGovernment can be of great help inreducing the complexity forbusinesses of all kinds of questionsand formalities related to starting upa business. Online services not onlyreduce travel costs by makingprocedures and forms availableremotely, they are in principlesimpler, faster and more flexible.The Services Directive 2006/123/EC,constituted a first a stepping stone insimplifying business start-upprocedures and bringing them onlinefor service providers via Points ofSingle Contact. Such points of singlecontact or one-stop shops forbusiness start-ups can provide all therequisite procedures going beyondthe requirements of the Directive(e.g. registration, tax, VAT and socialsecurity) and thus make way for anenhanced competitive landscape.This chapter will seek to understandhow progress is being made inEurope thanks to the ‘Business start-up life event.’14 European Council, Council Conclusions, 2 March 201215 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/index_en.htm16 Small Business Act for Europe, European Commission, 25 June 2008, COM(2008) 394 final.http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/small-business-act/index_en.htm
  31. 31. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionPage 31 of 74Figure 3.2: Generic process model for‘Starting up a business and earlytrading activities’What has been measured inthis benchmark?There is a broad range of factors inthe business / economicenvironment factors that areconsidered to determine a country’sentrepreneurial performance. Theseindicators can cover aspects asdiverse as labour-market regulation,the dissemination rate oftechnology, the patent regime, theavailability and ease of access todebt finance, or bankruptcy andother administrative regulations. Onthe other hand, the regulatoryframework can hinder or impedeentrepreneurship if the opportunitycost of start-up outweighs thebenefits. Such costs can be the resultof the administrative burden – e.g.over-regulated professions,complexity of obligation schemes,health and safety, and labourregulation, and social security andtax regimes. One means of easingthe burden is through the use ofeGovernment ‘by simplifyingprocedures and putting them online.Thus, benchmarking is a valuabletool to monitor the provision ofeGovernment services for businessesand raise Governments’ awarenessin order to further stimulate theprovision of eGovernment services.The life event ‘Business Start-up andearly trading activities’ measureshow eGovernment services aredelivered and showcases practicesaround Europe. Comparisons canalso be made in assessing theprogress made since the previousmeasurement in 2010. Furthermore,this year’s benchmark providesinsights from a user perspective,showing entrepreneur’s preferencesand how they perceive eGovernmentservices.The process model used for this lifeevent is shown in the Figure on thispage. Three main stages have beendefined (pre-registration, regis-tration and early trading activities) tomeasure the different underlyingactivities, referred to as servicesduring the measurement of this lifeevent. To depict the journey of apossible entrepreneur a ‘persona’has been described for this lifeevent. The most important aspect totake into account is that the personaoperates as a sole proprietor17.17 For a more detailed description, please look at the process models and persona description in the Method Paper.Early tradingactivitiesHiringanemployeeRequestenvironmentalpermitRegistrationBasic registrationApproval ofregistrationMembershipsTax and insurancePublicationPre-registrationOrientationProofs ofqualificationAdministrativerequirements
  32. 32. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionPage 32 of 74Figure 3.3: Key findings Business Life Event ‘Starting up a business and early trading activities’
  33. 33. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionPage 33 of 74Insights into the user profileof an entrepreneurEntrepreneurs compared to average:Make more use of publicInternet applications (5% aboveaverage), mostly to obtaininformation from websites(91%), download forms (80%)and contact publicadministrations by e-mail (72%).Have more face-to-face contactwith government (11% aboveaverage) themselves or throughintermediaries (5% aboveaverage).Are less satisfied than theaverage respondent (-0.2) withboth eCommerce, eBanking andpublic services. These are valuedat 7.5 and 5.8 respectively. At 5.2on average, their satisfactionwith the quality of servicesprovided by publicadministrations is not sufficient.Entrepreneurs perceive thefollowing benefits when usingonline Government services:flexibility gains (79%), timesavings (77%), money savings(66%).The main reasons for not usingthe online channel are:preference for personal contact(64%), personal visits aremandatory (39%), absence ofawareness of the existence ofrelevant websites or onlineservices (23%)At the same time eChannelpreference for interaction withpublic administrations is at 42%slightly higher than the averageof 39%From these user insights we canconclude that entrepreneurs areused to going online to search forinformation as such and prefer theeChannel in their contacts withGovernments, but that the onlinechannel is not always a satisfactoryanswer and entrepreneurs willchoose to have personal contactinstead to get things done.It might also be that in certain casesservice delivery via a specific civilservant is efficient and the leasttime-consuming way for theentrepreneur.Insights into online serviceprovisionThe previous paragraph depicted thedemand side of Internet applicationsfrom an entrepreneurial point ofview. The reverse side of this coin iswhether eGovernment services areavailable online and user friendly.The spider chart in figure 3.4represents the scores for Europewith regard to four elements of user-centricity within the business lifeevent:Online availability of basic andextended services: the EU-27+average is 75%, indicating thatservice provision in Europe ishalfway between providingonline information (50%) andproviding a service online(100%).Online usability of basic andextended services: the EU-27+average is 74%, which meansthat for the majority of servicesin this life event, support, helpand feedback functionalities areavailable online.Figure 3.4: Indicators for User-Centric Government in life event of ‘startingup a business and early trading activities’ (%)75746359 020406080100OnlineavailabilityUsabilityEase of useSpeed of use
  34. 34. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionEase of use: this reflects thepersonal experience of themystery shoppers whoperformed the journey throughthe life event services. ‘Ease ofuse’ captures whether the userwas able to complete therequired process steps smoothly(logical succession of processsteps, clear instructions) andachieve his goal. This indicatoraverages 63% for EU-27+ whichequals a rating of 6.3.Speed of use: similar to ease ofuse, this indicator reflectswhether mystery shoppers wereable to complete the requiredprocess steps within areasonable amount of time. Ascore of 59% as depicted belowequals a rating of 5.9. Mysteryshoppers were not so positiveabout the time aspect. Theymade observations aboutwhether one could prepareproperly in order to go throughthe services as quickly aspossible, about expectations ofthe amount of time it would taketo complete the service andwhether the life event wasdesigned to facilitate the user incompleting the required servicesin the shortest amount of time.Time is an issue!Following the publication of theSmall Business Act in December200818, the Competitiveness Councilissued its “Conclusions on ThinkSmall First – A Small Business Act forEurope”19. This document includedthe Council’s Action Plan for a SmallBusiness Act for Europe underlininginter alia the ambition of reducingthe time taken to register a newbusiness to three days.This would be a tremendousachievement throughout Europe, ifwe take the figures below intoaccount20.Entrepreneurs expect that they canmake an accurate estimation of thetime it will take them to complete acertain activity. In most countriesthis is not the case.They need to plan carefully. The lowscores regarding ‘speed of use’ (5.9on average) indicate Governmentsare not living up to this expectation.This conclusion is further supportedwhen we look at the followingquestions which were assessed andvalidated in the mystery shoppingexercise:The time to start up abusiness has been halvedover the past five years.However, what is neededis to cut it in half againFigure 3.5: Average time (in days,vertically) and costs (in euros,horizontally) to start up a business(EU-27)18 Council of the European Union, Conclusions on "Think Small First – A Small Business Act for Europe" 2891st Competitiveness,Internal Market, Industry and Research Council Meeting, Brussels, 1 and 2 December 2008http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/docs/sba/council_conclusions_dec08_en.pdf19 The Councils Action Plan for a Small Business Act for Europe, Annex to the Council Conclusions of 1-2 December 2008http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/docs/sba/sba_action_plan_en.pdf20 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/business-environment/start-up-procedures/progress-2011/index_en.htm
  35. 35. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionEntrepreneurs expectthat they can make anaccurate estimation ofthe time it will take themto complete a certainactivity. In most countriesthis is not the case.30% of Government websitescommunicate expectations onhow long the entire process isestimated to take42% of Government websitesmake clear what the deliverytimelines of the service are41% of Government websitesindicate the maximum time limitwithin which the administrationhas to deliverMaturity of the life eventchainLife event measurement makes itpossible to assess the adequacy andcoherence of service provision. Thefigure below depicts per service forthe EU-27+ how it is being delivered:automatically (without the userhaving to do anything), fully online(and possibly through a portal),online but limited to informationabout the service (and possiblythrough a portal) or offline.Core services are the mostmatureTwo categories score particularlywell on online availability: ‘basicregistration services’ and ‘tax-related matters’. For these keycategories of service, there are nooffline services, i.e. at leastinformation about the service can befound online. Moreover, it isavailable almost everywhere througha business portal. More important,these services achieve the highestscores for onlineFigure 3.6: Maturity of the Life Event of ‘Starting up a business and early trading operations’ (EU-27+)0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%11.2 Submit an application for environmental permit11.1Find out if you need to register for an environmental permit or register as an exemption11 Request an environmental permit10.7 Obligations related to training10.6Obligations related to work place security10.5 Obligations regarding reporting and documentation10.4 Obligations related to socialsecurity10.3Tax related obligations10.2 Register employee before first work day10.1 Register your company as an employer10 Hiring afirst employee9.1 Publish registrationin Official Journalor equivalent9 Publication8.4 Register with mandatory civil insurance8.3 Register withcompulsory healthcare8.2Register with mandatory pension insurance8.1 Register with SocialSecurity Office8Insurance-related matters7.2 Obtain VAT collector number7.1Obtain taxidentification card/number7 Tax-related matters6.1 Register withTrade Association/Chamber of Commerce6Memberships5.3Register with Trade Register/ Craft Register5.2 Register withcentral/regional/local government5.1Register with CommercialCourt/Court of First Instance or equivalent5 Approval of registration4.4 Formalvalidation of signatures of representatives of the business4.3 Register domicileof business4.2 Register company name4.1 Fill instandard form for registration deed4 Basicregistration3.4 Obtain certificatefrom bank of capital deposited3.3 Obtain certificate of no outstanding social security and/or healthcare charges3.2Obtain character reference3.1 Obtain certificate of no outstanding taxes3Administrative requirements2.2 Confirm activity-specificqualifications with authorities.2.1 Confirm general management qualifications withauthorities.2Proofs of Qualification1.3 Explore financial possibilities1.2Setting up a business plan1.1 Obtaining information about starting abusiness1OrientationAutomatedserviceService onlineand throughportalService onlinebut not throughportalInformationonline andthrough portalInformationonline but notthrough portalOffline1 Orientation2 Proofs of Qualification3 Administrative requirements4 Basic registration5 Approval of registration6 Memberships7 Tax-related matters8 Insurance-related matters9 Publication10 Hiring a first employee11 Request an environmental permit
  36. 36. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionavailability. In particular it seemsthat the organisations responsiblefor company registration and the taxauthorities are cooperating well,because in quite a few countries thetax identification and / or VATnumbers are provided automatically– without the entrepreneur havingto do anything. The most automatedservice across Europe is ‘thepublication in Official Journal orequivalent’. Many Governments nowlink this publication to theregistration process, again withoutthe entrepreneurs having to doanything.The picture is diverse for servicesrelated to ‘hiring a first employee’:on the one hand, most of theservices in this cluster achieve morethan 50% online availability; on theother, in those cases whereinformation is only available online,the portal function in some countriesis not functioning as well as in otherparts of the life event.The table 3.7 below indicates the topfive services delivered automatically(without the entrepreneur having todo anything) and the top fiveservices available online.Use of authentic sources willincrease automated serviceprovisionThe most room for improvement canbe found in services related to‘proofs of qualification’ and‘administrative requirements’. Theseclusters consist of services related tothe certificates required, such as a‘character reference’, ‘certificate ofno outstanding taxes’ or‘confirmation of generalmanagement qualifications’. Most ofthese services are only requiredonce and not on a regular norrecurrent basis, so these in particularare services that can be automatedin the back office.The same is true for the services inthe cluster ‘insurance relatedmatters’: compulsory registrationwith social security, healthcare, orpension insurance is something theGovernment could take off theentrepreneur’s hands by providingthese registrations as a follow-up ofthe initial registration.The Portuguese business portalprovides an excellent example ofhow to enable full online serviceprovision. The background reportincludes another example: Malta’sone stop shop for businesses.Following the principle of‘once-only registration’,by using authenticsources to re-useinformation from theperson starting up abusiness, the burden caneasily be decreased andthe process of servicedelivery acceleratedTable 3.7: Top five a) services delivered automatically and b) fully availableonline (EU-27+)Automated services Services online available (through portal)1 9.1 Publish registration in OfficialJournalor equivalent1.1 Obtaining information aboutstarting a business2 7.2 Obtain VAT collector number 4.1 Fill in standard form forregistration deed3 7.1 Obtain tax identificationcard/number4.3 Register domicile of business4 8.1 Register with Social SecurityOffice11.2 Submit application environmentalpermit5 8.2 Register with mandatorypension insurance10.3 Tax related obligations
  37. 37. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionExample of good practice: the Portuguese business portal.The Portuguese approach to the process of business creationcombines integration of key enablers that allow for full online serviceprovision with focus on the requirements and demands ofentrepreneursThe process of business creation is totally integrated anddematerialised. It allows the entrepreneur to create a new company,register the trademark and name through a centralised monitoring ofthe entire process.The formal validation of signature is provided through eID (thePortuguese Citizen’s Card) and a set of effective and secure featuressupport the whole process, namely a national online paymentplatform system, SMS services between the State and the citizen,registration of contracts automatically in the Back Office andstreamlined communication between national entities for validationof information.The process uses the Public Administration Interoperability Platform(iAP), in line with the concept of “government as a platform”. iAP is atechnological platform of reference which provides transversalelectronic services to national entities, allowing public informationsystems to respond better to current requirements in the provisionof services to civil society. Based on open standards, with high safety,reliability and availability parameters, this platform aims to increasethe efficiency of public services through the reuse of the installedcapacity in public administration, providing a variety of services via asingle point of access.
  38. 38. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionTwenty-three millionEuropean citizenscurrently do not have ajob3.3 Losing and findinga jobAs a result of the financial andeconomic crisis, the overallunemployment rate in the EU-27has risen year-by-year from 6.7%of the EU population in 200821 to10.5% in 201222. The youthunemployment rate (15-24 yearsold) was 22.7% in 2012 comparedto 16% in 200823.High unemployment ratesnegatively affect the financial andsocial situation of individuals andhave led, at the macro-level, tostagnating economic growth, lowertax revenues in tax revenue andincreased Government spendingon social benefits. The EUMacroeconomic Report for theAnnual Growth Survey24 warnsthat ‘unemployment may becomeincreasingly structural with anegative effect on long-termgrowth potential’ and calls forstructural reforms to tackle thisemerging risk, strengthenconfidence and gain renewed trust.European policies such as theEuropean Employment Strategy(EES)25, the Europe 2020 strategyand the Agenda for new skills andjobs26 have also stressed theimportance of stimulating labourmarket participation. NationalGovernments invest in Governmentservices to create more flexiblelabour markets, facilitate job mobilityand lifelong learning, promote jobcreation and entrepreneurship andimprove support to those seeking ajob.What has been measured inthis benchmark?The eGovernment Benchmarkmeasures the engagement,facilitation and support of theunemployed by Governments, bylooking at the availability, usabilityand transparency of digital servicesMember States are providing in thefield of losing and finding a job. Theservices are approached from theperspective of an unemployed citizen:what steps does the unemployedperson have to take when losing theirand trying to find a new one. Thesesteps can be summarised in acustomer journey map as depicted infigure 3.9.21 Eurostat yearbook 2011, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-CD-11-001/EN/KS-CD-11-001-EN.PDF22 Eurostat, code teilm02023 Eurostat, code teilm02124 http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/ags2013_mer_en.pdf25 Also see: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=101&langId=en26 Also see: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=958
  39. 39. eGovernment Benchmark 2012 – INSIGHT reportLife-Event Service provisionPage 39 of 74Figure 3.8: Key Findings Citizen Life Event ‘Losing and Finding a Job’

×