Smart cities   benchmarking egov and codesign
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Smart cities benchmarking egov and codesign

  • 742 views
Uploaded on

Brief overview of issues and challenges relating to benchmarking e-government generally and coi-design specifically

Brief overview of issues and challenges relating to benchmarking e-government generally and coi-design specifically

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
742
On Slideshare
740
From Embeds
2
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 2

http://www.linkedin.com 1
http://www.slashdocs.com 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • This diagram sets out SCRANs initial representation of the triple-helix partnership for Smart Cities. As can be seen, the three dimensions of SCRAN’s triple-helix DNA lie with the intellectual capital, learning and knowledge of Smart Cities. Set out as a matrix, it is intellectual capital, learning and knowledge that make up the rows and are attached to the work packages which make up the substantive components of Smart Cities. These in turn relate to those partners responsible for developing the intellectual capital, learning communities and knowledge-base in question (the universities, cities and regions respectively).

Transcript

  • 1. Some benchmarking issues
  • 2. Benchmarking e-Gov
    Source: Deakin, M. (2010) SCRAN’s Development of a Trans-National Comparator for the Standardisation of eGovernment Services”, in Reddick, C. ed., Comparative E-government: An Examination of E-Government Across Countries, Springer (Integrated Series in Information Systems)
    2
  • 3. Business
    Region
    University
    City
    User-profiling
    Intellectual Capital
    Monitoring & evaluation
    Government
    Triple-helix of knowledge-based learning and generation of intellectual capital
    Underpinned by
    Co-design
    Networking
    Multi-channelling
    Edinburgh Conference: towards Smarter Cities
    Learning
    Built on
    Curve
    Capacity building
    Enterprise architecture
    Business modelling
    Customisation
    Multi-channelling
    User-profiling
    Capacity building
    Co-design
    Monitoring and evaluation
    Customisation
    Knowledge
    Communal
    Environmental
    Social
    Arch
    March 2009
    Triple-helix model
  • 4. Benchmarking ofeGovernment services
    • Using the typology of administrative systems put forward by Torres et al (2005), it is evident the democracies of the North Sea roughly approximate to the Nordic (Norse, Danish, Swedish and Finish) nation-states and are a mix of Anglo-American (UK) and European Continental administrations (those of Netherlands, Germany and Belgium)
    • 5. As such they are said to be: consumer-centred, client orientated, citizen-based, consultative and increasingly deliberative in their search for efficiency and effectiveness from the development of eGov services
    • 6. Torres et al (2005) have gone on to use these characteristics as a means to review the e-readiness of each European member-state and assess levels of provision in terms of both the depth and breadth of the service available on city websites. The outcomes of this exercise have in turn been used to construct a “maturity index” of such developments
    4
  • 7. Benchmarking ofeGovernment services
    Using this index of eGov service development, the exercise uncovers three “city groupings” These are the:
    • Innovative group: with a strong position in delivering services online (up to 60% of total) and good situation with respect to the stages of development i.e. informational, interactive and transactional.
    • 8. Steady achiever: offering great potential for the development of the Internet, but with a limited range of online services (between 45-30%).
    • 9. Platform builders: web sites offering the lowest level of services online and benefits to citizens (less than 30%, with little more than the power to offer information).
    Within this classification of city websites, all those within the North Sea fall into the “steady achiever‟ category with modest online presence, either at the informational, interactive, or transactional level of provision.
    5
  • 10. EU i2010Benchmarking report
    6
    the North Sea now has an average score of .....
  • 11. EU i2010Benchmarking report
    7
    Source: EC (2009)Smarter, Faster, Better Government
  • 12. Benchmarking co-design
    8
  • 13. 9
  • 14. Co-designTransforming the citizen
    10
    Active citizen
    ICT Novice
    ICT Expert
    ?
    Passive citizen
    “The value of Community Informatics to participatory urban planning and design: a case-study in Helsinki”
    Joanna Saad-Sulonen and LiisaHorelli, 2010
    Journal of Community Informatics
    http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/579/603
  • 15. The context
    11
  • 16. Where does design fit in?
    12
    The planning cycle
    “…a locus for learning and capacity building for the engaged stakeholders”
    Joanna Saad-Sulonen and LiisaHorelli, 2010
  • 17. Why benchmark?
    Questions
    • What are our peers doing, and how are we placed in relation to them?
    • 18. What is acceptable good practice, and how are we placed with regard to these practices?
    • 19. Based upon these comparisons, can we be said to be doing enough?
    • 20. How do we identify what is required to be done to reach an adequate level of activity?
    13
  • 21. Organisational capabilityfor co-design
    14
  • 22. Workshop II
    15