eGovernment research in the EU member states - Presentation Transcript
eGovernment Research in the EU: an overview Symposium IRC 2007, Bordeaux, 27th Sep 2007 (pre-conference event of Ministerial Conference on eGov 20-21 st Sep 2007) D. Osimo, C. Centeno Institute for Prospective Technological Studies - IPTS Joint Research Centre - European Commission www.jrc.es The views expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the EC
IPTS : Part of DG JRC of the EC: 7 Research Institutes across Europe Mission : “to provide customer-driven support to the EU policy-making process by researching science-based responses to policy challenges that have both a socio-economic as well as a scientific/technological dimension”
JRC -IPTS
Modus operandi: desk research, expert groups, modelling, centres of expertise
EGOVERNET project
Aim: Coordinate the creation of national eGovernment RTD programmes and initiatives while also encouraging the integration of existing national eGovernment programmes.
Partners: organisations with national programming responsibilities for innovation and research in eGovernment
Coordination action supported by FP6 IST programme
www.egovernet.org
The approach: 3 different policy domains of e-gov R&D
Research needs to reach the vision (top 10)
Data and knowledge mgt
Value chains
Integration and interoperability
Trust and security
eDemocracy
Change in public sector
User needs
Multi-channel
Quality and performance
Networked government
User needs eDemocracy Value chains Trust and security Networked government Innovative governance Socio-economic inclusion Public value creation Change in public sector Data and knowledge mgt Past and current research (2002-05) Future research needs (2006-) 397 articles / interviews, 875 stakeholders 131 interviews Source: IPTS (2006) Towards the eGovernment vision for the EU in 2010: Research Policy challenges , by DTI, EIPA
Country overview
Countries with DEDicated programmes: Sweden, Norway, regions of Flanders and Emilia-Romagna
Countries with programmes EXPLictly stating eGovernment : FI, ES, FR, D, IE, HU, LV, SK, SI, BG, CZ
Countries with programmes POTentially funding eGovernment : all others
But in reality, each country is a mix of the different forms
Fragmentation very much exists at national level too
National information sheets published on www.egovernet.org
Other cases
Institutional funding to universities
Procurement of research (Slovenia, IPTS, and all)
Specifically to support policy-making
Focus on socio-economic research, policy impact, foresight
Research embedded in deployment projects
Bottom-up funding (no priority indicated ex-ante)
Creation of dedicated research centres (Ireland, Flanders, Toscana, Estonia, etc.)
Partnerships with universities
Strong relation with e-gov deployment
Soft coordination efforts under way in many countries
Conclusions
Contrast between the:
(high) declared policy importance of eGovernment research,
(small) actual funding and fragmented in different programmes and instruments, and
(large) amount and growing integration of research projects carried out on the ground
Policy Projects Programmes
Conclusions
DED: not the only or best solution, but effective in integrating the research field across boundaries
Research programmes are not the only or the largest source of funding: institutional research, procurement and partnership.
Thematic priorities not consistent across countries. Future recommended research themes such as users needs not visible in research programmes
Fragmentation of eGovernment research even at the national level, between different policy areas, strategic goals and funding mechanisms
Programmes and funding mechanisms are often more fragmented than the actual research carried out
From parallel funding streams…
… to an integrated approach
Next steps
EGOVERNET: definition of a common framework for eGovernment research
IPTS: Supporting the definition of research priorities on eGovernment
IPTS: Researching the impact of web2.0 on public services
Merci
[email_address]
http://is.jrc.es
http://www.egovernet.org
BACK-UP SLIDES
Institutional setting
Most research programmes falling under R&D policy
Only in 5 cases e-government implementation programmes include measures for research
Important role of EU cohesion/structural funds in Portugal, Greece and some New Member States
Significant role of regional level (Flanders, Emilia-Romagna, French regions)
Joined-up e-government R&D not yet there…
1 2 3 4
Budget
DED programmes: multi-annual, budget between 2 and 6 Million Euros per year. Met by equivalent co-funding by private players.
Difficult to measure budget of EXPL and POT, but likely to be smaller
Overall investment: marginal if compared to eGovernment implementation
By comparison, eHealth attracts greater research investment, despite smaller implementation expenditure
Sources: EGOVERNET, EC, EGEP 1 2 3 4 11,900 eGovernment implementation programmes, EU Member States 2004 (latest available data) 46 Budget for eGovernment research in FP6 WP 2005/2006 34 Total budget of eGovernment research programmes in EU Member States, 2005-2006 Budget (M €) Type of programme
Stages of research and multi-disciplinary approach
eGovernment as field of applied IST research
General problem of separation between research and deployment (see also WP5)
Specific policies to address the issue in Norway and Sweden
Most research programmes are technology-centred
Some require multidisciplinarity: DED and France
Socio-economic research is mostly for policy support and often funded through procurement and partnership with universities.
1 2 3 4
Thematic priorities
Few national research programmes define priorities in such a precise way as FP 6 did
The themes most often mentioned are: e-democracy, security, knowledge management, semantic web in government context, services to citizens and business, broadband application, and, of course, socio-economic studies in support of eGovernment policies
The research theme "understanding users needs", indicated by previous research as one of the key research challenges, appear not to be considered in any research programmes, although “customer satisfaction” surveys are often carried out.
DED programmes often have a cross-public sector and are more precise in priorities-setting; procurement used for specific requests and (relatively) clear needs
1 2 3 4
Beneficiaries
In order of importance:
Universities and companies
Public authorities
Strongly related to strategic goals
Strengthening the R&D system and a competitive ICT sector
Improving public services
1 2 3 4
Project selection and programme evaluation
In research programmes, open calls are used, and proposals are evaluated by external experts (see also wp7)
Sometimes consultation/negotiation procedures are used (Netherlands, Flanders-B), also in combination with open calls.
Finally, as previously mentioned, procurement procedures are often used for socio-economic studies for policy support.
Programme evaluation not available, also because of their recent history
Generally successful in leveraging private investment, if national eGovernment market is significant
1 2 3 4
Research and competence centres
Widely felt need to consolidate eGovernment research
Many countries created dedicated central research centres, physical or virtual, in partnership with university
0 comments
Post a comment